The Great Abortion Compromise!

[manu1959]

stevens
scalia
kennedy
souter
thomas
alito
ginsberg
breyer
roberts.....

don't see the votes

 

[glockmail]

....when you finally became a big bag of wind?

:chains: LMAO :cof:

 

[Dr Grump]

So if I choose to murder you than my defense should be: "I made the wrong choice, but it was fun, and I have a right to make wrong choices"????

Laws cover that. Laws also cover abortion.

 

[Dr Grump]

So when did biological life begin for you, sparky? Was it when you were conceived and started developing, or when you finally (born)

And there lies the crux....

 

[glockmail]

Laws cover that. Laws also cover abortion.

Irrelevant.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And there lies the crux....

Not the "crux" at all. Biologically speaking, the human being began life upon conception.

I think the "crux" may lie in how you define a human being. If a fetus has eyes, ears, nose, fingers and toes, a beating heart, and can smile in response - but cannot yet breathe - do you consider the fetus NOT to be a human being?

 

[Dr Grump]

Not the "crux" at all. Biologically speaking, the human being began life upon conception.

I think the "crux" may lie in how you define a human being. If a fetus has eyes, ears, nose, fingers and toes, a beating heart, and can smile in response - but cannot yet breathe - do you consider the fetus NOT to be a human being?

IMO t here is a crossover...and it is where the crossover is that is the problem (note, I say this is my opinion). At conception? Definitely NOT a human being. Five minutes before birth? Definitely a human being. I ain't gonna give you an answer that will satisfy you. You want to deal in absolutes. Fine. I don't.

 

[dilloduck]

IMO t here is a crossover...and it is where the crossover is that is the problem (note, I say this is my opinion). At conception? Definitely NOT a human being. Five minutes before birth? Definitely a human being. I ain't gonna give you an answer that will satisfy you. You want to deal in absolutes. Fine. I don't.

Pro-"I-want-to-do-whatever-I-feel-like-its" don't give a rats ass when it's a human being. If it's connected to thier body they want the sole choice to remove it or not.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

IMO t here is a crossover...and it is where the crossover is that is the problem (note, I say this is my opinion). At conception? Definitely NOT a human being. Five minutes before birth? Definitely a human being. I ain't gonna give you an answer that will satisfy you. You want to deal in absolutes. Fine. I don't.

And you wish to deal in what? Untruths?

A crossover of what? From beginning human life to a fully developed human being? Are not both the different states of a person? A person is or a person isn't. A person has life or a person does not have life. How can you get around that?

Conception is the only clear dividing line between non-existence and the existence of a human being. Once one is conceived one already possesses a full set of individual characteristics from the color of eyes to inherited talents. From the very start a zygote/fetus is a person. After conception you only have the development of a person/human being.

 

[Gem]

We can look at human development almost like a bell curve...the beginning is what we are debating...we grow and develop to a point (mid to late 20's if I'm not mistaken) and then our bodies begin to deteriorate until death. And most people are pretty firm on the fact that death is the end of human development - at least physically speaking.

So for this debate, the argument is where that beginning point is. And arguably...I truly do feel that the only answer that makes sense (logically...take politics out of it if you can) is conception. The point at which development begins - cells divide, DNA is established/created, and all of the genetic information needed to make a person has been formed and is beginning to grow. Or, if not conception, then implantation - the point in which the fertizlized egg implants itself into the uterine wall - ensuring that it will have the nutrients needed to continue to grow.

From a purely biological sense - human development begins at this early, early stage. In the bell curve it is the start point...the point in which a human begins...

So human life begins at conception. It is, in my opinion - of course, the only answer that makes sense. Before that you have a man and a woman - or egg and sperm...seperate, different. After that you have a third entity that if things progress naturally will become an entirely different and seperate entity from the first two things.

I guess what I'm saying is that - for me - the argument of "where life begins" is pointless. It obviously begins at the moment in which a new life starts, is created that - if cared for naturally - will continue its human development...just like a toddler if cared for naturally, will continue its human development into a child and a teen, etc.

