Abortion question for the religious

[always_searching]

But to many people, their most definitely still is a question to it. And those people are the ones who make the laws, not the philosophers and authors who you would cite as your proof of human life starting at conception. You see a zygote as a human being, I see a zygote as a cluster of cells under a microscope in a petri dish.

 

And that right there is the problem! Plato was right: the head of government should be a philosopher! :laugh:

 

Perhaps it would be beneficial to state what I mean by the "life of a human-being" viz. a human-organism:

 

From wikipedia: In [COLOR=#0000ff]biology[/COLOR], an organism is any [COLOR=#0000ff]living[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]system[/COLOR] (such as [COLOR=#0000ff]animal[/COLOR], [COLOR=#0000ff]plant[/COLOR], [COLOR=#0000ff]fungus[/COLOR], or [COLOR=#0000ff]micro-organism[/COLOR]). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of [COLOR=#0000ff]response[/COLOR] to [COLOR=#0000ff]stimuli[/COLOR], [COLOR=#0000ff]reproduction[/COLOR], growth and [COLOR=#0000ff]development[/COLOR], and maintenance of [COLOR=#0000ff]homeostasis[/COLOR] as a stable whole. An organism may either be [COLOR=#0000ff]unicellular[/COLOR] (single-celled) or be composed of, as in humans, many billions of [COLOR=#0000ff]cells[/COLOR] grouped into specialized [COLOR=#0000ff]tissues[/COLOR] and [COLOR=#0000ff]organs[/COLOR]. The term [COLOR=#0000ff]multicellular[/COLOR] (many-celled) describes any organism made up of more than one [COLOR=#0000ff]cell[/COLOR].

 

Also, consider the definition of zygote (from wikipedia): A zygote (from [COLOR=#0000ff]Greek[/COLOR] [FONT=Times New Roman]ζυγωτός[/FONT] zyg[FONT=Times New Roman]ō[/FONT]tos "joined" or "yoked", from [FONT=Times New Roman]ζυγοῦν[/FONT] zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"),[COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR] or zygocyte, is the initial [COLOR=#0000ff]cell[/COLOR] formed when a new organism is produced by means of [COLOR=#0000ff]sexual reproduction[/COLOR]. A zygote is synthesized from the union of two [COLOR=#0000ff]gametes[/COLOR], and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's [COLOR=#0000ff]development[/COLOR]. Zygotes are usually produced by a [COLOR=#0000ff]fertilization[/COLOR] event between two [COLOR=#0000ff]haploid[/COLOR] cells — an [COLOR=#0000ff]ovum[/COLOR] from a [COLOR=#0000ff]female[/COLOR] and a [COLOR=#0000ff]sperm[/COLOR] cell from a [COLOR=#0000ff]male[/COLOR] — which combine to form the single [COLOR=#0000ff]diploid[/COLOR] cell. Such zygotes contain [COLOR=#0000ff]DNA[/COLOR] derived from both the mother and the father, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual.

 

With these definitions in mind, it should be obvious that the zygote is a living organisim, is it not? I don't think that calling the zygote living is assuming too much as both virus' and bacteria are considered "living" organisms as well.

 

When I claim that there is very little to no dispute regarding a human-being coming to be at conception (remember, this varies from the debate regarding personhood which relies on philosophy, not biology), I mean that the living zygote is of the species homo sapiens, just as the feline zygote is of the feline species. So, the zygote of a human isn't going to mature into a cat, for example, as it contains the human DNA of both the mother and the father.

 

That is all I mean when I say it is not controversial that the zygote of two human-organisms is itself a human-organism.

 

Where there is debate, however, is whether that living human-organism is deserving of a right to life--whether that living human-organism is also a human-person. So, slugs, for example, are living organisms, but they do not have the right to life that is inherent within the person. Koko the gorilla is not a human-organism, but possesses qualities like some aspect of reason and self-awareness that could constitute her as a have a right to life--being a person. So, whereas it would not be morally wrong to kill a slug, it would be morally wrong to kill Koko.

