41% of Births end in Abortion...100%

[ephrem]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Just by calling it one thing over another it suddenly has an inherent right to life?

does not compute
[/quote]

You agreed earlier that a zygote is a human being. Is your position that not all human beings have an inherent right to life?
[/quote]

It’s a human being without the physical capabilities required to be sentient. A coma patient with fluids for brains is a human being that has lost the physical capabilities to be sentient.

Without this, without a brain, we’re only human through the perceptions of others, in their memories, their longings, their ideals.

A human being without a brain is not a person. It has no rights.

[orion]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I am not stretching anything, in fact it is you that wants to stretch the legal definition of person to a point where a zygote has the same rights as a person.

There is no way and no how to equate a lump of cells with a full fledged human being without jumping head first into the mystical.[/quote]

There is absolutely no stretching required for my terms. In fact, you even agree. Here:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Seriously, what don’t people get about this? There is no magical swap here. It IS the same individual organism throughout it’s entire life and developmental cycle. This isn’t a point for debate. The debate is, is intentionally taking innocent human life a legitimate “choice” in a nation that supposedly values “inalienable rights.” First, necessarily, being the right to life.

Orion wrote:
If you say so.

[/quote]

Here’s the telling thing about every response of this nature. Not once have they challenged me. I made plain claims, why not falsify them? I’m claiming to argue from science, after all.

1. Human embryo is an organism. Y or N
2. The above organism is an individual, having it’s own diploid set of DNA. Y or N
3. An organism is living. Y or N

I’ll make this last one multiple guess. Human mother carries in the womb a) a dog b) a parrot c) a jackalope or d) none of the previous, as we can see by DNA testing that it is human. And, as we already know anyways, there is no organism swap-out just before birth.

If no one falsifies what I’ve said, then I’ve framed the debate correctly. This is a discussion about the “right” to take innocent human lives. Now, I can’t seem to find this right anywhere in our historic and founding documents. But, I did find this gem “The right to life.” It is–well, sadly that might be ‘was’–also a peculiar historical belief that our rights were inalienable.

[/quote]

Yes, yes and yes.

Does not change that an embryo does not have the same rights as a born human being and for good reasons.

[/quote]

So, here we have the one who posits that the embryo at its earliest stages is an individual living human organism, and should thus be afforded the rights of a…wait for it…human organism, and we have you, who actually agrees that the organism is indeed an individual living human organism, but it is somehow different in kind from the same organism at a later stage, but the organism itself is the same organism.

Now which of these two characters sounds more “mystical?”
[/quote]

The first one of course, why do you ask?

[Cortes]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I am not stretching anything, in fact it is you that wants to stretch the legal definition of person to a point where a zygote has the same rights as a person.

There is no way and no how to equate a lump of cells with a full fledged human being without jumping head first into the mystical.[/quote]

There is absolutely no stretching required for my terms. In fact, you even agree. Here:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Seriously, what don’t people get about this? There is no magical swap here. It IS the same individual organism throughout it’s entire life and developmental cycle. This isn’t a point for debate. The debate is, is intentionally taking innocent human life a legitimate “choice” in a nation that supposedly values “inalienable rights.” First, necessarily, being the right to life.

Orion wrote:
If you say so.

[/quote]

Here’s the telling thing about every response of this nature. Not once have they challenged me. I made plain claims, why not falsify them? I’m claiming to argue from science, after all.

1. Human embryo is an organism. Y or N
2. The above organism is an individual, having it’s own diploid set of DNA. Y or N
3. An organism is living. Y or N

I’ll make this last one multiple guess. Human mother carries in the womb a) a dog b) a parrot c) a jackalope or d) none of the previous, as we can see by DNA testing that it is human. And, as we already know anyways, there is no organism swap-out just before birth.

If no one falsifies what I’ve said, then I’ve framed the debate correctly. This is a discussion about the “right” to take innocent human lives. Now, I can’t seem to find this right anywhere in our historic and founding documents. But, I did find this gem “The right to life.” It is–well, sadly that might be ‘was’–also a peculiar historical belief that our rights were inalienable.

[/quote]

Yes, yes and yes.

Does not change that an embryo does not have the same rights as a born human being and for good reasons.

