My take on "when does life begin"

[iyfyoufhl]

I am agaist abortion, i know many people are going to trash me for being on the other side of the line, and i know they have their reasons. however, here is my reason for being agaist it.

at first there are to "life" cycles: sperm is created -- sperm evenually dies (hehe, choke, choke) egg is created -- egg destroyed both of these have a natural beginning and an end

however when two, mentioned above, meet a new cycle is created and i beleave this new cycles is a human being

that is why i think abortion is wrong because it's the "manual" ending of this "new cycles" which would naturally end with a person's death, there for abortion is murder ( i hate to use that word though)

anyway, feel free do trash my view:smoking:

 

[Yuri]

What's your opinion on contraceptives, then?

I would like to respect your opinion, but the sheer fact that it may result in denying women the right to take a pill to end an unwanted pregnancy is very disturbing to me.

 

[Cole]

I am pro choice. Thats my morals. But what do I believe should be the real answer?
What has constitional rights? Is the fetus considered a citizen?

If you are pro choice then if we defined a fetus with no rights until it has come out of the womb then if a murderer shoots a women thats pregant and killed the fetus inside of her and the women he can only be charged with one murder.
Yet if you are against abortion and we define a fetus to have all the rights as everything else...the man must be charged with two murders. Or if there were twins, three murders. Cencus on population must include unborn children to.

Although that has not been defined. Abortion has been allowed by womens privacy.

If abortion is murder then you are giving all the rights I have to that unborn baby. What if a mother goes into a school and wants her baby to be taught. Her baby is not yet born. The baby has all the rights as a citizen. Then they are denying citizens the right to learn. Big conflicts arise.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

What's your opinion on contraceptives, then?

I would like to respect your opinion, but the sheer fact that it may result in denying women the right to take a pill to end an unwanted pregnancy is very disturbing to me.

condoms, birth control, and everything that prevents sperm and egg from meeting thus not starting a new "cycle" is cool (according to my view)

but the "morning pill" is wrong because it's used already after the sperm and egg met, therefore it's ending already started cycle

listen, i have a girlfriend myself, and i have to think about this issue alot, i understand it's inhuman and all. i'm just stating a point "why not"

 

[iyfyoufhl]

I am pro choice. Thats my morals. But what do I believe should be the real answer?
What has constitional rights? Is the fetus considered a citizen?

If you are pro choice then if we defined a fetus with no rights until it has come out of the womb then if a murderer shoots a women thats pregant and killed the fetus inside of her and the women he can only be charged with one murder.
Yet if you are against abortion and we define a fetus to have all the rights as everything else...the man must be charged with two murders. Or if there were twins, three murders. Cencus on population must include unborn children to.

Although that has not been defined. Abortion has been allowed by womens privacy.

If abortion is murder then you are giving all the rights I have to that unborn baby. What if a mother goes into a school and wants her baby to be taught. Her baby is not yet born. The baby has all the rights as a citizen. Then they are denying citizens the right to learn. Big conflicts arise.

great points, but i'm not talking about the issue of citizen rights, i'm trying to pin point a moment when a human's life is started and when it's considered murder or not

 

[Yuri]

condoms, birth control, and everything that prevents sperm and egg from meeting thus not starting a new "cycle" is cool (according to my view)

but the "morning pill" is wrong because it's used already after the sperm and egg met, therefore it's ending already started cycle

listen, i have a girlfriend myself, and i have to think about this issue alot, i understand it's inhuman and all. i'm just stating a point "why not"

Ugh. If they ever illegalize the morning after pill, I will personally kill a politician. :|

You can't pin the moment when life begins because its heavily ethical in nature, and hardly scientific. You could do it scientifically with functions in the brains and the growth of certain parts of the body, but that hardly proves anything.

The fact is, people will have sex without wanting kids. Some ridiculous number of pregnancies are unplanned. The world will be a much much much better place if it is both legal and not such a huge ridiculous ordeal to get abortions. It should be in the right of the mother to decide, as it is her body. While a born baby relies on a mother to live, it is not personal to that mother's body. An unborn baby can only live inside its mother, neither have a choice in the matter.



