[quote]Eli B wrote:
The child gains rights around the time of viability. A little earlier to be safe.
Its batshit crazy people standing in the way of the morning after pill that really bother me. It prevents implantation of the sperm in the egg. It might as well be a condom. It is a contraceptive, not an abortion.[/quote]
Do you understand Natural Law or the term abortifacient?
IMHO, life begins when the egg is fertilized. Period. And here’s why; once the egg is fertilized, the life cycle has begun, and requires outside (human) interference to stop it’s life cycle (growth). Normally this is called murder in the later stages of the life cycle. I mean, are we not all in various stages of the life cycle? And I believe the point has already been made in that a newborn chid also depends on the mother to survive, just that at this stage of the life cycle the child has grown to the point that it needs the mother less. The child will, as we all do, continue to grow and become less and less dependant on the mother.
A newborn baby is no different than the baby that was living inside of the womb days before birth.
Just my .02
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
The child gains rights around the time of viability. A little earlier to be safe.
Its batshit crazy people standing in the way of the morning after pill that really bother me. It prevents implantation of the sperm in the egg. It might as well be a condom. It is a contraceptive, not an abortion.[/quote]
Do you understand Natural Law or the term abortifacient?[/quote]
Well they are familiar concepts but I brushed up a little
Natural law:
"The use of natural law, in its various incarnations, has varied widely through its history. There are a number of different theories of natural law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms. "
And now that I’ve been challenged, you may be right about the morning after pill being an “abortifacient” rather than a true contraceptive. I think it prevents implantation of the fertilized egg on the uterine wall. Which is something I am totally ok with.
A fertilized egg does not have the capacity to suffer, it does not have consciousness. I beleive. Rational people may disagree.
Sorry to use the term ‘batshit crazy’
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
IMHO, life begins when the egg is fertilized. Period. And here’s why; once the egg is fertilized, the life cycle has begun, and requires outside (human) interference to stop it’s life cycle (growth)
Just my .02[/quote]
I know this isnt a showstopper argument but thats not quite accurate. About 15 - 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.
Also holy shit blowjobs decrease the risk of miscarriage?:
Oral sex & semen exposure
Sex without barrier contraceptives, particularly oral sex is effective in reducing miscarriage risk. This occurs by the mechanism of paternal tolerance. While any exposure to a partner’s semen during sexual activity appears to decrease a woman’s chances for the various immunological disorders that can occur during pregnancy, immunological tolerance could be most quickly established through oral introduction and gastrointestinal absorption of semen.[40][41] Recognizing that some of the studies potentially included the presence of confounding factors, such as the possibility that women who regularly perform oral sex and swallow semen also engage in more frequent intercourse, the researchers also noted that, either way, “the data still overwhelmingly supports the main theory” behind all their studiesâ??that repeated exposure to semen establishes the maternal immunological tolerance necessary for a safe and successful pregnancy.[42][41]
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
IMHO, life begins when the egg is fertilized. Period. And here’s why; once the egg is fertilized, the life cycle has begun, and requires outside (human) interference to stop it’s life cycle (growth)
Just my .02[/quote]
I know this isnt a showstopper argument but thats not quite accurate. About 15 - 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.[/quote]
That’s true, life cycles are ended all the time by factors other than outside human interference; hereditary genetic defects, disease, cancer, and a host of other medical conditions. Seems to me that it doesn’t matter where you’re at in the life cycle; this remains a possibility. 100% of people die of shock.
So to expand on my statement: outside of some medical condition or defect, it would take outside human interference to stop the life cycle.
80 - 85% of pregnancies end in the birth of a child.
The pro-Abortion or pro-Choice side, is disgusting, if you don’t use protection, don’t use day after, and don’t pull out. Then that is your problem when you end up with a kid. Would you appreciate it, if your Mother had aborted you? As for the ‘socio-economic’ bullshit, America is top 10 most secure places to have a kid regardless of how poor you are in the world, suck it up.