[/quote]

So, here we have the one who posits that the embryo at its earliest stages is an individual living human organism, and should thus be afforded the rights of a…wait for it…human organism, and we have you, who actually agrees that the organism is indeed an individual living human organism, but it is somehow different in kind from the same organism at a later stage, but the organism itself is the same organism.

Now which of these two characters sounds more “mystical?”
[/quote]

The first one of course, why do you ask?[/quote]

Wait. So which is it? Are property rights absolute or aren’t they?

Or is it that the rights themselves are absolute, but the human right to those rights is limited? Arbitrarily. But not mystically.

I’m confused.

[orion]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I am not stretching anything, in fact it is you that wants to stretch the legal definition of person to a point where a zygote has the same rights as a person.

There is no way and no how to equate a lump of cells with a full fledged human being without jumping head first into the mystical.[/quote]

There is absolutely no stretching required for my terms. In fact, you even agree. Here:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Seriously, what don’t people get about this? There is no magical swap here. It IS the same individual organism throughout it’s entire life and developmental cycle. This isn’t a point for debate. The debate is, is intentionally taking innocent human life a legitimate “choice” in a nation that supposedly values “inalienable rights.” First, necessarily, being the right to life.

Orion wrote:
If you say so.

[/quote]

Here’s the telling thing about every response of this nature. Not once have they challenged me. I made plain claims, why not falsify them? I’m claiming to argue from science, after all.

1. Human embryo is an organism. Y or N
2. The above organism is an individual, having it’s own diploid set of DNA. Y or N
3. An organism is living. Y or N

I’ll make this last one multiple guess. Human mother carries in the womb a) a dog b) a parrot c) a jackalope or d) none of the previous, as we can see by DNA testing that it is human. And, as we already know anyways, there is no organism swap-out just before birth.

If no one falsifies what I’ve said, then I’ve framed the debate correctly. This is a discussion about the “right” to take innocent human lives. Now, I can’t seem to find this right anywhere in our historic and founding documents. But, I did find this gem “The right to life.” It is–well, sadly that might be ‘was’–also a peculiar historical belief that our rights were inalienable.

[/quote]

Yes, yes and yes.

Does not change that an embryo does not have the same rights as a born human being and for good reasons.

[/quote]

So, here we have the one who posits that the embryo at its earliest stages is an individual living human organism, and should thus be afforded the rights of a…wait for it…human organism, and we have you, who actually agrees that the organism is indeed an individual living human organism, but it is somehow different in kind from the same organism at a later stage, but the organism itself is the same organism.

Now which of these two characters sounds more “mystical?”
[/quote]

The first one of course, why do you ask?[/quote]

Wait. So which is it? Are property rights absolute or aren’t they?

Or is it that the rights themselves are absolute, but the human right to those rights is limited? Arbitrarily. But not mystically.

I’m confused. [/quote]

It is arbitrary not to ascribe property rights to any lump of cells that just happens to have human DNA?

Allrighty then.

[Sloth]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

It’s a human being without the physical capabilities required to be sentient.
[/quote]

If it didn’t have the capabilities required to be sentient, it couldn’t become sentient. It’s requirements are already written in it’s DNA. Now, the only reason it doesn’t achieve such is due to disease or if it is outright killed. This ‘liquid for brains guy’ of yours is a whole 'nother scenario. I’m ignored, but forlife might appreciate my taking this one.

Let us turn the liquid for brains thing on it’s head. Let’s make it a much better analogy. What if ‘liquid for brains’ people always (barring some other disease state) achieved sentience within 9 months? What if vegetative coma patients always, pop, woke up, aware, after 9 months? Mmmhmm.

[fattymcfatso]

Sperm are alive. I have killed trillions of them throughout my lifetime. I kill them everyday. Should it be illegal to kill sperm by whacking off? The potential for ceating a human starts in a man’s ability to ejaculate sperm. Should women not be able to use birth control? Eggs are alive aren’t they?

My wife and I can not have children, we adopted 2 kids that we first raised through the foster care system. I am guessing most of the people in this debate (I did not read all the posts) are not foster parents. Guess what, the foster care system is overloaded with kids who need homes that were born to teenagers who can not take care of them. So it is up to people like my wife and I to do it. Yes, if our kids were not in the system we would not have the family we do now. But we get calls every month asking us to take more children, we can not do it anymore because we are relocating to a different state. But there are always kids who need homes.

