The abortion debate

[JBeukema]

I don't have a definition, nor does anyone have a convincing definition or explanation of when life begins.

That's because life is circular. And like a circle it has no beginning or end.

It just is.

People don't die? Cool.

I've been lied to?!

You say life doesn't have an end and I'm the one that is crazy?

So when do you think life will end?

When the universe reaches maximum entropy, if not before, all life as we know it cease

 

[Care4all]

You say life doesn't have an end and I'm the one that is crazy?

So when do you think life will end?

After you are born? I thought an offspring's first breath determines if they are "born alive" or not?

or should we be given our certification of birth when the mother becomes pregnant, (then Obama was for certain "born" in Hawaii ), and list the day of impregnation or conception as the day we were born, and if we were miscarried at 3 months and died in delivery, also be given a death certificate at 3 months old, so we all are really 9 months older than what we are, when it comes to our age?

I personally think that the english language does not have enough words in our language explaining this particular situation...

yes, you are a live human organism, or a live embryo or live fetus, that has great worth, but you are not equal to a birthed or viable, breathing, human being.

A raging fire in a Fertility clinic filled with workers and frozen, fertilized, embryos... will prompt the firemen to rescue ALL born individual workers FIRST, then they will risk their lives to save the frozen embryos.

Someone alive and born is worth more than someone alive and not born.

the way people fight over this is utterly ridiculous to me...they are NOT equal in my mind...and I am prolife!

A mother who wanted a child more than anything in the world that miscarries at 3 months and has to try again, does not feel the same pain as a mother who wanted a child more than anything in the world, whose child was born, and then was hit by a car and killed, at 2 years old or 5 years old or 20 years, old in my book.

There are not words, that justly explain what i am trying to say imo, but I know what I know in my gut and with Science and with God and with our gvt issuing a certificate for the date and time and place you are born, and so help me, there is a difference between a 1- 3 month embryo/fetus and a "born" alive, individual who had been birthed and taken their first breath imo.

everybody wants to hang on to their little words like ''life'' and ''alive'', switching them about to make their posturing points on this subject, but i for one do not think they should be, nor do i think the words mean the precise same thing.

care

 

[JBeukema]

After you are born? I thought an offspring's first breath determines if they are "born alive" or not?

... as one must be born in order to breathe air, yes. You really are stupid, aren't you?

or should we be given our certification of birth when the mother becomes pregnant, (then Obama was for certain "born" in Hawaii ), and list the day of impregnation or conception as the day we were born, and if we were miscarried at 3 months and died in delivery, also be given a death certificate at 3 months old, so we all are really 9 months older than what we are, when it comes to our age?

It was only recently that we were able to determine the child's sex and state of being prior to birth. That,. as well as deaths during the birthing process, is why birth ha traditionally been the marker. Also, determining date of conception is difficult and usually results in a mere approximation.

I personally think that the english language does not have enough words in our language explaining this particular situation...

Sure it does, you're just not literate enough to know it.

yes, you are a live human organism, or a live embryo or live fetus, that has great worth, but you are not equal to a birthed or viable, breathing, human being.

So locations directly influences 'worth'?

A mother who wanted a child more than anything in the world that miscarries at 3 months and has to try again, does not feel the same pain as a mother who wanted a child more than anything in the world, whose child was born, and then was hit by a car and killed, at 2 years old or 5 years old or 20 years, old in my book.

in your book'? How do you know what they do or do not feel?

everybody wants to hang on to their little words like ''life'' and ''alive'', switching them about to make their posturing points on this subject, but i for one do not think they should be, nor do i think the words mean the precise same thing.

They don't. That which alive demonstrates signs of life. It seems your difficulties stem from your poor language skills.

