How can anyone actually believe that life starts at any time other than the moment of conception?

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: theNEOone
argue all the fvck you want about when life begins, i still support abortion.


=|

sums up my feelings about it too.

 

[Slammy1]

Well the Tolerance.org was interesting. It did conflict some with some other things I've read, for example:

When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered: "If we?re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that?s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn?t happen with an embryo."

I guess I question what a medical ethicist is vs. the MD supported study I linked earlier. Then again, I suppose it's all about agendas though the site itself didn't seem to be promoting things either way.

I don't think you'll convince someone with a strong opinion either way, it just becomes a troll effort (as seen by previous posts). The only thing you hope is that whatever opinion someone has that they make it defensible (eben if it is just their perspective) and not a Pee-Wee Herman slap-off.

 

[ZachMarius]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
Well the Tolerance.org was interesting. It did conflict some with some other things I've read, for example:

When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered: "If we?re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that?s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn?t happen with an embryo."

I guess I question what a medical ethicist is vs. the MD supported study I linked earlier. Then again, I suppose it's all about agendas though the site itself didn't seem to be promoting things either way.

I don't think you'll convince someone with a strong opinion either way, it just becomes a troll effort (as seen by previous posts). The only thing you hope is that whatever opinion someone has that they make it defensible (eben if it is just their perspective) and not a Pee-Wee Herman slap-off.

True. Trying to change someone's opinion who clearly has a strong idea of what is right or wrong will not work. The only hope that I have with allowing people to know about this website and their knowledge on the subject is fairly unbiased unlike other websites, is that the people who aren't too sure about their position will at least understand the whole side of the issue before becoming strongly opinionated on it without all the information.

Good Luck with the issue. Know you are not alone try to decide your position on this issue and that our own govenment (who is supposed to be not associated with any religious group or belief) are dealing with it too.

Blessed be!

 

[troglodytis]

if you want to say, "life begins at conception", i say, "fine. now define conception." is it when egg is fertilized, cause that is a living cell with all the dna data it needs to maybe develope into a baby. is conception when that fertilized egg is implanted into the uterus, thus giving the cell it's needed environment in which to survive?

either way, i say ****** it, a woman should have the right to abort well into the 12th year. that's about when the fetus/baby/kid will be viable, as in able to take care of itself.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BD2003
No, thats bullsh!t. It is what it is, not what it could be or will be.

If I "left everything alone" I'd fail out of school, fall into massive debt, get evicted, and starve to death.

A lump of cells is a lump of cells, and a person is a person.

Just because its going to snow in december doesnt mean its winter in june. Get it straight.

if that's what you have to tell yourself to let yourself sleep at night. obviously you must else you wouldn't come up with something as ridiculous as snow in december means its winter in june.

Oh give me a break. It ridiculous because you implying that a clump of cells is a human being is ridiculous. Are you going to tell me next that seeds are actually trees, just because if you throw them in the ground and "leave them alone" theyll be trees eventually?

It will be a human being, in several months, with constant input and help from the mother who's womb it is implanted in. It doesnt do it by itself.

The woman who harbors this lump of cells should and does have every right to stop the zygote from forming into a human. Its her body, and the zygote devloping into a fetus is absolutely 100% dependent on the MOTHER.

the zygote isn't her body. yes, it's parasitic, but then, humans pretty much are for the first decade and a half of their lives.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: troglodytis
if you want to say, "life begins at conception", i say, "fine. now define conception." is it when egg is fertilized, cause that is a living cell with all the dna data it needs to maybe develope into a baby. is conception when that fertilized egg is implanted into the uterus, thus giving the cell it's needed environment in which to survive?

either way, i say ****** it, a woman should have the right to abort well into the 12th year. that's about when the fetus/baby/kid will be viable, as in able to take care of itself.

:thumbsup::laugh:

 

[manno]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: PingSpike
My opinion on abortion has sort of boiled down to this over the years:
Both sides have valid arguements, so I think it should be left up to the individual to decide.

Not everything I disagree with should be illegal.

I endorse this post.

ditto

 

[BD2003]

Just to demonstrate my point more clearly, lets play a game. Its called "guess the organism"

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Early in development, it is nearly impossible to say just by looking at a fetus what organism it truely is.

Many of you here are think there is some kind of magic that happens in the black box of the womb, when its just cells dividing.

To some of you, it may seem juvenile to compare a human zygote to skin cells....but if you cant tell one from the other....