Most of you pro-lifers want the embryo to be born because it “has rights.” You guys are the same people (Republicans usually) who don’t want to pay the taxes to support the kids that you want so deperatly to be born. The kids that are born into poverty generally stay in poverty. The people who live in poverty are the people who need the social programs that cost us all money, and croud the jails that cost us money, and comit the crimes that make our country worse. More people is not always better.

- YouTube

Is this what you guys want?

[Cortes]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I am not stretching anything, in fact it is you that wants to stretch the legal definition of person to a point where a zygote has the same rights as a person.

There is no way and no how to equate a lump of cells with a full fledged human being without jumping head first into the mystical.[/quote]

There is absolutely no stretching required for my terms. In fact, you even agree. Here:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Seriously, what don’t people get about this? There is no magical swap here. It IS the same individual organism throughout it’s entire life and developmental cycle. This isn’t a point for debate. The debate is, is intentionally taking innocent human life a legitimate “choice” in a nation that supposedly values “inalienable rights.” First, necessarily, being the right to life.

Orion wrote:
If you say so.

[/quote]

Here’s the telling thing about every response of this nature. Not once have they challenged me. I made plain claims, why not falsify them? I’m claiming to argue from science, after all.

1. Human embryo is an organism. Y or N
2. The above organism is an individual, having it’s own diploid set of DNA. Y or N
3. An organism is living. Y or N

I’ll make this last one multiple guess. Human mother carries in the womb a) a dog b) a parrot c) a jackalope or d) none of the previous, as we can see by DNA testing that it is human. And, as we already know anyways, there is no organism swap-out just before birth.

If no one falsifies what I’ve said, then I’ve framed the debate correctly. This is a discussion about the “right” to take innocent human lives. Now, I can’t seem to find this right anywhere in our historic and founding documents. But, I did find this gem “The right to life.” It is–well, sadly that might be ‘was’–also a peculiar historical belief that our rights were inalienable.

[/quote]

Yes, yes and yes.

Does not change that an embryo does not have the same rights as a born human being and for good reasons.

[/quote]

So, here we have the one who posits that the embryo at its earliest stages is an individual living human organism, and should thus be afforded the rights of a…wait for it…human organism, and we have you, who actually agrees that the organism is indeed an individual living human organism, but it is somehow different in kind from the same organism at a later stage, but the organism itself is the same organism.

Now which of these two characters sounds more “mystical?”
[/quote]

The first one of course, why do you ask?[/quote]

Wait. So which is it? Are property rights absolute or aren’t they?

Or is it that the rights themselves are absolute, but the human right to those rights is limited? Arbitrarily. But not mystically.

I’m confused. [/quote]

It is arbitrary not to ascribe property rights to any lump of cells that just happens to have human DNA?

Allrighty then.[/quote]

Yes, alrighty then, Please tell me when these property rights are to be, dare I say “mystically,” ascribed to the living human organism. When is it not arbitrary? 6 weeks? 2nd trimester? Are the rights magically conferred upon breaching the vaginal threshold? Just before that? Does the one month old in the discussion earlier possess these rights in the same capacity as her 20 year old mother? Do we get more property rights the older we get?

Do explain.

[orion]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I am not stretching anything, in fact it is you that wants to stretch the legal definition of person to a point where a zygote has the same rights as a person.

There is no way and no how to equate a lump of cells with a full fledged human being without jumping head first into the mystical.[/quote]

There is absolutely no stretching required for my terms. In fact, you even agree. Here:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Seriously, what don’t people get about this? There is no magical swap here. It IS the same individual organism throughout it’s entire life and developmental cycle. This isn’t a point for debate. The debate is, is intentionally taking innocent human life a legitimate “choice” in a nation that supposedly values “inalienable rights.” First, necessarily, being the right to life.

Orion wrote:
If you say so.

[/quote]

Here’s the telling thing about every response of this nature. Not once have they challenged me. I made plain claims, why not falsify them? I’m claiming to argue from science, after all.

1. Human embryo is an organism. Y or N
2. The above organism is an individual, having it’s own diploid set of DNA. Y or N
3. An organism is living. Y or N

I’ll make this last one multiple guess. Human mother carries in the womb a) a dog b) a parrot c) a jackalope or d) none of the previous, as we can see by DNA testing that it is human. And, as we already know anyways, there is no organism swap-out just before birth.

