"pro-life groups" (rant)

[mindless_moder]

i tend to lean toward a pro-abortion stance but i can understand the controversy within the argument. however through the advancements made in science there will be no further basis for such arguments because it will allow birth control to reach appropriate standards and with these new reliable sources of birth control there will be no need for such an argument. the irony however is that prolifers are against contraceptives that would prevent abortion, which is completely beyond me.

 

[Krynn72]

Im gunna copy/paste what I said about this in another forum:

Dale is saying its a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, and not a mans. This is true enough, but we arnt talking about her body. The topic of abortion isnt about the woman. It is about the life inside her, separate from her own, that is the issue. And as part of the human race, men have the right (some would even say an obligation) to fight for another human's right to live. If you want to pierce your body, get tattoos, set yourself on fire, or do anything else to your body, then go ahead. The second it can harm someone else's life is when it becomes duty for others to intervene with your actions. Its a woman's choice to get pregnant. But once she is, its not her choice to change her mind and end another person's life by having an abortion.


Note: Dale was a guy who was in the argument on the other forum.

 

[mindless_moder]

Im gunna copy/paste what I said about this in another forum:

Dale is saying its a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, and not a mans. This is true enough, but we arnt talking about her body. The topic of abortion isnt about the woman. It is about the life inside her, separate from her own, that is the issue. And as part of the human race, men have the right (some would even say an obligation) to fight for another human's right to live. If you want to pierce your body, get tattoos, set yourself on fire, or do anything else to your body, then go ahead. The second it can harm someone else's life is when it becomes duty for others to intervene with your actions. Its a woman's choice to get pregnant. But once she is, its not her choice to change her mind and end another person's life by having an abortion.


Note: Dale was a guy who was in the argument on the other forum.

ok.. but how do you define when life begins ? i would hardly call a fertilized egg "living" .

 

[theotherguy]

Im gunna copy/paste what I said about this in another forum:

Dale is saying its a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, and not a mans. This is true enough, but we arnt talking about her body. The topic of abortion isnt about the woman. It is about the life inside her, separate from her own, that is the issue. And as part of the human race, men have the right (some would even say an obligation) to fight for another human's right to live. If you want to pierce your body, get tattoos, set yourself on fire, or do anything else to your body, then go ahead. The second it can harm someone else's life is when it becomes duty for others to intervene with your actions. Its a woman's choice to get pregnant. But once she is, its not her choice to change her mind and end another person's life by having an abortion.


Note: Dale was a guy who was in the argument on the other forum.

Then, might I ask, should we save all of the womens eggs, and all of the mans sperms, fertilize them all, and then turn them into people? Because, after all, we're dealing with another life here, right?

In fact we're dealing with millions upon millions of combinations of potential people here, all of which could potentially become people. After all, if its the woman's choice to get pregnant, its her choice also to not get pregnant, and thereby deny life to the millions of potential people in her body.

Why, under that logic we should encourage women to have sex as often and as much as possible, so that none of that precious potential life is wasted!

The point I am trying to make here is this: There is absolutley nothing special about a fertilized egg that makes it any different from the seperate eggs and sperms. It is an extension of the woman's body. A product manufactured by her out of her own will, her own resources and her own materials. That fertilized egg has no will to live. It did not desire to be born, and has no priveliged notion that it should be alive, any more than the millions of unfertilized eggs and sperms that die every day.

A person, a human being, unlike a fertilized egg or a foetus, has a desire to live. It is self sufficient. Even babies are more self sufficient than foetuses. They breathe their own air through their own lungs, digest their own food, think for themselves, and move themselves. A foetous is nothing more than an organ of the mother until it can leave the womb and live on its own. It is therefore the responsibility of the mother to decide whether or not it lives, as it is her investment.

I am not denying that a zygote or a foetus is living. Every cell of the mothers body is living. But what zygotes and foetuses and blobs of blastocysts being harvested for stem cells are not are people. People deserve rights, but just because something is living does not mean it deserves rights. If that were the case we'd have to give rights to every bacterium, every skin cell, every human organ, every animal, plant and fungus in the world. Although that sounds quite ideal, its rather impractical.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I'm pro-choice simply because it means ripping fetuses out of women's vaginas.

And well, dammit that's something I support.

 

[Krynn72]

Then, might I ask, should we save all of the womens eggs, and all of the mans sperms, fertilize them all, and then turn them into people? Because, after all, we're dealing with another life here, right?

In fact we're dealing with millions upon millions of combinations of potential people here, all of which could potentially become people. After all, if its the woman's choice to get pregnant, its her choice also to not get pregnant, and thereby deny life to the millions of potential people in her body.

Why, under that logic we should encourage women to have sex as often and as much as possible, so that none of that precious potential life is wasted!

The point I am trying to make here is this: There is absolutely nothing special about a fertilized egg that makes it any different from the separate eggs and sperms. It is an extension of the woman's body. A product manufactured by her out of her own will, her own resources and her own materials. That fertilized egg has no will to live. It did not desire to be born, and has no privileged notion that it should be alive, any more than the millions of unfertilized eggs and sperms that die every day.

A person, a human being, unlike a fertilized egg or a fetus, has a desire to live. It is self sufficient. Even babies are more self sufficient than foetuses. They breathe their own air through their own lungs, digest their own food, think for themselves, and move themselves. A foetous is nothing more than an organ of the mother until it can leave the womb and live on its own. It is therefore the responsibility of the mother to decide whether or not it lives, as it is her investment.