 

As far as human-organisms, the debate occurs when we ask: does this living human-organism have a right to life? This is where it gets controversial. Personally, I think that all human-organisms are persons, by their nature--it is intrinsic and substantial to us as human-beings. That's not to claim, however, that all persons are human-beings as there could be aliens, or some other primates like Koko who could be considered persons.

 

I would assume that you think personhood is merely an accidental attribute that occurs later on in the life of a human-organism. So, once that organism becomes viable (can live on its own outside of the uterus), has some element of reason and self-awareness, etc.: that being is a person. I would disagree, as I think personhood doesn't vary by degree (accidental), but is of a totally different kind (substancial).

 

Anyway, that's all I have time to post for now. LOL, if I spent as much time working on my papers as I do writing posts for loveshack, I would be in great academic shape!

 

I need to prioritize...

Edited October 26, 2009 by always_searching

[always_searching]

Sorry for all of the links within the two definitions. Maybe it would be better if I just pasted the links so you could go to the site and read it in its clearly stated entirety:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

[Trojan John]

I'll give you one more link that you seem to have missed:

 

Human Being

 

From the first paragraph under "Life Cycle":

 

The human life cycle is similar to that of other placental mammals. The zygote divides inside the female's uterus to become an embryo, which over a period of thirty-eight weeks (9 months) of gestation becomes a human fetus. After this span of time, the fully grown fetus is birthed from the woman's body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend various levels of personhood earlier to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus.

 

Most have it that one becomes a person AFTER birth. The primary reason is because the things that make us human, namely the development of a personality, self-awareness and the the ability for complex thought comes through interaction with our environment OUTSIDE of the womb.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Trojan John

[JamesM]

Most have it that one becomes a person AFTER birth. The primary reason is because the things that make us human, namely the development of a personality, self-awareness and the the ability for complex thought comes through interaction with our environment OUTSIDE of the womb.

 

We should really choose a more credible source than wikipedia in this case. Since it is a biological issue, let's go there.

 

Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).

 

Read the whole article as written by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. It is a rather fascinating and scientifically correct perspective on how life begins and when life should be viewed as a human individual.

 

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins via sexual reproduction is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists--not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.

 

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.html

[Trojan John]

We should really choose a more credible source than wikipedia in this case. Since it is a biological issue, let's go there.

 

Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).

 

Read the whole article as written by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. It is a rather fascinating and scientifically correct perspective on how life begins and when life should be viewed as a human individual.

 

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins via sexual reproduction is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists--not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.

 

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.html

 

True about wikipedia, but since that was Always Searching's source, I used it as well. With regard to Dr. Irving, I have not yet read the article, but a quick background check of her in your link tells me that her opinion will have a Catholic bias, given that she represents two Catholic medical organisations. I will read and comment later.

[JamesM]

With regard to Dr. Irving, I have not yet read the article, but a quick background check of her in your link tells me that her opinion will have a Catholic bias, given that she represents two Catholic medical organisations. I will read and comment later.

 

There are going to be two camps....pro-life and pro-abortion. No way around it.

 

What I noticed is that she pointed out that an actual human begins with the zygote. As for when that scientifically defined human is actually considered a person....that is the debatable part.

 

When a human zygote becomes something other than a human, then I guess we can find a different point to say that human life begins.

[ADF]

You seem to be saying that because of the logistical problems with protecting a fetus from an abortion, that the only reasonable solution would be to sanction it.

 

Actually, my reasons for supporting abortions rights are much broader than that.

 

Abortion rights are a matter of gender equity; women will never be the social equals of men unless they are allowed to decide when, and if, to bear children.

 

Abortion rights are a matter of economic justice; the rich will always find a way to get whatever medical services they want. Only the poor suffer from abortion bans.

 

Abortion rights are a matter of privacy rights; the decision about whether to carry a pregnancy to term ought to be between a woman and her physician. It is none of the government's business.

 

Abortion rights are a matter of maintaining a secular society; let's face it, the anti-abortion crowd is almost entirely made up up right-wing Christian zealots. They've no right to deny the public neccessary medical services on sectarian religious grounds.