Why are so many pro-choicers searching (or pretending to search) for some magical, mysterious point where the fetus - disposable magically becomes a baby - something they claim to want to protect. The magical, mysterious point is obvious - before fertilization no amount of wishing, praying, vitamins, medical science, etc. can turn an egg or a sperm into a baby...after fertilization it will happen naturally...

It seems to me that the debate over when life begins is an intellectually dishonest one that the pro-choice side is choosing to focus on because it can not deal with the truth of its opinion...which is that even though it means stopping a human in its earliest stages of development sometimes abortion is neccessary.

And for full disclosure....I'm pro-choice.

 

[dilloduck]

We can look at human development almost like a bell curve...the beginning is what we are debating...we grow and develop to a point (mid to late 20's if I'm not mistaken) and then our bodies begin to deteriorate until death. And most people are pretty firm on the fact that death is the end of human development - at least physically speaking.

So for this debate, the argument is where that beginning point is. And arguably...I truly do feel that the only answer that makes sense (logically...take politics out of it if you can) is conception. The point at which development begins - cells divide, DNA is established/created, and all of the genetic information needed to make a person has been formed and is beginning to grow. Or, if not conception, then implantation - the point in which the fertizlized egg implants itself into the uterine wall - ensuring that it will have the nutrients needed to continue to grow.

From a purely biological sense - human development begins at this early, early stage. In the bell curve it is the start point...the point in which a human begins...

So human life begins at conception. It is, in my opinion - of course, the only answer that makes sense. Before that you have a man and a woman - or egg and sperm...seperate, different. After that you have a third entity that if things progress naturally will become an entirely different and seperate entity from the first two things.

I guess what I'm saying is that - for me - the argument of "where life begins" is pointless. It obviously begins at the moment in which a new life starts, is created that - if cared for naturally - will continue its human development...just like a toddler if cared for naturally, will continue its human development into a child and a teen, etc.

Why are so many pro-choicers searching (or pretending to search) for some magical, mysterious point where the fetus - disposable magically becomes a baby - something they claim to want to protect. The magical, mysterious point is obvious - before fertilization no amount of wishing, praying, vitamins, medical science, etc. can turn an egg or a sperm into a baby...after fertilization it will happen naturally...

It seems to me that the debate over when life begins is an intellectually dishonest one that the pro-choice side is choosing to focus on because it can not deal with the truth of its opinion...which is that even though it means stopping a human in its earliest stages of development sometimes abortion is neccessary.

And for full disclosure....I'm pro-choice.

Well said---so you voluntarily choose an intellectually dishonest position ?

 

[Gem]

Nothing intellectually dishonest about my opinion, actually - and I'm sure the pro-choice opinion of others. I fully believe that an abortion is killing a human being in its earliest stages. I simply believe that there are cases in which killing a human being in its earliest stages is neccessary and needs to remain legally protected.

I feel, however, that the pro-choice movement in general, attempts to deny this fact because it makes the position very hard to defend.

 

[jillian]

Nothing intellectually dishonest about my opinion, actually - and I'm sure the pro-choice opinion of others. I fully believe that an abortion is killing a human being in its earliest stages. I simply believe that there are cases in which killing a human being in its earliest stages is neccessary and needs to remain legally protected.

I feel, however, that the pro-choice movement in general, attempts to deny this fact because it makes the position very hard to defend.

I think that's an interesting position... and not unfair or unreasonable, though I don't agree with your "killing a human being in its earliest stages assessment". What I do think is that perhaps when dealing with extremists who don't believe in reproductive choice at all, even where the life of the mother is in danger, even when she's been raped or a victim of incest, perhaps one is forced to take harder positions than one might otherwise.

Thing is... assuming you raised the arguments you raise, do you think that the hardliners on the other side would be any less ferocious in their positon, or do you think they would see it as a concession and try to capitalize on it?

 

[MissileMan]

We can look at human development almost like a bell curve...the beginning is what we are debating...we grow and develop to a point (mid to late 20's if I'm not mistaken) and then our bodies begin to deteriorate until death. And most people are pretty firm on the fact that death is the end of human development - at least physically speaking.

