American's More Pro-Life

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]debraD wrote:
pat wrote:
Here is a question for the pro-abortion folks only. At what point does the child with in the womb become human and from what point would it be considered the killing of a human life?

One thing you cannot argue is that it is a human life, but it’s still ok to kill it…I want to know when it’s wrong to kill the unborn…Most people don’t agree with partial-birth or 9th month abortions, so that is why I am asking.

From a perspective of rights and personal autonomy, the question isn’t relevant. No being, human, grown, embryonic or otherwise has an entitlement to the use of another’s body without their consent. Now you can argue the premise of consent (is sex consent?) and that is fair enough but the actual development of the fetus/embryo/whatever is quite irrelevant from an purely ethical standpoint. It is only relevant in terms of personal ‘ickiness,’ squeamishness and discomfort, but for comparisons sake, it is also disconcerting that someone may die because I did not offer my organs/blood/bone marrow to prevent their death.

You could even argue that the killing of the fetus is only a side effect of terminating the pregnancy or removing the fetus, since it couldn’t survive otherwise.

[/quote]

I love the consent argument . . . let’s see if I get this right . . .

You and another adult consent to have sexual intercourse both fully cognizant that the potential result of having this consensual sexual intercourse will be the birth of a human being . . . knowing the potential result of your consensual behavior - you do it anyways . . .

Once the consensual intercourse has been completed (hopefully to the satisfaction of both parties)- natural biology kicks into gear and an infant human being is created.

We know that the infant (left to natural process) will develop, be born and grow into an adult human being - no chance that it will be an elephant, donkey or aardvark (well, maybe an aardvark) - regardless, it is a life if left to natural course.

So, having consensually chosen to enjoy the act of intercourse (procreation) you willingly took the risk of having to give birth to another human being - now that the actual process has begun, you decide that you do not want the added responsibility, pain and suffering yada yada whatever . . . . SO - to avoid the natural consequence of your consensual act, you choose to end the natural process of allowing the infant human to develop to its natural potential . . .

No infant ever needs to asks for permission to use your uterus - the permission is implicit because you created the infant by your own volitional choice! You willingly undertook the act that resulted in the infant’s creation and then to avoid the consequence of that choice - you choose to end the life process of that infant . . .

oh and on that whole ridiculous parasite issue - HOSTS DON"T CREATE THEIR OWN PARASITES - if you created it - it’s a part of you - duoh!

oh well - I’m just talking to the wind I’m sure . . .

102

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Standard Donkey wrote:

I just dont understand why everyone must be relieved of their responsibilities. It is truly the liberal way.

why engage in an action if you are incapable of dealing with all of the possible consequences?

maybe all those teenage girls should stop slutting around and act as though they have some semblance of dignity and self respect. Maybe they should keep their fucking panties on at prom.

in case you didn’t notice, this is a man’s discussion, nobody cares what you think get your ass back in the kitchen.

Boy how funny! I just can’t understand why right-wingers are seen as complete nutcases. (Not to mention misogynistic, bigoted, homophobic, etc, etc) [/quote]

And I resent that too!

Where have intelligent articulated mysoginy and bigotry gone?

Flann O´Brian was famous, or rather infamous, for being able to question the right of women to a higher education most eloquently, especially when drunk.

I will not allow that proud memory to be soiled by cheap attempts of denigrating women, at least one should try to make a compelling case for why they are the inferior gender.

For otherwise, even mysogyny will not get you laid.

103

[quote]orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Three things I’d like to point out to people involved:

  1. to orion–the pro-life crowd views abortion as murder. While in normal circumstances I think that your stance is admirable (“what I do in private life and what I would be willing to force on others is vastly different”), surely you can see why they are upset right? I mean, if you witness the systematic murder of 40 million people, and you did NOTHING, you would not have any respect from me. This is why I don’t hate on pro-lifers, unless they’re also terrorists.

They’re just following through on their viewpoints. It’s annoying sure, but I hope that you can at least see the consistency here.

Sure.

If they were able to see that one does not necessarily have to share that position and, and this is important, you cannot decide who is right with violence.

Especially if there is no right or wrong, just opinions on when “human life” actually becomes a “person”.

[/quote]

Are you talking about violence in the libertarian “gov’t is violence perpetrated on people” sense that I’ve heard Lifty talk about before? Or are you actually talking about violence–i.e. bombings? Because I’m pretty sure I specifically excepted the nutjobs that are domestic terrorists.

