Zone1 A Question For Pro-Choicers

[frigidweirdo]

If babies aren't alive in the womb then how does abortion exist? After all, how can you kill somebody who was never alive in the first place?

Define "alive"

 

[JGalt]

Speaking for me, I differentiate between human DNA and a person. If you think of a few strands of DNA in a cell too small to see, you certainly have that right. I just don't share that view, a person has a brain that is unique in the animal world.

Then I assume you'd have no problem drinking or ingesting something that would kill every bit of the DNA in your body. Like maybe household/commercial bleach (6% NaOCl, sodium hypochlorite) that degrades DNA
through oxidative damage, production of chlorinated base products, and cleavage of DNA strands, breaking it into smaller and smaller fragments.

It's not a living "person", it's just DNA.

 

[Sixties Fan]

And they have EVERY RIGHT not to have unprotected sex.

Another idiotic response.
Not every condom works. You do know that.

Enough of your religious extremist answers.

 

[initforme]

Exactly. That is if you don't want any.

That's the trend and it's a healthy trend. More childless middle aged couples. Abortion will go away as the trend continues.

 

[Road Runner]

Another idiotic response.
Not every condom works. You do know that.

Enough of your religious extremist answers.

For the record I'm currently on birth control pills.

That's the trend and it's a healthy trend. More childless middle aged couples. Abortion will go away as the trend continues.

Yeah, but I still plan on having kids soon, so as long as it's planned and I want them (I would NEVER choose to abort them anyways) then there isn't an issue.

 

[Sixties Fan]

For the record I'm currently on birth control pills.




Yeah, but I still plan on having kids soon, so as long as it's planned and I want them (I would NEVER choose to abort them anyways) then there isn't an issue.

That is the point of being Pro Choice.

It is YOUR CHOICE.

 

[dblack]

For me, it's purely a question of sovereignty. Government has no business meddling with the internal processes of our bodies.

The thing is, and this is hard for both sides of the culture war to accept but, government can't prevent all evil, and mostly, it shouldn't try. It should protect the rights of born people and stop trying to regulate procreation.

 

[Road Runner]

That is the point of being Pro Choice.

It is YOUR CHOICE.

Preventing a pregnancy isn't the same thing as ending one though.

 

[initforme]

God has given us the knowledge to create birth control. For a reason.

 

[Road Runner]

For me, it's purely a question of sovereignty. Government has no business meddling with the internal processes of our bodies.

Does the government have any business telling us that we can't kill our children?

 

[Zincwarrior]

If babies aren't alive in the womb then how does abortion exist? After all, how can you kill somebody who was never alive in the first place?

Tumors are alive too. Uteruses, moles, parasites. Your argument doesn't work.

For the record I agree, but disagree that government can interfere.

 

[Road Runner]

Tumors are alive too. Uteruses, moles, parasites. Your argument doesn't work.

Alright then I should have said living human beings.

 

[dblack]

Does the government have any business telling us that we can't kill our children?

Sure. They're separate people. But untill they are (ie until they "born"), it's solely up to the mother what happens to them.

 

[Road Runner]

Sure. They're separate people. But untill they are (ie until they "born"), it's solely up to the mother what happens to them.

So their mother has no say in what happens to them after they're born? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound right now?

 

[dblack]

So their mother has no say in what happens to them after they're born? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound right now?

What??? Yes

their mother has no say in what happens to them after they're born

...is ridiculous. But I didn't say that. You did.

 

[alang1216]

A fully formed baby is not a few strands of DNA to small to see though, so there's a line that has to be drawn. Where do you draw that line?

Agreed. I was fine with RvW and the trimesters. I'd say, 1st trimester, the mother gets to decide, no restrictions. Second trimester, there has to be a medical or similar issue. Third trimester, there has be a non-viable baby or the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

 

[Sixties Fan]

So their mother has no say in what happens to them after they're born? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound right now?

You distort what that poster said.

You are not winning this argument.

Make your choices and let others make theirs.

Everyone is responsible for their own decisions.

 

[Road Runner]

What??? Yes

...is ridiculous. But I didn't say that. You did.

The mother has every say what happens to their child before and after they're born that's why they're the mother, but as their mother (or father as they should have parental rights too) they should want to do what's best for their child or children if it's multiples.

 

[alang1216]

Then I assume you'd have no problem drinking or ingesting something that would kill every bit of the DNA in your body. Like maybe household/commercial bleach (6% NaOCl, sodium hypochlorite) that degrades DNA
through oxidative damage, production of chlorinated base products, and cleavage of DNA strands, breaking it into smaller and smaller fragments.

It's not a living "person", it's just DNA.

You could kill a whole lot of the cells in my body and I'd still be me. You can't say the same about a fertilized egg.

 

[dblack]

The mother has every say what happens to their child before and after they're born that's why they're the mother, but as their mother (or father as they should have parental rights too) they should want to do what's best for their child or children if it's multiples.

Ok.