ABORTION.......

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Quote:

Capital idea! So now, not only do we take away the woman's right to decide what to do with her own body, we also regulate the frequency in which she may have sex. Excellent concept, i'm sure it will catch on quickly.

If women have the right to kill these "non-humans", I think I should have the right to kill those that interfere with me too. How about my rights? If you tick me off, shouldn't I be able to just 'abort' you? Aren't we just animals anyways?

Typical liberal idiocy....blame the gun, not the person who fired it. Don't offend anyone, oh no! Don't go to the root of the problem (choosing to have sex)

easy way out.......

Typical right wing heart-string tugging blather as well. It's a human! Nevermind that it hasn't developed heart, lungs, brain, eyes, or even determined it's sex as of yet. Dang it, it's alive, it has a SOUL! You make God cry by "killing" it blah blah blah.

Why should a woman's right to have sex be removed simply because other birth control measures have the possibility of failure? Your rebuttle about killing people that interfere with you gave me a good chuckle though.

This drug is not contraception, because conception (i.e fertilization of the egg by the sperm ) has already taken place, so you are not preventing conception. It is an abortifacient. It causes the loss of the unborn after having been conceived.

So, by your way of doing things, if an employee of a book store should be able to refuse selling a Bible because they think it is a crappy book and might be read by children?

real life wrote:

This drug is not contraception, because conception (i.e fertilization of the egg by the sperm ) has already taken place, so you are not preventing conception. It is an abortifacient. It causes the loss of the unborn after having been conceived.

So, in the case of in-vitro fertilization, a woman should be considered pregnant even when the zygotes are still in the petri dish?

Not sure at what point in the pregnancy you are referring to, but the sex of the child and her distinctive DNA pattern ( thus distinguishing her from her mother as a separate living entity, not "a part of the mother's body") is set from the moment of conception. You might want to bone up on the medical facts, ?er.

Heart and even brainwaves are observable very early, so at what point do you think the unborn has a right to live? When the heart is beating? When their DNA marks them as an individual? When brain waves are present?

real life wrote:

Not sure at what point in the pregnancy you are referring to, but the sex of the child and her distinctive DNA pattern ( thus distinguishing her from her mother as a separate living entity, not "a part of the mother's body") is set from the moment of conception. You might want to bone up on the medical facts, ?er.

Actually, all fetuses are conceived as a girl for about the first 3 weeks of gestation.

Quote:

Heart and even brainwaves are observable very early, so at what point do you think the unborn has a right to live? When the heart is beating? When their DNA marks them as an individual? When brain waves are present?

I suppose, since you refuse to do anything but revert to this standard string of argument, regardless of how many times i've answered it, that I have no choice but to in turn revert to Frank's method of arguing this. Until such time as there is Empirical scientific evidence, the fetus is not a child until it is born.

mesquite wrote:

So, by your way of doing things, if an employee of a book store should be able to refuse selling a Bible because they think it is a crappy book and might be read by children?

If his employer allows him to do so, I would have no problem with it.

Questioner wrote:

real life wrote:

Not sure at what point in the pregnancy you are referring to, but the sex of the child and her distinctive DNA pattern ( thus distinguishing her from her mother as a separate living entity, not "a part of the mother's body") is set from the moment of conception. You might want to bone up on the medical facts, ?er.

Actually, all fetuses are conceived as a girl for about the first 3 weeks of gestation.

Quote:

Heart and even brainwaves are observable very early, so at what point do you think the unborn has a right to live? When the heart is beating? When their DNA marks them as an individual? When brain waves are present?

I suppose, since you refuse to do anything but revert to this standard string of argument, regardless of how many times i've answered it, that I have no choice but to in turn revert to Frank's method of arguing this. Until such time as there is Empirical scientific evidence, the fetus is not a child until it is born.

Hi ?er,

Spinning into the denial mode won't make the question go away, will it?

As for your statement regarding the 3 weeks, I don't think this is correct. The presence of the XX or XY chromosomal combination at conception determines the sex of the child.