If no one falsifies what I’ve said, then I’ve framed the debate correctly. This is a discussion about the “right” to take innocent human lives. Now, I can’t seem to find this right anywhere in our historic and founding documents. But, I did find this gem “The right to life.” It is–well, sadly that might be ‘was’–also a peculiar historical belief that our rights were inalienable.

[/quote]

Yes, yes and yes.

Does not change that an embryo does not have the same rights as a born human being and for good reasons.

[/quote]

So, here we have the one who posits that the embryo at its earliest stages is an individual living human organism, and should thus be afforded the rights of a…wait for it…human organism, and we have you, who actually agrees that the organism is indeed an individual living human organism, but it is somehow different in kind from the same organism at a later stage, but the organism itself is the same organism.

Now which of these two characters sounds more “mystical?”
[/quote]

The first one of course, why do you ask?[/quote]

Wait. So which is it? Are property rights absolute or aren’t they?

Or is it that the rights themselves are absolute, but the human right to those rights is limited? Arbitrarily. But not mystically.

I’m confused. [/quote]

It is arbitrary not to ascribe property rights to any lump of cells that just happens to have human DNA?

Allrighty then.[/quote]

Yes, alrighty then, Please tell me when these property rights are to be, dare I say “mystically,” ascribed to the living human organism. When is it not arbitrary? 6 weeks? 2nd trimester? Are the rights magically conferred upon breaching the vaginal threshold? Just before that? Does the one month old in the discussion earlier possess these rights in the same capacity as her 20 year old mother? Do we get more property rights the older we get?

Do explain.
[/quote]

Actually yes, legally speaking you “get more property rights the older you get”, no child can sign a legally binding contract for example.

[Cortes]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I am not stretching anything, in fact it is you that wants to stretch the legal definition of person to a point where a zygote has the same rights as a person.

There is no way and no how to equate a lump of cells with a full fledged human being without jumping head first into the mystical.[/quote]

There is absolutely no stretching required for my terms. In fact, you even agree. Here:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Seriously, what don’t people get about this? There is no magical swap here. It IS the same individual organism throughout it’s entire life and developmental cycle. This isn’t a point for debate. The debate is, is intentionally taking innocent human life a legitimate “choice” in a nation that supposedly values “inalienable rights.” First, necessarily, being the right to life.

Orion wrote:
If you say so.

[/quote]

Here’s the telling thing about every response of this nature. Not once have they challenged me. I made plain claims, why not falsify them? I’m claiming to argue from science, after all.

1. Human embryo is an organism. Y or N
2. The above organism is an individual, having it’s own diploid set of DNA. Y or N
3. An organism is living. Y or N

I’ll make this last one multiple guess. Human mother carries in the womb a) a dog b) a parrot c) a jackalope or d) none of the previous, as we can see by DNA testing that it is human. And, as we already know anyways, there is no organism swap-out just before birth.

If no one falsifies what I’ve said, then I’ve framed the debate correctly. This is a discussion about the “right” to take innocent human lives. Now, I can’t seem to find this right anywhere in our historic and founding documents. But, I did find this gem “The right to life.” It is–well, sadly that might be ‘was’–also a peculiar historical belief that our rights were inalienable.

[/quote]

Yes, yes and yes.

Does not change that an embryo does not have the same rights as a born human being and for good reasons.

[/quote]

So, here we have the one who posits that the embryo at its earliest stages is an individual living human organism, and should thus be afforded the rights of a…wait for it…human organism, and we have you, who actually agrees that the organism is indeed an individual living human organism, but it is somehow different in kind from the same organism at a later stage, but the organism itself is the same organism.

Now which of these two characters sounds more “mystical?”
[/quote]

The first one of course, why do you ask?[/quote]

Wait. So which is it? Are property rights absolute or aren’t they?

Or is it that the rights themselves are absolute, but the human right to those rights is limited? Arbitrarily. But not mystically.

I’m confused. [/quote]

It is arbitrary not to ascribe property rights to any lump of cells that just happens to have human DNA?

Allrighty then.[/quote]

Yes, alrighty then, Please tell me when these property rights are to be, dare I say “mystically,” ascribed to the living human organism. When is it not arbitrary? 6 weeks? 2nd trimester? Are the rights magically conferred upon breaching the vaginal threshold? Just before that? Does the one month old in the discussion earlier possess these rights in the same capacity as her 20 year old mother? Do we get more property rights the older we get?