That said, I really think abortions done after the first trimester are sick and disturbing. If you aren't completely sure the moment you know you are pregnant that you want an abortion-- you should not have an abortion.

But the morning after pill is a completely different story...

 

[Element Alpha]

condoms, birth control, and everything that prevents sperm and egg from meeting thus not starting a new "cycle" is cool (according to my view)

You aren't very informed, are you?

http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_birth.html

Most birth control pills are "combination pills" containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn't ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.

The part I marked bold means a fertilized egg won't be able to hang on and will instead be disposed of during el días del diablo de la sangre*.

I recommend a view of life where you are not ashamed of things just because someone else says you should. Think these things through for yourself. Listen to your parents or friends and evaluate what they say. But in the end we all have to decide for ourselves. Why would anyone let others decide what is good for them?

*el días del diablo de la sangre: periods

 

[iyfyoufhl]

You can't pin the moment when life begins because its heavily ethical in nature, and hardly scientific.

.

well, what do you think about my logicaly construsted theory that i described in the beginning of this thread? about the different cycles and sh!t

 

[Maxi]

You can't pin the moment when life begins because its heavily ethical in nature, and hardly scientific.

 

[Ludah]

Zygote =/= Human

This really isn't about when "life" forms or whatever. It's about when you decide a clump of cells has rights. I believe there's room for debate when the nervous system is formed, but anything prior to that? I don't think so. I don't see why cycles should hold any significance in this.

 

[Yuri]

You can't pin the moment when life begins because its heavily ethical in nature, and hardly scientific.

Hehe... thanks

 

[iyfyoufhl]

You aren't very informed, are you?

http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_birth.html

Most birth control pills are "combination pills" containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn't ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.

The part I marked bold means a fertilized egg won't be able to hang on and will instead be disposed of during el días del diablo de la sangre*.

I recommend a view of life where you are not ashamed of things just because someone else says you should. Think these things through for yourself. Listen to your parents or friends and evaluate what they say. But in the end we all have to decide for ourselves. Why would anyone let others decide what is good for them?

*el días del diablo de la sangre: periods

are you even reading my posts, i said that control pills are ok


you guys altogether miss my point of what i was trying to say, please, please, read the first post carefully and try to see my logic

ps. it has nothing to do with ethics, just plain chain of beginnings and ends of different cycles

 

[theotherguy]

Let me put it this way.

You are in a fertility clinic with a child. Let's say that it is not your child. The child is four years old. As you're sitting there in the fertility clinic a fire breaks out. Somehow, you and the child get seperated from each other in the fire. Next to you there is a tray filled with vials containing 10,000 fertilized embryos. You only have enough time to save one of the two. If you take the vials the child will die in the fire, if you go and save the child, the 10,000 embryos will die.

Most likely, anyone would save the child.

It is not a debate on what is living or when life begins, it is a matter of what is a person, and what is not. The child is a person because it can feel, think, grow and learn. The embryos are only potential people. True the embryos are technically living, but so is a skin cell, so is a bacterium. Murder is the killing of a person, not the killing of a single-celled organism.

EDIT: what are you talking about with cycles? The circle of life? Then in that case killing anything would be unethical. just scratching your skin would be unethical because you are killing microbes.

 

[DrDevin]

that is why i think abortion is wrong because it's the "manual" ending of this "new cycles" which would naturally end with a person's death

10a: Naturalistic Fallacy:
Any claim that draws an ethical conclusion from whether something is "natural" or unnatural" is invalid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

You can argue that you are the product of matter, you form into a bundle of cells and then some other matter breaks you down again. Not knowing pain or having any memories in the process.

