[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Not directly no.
But indirectly you are indeed supporting abortion. AGAIN, like it or not, admit it or not.

So should it be Pro(-indirectly)-abortion?

The term pro-life suits fine. And it is emotionally charged because IT'S AN EMOTIONAL MATTER. So should it be.

It surely shouldn't be "hidden" or "made nicer"

But it is hidden, isn't it? I don't think pro-legalized-abortion people are anti-life. You're hiding "anti-abortion" with the "nicer" term, "pro-life."

If a lot of gals would actually see what happens when they get abortions, or see the many women that are emotionally scarred for life because they had an abortion, they might think twice.

Situational argument. Some children born will be emotionally scarred for life because they are brought up in an unsuitable environment. People can educate themselves about abortion before they have one. Abortion is just another choice, like sex. Both can have consequences.

You know, instead of treating it just like a choice, a walk in the park.

Walking in the park is a choice. Sex is a choice. Abortion is a choice. You're choosing to do the activity.

Oh the choice is simple. Getting people to do it is not. Some people don't want to be bothered with reality and responsibility.

Getting people to do it is not simple; exactly.

Uh, would you send a guy to the gas chamber without proof he was guilty?

Nice job. Way to prove a point about a philosophical argument with a concrete argument. You can't prove when something becomes "alive" as you put it, or in other words when life becomes a person. You can, however, sometimes indisputably prove that a person murdered another person.

Would you bury a man without proof he was dead?

Again: nice job. You can prove when something is dead; that's not philosophy.

It's the same thing.

No it's not; see above.

I know people right now that are dying to adopt a child.

They have to wait in line.

Many people travel to other countries to adopt children; have they tried this? There are plenty of children out there just waiting for a home.

new born babies aren't hard to get adopted. Not at all.

Since you didn't answer the question, again: can you imagine the potential problem if all abortions became adoptions?

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You know what, I would be happy if they were just more strict on who could get abortions.

If it's going to harm the mother or kill her, then I can see were abortion would be an option.

Ok, so you agree that abortion is fine in certain situations?

But just because the baby is going to cramp your style, or you can't afford it, no. Those aren't valid reasons. You can always give it up for adoption.

Well, what you're saying there isn't the case for every pregnant woman wanting an abortion.

Basically, you're against, in your opinion, frivolous abortions, but agree that under certain circumstances, it could happen.

So, why then, do you wish to make illegal? You can't apply that to just some women, and not to others. It needs to be legal if we are to do as you say, letting certain women undertake the procedure.

So the question is, the law decides as to what constitutes an allowed abortion, which is what we have just now.

[Zimphire]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

But here are a few things that cannot be denied.

1. We don't know when life begins.
2. Killing a living growing innocent human is wrong.

Now you can be pro choice and pro abortion all you want.

But you cannot deny those two things.

Well you can, but you'd look pretty silly trying to rationalize it.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No I would prefer it to be illegal, and have everyone be responsible for their own actions.

If a woman decided to take her own babies life, well that is on her, and the consequences that come from that will also be on her.

It's on her head as it is just now, whether she pops down to Abortions R Us, or to a back-alley butcher.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Well that is just effecting HIS life now isn't it? That is why the comparisons aren't valid.

And having a child affects the mother's life. The comparison is valid.

Proof?

You're all for biogenesis, so you should be all for what I said.

Sperm and egg cannot create anything living by themselves.

A zygote cannot become a human by itself.

That is your opinion. One not based on fact.

How is it not a continuous process? Life comes from life comes from life. Sperm and eggs are alive; zygotes are alive, babies are alive, children are alive, men and women are alive.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
.

Ok.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Difference is, one is a growing living human being that may or may not have a living soul (we don't know), one is not, and does not.

Soul? What's that?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

1. We don't know when life begins.

Again, this has been discussed. You're being inconsistent with your love of biogenesis.

2. Killing a living growing innocent human is wrong.

What about other animals?

Will you admit that sperm and eggs are living?

Will you admit that they depend on their hosts to become an independent human?

Will you admit that a zygote depends on its host to become an independent human?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

And having a child affects the mother's life.

It doesn't effect her life as in her being alive.

You know exactly what I meant.

And I even said I would SUPPORT abortion if it did effect her living.

If she didn't want her life effected in that way, she needs to either not have sex. or get fixed.

You're all for biogenesis, so you should be all for what I said.

I am all for believe it takes something living to create something living. That doesn't mean I agree with what you said.

How is it not a continuous process? Life comes from life comes from life. Sperm and eggs are alive; zygotes are alive, babies are alive, children are alive, men and women are alive.

That doesn't even begin to describe when someone starts being a live.

AGAIN no one knows when life begins.

You can spew out a bunch of pretentious silliness and try to rationalize killing a living growing human, but it's still a living growing human.

No matter what you call it for feel good purposes.


Funny, I never hear a mother calling her baby a "fetus"

From day one it's always called "The Baby"

Only when someone wants to kill it it gets called fetus in most cases.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Soul? What's that?