Do explain.
[/quote]

Actually yes, legally speaking you “get more property rights the older you get”, no child can sign a legally binding contract for example.

[/quote]

Slaves couldn’t sign legally binding contracts at one time in America. It has nothing to do with what I’m asking and you know it.

If you can’t answer the question or don’t want to that’s fine, but at least admit it and stop wasting both our time.

[pat]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

No more than a cake batter could be a pancake.

[/quote]

In fact, it can.[/quote]

It could be a lot of things, but a human zygote can either be a live human or a dead one.

[pat]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I am not stretching anything, in fact it is you that wants to stretch the legal definition of person to a point where a zygote has the same rights as a person.

There is no way and no how to equate a lump of cells with a full fledged human being without jumping head first into the mystical.[/quote]

There is absolutely no stretching required for my terms. In fact, you even agree. Here:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Seriously, what don’t people get about this? There is no magical swap here. It IS the same individual organism throughout it’s entire life and developmental cycle. This isn’t a point for debate. The debate is, is intentionally taking innocent human life a legitimate “choice” in a nation that supposedly values “inalienable rights.” First, necessarily, being the right to life.

Orion wrote:
If you say so.

[/quote]

Here’s the telling thing about every response of this nature. Not once have they challenged me. I made plain claims, why not falsify them? I’m claiming to argue from science, after all.

1. Human embryo is an organism. Y or N
2. The above organism is an individual, having it’s own diploid set of DNA. Y or N
3. An organism is living. Y or N

I’ll make this last one multiple guess. Human mother carries in the womb a) a dog b) a parrot c) a jackalope or d) none of the previous, as we can see by DNA testing that it is human. And, as we already know anyways, there is no organism swap-out just before birth.

If no one falsifies what I’ve said, then I’ve framed the debate correctly. This is a discussion about the “right” to take innocent human lives. Now, I can’t seem to find this right anywhere in our historic and founding documents. But, I did find this gem “The right to life.” It is–well, sadly that might be ‘was’–also a peculiar historical belief that our rights were inalienable.

[/quote]

Yes, yes and yes.

Does not change that an embryo does not have the same rights as a born human being and for good reasons.

[/quote]

So, here we have the one who posits that the embryo at its earliest stages is an individual living human organism, and should thus be afforded the rights of a…wait for it…human organism, and we have you, who actually agrees that the organism is indeed an individual living human organism, but it is somehow different in kind from the same organism at a later stage, but the organism itself is the same organism.

Now which of these two characters sounds more “mystical?”
[/quote]

The first one of course, why do you ask?[/quote]

Wait. So which is it? Are property rights absolute or aren’t they?

Or is it that the rights themselves are absolute, but the human right to those rights is limited? Arbitrarily. But not mystically.

I’m confused. [/quote]

It is arbitrary not to ascribe property rights to any lump of cells that just happens to have human DNA?

Allrighty then.[/quote]

Yes, alrighty then, Please tell me when these property rights are to be, dare I say “mystically,” ascribed to the living human organism. When is it not arbitrary? 6 weeks? 2nd trimester? Are the rights magically conferred upon breaching the vaginal threshold? Just before that? Does the one month old in the discussion earlier possess these rights in the same capacity as her 20 year old mother? Do we get more property rights the older we get?

Do explain.
[/quote]

Actually yes, legally speaking you “get more property rights the older you get”, no child can sign a legally binding contract for example.

[/quote]

If you cannot see why the property rights thing is utterly stupid, no body can help you. Property rights are a western thing. Lot’s of oppressive societies don’t let their people own or have shit, but they are people still. Besides a baby human does occupy the physical space it takes up. The only way to free up that space is to destroy it.

[pat]

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I would have to say in the first three questions there are ways to tell when you conceived. Granted, if it’s within a few days…that would be up to the woman and her husband to decide, if they want to take that chance. If the baby ends up being the rapist’s they can always give it up for adoption, but personally I would err on the side of caution and abort and hope my husband would understand. We can always get pregnant again. As for the fifth question, I would do everything in my power to make my child’s life as full as I possibly could for as long as it lived. A risk to the mother’s life is if the continued pregnancy and birth would put her life in any kind of danger. I’m not talking about pregnancy induced diabetes (I cannot remember the term for this right now, I’m sorry), but serious medical issues. [/quote]

Okay, well I guess what I am trying to get at with the first three questions, is how does the value of that human being change based on who the father is?