I think abortion should never happen but if it must (ie better for child and mother) then it is the best thing to do.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

fine, i'm pro choice, but a human life does begin in the moment when egg and sperm meet,
once the baby is out of the womb it's more important than when he/she was inside

and "theotherguy" you are mixing human emotions into this, i was kind of trying to keep this totally logical (like looking from an alien side of view (sorry very stupid example))

 

[The Kaiser]

Truthfully, I've always been Pro-Life, and will continue to be so. My beliefs reflect that life begins at the moment of conception, and simply put, that is how it is in my opinion. Therefore, I believe anything, from abortion to a stabbing that results in a pregnancy ending is murder of the unborn child.

If abortion is murder then you are giving all the rights I have to that unborn baby. What if a mother goes into a school and wants her baby to be taught. Her baby is not yet born. The baby has all the rights as a citizen. Then they are denying citizens the right to learn. Big conflicts arise.

The problem with that example is it doesn't make sense. The mother is obviously an idiot, and anyone who doesn't smack anyone agreeing with such is also an idiot. The child at such a young point in life simply cannot comprehend knowledge of any kind. Therefore, that just doesn't work.

 

[Ravioli]

See it from the parents view...your in school, you are poor, no money, you have to work after school, your parents doesnt give a shit about you...and now you have a baby to support, watch over 24/7, buy food, buy necessary things to, medical stuff, always be there, change dypers, pay for school, school suplies, blabalbalbalba, all this together with your already hell life. Its better to just not let the life start instead of bringing the life to your already destructive life that adopts into the child causing its childhood to be bad and making its future bad since the environment is horrible. Why bring life to such a destructive environment? I would rather give it peace before it can experiance the horrible things of life.

Or what if you are a young woman that has her whole life ahead of her, nice education, going to have a nice job after college (sp? lol) but ohh...ohh no...she has sperm inside of her body!!! OH NOES!!!! SHE CANT GET THE JOB!!!! She cant continue study!!! People are judgeing her! Oh my god!!! Panic!!! Whats going on?!??! Is that a gun? POFF...

ya, i rather go for the abortion.

 

[theotherguy]

fine, i'm pro choice, but a human life does begin in the moment when egg and sperm meet,
once the baby is out of the womb it's more important than when he/she was inside

and "theotherguy" you are mixing human emotions into this, i was kind of trying to keep this totally logical (like looking from an alien side of view (sorry very stupid example))

okay, so lets look at it this way.

Life is defined by a few charachteristics:
It uses and stores energy
It responds to stimuli
It is capable of reproducing

now its not a question of where life begins, those cells were always living. Nobody complains every month when a woman goes through menstruation and an egg dies. Nobody complains when unfertilized eggs die through contraception.

You're pinning life on the zygote, not the egg or the sperm, when in fact both are living cells. The same argument could be made for skin cells, liver cells, immune cells.

So what you're concerned about is that the fertilized cell is now a potential person. Just because the mass of cells now has the capability to become a person doesn't make it a person, and it therefore cannot be given human rights.

Every cell has the potential of becoming a human being if given the right instructions by RNA and the presence of a stem cell. Every cell has the potential to become a human being if it is put inside an unfertilized egg. So should our other bodily cells be given human rights? Should I be convicted of mass murder if I purposefully bruise myself?

Or how about this:

A lab technician carries a vial full of fertilized eggs in it in hopes of implanting it in a surrogate mother. However, he doesn't like the way the eggs turned out, so he pours them down the sink and starts again with another batch. Should the lab technician be guilty of murder? What if he trips and the vial breaks? should he be convicted of manslaughter?

 

[secret friend]

life begins the moment your dad's sperm is created

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Citizens are beings who are capable of following the law.

If you are incapable of following laws, for any reason, you have signifigantly less rights as a result.

That is why children are kept in the custody of their parents, while adults are only kept in custody if they commit a crime. Also, it is why animals can't vote.

For all intents and purposes, those with less rights are property whose quality of life is enforced by the government. Kids can be forced to go to school, but they can't be abused, for example.

As a result, an adult woman has far more rights than a child. A child has more rights than a baby. And, at the furthest reaches of the spectrum, we have everything between the first trimester and a zygote.