I am not denying that a zygote or a foetus is living. Every cell of the mothers body is living. But what zygotes and foetuses and blobs of blastocysts being harvested for stem cells are not are people. People deserve rights, but just because something is living does not mean it deserves rights. If that were the case we'd have to give rights to every bacterium, every skin cell, every human organ, every animal, plant and fungus in the world. Although that sounds quite ideal, its rather impractical.

In my opinion when a woman is pregnant, she has a person inside of her. If its "complete" then I believe it should be considered a human life. When I say complete, I mean that it has all the necessary parts it needs to grow into a human being. An unfertilized egg isn't a person, because on its own it will never grow into a person. Same for a sperm, and all the other cells or living things. If it has a future as a human person, then I believe it should have human rights.

And I'm not saying that we shouldn't waste any chance of having a baby. If you arnt pregnant, then you arnt taking away a life. If you abort a fetus (which, like i said, is in my opinion is something that should be considered human) then you are taking away someone's life, because, again, in my opinion, you have already given it life.

And I think everyone agrees that once its "alive", its not someone else's choice to snuff out that life.

Also the argument isnt about womens rights, its not about choice, its about when a human person truly becomes human. And I find it completely ignorant of the topic when people bring up women's rights and all that bullshit, because that has nothing to do with it. Nobody, woman or man, can have "right" or a "choice" to end another's life. So the only thing to discuss is when a human is actually alive.

 

[theotherguy]

In my opinion when a woman is pregnant, she has a person inside of her. If its "complete" then I believe it should be considered a human life. When I say complete, I mean that it has all the necessary parts it needs to grow into a human being. An unfertilized egg isn't a person, because on its own it will never grow into a person. Same for a sperm, and all the other cells or living things. If it has a future as a human person, then I believe it should have human rights.

And I'm not saying that we shouldnt waste any chance of having a baby. If you arnt pregnant, then you arnt taking away a life. If you abort a fetus (which, like i said, is in my opinion is something that should be considered human) then you are taking away someone's life, because, again, in my opinion, you have already given it life.

And I think everyone agrees that once its "alive", its not someone elses choice to snuff out that life.

Also the argument isnt about womens rights, its not about choice, its about when a human person truly becomes human. And I find it completely ignorant of the topic when people bring up women's rights and all that bullshit, because that has nothing to do with it. Nobody, woman or man, can have a "choice" to end another's life. So the only thing to discuss is when a human is actually alive.

If any one of your cells were placed within a blastocyst or unfertilized egg, it would grow into an exact clone of you. Every one of your cells (except, ironically eggs and sperms) has the capibility of growing into a human being.

The question very much is about womens rights and choice. Pro-life groups have distorted the debate into an airy moral one with meaningless idealistic bullshit. "life" means absolutley nothing when we're talking about definitions here. Living things reproduce, move, and use energy. "human life" under that definition begins before the eggs and sperms have fertilized. What we are talking about here is personhood. Zygotes, Blastocysts and Foetoeses are not people. The mother is a person. The father is a person. The personhood of the mother and father far out trump the "potential personhood" of the zygote.

Let me give you an example. You, and a child unrelated to you are sitting in a waiting room at a fertility clinic. Suddenly, the building catches on fire and you are quickly trapped in the waiting room. Nearby, a tray of 1 million fertilized eggs are sitting frozen. You only have enough time to either pick up the child and run for the exit, or pick up the tray of 1 million fertilized eggs and run for the exit, in either case, one of them dies.

I'm guessing you would pick the child. Why? Because the child is a living, breathing person, while the 1 million blastocysts are just potential people. Both are living, both should deserve the "right to life" as you say, and the numbers of fertilized eggs far outnumber the one child you would be saving, yet the child's personhood outweighs the potential personhood of the eggs.

Another example: A lab technician is carrying a dish of fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic. He slips and falls on the tile, breaking the tube and killing the eggs. Should the lab technician be charged with negligent manslaughter? What if he did it intentionally, destroying excess inventory, should he be charged with murder?

Of course not. The whole notion of it is ridiculous, because although the eggs are living. They are not people.

 

[Seagull]

 

[Kyorisu]

because, again, in my opinion, you have already given it life.

Yes in your opinion. Science Sais otherwise.

And I think everyone agrees that once its "alive", its not someone else's choice to snuff out that life.

It is a leech connected to a womens body, it shares the hosts resources until it has developed to a stage where it can leave the host and function by itself. Until that stage it is NOT a human being. If it cannot function by itself (excusing problems at the fully developed stage) then it is not human.

Also the argument isnt about womens rights, its not about choice, its about when a human person truly becomes human. And I find it completely ignorant of the topic when people bring up women's rights and all that bullshit, because that has nothing to do with it. Nobody, woman or man, can have "right" or a "choice" to end another's life. So the only thing to discuss is when a human is actually alive.

Fail you mean when a fetus becomes a human, it's always alive otherwise how is it growing? Frankly it's not human until it can function by itself and that's at the nine months stage. Abortions are talking about up to 5 months when you surely cannot consider it a human being as it has not developed to a stage where it can be considered one.

