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

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BigToque
In all other cases, abortion is a selfish act.

Most often, the woman has willingly engaged in sex. Everyone knows the risk involved in having sex. Everyone knows you can become pregnant having sex. If you willingly consent to sex, you willingly consent to the possibility that you will become pregnant. If it disrupts your life, or your perfect body, tough sh!t. You made your bed, so you can lay in it.

Rape is a very touchy subject. You did not consent to sex and therefore you didn't consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. In a situation like this I feel that abortion is acceptable.

For religious fundamentalists, this is the REAL argument against abortion, and everything else is just so much smokescreen. Pregnancy and having children is seen as "punishment" for the immoral action of having sex, and the problem with abortion is that it allows the consequences of immoral sexual activity to be nullified.

BigToque's comment on abortion being acceptable in the case of rape supports this idea, because in the case of rape he is no longer concerned as to whether or not the fetus is a human being. This is really interesting given the title he gave this thread when he started it.

First off, there is nothing immoral about sex. Sex is great. With sex comes a huge responsibility, and part of that responsibility is knowing you might get pregnant. Pregnancy is not a punnshment. It's a responsibility you accepted when you willingly had sex.

As I said, rape is a touchy subject, one that I have not thought through as extensivly. The fetus is still a human being, however no consent was ever given for that human to be created. In a situation like rape, I feel that termination of the fetus is not unethical.

Now also don't forget that rape is an exception. I noticed that you directed your attention at the exception. You're not winning an arguement by pulling attention away from the main arguement.

So by your argument then, it's morally acceptable to kill, say, a five year old boy who was born as the product of rape, because no "consent" was given for the pregnancy? If you maintain that a human being is created from the moment of conception (as you state in the thread title and have argued in this thread), there is NO DIFFERENCE between aborting such a fetus and killing such a child.

I feel that an abortion would be wrong after the fetus attains consciousness. Once this happens you've missed your window of opportunity. I don't know how long into pregnancy this occurs.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

The beginning of life is irrelevant. The beginning of *Rights* is all that counts, and rights are a consequence of the capacity for reason. The earliest you could *possibly* claim that rights begin, therefore, is when brain activity starts, at around the 2nd trimester.

Conception is just a few cells. Cells don't have rights.

Jason

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Several of you have said "rights of the mother."

Uhhh, where do these supposed rights come from? A pregnant female in the United States has that right, because our laws give her that right. In other countries, a female does NOT have that right, because it hasn't been given to her. I don't understand where this concept of a "universal right" is coming from. Thus, your argument is boiling down to "it should be legal in the United States because it is legal in the United States." That's pretty flawed logic.

I don't disagree with you, and that's exactly why I never use that particular argument. As I said before, I believe that the only universal human right is the right to do whatever you want as long as it in no way affects other people's ability to do the same.

That's exactly what I tried to say!
The abortion debate boils down to - is the fetus an "other people."
Any other consideration, i.e. "putting life on hold", is immaterial to the argument.

I haven't said one way which side I'm on. I just wanted to point out a couple of flaws in the arguments that I saw a couple of times. Plus, I figured I'd take a side opposite Ryan in this little debate, since he seems capable of discussing it rationally.

Oh, and for what it's worth on the rape issue: I met a woman who was the product of a rape. Her mother carried her to full term and immediately put her up for adoption. Someone unaware attempted to bring up the rape issue with her as an exception to the case. She quite successfully argued (in my opinion) that the majority of the damage is done by the act of a rape. Carrying the baby to term and putting it up for adoption to a loving family is a positive outcome. Then, she told the person where she came from.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The beginning of life is irrelevant. The beginning of *Rights* is all that counts, and rights are a consequence of the capacity for reason. The earliest you could *possibly* claim that rights begin, therefore, is when brain activity starts, at around the 2nd trimester.

Conception is just a few cells. Cells don't have rights.

Jason

Good pro-abortion opinion.


Wow, imagine what would happen if this thread was in P&N

 

[TBone48]

Originally posted by: chambersc
these discussions, how people are so set in their views that they are TOTALLY unwilling to consider the other point of view, are why I banned myself from seeing P&N. Please, use the correct forums, BIGTOQUE.

Agreed

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Cell-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Human

Long way from cell to human.

winnar

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

While there are good arguments to support the notion that personhood could not possibly begin before the middle of the 2nd trimester, the personhood argument is a moot one anyway.