Just so I’m clear here, are you denying the internal consistency of the pro-life’s viewpoint and it’s corollary prescribed action points? Internal consistency (consistency of premises with conclusions) being distinct from external quality (whether abortion is or isn’t justified/ethical/proper)?

104

[quote]orion wrote:

What you posted does not change that the embryo in and of itself is not able to live.

Therefore you would force the mother to carry it out.

Should that ever change I might change my position.

[/quote]

I really think you are taking this in much too wide an application from what I originally intended the comment. I originally simply intended the comment at face value–it is not part of the mother’s genotype, and not part of the mother’s body’s tissue. It is a separate organism. That’s it. It is not part of the mother’s body. It is a separate organism housed within the mother’s body. Separate genotype. Framing the abortion argument in such an elementary fashion is retarded and highly annoying. I like Deb’s frame much better (on all levels :wink: ).

There was no wider significance to my original comment–it’s just an uber pet peeve of mine, along the lines of “guys aren’t qualified to hold opinions about abortion, just women”. Well shit, if that were true then Roe v Wade should be overturned shouldn’t it? /sarcasm just for clarity’s sake.

Please don’t make it into something it wasn’t intended to be (a wider argument on the acceptability of abortion).

105

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Three things I’d like to point out to people involved:

  1. to orion–the pro-life crowd views abortion as murder. While in normal circumstances I think that your stance is admirable (“what I do in private life and what I would be willing to force on others is vastly different”), surely you can see why they are upset right? I mean, if you witness the systematic murder of 40 million people, and you did NOTHING, you would not have any respect from me. This is why I don’t hate on pro-lifers, unless they’re also terrorists.

They’re just following through on their viewpoints. It’s annoying sure, but I hope that you can at least see the consistency here.

Sure.

If they were able to see that one does not necessarily have to share that position and, and this is important, you cannot decide who is right with violence.

Especially if there is no right or wrong, just opinions on when “human life” actually becomes a “person”.

Are you talking about violence in the libertarian “gov’t is violence perpetrated on people” sense that I’ve heard Lifty talk about before? Or are you actually talking about violence–i.e. bombings? Because I’m pretty sure I specifically excepted the nutjobs that are domestic terrorists.

Just so I’m clear here, are you denying the internal consistency of the pro-life’s viewpoint and it’s corollary prescribed action points? Internal consistency (consistency of premises with conclusions) being distinct from external quality (whether abortion is or isn’t justified/ethical/proper)?[/quote]

First, violence is violence.

There isn´t any special, sacred kind of violence, except, maybe, American Football.

Then, their view is consistent but they should be able to understand that it is derived from an untestable and unprovable hyphothesis which other people do not necessarily share.

106

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Standard Donkey wrote:

I just dont understand why everyone must be relieved of their responsibilities. It is truly the liberal way.

why engage in an action if you are incapable of dealing with all of the possible consequences?

maybe all those teenage girls should stop slutting around and act as though they have some semblance of dignity and self respect. Maybe they should keep their fucking panties on at prom.

in case you didn’t notice, this is a man’s discussion, nobody cares what you think get your ass back in the kitchen.

Boy how funny! I just can’t understand why right-wingers are seen as complete nutcases. (Not to mention misogynistic, bigoted, homophobic, etc, etc)

And I resent that too!

Where have intelligent articulated mysoginy and bigotry gone?

Flann O�´Brian was famous, or rather infamous, for being able to question the right of women to a higher education most eloquently, especially when drunk.

I will not allow that proud memory to be soiled by cheap attempts of denigrating women, at least one should try to make a compelling case for why they are the inferior gender.

For otherwise, even mysogyny will not get you laid.

[/quote]

Perhaps this picture will bring back memories of the “good ol’ days?”

107

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Standard Donkey wrote:

I just dont understand why everyone must be relieved of their responsibilities. It is truly the liberal way.

why engage in an action if you are incapable of dealing with all of the possible consequences?

maybe all those teenage girls should stop slutting around and act as though they have some semblance of dignity and self respect. Maybe they should keep their fucking panties on at prom.

in case you didn’t notice, this is a man’s discussion, nobody cares what you think get your ass back in the kitchen.