Why is taking life such an issue for people, we kill millions of animals every year and those arguably can have the same feelings as a human being, not as intelligent but still capable of emotions. Your so against taking away life, but your missing a big point. The life is unwanted! If it's born it will surely not like it's environment very much because it will not be loved. Don't get me that adoption debate either, there are too many homeless children as it is.

 

[Krynn72]

It is a leech connected to a womens body, it shares the hosts resources until it has developed to a stage where it can leave the host and function by itself. Until that stage it is NOT a human being. If it cannot function by itself (excusing problems at the fully developed stage) then it is not human.

This is all opinion. I disagree with the statement that "if it cannot function by itself then it is not human." Thats absurd. There are plenty of grown people who would not be able to function on their own. Are they not people? Read on and I will continue with this idea.

Fail you mean when a fetus becomes a human, it's always alive otherwise how is it growing? Frankly it's not human until it can function by itself and that's at the nine months stage. Abortions are talking about up to 5 months when you surely cannot consider it a human being as it has not developed to a stage where it can be considered one.

I have already made the distinction between life in general and human life. It is not scientifically proven that a person is a person at any certain stage. Its all arbitrary, and it can never be proven, because it is something that cannot be measured.

Why is taking life such an issue for people, we kill millions of animals every year and those arguably can have the same feelings as a human being, not as intelligent but still capable of emotions. Your so against taking away life, but your missing a big point. The life is unwanted! If it's born it will surely not like it's environment very much because it will not be loved. Don't get me that adoption debate either, there are too many homeless children as it is.

This is a whole other argument. If you want to take this in the direction of our welfare system and how we deal with abandoned and homeless children then we can, but thats not what we are talking about right now. Its a separate topic entirely.

Another example: A lab technician is carrying a dish of fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic. He slips and falls on the tile, breaking the tube and killing the eggs. Should the lab technician be charged with negligent manslaughter? What if he did it intentionally, destroying excess inventory, should he be charged with murder?

Of course not. The whole notion of it is ridiculous, because although the eggs are living. They are not people.

First off, the law and punishment have little to do with what I am talking about. I have already stated that I believe the fertalized eggs are human life, and therefore "people" at the most early and basic stage of their lifespan. What punishment should occur in this very particular case is not for this argument, and it brings in a whole lot of other things that need to be taken into consideration. So Im not even going to reply to the question. However, I will say that in these cases, I do believe he has taken lives, because he has ended the lives of people who happen to be in the first stages of their life.

If any one of your cells were placed within a blastocyst or unfertilized egg, it would grow into an exact clone of you. Every one of your cells (except, ironically eggs and sperms) has the capibility of growing into a human being.

Well, I disagree. I understand what you are saying though. I understand that a cell isnt a person, neither is an egg, nor a sperm, nor any of those other things you mentioned with fancy science names. But your example of "one of your cells were placed within a blastocyst or unfertilized egg, it would grow into an exact clone of you" doesnt prove anything contrary to what i am saying.

Im not sure you fully understood what I said before. What I was trying to say is that I know a cell is alive, but I know its not a person. I know it might get the opportunity to become one, but it hasnt. It hasnt become a person, because it hasnt been mixed with what it needs in order to do so.

What I am saying though, is that once all the necessary parts have been mixed, it should be considered a person, because, if left in its natural state, it would grow into a person. Unlike one of my cells, it would naturally evolve into a human. This is why I believe it deserves human rights.

Pro-life groups have distorted the debate into an airy moral one with meaningless idealistic bullshit. "life" means absolutley nothing when we're talking about definitions here.......What we are talking about here is personhood.

I completely, 100% disagree with this. Sure, "life" in general has little to do with this, but human life has everything to do with it. Some arbitrary, vague, and made-up word has nothing to do with it. "personhood," in fact, has nothing to do with this. I assume by this word you mean to suggest a life form that has feelings, emotions, individuality and all the things that give people their unique character. But these things are not necessary for a life form to be a human. A human evolves into a "person." Just like everything else in our lives, we come to stages at which point our mental and physical "being" undergoes change.

When we are a fetus, or even just a fertilized egg, it is a stage in our life. No different than the stage of our lives where our bodies grow weak, and our minds deteriorate into senility as we grow old. Its no different than when our bodies and minds change when we go through puberty. At what point are we human?

It seems almost that the logic pro-choice people have is that its OK to end a human life at certain phases of its lifespan, but not at others. Its hardly different from me saying that its ok to kill children, since their bodies havent fully matured yet, and therefore they are not human yet since they dont have their "personhood" as according to my one view of that word.

I honestly dont see how a fertilized egg could be considered not human, since it IS, but just in it's earliest stage of life.

The question very much is about womens rights and choice.

This too I obviously disagree with. The question is when a human life is truly a human life. Women have the right, and the choice to kill their own cells, and other cells that will never become another human being. Women, however, dont have the right to kill new humans, no matter what stage of life the other is in.

Let me give you an example. You, and a child unrelated to you are sitting in a waiting room at a fertility clinic. Suddenly, the building catches on fire and you are quickly trapped in the waiting room. Nearby, a tray of 1 million fertilized eggs are sitting frozen. You only have enough time to either pick up the child and run for the exit, or pick up the tray of 1 million fertilized eggs and run for the exit, in either case, one of them dies.

I'm guessing you would pick the child. Why? Because the child is a living, breathing person, while the 1 million blastocysts are just potential people. Both are living, both should deserve the "right to life" as you say, and the numbers of fertilized eggs far outnumber the one child you would be saving, yet the child's personhood outweighs the potential personhood of the eggs.

