Abortion

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

There are ?

Enough unwanted children in this world ?

 

[JRMcC]

Um...
Zygotes are alive.
Embryos are alive.
the Fetus is alive.

Hells bells people, the sperm and egg are alive.

Has anyone in this thread even implied that they were not alive at some point?


Who says a FETUS has any rights at all?
Is the goal post moving intentional or un-intentional?


Now you move the goal posts once more....

^ See this is why the conversation comes down to what makes life life, what's the difference between biological life and human "life," and why is life valuable. But I'm dealing with some people hear that seem not to think so.

 

[JRMcC]

Enough unwanted children in this world ?

Unwanted children would be better off dead?

 

[McBell]

^ See this is why the conversation comes down to what makes life life, what's the difference between biological life and human "life," and why is life valuable. But I'm dealing with some people hear that seem not to think so.

Please give a straight answer to the following point blank straight forward question:

Has anyone in this thread even implied that they were not alive at some point?​

 

[Sundance]

I respect your opinion and have no intention of suggesting it's wrong. But I am curious, do you make a distinction between abortion and Plan B?

"Plan B One-Step is not the same as RU-486, which is an abortion pill. It does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. In other words, it does not stop development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. So it will not work if you are already pregnant when you take it."
Plan B (Morning-After Pill): Effectiveness and Side Effects

Upon reviewing the information in the link you posted, I'll say that yes, I differentiate between the two. Contraception prevents the sperm from even fertilizing the egg in the first place, whereas with abortion, it is the deliberate deprivation of an individual human being's life, which I believe begins at fertilization .

 

[Marisa]

I don't know why not. If a baby is alive, and someone consciously allows it to die, then someone is in legal trouble.

Because the question of abortion is that of whether or not a woman own's her body 100% of the, or if she can exist in a competent medical state in which it is correct to force her to give up ownership of her body to another.

I guess, but I think the dynamic changes a little bit when it's a mother and child relationship. Call me old fashioned.

No, it doesn't. That is your emotions making your decisions for you. Not every woman wants to be a mother, just as not every man wants to be a father.

I don't know what the heck bodily autonomy is. Everyone is supposed to have autonomy period, as long as what they do with that autonomy doesn't hurt another person. Bodily autonomy... Ok I should be able to do bath salts. Anyway I don't think life begins at conception. And I would agree that republicans who are against birth control are trampling on people's rights. Does that please you?

Bodily autonomy is the concept that you own your body. Moral agency is the concept that you are equipped to make decisions. Yes, you are correct that we don't get to use our bodies to harm others. This is the very concept that makes it correct for a woman to choose abortion. Because included in the assumption that no one gets to use their body to harm another person is the concept that this includes a fetus. Thus, no distinction between lower case life or capital L life is made, the same evaluation applies globally.
It's not about making your opinion "please" me. My intention is not to instruct you on what the proper opinion would be in this conversation. There is room for both our opinions, but this requires that you respect an opinion not your own. I can do that. Can you?

 

[Marisa]

Um...
Zygotes are alive.
Embryos are alive.
the Fetus is alive.

Hells bells people, the sperm and egg are alive.

Has anyone in this thread even implied that they were not alive at some point?


Who says a FETUS has any rights at all?
Is the goal post moving intentional or un-intentional?


Now you move the goal posts once more....

It's not goal post moving. The conversation of whether elective early term abortion should be legal is the question of whether a woman possess bodily autonomy and moral agency.

 

[columbus]

Please give a straight answer to the following point blank straight forward question:
Has anyone in this thread even implied that they were not alive at some point?

The law states there has to be breath. Fetal tissue does not breathe.

Yes.
Jo's answer was in response to Aup's question about whether a zygote is alive.
There is all kinds of equivocation going on around the issue and most is apparent in this thread.
Tom

 

[JoStories]

Whether it's "alive" or "not alive" there is another human beings body being used for it's gestation.

Hypothetical scenario: Let's say you hit somebody with a car. Not their fault they were hit...you put them there. The only way they can survive is for constant use of your liver/pancreas/kidney/pick-an-organ 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The moral argument is the same - it's your responsibility to keep them alive. They didn't have a choice. You made this happen. Now you must put aside any "inconvenience" this may have on your health, time, finances, bodily security, etc...and take responsibility for your actions and keep them alive.