So for this debate, the argument is where that beginning point is. And arguably...I truly do feel that the only answer that makes sense (logically...take politics out of it if you can) is conception. The point at which development begins - cells divide, DNA is established/created, and all of the genetic information needed to make a person has been formed and is beginning to grow. Or, if not conception, then implantation - the point in which the fertizlized egg implants itself into the uterine wall - ensuring that it will have the nutrients needed to continue to grow.

From a purely biological sense - human development begins at this early, early stage. In the bell curve it is the start point...the point in which a human begins...

So human life begins at conception. It is, in my opinion - of course, the only answer that makes sense. Before that you have a man and a woman - or egg and sperm...seperate, different. After that you have a third entity that if things progress naturally will become an entirely different and seperate entity from the first two things.

I guess what I'm saying is that - for me - the argument of "where life begins" is pointless. It obviously begins at the moment in which a new life starts, is created that - if cared for naturally - will continue its human development...just like a toddler if cared for naturally, will continue its human development into a child and a teen, etc.

Why are so many pro-choicers searching (or pretending to search) for some magical, mysterious point where the fetus - disposable magically becomes a baby - something they claim to want to protect. The magical, mysterious point is obvious - before fertilization no amount of wishing, praying, vitamins, medical science, etc. can turn an egg or a sperm into a baby...after fertilization it will happen naturally...

It seems to me that the debate over when life begins is an intellectually dishonest one that the pro-choice side is choosing to focus on because it can not deal with the truth of its opinion...which is that even though it means stopping a human in its earliest stages of development sometimes abortion is neccessary.

And for full disclosure....I'm pro-choice.

We establish the end of life (death) as when the brain stops functioning. Wouldn't it then make sense to establish the beginning of life as when the brain starts functioning?

 

[Gunny]

It is not murdered. I have no problems with two adult humans who like to have sex for fun. Contraception should be available and if an abortion is required, then that is their choice. The wrong choice IMO, but still their choice.

It boils down to destroying human life for no reason other than selfish convenience. Spells "murder" in MY book.

 

[Gunny]

Uh... HE'S a person... I do wish you guys would get that straight. Science and biology seem to elude you.

Science and biology don't allude me. You pro choice folk use it as your weapon du jour attempting to dehumanize human life so you can kill it and sleep okay at night.

 

[Gem]

Jillian Wrote:

I think that's an interesting position... and not unfair or unreasonable, though I don't agree with your "killing a human being in its earliest stages assessment". What I do think is that perhaps when dealing with extremists who don't believe in reproductive choice at all, even where the life of the mother is in danger, even when she's been raped or a victim of incest, perhaps one is forced to take harder positions than one might otherwise.

Thing is... assuming you raised the arguments you raise, do you think that the hardliners on the other side would be any less ferocious in their positon, or do you think they would see it as a concession and try to capitalize on it?

I think that both sides will attempt to capitalize on any bit of information they can that helps their side. A pro-lifer will show pictures of fetuses yawning and smiling and hiccupping in the womb at amazingly early stages of development as proof that abortion is murder while a pro-choicer will tell tales of woman brutalized or woman carrying children that might kill them as proof of why abortion is needed.

It does not change however, the fact that a new life begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell and that newly created zygote begins to develop. As I stated before - it is, in my opinion, the obvious biological beginning to human life. There is nothing political, nothing religious, nothing pro-life or pro-choice about that fact. It is simply where all humans begin biologically. An entirely new entity created from one man and one woman.

I do not think we should hide from facts because they might give ammunition to a "side" we oppose.

There is nothing weaker about the argument that abortion is stopping a human's development in its earliest stages but that is sometimes necessary than the arguement that it isn't killing anything at all until that magical point where we decide a fetus is worthy of being called a baby so we should be able to abort the fetus at any point for any reason up until that magical point.

In fact, I feel that by honestly answering these types of questions - without hiding from the uncomfortable answers or taking a harder line because we are afraid of extremists - we can come closer to an honest, albeit difficult middle ground.