You presume wrongly then. If I did choose the child, it would be because I have some emotional bond with the child that overwhelms my ability to think with logic and reason. If I had the time to think clearly, then I would obviously choose the million other lives in the dish. They are not (again, imo) just "potential people." They ARE people. This personhood you refer to again is something arbitrary, and based on some sort of irrational emotional connection you have to someone who has already developed the human function and characteristics that we are naturally attracted to. But let me ask you this. What if you had the chance to save a thousand mentally challenged children who's brains work illogically, and who cant feel the "human emotions" vs the one child who can express emotion and think with human logic? Are the mentally challeneged people not actually people? Do they not have this "personhood" that you speak of? Is it ok to end their lives if you dont want to spend the resources on raising them?

I assume you would still pick the normal child, based off of what limited understanding i have gathered about you so far. I would assume you would make this choice based on the idea that perhaps the challenged children will never be able to function as a normal person would, since they would always be emotionless and have no "personhood". Now what if they had the chance to be cured? What if it was 100% guaranteed that the majority of them could be released from this state of mental incapacitation? Now who would you choose? The one normal child, or the thousand others who would eventually be able to live their lives as normal?

Now whats the difference? A fertilized egg will in a few months be almost guaranteed to be a fully functional "person" (as you would have it). Is it ok to kill those mentally challenged people, despite the knowledge that they will eventually become "people" with "personhood"? If you say no to this, then I truly don't understand how you could say it IS OK to kill other people who don't have this "personhood" you talk of.





EDIT: I also added my arguments against Kyo at the top.

 

[Kyorisu]

Oh I would hate to live under your ruler ship, your saying that if a women is pregnant she cannot decide to terminate it? Let's go back to my case of rape, your stilling saying that child should be given the right of birth? Your mad.

You presume wrongly then. If I did choose the child, it would be because I have some emotional bond with the child that overwhelms my ability to think with logic and reason. If I had the time to think clearly, then I would obviously choose the million other lives in the dish. They are not (again, imo) just "potential people." They ARE people.

No you wouldn't if you where thinking logically in that situation you'd pick the child, you know you would. Thinking logically you wouldn't want to get slapped around by the media for being and idiot and not saving a child over some eggs. Your initial reaction would be your own sense of self preservation, not only as surviving a fire but coming out as a hero who saved a child.

This is all opinion. I disagree with the statement that "if it cannot function by itself then it is not human." Thats absurd. There are plenty of grown people who would not be able to function on their own. Are they not people? Read on and I will continue with this idea.

I actually tried to cover my arse there. The exception being problems caused at birth or just genetic defects. This at the stage of birth not when the effects of age and other factors have stepped in.

I'm actually going to use an example that's quite personal now but it gets my point across.

When I met my girlfriend she was pregnant she had from my understanding unwillingly taken on this pregnancy. I don't know the details myself because I've never asked, I don't want to bring up any bad memories for her. Now the guy who had done this has run off and never been heard of since as far as I know he left the state. Her parents come from your side of the argument, they wanted her to have that child. Now this is somewhat absurd at the age it occurred she could not raise a child by herself even with my support. This is of course where my family came into the subject and slapped some logic into her family.

At the present time she/we have no child and she is living happily with me, we will most likely think about children in the future when we can support and raise a child in a suitable environment. Her family initially would see her try to raise a child and tackle University studies at the same time, this child's real father would have no taking in child's raising and that's something I don't stand for. Not to mention even is she gave the child up for adoption she'd still have to live with giving birth to a child that she then cannot have any real interaction with.

 

[Krynn72]

No you wouldn't if you where thinking logically in that situation you'd pick the child, you know you would. Thinking logically you wouldn't want to get slapped around by the media for being and idiot and not saving a child over some eggs. Your initial reaction would be your own sense of self preservation, not only as surviving a fire but coming out as a hero who saved a child.

What the hell? I specifically said I wouldnt save the kid. How the hell could you presume to know me better than I do, or even well enough to know what I would do in that situation? I wouldnt be in it for the glory, or even to avoid scrutiny. I would have done what I believe is right, so the media could kiss my ass. Im the one who saved a million people, and they're the ones who are complaining about it.

I actually tried to cover my arse there. The exception being problems caused at birth or just genetic defects. This at the stage of birth not when the effects of age and other factors have stepped in.

Care to explain why this is any different?

I'm actually going to use an example that's quite personal now but it gets my point across.

When I met my girlfriend she was pregnant she had from my understanding unwillingly taken on this pregnancy. I don't know the details myself because I've never asked, I don't want to bring up any bad memories for her. Now the guy who had done this has run off and never been heard of since as far as I know he left the state. Her parents come from your side of the argument, they wanted her to have that child. Now this is somewhat absurd at the age it occurred she could not raise a child by herself even with my support. This is of course where my family came into the subject and slapped some logic into her family.

At the present time she/we have no child and she is living happily with me, we will most likely think about children in the future when we can support and raise a child in a suitable environment. Her family initially would see her try to raise a child and tackle University studies at the same time, this child's real father would have no taking in child's raising and that's something I don't stand for. Not to mention even is she gave the child up for adoption she'd still have to live with giving birth to a child that she then cannot have any real interaction with.