 

Abortion rights are a matter of public health; banning abortion just forces it underground. That creates a black market run by organized criminals, staffed by unqualified quacks, and women dying needless deaths.

 

Abortion rights are a matter of maintaining a just and humane society. All around the world, societies that allow safe and legal abortion also take the best care of children. Societies that forbid abortion let children die in the streets. Pro-choice, quasi-socialist Denmark provides free day care, free health care, free education. Pro-life Brazil is overrun with homelss children who rob and steal to survive.

[sally4sara]

There are going to be two camps....pro-life and pro-abortion. No way around it.

 

What I noticed is that she pointed out that an actual human begins with the zygote. As for when that scientifically defined human is actually considered a person....that is the debatable part.

 

When a human zygote becomes something other than a human, then I guess we can find a different point to say that human life begins.

 

There really shouldn't be anything to argue about. No one is suppose to know the medical procedures and treatment of others. Medical records are suppose to be confidential. If these standards are being followed, there is no one to point an indignant finger at.

It is part of the Hippocratic Oath fer crying out loud!

Most of the argument is designed to keep contributions flowing and easily distracted people focused on what suits ya. Please give us money to help keep your privacy private in the name of "Mom and dad wouldn't let me get on birth control". It gives some of you something to do on your days off and HEY HEY! hand your 5 year old a sign they don't understand and tell them to call people on the street murderers and that they're going to hell. Funny times for the whole family! That's what you carried your kid to term for anyway......

 

It still boils down to you are not suppose to know if your neighbor got an abortion to begin with. My medical records about my body and my right to you not being in my life.

[ADF]

FleshandBones, what about my other arguments--i.e. gender equity, economic justice, secularism, etc?

 

El Salvador, like the pro-life movement in the US, only cares about unborn kids. They couldn't care less about kids once they're born.

 

About 1 in 4 pregnancies in the US are terminated. What plan does the pro-life crowd have for feeding, housing, educating, and providing health care to the tens of millions of additional children who would be born each year in the wake of an effective abortion ban? I have not heard a thing. On the contrary, most of the pro-life crowd OPPOSES policies like universdal day care, which would actually mkae life better for kids after they were born. Until I hear a concrete, specific plan for what to do with all these children, I will continue to regard pro-life arguments as so much white noise. These people aren't serious. They have nothing to say.

[GorillaTheater]

Life is pretty cheap as it is, and abortion seems to make it cheaper.

 

Folks will have to decide for themselves whether that's good or bad.

[northstar1]

Abortion became unrestricted in Canada in 1988, when the Supreme court overturned a section of the criminal code which made it a criminal offense, based on the fact it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[JamesM]

There really shouldn't be anything to argue about. No one is suppose to know the medical procedures and treatment of others.

 

 

It still boils down to you are not suppose to know if your neighbor got an abortion to begin with. My medical records about my body and my right to you not being in my life.

 

Two issues....knowing the medical procedures of "my neighbors" and protecting the life of all individuals.

 

The biggest question is...does the life inside of the mother belong to the mother and give her the right to terminate his or her existence? Or is that life already an individual and has its own right to life?

 

As for knowing medical procedures, I don't think anyone really wants to know what procedures are being done on each other. That has no bearing on whether the baby inside of the mother has rights.

 

Does the ability to terminate the living human inside of her give the mother equality to men? I find this a bit of a twisted argument.

 

First, if ending one life gives another life more equality, then our society has really gone the wrong direction.

 

Second, the life was started by both a man and a woman. If the man has no say in what happens to the life of baby he helped "make" because this gives the woman some sort of equality, then please, please don't go after the man for money to raise the child if/when the woman decides what to do. So often we hear how a woman should decide the fate of the life inside of her, but when that life comes out, the suddenly the man is responsible for financially supporting that child. Either give the man equal rights at conception and at birth, or give him no rights.

[sally4sara]

Two issues....knowing the medical procedures of "my neighbors" and protecting the life of all individuals.

 

The biggest question is...does the life inside of the mother belong to the mother and give her the right to terminate his or her existence? Or is that life already an individual and has its own right to life?