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Just to demonstrate my point more clearly, lets play a game. Its called "guess the organism"

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Early in development, it is nearly impossible to say just by looking at a fetus what organism it truely is.

Many of you here are think there is some kind of magic that happens in the black box of the womb, when its just cells dividing.

To some of you, it may seem juvenile to compare a human zygote to skin cells....but if you cant tell one from the other....

Trying to compare skin cells to a zygote is idiotic. Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean anything. If nobody was able to tell the difference it wouldn't mean anything.

All life is special, whether you are looking at a human, a frog, or the zygotes of either animal. To think it's right to kill the offspring because the pregnancy is somehow an inconvenience is truly disgusting.

If you don't want to ruin your figure, or you're not financially or emotionally stable enough or are in some other way not prepared to raise a child then you absolutely, positively should not be having sex, because that is the responsibility that comes with having sex.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: BD2003
Just to demonstrate my point more clearly, lets play a game. Its called "guess the organism"

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Early in development, it is nearly impossible to say just by looking at a fetus what organism it truely is.

Many of you here are think there is some kind of magic that happens in the black box of the womb, when its just cells dividing.

To some of you, it may seem juvenile to compare a human zygote to skin cells....but if you cant tell one from the other....

Trying to compare skin cells to a zygote is idiotic. Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean anything. If nobody was able to tell the difference it wouldn't mean anything.

All life is special, whether you are looking at a human, a frog, or the zygotes of either animal. To think it's right to kill the offspring because the pregnancy is somehow an inconvenience is truly disgusting.

If you don't want to ruin your figure, or you're not financially or emotionally stable enough or are in some other way not prepared to raise a child then you absolutely, positively should not be having sex, because that is the responsibility that comes with having sex.

You cant tell the difference NOT because they look the same, but because as far as the single cells go, most of them are very similar.

The fetuses all look the same because they are very very similar in structure and function as well.

We all eat meat, so lets not confuse the issue.

The real issue, for me at least, is is what being aborted actually a human being? The zygote undoubtedly will be, but is it NOW? I am sick and tired of people making black and white distinctions out of what is in reality, really gray. Its not like the day kids turn 18 theyre immediately mature, for example.

But I know as well as anyone this is a pointless debate. Its not as if I imagine anyone stopping and saying, "you know what, youre right. I changed my mind."

 

[shelaby]

just wait til your son gets a girl pregnant at 17. have fun without an abortion

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: BD2003
Just to demonstrate my point more clearly, lets play a game. Its called "guess the organism"

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Early in development, it is nearly impossible to say just by looking at a fetus what organism it truely is.

Many of you here are think there is some kind of magic that happens in the black box of the womb, when its just cells dividing.

To some of you, it may seem juvenile to compare a human zygote to skin cells....but if you cant tell one from the other....

Trying to compare skin cells to a zygote is idiotic. Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean anything. If nobody was able to tell the difference it wouldn't mean anything.

All life is special, whether you are looking at a human, a frog, or the zygotes of either animal. To think it's right to kill the offspring because the pregnancy is somehow an inconvenience is truly disgusting.

If you don't want to ruin your figure, or you're not financially or emotionally stable enough or are in some other way not prepared to raise a child then you absolutely, positively should not be having sex, because that is the responsibility that comes with having sex.

You cant tell the difference NOT because they look the same, but because as far as the single cells go, most of them are very similar.

The fetuses all look the same because they are very very similar in structure and function as well.

We all eat meat, so lets not confuse the issue.

The real issue, for me at least, is is what being aborted actually a human being? The zygote undoubtedly will be, but is it NOW? I am sick and tired of people making black and white distinctions out of what is in reality, really gray. Its not like the day kids turn 18 theyre immediately mature, for example.

But I know as well as anyone this is a pointless debate. Its not as if I imagine anyone stopping and saying, "you know what, youre right. I changed my mind."

Discussion can change peoples minds. It's happened to me, and I know it happens to others.

I am not opposed to killing people or animals under extreme circumstances.

If something or someone threatens my survival, I will kill if I have to.

If a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, the child should be killed.

If a child will certainly be born with a severe disability that will cause it to endure pain it's entire life, I support killing that child.

If a human or animal was undoubtablty mortally wounded I would support a merciful assisted suicide.

These are extreme cases, but I feel that they are entirely ethical. Having an abortion because the pregnancy causes inconvenience is completely unethical no matter what stage of the development.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: BD2003
Just to demonstrate my point more clearly, lets play a game. Its called "guess the organism"

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Early in development, it is nearly impossible to say just by looking at a fetus what organism it truely is.