 

[Gem]

MissileMan Wrote:

We establish the end of life (death) as when the brain stops functioning. Wouldn't it then make sense to establish the beginning of life as when the brain starts functioning?

Its an interesting point. I suppose I could argue that a human can continue to grow and develop if they are "brain dead" which is why the medical community makes the distinction between brain dead and just plain dead in the first place.

However - in normal human development death is the end. Brain death occurs in rare occassions but is not the norm...and the norm is what we really are discussing.

But the fact that it is possible to be brain dead does not alter the fact that after a sperm and egg connect development begins. Brain functioning is a natural part of that - but it is not the start of human development.

No person ever started with brain development but without a sperm and egg uniting. By the time brain development begins cells, dna, etc. have already been established - life has already begun. Brain development is a stage in human development - obviously, a crucial one, but it is not the first.

For the good of the abortion debate however, pro-choice people might want to be careful about stating that brain activity is what matters...ultrasound imaging has shown that 5 weeks after conception the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord and by week 6 those synapses are allowing fetal movement...it isn't dreaming and philosophising...but it is the earliest form of brain activity....followed by hicupping, yawning, etc. in the 8th weeks, etc.

The brain continues to develop throughout pregnancy and throughout human development...a baby isn't born with its brain fully developed...so obviously it isn't "proof" of life, its just a very important part of human development.

 

[Annie]

MissileMan Wrote:


Its an interesting point. I suppose I could argue that a human can continue to grow and develop if they are "brain dead" which is why the medical community makes the distinction between brain dead and just plain dead in the first place.

However - in normal human development death is the end. Brain death occurs in rare occassions but is not the norm...and the norm is what we really are discussing.

But the fact that it is possible to be brain dead does not alter the fact that after a sperm and egg connect development begins. Brain functioning is a natural part of that - but it is not the start of human development.

No person ever started with brain development but without a sperm and egg uniting. By the time brain development begins cells, dna, etc. have already been established - life has already begun. Brain development is a stage in human development - obviously, a crucial one, but it is not the first.

For the good of the abortion debate however, pro-choice people might want to be careful about stating that brain activity is what matters...ultrasound imaging has shown that 5 weeks after conception the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord and by week 6 those synapses are allowing fetal movement...it isn't dreaming and philosophising...but it is the earliest form of brain activity....followed by hicupping, yawning, etc. in the 8th weeks, etc.

The brain continues to develop throughout pregnancy and throughout human development...a baby isn't born with its brain fully developed...so obviously it isn't "proof" of life, its just a very important part of human development.

Gem I recognize your being pro-choice, which I disagree with. However, you are the first I've seen actually address what MRI, ultrasound are showing; that the 'foetus' is much more human like than most pro-choice wish to acknowledge.

Kind of reminds me of the end of life, let's say someone's beloved mother. While illness and age have ravaged her body, weight is under 70 pounds. Do you stop encouraging her to eat? Remember, the assumption is this is someone you love, that in the mental areas is within acceptable parameters and not in great pain. (Not going to those issues)

See, a 3 or 5 month old cells in utero is really basically complete, other than for 5-7 pounds.

 

[dilloduck]

I think that's an interesting position... and not unfair or unreasonable, though I don't agree with your "killing a human being in its earliest stages assessment". What I do think is that perhaps when dealing with extremists who don't believe in reproductive choice at all, even where the life of the mother is in danger, even when she's been raped or a victim of incest, perhaps one is forced to take harder positions than one might otherwise.

Thing is... assuming you raised the arguments you raise, do you think that the hardliners on the other side would be any less ferocious in their positon, or do you think they would see it as a concession and try to capitalize on it?

If you insist on assuming that all pro-lifers are extremists and formulate your defense to counter them, you appear dishonest to those who will accept abortion as a procedure to be used only to protect the life of another. Hardliners are much more rare than you think. Pro-lifers are generally in favor of anything that will prevent an unwanted pregnancy and most all forms of birth control.