Suppose the fetus is a person. Then tell me why this person should enjoy special rights greater than other persons. The 14th amendment provides for the equal protection of all persons under the law. However, NO PERSON -- born or unborn -- enjoys the right to occupy another person's body, to forcibly extract nutrients from that person's blood stream, and inject imbalancing hormones and waste back into it, all against that person's will.

The right to defend one's person against such invasions is absolute, and waivers must be explicit. Under the law, there is no inherent duty that a woman owes to a fetus growing inside her because none of her actions that precipitated the creation of a zygote can be considered negligent. Abortion simply restores the status quo ante.

-Garth

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Ryan

You make it sound like having children is as easy as 1, 2, 3. And as far as consequences go - should a woman be forced to end her career, and put her life on hold while she has a child, if she doens't want to? As a man - you don't see the kind of limitations having a child puts on a woman.

As a husband, with a wife who HAS had children, I see that the limitations you feel a woman has while she is pregnant are grossly exaggerated. Have *YOU* ever gotten someone pregnant? Have *YOU* ever held someone's hair while they puked into the toilet with morning sickness? Limitations: no drugs, very limited alcohol (especially during the first trimester), no hot tubs, uhhhhh.. geez, after 2 kids, you'd think I could think of more.

What if your wife didn't want to have children, and wanted to devote her time to furthering her career, educational opportunities, etc?

 

[arcenite]

you all just shut the ****** up and get laid

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: arcenite
you all just shut the ****** up and get laid

According to some here - unless you want a child, you shouldn't

That's said - it's sad that I know so much about an issue that will never effect me.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Ryan

You make it sound like having children is as easy as 1, 2, 3. And as far as consequences go - should a woman be forced to end her career, and put her life on hold while she has a child, if she doens't want to? As a man - you don't see the kind of limitations having a child puts on a woman.

As a husband, with a wife who HAS had children, I see that the limitations you feel a woman has while she is pregnant are grossly exaggerated. Have *YOU* ever gotten someone pregnant? Have *YOU* ever held someone's hair while they puked into the toilet with morning sickness? Limitations: no drugs, very limited alcohol (especially during the first trimester), no hot tubs, uhhhhh.. geez, after 2 kids, you'd think I could think of more.

When your gal is pregnant, you start to notice just how many damn things have "Consult a doctor before use if pregnant." It's crazy. I know it's CYA, but holy cow. I started to expect to see it on cereal boxes, bath sponges, and hairbrushes.
You left out stuff like no roller coasters, skydiving, flying after a certain point, etc

 

[Vinney]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
.

As a husband, with a wife who HAS had children, I see that the limitations you feel a woman has while she is pregnant are grossly exaggerated. Have *YOU* ever gotten someone pregnant? Have *YOU* ever held someone's hair while they puked into the toilet with morning sickness? Limitations: no drugs, very limited alcohol (especially during the first trimester), no hot tubs, uhhhhh.. geez, after 2 kids, you'd think I could think of more.[/quote]

Out of curiosity - where does the "limited alcohol esp. during first trimester" instead of no alcohol come from? i haven't heard that before.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: Vinney

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
.

As a husband, with a wife who HAS had children, I see that the limitations you feel a woman has while she is pregnant are grossly exaggerated. Have *YOU* ever gotten someone pregnant? Have *YOU* ever held someone's hair while they puked into the toilet with morning sickness? Limitations: no drugs, very limited alcohol (especially during the first trimester), no hot tubs, uhhhhh.. geez, after 2 kids, you'd think I could think of more.

Out of curiosity - where does the "limited alcohol esp. during first trimester" instead of no alcohol come from? i haven't heard that before.

[/quote]


US mothers who don't drink have babies that are just as stupid as European mothers who have moderately low intakes of alcohol.

- Source : Our Pediatrician.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The beginning of life is irrelevant. The beginning of *Rights* is all that counts, and rights are a consequence of the capacity for reason. The earliest you could *possibly* claim that rights begin, therefore, is when brain activity starts, at around the 2nd trimester.

Conception is just a few cells. Cells don't have rights.

Jason

Good pro-abortion opinion.


Wow, imagine what would happen if this thread was in P&N

It's not pro-abortion at all. On the contrary, I find abortion to be a procedure that should only ever be used as a last resort. I abhor people who abuse the procedure or use it as a means of birth control. My sister, who's 3 years younger than I am, has had at *least* 2 abortions per year every year for 3 years running, and she's VERY vocal claiming "there's nothing wrong with it, I'm proud to get abortions!". She's a *disgusting* individual and precisely the kind of scumbag who lend credibility to the anti-abortion crowd.

