When Does Life Begin?

If you're not the individual that pushed somebody or fell by accident, what difference is it to you? Do you really care? Same as the woman who makes the choice to abort. What concern is it of yours? Are you part of that decision? If kept alive, are you involved in that baby's life? What difference does it make to you whether it's at conception or later? YOu talk about "infanticide." Are you involved with all the Indian women who kill their babies, because they're girl babies? How involved are you in those babies plight? After all, they're already "humans."

If you're not the individual that pushed somebody or fell by accident, what difference is it to you? Do you really care? Same as the woman who makes the choice to abort. What concern is it of yours? Are you part of that decision? If kept alive, are you involved in that baby's life? What difference does it make to you whether it's at conception or later?

Are you involved with all the Indian women who kill their babies, because they're girl babies? How involved are you in those babies plight?

real: Do you know the difference between something done intentionally and something that is an accident?

If you slip and fall down, is that different from me pushing you and causing your fall?

If you're not the individual that pushed somebody or fell by accident, what difference is it to you? Do you really care? Same as the woman who makes the choice to abort. What concern is it of yours? Are you part of that decision? If kept alive, are you involved in that baby's life? What difference does it make to you whether it's at conception or later? YOu talk about "infanticide." Are you involved with all the Indian women who kill their babies, because they're girl babies? How involved are you in those babies plight? After all, they're already "humans."

cicerone imposter wrote:

If you're not the individual that pushed somebody or fell by accident, what difference is it to you? Do you really care? Same as the woman who makes the choice to abort. What concern is it of yours? Are you part of that decision? If kept alive, are you involved in that baby's life? What difference does it make to you whether it's at conception or later? YOu talk about "infanticide." Are you involved with all the Indian women who kill their babies, because they're girl babies? How involved are you in those babies plight? After all, they're already "humans."

You're still cracking me up!

You shout out about how people should stay out of other's business:

Quote:

If you're not the individual that pushed somebody or fell by accident, what difference is it to you? Do you really care? Same as the woman who makes the choice to abort. What concern is it of yours? Are you part of that decision? If kept alive, are you involved in that baby's life? What difference does it make to you whether it's at conception or later?

Then in the same statement, you chastise them for not getting into other's business:

Quote:

Are you involved with all the Indian women who kill their babies, because they're girl babies? How involved are you in those babies plight?

Laughable!

USAFHokie80 wrote:

yeah... what he said!

so what about a miscarriage? is the mother a murder because an embryo was expelled from her body? i suppose the arguement could be made that aborting children with a significantly decreased chance of survival is really the will of mother nature...

Do you know the difference between something done intentionally and something that is an accident?

If you slip and fall down, is that different from me pushing you and causing your fall?

What concern is it of yours whether rape is legal or not, as long as you're not the one being raped, CI?

What concern is it of yours whether theft is legal or not, as long as you're not the one being stolen from, CI?

What concern is it of yours whether assault and battery is legal or not, as long as you're not the one being beaten, CI?

What concern is it of yours whether bombing is legal or not, as long as you're not the one being blown up, CI?

C'mon. Can't you do any better than that CI?

LOL. I knew you'd eventually say something stupid like this. You make me laugh.

You're retort presurposes that rape, theft, and hate crimes are only the issues of the respective female, rich, and black communities. You're an idiot.

1) You don't have to be rich to need laws against theft.
2) You don't need to be black (you could be *ahem* Asian) to uphold that slavery is wrong.
3) And lastly you certainly don't have to be a woman to be raped.

You honestly never let me down. I'm adding this to the list of stupid things you've said.

Fair enough, I'll expalin why they aren't comparable.

With rape, it is an issue for us all to be concerned about because it can happen to us or our families. We put laws in place to offer consequences. If rape were NOT illegal, any person who wished for intercourse could simply take it from any avalible person. This would destroy our societal fabric. The way we date, the where we go, our general saftey and security at any given moment and many other things as well.

Even as a man in in a loving relationship, if rape were legal, you're wife telling you "yes," would be of no meaning.

With theft, it is an issue for us to be involved because our property/capitol/ideas are often linked to our ability to survive. We put laws in place to promote order, othewise anything you wanted you could simply just take. Sucess wouldn't have any relation to hard work or drive but instead by our simple ability to overpower another weaker individual (for instance). Again, the societal fabric that maintains order would be destroyed.

Even as a person with no belongings, you still should have your intelectual property protected. RL's argument that as a person become LESS weathly that they would care LESS about their property is the inverse of the truth. I'd say if you had nothing, the things you did have, would mean even more to you.