Yeah, sad story an all, especially since her child was killed because of it. But I already said that this is a whole other topic. I personally believe that as higher power nations we have the resources to provide adequate care for children who can't be raised by their biological parents. But this is off the subject. Make a thread on it if you want to argue about this.

 

[Kyorisu]

What the hell? I specifically said I wouldnt save the kid. How the hell could you presume to know me better than I do, or even well enough to know what I would do in that situation? I wouldnt be in it for the glory, or even to avoid scrutiny. I would have done what I believe is right, so the media could kiss my ass. Im the one who saved a million people, and they're the ones who are complaining about it.

You say that now but oh how circumstances can change. Come back to me when this hypothetical situation actually occurs and people ridicule you for letting a born living child die over some potential lives. Potential life is everywhere, never mind all those kids in Africa/Asia eh?

Yeah, sad story an all, especially since her child was killed because of it.

You really come off as a jerk you know that? Like you would know whats its like to go through that experience. Maybe you have i dont know but people like you really have a nerve to say things like that.

(For the record that wasn't me).

Care to explain why this is any different?

I'm getting beaten up for getting into another of these silly debates, I'll make my leave you can enjoy your views on life. I might continue this later when I won't get my arse kicked in, my msn is always there.

 

[Stigmata]

Yeah, sad story an all, especially since her child was killed because of it. But I already said that this is a whole other topic. I personally believe that as higher power nations we have the resources to provide adequate care for children who can't be raised by their biological parents. But this is off the subject. Make a thread on it if you want to argue about this.

As much as you'd like to believe so, no nation on the planet has the resources or the infrastructure to properly provide structure and upbringing for unwanted children. And if abortion were suddenly outlawed, the influx of unwanted children would absolutely shatter whatever the government had put in place. What we have already isn't enough, and it's simply not feasible to attempt to change that.

Besides which, abortion kills nothing but a developing bundle of cells. Yes, it has the potential to grow into a human being, but it's not a human being. A bundle of cells is a bundle of cells no matter which way you look at it. A zygote has the cognitive abilities of a cold virus. It cannot feel, it cannot think, it is not by any measure human. It's nothing but a big chemical reaction. And there is nothing wrong with stopping an isolated chemical reaction.

 

[Absinthe]

I bet, but still you haven't seen an unborn baby being ripped limb from limb on ultrasound, as it struggles to escape the suction tube.

It's ****ing hilarious, innit?

 

[DEATH eVADER]

What's funny is they are against these pills yet they have nothing against viagra and the such. It really is kind of sexist if you think about it. If god doesn't want your wang to work properly there surely must be a reason for it, no?

You make a valid, yet funny point

 

[Absinthe]

In my opinion when a woman is pregnant, she has a person inside of her. If its "complete" then I believe it should be considered a human life. When I say complete, I mean that it has all the necessary parts it needs to grow into a human being. An unfertilized egg isn't a person, because on its own it will never grow into a person. Same for a sperm, and all the other cells or living things. If it has a future as a human person, then I believe it should have human rights.

But even when a zygote is formed, it still doesn't have all the necessary parts. Your criteria for what makes somebody human is totally arbitrary. Eggs and sperm have futures as potential human beings. Are you trying to tell me that the act of fertilization is the dawning point of man? Why not a functioning nervous system? If you admit to this being arbitrary, surely you could have picked a better (more reasonable) stage of development, because life at conception is just absurd and sounds like it's being repeated through doctrine.

I'm sorry, but this isn't about choice. This is about when something is granted human rights. It's about when we begin considering something to be alive in a human sense. Zygotes aren't humans. You only start getting room for debate when the nervous system begins to form. Any argument against abortion prior to that is incoherent. The lump of cells that some people consider to be sacred life is no different than those that exist on your nose. By that comparison, you've probably committed the Holocaust a few times every sneeze.

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are cheap, shallow, misleading names to rally under, especially because they treat each other as mutually exclusive.. Everybody is pro-life. Everybody likes choice. But it's like if you're pro-choice, you admit to condoning murder.

If you are being honest when you say that you'd save petri dishes with eggs over the life of a single child... I'm at a loss for words. Not only that, but then you say that such an act would be in the name of logic and reason? None of this strikes me as healthy thought. The handicapped have sentience. They are capable of feeling pain and emotions.

Your reaction in such a scenario faults from square one because you assume the shit in the dishes is human life.

 

[PvtRyan]

Pretty disturbing that Krynn would pick a million fertilized eggs over a child if he got the time to decide. Is the value of those millions of eggs > that of the kid because there's more of them? Does that mean there's some objective and absolute value of life that can be expressed in numbers? It's obvious that's not the case. Value of life is in the eye of the beholder, I value my mom more than I value you and I would certainly pick her over you in a life and death situation. The value of something is the value others attach to it. Life isn't equal and human life isn't sacred, it's all subjective.

I don't attach any value to eggs just because they have the DNA of a human (where does that end by the way, what is 'human' and is someone with Down syndrome human even though his DNA is quite different due to having a chromosome more?), I attach value to something because I like it, I can relate to it etc, because it's a person, NOT because it is 'human' (which is an arbitrary definition anyway).

 

[NeptuneUK]

I have no more respect for a zygote than I do a bacterium.
Neither counts as intelligent life, neither is a sentient organism.