Something that may or may not exist. We don't know.

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Again, this has been discussed. You're being inconsistent with your love of biogenesis.

No, no I am not. I am not speaking of life as a whole.

What about other animals?

Will you admit that sperm and eggs are living?

Will you admit that they depend on their hosts to become an independent human?

Will you admit that a zygote depends on its host to become an independent human?

Will you admit that even a 2 year old can't live on his own and needs a host to take care of him?

Can we start killing off 2 year olds now too?

Damn inconveniences.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Wow comparing a growing living human to a tapeworm and having an abortion to heart surgery. Way to show me!

No I'm not showing you, I'm asking you. How does "taking responsibility" mean you should avoid a medical procedure? Isn't that what you had said was part of the reasoning behind making abortions illegal? I'm just trying to better understand your logic.

So tell me, when does life begin then? Are we always alive?
...
I have no clue. None. I wouldn't even begin to imagine.

How life started originally is kind of a mystery, and is not relevant. What's relevant is which other life forms we consider to be "people." You could decide that the biological cells that once divided and differentiated to make me were always me. Whether that includes the sperm and egg (which are also cells) is another thing you might decide. Likewise, you could decide that the chemical molecules and atoms that were once in a banana that I ate were always me. For most of human history, the consensus was that I wasn't me until I was born from my mother's womb and began breathing air on my own. Seems to me in order for me to change that consensus and impose my new understanding on everyone else around me, I would need more than "I don't know."

Of course the word legalized has meaning.

Then how can you say that "pro-abortion" and "pro-legalized-abortion" are the same?

Well that is just effecting HIS life now isn't it? That is why the comparisons aren't valid.

If that's the reason, then it's not about "taking responsibility" it's about protecting the zygote's life. In that case, I must note that you seem to be very dedicated to protecting life. If the option were presented to you, would you allow a zygote to be implanted in your abdomen so you could carry it to term and protect its life?

Sperm and egg cannot create anything living by themselves.

Neither can a zygote. Environment is everything.

Difference is, one is a growing living human being that may or may not have a living soul (we don't know), one is not, and does not.

I thought this wasn't about religion. Is the soul a secular entity now? Besides, I thought you got your soul when you first breathed the breath of life, when you were born. If having a soul is the issue, it would seem we should be trying to prevent souls from being trapped in people who will have no loving parents, instead saving them for the most nurturing environments. I don't like that idea; let's keep souls out of it.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

It doesn't effect her life as in her being alive.

You know exactly what I meant.

And I even said I would SUPPORT abortion if it did effect her living.

If she didn't want her life effected in that way, she needs to either not have sex. or get fixed.

I am all for believe it takes something living to create something living. That doesn't mean I agree with what you said.

That doesn't even begin to describe when someone starts being a live.

AGAIN no one knows when life begins.

You can spew out a bunch of pretentious silliness and try to rationalize killing a living growing human, but it's still a living growing human.

No matter what you call it for feel good purposes.


Funny, I never hear a mother calling her baby a "fetus"

From day one it's always called "The Baby"

Only when someone wants to kill it it gets called fetus in most cases.

I'll respond to the rest of this later (have to get going now), but you failed to respond to something here.

Z: Sperm and egg cannot create anything living by themselves.
S: A zygote cannot become a human by itself

[Zimphire]

Z. A Two your old cannot live by itself either.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Will you admit that even a 2 year old can't live on his own and needs a host to take care of him?

Can we start killing off 2 year olds now too?

Exactly. Saying something can't live on its own has no bearing on whether it's human. That was your only argument for why sperm and eggs were not human. Now that that's out of the way, are there any other reasons why they're not?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

No I'm not showing you, I'm asking you. How does "taking responsibility" mean you should avoid a medical procedure?

I never said it did. A pregnancy isn't a defect, it isn't something that needs fixed.

It's not something wrong.

No medical procedure is needed.

Abortion would more than likely follow under the lines of Plastic Surgery than a medical procedure of that kind.

That is why it's a HORRIBLE comparison.

How life started originally is kind of a mystery, and is not relevant.

To you maybe not. To me it is.

See, I don't really think it's cool killing off innocent growing human being just because they would cramp my style.

What's relevant is which other life forms we consider to be "people." You could decide that the biological cells that once divided and differentiated to make me were always me. Whether that includes the sperm and egg (which are also cells) is another thing you might decide. Likewise, you could decide that the chemical molecules and atoms that were once in a banana that I ate were always me. For most of human history, the consensus was that I wasn't me until I was born from my mother's womb and began breathing air on my own. Seems to me in order for me to change that consensus and impose my new understanding on everyone else around me, I would need more than "I don't know."

Well I am sorry. I don't know. We don't know. You don't know. Know one knows.

Making GUESSES as to what constitutes life is just that. Guesses.

Then how can you say that "pro-abortion" and "pro-legalized-abortion" are the same?