With slavery, it is an issue for us to be invovled because we could just as easily be determined inferior and put into servitude. Such extreme prejudice does not confine itself to race lines either. Facsist ideals can exist in any population, and it could easily be you who feels the effect. "Slavery" is a limited term, I'd prefer to address "oppression." If one group could declare itslef superior to another group, it would destroy societal fabric and especially the order that is needed.

Take back all the Jim Crow Laws. Let everything be "Seperate but Equal." Let's assme you're a part of the majority, white-male. You'd live in a society that would stagnate. You could never have the best people for the job, only the majoritiy's people. Of course you could also end up being oppressed.

I can't believe I needed to clarify this.

With abortion, you'd be hard pressed to find an example of it breaking down the societal fabric.

Rape, theft, oppression. We have always had people/groups that desire the respective sex, wealth, and power that come with thse things. Abortion is not about these things. It's a personal affair.

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

yeah... what he said!

so what about a miscarriage? is the mother a murder because an embryo was expelled from her body? i suppose the arguement could be made that aborting children with a significantly decreased chance of survival is really the will of mother nature...

Do you know the difference between something done intentionally and something that is an accident?

If you slip and fall down, is that different from me pushing you and causing your fall?

A miscarriage is not an accident. The body can tell if there are some problems and forces the zygote out because it will not be able to sustain life. Of course, you can't really use this "it's what mother nature intended" defense if you simply don't *want* the child.... But I never defended that stance anyway.

To equate a miscarriage with an abortion is ludicrous.

real life wrote:

To equate a miscarriage with an abortion is ludicrous.

the correct language for a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion" - that's how it is phrased in medical records

Whether you consider 'nature' to have a 'reason' for a miscarriage is beside the point and pure speculation.

The point is, a miscarriage is not due to an action taken on purpose by a human being. But an abortion is.

That is the difference.

To equate a miscarriage with an abortion is ludicrous.

I'd hate to see you evaporate.

Meantimes, I think it would be much more interesting for you to defend your assertions 1 through 3

1] A human skin cell is a potential human being
2] A non fertilized egg is a potential human being
3] A sperm cell is a potential human being
4] A fertilized egg is a potential human being

with the same veracity as you might defend #4

Unless Chumly believes a table scrap is a potential human being.

Quote:

Whether you consider 'nature' to have a 'reason' for a miscarriage is beside the point and pure speculation.

The point is, a miscarriage is not due to an action taken on purpose by a human being. But an abortion is.

That is the difference.

To equate a miscarriage with an abortion is ludicrous.

No more ridiculous than the christian extremist who threaten violence in order to further the "good book."

so what about a miscarriage? is the mother a murder because an embryo was expelled from her body?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Quote:

Whether you consider 'nature' to have a 'reason' for a miscarriage is beside the point and pure speculation.

The point is, a miscarriage is not due to an action taken on purpose by a human being. But an abortion is.

That is the difference.

To equate a miscarriage with an abortion is ludicrous.

No more ridiculous than the christian extremist who threaten violence in order to further the "good book."

Not sure what you are referring to.

You tried to draw equivalance between a miscarriage (an accident, or at least an action not deliberately caused by human action) and an abortion, (the purposeful and violent dismemberment and disposal of an unborn child), when you said:

Quote:

so what about a miscarriage? is the mother a murder because an embryo was expelled from her body?

Somehow I got the idea that you thought the skin cell was somehow equivalent to the fertilized egg.

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Quote:

Whether you consider 'nature' to have a 'reason' for a miscarriage is beside the point and pure speculation.

The point is, a miscarriage is not due to an action taken on purpose by a human being. But an abortion is.

That is the difference.

To equate a miscarriage with an abortion is ludicrous.

No more ridiculous than the christian extremist who threaten violence in order to further the "good book."

Not sure what you are referring to.

You tried to draw equivalance between a miscarriage (an accident, or at least an action not deliberately caused by human action) and an abortion, (the purposeful and violent dismemberment and disposal of an unborn child), when you said:

Quote:

so what about a miscarriage? is the mother a murder because an embryo was expelled from her body?

I was pointing out that people use similar arguments when "god" smites people with (enter a disaster here) for (enter some sin here). These people believe that god has a reason to do these things, and so it is ok for them to do them as they are only "doing god's work."

Aborting a mal-formed fetus is only "doing mother nature's work."

neologist wrote:

Somehow I got the idea that you thought the skin cell was somehow equivalent to the fertilized egg.

that was real life's chromosome count argument