I'm for leaving abortion legal and safe, but make no mistake, I am NOT pro-abortion.

Jason

 

[LostWanderer]

I'm still waiting for mine to start...

 

[Mday]

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

Conception is a vague term. Conception is usually the day you do the deed.

Fertilization of the egg does not happen DURING sex, it happens after. It's a matter of hours to a couple of days (1-2) before the woman is actually pregnant. So if you say life starts at conception, you say that life starts before the egg is fertilized, and before the woman is pregnant.

Many fertilized eggs do not even attach themselves to the uterine wall anyway. Some fertilized eggs even attach at the fallopian tubes which require abortion procedures or the woman will die. These abortions are not of anything I would call alive. If the embryo even develops much in the fallopian tubes, both mother and supposed-child are dead anyway. And a small number of fertilized eggs that do attach themselves to the uterine wall get aborted naturally.

If you think a fertilized human egg is life, then the mortality rate is orders of magnitude higher than any reasonable figure given by anyone ever.

--

since this is an abortion thread i'll throw in my 2 cents...

I consider abortions a medical procedure. I am pro-choice. I do oppose late term abortions.

 

[HeXploiT]

All this blabbering and technical jibberjabber is so childish. I would hope that before anyone gets an abortion they would stop and realize that although it may be debateable whether or not this fetus is a baby, if they wait just a few weeks, it WILL BE A BABY!! It WILL BE A BEUATIFUL LITTLE BABY ...in just a few weeks IF YOU LET IT!

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BigToque
In all other cases, abortion is a selfish act.

Most often, the woman has willingly engaged in sex. Everyone knows the risk involved in having sex. Everyone knows you can become pregnant having sex. If you willingly consent to sex, you willingly consent to the possibility that you will become pregnant. If it disrupts your life, or your perfect body, tough sh!t. You made your bed, so you can lay in it.

Rape is a very touchy subject. You did not consent to sex and therefore you didn't consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant. In a situation like this I feel that abortion is acceptable.

For religious fundamentalists, this is the REAL argument against abortion, and everything else is just so much smokescreen. Pregnancy and having children is seen as "punishment" for the immoral action of having sex, and the problem with abortion is that it allows the consequences of immoral sexual activity to be nullified.

No wonder you hate religion so much. You have a very warped understanding. That, is not accurate.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Perry404
All this blabbering and technical jibberjabber is so childish. I would hope that before anyone gets an abortion they would stop and realize that although it may be debateable whether or not this fetus is a baby, if they wait just a few weeks, it WILL BE A BABY!! It WILL BE A BEUATIFUL LITTLE BABY ...in just a few weeks IF YOU LET IT!

Not every welcomes a baby, or is capable and willing to take care of one. Your argument is simplistic, and doens't take all of the factors into account.

To a 15 year old girl - yeah, she has a beautiful baby, but now will most likely have to subject that child to a life of poverty, she prolly won't get to finish school or get a higher education, and she'll also get stuck in a life of poverty. The beautiful face of a baby can only go so far if the rest of your life is miserable.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Perry404
All this blabbering and technical jibberjabber is so childish.

Irony meter overload.

I would hope that before anyone gets an abortion they would stop and realize that although it may be debateable whether or not this fetus is a baby, if they wait just a few weeks, it WILL BE A BABY!! It WILL BE A BEUATIFUL LITTLE BABY ...in just a few weeks IF YOU LET IT!

Yeah, the "technical jibberjabber" is "childish," but your argumentum-per-caps-lock-and-bold-text is so insightfully cerebral.

Newsflash, genius: rights are not endowed to people based on future possibilities. My four-year-old niece will likely be 22 someday, but that doensn't mean she has the right to vote or purchase beverage alcohol right now.

The bottom line is that the state has no right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. You might not make the same decision as someone else, but neither you nor the state has a right to make such a decision for that person.

-Garth

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Perry404
All this blabbering and technical jibberjabber is so childish. I would hope that before anyone gets an abortion they would stop and realize that although it may be debateable whether or not this fetus is a baby, if they wait just a few weeks, it WILL BE A BABY!! It WILL BE A BEUATIFUL LITTLE BABY ...in just a few weeks IF YOU LET IT!

Not every welcomes a baby, or is capable and willing to take care of one. Your argument is simplistic, and doens't take all of the factors into account.