I said they both indirectly supported each other. And they do. I have said it about 5 times or more in here. And have yet to see anyone disprove it.

I have however seen a few people take what I said above, and argue something differently.

I thought you got your soul when you first breathed the breath of life,

I wonder why it says then that God knew you even before that then. In other words, no, that isn't what the Bible says.

when you were born. If having a soul is the issue, it would seem we should be trying to prevent souls from being trapped in people who will have no loving parents,

That is what adoption is for. You keep forgetting that with your excuses.

And it's really not our choice in the matter.

What is our choice is weather or not we have sex. Don't want kids? Don't have sex, or get fixed.

Otherwise, you are just being selfish, and self centered.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Exactly. Saying something can't live on its own has no bearing on whether it's human.

Well I am glad we can alteast agree on that.

That was your only argument for why sperm and eggs were not human.

No, that wasn't even my argument. My argument was sperm and egg by themselves cannot CREATE human life. But when they join during conception, BOOM, life is started. The fact that it needs the mother to live in for 9 months doesn't make it any less of a growing, living, human being.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

A pregnancy isn't a defect, it isn't something that needs fixed.

In some cases it is, you said so yourself.

Abortion would more than likely follow under the lines of Plastic Surgery than a medical procedure of that kind.

Well why didn't you say so. I will ammend my question: if taking responsibility is the reasoning for outlawing abortion, would you propose to outlaw plastic surgery as well?

See, I don't really think it's cool killing off innocent growing human being just because they would cramp my style.

But I thought you said you had no idea if it was a growing human being or just a collection of cells. Depending on how that is resolved, what you're talking about in this quote could be utterly inconsequential.

Well I am sorry. I don't know. We don't know. You don't know. Know one knows.

I don't think we should run around making new laws based on things like "I don't know."

I said they both indirectly supported each other. And they do.

But that is irrelevant. Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler indirectly supported each other, but we don't go around boycotting Ford Motors because of that. It's a non-sequitor.

I wonder why it says then that God knew you even before that then. In other words, no, that isn't what the Bible says.

I wonder why you ignored my question about what souls have to do with this after you made a point of saying this was not a religious issue. I would also ask how God knowing you has to do with you having a soul already, but I don't want you to get side tracked again.

Otherwise, you are just being selfish, and self centered.

Being selfish and self-centered is not a crime. If you want to complain about abortion, saying it's because of people being selfish is not going to justify making it illegal.

But when they join during conception, BOOM, life is started.

They were alive before, and now they are still alive. I don't see how that has made life started. Life always grows from other life; if you can show evidence to the contrary I will be very interested.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Funny, I never hear a mother calling her baby a "fetus"

From day one it's always called "The Baby"

Only when someone wants to kill it it gets called fetus in most cases.

The terms people tend to use when they are emotionally invested do not change the relevance of the correct terms when it's time to be serious. For example, when I worked with lab mice to study Huntington's disease, my boss would always ask me "how are our babies doing?" That does not mean she thought of the mice as human babies, nor does it make calling them "mice" again incorrect or deceitful. Likewise when people refer to their car or boat as a baby.

Arguments like this, when they outnumber the kind that are based on logic, tend to give the impression that the arguer has not thought out his position logically. I'm not saying that's true in this case, I'm just throwing out an observation that quantity is not only not a replacement for quality (in debate), but often times it's detrimental to the arguments that actually do have quality.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Difference is, one is a growing living human being that may or may not have a living soul (we don't know), one is not, and does not.

What is a soul? There is zero evidence of a soul and as such should not be considered a difference between the two.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Z. A Two your old cannot live by itself either.

A two year-old could, technically, live without its mother. A zygote or fetus could not.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

My argument was sperm and egg by themselves cannot CREATE human life.

And a zygote by itself cannot create human life either.

But when they join during conception, BOOM, life is started.

I thought you said we don't know "when life begins."

The fact that it needs the mother to live in for 9 months doesn't make it any less of a growing, living, human being.

Well, it kind of does, though, doesn't it? If it completely relies on being physically connected to another being, it's more of a parasite than an individual being at this point.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

It doesn't effect her life as in her being alive.

You know exactly what I meant.

And I even said I would SUPPORT abortion if it did effect her living.

If she didn't want her life effected in that way, she needs to either not have sex. or get fixed.

And a serious medical ailment that could have been avoided by healthier living doesn't always kill, but it can make life much more difficult if the medical procedure isn't done. Without heart surgery, he may live, but there will be irreparable damage. Effect is effect.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I am all for believe it takes something living to create something living. That doesn't mean I agree with what you said.

That doesn't even begin to describe when someone starts being a live.

AGAIN no one knows when life begins.

How are you defining "alive," now? Scientifically, life is a continuous process. Life bears life bears life. What is your definition of "life" or "alive"?

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You can spew out a bunch of pretentious silliness and try to rationalize killing a living growing human, but it's still a living growing human.