Boy how funny! I just can’t understand why right-wingers are seen as complete nutcases. (Not to mention misogynistic, bigoted, homophobic, etc, etc)

And I resent that too!

Where have intelligent articulated mysoginy and bigotry gone?

Flann O�??�?�´Brian was famous, or rather infamous, for being able to question the right of women to a higher education most eloquently, especially when drunk.

I will not allow that proud memory to be soiled by cheap attempts of denigrating women, at least one should try to make a compelling case for why they are the inferior gender.

For otherwise, even mysogyny will not get you laid.

Perhaps this picture will bring back memories of the “good ol’ days?”[/quote]

surely you and orion knew I was jesting…and trolling

yeah…you knew

108

Who’s winning the argument so far? Baby loving Christians? or my team?

109

[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
Who’s winning the argument so far? Baby loving Christians? or my team? [/quote]

does that mean you are on the baby-hating team? . . . your choice of terms . . .

110

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
debraD wrote:
pat wrote:
Here is a question for the pro-abortion folks only. At what point does the child with in the womb become human and from what point would it be considered the killing of a human life?

One thing you cannot argue is that it is a human life, but it’s still ok to kill it…I want to know when it’s wrong to kill the unborn…Most people don’t agree with partial-birth or 9th month abortions, so that is why I am asking.

From a perspective of rights and personal autonomy, the question isn’t relevant. No being, human, grown, embryonic or otherwise has an entitlement to the use of another’s body without their consent. Now you can argue the premise of consent (is sex consent?) and that is fair enough but the actual development of the fetus/embryo/whatever is quite irrelevant from an purely ethical standpoint. It is only relevant in terms of personal ‘ickiness,’ squeamishness and discomfort, but for comparisons sake, it is also disconcerting that someone may die because I did not offer my organs/blood/bone marrow to prevent their death.

You could even argue that the killing of the fetus is only a side effect of terminating the pregnancy or removing the fetus, since it couldn’t survive otherwise.

I love the consent argument . . . let’s see if I get this right . . .

You and another adult consent to have sexual intercourse both fully cognizant that the potential result of having this consensual sexual intercourse will be the birth of a human being . . . knowing the potential result of your consensual behavior - you do it anyways . . .

Once the consensual intercourse has been completed (hopefully to the satisfaction of both parties)- natural biology kicks into gear and an infant human being is created.

We know that the infant (left to natural process) will develop, be born and grow into an adult human being - no chance that it will be an elephant, donkey or aardvark (well, maybe an aardvark) - regardless, it is a life if left to natural course.

So, having consensually chosen to enjoy the act of intercourse (procreation) you willingly took the risk of having to give birth to another human being - now that the actual process has begun, you decide that you do not want the added responsibility, pain and suffering yada yada whatever . . . . SO - to avoid the natural consequence of your consensual act, you choose to end the natural process of allowing the infant human to develop to its natural potential . . .

No infant ever needs to asks for permission to use your uterus - the permission is implicit because you created the infant by your own volitional choice! You willingly undertook the act that resulted in the infant’s creation and then to avoid the consequence of that choice - you choose to end the life process of that infant . . .
[/quote]

Never heard of something called an accident huh?

I think 98 percent of the anti-abortion camp is full of self-righteous douchebags who don’t realize the effect having an abortion has on a woman. It’s not like its something they want to be doing.

But alas, we should all just abstain from sex, because everyone knows that’s natural and healthy.

111

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

  1. to betaBerry–I’ve liked your posts on all the forums so far. You seem like an interesting individual to be around (not to mention a cute one :)) But you make several assumptions in your post that I feel need to be addressed.[/quote]

Thank you. :slight_smile:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
-------a) I see the point you are trying to make, but going back to what I said to orion, abortion is pretty much an ethics debate. Guys are 100% qualified to have opinions on ethics. So while I see the point that the woman has to carry this thing for 9 months and it changes everything, the experience is not more important than the ethics. Every one capable of rational thinking can have an opinion on ethics.

If that weren’t true, then the 9 old guys in robes that legalized abortion didn’t have the right to do so because they weren’t women. [/quote]

You’re right. But my point is, ethics is highly influenced by circumstances, and I honestly don’t think that most men can imagine themselves in the circumstances that having an unwated child brings to a woman. I think most of us would agree that killing someone out of nothing is wrong, but what if that person poses a threat to your life, the ethic gets kind of blurry. And while an unwated baby is not likely to cause a woman to die, it does change her whole world upside down, in a way that simply will never happen to a man.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

-------b)an agglomeration of cells is in fact life. Whether it deserves protection under law and whether it is in any recognizable form a “person” are different questions entirely. Bacteria = 1 cell. But they are considered alive. Same with multi-celled microscopic organisms.