 

[Krynn72]

As much as you'd like to believe so, no nation on the planet has the resources or the infrastructure to properly provide structure and upbringing for unwanted children. And if abortion were suddenly outlawed, the influx of unwanted children would absolutely shatter whatever the government had put in place. What we have already isn't enough, and it's simply not feasible to attempt to change that.

Have you ever seen the numbers of how much money the United States wastes on unless things? Its a staggering amount, and if we just had a fraction of that put to better birth control methods, and better education on the subject, then the influx wouldnt be so massive as to destroy all government.

Besides which, abortion kills nothing but a developing bundle of cells. Yes, it has the potential to grow into a human being, but it's not a human being. A bundle of cells is a bundle of cells no matter which way you look at it. A zygote has the cognitive abilities of a cold virus. It cannot feel, it cannot think, it is not by any measure human. It's nothing but a big chemical reaction. And there is nothing wrong with stopping an isolated chemical reaction.

I already explained why I don't agree with this. Just because they cannot feel or think yet doesnt im my eyes make them not a person. If they were to continue on just a few months more then they would be able to. Just like we can't comprehend any spoken language until our brains develop to that point. I dont see how its any different than any other stage of our lives.

And for petes sake, Ive explained multiple times that a fertilized egg doesnt just have "potential" to become human. If left to the natural course of things it WILL become a human being. There is no ifs.

And this is the last time Ill repeat this this too. An unfertilized egg does have potential to be a human. I understand this. BUT like I have stated multiple times already, and you all seem to agree, ITS NOT A HUMAN BEING. You guys keep using this "well a egg is a potential human" argument against me like I would disagree. But I don't. I dont believe it is a person until its fertilized.

Are you trying to tell me that the act of fertilization is the dawning point of man? Why not a functioning nervous system?

Are you trying to tell me that a functioning nervous system is when a person actually becomes a person? That seems arbitrary to me. I think conception is much less arbitrary, since thats where the process begins. I dont see how thats at all absurd. And I dont know what you mean by "repeated through doctrine." Everything im saying is coming from my head, and I'm not quoting or repeating anything ive read.

I'm sorry, but this isn't about choice. This is about when something is granted human rights. It's about when we begin considering something to be alive in a human sense.

Hey, I finally agree with someone about something!

The lump of cells that some people consider to be sacred life is no different than those that exist on your nose. By that comparison, you've probably committed the Holocaust a few times every sneeze.

Im not those people. I am arguing my point of view and no others. I dont believe those cells are human life.

If you are being honest when you say that you'd save petri dishes with eggs over the life of a single child... I'm at a loss for words. Not only that, but then you say that such an act would be in the name of logic and reason? None of this strikes me as healthy thought. The handicapped have sentience. They are capable of feeling pain and emotions.

Your reaction in such a scenario faults from square one because you assume the shit in the dishes is human life.

Pretty disturbing that Krynn would pick a million fertilized eggs over a child if he got the time to decide.

You missed a key word in there Absinthe. The eggs are fertilized ones. They WILL grow up to be "people" as you understand the term. I am at a loss as to how any of you wouldnt save a million people vs one kid, just because the kid can cry and smile already. Those fertalized eggs in those dishes WILL grow up to be the same as that one kid, only there would be 1 million of them. The fact that you all would deny those 1 million people their lives just so that one other could live is what strikes me as disturbing. Its basically the same question as the "If you had to choose between your lover and a million other innocent people, who would you choose to live?" I would choose the million other people, because it is the lesser of two evils, and turns out to be for the greater good.

 

[Higlac]

Here's a solution: don't have sex until you want a kid!! Abstinince: the only 100% effective way of preventing pregnancy.

 

[Seagull]

Here's a solution: don't have sex until you want a kid!! Abstinince: the only 100% effective way of preventing pregnancy.

What happens if you get raped?

 

[Stigmata]

Here's a solution: don't have sex until you want a kid!! Abstinince: the only 100% effective way of preventing pregnancy.

So I should suppress my sexual desires because a bunch of people choose to believe in an inaccurate anecdote rather than science and logic?

[edit] And what seagull said.

 

[Higlac]

So I should suppress my sexual desires because a bunch of people choose to believe in an inaccurate anecdote rather than science and logic?

[edit] And what seagull said.

Biology says that when you have sex without putting nasty chemicals into your body, and without pulling out or using a barrier that you get pregnant.

 

[Stigmata]

Biology says that when you have sex without putting nasty chemicals into your body, and without pulling out or using a barrier that you get pregnant.

Biology also says that sometimes people get born with horrible, untreatable, terminal illnesses. Other times biology says "Hey, you, right there. Yeah, you. No, in the white shirt. Yeah, you have cancer now. In the brain. What? Of course it's terminal!" Other times biology says "Nope, that one's gonna be a miscarriage."

 

[Higlac]

Biology also says that sometimes people get born with horrible, untreatable, terminal illnesses. Other times biology says "Hey, you, right there. Yeah, you. No, in the white shirt. Yeah, you have cancer now. In the brain. What? Of course it's terminal!" Other times biology says "Nope, that one's gonna be a miscarriage."

Better to live a short life than none at all.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Life doesn't truly begin in the sense of truly living at a human level until about 2 years of age when memory kicks in.