No matter what you call it for feel good purposes.

Pretentious or not, it's true enough scientifically.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Funny, I never hear a mother calling her baby a "fetus"

From day one it's always called "The Baby"

Only when someone wants to kill it it gets called fetus in most cases.

Funnier, a friend of mine this year referred to her unborn child as "the fetus." She'd mention that she had to "go get an ultrasound of the fetus," etc. She loves her newborn very much.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No, no I am not. I am not speaking of life as a whole.

Then elaborate on your definition. If you mean when is a zygote alive, then it is scientifically a live zygote after a live spermatazoon collides with the live egg. Always alive, throughout.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Will you admit that even a 2 year old can't live on his own and needs a host to take care of him?

Can we start killing off 2 year olds now too?

Damn inconveniences.

A 2 year old can live without his mother. Zygotes are physically attached to their mothers: they are parasites, their mothers are hosts. 2 year olds can be annoyances, but they live and breathe on their own. He sleeps by himself for hours and hours at a time. Put a zygote in a crib, away from Mommy, and tell me how long it lives.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Hmm, being in a confined cell or having your body disfigured, stretched and kicked from the inside by an unwelcome parasite, perhaps never to fully recover, having your hormones go nuts and being out of control of your emotions and gastrointestinal stability...doesn't really seem comparable. Besides, who said it was ok to imprison women for 9 months to save that ball of cells, which probably won't have a loving home to live in after it becomes a person?

Yes, that poor woman just so happened to get invaded by this "parasite". I'd say she welcomed in the "parasite" at the same moment she welcomed the penis into her vagina (to put it bluntly).

If you allow any child to be born any number of things could happen to it. Even a wanted child could grow up in a bad home. Saying that the saved fetus won't have a loving home is not an argument.

Pregnancy is physically a horrible experience, on par with torture. For most cases, that punishment is outweighed by the emotional benefits of love for and from the child that will hopefully result. If instead that emotional component is negative, because the whole mess is being forced on you against your will, it only makes the physical part worse.

Have you ever heard of mothers who promise to give their baby up for adoption when it's born but then when the see it the emotional attachment is so great that they want it themselves (I doubt this only happens in the movies)? I would assume this would happen to a mother that would have aborted too.

Besides, this again comes back to "she had sex, she's responsible".

That is a moral argument, and is debatable but not decisive. I think it has run its course, and I will only address it again if some evidence is given why it should be a legal argument as well.

I might be able to adapt my drunk driving analogy if I tried, but I don't know. As I pointed out, these are new grounds. There are few legal precedents because technology has advanced so fast that law and ethics have yet to catch up. That's why there was such a circus over the Schiavo case--the law doesn't define exactly what to do in that situation. (And no, Schiavo dying is not legal precedent for saying we should let the fetuses die. She was let go because the court ruled that was her wish.)

What chance is that, exactly? Anyone know or can find out? PS: if they haven't met, there is a chance they will meet, just as after they have met, there is a chance they will eventually become a child.

Well if they ever do meet then they qualify for the second category...

Let me make an unrelated example to show you: If I say a gun can never kill someone with meeting the bullet, that would be true (excluding beating them to death with it). A bullet can never kill someone without meeting a gun. A loaded gun can kill someone. What you're saying is what if the gun does meet up with the bullet, then it could kill someone. But then it falls into the second category of loaded gun!

Ok, but what does that mean exactly? Why is it wrong? Is it because the collection of cells is a person right now, or because at some point in the future it has a certain chance of becoming a person? And if that's it, what chance should that be? Let me elaborate on that last one. There is a certain (distinct) chance of survival (past birth) of a zygote at each point in time during its development. If the chance is 1% at conception, and 50% at 4.5 months, at what percent should the cut-off be for calling that zygote a person? How do you decide such a thing? I can't imagine ever saying "sorry, you only have (x-1) percent chance of surviving, and you need (x) percent to be a person." It seems to me when I think of it like that, you can really only evaluate person-hood on the basis of the here-and-now, like is that ball of cells a person right now, or just the prelude to one? Am I missing something?

Why would there be a % cutoff? Why not if there is any chance then the zygote should be taken to term? As I said, the sperm and egg separately have zero chance of becoming a child, so they don't qualify.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

It's your line of reasoning that doesn't make sense. You said yourself that you (for example) don't consider it murder, as you're arguing against abortion at the same time. Yet in the above reasoning you've gone from "oppose abortion" to "advocating murder."

How does that not make sense? I oppose abortion, so I am on the pro-life side, which is where I said someone who opposes abortion should be. If I was on the pro-choice side then it wouldn't make sense.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose abortion without wanting it outlawed. You might think abortion is a huge waste of resources compared with better contraception, plus it has a certain risk of fatality. Also perhaps you want to encourage the US population to catch up to our competitors like China and India; that's certainly no excuse for enforcing increased population. Or perhaps you are waiting to adopt, and reduced numbers of abortions would get you a child faster, but that doesn't mean you consider it murder. Or perhaps you believe abortion is wrong (not murder, just wrong) for entirely religious reasons, but you believe in the separation of church and state. All these people oppose abortion on a level of personal choice, but not as a matter of law.