-------c) neither sperm nor egg is a life, nor has the potential to become one BY ITSELF. It really has no basis in biology, and that’s kind of a foolish argument to try and make. If that were true, then periodically women would randomly become pregnant for no other reason than that one of their eggs decided it was time to hatch. [/quote]

Yes bacteria are life, so is sperm. My point was not that an early embryo is not “life”, but only that, if someone feels like an early stage embryo is a human being, then they should think the same about sperm and eggs - all just cells. An embryo has no potential to become a human being by itself either. That’s why we cannot carry out a pregnancy out of a woman’s womb.

[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
I just dont understand why everyone must be relieved of their responsibilities. It is truly the liberal way.

why engage in an action if you are incapable of dealing with all of the possible consequences?

maybe all those teenage girls should stop slutting around and act as though they have some semblance of dignity and self respect. Maybe they should keep their fucking panties on at prom.

in case you didn’t notice, this is a man’s discussion, nobody cares what you think get your ass back in the kitchen.[/quote]

I’ve never said anything about being relieved of responsibilities. But the consequences don’t always limit to the person that you’d call reponsible for it. If a girl has a child that she’s unable to care for, and I don’t mean just money, I mean having the maturity it takes to be a mom, trust me, she’s not the one that is going to reap the worse consequences.

I’d like to know, were you fully capable of “dealing with the consequences” when you first started having sex? Because really, if you say yes, you’re an exception. Abstinence would be awesome if it happened in the real world. But truth is, it doesn’t. Now saying that having sex means “slutting around” is pretty much the worse way you can teach kids how to avoid unwanted pregancies.

[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
in case you didn’t notice, this is a man’s discussion, nobody cares what you think get your ass back in the kitchen.[/quote]

Clearly my dear, you care. You care so much even posted a reply. And something tells me you’re going to reply to this one too. Which I appreciate, because it’s posts like yours that help me get my point accross: men, generally, simply lack the sensibility it takes to put themselves in someone else’s shoes and view things from a perspective that is not their own.

112

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Never heard of something called an accident huh?

I think 98 percent of the anti-abortion camp is full of self-righteous douchebags who don’t realize the effect having an abortion has on a woman. It’s not like its something they want to be doing.

But alas, we should all just abstain from sex, because everyone knows that’s natural and healthy.[/quote]

that would be an aspect of your worldview - whether or not you consider the birth of any human as an accident. In my world view that is not the case . . .

I agree that an abortion has a terrible emotional toll on the woman who chooses to have one- never intimated otherwise.

No - sex should be frequently and vigorously practiced within the confines of marriage/family . . . oh wait - sorry, my world-view crept back into the discussion . . .

113

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Never heard of something called an accident huh?

I think 98 percent of the anti-abortion camp is full of self-righteous douchebags who don’t realize the effect having an abortion has on a woman. It’s not like its something they want to be doing.

But alas, we should all just abstain from sex, because everyone knows that’s natural and healthy.[/quote]

I’m not arguing for or against abortion, just responding to your statement.
So I guess you just tripped, fell just right, and your cock slid right on in. I mean it was an accident, right?

114

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Aragorn wrote:

  1. to betaBerry–I’ve liked your posts on all the forums so far. You seem like an interesting individual to be around (not to mention a cute one :)) But you make several assumptions in your post that I feel need to be addressed.

Thank you. :slight_smile:
Aragorn wrote:
-------a) I see the point you are trying to make, but going back to what I said to orion, abortion is pretty much an ethics debate. Guys are 100% qualified to have opinions on ethics. So while I see the point that the woman has to carry this thing for 9 months and it changes everything, the experience is not more important than the ethics. Every one capable of rational thinking can have an opinion on ethics.

If that weren’t true, then the 9 old guys in robes that legalized abortion didn’t have the right to do so because they weren’t women.