You can always get pregnant again? I hope I have mistaken what you said, but are you saying that child is a means to an end? If it is not what the child you want (the end), you can just abort and get pregnant again and conceive another child (the means)?

‘Any kind of danger’ seems a tad arbitrary. Let me see if I can understand you better.

Like what ailment would the mother need to be in risk of to induce abortion? Is a small risk good enough or does it have to be a good chance of it happening? If there is a high risk (or even a small risk), what if it is easily preventable?

NB: I don’t mean to be cold about this subject, I condemn rape and the rapist without reserve. No woman deserves to have something forced on her like that and not only is she being forced to let go of her innocence, she was forced to give up her freedom in some ways.[/quote]

My thinking is why should I have to go through a pregnancy resulting from a rape? Why do I need to be put through that? Wasn’t getting raped enough? Now I have to give birth to that kid? No thank you. I apologize that I am not thinking of the possible human life and I’m being selfish, but I think that making me go through with an unwanted pregnancy makes the rape that much more horrible and damaging.

No, what I’m saying is that I would hope my husband would understand WHY I would need to abort that baby and understand that we can always get pregnant again and for sure conceive a child in love and not have a baby possibly tainted by rape. If there is a way to do a paternity test in utero, an abortion in such a case would not be considered.

Okay, the only thing I can think of is my best friend from college. She has endometriosis and actually needed to take fertility drugs to get pregnant. Her first pregnancy almost killed her. She had the world’s worst pregnancy and her labor was unreal. Her doctors said she should NEVER get pregnant again or her life would seriously be in danger. Now, they also thought there was an extremely remote chance that the first pregnancy “rebooted” her reproductive system but they didn’t know. I even suggested I would be a surrogate if she decided to have another kid. Just this year she had her second daughter and her pregnancy was textbook and easy. Now, if it had gone the way the doctors thought it would, and if her life was in danger, if she started hemorrhaging uncontrollably or something equally horrific, I would say an abortion would be okay in that case. Or at least inducing a miscarriage. [/quote]

A rape is indeed a horrifying thing and I can’t speak to being raped since is has never happened to me, or you for that matter. But it still ignores the main and only question that matters. When does human life begin?

Now, if I were a politician, I would negotiate down to the rape and incest thing because it accounts for very, very few abortions. I would negotiate that down to get rid of the millions for the sake of the less than 100.
Every life is sacred, but I understand that numbers matter too. If I could get rid of most forsaking the few, I would do it.

[pat]

[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
Sperm are alive. I have killed trillions of them throughout my lifetime. I kill them everyday. Should it be illegal to kill sperm by whacking off? The potential for ceating a human starts in a man’s ability to ejaculate sperm. Should women not be able to use birth control? Eggs are alive aren’t they?

My wife and I can not have children, we adopted 2 kids that we first raised through the foster care system. I am guessing most of the people in this debate (I did not read all the posts) are not foster parents. Guess what, the foster care system is overloaded with kids who need homes that were born to teenagers who can not take care of them. So it is up to people like my wife and I to do it. Yes, if our kids were not in the system we would not have the family we do now. But we get calls every month asking us to take more children, we can not do it anymore because we are relocating to a different state. But there are always kids who need homes.

Most of you pro-lifers want the embryo to be born because it “has rights.” You guys are the same people (Republicans usually) who don’t want to pay the taxes to support the kids that you want so deperatly to be born. The kids that are born into poverty generally stay in poverty. The people who live in poverty are the people who need the social programs that cost us all money, and croud the jails that cost us money, and comit the crimes that make our country worse. More people is not always better.

- YouTube

Is this what you guys want?

[/quote]

Are you saying a sperm is a human being?
WE are talking about human life, not the life of anything. A sperm isn’t human. It has less than half of what it needs to qualify. When even being 99.9% of human doen’t necessarily qualify you as human, then less than 50% is a huge difference.

We’re not talking about rights we’re talking about the single right to live, that’s it nothing more.

[fattymcfatso]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
Sperm are alive. I have killed trillions of them throughout my lifetime. I kill them everyday. Should it be illegal to kill sperm by whacking off? The potential for ceating a human starts in a man’s ability to ejaculate sperm. Should women not be able to use birth control? Eggs are alive aren’t they?