Eorl Wrote:

Quote:

Momma you are dead wrong. Sorry.

Those who oppose the abolition of abortion are not pro-abortion! That's just being deliberately obtuse.

Do you realise you've just defined yourself as "pro-abortion" by your own rules because you think there are some justifiable cases?

I hate the thought of abortion too.

I just think it's up to the women (and partly the men) who get pregnant to decide such matters for themselves up to a point, (arbitrary though that point may be) without being told by me how they should behave or what they should believe.

Strangely enough Momma, I think that this is a very good example of where you are not as respectful of others beliefs as you think...and in this case, certainly less respectful than I am !

It goes back to what I was saying about people only really respecting those beliefs that agree with, or at least don't contradict, one's own beliefs.

To see abortion "banned, period" is to impose your beliefs by law !

Eorl, I'm hurt. You seemed to have changed your tone with me. Let me see if I can explain myself a bit more clearly.

I do not believe it is any human being's right to decide a child should/could be aborted. I liken it to murder. Harsh? Yes, but that is what I believe.

Now, I could understand (not like, not accept as right) the fact that there are cases in which a mother's life might be in danger if she continues in the pregnancy and an abortion is performed. I could understand the decision for it. But, to me, it's still killing a child.

I understand that many of those that are pro-choice say they are actually anti-abortion. To me, that is so confusing. IMO they are still putting the rights of a mother over the rights of an innocent child. Human beings do not have that right to decide that. So, if they are pro-choice (IMO) they are more pro-abortion than not. But, that is just my opinion. I was not being deliberately obtuse. I just didn't state clearly what I meant.

Eorl, I respect your right to your beliefs and your feelings. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I don't respect you. Now, you may feel that because I am not pro-choice that I am being disrespectful. If you feel that way, I am sorry. I am very firm in my beliefs and will not apologize for them. But, I will not condemn anyone for what they do. That is not my place, nor do I have the authority to do so.

To see abortion banned period? Yes. But to impose my beliefs by law? Know this, Eorl. I was against abortion before I ever became a Christian. I am against abortion because of an experience in my life that had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

Momma Angel wrote:

Eorl Wrote:

Quote:

Momma you are dead wrong. Sorry.

Those who oppose the abolition of abortion are not pro-abortion! That's just being deliberately obtuse.

Do you realise you've just defined yourself as "pro-abortion" by your own rules because you think there are some justifiable cases?

I hate the thought of abortion too.

I just think it's up to the women (and partly the men) who get pregnant to decide such matters for themselves up to a point, (arbitrary though that point may be) without being told by me how they should behave or what they should believe.

Strangely enough Momma, I think that this is a very good example of where you are not as respectful of others beliefs as you think...and in this case, certainly less respectful than I am !

It goes back to what I was saying about people only really respecting those beliefs that agree with, or at least don't contradict, one's own beliefs.

To see abortion "banned, period" is to impose your beliefs by law !

Eorl, I'm hurt. You seemed to have changed your tone with me. Let me see if I can explain myself a bit more clearly.

I do not believe it is any human being's right to decide a child should/could be aborted. I liken it to murder. Harsh? Yes, but that is what I believe.

Now, I could understand (not like, not accept as right) the fact that there are cases in which a mother's life might be in danger if she continues in the pregnancy and an abortion is performed. I could understand the decision for it. But, to me, it's still killing a child.

I understand that many of those that are pro-choice say they are actually anti-abortion. To me, that is so confusing. IMO they are still putting the rights of a mother over the rights of an innocent child. Human beings do not have that right to decide that. So, if they are pro-choice (IMO) they are more pro-abortion than not. But, that is just my opinion. I was not being deliberately obtuse. I just didn't state clearly what I meant.

Eorl, I respect your right to your beliefs and your feelings. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I don't respect you. Now, you may feel that because I am not pro-choice that I am being disrespectful. If you feel that way, I am sorry. I am very firm in my beliefs and will not apologize for them. But, I will not condemn anyone for what they do. That is not my place, nor do I have the authority to do so.

