You've just found out life begins at conception

[Shadow Phoenix]

Now I'm sure this has been shown, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it has. I only want people who are pro-choice at this point to vote in this poll. Do you then decide to become pro-life if this happens? Why or why not?

[LostSheep]

Oops, sorry Phoenix. I voted before I read the OP. Sorry! Is there something I should have read in the decorum about polls like this (reading the OP before voting I mean)?

[Shadow Phoenix]

I've deleted it Sheepy. Don't worry about it.

[Storico]

Hey, Nick, that third poll option could be split up, or a fourth really could be added for "other". I know people who would make an exception for the health of a woman, but not for rape or incest. Just a thought. I'll wait a bit before I vote.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

Now I'm sure this has been shown, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it has. I only want people who are pro-choice at this point to vote in this poll. Do you then decide to become pro-life if this happens? Why or why not?
Does prochoice mean not going to vote against first trimester abortions or abortions when the mother's life is endangered even if personally against abortion, and favoring adoption, government and organizational support for single mothers, and possible required counseling sessions to inform women who about these options prior to getting an abortion done?

[Wyzaard]

Now I'm sure this has been shown, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it has. I only want people who are pro-choice at this point to vote in this poll. Do you then decide to become pro-life if this happens? Why or why not?

What does 'life begins at conception' mean? What would I be 'shown' by which methods, sets of assumptions, etc?

[Zeluvia]

Life isn't the issue for me. Bacteria are alive, weeds are alive, fish are alive.

Consciousness and awareness and the "degrees" of them are.

[Petragon]

Why is it "pro-life" vs "pro-choice"? Why not "anti-choice" vs "pro-choice" or "pro-life" vs "anti-life"? Are both side just adopting monikers they feel better about?

Just curious.

Regardless of where life begins, I still feel it's the choice of the host to abort an unwanted pregnancy.

[Pilgrim]

Life isn't the issue for me. Bacteria are alive, weeds are alive, fish are alive.

Consciousness and awareness and the "degrees" of them are.

At what degree does it become and issue for abortion then?

[HRG_new]

How would I have found this out ? By observing that gametes are dead ?

[Wyzaard]

At what degree does it become and issue for abortion then?

How is abortion an issue in the first place? Women need abortion services; if you wish to cut down on abortions, alter the conditions that lead to unplanned pregnancies... offer free, widely availiable birth control options, offer scientifically sound sex education and gender empowerment, and expanded day care and WIC services/products.

Otherwise... what are you going to do, force women to be incubators?

[Zeluvia]

At what degree does it become and issue for abortion then?


about the time the fetus is more aware than a fish = p

12 to 16 weeks...according to what I know now....

[Jnthn]

I'll have to put myself down as an unspecified fourth option: against abortion except in the case of medical necessity. I don't think rape and incest automatically validate an abortion.

J

[jordanriver]

How is abortion an issue in the first place? Women need abortion services; if you wish to cut down on abortions, alter the conditions that lead to unplanned pregnancies... offer free, widely availiable birth control options, offer scientifically sound sex education and gender empowerment, and expanded day care and WIC services/products.

Otherwise... what are you going to do, force women to be incubators?

Forcing gestation is already against the law, its called rape.
If the sex is consensual, the woman is not being forced to be any incubator, since gestation is a natural part of life. Billions of mammals are alive because their mothers participated in the natural process of gestation, its how mammals reproduce.

Women do not need abortion services any more than mothers like Andrea Yates or Susan Smith needed assistance killing their already born children.

The only thing that needs to be offered is free advice and information, such as, sexual intercourse leads to pregnancy, pregnancy makes you a parent, being a parent assigns responsibility (whether you wanted it or not, -- fathers have been assigned the responsibility to pay child support whether they wanted their child to be born or not)

Abortion needs to be outlawed, and abortionists imprisoned for killing innocent human beings.

And as hard is this may be to accept, parents who kill their children or hire somebody else to kill their children should be prosecuted. When someone challenges, what if it was your daughter or relative who commits abortion, do you want them prosecuted, then the answer would be the same as if the question was, what if Susan Smith or Andrea Yates were your daughter, don't you think it would be better to allow parents to kill their children.

JR

[jordanriver]

I'll have to put myself down as an unspecified fourth option: against abortion except in the case of medical necessity. I don't think rape and incest automatically validate an abortion.

J

Exactly.

Medical necessity = self-defense, and even born humans are allowed self-defense. Nobody is asking for more rights for the human beings that haven't been born yet than what the born human beings already have (such as the right to self-defense)

JR

[Pilgrim]

How is abortion an issue in the first place? Women need abortion services; if you wish to cut down on abortions, alter the conditions that lead to unplanned pregnancies... offer free, widely availiable birth control options, offer scientifically sound sex education and gender empowerment, and expanded day care and WIC services/products.

Otherwise... what are you going to do, force women to be incubators?