Many of you here are think there is some kind of magic that happens in the black box of the womb, when its just cells dividing.

To some of you, it may seem juvenile to compare a human zygote to skin cells....but if you cant tell one from the other....

Trying to compare skin cells to a zygote is idiotic. Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean anything. If nobody was able to tell the difference it wouldn't mean anything.

All life is special, whether you are looking at a human, a frog, or the zygotes of either animal. To think it's right to kill the offspring because the pregnancy is somehow an inconvenience is truly disgusting.

If you don't want to ruin your figure, or you're not financially or emotionally stable enough or are in some other way not prepared to raise a child then you absolutely, positively should not be having sex, because that is the responsibility that comes with having sex.

You cant tell the difference NOT because they look the same, but because as far as the single cells go, most of them are very similar.

The fetuses all look the same because they are very very similar in structure and function as well.

We all eat meat, so lets not confuse the issue.

The real issue, for me at least, is is what being aborted actually a human being? The zygote undoubtedly will be, but is it NOW? I am sick and tired of people making black and white distinctions out of what is in reality, really gray. Its not like the day kids turn 18 theyre immediately mature, for example.

But I know as well as anyone this is a pointless debate. Its not as if I imagine anyone stopping and saying, "you know what, youre right. I changed my mind."

Discussion can change peoples minds. It's happened to me, and I know it happens to others.

I am not opposed to killing people or animals under extreme circumstances.

If something or someone threatens my survival, I will kill if I have to.

If a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, the child should be killed.

If a child will certainly be born with a severe disability that will cause it to endure pain it's entire life, I support killing that child.

If a human or animal was undoubtablty mortally wounded I would support a merciful assisted suicide.

These are extreme cases, but I feel that they are entirely ethical. Having an abortion because the pregnancy causes inconvenience is completely unethical no matter what stage of the development.

So let me get this straight...the destruction of a 5-month old baby with down's syndrome is ethical, but the abortion of a 3-week old embryo barely recognizable as a human is not?

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: BD2003
So let me get this straight...the destruction of a 5-month old baby with down's syndrome is ethical, but the abortion of a 3-week old embryo barely recognizable as a human is not?

I don't much about down's syndrome, but from what I do know, they can live somewhat "normal" lives and don't go through life with chronic debilitating pain.

So no, I wouldn't call aborting a child with down's syndrome ethical. Think more along the lines of detecting conjoined twins that share vital organs where both are likely to die and if they didn't would likely be grossly disfigured and suffer a lot of physical pain.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: BD2003
So let me get this straight...the destruction of a 5-month old baby with down's syndrome is ethical, but the abortion of a 3-week old embryo barely recognizable as a human is not?

I don't much about down's syndrome, but from what I do know, they can live somewhat "normal" lives and don't go through life with chronic debilitating pain.

So no, I wouldn't call aborting a child with down's syndrome ethical. Think more along the lines of detecting conjoined twins that share vital organs where both are likely to die and if they didn't would likely be grossly disfigured and suffer a lot of physical pain.

Ok then, let me rephrase:

The destruction of two 5-month old conjoined twins, likely to die but possible to live, even in extreme pain is ethical, but the abortion of a 3-week old embryo barely recognizable as a human is not?

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: BD2003
So let me get this straight...the destruction of a 5-month old baby with down's syndrome is ethical, but the abortion of a 3-week old embryo barely recognizable as a human is not?

I don't much about down's syndrome, but from what I do know, they can live somewhat "normal" lives and don't go through life with chronic debilitating pain.

So no, I wouldn't call aborting a child with down's syndrome ethical. Think more along the lines of detecting conjoined twins that share vital organs where both are likely to die and if they didn't would likely be grossly disfigured and suffer a lot of physical pain.

Ok then, let me rephrase:

The destruction of two 5-month old conjoined twins, likely to die but possible to live, even in extreme pain is ethical, but the abortion of a 3-week old embryo barely recognizable as a human is not?

You would likely detect conjoined twins LONG before 5 months. Beyond that, to answer your question, yes, aborting the conjoined twins would be ethical and aborting the embryo would be unethical unless you somehow knew without a shadow of a doubt that the embryo would cause complications in the pregnancy or would have some severe disability (and this would be dealt with on a case by case basis). Not all disabilities are equal.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: BigToque
I don't understand how this can even be a debate...