 

[renoite]

its alwayes a baby the egg is a baby but human life its 12 weeks is when its a real baby as you would call him/her.dont want a baby shouldnt have sex. I just dont get why any one person would do it. If any one can give a good reason to why any one person would want to harm a unborn child. Ill love to hear it

 

[JBeukema]

its alwayes a baby the egg is a baby

Just shutup, before you convince someone to euthanize you...Cearly, the English classes I linked you to weren't the only classes you need

but human life its 12 weeks is when its a real baby

So, it's a baby but not a real lbaby? Please tell me you've had a hysterectomy

 

[renoite]

ok you shut up im so sick of this fucking shite from you all you can do is bash on someone for how smart they are. rather or not i can spell i still think its worng for killing a baby deal it as i learn to spell you learn to be nice ok fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck people in this world like you make me sick ok i may change my mind of aborting a baby if he where you but sec thought im not as cold hearted as you

 

[JBeukema]

ok you shut

A transitive verb? I'm looking for the object...

im so sick of this fucking shite from you

ok fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck people in this world like you make me sick

im not as cold hearted as you

Demonstrate how I am 'cold hearted'

And for the record, it has nothing to do with the fact that you can't spell- your spelling is a symptom. The problem is that you're stupid.

 

[renoite]

no your bashing me cause i cant spell and that sort of thing not making a debate about killing babies

 

[Hawk]

no your bashing me cause i cant spell and that sort of thing not making a debate about killing babies

Here pastor Fred Phelps was right in his statement regarding evil America today,"You are gonna eat your babies!"to wit;evils of abortions.

 

[JBeukema]

no your bashing me cause i cant spell and that sort of thing not making a debate about killing babies

If you don't want to be judged for being an idiot in the middle of meaningful discussion- stay out of the conversation or stop being an idiot

 

[Hawk]

no your bashing me cause i cant spell and that sort of thing not making a debate about killing babies

If you don't want to be judged for being an idiot in the middle of meaningful discussion- stay out of the conversation or stop being an idiot

You people have no heart for the preborn children of America who evry hour get exterminated in this so-called abortion clinics throughout America.You don't realize that children are our future.You have hearts for condemned thugs who murder innocent Americans for no motive.Instead of sending those animals to die in chair or leathal injection,you grant those animals lives for our tax paying $.Think it over.

 

[JBeukema]

You people

define 'you people'

have no heart for the preborn children of America who evry hour get exterminated in this so-called abortion clinics throughout America

Really, now? Do feel free to demonstrate that.

.You don't realize that children are our future

.

Really? Care to cite anything I have said which supports your assertions?

You have hearts for condemned thugs who murder innocent Americans for no motive

1)Demonstrate that I 'have {a} hearty for condemned thugs who murder innocent Americans'
2)Demonstrate the lack of motive

Instead of sending those animals to die in chair or leathal injection,you grant those animals lives for our tax paying

First off, that sentence doesn't even make sense. Secondly, I'm waiting for you to cite anything to support your assertions, since you're obviously too stupid to read.

 

[Cecilie1200]

However, killing a person in his sleep would still constitute a utility minimization since his death whilst sleeping had the consequence of inhibiting the satisfaction of his future preferences and desires, a necessary staple of preference utilitarianism. .

And a conceived life would never have any future, preferences, or desires?


Welcome to the world where political convenience and bureaucracy becomes God.

Where those who kill are so self-righteous they will not admit they are killing. They are so sure of of the justice of their cause they must pretend they are not doing what they are doing.

The most dangerous world in the world.

I have to disagree here. It seems to me that they must pretend they are not doing what they in fact are precisely because they are NOT sure of the justice of their cause. If they really believed that the wholesale destruction of unborn babies was righteous and virtuous, they wouldn't spend so much time blowing smoke up everyone's ass about the reality of it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Scientists would go ga-ga over the discovery of a single cell life form on Mars, and trumpet that "there is life there"! If a single cell is classified as "life" why is two or more living cells in a woman's uterus destined to become a human being so non-chalantly discarded?

Because when you enter the realm of the pro-abortion debate, you throw real science out the window and deal strictly in fuzzy emotionalism and assloads of rationalization.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Abortion is not a choice,but it is a murder of the first degree.

'Murder in the first degree' is legal parlance. As of this post, your calims are not truthful or accurate.