It makes me sick the Catholic Church gets by on 450 million a year, that htey actually produce from creatinv value through business holdings and enterprise, yet run a deficit to support their massive charities, yet, planned parenthood has a forced tax of 300 million dollars asssessed on all of us.
Don’t you think considering that America is 50% opposed to abortion yet 76% of Americans are self-proclaimed Christians, that it would be just to assess a tax to support Church organizations (partitioned by membership) instead of forcing a tax for people to hold up an institution that half or more find morally abhorrent?
So Eli, what moment clearly defines the moment when an embryo has the ability to ‘suffer’? Please back said statement up with verifiable science because that tends to be science that can be backed up and not refutable, as a general rule.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
The child gains rights around the time of viability. A little earlier to be safe.
Its batshit crazy people standing in the way of the morning after pill that really bother me. It prevents implantation of the sperm in the egg. It might as well be a condom. It is a contraceptive, not an abortion.[/quote]
Do you understand Natural Law or the term abortifacient?[/quote]
Well they are familiar concepts but I brushed up a little
Natural law:
"The use of natural law, in its various incarnations, has varied widely through its history. There are a number of different theories of natural law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms. "
And now that I’ve been challenged, you may be right about the morning after pill being an “abortifacient” rather than a true contraceptive. I think it prevents implantation of the fertilized egg on the uterine wall. Which is something I am totally ok with.
A fertilized egg does not have the capacity to suffer, it does not have consciousness. I beleive. Rational people may disagree.
Sorry to use the term ‘batshit crazy’[/quote]
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
80 - 85% of pregnancies end in the birth of a child.
[/quote]
Define pregnancy
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
80 - 85% of pregnancies end in the birth of a child.
[/quote]
Define pregnancy[/quote]
When an egg has been successfully fertilized by sperm. Or as the medical dictionary states: “The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body.”
Using Eli’s statistics, if 15-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, then it would hold true that 80-85% of pregnancies end in the birth of a child.
Edit: This is of course assuming that there were no intentional human termination of the pregnancies overall.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
80 - 85% of pregnancies end in the birth of a child.
[/quote]
Define pregnancy[/quote]
When an egg has been successfully fertilized by sperm. Or as the medical dictionary states: “The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body.”
Using Eli’s statistics, if 15-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, then it would hold true that 80-85% of pregnancies end in the birth of a child.
[/quote]
Much, much higher rates of miscarriages, no matter how you define pregnancy.
FWIW, the accepted definition is now after conception, i.e. when a fertilized egg has settled in the uterus.
Even after succesful conception abortion rates could be as high as 50%, we dont know because most women never notice.
If you are counting from the fertilized egg rates are still significantly higher.
In that case, most “pregnancies” end as a miscarriage.
edited
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
80 - 85% of pregnancies end in the birth of a child.
[/quote]
Define pregnancy[/quote]
When an egg has been successfully fertilized by sperm. Or as the medical dictionary states: “The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body.”
Using Eli’s statistics, if 15-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, then it would hold true that 80-85% of pregnancies end in the birth of a child.
[/quote]
Much, much higher rates of miscarriages, no matter how you define pregnancy.
FWIW, the accepted definition is now after conception, i.e. when a fertilized egg has settled in the uterus.
Even after successful conception abortion rates could be as high as 50%, we don’t know because most women never notice.
If you are counting from the fertilized egg rates are still significantly higher.
In that case, most “pregnancies” end as a miscarriage.
edited[/quote]
Sure, I have no problem with that. I’m not even certain as to what the actual statistics are regarding miscarriages, I was simply using Eli’s stats to make a point, and that point is this: an abortion procedure is an unnatural termination of a life cycle, and in no way comparable to a miscarriage due to natural occurrences.
On the issue of abortion, it’s my opinion that if people want to avoid the entire life/abortion dilemma, they need to use protection when they do the hippity dippity.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So Eli, what moment clearly defines the moment when an embryo has the ability to ‘suffer’? Please back said statement up with verifiable science because that tends to be science that can be backed up and not refutable, as a general rule.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
The child gains rights around the time of viability. A little earlier to be safe.