Child, I agree that every thing you have mentioned should be done. And no, I don't think forcing people to be incubators is the right thing to do. It's a gigantic red herring and straw man any way since I've never suggested such.

What I do think is the right thing to do is help people understand how to make good choices in the first place and then help them to be responsible for the decisions they made. The fact of the matter is that less than 3 percent of abortions are performed for any reasons of health. I personally believe we should be doing something to change that. Far too many are for reasons of convenience and poor planning, ie, as birth control.

Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with the question I asked of Zel. Thanks though.

[Pilgrim]

about the time the fetus is more aware than a fish = p

12 to 16 weeks...according to what I know now....

Does that affect your moral reasoning in related topics such as euthanasia as well?

[Pilgrim]

I'll have to put myself down as an unspecified fourth option: against abortion except in the case of medical necessity. I don't think rape and incest automatically validate an abortion.

J

I can totally agree with that. I think that many many people are at this point. The real issue then is that less than 3% of abortions are for reasons of medical necessity. So what do we do about that? Even rape and incest account for a very small percentage of abortions.

[Thinking Madly]

Oops. I didn't read the thread before voting. Delete my vote as well. Thanks.

[Wyzaard]

Forcing gestation is already against the law, its called rape.

Actually, that's what forced intercourse is... conception itself is a unintended posible effect of intercourse.


If the sex is consensual, the woman is not being forced to be any incubator, since gestation is a natural part of life. Billions of mammals are alive because their mothers participated in the natural process of gestation, its how mammals reproduce.

Nevertheless, the act of sex doesn't always lead to conception, a biological function that is neither a voluntary act, nor a necessary one (as not all sex acts, indeed the minority of them, produce pregnancies)


Women do not need abortion services any more than mothers like Andrea Yates or Susan Smith needed assistance killing their already born children.


The analogy is flawed; you have not shown that there is any equivelance between a fetus and a child. Further, if bringing a fetus to term harms the mother and her family's welfare, then they certainly Do need these services, and will pursue them whereever they can find it... it is paramount that they are able to get safe asistance, rather than be forced into the alley.


The only thing that needs to be offered is free advice and information, such as, sexual intercourse leads to pregnancy,

Not often, and it's preventable with birth control... or terminatable with abortion services.


pregnancy makes you a parent, being a parent assigns responsibility (whether you wanted it or not, -- fathers have been assigned the responsibility to pay child support whether they wanted their child to be born or not)

I really wish you pro-life fools would get off of this fallacious comparison; pregnancy asigns NO responsibility to have the child (you didn't choose to conceive, and you can abort)... whereas the decision to have the child places the burden of raising the child on the parents.


Abortion needs to be outlawed, and abortionists imprisoned for killing innocent human beings.


How would you describe your slide into medievil non-thinking? Are you even aware of the holocaust that would occur if you were to attempt to re-enslave women to the bithing chamber? Many of us would fight back... are you willing to undertake wholesale slughter for your fallacious, malevolent ideals?


And as hard is this may be to accept, parents who kill their children or hire somebody else to kill their children should be prosecuted. When someone challenges, what if it was your daughter or relative who commits abortion, do you want them prosecuted, then the answer would be the same as if the question was, what if Susan Smith or Andrea Yates were your daughter, don't you think it would be better to allow parents to kill their children.


Wow... I'm so glad you're willing to be an equal-opportnity tyrant.
[/QUOTE]

[dizzle]

Wyzaard, I remind you of the rules of this area -


This is a specialty area of the forum which purpose is to reflect this forum's commitment to the rights of the unborn and recognition that each day more are dying. This is not a debate area but rather a discussion area of various pro-life issues - with supporters from all faiths or lack of faith. Abortion advocates are welcome to ask questions and engage in dialog respectful of the fact that this area is for the promotion of pro-life issues. This area is NOT restricted to Christians or theists as we recognize that compassion for the unborn and their rights cuts across those boundaries.

You are welcome to post in this section if you can follow them. I suspect you can't.

[Wyzaard]

You are welcome to post in this section if you can follow them. I suspect you can't.

The OP addresses the pro-choice position directly... and I responded in kind, on-topic and responsive to the rebuttals of others. I would suggest that if you don't want a discussion, don't pose discussion questions.

[dizzle]

I would suggest you honour the rules of this particular area. I will not simply tell you next time, I will report your post and let it be handled from there. Ironically it is your constantly nasty attitude that inspired me to craft the forum guidelines for this area in that manner. Congratulations.

[Wyzaard]

I would suggest you honour the rules of this particular area. I will not simply tell you next time, I will report your post and let it be handled from there. Ironically it is your constantly nasty attitude that inspired me to craft the forum guidelines for this area in that manner. Congratulations.

Thanks! It's nice seeing that I have power over someone.

Later...

[gharfish]

Thanks! It's nice seeing that I have power over someone.

Later...puff.

[Zeluvia]

Does that affect your moral reasoning in related topics such as euthanasia as well?

yep...

having worked in a hospice with dying people, and in a rehab ward with severly brain damaged people, I am fine with euthanasia IN certain conditions and BY the decision of either the person in the situation through properly executed living wills, or by the person's family.