 

As for knowing medical procedures, I don't think anyone really wants to know what procedures are being done on each other. That has no bearing on whether the baby inside of the mother has rights.

 

Does the ability to terminate the living human inside of her give the mother equality to men? I find this a bit of a twisted argument.

 

First, if ending one life gives another life more equality, then our society has really gone the wrong direction.

 

Second, the life was started by both a man and a woman. If the man has no say in what happens to the life of baby he helped "make" because this gives the woman some sort of equality, then please, please don't go after the man for money to raise the child if/when the woman decides what to do. So often we hear how a woman should decide the fate of the life inside of her, but when that life comes out, the suddenly the man is responsible for financially supporting that child. Either give the man equal rights at conception and at birth, or give him no rights.

 

It is absolutely not two issues. This mentality is what keeps the argument alive. The different sides wish to keep your attention and gain your support and money. To do this, they need you to not care that regulating abortion would strip people of their rights to medical privacy. Once people stop arguing and realize this isn't about when human life begins and who's god it pisses off, they won't find it necessary to contribute monies to either side. It is a human rights argument and not a moral one.

You cannot make abortion absolve anyone of their obligation to living breathing children. We'd be forcing women into medical procedures that are none of our business. You cannot keep them from seeking an abortion either because once they're in a medical exam room with the door shut, you are not suppose to know what treatment they are or are not seeking. So you cannot verify an abortion either to keep one from getting it or to see to it one did get it.

Just like I cannot know how bad your hemoroids are flaring up or if you got nad cancer. I can't know if some guy was being truthful about not having an STD or not.

We are a nosy, pushy society and we don't like being responsible for our own actions despite loving the concept of pointing out other people's responsibility and how their not living up to it infringes us no matter what hand we had in its making.

 

Men will always seek to get in on the creation of life. Jealousy. They want an bigger portion of the power it holds.

Take it up with your "creator" as to why men have such a small hold on the act itself, but stay out of other people's medical privacy and choices. Take it up with the Pope as to why you cannot just slip a condom so your partner won't have to get an abortion and keep you from being told to pay child support.

 

You make a lot of statements about warped equality, but nothing as to why it is warped. And speaking of warped, what would you call it to make a cluster of cells inside my body have more rights than I do?

[sally4sara]

Whats next, women who miscarry going to jail for child endangerment?

 

When men bank their sperm and snip the path, they have as much - if not MORE control over their reproductive rights than women. Stop arguing over the rights of clusters of cells and start arguing over easier access for men to vasectomies at any age regardless of having children.

 

No more men trying to get in the abortion mix and mandate their opinion on a procedure they will never have to chose for themselves. No more whining about how child support is unfair if they didn't chose to be a father. This is almost as dumb an argument FOR abortion as some assumed god's opinion against abortion.

 

If no one is peeking in my medical files, then no one has anything to get on a soap box about..........

[ADF]

And speaking of warped, what would you call it to make a cluster of cells inside my body have more rights than I do?

 

Amen.

 

I wonder how many of the anti-choice have seen anti-abortion protesters up close. I have. Operation Rescue launched a series of clinic raids in my area back in the late 80s and early 90s, and I volunteered to help defend the clinic entrances. It was an eye-opening experience. While people on the sidewalks--the ones the press pays the most attetion to--prayed and sang hyms, the ones on thr front lines near the door were a whole different story. They spit, kicked, elbowed, pushed. They screamed, "bitch," "whore," "dyke" at the women trying to come in. Horrible, horrible people. They couldn't care less about the unborn children--if they did, they wouldn't forget all about them as soon as they were born. They just hate women.

[threebyfate]

Next thing you hear, it will be illegal to masturbate and have your period, since you're killing potential viable human life...

[northstar1]

Next thing you hear, it will be illegal to masturbate and have your period, since you're killing potential viable human life...

 

Wow, I'd have been in jail a thousand times over by now if that was the case.

[always_searching]

Next thing you hear, it will be illegal to masturbate and have your period, since you're killing potential viable human life...