You’re right. But my point is, ethics is highly influenced by circumstances, and I honestly don’t think that most men can imagine themselves in the circumstances that having an unwated child brings to a woman. I think most of us would agree that killing someone out of nothing is wrong, but what if that person poses a threat to your life, the ethic gets kind of blurry. And while an unwated baby is not likely to cause a woman to die, it does change her whole world upside down, in a way that simply will never happen to a man. [/quote]

Absolutely agree with you. It turns the world bizarro in a way a guy will never, ever understand.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

-------b)an agglomeration of cells is in fact life. Whether it deserves protection under law and whether it is in any recognizable form a “person” are different questions entirely. Bacteria = 1 cell. But they are considered alive. Same with multi-celled microscopic organisms.

-------c) neither sperm nor egg is a life, nor has the potential to become one BY ITSELF. It really has no basis in biology, and that’s kind of a foolish argument to try and make. If that were true, then periodically women would randomly become pregnant for no other reason than that one of their eggs decided it was time to hatch.

Yes bacteria are life, so is sperm. My point was not that an early embryo is not “life”, but only that, if someone feels like an early stage embryo is a human being, then they should think the same about sperm and eggs - all just cells. An embryo has no potential to become a human being by itself either. That’s why we cannot carry out a pregnancy out of a woman’s womb. [/quote]

Perhaps I should have rephrased myself to avoid confusion. My bad. I understand where you’re coming from but I feel the difference between the embryo and the sperm/egg is that the embryo has a complete genetic instruction set, unique to itself as an organism, not just specialized cell structure around the host’s code. The sperm and egg both are only the genetic code of the man/woman, nothing different, nothing unique. To me the unique genetic structure is one of the key things that determines an organism, so as a scientist I feel no real fundamental similarity between the three whether I’m in the lab or at home.

115

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Perhaps I should have rephrased myself to avoid confusion. My bad. I understand where you’re coming from but I feel the difference between the embryo and the sperm/egg is that the embryo has a complete genetic instruction set, unique to itself as an organism, not just specialized cell structure around the host’s code. The sperm and egg both are only the genetic code of the man/woman, nothing different, nothing unique. To me the unique genetic structure is one of the key things that determines an organism, so as a scientist I feel no real fundamental similarity between the three whether I’m in the lab or at home.
[/quote]

Yes, I guess I’ll agree with you on that one. But that still makes it hard where to draw the line. Sperm and eggs are just cells, embryos are cells with genetic structures but can’t develop on their own, then there’s fetuses and the doubt about when exactly you can consider a fetus a person, so to speak. See, it’s hard to know where exactly to draw the line.

One a side note, I don’t really imagine why a woman would need more than 6 weeks to realize she’s pregnant So in case she decided to have an abortion, waiting longer than that can’t really be justified. If a girl had unprotected sex, or were raped, or something similar, she can use Plan B or find out if she’s pregnant in like a week. If she’s not expecting a pregancy (say a condom failed but she doesn’t know), it still wouldn’t take more than 4 weeks for her next period, so if that doesn’t happen, she knows she’s pregnant. So why would she need more than 4 to 6 weeks?

116

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Perhaps I should have rephrased myself to avoid confusion. My bad. I understand where you’re coming from but I feel the difference between the embryo and the sperm/egg is that the embryo has a complete genetic instruction set, unique to itself as an organism, not just specialized cell structure around the host’s code. The sperm and egg both are only the genetic code of the man/woman, nothing different, nothing unique. To me the unique genetic structure is one of the key things that determines an organism, so as a scientist I feel no real fundamental similarity between the three whether I’m in the lab or at home.

Yes, I guess I’ll agree with you on that one. But that still makes it hard where to draw the line. Sperm and eggs are just cells, embryos are cells with genetic structures but can’t develop on their own, then there’s fetuses and the doubt about when exactly you can consider a fetus a person, so to speak. See, it’s hard to know where exactly to draw the line.

One a side note, I don’t really imagine why a woman would need more than 6 weeks to realize she’s pregnant So in case she decided to have an abortion, waiting longer than that can’t really be justified. If a girl had unprotected sex, or were raped, or something similar, she can use Plan B or find out if she’s pregnant in like a week. If she’s not expecting a pregancy (say a condom failed but she doesn’t know), it still wouldn’t take more than 4 weeks for her next period, so if that doesn’t happen, she knows she’s pregnant. So why would she need more than 4 to 6 weeks?
[/quote]

I’m gonna go ahead and totally agree with you.