My wife and I can not have children, we adopted 2 kids that we first raised through the foster care system. I am guessing most of the people in this debate (I did not read all the posts) are not foster parents. Guess what, the foster care system is overloaded with kids who need homes that were born to teenagers who can not take care of them. So it is up to people like my wife and I to do it. Yes, if our kids were not in the system we would not have the family we do now. But we get calls every month asking us to take more children, we can not do it anymore because we are relocating to a different state. But there are always kids who need homes.

Most of you pro-lifers want the embryo to be born because it “has rights.” You guys are the same people (Republicans usually) who don’t want to pay the taxes to support the kids that you want so deperatly to be born. The kids that are born into poverty generally stay in poverty. The people who live in poverty are the people who need the social programs that cost us all money, and croud the jails that cost us money, and comit the crimes that make our country worse. More people is not always better.

- YouTube

Is this what you guys want?

[/quote]

Are you saying a sperm is a human being?
WE are talking about human life, not the life of anything. A sperm isn’t human. It has less than half of what it needs to qualify. When even being 99.9% of human doen’t necessarily qualify you as human, then less than 50% is a huge difference.

We’re not talking about rights we’re talking about the single right to live, that’s it nothing more. [/quote]

Humans should live. The embryo is on it’s way to being a human, the sperm is on it’s way to being an embryo. Why is it called an embryo and not a baby? Because it does not have all of the characteristics of a baby human yet.

I get it, abortion seems mean. Killing something seems wrong. So does letting two gay guys get married I guess. Bringing a child into poverty is not a top choice for most young women, screwing up their chance at getting into school and getting a good job is also not a top choice. Once the mistake is made, the choice to fix it (within a certain amount of time) is up to them, not you guys. If you want to volunteer and take care of all of the babies you are going to “save” then I guess you should have a say in the matter. If not then I don’t understand why you pretend to care so much.

[Grneyes]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I would have to say in the first three questions there are ways to tell when you conceived. Granted, if it’s within a few days…that would be up to the woman and her husband to decide, if they want to take that chance. If the baby ends up being the rapist’s they can always give it up for adoption, but personally I would err on the side of caution and abort and hope my husband would understand. We can always get pregnant again. As for the fifth question, I would do everything in my power to make my child’s life as full as I possibly could for as long as it lived. A risk to the mother’s life is if the continued pregnancy and birth would put her life in any kind of danger. I’m not talking about pregnancy induced diabetes (I cannot remember the term for this right now, I’m sorry), but serious medical issues. [/quote]

Okay, well I guess what I am trying to get at with the first three questions, is how does the value of that human being change based on who the father is?

You can always get pregnant again? I hope I have mistaken what you said, but are you saying that child is a means to an end? If it is not what the child you want (the end), you can just abort and get pregnant again and conceive another child (the means)?

‘Any kind of danger’ seems a tad arbitrary. Let me see if I can understand you better.

Like what ailment would the mother need to be in risk of to induce abortion? Is a small risk good enough or does it have to be a good chance of it happening? If there is a high risk (or even a small risk), what if it is easily preventable?

NB: I don’t mean to be cold about this subject, I condemn rape and the rapist without reserve. No woman deserves to have something forced on her like that and not only is she being forced to let go of her innocence, she was forced to give up her freedom in some ways.[/quote]

My thinking is why should I have to go through a pregnancy resulting from a rape? Why do I need to be put through that? Wasn’t getting raped enough? Now I have to give birth to that kid? No thank you. I apologize that I am not thinking of the possible human life and I’m being selfish, but I think that making me go through with an unwanted pregnancy makes the rape that much more horrible and damaging.

No, what I’m saying is that I would hope my husband would understand WHY I would need to abort that baby and understand that we can always get pregnant again and for sure conceive a child in love and not have a baby possibly tainted by rape. If there is a way to do a paternity test in utero, an abortion in such a case would not be considered.