Abortion is homicide. Homicide and murder are not equivalent terms. Educate yourself before posting again

Abortion is a crime.It is a bloody agenda of radical feminist movement of NOW,a Marxist based organization.Who gave rights to women to murder their children?If a woman is pregnant and she doesn't want her child,she must to turn her infant to orphanage from which the child will be adopted to good caring hands.But murdering a pre-born child by this bloody abortion is her way to Hell.It is a time for America to reconsider unconstitutional Supreme Court case Roe vs Wade of 1973.

Abortion isn't a crime, moron. It's legal. If you want to object to it, please attempt to do it on rational, reality-based grounds. I know third-graders who can debate more coherently than you do.

 

[JBeukema]

However, killing a person in his sleep would still constitute a utility minimization since his death whilst sleeping had the consequence of inhibiting the satisfaction of his future preferences and desires, a necessary staple of preference utilitarianism. .

And a conceived life would never have any future, preferences, or desires?


Welcome to the world where political convenience and bureaucracy becomes God.

Where those who kill are so self-righteous they will not admit they are killing. They are so sure of of the justice of their cause they must pretend they are not doing what they are doing.

The most dangerous world in the world.

I have to disagree here. It seems to me that they must pretend they are not doing what they in fact are precisely because they are NOT sure of the justice of their cause. If they really believed that the wholesale destruction of unborn babies was righteous and virtuous, they wouldn't spend so much time blowing smoke up everyone's ass about the reality of it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cecilie1200 again

 

[Cecilie1200]

Abortion is not a choice,but it is a murder of the first degree.

'Murder in the first degree' is legal parlance. As of this post, your calims are not truthful or accurate.

Abortion is homicide. Homicide and murder are not equivalent terms. Educate yourself before posting again

Are you a lawyer? As far as I know, If I kill my neighbor it's murder. So if you kill an unborn child, it's also murder. Why the fuck you gotta play word games with a new member? Gettin' a kick out of it, or because you just want to give a pro lifer some shit?

You don't have to be a lawyer to know and understand the meanings of words, or to use them correctly. Murder is not synonymous with killing. Otherwise, a woman shooting a potential rapist who's coming at her with a knife would also be murder. And we all know it isn't.

Abortion is certainly killing, it's certainly repugnant, and I certainly consider it immoral. But as long as it's legal, it's not murder.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Surely you agree that 'human life' ion the strictest sense is not at issue. Your arm is 'human' and the cells are alive- but you may do to your own body what you wish. Only a human life- as described above- is relevant to the discussion

So long. So sorry that that the owner of your little spermies decided he needed to sit down, watch some porn of some lesbian cheerleading sisters havin' a grand ol' time and decided to KILL millions of potential human lives just like that. So sorry.

Something is human or not human. there's no such thing as 'potential' in the sense you use it. Technically, every oxygen molecule could become part of a living human being. that means nothing, however. A human being comes into existence when the germ cells merge to form a new distinct organism with a complete* genome. At that point, and never before, can you point to anything and say with any honesty credibility 'this is a distinct organism (regardless of whteher it is involved in a parasitic relationship with another organism) and it is genetically human and it is alive- therefore it is a human life (again, as calrified above).

*'whole or functioning, for want of a better term. In no way am I implying that those with genetic defects, who lack any gene, or not human

See, to me it's whether something is a "person" that matters more than it's genome. A human body born with only enough of a brain to keep it's blood flowing would not, to me, be a person, and would be disposable, as a first-trimester fetus is.

No human life is "disposable". They're not Kleenex. A human body that's barely alive is still a living human being, and it is not morally okay to simply snuff him and toss him out with the garbage because he's in the way. My God, I accord more respect to animals hit by cars than you do to your own species.

 

[Cecilie1200]

See, to me it's whether something is a "person" that matters more than it's genome.