 

Now, TBF, that is not the logical conclusion.

 

My skin cells, ovum, etc. is not the same thing as a zygote. We're not talking of a mere difference by degree i.e. skin cell, ovum, etc., as I have stated, but the zygote is something entirely different in kind. It is no longer just my DNA, but the DNA of the father and the mother fused together which created an entirely different being--the zygote has it's own unique individual genetic structure.

 

My ovum won't become a human-being without sperm or the nucleus removed and replaced by other genetic material (i.e. cloning). If nothing interferes with it's growth and development, that zygote will become a person--it is already a human-organism, mind you. However, if I allow it to follow it's natural course, it will develop into a person. The same cannot be said of my skin cells, ovum, etc.

[sally4sara]

Amen.

 

I wonder how many of the anti-choice have seen anti-abortion protesters up close. I have. Operation Rescue launched a series of clinic raids in my area back in the late 80s and early 90s, and I volunteered to help defend the clinic entrances. It was an eye-opening experience. While people on the sidewalks--the ones the press pays the most attetion to--prayed and sang hyms, the ones on thr front lines near the door were a whole different story. They spit, kicked, elbowed, pushed. They screamed, "bitch," "whore," "dyke" at the women trying to come in. Horrible, horrible people. They couldn't care less about the unborn children--if they did, they wouldn't forget all about them as soon as they were born. They just hate women.

 

Oh yeah! I had to deal with them and I was only there to pick up birth control. ANYONE walking into that clinic was fair game despite the many many services the place provides. To these people? we were all there to thwart the will of their god no matter what we claimed our real aim to be. I got told I wouldn't need BC if I just stopped being "such a godless whore".

[JamesM]

It is absolutely not two issues. This mentality is what keeps the argument alive.

 

Medical procedures that do not involve anyone's life but your own should be very private. No question. Whether you have an abortion is your private choice. Having said that, ending the life of another human being even when it is in your body should not simply be your choice. That life should have a right, too.

 

The different sides wish to keep your attention and gain your support and money. To do this, they need you to not care that regulating abortion would strip people of their rights to medical privacy.

 

This is a straw man argument. Making abortion illegal would have nothing to do with if you wanted a hysterectomy, an appendectomy, or any other medical procedure . Medical privacy has never been the issue of concern even by most pro choice individuals. It has been about two issues...is there a life to protect or do the rights of the mother supersede the life/non-life inside of her?

 

Once people stop arguing and realize this isn't about when human life begins and who's god it pisses off, they won't find it necessary to contribute monies to either side.

 

Actually, if pro-lifers did not think there was a life inside of the mother, then there would be no issue to discuss. And for many, yes, if there was no creator of life, then it wouldn't matter as life would not really be sacred.

 

It is a human rights argument and not a moral one.

 

It is both. The right to life of all humans IS a moral issue. Is killing my neighbor a moral issue or a human rights issue? Both.

 

You cannot make abortion absolve anyone of their obligation to living breathing children.

 

True. Abortion simply ends the life of a child before it gets the opportunity to breathe. Sad.

 

We'd be forcing women into medical procedures that are none of our business.

 

No, actually, we would probably prevent many abortions because if more men (yes, I said men) and women knew that by not using BC when having sex or if they decided that casual sex DOES have consequences, then many unwanted pregnancies would be avoided. (No, I did not say all).

 

Right now, many women choose an abortion because it is allegedly the easy way out...which many find is not true.

 

You cannot keep them from seeking an abortion either because once they're in a medical exam room with the door shut, you are not suppose to know what treatment they are or are not seeking. So you cannot verify an abortion either to keep one from getting it or to see to it one did get it.

 

If the doctors all took their Hippocratic Oath seriously, then they would realize that all life is protected. Did you know that it contains a sentence about abortion?

 

Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=20909

 

 

Just like I cannot know how bad your hemoroids are flaring up or if you got nad cancer. I can't know if some guy was being truthful about not having an STD or not.

 

Soooo.....we are comparing human fetuses/babies to hemorrhoids and STDs? Wow.

 

This discussion is about the terminating of lives...not the privacy of medical procedures.