Most of these reasons could apply to the death penalty as well (granted it doesn't occur in nearly as great of numbers as abortions). If you think the death penalty is wrong, you don't want it to be legal. I can't envision anyone who thinks the death penalty is wrong, but still thinks it should be legal. And no, people who serve on juries who oppose the death penalty but still decide that someone should be killed do not count. They can still think it should be outlawed, but want to go through with their legal duty to follow the law. Pro-lifers are just like this (which, back to the original point, is why your hypothetical person would be a pro-lifer). They want it outlawed but nearly all of them won't go into an abortion clinic and physically prevent the abortions from happening.

I'm sorry, no. You can't just redefine words in the language as part of a debate. And even if you could, you didn't (you never said "pro-abortion (which I hearby define as "in favor of legal abortion")).

Context dammit! It was in context. If I remember correctly, the first time I used it I did not point out that I meant legalized abortion. However, I later clarified (didn't "redefine", just clarified) that I was talking about legal abortion.

No, it means what people have agreed it means. The Pro-Life side has established what you have shown is a less than accurate term to describe themselves, and their opponents have not objected, and now it is a term on its own, and that is what makes it mean something different than the words it's composed of. Furthermore, by agreed-on, I mean that both sides of the debate agree with each other, not that members of one side agree with each other.

Why do both sides have to agree? I can call my movement whatever I want and if the other side objects I don't have to change my name (assuming the assigned name makes at least some sense). And since I've said that for my purposes, pro-abortion = pro-legalized-abortion, that's how it will be used. As I pointed out, maybe some people have problems with the name "pro-choice" because it could be misinterpreted. However, that hasn't prompted them to change the name.

Everything else you said leading to this quote is true. Agreed-on terms are not always the same as the literal meaning of their words. And if you want to start a debate on the accuracy of the term "pro-choice," you can. But the fact is, that fight was settled a long time ago, and "pro-choice" now has its own agreed-on meaning, it means "against outlawing abortion." "Pro-abortion" has a (strong) implied meaning, in that in English "Pro-X" means "in favor of or supporting X," and that meaning is different from the agreed meaning of "pro-choice." But if you want to start your own organization and call it "Pro-abortion," I'm sure after enough time you will be able to claim that term as your own and in doing so change its meaning (if your organization is significant enough that anyone cares).

Okay..So what's stopping you from agreeing that "pro-abortion" can mean "pro-legalized-abortion"? You can't say it's because of what's implied because, as I've pointed out, certain things are implied by "pro-choice" as well. If people could get over those implications for "pro-choice" why can't you get over these for "pro-abortion"?

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Deimos

So, why then, do you wish to make illegal? You can't apply that to just some women, and not to others. It needs to be legal if we are to do as you say, letting certain women undertake the procedure.

So the question is, the law decides as to what constitutes an allowed abortion, which is what we have just now.

I've already answered this before, but I'll do it again.

How does a woman who gets an abortion to save her life know that she needs that abortion to save her life? Because a doctor tells her. Why would this be any different in a system where only these and similar abortions are allowed?

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Deimos

It's on her head as it is just now, whether she pops down to Abortions R Us, or to a back-alley butcher.

Outlawing anything will make people do it illegally. That doesn't mean we shouldn't outlaw it. I'll use this one CSI episode as an example: right now the medical community won't give you a sex change operation until you've lived a year as your chosen sex and the doctor approves the operation. This is to make sure you'll be mentally and emotionally okay as your chosen sex. But, because of this legality, people were getting back-alley sex change operations (either because they didn't want to do the 1 year or the doctors still wouldn't do the operation). Do you think that this law should be repealed simply because people went to uncertified doctors and got themselves killed? Just because people kill themselves doing illegal actions doesn't in any way invalidate the reasons for enacting the law in the first place.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I'm confused by this argument; perhaps you can explain it in a little more detail. Seems like this is implying that having heart surgery is not taking responsibility for a lifetime of poor diet habits. And having a tapeworm removed is not taking responsibility for enjoying a vacation to the amazon. And using the internet to submit your taxes is not taking responsibility for procrastination.

My lifetime of poor diet habits and my vacation in the amazon won't create a life. Sex can.

"Life" doesn't start. Life does not come from non-life (not lately at any rate). What we are disagreeing over is when one form of life begins to be a "person" as defined as something that is the same as the rest of us. So let's start finding out. When do you think it starts, and what's your basis for thinking that?

Unlike Zimphire, I agree that technically life doesn't start. However, a life starts. That life would be the baby's. The point is no one knows when that life becomes separate from the 2 that created it.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Will you admit that even a 2 year old can't live on his own and needs a host to take care of him?

Can we start killing off 2 year olds now too?