Define 'person'. Explain how to identify 'personhood'. Is it human life or 'personhood' that must be defended? Why? Does the destruction of one 'personhood' as another forms (the changing nature of a man's character and mental makeup, for instance) constitute death and a new birth of a new 'person'? If so, can the latter be held responsible for the latter? How can we determine whether we are dealing with the same 'person'? Is treating DID (formerly known as MPD) murder, as it destroys one or more 'personhoods'? Since the brain does not develop into any sense of 'maturity' or to anything one can call 'full development' into the late teens and young infants seem to have little ability for 'higher' thought or intelligence as it comes to form, are they not 'people'? Just how much 'intelligence' grants person hood and how is it to be measured? Does sentience or intelligence define 'personhood'? If the former, then why are other species not granted suffrage? If the former, then i repeat my question from earlier and ask whether those of lower intelligence should be euthanized or denied equal protection/rights. You do realize that to admit something is alive and human, and then determine which humans lives are worthy of life is eugenics, correct? What is your eugenic philosophy? How do you determine what humans are worthy of life and which are not? By what reason does ending the life of a growing child for one's own convenience justifiable and at what point and by what reasoning does it cease to be so?

Is a tumor, which is human flesh with a different genetic code from it's host body, a "human life", and thus should be protected?


I'm not talking about intelligence, but about abstract thoughts and ideas, as you refer to it, sentience. If a thing is not sentient, even a human body, then it is not a person, and is no more important than any other collection of cells.

Ending the life of a first trimester fetus, which is not yet a person, is justifiable at any point at which the potential mother no longer wishes to carry it. It is a clump of cells, not a person, and thus deserves no special consideration.

The potential for future personhood of a fetus is only slightly more than the potential for future personhood contained in your sperm and in the nearest woman to you's eggs. If potential for personhood must be allowed in all cases to become a person, then you would be morally obligated, by force, if necessary, to impregnante as many women as possible, so that none of your sperm, or their eggs, would be wasted.

Oh, for God's sake. A tumor isn't "a human life", and it's not because it isn't sentient. It's because it isn't an organism. It's a group of defective cells that are part of a larger organism. Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the frigging donkey, does ANYONE on this board know basic biology?

"Personhood." Of all the imbecilic, made-up, "I have to substitute something for the education I didn't get", nonsensical, childish concepts. Honestly.

 

[frazzledgear]

As the OP of this thread, I ask that everyone remain civil and shy away from using personal attacks on one another to make your point.

The conservative point of view, if I understand this correctly, is that a fetus or a pre-fetus is a life form with the potential to become a human.

The liberal point of view is that the fetus, up until a certain time period, is not complex enough to consider human. No matter what it has the potential to become, it is not that currently and a woman should have the right to abort the pregnancy if she so chooses.

My view - first and early-mid second term abortions are acceptable. Anything beyond 22 weeks is disgusting and should be banned. If a fetus can survive outside the womb, then the fetus must be kept alive until birth unless it's a case of the mother's life. A rape victim should know pretty early on if she wants to terminate the pregnancy and I highly doubt an incest victim is going to mull it over for 22 weeks.

We kill bacteria every day. We kill incests every day. Sometimes we kill animals when we hunt. These are far more complex life forms than a fetus and many conservatives find it just fine to kill these. I do not view human life as being superior to animal life - I view it equal. For the traits and qualities and intelligence we posses, animals posses different traits and qualities superior to ours. Additionally, man relies on the animal for nourishment and clothing to be kept warm as we could not do this on our own. I find this hypocritical of conservatives.

So, that's my view on abortion. 22 weeks or less.

Huh? The conservative point of view is not that a fetus has the POTENTIAL to become a human life. It IS a human life. Surely you understand that a fetus isn't a puppy or goldfish or fern. It is a human fetus, the fetus has life and is alive - therefore it is a human life. Not a potential human life -a real human life and not that of a puppy. And certainly not that of an insect. Humans who have mated can only create another human life -basic biology in play here. Denying its shared humanity for no reason but its stage of maturity requires total abandonment of any critical thinking skills, common sense and the ability to reason. Its life started at conception and it can die naturally or be killed at any point from then on. Birth only determines when citizenship begins -not life.