As has been stated before when it concerns the abortion debate, corpses have more bodily security than pregnant women do. Whatever the person requested while alive what is to happen to their bodies after death MUST be respected. We can't even take a single hair off their head if they request us not to. But pregnant women are shamed, coerced, intimidated if they dare wish not to gestate for 9 months...which affects every system in their bodies that carries distinct health risks only to them. Pre-eclampsia, placenta previa, gestational diabetes are a few of the very distinct health risks a pregnant woman must face that no other person has to.

Again, it's easy to champion the rights of a fetus when the person gestating is not considered all that important.

The difference is that the person hit by the car can either breathe or be helped to breathe via a vent, and that makes the argument vastly different.

 

[JoStories]

Unwanted children would be better off dead?

In some cases, god help me, yes they would. There was a case in NYC where a mother who did not want children had at least one and used her head as a mop. Thank god, she died before enduring too much more of this abuse. Have you ever seen a child who has been abused? Dead eyes leave a mark on one's soul. Trust me, I have seen them.

 

[Willamena]

^ See this is why the conversation comes down to what makes life life, what's the difference between biological life and human "life," and why is life valuable. But I'm dealing with some people hear that seem not to think so.

It's just different ways of categorizing.

 

[Willamena]

It's immaterial to the question of abortion. That subject is about how much of our bodies we own.

How much of your body do you own?

 

[Marisa]

How much of your body do you own?

100%

 

[Willamena]

100%

Me too! Go us.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Unwanted children would be better off dead?

Trying to put words into my mouth ? Lol was not what I said .
An before you ask yes broken local English is my first language.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

However. I also reject the ideas that 'life is life and abortion is never acceptable' because there has been no definitive benchmark for when a foetus becomes a 'life' and nature, it seems in 50-70% of cases, has no concern over whether a month-old foetus is 'life'.

The most reasonable benchmark is conception. All the other arguments that push the definition of life until later in the gestation are flawed.

And I still want to see a source for Tyson's numbers.

However, we also live in Democracies. And whatever people choose to do is up to them, ultimately, in my view. I think it's a little unreasonable to go around saying 'I want to live in a democracy' and then in the next breath say 'But I this should be banned, that should be illegal, and I don't want this, this or this to happen!'

Democracy simply means majority rule. So if a majority of a population want something banned, it would be banned. That's democracy. We don't really have democracy, though. The courts striking down democratically approved measures is a glaring example.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Are those religions against abortion as a concept 100%, regardless?
My religious views aren't.

Are you asking if there's religions where abortion is 100% wrong? Yes. Catholicism, for example. I, myself, only make moral/ethical exceptions with both mother and child would die. It's so sad, but at least you can save the mother instead of losing both.

 

[JoStories]

The most reasonable benchmark is conception. All the other arguments that push the definition of life until later in the gestation are flawed.

And I still want to see a source for Tyson's numbers.


Democracy simply means majority rule. So if a majority of a population want something banned, it would be banned. That's democracy. We don't really have democracy, though. The courts striking down democratically approved measures is a glaring example.

Such as? If you are referring to such measures as legal abortion (speaking only of early term abortion here), Roe V Wade has tried to have been overturned and each time failed. If you are speaking of other issues, such as SSM, that, too, is about what the constitution says but it is off to
If for this thread.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Such as? If you are referring to such measures as legal abortion (speaking only of early term abortion here), Roe V Wade has tried to have been overturned and each time failed. If you are speaking of other issues, such as SSM, that, too, is about what the constitution says but it is off to
If for this thread.

Such as what?

Also, can you please use a regular font because your posts are very annoying to read.

 

[JRMcC]

Trying to put words into my mouth ? Lol was not what I said .
An before you ask yes broken local English is my first language.

No, it logically follows from what you said. It's not an absurd idea either, see:

In some cases, god help me, yes they would. There was a case in NYC where a mother who did not want children had at least one and used her head as a mop. Thank god, she died before enduring too much more of this abuse. Have you ever seen a child who has been abused? Dead eyes leave a mark on one's soul. Trust me, I have seen them.