Agreed.

However, humans love to justify things to make their actions look 'ok' in their eyes.

"It's not sex because President Clinton says so."
"What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."
"Abortion isn't killing since it happens before the fetus is a born baby."

agreed. People are really just lieing to themselves. What morons.

 

[Slammy1]

It's not really an ethical question, more a social issue which is why I support pro-choice. In another reality, sure, I'm willing to listen to ethical debate but in this one... well, I'd rather support the rights of women to have an abortion in a sterile environment over the back alley version. To me that sums up the issue, though there are points within it that bear scrutiny (like government funding, the question of when a fetus becomes distinctly human, abortion as a means of birth control, etc.). Then again, you really can't underestimate the level of ignorance displayed on the matter. Girls who believe jumping up and down after sex prevents pregnancy, that sort of thing. To rely on the parents to explain these issues doesn't work, you really can't assume the school system will correct the problems when they can't teach a large portion of people to read and basic math. Rather than focusing on whether abortion should be legal it'd bear more fruit to talk about alternatives, but sometimes it seems that the very groups that are opposed to the issue are also opposed to, say, the distribution of condoms. And birth control isn't fool proof. You're not going to stop girls who are unprepared to deal with the consequences from having intercourse, so the question then becomes what do you do about it.

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
It's not really an ethical question, more a social issue which is why I support pro-choice. In another reality, sure, I'm willing to listen to ethical debate but in this one... well, I'd rather support the rights of women to have an abortion in a sterile environment over the back alley version. To me that sums up the issue, though there are points within it that bear scrutiny (like government funding, the question of when a fetus becomes distinctly human, abortion as a means of birth control, etc.). Then again, you really can't underestimate the level of ignorance displayed on the matter. Girls who believe jumping up and down after sex prevents pregnancy, that sort of thing. To rely on the parents to explain these issues doesn't work, you really can't assume the school system will correct the problems when they can't teach a large portion of people to read and basic math. Rather than focusing on whether abortion should be legal it'd bear more fruit to talk about alternatives, but sometimes it seems that the very groups that are opposed to the issue are also opposed to, say, the distribution of condoms. And birth control isn't fool proof. You're not going to stop girls who are unprepared to deal with the consequences from having intercourse, so the question then becomes what do you do about it.

In the few circumstances that abortion would be ethical, then yes, the government should provide safe and sterile environment to perform the operation. You need to place legal limits on this though.

Most abortions are not performed under ethical circumstances. They are performed because these women are either unwilling or unable to accept responsibility for their actions, and to that I say tough sh!t. Put the kid up for adoption if you can't take care of it.

To allow and pay for these womens abortions is saying that this is right and we support it, which is a terrible thing and shows no respect for life.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: BigToque
I don't understand how this can even be a debate...

Agreed.

However, humans love to justify things to make their actions look 'ok' in their eyes.

"It's not sex because President Clinton says so."
"What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."
"Abortion isn't killing since it happens before the fetus is a born baby."

You forgot a few good ones, let me help:

"There's a god and an afterlife"
"A fetus is a valueable life which will grow to be a precious unwanted child likely to live out its life unhappily in poverty, and which may well be a career criminal and a drain on society"

and my favorite...

"Abortion is wrong because I'm a male and can't get pregnant (neener neener!), I can't get laid and sex terrifies me, so I justify it with religion and get revenge on women who like sex by stigmatizing and punishing them when an accident happens"

:evil:

 

[Slammy1]

Yeah, that's kinda been my point in the thread though I don't view the ethics question so severely. Everyone can mess up and accidentally get pregnant when they're unable to deal with the issues, but you'd hope they learn from the mistake.

EDIT: Snuck a reply in on me.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
Yeah, that's kinda been my point in the thread though I don't view the ethics question so severely. Everyone can mess up and accidentally get pregnant when they're unable to deal with the issues, but you'd hope they learn from the mistake.

Honestly, what makes it a mistake, other than that it costs more than prevention? This thread gives me a mental image of tribal villagers cowering in terror from a thunderstorm, wondering what they did to upset God so much. We have the technology to abort unwanted pregnancies, why should it be seen as anything different from treating unwanted diseases? It will never become a crutch, as an abortion costs far more than a condom.