Exactly. Saying something can't live on its own has no bearing on whether it's human. That was your only argument for why sperm and eggs were not human. Now that that's out of the way, are there any other reasons why they're not?

Sperm and egg are still part of the one life of their owner's (unless you think every individual cell is considered one life). Together, they create a new, separate life.

That reminds me: What was wrong with the DNA argument? I didn't understand what you were saying. I wonder because that's a scientific way to prove that a new life is created. That "ball of cells" has different DNA that it's parent cells.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

A 2 year old can live without his mother. Zygotes are physically attached to their mothers: they are parasites, their mothers are hosts. 2 year olds can be annoyances, but they live and breathe on their own. He sleeps by himself for hours and hours at a time. Put a zygote in a crib, away from Mommy, and tell me how long it lives.

Parasites are considered alive by the scientific community. So, if you really think that zygote is a parasite, then you admit that abortion is murder.

Besides: While a newborn baby (why 2 year olds? Newborns are alive too) might technically be able to survive without its mother, a fetus* at near the end of the nine months, but not born yet, could also technically survive via an incubation chamber (alternatively, if it were early enough it could be put in a surrogate mother). Both would still be dependent however, because the fetus obviously is still being helped, and the newborn would still need help because its muscles and other systems are not developed enough that it could even possibly go get food and survive by itself.

*Not sure what the name of it is that late

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

How can you even bear typing this?

If you want to use variable logic, only one thing can vary. [/b]

I'm not using variable logic. There is no suitable environment in which a sperm or egg on its own by simply feeding nutrients in which the sperm/egg can develop into a child. Before this can be done, the sperm has to fertilize the egg. After sperm fertilizes an egg there is a new organism completely unique. It is this unique organism which grows into a new child.

What is the difference between a child and a zygote: the child has more cells and the cells have specialised.

But here, not only do you have sperm/egg and zygote varying, but you have "suitable environment" and "any environment." Both environments in which BOTH can "develop into a child" (yes, both can despite your claims that a sperm and egg cannot) are the same: in the woman's reproductive system. The zygote grows here and depends on the host body (Mom). The sperm can fertilize the egg here and, once combined, will depend on the host body. Same environment...so what's your argument? Greater potentiality? Potentiality is not an argument.

Like I said before, after fertilization you are dealing with a different organism. Sperm still cannot develop into a human being, no matter how hard you try. It's genetic structure is not complete (it contains only 23 chromosomes).

Sperm/egg are simply cells of our bodies, the fertilized egg is not. It is an independant body, a parasite if you wish to call it such. It is so different the immune system has to be somewhat suppressed for it to exist. Were it apart of the mother, none of this would be necessary.

You, potentially, could have had sex with her that one night, but you chose not to. That egg got flushed out of her system within the month, and a few million spermatazoa of yours have since "passed" as well. You killed the possibility of a child being born, just as a young girl at an abortion clinic does... The point in time might be different, but the argument is basically the same: you're avoiding letting a child be born and you're letting some microorganisms die.

I'm speaking about potentials of organisms: I'm saying that fundementally a fertilized egg is the same as a child and can develop into a child given that it is in an environment which can feed nutrients to the new organism.

And going back to your comparison. A zygote cannot become a human baby without a dependence on its host (Mom). A spermatozoon, however, can fertilize an egg in a petri dish.

Some bacteria need to live on a specific organism or they die, just like a fertilized egg needs the womb. This doesn't mean though that the bacteria are part of the organism.

And the zygote has other dramatically different structural qualities than a baby...where is your argument?

That is only because the cells have specialised. It's genetic structure is the same. It is the same organism.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

A two year-old could, technically, live without its mother. A zygote or fetus could not.

False. Fetuses viable outside the womb are killed everyday...legally. At the point of viability, you are essentially debating semantics.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by zerostar

What is a soul? There is zero evidence of a soul and as such should not be considered a difference between the two.

There is zero evidence there is no soul, so such a thing should be considered just because of that fact.

Actually, enough life after death experiences have occurred to question it.


But that is a whole nother story.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by deej5871

I've already answered this before, but I'll do it again.

How does a woman who gets an abortion to save her life know that she needs that abortion to save her life? Because a doctor tells her. Why would this be any different in a system where only these and similar abortions are allowed?

Exactly. Abortions should be only performed when the women's life is in danger. Or other medical emergencies.

NOT for birth control.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

The choice is about personal liberty, not about money.

Financial consideration is one of the cornerstones of the set of rights passed down by our founding fathers and is a key element of personal liberty. Ever hear of the phrase "taxation without representation"? I believe this financial consideration was one of the largest motivators in the foundation of the United States. The idea that this stuff has nothing to do with personal liberty is simply illogical.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

One side has the choice of their own bodies and the other is whining about money.