117

[quote]Mhatch wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Never heard of something called an accident huh?

I think 98 percent of the anti-abortion camp is full of self-righteous douchebags who don’t realize the effect having an abortion has on a woman. It’s not like its something they want to be doing.

But alas, we should all just abstain from sex, because everyone knows that’s natural and healthy.

I’m not arguing for or against abortion, just responding to your statement.
So I guess you just tripped, fell just right, and your cock slid right on in. I mean it was an accident, right?
[/quote]

exactly, I can’t stand when people know something can happen when they do something and they call it an accident. Not wanting a possible thing to happen is a wish. When it happens it is not an accident put a possibility come true.

Funny thing, I never knocked a girl up by accident. Guess I’m just one of those responsible asshole types. Or maybe I’m smarter and have more common sense. Or better impulse control.

but it’s really easy to not get a girl pregnant. Don’t have sex with her. Use your own contraception if you do. And accept you might end up with a kid if you do.

118

[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

AND >> “for the sake of all parties involved” - does that include the child?

What fucking child? God, those are my views. A woman should have the right to get rid of it and give it up to science. That’s just me. May I burn in hell. I’m out drops mic on the floor

Don’t blame me. You YOURSELF used the world child.

Are you smoking some rock? Look at your previous post.

Wow, you must be a schizophrene. Look what your other personality said (from above): “No woman should be forced to bring forth an unwanted child. For the sake of all parties involved.”

FUCK I don’t want to get into this, cartoon fox. If the woman does not have the option of aborting, the abomination in her womb will evolve into a child. A child that can possibly be the product of rape. A burden to all parties involved. The anguish the child will go through could have been avoided if the mother would have had the opportunity to abort. “Yeah, but…” Enough, I’m out. These are my views. drops mic on the floor and walks away [/quote]

So your saying that you were an abomination and a burden and you’d have rather been aborted?

119

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Why do you keep elevating an unborn baby to human like status. Self awareness is what supposedly what separates us from animals (in non religious terms). Unborn babies are not self aware.
I oppose killing babies once they are born (and still not self aware) because there is no advantage to that, adoption is clearly better. I do think there are advantages for a woman who doesn’t want to give birth to have an abortion.
Abortions will still happen even if you ban it. It will just lead to the deaths of more women.

And to the people on this board who think that they are in the majority, then actually look at the statistics. There are more people who think abortion should be either legal in all cases or in most cases than people who think abortion should be illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases (in America).[/quote]

Uh, how can you tell what is self aware and what is not? Is self awareness the definition of personhood?

120

[quote]orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

the parasite one? maybe, pretty hole filled but it’s better than the first one. My whole point is that it is a separate biological organism from the mom. People can debate rights and personhood and all that, but the basic biological truth can’t be ignored.

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

Is it acceptable for the mother to kill the baby after a few weeks of breast feeding because she’s decided she doesn’t want to support this “something,” and doesn’t want to be forced to do so?

No, but it is acceptable to stop caring for it.

Serious question - I really do want to know what you think. Suppose no one wants to adopt the baby. Is it okay for her to allow the child to die? To leave him/her in a dumpster, for example?

That is a strawman though because we do not agree that a fertilized egg is a “child”-

Which is the crux of the whole problem. You think it is, I think it is not and you want to ram your definition down my throat with the use of force if need be.

This is a highly personal question that everybody has to answer for him or herself.

I haven’t mentioned anything about a fertilized egg. I do observe, though, that at a certain point you see that this “something” acquires rights - when it has become “a child.” When does this happen?

I do not know, for it is a matter of how you define things. I will not force someone else to do something just because my cut off point is slightly different from his.

But I’m asking for your viewpoint. Not that you have to share it :wink:

Personally I would not agree to an abortion but I can hardly force a woman to carry out a child.

I have enough money though.

That would change if the embryo should show any signs of genetic defects.

In that case I could not force a woman to abort that embryo either, I would just highly recommend it.

Anyway, as a libertarian I have mastered an awesome trick, I keep my private and public opinion separate.

What I would do and what I would force other people to do via government are highly unrelated subjects.

Well, I guess the same is true for most politicians but you get my drift. [/quote]

Why would you not personally agree to have an abortion? If there is nothing wrong with it then why wouldn’t you have one?..Or have your woman have one, even for the hell of it, or just to score some hydrocodone?