To see abortion banned period? Yes. But to impose my beliefs by law? Know this, Eorl. I was against abortion before I ever became a Christian. I am against abortion because of an experience in my life that had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

Momma, no need to feel hurt, as I've said before it's difficult to discuss such emotive opinions without causing offense. Please don't read too much "tone" into what I'm saying. (BTW Calling someone "pro-abortion" is pretty nasty on your part )

I didn't say you fail to respect the people, just that you do not respect their beliefs unless they coincide with yours (and I've been suggesting that all of us do this - me included). My problem with that is that you (and for that matter many, many people) think that their opinion (such as on this matter) is RIGHT beyond question and some claim to be backed up by various claims to know how various gods feel about it too.

The thing is, when you say the embryo has a soul, that it is a complete perfect human being and deserves full rights as such ....you have to realise that this is an opinion, not an irrefutable truth no matter how strongly you believe it. Expecting other people to adopt that belief is intolerant and arrogant. Very few christians I've met have described themselves as intolerant and arrogant, yet are happy to expound views like this and take great offence at being attacked for it. I think they are blissfully unaware of the arrogance of the certainty of their "faith" and derivative "laws" that others should follow even if they don't share that faith.

(and yes, I'm generalizing mostly so I don't seem to be attacking you directly because as you know I try hard not to be rude without good cause)

As to why you are against abortion is beside the point entirely, this is all about what you would legislate to have other people do, or not do.

Christians claim all the moral high ground by claiming to defend the rights of the unborn "child", and they do this by claiming certain knowledge of when a "child" can be said to exist. By ignoring any other opinions on this critical point, they can use all the normal human rights arguments to support their argument, and claim that the rest of us are inhumane animals who have no respect for basic human rights!! It's a con job, pure and simple.

The bizarre thing is, "the church" won't even allow the use of condoms because it murders potential children, same goes for the morning after pill that prevents ovulation....that's PRE-fertilization folks. So at what point do potential children exist that the church claims to need to defend the rights of them? Do they exist after sex but before fertilization...maybe during the arousal phase....maybe even halfway through dessert when I think I've got a good chance of an invite back to her place!

I'm rambling I know, but man, you guys are so certain of everything you think you know...it's scary.

Calamity Jane,

I have to agree with you there. Eorl is very good at stating his case without attacking or accusing. I find him very stimulating and intriguing. He really gets me to thinking!

I'm rambling I know, but man, you guys are so certain of everything you think you know...it's scary.

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:

This drug is not contraception, because conception (i.e fertilization of the egg by the sperm ) has already taken place, so you are not preventing conception. It is an abortifacient. It causes the loss of the unborn after having been conceived.

So, in the case of in-vitro fertilization, a woman should be considered pregnant even when the zygotes are still in the petri dish?

Obviously no specific woman is yet pregnant. But a living being has been created, yes.

Thanks Jane and Momma edit:and mesquite!

Real Life, your question is trap built on semantics. It all depends on the definitions of the words "living" and "human being". As I pointed out, the whole right to life case rests on their definition as being assumed to be the right one. The word "child" is also used (see above) because it conjurs up images of the killing of the child that the feotus has the potential to become, rather than the foetus that it is right now. See, more semantics.

"Nothing is more usual than for philosophers to encroach on the province of grammarians, and to engage in disputes of words, while they imagine they are handling controversies of the deepest importance and concern."
David Hume

As you know, I would trust a doctor to tell me that my relative is "effectively dead" while you would prefer to ask a priest or a book.

Real Life perhaps you can respond to my question about miscarriage. Why do you think your god "murders" one out of every six "children" before 12 weeks?

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:

This drug is not contraception, because conception (i.e fertilization of the egg by the sperm ) has already taken place, so you are not preventing conception. It is an abortifacient. It causes the loss of the unborn after having been conceived.

So, in the case of in-vitro fertilization, a woman should be considered pregnant even when the zygotes are still in the petri dish?

Obviously no specific woman is yet pregnant. But a living being has been created, yes.

By your way of thinking then, in-vitro embryos that are not implanted are the equivalent of being aborted?