And WHAT on earth makes you deem a human fetus to somehow be a "lesser" life form than an INSECT? Are you for real? An insect at all times and at every stage of its development is an INSECT. A human life at all stages of development is a HUMAN LIFE -it is physically incapable of being anything BUT a human life. So exactly how much more "complicated" does it have to be for you than "human life"? A human fetus is just an immature human being at every point -just like a week old baby is also an immature human being. As is a 2 yr. old, a 9 yr. old, a 14 yr. old etc. So deciding that some immature human lives are legitimate targets for murder while other immature human lives are not -is an ARBITRARY line in the sand. One I refuse to draw.

Most liberals have no problem drawing that line though. They figure if an immature human life is hidden from their eyes while growing -it doesn't REALLY count as a real human life. Only when its shared humanity can no longer be denied because it is no longer hidden from their view does it count as a "real" human life. Maybe they think that until the very last moment there is a good chance it really might end up being a puppy. But it is a life that liberals believe has no right to exist unless SOMEONE ELSE finds value in their existence. That is NOT a measure we use to judge the value of a human life at any other time though. Truly it is a revolting standard with deadly implications for the owners of the lives anytime "ownership" of a life is transferred away from the real owner to someone else. In fact, that transfer is ONLY made in order to allow someone who doesn't own that life -to control it and/or kill it. It is NEVER, EVER done in order to protect and preserve that life. True when Nazis decided the life of a Jew was not worth living, true when slavesowners were deemed to own the very life of their slaves -and true for those who believe immature humans are legitimate targets for murder. In all cases, ownership of those lives was first transferred away from the real owners to someone else and then they were ALL stripped of and denied their shared humanity. All so someone who didn't own the life could control and/or kill it. Transferring ownership and then having their shared humanity denied - is ALWAYS required before the state allows the wholesale control and/or slaughter of others. And before those doing the controlling/killing or expressing support for it can bridge that moral gap. And it works for you too. How else could you even imply that killing an immature human life is of no more importance than killing an insect or bacteria? Only by first deciding that someone other than the real owners "owned" that immature human life -and then stripping that human life of any of its shared humanity entirely. But THAT is just morally repugnant to the pro-life, sorry.

Hard to comprehend that mentality given the fact that we ALL start off as very young, immature human beings -and each of us only own ONE life. And no one else's -at any time. I don't own the lives of my children and never did. 98% of all elective abortions are done for no reason except the fact that someone who didn't own that life decided the EXISTENCE of someone else's life was inconvenient.

Liberals believe that if a woman finds the existence of that human life to be inconvenient -she has the "right" to kill it. Of course the father of that human life has no such right. Since REAL rights apply to every member of the human race equally and not just special groups within the species, it isn't a real right at all. It takes two people to make a baby in an act they both consented to do with both knowing the risk of pregnancy - but only one has a "right" to kill their child if she doesn't want it -AND can force a man to be a parent against his will? But women cannot ever be forced to be a parent against their will. Even though she consented to the identical act the man did and also knew the risks of that act in advance. THAT is not equality whatsoever. True equality would be either BOTH parents are forced (by the state) to be parents of any child they conceive - or NEITHER may be and either men or women may have their unwanted child killed. No one is going to go along with forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will except in China -so that leaves just one option for those who believe in true equality of the sexes. The same option for those who oppose abortion. And since the risk of unwanted pregnancy exists for both sexes before the act even takes place -making both responsible for the consequences of that act is the only true equality. NOT by making only men responsible for the consequences of their actions when a woman is legally allowed to duck out of it. But the Supreme Court ruled that one gender has the "right" to legally duck out of responsibility for their actions while the other does not. Which means it is not a true right but a state granted privilege to a special group that is denied to all the rest.

It is a privilege that many conservatives do vigorously oppose -but then according to a Gallup poll taken just a few weeks ago, 51% of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life as well. (Guess who are actually the most strongly supportive of abortion? Single men, then married men. Then single women and finally married women. I can come up with the most likely reasons why men would support abortion more strongly than women. And concern about women isn't among the top five.) So it isn't as if conservatives have taken some kind of "extreme" position on this issue. What I find so weird and so mentally and morally convoluting is that liberals are highly likely to oppose the death penalty - while many conservatives have no problem with that. I do not understand the liberal point of view on either topic at all. I oppose killing the youngest and most vulnerable of human lives just because one of their parents decided their existence was inconvenient today. Sorry but I do not consider 9 months of mere inconvenience to be of greater moral weight than someone else's LIFE. And more than 98% of all abortions are done for issues of CONVENIENCE only. Those immature humans DID nothing wrong and are guilty of NOTHING except existing. But somehow liberals find that a sufficient reason to consider them the perfect target for murder -and really do think that a woman's CONVENIENCE is morally superior, far more important and supercedes any right of an immature human being to keep his own life.