Its batshit crazy people standing in the way of the morning after pill that really bother me. It prevents implantation of the sperm in the egg. It might as well be a condom. It is a contraceptive, not an abortion.[/quote]
Do you understand Natural Law or the term abortifacient?[/quote]
Well they are familiar concepts but I brushed up a little
Natural law:
"The use of natural law, in its various incarnations, has varied widely through its history. There are a number of different theories of natural law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms. "
And now that I’ve been challenged, you may be right about the morning after pill being an “abortifacient” rather than a true contraceptive. I think it prevents implantation of the fertilized egg on the uterine wall. Which is something I am totally ok with.
A fertilized egg does not have the capacity to suffer, it does not have consciousness. I beleive. Rational people may disagree.
Sorry to use the term ‘batshit crazy’[/quote]
[/quote]
Aropund week 9.
No CNS, no pain.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
On the issue of abortion, it’s my opinion that if people want to avoid the entire life/abortion dilemma, they need to use protection when they do the hippity dippity.[/quote]
Well if you ask BC, most methods of birth control are also abortions.
Again, matters how you define pregnancy.
I feel compelled to point out that the very statement that I was a “human embryo” by definition means that I was not a human at that time. If embryos were humans, they wouldn’t call them embryos, they’d call them humans. A plant comes from a seed yet the seed is not a plant.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:wow you are showing your knowledge of simple biology here, must go to one of them fancy liberal schools where they smoke pot and meditate.
really at what point is a child capable of caring for itself, because only then is it not directly dependent on something.[/quote]
How dishonest are you? No one here said that the baby was capable of “caring for itself.” That’s mischaracterization by you because your argument doesn’t work against my statement the way I wrote it. Forget biology, you need reading.
Get rid of your sophistry and there is no confusion.
[quote]Every complete genome is it’s own individual human. Not all make it to be a completely viable adults, but to kill one is to kill an innocent life.
You are an educated moron, who can spit out what you are given.[/quote]
I am “given” opinions every day that resemble yours much more closely than mine. I had to think to arrive at my opinions.
Good bye.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
A premature child needs the mother yet it is outside the womb, do they have rights then?[/quote]
Sure. Just so long as you not literally hijacking the woman’s body and telling her what to do with it.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
An embryo of an animal and a HUMAN embryo are night and day different!![/quote]
Sure, eventually. Check this out:
http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/book1qts/embryo-compare.html
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
On the issue of abortion, it’s my opinion that if people want to avoid the entire life/abortion dilemma, they need to use protection when they do the hippity dippity.[/quote]
I agree, and this is why I can’t figure out why some people who are against abortion are also against contraceptives.
So a CNS determines if a person feels pain??
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So Eli, what moment clearly defines the moment when an embryo has the ability to ‘suffer’? Please back said statement up with verifiable science because that tends to be science that can be backed up and not refutable, as a general rule.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
The child gains rights around the time of viability. A little earlier to be safe.
Its batshit crazy people standing in the way of the morning after pill that really bother me. It prevents implantation of the sperm in the egg. It might as well be a condom. It is a contraceptive, not an abortion.[/quote]
Do you understand Natural Law or the term abortifacient?[/quote]
Well they are familiar concepts but I brushed up a little
Natural law:
"The use of natural law, in its various incarnations, has varied widely through its history. There are a number of different theories of natural law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms. "
And now that I’ve been challenged, you may be right about the morning after pill being an “abortifacient” rather than a true contraceptive. I think it prevents implantation of the fertilized egg on the uterine wall. Which is something I am totally ok with.
A fertilized egg does not have the capacity to suffer, it does not have consciousness. I beleive. Rational people may disagree.
Sorry to use the term ‘batshit crazy’[/quote]
[/quote]
Aropund week 9.
No CNS, no pain.
[/quote]