I am at a loss as to how any of you wouldnt save a million people vs one kid, just because the kid can cry and smile already. Those fertalized eggs in those dishes WILL grow up to be the same as that one kid, only there would be 1 million of them. The fact that you all would deny those 1 million people their lives just so that one other could live is what strikes me as disturbing.

Firstly, they are not people in any sense of the word, nor can they as test tube "babies" be guaranteed normal life.

Secondly, there is no merit in growing any number tube "babies". In fact, they are less valuable the more numerous they become.

Finally, I believe destroying or using the tube babies for science would benefit the greater good. We certainly do not need more people on this planet.

 

[theotherguy]

Here's a solution: don't have sex until you want a kid!! Abstinince: the only 100% effective way of preventing pregnancy.

Here's another one, have sex all you want, with protection and you have a close to zero chance of having a baby. Then, if you have one and dont want it, abort it and abort it early.

People aren't going to deprive themselves of sex because of some idiotic dogma being spewed by people like you.

The catholic churche's "abstience" programs in Africa are leading to a decline in condom use, and thus an increase in aids.

Don't you just love it when people impose arbitary barriers as ways of stopping unavoidable problems?

Why not use safe and effective birth control instead, which decreases your chances tremendously? Sorry if you don't like "nasty" chemicals. I guess you should stop taking your vaccines too, huh? After all, polio is pretty natural.And how about penicillin? Who needs vaccines when you have prayer power!!111one

A short, miserable life with terrible diseases is shitty compared to a short, painless life being aborted soon with a painless chemical. Much more preferable to the burden of nine months of pregnancy, danger of birth and financial and psychological burdens of rearing an unwanted baby that the mother would face if she "chose life".

 

[theotherguy]

Life doesn't truly begin in the sense of truly living at a human level until about 2 years of age when memory kicks in.



Firstly, they are not people in any sense of the word, nor can they as test tube "babies" be guaranteed normal life.

Secondly, there is no merit in growing any number tube "babies". In fact, they are less valuable the more numerous they become.

Finally, I believe destroying or using the tube babies for science would benefit the greater good. We certainly do not need more people on this planet.

Furthermore, we must think of this as a cost-benifit scenario. Huge, enourmous amounts of resources have been put into that one child, while almost no effort at all (in fact, 1 million pleasurable efforts) were put into making 1 million fertilized eggs. There may be a million cells in that petrie dish, but there are tens of trillions of cells inside that child. Years were spent, parents labored and loved, gave their food, air, and resources to make that child, while a million more fertilized eggs could be made in a day.

That is the difference between the child and the fertilized eggs. And frankly it strikes me as a little disturbing that you would favor eggs, worthless, mass produced eggs over the child, the finished product, the human being with trillions of cells, and parents who love it and hopes and dreams and memories.

 

[Higlac]

Here's another one, have sex all you want, with protection and you have a close to zero chance of having a baby. Then, if you have one and dont want it, abort it and abort it early.

People aren't going to deprive themselves of sex because of some idiotic dogma being spewed by people like you.

The catholic churche's "abstience" programs in Africa are leading to a decline in condom use, and thus an increase in aids.

Don't you just love it when people impose arbitary barriers as ways of stopping unavoidable problems?

Why not use safe and effective birth control instead, which decreases your chances tremendously? Sorry if you don't like "nasty" chemicals. I guess you should stop taking your vaccines too, huh? After all, polio is pretty natural.And how about penicillin? Who needs vaccines when you have prayer power!!111one

A short, miserable life with terrible diseases is shitty compared to a short, painless life being aborted soon with a painless chemical. Much more preferable to the burden of nine months of pregnancy, danger of birth and financial and psychological burdens of rearing an unwanted baby that the mother would face if she "chose life".

Why is it necessary that people must have sex? Have you ability to control yourself?

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Or masturbate? =D

I don't like the idea of promiscuity either because I know STDs are running rampant, but it's not something that can be controlled. It's another non-issue. What we should do is tone down emphasis on sex, at least for children so they don't seek it like rabid animals. Encourage masturbation openly!
Abstinence is a horrible idea to be giving kids. The see sex as an adult concept and as we know most children want to be adult and have adult priveledges. The abstinence effort defeats itself.

Part of this problem is the social stigma of masturbation. Kids are afraid of it because they fear peer retribution. They fear being outcast and seen as not "normal", normal being semi-adult.

 

[theotherguy]

Why is it necessary that people must have sex? Have you ability to control yourself?

Well, let me let you in on a little secret.

Sex is a biological urge that feels good and makes you psychologically happy.

It is one of the biggest facets of human life, and every adult should be priveleged to have it. Every couple should have the right and ability to have sex however much they desire.

Unfortunatley the biological function of sex gets in the way (the whole baby bit), and so do nasty little diseases that have taken advantage of that urge(the whole STD bit). But luckily, science has given us methods of reducing and eliminating both while retaining the biological urge and psychological benifits of sex. Yay!

So no, people cannot control themselves completley. They can control themselves to keep from raping everything in sight, but they cannot eliminate the urge without castrating themselves and removing certain important parts of their brains. You might as well tell people to stop urinating. It is a biological function, it is necessary, its benificial, and science has given people a reasonable freedom to do it without fear of babies or viruses.

 

[Stigmata]

Better to live a short life than none at all.

Better to allow science to overcome biological events and prevent suffering than allow suffering to run rampant.

You can do better than that. Come on.

 

[Higlac]

Well, let me let you in on a little secret.