It's as far from being equal to an adult woman as something made of our cells can be.
And this isn't for no reason.

Before the twelth week (when 90-something percent of abortions happen), the fetus (or proto-fetus or cell cluster) is devoid of functioning nerves, as well as no conscious brain.

Comparatively, it is approximately as human a corpse hooked up to an aquarium pump.
The conventional standard for humanity is, after all, the presence of a functioning mind.
That's why so many people were trying to pressure everyone into believing Schiavo could still react to light and such.
And also why the same folk dropped Schiavo like a hot (cold?) potato once the autopsy discovered that her brain was dead and her eyes were blind all along.
People might balk at how I'm comparing non-sentient fetuses to the braindead, but they might as well be. Somewhere around 12%-25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, almost always as a result of genetic issues and almost always before the 20th week, yet no-one declares a pandemic.
It's a normal process from which abortion is only slightly different, because it is intentional.

So, you need to weigh the options here:

The rights of a potential Maybe Zombie (as good a description of a first-trimester fetus as any).

or

The rights of a woman who is fully conscious, has full rights, and who has literally tons of resources invested into her by her friends, family and so on.

So why shouldn't the woman just suck it up and have the kid against her will?

I'm not one to drop the r-bomb too often but, for all intents, an abortion ban is a form of state-sponsored rape, theft and other fun things.
It basically says "George Bush gets forcible control your genitals for the next year or so. Then, he will commandeer your lifestyle and finances for the subseqent 16 years or more - unless you want to give up contact with your (?) child."
Feel free to replace "George Bush" in that sentence with any/every other anti-abortion advocate.
That's literally two decades of state-enforced slavery, targeting all fertile women.
Anyone who can get pregnant.

So those are the options.
Now it's pretty clear to me that the rights of full citizens outweigh those of the cells.

As for banning the M-A pill because it affects a sperm-egg cluster far less than one day old, I'd call that stupetarded.

 

[DreadLord]

Post

QFTMFT

 

[Yuri]

As for banning the M-A pill because it affects a sperm-egg cluster far less than one day old, I'd call that stupetarded.

Probably the best word for that, yes.

Also, jumbled-letters-guy, you do realize that birth control pills are almost exactly the same as morning-after pills? And that you can take a birth control pill the morning after for the same effect?

 

[anime_fan]

Probably the best word for that, yes.

Also, jumbled-letters-guy, you do realize that birth control pills are almost exactly the same as morning-after pills? And that you can take a birth control pill the morning after for the same effect?

actaully no,also the morning after pill is a strong chemical mix,Women should strongly consider,just taking the pill on a regaulr basis,rather then the morning after pill.Which could be hazardous yo your health If you just take it every "morning after"

 

[Yuri]

Actually, yes. The morning after pill is generally just a higher dosage of the birth control pill. Depending on the pill, they have the same general effects.

Yes, you're not supposed to use the morning after pill every morning after. A lot because its not that effective, and some more because birth control pills are designed to be taken daily, which alters a woman's hormones. The morning after pill is meant as an emergency if you don't use the birth control pill already.



The fact is there's lots of different kinds of birth control pills and EC pills. But they generally do the same thing. If you support one, you support the other.

 

[anime_fan]

I just think the morning after pill is unhealthy.

 

[Yuri]

Well it isn't. :|

Like any drug, it has complications. But it extremely, extremely rare that anything serious will happen. At the very most, nausea occurs.

You should compare the possible complications of EC pills and actual pregnancy and birth. You will see that one is far, far, far, far, far more dangerous than another.

 

[anime_fan]

If the "morning after pill is taken on a regual basis,then its unhealthy.Thats why Im saying women should take the "norma pill" on a regual basis,and NOT forget it taking it so they dont have to take the mornin after pill in the first place ,are you a girl btw? I dont mean to affend you, just want to make sure.