To a 15 year old girl - yeah, she has a beautiful baby, but now will most likely have to subject that child to a life of poverty, she prolly won't get to finish school or get a higher education, and she'll also get stuck in a life of poverty. The beautiful face of a baby can only go so far if the rest of your life is miserable.

Why are the more extreme circumstances always brought up? You think the the majority of abortions are 15 year olds? Sorry but most abortion are simply done by selfish adults who have been sexually reckless.
Anyway your notion that my arguement is "simplistic" is bullshit. I'm not arguing the law. I'm arguing about just what a fetus will be if people will let it. Forget the extreme circumstances and lets stick with reality.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Perry404
All this blabbering and technical jibberjabber is so childish.

Irony meter overload.

I would hope that before anyone gets an abortion they would stop and realize that although it may be debateable whether or not this fetus is a baby, if they wait just a few weeks, it WILL BE A BABY!! It WILL BE A BEUATIFUL LITTLE BABY ...in just a few weeks IF YOU LET IT!

Yeah, the "technical jibberjabber" is "childish," but your argumentum-per-caps-lock-and-bold-text is so insightfully cerebral.

Newsflash, genius: rights are not endowed to people based on future possibilities. My four-year-old niece will likely be 22 someday, but that doensn't mean she has the right to vote or purchase beverage alcohol right now.

The bottom line is that the state has no right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. You might not make the same decision as someone else, but neither you nor the state has a right to make such a decision for that person.

-Garth

Are you done trying to convince everyone how smart you are? I said i'm not arguing abortion idiot now shut your yap and listen. All i said is that a fetus will be a baby. Strikes a nerve doesn't it. No i don't want to change the abortion laws so quit trying to argue that with me.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Perry404
All this blabbering and technical jibberjabber is so childish. I would hope that before anyone gets an abortion they would stop and realize that although it may be debateable whether or not this fetus is a baby, if they wait just a few weeks, it WILL BE A BABY!! It WILL BE A BEUATIFUL LITTLE BABY ...in just a few weeks IF YOU LET IT!

Not every welcomes a baby, or is capable and willing to take care of one. Your argument is simplistic, and doens't take all of the factors into account.

To a 15 year old girl - yeah, she has a beautiful baby, but now will most likely have to subject that child to a life of poverty, she prolly won't get to finish school or get a higher education, and she'll also get stuck in a life of poverty. The beautiful face of a baby can only go so far if the rest of your life is miserable.

Why are the more extreme circumstances always brought up? You think the the majority of abortions are 15 year olds? Sorry but most abortion are simply done by selfish adults who have been sexually reckless.
Anyway your notion that my arguement is "simplistic" is bullshit. I'm not arguing the law. I'm arguing about just what a fetus will be if people will let it. Forget the extreme circumstances and lets stick with reality.

Ok - what about the woman who is moving her way up the coporate ladder, uses protection but it fails, and can't afford to have a kid if she wants to further her career? These are all very real situations.

Don't give me this "IT"S A BEAUTIFUL BABY" appeal to emotion bullsh!t, some people just aren't equipped to have children, why should the be forced to?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Perry404
All this blabbering and technical jibberjabber is so childish.

Irony meter overload.

I would hope that before anyone gets an abortion they would stop and realize that although it may be debateable whether or not this fetus is a baby, if they wait just a few weeks, it WILL BE A BABY!! It WILL BE A BEUATIFUL LITTLE BABY ...in just a few weeks IF YOU LET IT!

Yeah, the "technical jibberjabber" is "childish," but your argumentum-per-caps-lock-and-bold-text is so insightfully cerebral.

Newsflash, genius: rights are not endowed to people based on future possibilities. My four-year-old niece will likely be 22 someday, but that doensn't mean she has the right to vote or purchase beverage alcohol right now.

The bottom line is that the state has no right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. You might not make the same decision as someone else, but neither you nor the state has a right to make such a decision for that person.

-Garth

Are you done trying to convince everyone how smart you are? I said i'm not arguing abortion idiot now shut your yap and listen. All i said is that a fetus will be a baby. Strikes a nerve doesn't it. No i don't want to change the abortion laws so quit trying to argue that with me.

Again - the appeal to emotion doens't help your argument. Nobody likes abortion - it's not like we cheer the abortion of a child.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Many people believe "having a soul" is what separates us from animals. With that in mind, human life doesn't begin until the soul is present.

But how do you make the determination? You can't. Just like you can't determine when a fetus is a person.

My opinion is that it's not a person until it's born.
And I believe that animals have souls as well. But they still taste delicious.

LMAO