ABORTION.......

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:

If you want to look at the big picture, there are many more unborn children who die as a result of abortion than mothers who die in childbirth.

The number is quite large if you count spontaneous abortion too. Frankly, nature doesn't think too highly of the fertilised egg or the blastocyst stage. So many pregnanices abort at the early stages, you could hardly say human life starts there.

So when does human life begin?

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:

If you want to look at the big picture, there are many more unborn children who die as a result of abortion than mothers who die in childbirth.

The number is quite large if you count spontaneous abortion too. Frankly, nature doesn't think too highly of the fertilised egg or the blastocyst stage. So many pregnanices abort at the early stages, you could hardly say human life starts there.

So when does human life begin?

When there is a discernable heartbeat and measurable brain wave activity.

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:

If you want to look at the big picture, there are many more unborn children who die as a result of abortion than mothers who die in childbirth.

The number is quite large if you count spontaneous abortion too. Frankly, nature doesn't think too highly of the fertilised egg or the blastocyst stage. So many pregnanices abort at the early stages, you could hardly say human life starts there.

So when does human life begin?

When there is a discernable heartbeat and measurable brain wave activity.

That's part of the reason why I think everyone should be able to choose for themselves, regardless of their choice

So,
If there is no measurable heartbeat and no discernable brainwaves in a corpse,can we then assume that the person is still alive?
After all,if we arent sure that is when life begins,how can we say that is when life ends?

Doctor writes

Quote:

That's part of the reason why I think everyone should be able to choose for themselves, regardless of their choice

Only one party in this equation stands to lose everything if the choice is to abort. I say let's let the developing human make the choice.

There are numerous recorded cases of people being 'restarted' after their heart has stopped.

mysteryman wrote:

So,
If there is no measurable heartbeat and no discernable brainwaves in a corpse,can we then assume that the person is still alive?
After all,if we arent sure that is when life begins,how can we say that is when life ends?

Not the same, since you can directly hook the EEG to the corpse and definitively say whether there is brainwaves or no. But that's a funny example.

Although that definition sounds good to me, as I'm sure it would to many, there would be others that would not agree.
This is really the crux of the issue, and the problem is that the answer can only ever be arbitrary. There is no obsolute standard to go by, and people will never just 'agree' (short of world wide compulsory lobotomy surgeries) there really is no solution.

Foxfyre wrote:

Doctor writes

Quote:

That's part of the reason why I think everyone should be able to choose for themselves, regardless of their choice

Only one party in this equation stands to lose everything if the choice is to abort. I say let's let the developing human make the choice.

Yes, but that's ridiculous.
In the real world fetuses dont communicate.

If we cant agree on what constitutes life,then how can we use those same standards to decide what constitutes death?

Doktor S wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Doctor writes

Quote:

That's part of the reason why I think everyone should be able to choose for themselves, regardless of their choice

Only one party in this equation stands to lose everything if the choice is to abort. I say let's let the developing human make the choice.

Yes, but that's ridiculous.
In the real world fetuses dont communicate.

If someone had a stroke and lost the ability to communicate, would you kill them?

After all,if we arent sure that is when life begins,how can we say that is when life ends?

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Doctor writes

Quote:

That's part of the reason why I think everyone should be able to choose for themselves, regardless of their choice

Only one party in this equation stands to lose everything if the choice is to abort. I say let's let the developing human make the choice.

Yes, but that's ridiculous.
In the real world fetuses dont communicate.

If someone had a stroke and lost the ability to communicate, would you kill them?

lol. Your rhetorical skills have been improving I see.

If there is no agreement that the presence of a heartbeat and brainwave activity constitutes life,then how can we agree that the lack of them constitutes death?

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Doctor writes

Quote:

That's part of the reason why I think everyone should be able to choose for themselves, regardless of their choice

Only one party in this equation stands to lose everything if the choice is to abort. I say let's let the developing human make the choice.

Yes, but that's ridiculous.
In the real world fetuses dont communicate.

If someone had a stroke and lost the ability to communicate, would you kill them?

lol. Your rhetorical skills have been improving I see.

It is a valid question. For quite a number of months, a new baby is unable to communicate whether s/he wishes to live or die. The same is true of many older humans who are incapacitated in various ways. If we would consider it wrong to choose death for these people because they are an inconvenience, perhaps you can understand how some prolifers think it is wrong to choose death for the even younger person in the womb because s/he is an inconvenience.

You miss the point. You first need an absolute accepted definition of what constitutes 'personhood' I don't see that to be forthcoming.

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Define unborn children.

This is probably as fitting for an end to this long thread as we will ever see.

Cluelessness on the part of the supporters of abortion, in all it's simplicity.

Why would you say that the need for you to define your terms is "Cluelessness"?

Being that you made such a specious and unsubstantiated claim it stands to reason to expect a definition of your terms.

I challenge you to define what you mean by "unborn children"; is it right after the moment of fertilization?

Why do you presuppose such a question to be from "supporters of abortion" as opposed to a supporter of woman's rights?