 

[Yuri]

Yeah, you're probably right, its not healthy to take often. That's what the birth control pill is for, sometimes its basically the same synthetic hormones as the ED pill, just in a more healthy and systematic way. I'm not sure what I was arguing with you about anyways

My point was, EC pills shouldn't be thought of as dangerous or hazardous to your health so long as you don't use them every few days. That's why they say "emergency" in the name

My other general point was, (not aimed at you, anime_fan) if you support the birth control pill, you support the EC pill. There's no way around that, because they are usually the same thing with the same effect. It makes no sense to support the birth control pill but not support the EC pill.

 

[Ludah]

fine, i'm pro choice, but a human life does begin in the moment when egg and sperm meet,

No. Dead wrong. That is the formation of a zygote.

And for ****'s sake, people. Stop throwing aroung terms like pro-life and pro-choice, because that is probably the mother of all modern false dilemmas. Everybody is pro-life and pro-choice. It's abortion that is the issue.

 

[Yuri]

Well you can't say pro-abortion because that implies that you want people to have abortions. Most people don't want to encourage abortions, they just want the person to be able to choose. Although I can see anti-abortion making a lot more sense than pro-life.

 

[Ikerous]

And for ****'s sake, people. Stop throwing aroung terms like pro-life and pro-choice, because that is probably the mother of all modern false dilemmas. Everybody is pro-life and pro-choice. It's abortion that is the issue.

Why does it matter.. you obviously understood what he meant...
Its a term that has a meaning other than the literal interpretation of its parts

I'm pro choice but I find abortion immoral.
(For now at least)
And life begins at conception (But thats way too much typing to explain why...)

 

[Ludah]

Why does it matter.. you obviously understood what he meant...
Its a term that has a meaning other than the literal interpretation of its parts

In a perfect world.

What usually comes with the terminology is a whole slew of connotations that people like to lord over their opponents in an effort to seem morally superior. That's an entire level of bullshit that I think the debate could do without.

And on a more personal note, I think that accepting that kind of fallacious terminology undermines the significance and usefulness of language.

 

[The Kaiser]

Citizens are beings who are capable of following the law.

If you are incapable of following laws, for any reason, you have signifigantly less rights as a result.

That is why children are kept in the custody of their parents, while adults are only kept in custody if they commit a crime. Also, it is why animals can't vote.

For all intents and purposes, those with less rights are property whose quality of life is enforced by the government. Kids can be forced to go to school, but they can't be abused, for example.

As a result, an adult woman has far more rights than a child. A child has more rights than a baby. And, at the furthest reaches of the spectrum, we have everything between the first trimester and a zygote.

It's as far from being equal to an adult woman as something made of our cells can be.
And this isn't for no reason.

Before the twelth week (when 90-something percent of abortions happen), the fetus (or proto-fetus or cell cluster) is devoid of functioning nerves, as well as no conscious brain.

Comparatively, it is approximately as human a corpse hooked up to an aquarium pump.
The conventional standard for humanity is, after all, the presence of a functioning mind.
That's why so many people were trying to pressure everyone into believing Schiavo could still react to light and such.
And also why the same folk dropped Schiavo like a hot (cold?) potato once the autopsy discovered that her brain was dead and her eyes were blind all along.
People might balk at how I'm comparing non-sentient fetuses to the braindead, but they might as well be. Somewhere around 12%-25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, almost always as a result of genetic issues and almost always before the 20th week, yet no-one declares a pandemic.
It's a normal process from which abortion is only slightly different, because it is intentional.

First off however, unlike brain-dead people, unborn children have not "yet" grown a developing mind. In time if left undisturbed, the unborn child will have a developed mind. However, saying simply because it doesn't have one "yet" because you've got it before it has the chance to, isn't exactly fair.

Secondly, no one declares a pandemic because that's just a process of the body, there's nothing that can be done against a miscarriage. Abortion however, is a targeted, man-made instrument to purposely kill the child.