It also reminds me of a documentary on a remote African tribe I saw a while back on NGC. The tribe was obsessed with bad luck. They had a term for it, though it escapes me at the moment - sorry. Newborns and infants were especially able to bring bad luck, and had to be watched very closely. Any sign of bad luck, and the village elders would throw the baby into a nearby river to die. Bad luck could be as simple as the teeth growing in a certain way or the lower jaw protruding too much, IIRC. The paralells between the village elders and the religious male responses in this thread are uncanny.

At the end of the documentary they interviewed one woman living alone with her child a few miles away, exiled from the tribe for fighting off the elders to keep her child after they decided he was bad luck. :thumbsup: to her, there's a sprinkling of sanity everywhere, I guess

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: everman

Originally posted by: Ryan
There is a difference between life, and a person. Nobody disputes that life doesn't start at that point.

But then that begs the question, when do they become a person?

*bbq, lawn chair, beer*

Short answer, I Don't Know.

More detail:
I kind of agree with Carl Sagan; it's pretty hard to say the fetus is a human being in the first trimester, and it's pretty hard to say it's not in the third. So, let's err on the conservative side, and allow abortions up until the second trimester. That should be more than enough time for someone to take a pregnancy test, decide they don't want the child, and schedule an appointment with a doctor.

Originally posted by: BD2003
The real issue, for me at least, is is what being aborted actually a human being? The zygote undoubtedly will be, but is it NOW? I am sick and tired of people making black and white distinctions out of what is in reality, really gray. Its not like the day kids turn 18 theyre immediately mature, for example.

Someone who recognizes grey when they see it!

Hats off to you, sir, you're ahead of 99.9% of the population.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: everman

Originally posted by: Ryan
There is a difference between life, and a person. Nobody disputes that life doesn't start at that point.

But then that begs the question, when do they become a person?

*bbq, lawn chair, beer*

Short answer, I Don't Know.

More detail:
I kind of agree with Carl Sagan; it's pretty hard to say the fetus is a human being in the first trimester, and it's pretty hard to say it's not in the third. So, let's err on the conservative side, and allow abortions up until the second trimester. That should be more than enough time for someone to take a pregnancy test, decide they don't want the child, and schedule an appointment with a doctor.

/edit: crap, didn't realize how long this thread was.

I think earlier is best for everyone involved, that includes the mother. IMO its current legal status is fine - the only problems come from the fundies and their incessant efforts, fueled more by the need to argue and impose beliefs than their feelings about abortion specifically, to stigmatize it and change its legal status. I imagine if Roe vs. Wade had been decided the other way, the fundies would likely be fighting to legalize abortion. They're just so clueless.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: BD2003
So let me get this straight...the destruction of a 5-month old baby with down's syndrome is ethical, but the abortion of a 3-week old embryo barely recognizable as a human is not?

I don't much about down's syndrome, but from what I do know, they can live somewhat "normal" lives and don't go through life with chronic debilitating pain.

So no, I wouldn't call aborting a child with down's syndrome ethical. Think more along the lines of detecting conjoined twins that share vital organs where both are likely to die and if they didn't would likely be grossly disfigured and suffer a lot of physical pain.

Ok then, let me rephrase:

The destruction of two 5-month old conjoined twins, likely to die but possible to live, even in extreme pain is ethical, but the abortion of a 3-week old embryo barely recognizable as a human is not?

You would likely detect conjoined twins LONG before 5 months. Beyond that, to answer your question, yes, aborting the conjoined twins would be ethical and aborting the embryo would be unethical unless you somehow knew without a shadow of a doubt that the embryo would cause complications in the pregnancy or would have some severe disability (and this would be dealt with on a case by case basis). Not all disabilities are equal.

I personally find it reprehensible to abort a 5 month disabled child. Its clearly alive and human. Why is it ok for us to abort disabled children and not kill off disabled people then?

I'd personally rather be alive and in pain than not alive. Id at least rather have that choice. Where do we draw the line between disabled enough to kill and disabled enough to let live?

If its dealt on a case to case basis, who gets to decide? If the fetus's life is so sacred, and theres a chance theres complications, why ax the baby, and not instead force the mother to take her chances? What if the mother risked not death, but other complications? How severe do the complications have to be before they take precendence over the childs life? If the child is seven months along, then its found out that its either disabled or may hurt the mother, is it alright to abort the baby when it is beyond ANY shadow of a doubt not even a fetus, but a baby?

You know as well as I do that there is little that is beyond a shadow of a doubt when it comes to medicine, with a few exceptions.

Youre playing with fire, and the things you are suggesting bring up way too many questions.