Okay, the only thing I can think of is my best friend from college. She has endometriosis and actually needed to take fertility drugs to get pregnant. Her first pregnancy almost killed her. She had the world’s worst pregnancy and her labor was unreal. Her doctors said she should NEVER get pregnant again or her life would seriously be in danger. Now, they also thought there was an extremely remote chance that the first pregnancy “rebooted” her reproductive system but they didn’t know. I even suggested I would be a surrogate if she decided to have another kid. Just this year she had her second daughter and her pregnancy was textbook and easy. Now, if it had gone the way the doctors thought it would, and if her life was in danger, if she started hemorrhaging uncontrollably or something equally horrific, I would say an abortion would be okay in that case. Or at least inducing a miscarriage. [/quote]

A rape is indeed a horrifying thing and I can’t speak to being raped since is has never happened to me, or you for that matter. But it still ignores the main and only question that matters. When does human life begin?

Now, if I were a politician, I would negotiate down to the rape and incest thing because it accounts for very, very few abortions. I would negotiate that down to get rid of the millions for the sake of the less than 100.
Every life is sacred, but I understand that numbers matter too. If I could get rid of most forsaking the few, I would do it.[/quote]

I have never been concerned about when life begins and it’s role in the abortion debate. I am pro-choice and think that when all is said and done it is the woman’s ultimate choice. I definitely do NOT think that she should make the decision without first telling the father and discussing it with him. I know someone this happened to a long time ago and it still bothers him today. Would that baby have been a boy or a girl? What kind of dad would he have been? What kind of life would he have today if that baby had been allowed to be born?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
it appears men are the only ones on this thread agruing against abortion… intresting.[/quote]

I guess you missed Grneyes, Buckeyegirl, and BG’s friend. And, what is your point?[/quote]

i did say it appears that men are, plus i thought buckeyegirl was for it. My point? its pretty hard for men to have say when we have no idea what carrying a child is like, the pressures, the demand, the worry, commitment.

[/quote]

I guess man can’t know that an unborn child is a person without being a woman?

And, if it is hard for men to have say when we have no idea, why are you commenting? Isn’t that hypocritical to think men shouldn’t have a say and then you put your say in it?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]forlife wrote:
A clump of cells & human being[/quote]

I don’t understand the difference, what makes an unborn child not a human being?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
My thinking is why should I have to go through a pregnancy resulting from a rape? Why do I need to be put through that? Wasn’t getting raped enough? Now I have to give birth to that kid? No thank you. I apologize that I am not thinking of the possible human life and I’m being selfish, but I think that making me go through with an unwanted pregnancy makes the rape that much more horrible and damaging.[/quote]

From the victims of rape I have heard talk about the subject, the trauma of the abortion outlasted the trauma of the rape by a long shot. http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

No, what I’m saying is that I would hope my husband would understand WHY I would need to abort that baby and understand that we can always get pregnant again and for sure conceive a child in love and not have a baby possibly tainted by rape. If there is a way to do a paternity test in utero, an abortion in such a case would not be considered.

How is a person tainted by rape when they are not even able to harm someone?

Her doctors said she should NEVER get pregnant again or her life would seriously be in danger.

Well there is a good way of not getting pregnant without abortion.

Now, they also thought there was an extremely remote chance that the first pregnancy “rebooted” her reproductive system but they didn’t know. I even suggested I would be a surrogate if she decided to have another kid. Just this year she had her second daughter and her pregnancy was textbook and easy.

I am glad your friend had a good pregnancy, her children are a blessing. Two daughters I am sure she is thrilled.

Now, if it had gone the way the doctors thought it would, and if her life was in danger, if she started hemorrhaging uncontrollably or something equally horrific, I would say an abortion would be okay in that case. Or at least inducing a miscarriage.

It is difficult for me to explain, so I’ll let you research it: principle of double-effect. Basically it is the idea that there are procedures that their first intent is to save the mother (unlike induced abortion/miscarriage which its first intent is to terminate the unborn child). This can be chemo, c-section, &c. Which gives the child the possibility to live, though it might be a small chance.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
The perceived rights of a clump of cells do not superceed the rights of a woman.
[/quote]

Who gives the woman absolute right over the unborn child? Do they not have equal rights? Or are children somehow less of a person than its mother? Are not all humans created equal?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
sentient
[/quote]

You’re right that the unborn are not can’t feel pain early in its development. And, it can’t think and is not self-aware until muchlater, but how does level of development determine our value? What about humans outside the womb who can’t feel pain, have worse thinking skills, and lack self-awareness than others? If level of development gives us our value, don’t those of us with better thinking skills have more value with less?