Also, in terms of rights; you are correct in saying that a woman's or man's rights are often greater than a child's, and so on. However, there is always one right everyone should be entitled. The right to Life. No one here can say just because a child has less rights than an adult, that the adult has more of a right to life than the child (And more often in history, often precedence has been given to women and children to live over men, from escape boats to other things), and the same goes for unborn children. They might not have many rights, but they have just as much a right to life as any other member of society.

So, you need to weigh the options here:

The rights of a potential Maybe Zombie (as good a description of a first-trimester fetus as any).

How about developing child? It's a lot more accurate, and verdmannt well less offensive.

or

The rights of a woman who is fully conscious, has full rights, and who has literally tons of resources invested into her by her friends, family and so on.

Because she got the chance to become developed and be born? Is'nt it a bit funny that all those who chant for the right to have an abortion are completely and utterly safe from abortion themselves? And what happens when that unborn child has the father wanting it to be allowed to live, and the mother against it? They're both the parents, with support. What happens then?

So why shouldn't the woman just suck it up and have the kid against her will?

I'm not one to drop the r-bomb too often but, for all intents, an abortion ban is a form of state-sponsored rape, theft and other fun things.
It basically says "George Bush gets forcible control your genitals for the next year or so. Then, he will commandeer your lifestyle and finances for the subseqent 16 years or more - unless you want to give up contact with your (?) child."
Feel free to replace "George Bush" in that sentence with any/every other anti-abortion advocate.
That's literally two decades of state-enforced slavery, targeting all fertile women.
Anyone who can get pregnant.

What about women who are against abortion? Are they "forcing slavery/rape" on themselves? No, their opinion is it is a life, and that is something that would be a law to protect certain citizens of the U.S. This isn't a man v. women issue here.

So those are the options.
Now it's pretty clear to me that the rights of full citizens outweigh those of the cells.

And it's clear to me that simply put all citizens have the right to life, just as much as any other person in the world. Stage of life makes no difference, as we were all a "zombie" at one point.

 

[Maxi]

First off however, unlike brain-dead people, unborn children have not "yet" grown a developing mind. In time if left undisturbed, the unborn child will have a developed mind. However, saying simply because it doesn't have one "yet" because you've got it before it has the chance to, isn't exactly fair.

Secondly, no one declares a pandemic because that's just a process of the body, there's nothing that can be done against a miscarriage. Abortion however, is a targeted, man-made instrument to purposely kill the child.

Also, in terms of rights; you are correct in saying that a woman's or man's rights are often greater than a child's, and so on. However, there is always one right everyone should be entitled. The right to Life. No one here can say just because a child has less rights than an adult, that the adult has more of a right to life than the child (And more often in history, often precedence has been given to women and children to live over men, from escape boats to other things), and the same goes for unborn children. They might not have many rights, but they have just as much a right to life as any other member of society.



How about developing child? It's a lot more accurate, and verdmannt well less offensive.



Because she got the chance to become developed and be born? Is'nt it a bit funny that all those who chant for the right to have an abortion are completely and utterly safe from abortion themselves? And what happens when that unborn child has the father wanting it to be allowed to live, and the mother against it? They're both the parents, with support. What happens then?



What about women who are against abortion? Are they "forcing slavery/rape" on themselves? No, their opinion is it is a life, and that is something that would be a law to protect certain citizens of the U.S. This isn't a man v. women issue here.



And it's clear to me that simply put all citizens have the right to life, just as much as any other person in the world. Stage of life makes no difference, as we were all a "zombie" at one point.

This is one of those things that I don't understand. Why does abortion have to be illegal? if you don't support it, fine don't get an abortion. If you support it, great! go get one now! Making abortion illegal doesn't solve anything.

 

[theotherguy]

everyone is lucky to be alive. There are so many things that could have happened to change the course of events to make us not the people who we are. It's trivial to say something like, "you're just supporting it because you're safe from abortion". Of course I am! I am lucky to be alive, because so many events led up to me being alive that me just being here defies all odds.