...yes...having to work and pay for what someone else choses to do with their body. They are being held responsible for choices they are not allowed to make and as such their personal libery is being violated.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

If that's all you object to, then make a case to eliminate child-support (because you don't believe in it, or because birth-control is no longer all the man's responsibility, or because it's society's responsibility not just the one man's, for example). This has nothing to do with whether abortion is wrong or should be outlawed.

You can't make a logical argument that abortion should be legal, and not also support allowing men to have a choice in regards to the result of what they chose to do with their bodies. You can not suggest that a man should have no choice in the situation, and still say that a women SHOULD have a choice.

I BELIEVE that both men and women should be held responsible for what they do with their bodies. Either let both chose or neither. Either way, there'd be a lot fewer abortions.

What was the reasoning for enacting child support laws in the first place? I'm asking since you agreed to be my information source on this topic, not rhetorically.

I assume to follow the left-wing agenda of forcing men to still be responsible for the actions of women, while allowing the women an unequal amount of choices and power. I can't think of any other reason, given that "choice" is what is supposed to be the most imporant thing here.

[Zimphire]

The reason why they don't give men a choice is, they would lose the whole "It's her body" argument.

And they can't have that.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by deej5871

Parasites are considered alive by the scientific community. So, if you really think that zygote is a parasite, then you admit that abortion is murder.

I'm not sure I'm going to bother arguing with logic that barely stands up, but here: I never said a zygote wasn't alive. And why would I admit that? If you admit the same by that logic, you'd have to admit that any man who has ever ejaculated has committed genocide.

Originally Posted by deej5871

Besides: While a newborn baby (why 2 year olds? Newborns are alive too) might technically be able to survive without its mother, a fetus* at near the end of the nine months, but not born yet, could also technically survive via an incubation chamber (alternatively, if it were early enough it could be put in a surrogate mother). Both would still be dependent however, because the fetus obviously is still being helped, and the newborn would still need help because its muscles and other systems are not developed enough that it could even possibly go get food and survive by itself.

*Not sure what the name of it is that late

"Why 2 year olds?" Because it was Zimph's example.
As far as your fetus-in-the-third-trimester argument goes; firstly, this fetus could still not survive on its own (you admit the necessity of an incubation chamber for the fetus to live). But that's not really my argument (just revealing some holes in yours), my argument would be that most abortions occur long before the fetus is this developed. Any legal abortion would remain in the first trimester. So let's move on, since you're not really making a point here...

[Zimphire]

Being human isn't something you measure by if you can survive on your own or not.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by undotwa

I'm not using variable logic. There is no suitable environment in which a sperm or egg on its own by simply feeding nutrients in which the sperm/egg can develop into a child. Before this can be done, the sperm has to fertilize the egg. After sperm fertilizes an egg there is a new organism completely unique. It is this unique organism which grows into a new child.

The zygote is hardly "unique" in comparison with the original spermatozoon and egg, it is a chromosomal combination. Anyways, I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. A sperm/egg can develop into a child, but you say it cannot; then you say, it can after fertilization occurs. Correct. A sperm/egg in certain environments can develop into a child. A zygote in a certain environment can develop into a child. So what's the point...oh, here's something...

Originally Posted by undotwa

What is the difference between a child and a zygote: the child has more cells and the cells have specialised.

This is true. What's the difference between a human fetus and a monkey fetus?

Originally Posted by undotwa

Like I said before, after fertilization you are dealing with a different organism. Sperm still cannot develop into a human being, no matter how hard you try. It's genetic structure is not complete (it contains only 23 chromosomes).

If the sperm is ever put into an environment where it can fertilize an egg, then yes, it CAN develop into a human.

Originally Posted by undotwa

Sperm/egg are simply cells of our bodies, the fertilized egg is not. It is an independant body, a parasite if you wish to call it such. It is so different the immune system has to be somewhat suppressed for it to exist. Were it apart of the mother, none of this would be necessary.

Sperm/eggs aren't really "simply cells of our bodies." They are cells with the potential of becoming different humans. They are haploid rather than diploid and they are all different -- all are randomly-combined versions of the two chromosomes of a normal cell that differ from the normal cells of the human body.

Originally Posted by undotwa

I'm speaking about potentials of organisms: I'm saying that fundementally a fertilized egg is the same as a child and can develop into a child given that it is in an environment which can feed nutrients to the new organism.

And one of your spermatozoa, as an organism, had the potential to fertilize an ovum -- that is, given that they are put into the correct environment which can feed the subsequently-combined duo.

Originally Posted by undotwa

Some bacteria need to live on a specific organism or they die, just like a fertilized egg needs the womb. This doesn't mean though that the bacteria are part of the organism.

And while some unwanted bacteria can be eliminated, so can an unwanted fertilized ovum.

Originally Posted by undotwa

That is only because the cells have specialised. It's genetic structure is the same. It is the same organism.

And its genetic structure is the same as the sperm and egg together

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

False. Fetuses viable outside the womb are killed everyday...legally. At the point of viability, you are essentially debating semantics.

Surely you'd care to elaborate.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Being human isn't something you measure by if you can survive on your own or not.