 

We are a nosy, pushy society and we don't like being responsible for our own actions despite loving the concept of pointing out other people's responsibility and how their not living up to it infringes us no matter what hand we had in its making.

 

How very true. And one of those consequences of casual sex (which is by far the main reason for abortions) is to birth a baby that results from irresponsible sex.

 

Men will always seek to get in on the creation of life. Jealousy. They want an bigger portion of the power it holds.

 

Actually, from what I have read and heard, many men push their GFs/wives/casual sex partners into abortions so that they do NOT have to deal with the creation of life. Sadly many men want to end the babies' lives so that they can avoid the responsibility of being a father.

 

The problem is that if a man cannot decide if the woman has his baby, then why should he be pressured into being responsible financially for that baby?

 

Take it up with your "creator" as to why men have such a small hold on the act itself, but stay out of other people's medical privacy and choices.

 

It is not simply about choice. If it was only about choice, then there would be no discussion. It is about the life that was created/made by an act of sex. This act without protection has consequences.

 

Again, most men do not want to be a part of the act of creation. As an example, the head of the Right to Life in my town is a woman. The head of Planned Parenthood is a man.

 

Take it up with the Pope as to why you cannot just slip a condom so your partner won't have to get an abortion and keep you from being told to pay child support.

 

First off, I am not a Catholic. The Pope would have bigger discussions with me than about BC.

 

Second, he has had no bearing on BC in America except in Catholic schools.

 

Third, if I had a choice in deciding if the baby lives, then by all means I should bear the responsibility of that child. Even while abortion is legal, this should not be a question.

 

And fourth, most people I know who are against abortion certainly are for condoms. Preventing a life is better than ending a life in most people's minds.

 

You make a lot of statements about warped equality, but nothing as to why it is warped.

 

No, I said it is twisted if ending a life makes a woman equal to a man. I think that is the only comparison that I made.

 

And speaking of warped, what would you call it to make a cluster of cells inside my body have more rights than I do?

 

No one said that by giving them a right to life that they have more rights. In fact, many pro-lifers will say that when having a baby will cause the mother to die, then ending a pregnancy may be the only option. However, using abortion for this situation (which is a very small percentage of all abortions) is a far cry from using it as a form of birth control.

[threebyfate]

Wow, I'd have been in jail a thousand times over by now if that was the case.

So what are you trying to say?

 

Refer to Onan, Genesis 38:10. He was slewed!

[threebyfate]

Now, TBF, that is not the logical conclusion.

 

My skin cells, ovum, etc. is not the same thing as a zygote. We're not talking of a mere difference by degree i.e. skin cell, ovum, etc., as I have stated, but the zygote is something entirely different in kind. It is no longer just my DNA, but the DNA of the father and the mother fused together which created an entirely different being--the zygote has it's own unique individual genetic structure.

 

My ovum won't become a human-being without sperm or the nucleus removed and replaced by other genetic material (i.e. cloning). If nothing interferes with it's growth and development, that zygote will become a person--it is already a human-organism, mind you. However, if I allow it to follow it's natural course, it will develop into a person. The same cannot be said of my skin cells, ovum, etc.

So women sin everytime they have a miscarriage? It's estimated that up to 25% of embryos are spontaneously aborted by the woman's body.

[sally4sara]

Medical procedures that do not involve anyone's life but your own should be very private. No question. Whether you have an abortion is your private choice. Having said that, ending the life of another human being even when it is in your body should not simply be your choice. That life should have a right, too.

 

From the mind of someone who will never carry a cluster of cells inside their body that might become a child. If I am pregnant and I die, so does that cluster of cells. Till I can die and that cluster of cells continues to live without me - it is not a person. If you could get pregnant, you'd understand that.

 

And yes, till then, it is simply my choice. It certainly won't ever be the choice of someone who cannot take that cluster of cells and incubate it in their own body as an alternative. I won't even entertain the rest of your post because you do not respect the rights of human beings. You only seek to get in on something you cannot experience. You - who would argue abortion as a method of avoiding child support. It is disgusting for you to make that argument and then try to turn around and say it is about the live of a cluster of cells.