But I'm not special. If I had been aborted I wouldn't have cared. I would be dead, I wouldn't be here to care about it, because I would have never had a brain to begin with and I would never have suffered. However, the child who would have been born eventually in my place woudl have considered themselves lucky.

You see, there are literally thousands of potential people inside every woman. There are millions of potential people when you combine that with the millions of sperm from every man. In essence, by your standards, every one of those cells has a right to "life", so to be fully ethical by your standards we would have to take every egg out of every woman, and every sperm out of every man, and fertilize them all and hope for the best.

The truth is, the one egg that does get fertilized is one of thousands, millions even billions of possible eggs, and removing it from the wall of the uterus woudl do no more harm than monthly menstruation, since from the same father there are still millions of sperm to be had and from the same mother thousands of eggs.

The cells that are growing inside a mother are a part of the mother. They are cells produced by her, fed by her and grown by her. They are basically a tumor growing on the wall of the uterus until they form a fully functioning baby in nine months. That baby should not be considered a person or have rights until it can think, feel and desire.

 

[The Kaiser]

This is one of those things that I don't understand. Why does abortion have to be illegal? if you don't support it, fine don't get an abortion. If you support it, great! go get one now! Making abortion illegal doesn't solve anything.

Because it's another life that's about to be taken away unjustly? Why do we pay attention to every time there's a murder or whatnot? Because its' a person losing their life.

You see, there are literally thousands of potential people inside every woman. There are millions of potential people when you combine that with the millions of sperm from every man. In essence, by your standards, every one of those cells has a right to "life", so to be fully ethical by your standards we would have to take every egg out of every woman, and every sperm out of every man, and fertilize them all and hope for the best.

No, because those eggs and sperm are not lives. They will not grow into a fully-functional person if left alone. Therefore, there is nothing to be done for them or about them. My standard is a fertilized egg, not just normal eggs or sperm. Please, words in mouth, stop.

The truth is, the one egg that does get fertilized is one of thousands, millions even billions of possible eggs, and removing it from the wall of the uterus woudl do no more harm than monthly menstruation, since from the same father there are still millions of sperm to be had and from the same mother thousands of eggs.

But the problem is that it is already a life beginning to start. And abortion is not just "another form of menstruation". It is a deliberate tactic used to kill an unborn child. Menstruation is a natural process of the body.

You're right, there are infinite amounts of children that can be had, but seemingly if the woman's willing to abort one child, what's to say she's going to have any of them? The life's already starting, let it grow out.

 

[Maxi]

Because it's another life that's about to be taken away unjustly? Why do we pay attention to every time there's a murder or whatnot? Because its' a person losing their life.

It's not a person. It's a potential person. And in some circumstances the mother will lose her life in the sense that she might not get an education, she might loose her job and so forth.

 

[The Kaiser]

It's not a person. It's a potential person. And in some circumstances the mother will lose her life in the sense that she might not get an education, she might loose her job and so forth.

In the majority of cases, then she shouldn't have had sex. There are consequences when you take risks, and they're not always fun. Unless raped, you choose to have sex, you should have to deal with the consequences. The child shouldn't have to pay for your mistakes.

And to me it is a person, regardless of what stage it is at.

And the you and such are just general, not directed at anyone.

 

[CptStern]

people like you need to stfu ..unless you're faced with the choice you have no right to make a judgement on something you have no clue about. The state has zero say in what people do with their bodies it's moralizing ****s such as yourself that feel they have a right to impose their morality on other people ...until you are in that position, unless YOU have to make that choice and have to live with the consequences of your choice you have no idea how difficult it is ..in the meantime shut the **** up

 

[Llama]

people like you need to stfu ..unless you're faced with the choice you have no right to make a judgement on something you have no clue about. The state has zero say in what people do with their bodies it's moralizing ****s such as yourself that feel they have a right to impose their morality on other people ...until you are in that position, unless YOU have to make that choice and have to live with the consequences of your choice you have no idea how difficult it is ..in the meantime shut the **** up

^
What he said - A woman should have rights above the rights of a lump of ****ing cells.

<3 Stern