You're all for keeping vegetables in patches, huh? Sometimes it's better to reap and weep than let spoil any further.

Back to the one-liners now, or are you planning on actually addressing my previous posts to you?

[Zimphire]

Naw, because I have answered them before. I don't like NASCAR, and I don't like running in circles.

But go on, compare humans and the womb to rotted vegetable patches.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Naw, because I have answered them before. I don't like NASCAR, and I don't like running in circles.

But go on, compare humans and the womb to rotted vegetable patches.

Wax on, onanism; wax on! And on. Honestly?

We haven't quite looped yet, though you tend to run your own track over-and-over... I elaborated, and you've answered nothing.

Did Zee cry when Schiavo die?

[Zimphire]

100% Silly.

[Athens]

Ok Zimphire, lets see your opinion on this one. A woman who does drugs gets laid and is going to have a baby now. First off she would be a terrible mother and dosent want the child so adoption is a option. But because of the drugs she takes there is a very good chance if she carries this baby all the way through it will come out all messed up. Would you agree that abortion in a case like that is better, not for the mom but for the baby.


Second one, woman gets raped, she never intended on having a baby, she never even intended on sex but it was forced on her and now she is going to have a baby. Is it fair to this woman to be forced to have a baby that she never wanted and was forced to. Is it fair to suffer another 9 months and longer and to have that constant reminder of the rape.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Athens

Ok Zimphire, lets see your opinion on this one. A woman who does drugs gets laid and is going to have a baby now. First off she would be a terrible mother and dosent want the child so adoption is a option. But because of the drugs she takes there is a very good chance if she carries this baby all the way through it will come out all messed up. Would you agree that abortion in a case like that is better, not for the mom but for the baby.

#1 Her "Just not wanting to give it out for adoption" isn't a good reason. And is selfish.
#2 If a doctor said the baby would come out horribly deformed, I would indeed say let the choice be up to the mother.

Second one, woman gets raped, she never intended on having a baby, she never even intended on sex but it was forced on her and now she is going to have a baby. Is it fair to this woman to be forced to have a baby that she never wanted and was forced to. Is it fair to suffer another 9 months and longer and to have that constant reminder of the rape.

Is it fair to the baby that he or she didn't do anything wrong?

I know a few gals that this actually has happened to. It was more like date rape than anything.

But two of them had the kid, and one of them aborted it (Grandma bought her a car for getting an abortion)

Guess which of the three is having to take depression medication the past 3 years because of her actions.

Having said that, I have still not made my mind up about that particular instance.

[Athens]

Life is life, there is no difference between a human, monkey, whale, cat or tree. Things are born, live and die. The only difference between all life is the general makeup of the life, the building plans as you wish. Some things are 2 feet tall, others are 6 feet tall, some have more hair then others. Some get nurishment from sunlight, others from plants and others from other animals. We kill animals for food, we kill other people for land, resources and for name calling, what is so bad with terminating the life of a baby that isnt born yet. Its funny how we can support the murder of born people but we cant support the murder of unborn people.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

#1 Her "Just not wanting to give it out for adoption" isn't a good reason. And is selfish.
#2 If a doctor said the baby would come out horribly deformed, I would indeed say let the choice be up to the mother.

Is it fair to the baby that he or she didn't do anything wrong?

I know a few gals that this actually has happened to. It was more like date rape than anything.

But two of them had the kid, and one of them aborted it (Grandma bought her a car for getting an abortion)

Guess which of the three is having to take depression medication the past 3 years because of her actions.

Having said that, I have still not made my mind up about that particular instance.

Fair enough, me personally I don't care as long as the abortion is humane. I do think its wrong to have money attached to it as you said a car for abortion. I think all abortions should be done in Hospitals and abortion clinics should be banned. Those clinics make there entire living off abortions and cant be fair and inpartial to the medical needs or issues. Its how they make there money. All abortions should be recommended only by the family doctor and then done in a hospital. Take away the business side of it and we will have less abortions.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

#1 Her "Just not wanting to give it out for adoption" isn't a good reason. And is selfish.
#2 If a doctor said the baby would come out horribly deformed, I would indeed say let the choice be up to the mother.

#1...I think you misread things, buddy. "Adoption is an option" [my emphasis].

Re: adoption.

Again, since you failed to answer me the first time (though you said you did! you said you answered it all!):

Can you imagine the problems with all abortions going up for adoption instead?

[Zimphire]

Born/Unborn, still people.

And life is life, but there is a difference between man and animal. IMHO of course.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Born/Unborn, still people.

And life is life, but there is a difference between man and animal. IMHO of course.

I don't see any difference. We are all biological soups of chemicals and tissue. We all breath, eat and sleep. We all are born, live and die. We all have feelings and ability to think. We are just the top of the lader and in no way better. Ants takes slaves, cats kill for sport, monkeys and lions kill for taritory, Monkeys rap. We do everything and more.