While convicted murderers, serial killers, child rapist/murderers at all times had the CHOICE not to commit their crimes, had the CHOICE not to torture and kill another human being -but knowing full well that if they chose to do so anyway, they put their own lives at risk if caught. They CHOSE to risk forfeiting their own life so they COULD torture and kill someone else. So somehow THIS is the group liberals believe worth protecting. Liberals have no problem killing the youngest and most innocent of human lives while totally stripping and denying them of even their shared humanity -while wanting to protect the most guilty and evil who already proved they pose a deadly threat to all of society and CHOSE to be a deadly threat. I understand those who oppose both abortion and the death penalty and those who oppose abortion while supporting the death penalty. But I do not understand supporting abortion while opposing the death penalty -and frankly I don't want to because I find it so morally bankrupt.

The only life ANYONE -male or female -ever owns, is their own. The only reason to claim that someone other than the true owner of that life "owns" it -is so that person who doesn't own it -can kill it. This same mentality has been used to justify the Holocaust and slavery. Abortion is simply using this same mentality on even younger humans. But if there is a "right" to kill other humans based on their age and stage of maturity -then surely deliberately killing a newborn is a lesser crime than killing a 5 yr. old -which would be a lesser crime than killing a 13 yr. old. And the worst crime of all would be the deliberate killing of an adult - right? With a good argument that the very worst of all is killing someone who is near the end of their natural life. If the value of a human life is determined by its stage of development and maturity, then its true for all human life and not just some. Either you value human life and realize that the value of that life is separate from its maturity -or you find all human life to be a "relative" kind of thing where other people who don't own that life have the greater "right" to decide if the true owners even get to keep it or not. There really isn't much in between on this one. Once you have drawn a line in the sand, its pretty easy to find the rationale for moving it JUST a bit. And you will always feel the pressure to keep on moving it. How did you feel about Terry Schiavo -and did you even bother to view the available video before you reached your opinion or not? I was inclined one way until I viewed that video and realized that not only was it NOT what I was expecting to see -but that I had no right to EVER make the judgment that someone else had a life not worth living. Just not my call. Not talking about removing REAL life support but the deliberate decision to deprive someone of the necessities that we ALL need -like WATER. As was done to Schiavo. That is another whole topic -but EXACTLY what I mean by the pressure to constantly move that line once you have shown you are willing to deem ANYONE to have no right to their own life - unless someone else finds value in your life.

It isn't hard to explain where my own beliefs came from on this subject. I gave birth to an extremely premature boy -born at 24 weeks gestation. Do you REALLY think he wasn't a real human even two weeks earlier? Do you REALLY think he didn't experience pain at that age? I assure you -he felt pain more intensely than a full term baby. At that stage a baby is normally protected from any intense or painful stimulus while their skin and fat layers get thicker. Thicker skin and more fat means it requires more of a stimulus to cause pain. My son is 21 and in college -perfectly normal. Do you think extremely premature babies are LESS likely to survive now than they were two decades ago? My son isn't anywhere close to the youngest premature baby to survive -and he wasn't even two decades ago. The youngest to survive was born earlier than your own arbitrary cutoff date. Which should make it difficult to justify allowing the murder of them just because they haven't been born yet. But certainly gives lie to your own mental gymnastics that somehow they aren't quite human at that age. They certainly are.

To see someone so ignorant as to suggest killing a human fetus is of no more importance, carries no more moral weight than killing an INSECT is truly repulsive. It is just SUDDENLY endowed with value and becomes a real human life on a completely arbitrary date for you just because you have zero experience with humans that are younger? For real? And you really can't understand why people totally reject it, huh?