Sex is a biological urge that feels good and makes you psychologically happy.

It is one of the biggest facets of human life, and every adult should be priveleged to have it. Every couple should have the right and ability to have sex however much they desire.

Unfortunatley the biological function of sex gets in the way (the whole baby bit), and so do nasty little diseases that have taken advantage of that urge(the whole STD bit). But luckily, science has given us methods of reducing and eliminating both while retaining the biological urge and psychological benifits of sex. Yay!

So no, people cannot control themselves completley. They can control themselves to keep from raping everything in sight, but they cannot eliminate the urge without castrating themselves and removing certain important parts of their brains. You might as well tell people to stop urinating. It is a biological function, it is necessary, its benificial, and science has given people a reasonable freedom to do it without fear of babies or viruses.

From that aspect you could call it the basest and most animal of human urges. I admit it feels good and it is good, however, you can hardly call ripping a baby from the only thing it needs to survive science.

EDIT:

Better to allow science to overcome biological events and prevent suffering than allow suffering to run rampant.

You can do better than that. Come on.

So, if you were diagnosed with cancer, would you go through more suffering to attempt a procedure with a slim chance of success, or live the rest of your days as a functioning human being, rather than a bedridden corpse?

EDIT2: I'm obviously never going to get my point across without using God, so I am probably going to kill this thread by not posting any resistance to your arguments.

 

[Absinthe]

Here's a solution: don't have sex until you want a kid!! Abstinince: the only 100% effective way of preventing pregnancy.

You're so far off.

Abstinence is a proven failure. In fact, kids with abstinence pledges are statistically far more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior than the average teen.

The reasons as to why shouldn't be a mystery. Repressed sexual urges aside (oh those sure are fun), those who pledge abstinence are generally far more ignorant about safe sex and therefore increase their chances of contracting an illness when they finally cave in.

 

[Absinthe]

Are you trying to tell me that a functioning nervous system is when a person actually becomes a person? That seems arbitrary to me. I think conception is much less arbitrary, since thats where the process begins. I dont see how thats at all absurd. And I dont know what you mean by "repeated through doctrine." Everything im saying is coming from my head, and I'm not quoting or repeating anything ive read.

The nervous system is the basis for all sensory reception and "feeling".

I'm personally not entirely sure where I consider the transition point to be. But I believe it's rather obvious that it makes far more sense to move the debate closer to that stage of development because "life at conception" makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

Im not those people. I am arguing my point of view and no others. I dont believe those cells are human life.

But that position is inconsistent. The potential for human life in the zygote during the early stages of development in the womb is no different than that of the cells on your nose. You could actually theoretically cultivate cells from your nostril into a human life.

You can't look at two of the same thing and then make up differences. Either your nose is a bastion of human life or it isn't. And if it isn't, neither is the cell-clump in the womb.

You missed a key word in there Absinthe. The eggs are fertilized ones. They WILL grow up to be "people" as you understand the term.

1.) No. The fertilized egg will create a zygote, which will then (given the right chemical input) begin developing a fetus. The "human life" part doesn't even exist until some time after conception. That's according to biological science.

2.) Their potential is irrelevant. Every time you don't have sex, you preempt the potential existence of a person. Arguing about potential in this case is logically indefensible.

I am at a loss as to how any of you wouldnt save a million people vs one kid, just because the kid can cry and smile already.

Because unlike you, we know those aren't people. Your reaction in that hypothetical scenario is, quite bluntly, a moral travesty. Your basis for believing in life at conception can be summed up as "Because that's how I feel" and you have sacrificed the life of one child in order to save a bunch of zygotes of potential people (read: people that don't exist). If eyebrows should be raised at anybody, it's certainly not us.

I recommend that you stop making arguments regarding potential until you can come up with a valid, scientific rationale to support them. My proposition of moving the debate forward to the development of the CNS is wholly reasonable because that's when a fetus begins showing signs of sentient life. Life at conception fails not only the level of ideas, but also doesn't match up with biological science. A zygote has no independent existence. It's not even human. It's the blueprint on how to make one.

 

[Stigmata]

So, if you were diagnosed with cancer, would you go through more suffering to attempt a procedure with a slim chance of success, or live the rest of your days as a functioning human being, rather than a bedridden corpse?

EDIT2: I'm obviously never going to get my point across without using God, so I am probably going to kill this thread by not posting any resistance to your arguments.

I don't know what I'd do, but that's not what we're arguing here. I'm saying biology isn't always "right", and you really seem to be missing the entire argument here on the basis that God is right.

And if you're not going to argue against me, you're conceding defeat. I take it you're wrong and I'm right then?

 

[Higlac]

I don't know what I'd do, but that's not what we're arguing here. I'm saying biology isn't always "right", and you really seem to be missing the entire argument here on the basis that God is right.

And if you're not going to argue against me, you're conceding defeat. I take it you're wrong and I'm right then?

I am not admitting I am wrong, I just do not have the resources to complete my arguement, therefore, I am conceding the arguement on the basis that I cannot possibly win with my current knowledge.

 

[Stigmata]

I am not admitting I am wrong, I just do not have the resources to complete my arguement, therefore, I am conceding the arguement on the basis that I cannot possibly win with my current knowledge.

Well if you can't back up your argument...

 

[McGooTheWise]

I got a buzzkill for all of you. If you don't want kids, don't f*ck.