Look how you bend and twist to try an get your opinion on the high ground!

Make up your mind at least - do you seek fairness for poor trapped men being victimized into fatherhood or do you seek to protect the thing that traps them?

I don't respect your argument, but I'd like to at least respect your resolve.

[always_searching]

TBF, I should also note here that when talking about the zygote, we are not claiming potential human life, but actual human life. Yes, cells, ova, etc. have the potential to become human life, but that is not a proper basis for their having a right to life--they aren't going to mature into a human-person on their own, as the zygote will.

 

To SallyforSara and ADF:

 

I'm sorry about your experiences. Those people were clearly ignorant, judgmental radicals, and one day they will have to answer for their behavior--which is truly appalling, to say the least.

 

Regardless, just because there are radical idiots doesn't diminish the pro-life position. That's like saying because a few people are axe-murders means that all people owning an axe are murders--it just isn't rational.

 

I have to say, I don't understand why this thread was started if not to at least consider the other side. It seems to me that what was hoped for was a unanimous decision that pro-choice is the only rational legal solution. I think the OP is just unwilling to see the potential errors in her way of thinking and, instead, places all pro-life individuals into some category of idiocy who can't come up with compelling arguments, when in fact, she is just unwilling to see the validity in said arguments.

 

Oh well. It's clearly not an issue that's going to be solved any time soon. Though, I think our government is surly headed in favor of the OP. So, I'm not sure what good arguing about it will really do in the long run as far as legality is concerned, especially if (as the OP has suggested) legality has nothing to do with morality.

[JamesM]

Stop arguing over the rights of clusters of cells and start arguing over easier access for men to vasectomies at any age regardless of having children.

 

Men should take responsibility and get vasectomies if they do not want children. I did.

 

And again, this "cluster of cells" is how you started. That "cluster of cells" can be nothing but a human. No one is giving extra protection to cancer cells because they do not grow up to be children.

 

No more whining about how child support is unfair if they didn't chose to be a father. This is almost as dumb an argument FOR abortion as some assumed god's opinion against abortion.

 

Since you obviously do not believe in a God, then perhaps simple responsibility for actions can be considered. It is known that sexual activities makes a baby. Not using BC can end in a baby.

 

If a man cannot decide if the fetus will live, then why is it dumb that he MUST be responsible for its upbringing?

 

 

 

I wonder how many of the anti-choice have seen anti-abortion protesters up close.

 

Horrible, horrible people. They couldn't care less about the unborn children--if they did, they wouldn't forget all about them as soon as they were born. They just hate women.

 

First off, I abhor those type of protestors, too.

 

Second, I am not sure of the difference between anti-choice and anti-abortion in your mind, but I think most people would say that being anti- abortion simply means that if most people made the choice to be responsible for the possible baby that could occur when beginning the sex act, then abortions would not be necessary.

 

Third, I don't hate women.

 

Fourth, oddly, I have had more discussion with men IRL who are pro-choice than with women. Many men see abortion as a way of getting out of the responsibility of fatherhood.

 

Next thing you hear, it will be illegal to masturbate and have your period, since you're killing potential viable human life...

 

Coming from you, TBF, this is really surprising. You have more knowledge than this and should easily distinguish the difference between a sperm or egg and the combination of the two that results in a life.

 

Oh yeah! I had to deal with them and I was only there to pick up birth control. ANYONE walking into that clinic was fair game despite the many many services the place provides. To these people? we were all there to thwart the will of their god no matter what we claimed our real aim to be. I got told I wouldn't need BC if I just stopped being "such a godless whore".

 

I am sorry that you had to deal with that. As someone who feels that all life should be protected, I am sickened by those who participate in such protests. In fact, I would never even be a part of a protest outside of any clinic. It would serve no purpose.

 

Most pro-life/anti-abortion people are not like that. That would be like saying that most pro-choice/pro-abortion women are lesbians and man-haters. It just ain't true, and both sides know that the extremes cannot be used as an argument against or for anyone's "cause."