As long as all these decisions are not being made by the state, or by the institution, or the insurance company, and remain in the hands of the family and the individual, I am fine with them.

[nickcopernicus]

Now I'm sure this has been shown, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it has. I only want people who are pro-choice at this point to vote in this poll. Do you then decide to become pro-life if this happens? Why or why not?
NICK;

An EMPATIC NO.
for the follwing reasons:

1. These Children are unwanted in the first place. What are we supposed to do with these millions of unwanted children? If "Adoption" was such an easy "option", then why do we have so many orphanages and or foster children?

2. There are too many people in the world as it is.

Cheers,

Nick

[Pilgrim]

NICK;

An EMPATIC NO.
for the follwing reasons:

1. These Children are unwanted in the first place. What are we supposed to do with these millions of unwanted children? If "Adoption" was such an easy "option", then why do we have so many orphanages and or foster children?

2. There are too many people in the world as it is.

Cheers,

Nick

The standard of want seems to fail. "I killed my wife. You see, I didn't want her anymore, what am I supposed to do with a wife I don't want?"

[Jimmy Higgins]

Now I'm sure this has been shown, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it has. I only want people who are pro-choice at this point to vote in this poll. Do you then decide to become pro-life if this happens? Why or why not?I just love crazy hypotheticals. Even better, the master of "what do you mean by x?" doesn't bother following up by what exactly "life" is. The hypothetical means nothing to me. The quality of human life goes far beyond having a heart beat and taking in oxygen!

Life isn't the issue for me. Bacteria are alive, weeds are alive, fish are alive.

Consciousness and awareness and the "degrees" of them are.I feel the same way. Consciousness is so key. The Terri Schiavo case showed exactly how unalive you can be while actually being alive.

Wyzaard, I remind you of the rules of this area -


This is a specialty area of the forum which purpose is to reflect this forum's commitment to the rights of the unborn and recognition that each day more are dying. This is not a debate area but rather a discussion area of various pro-life issues - with supporters from all faiths or lack of faith. Abortion advocates are welcome to ask questions and engage in dialog respectful of the fact that this area is for the promotion of pro-life issues. This area is NOT restricted to Christians or theists as we recognize that compassion for the unborn and their rights cuts across those boundaries.

You are welcome to post in this section if you can follow them. I suspect you can't.While I completely understand this rule and plan to abide by it, isnt' AP kinda tying the hands of the people he's requesting information from by posting this OP in this forum? It'd be like an atheist starting a why you think a god exists in the Naturalism forum and then complaining about theists arguing for their god in the Naturalism forum.

[Rahab]

yep...

having worked in a hospice with dying people, and in a rehab ward with severly brain damaged people, I am fine with euthanasia IN certain conditions and BY the decision of either the person in the situation through properly executed living wills, or by the person's family.

As long as all these decisions are not being made by the state, or by the institution, or the insurance company, and remain in the hands of the family and the individual, I am fine with them. Very close to my beliefs, Zeluvia. The degree of self awareness and consciousness (as an ability or capacity) IMO is to define what is refered to a "life" in the poll. As HRG mentionned gametes are of course biologicaly alive. But does biological life means automaticaly that it must be treated as a person entitled with rights?

I also agree with you on euthanasia and which strict and specific conditions have to be met.

[Heartablaze]

Oops, sorry Phoenix. I voted before I read the OP. Sorry! Is there something I should have read in the decorum about polls like this (reading the OP before voting I mean)?

Ehh...I did the same thing. Could you delete mine too?

[lao tzu]

While I completely understand this rule and plan to abide by it, isnt' AP kinda tying the hands of the people he's requesting information from by posting this OP in this forum?

I checked the rules of the forum when I read the OP, not knowing they'd be posted by Dee Dee later in the thread. The rules for this forum mean I can't answer unless my answer advocates against abortion:

Abortion may be debated or advocated in other debate areas of the forum.

There you go. I'm muted. I can't answer the OP without violating the rules.

[Rahab]

I feel the same way. Consciousness is so key. The Terri Schiavo case showed exactly how unalive you can be while actually being alive. Just as an aside, Terri never met the criteria of the Brain Death Determination Act of the State of Florida to be pronounced clinicaly dead. Her disability level was irrelevant in the final court decision as what prevailed was her assumed will to not be maintained on any life support device. The absence of a Living Will /Advance Directives were the central issue.

PVS remains a highly controversial topic as there is no diagnostic tool allowing for a complete and thorough determination that there is no possible state of inner self awareness.

I do not think that Terri's case is to be used in support of "consciousness is so key". You also have to take in account sensorial perceptions and receptions and their possible interpretation.

By the time the cortical plate is formed and neurological connections are activated, we have a sensorial capacity to be dealing with. Some argue that until synapses occur (third trimester), there is no possible reception of nerve signals and interpretation from the Hypothalamus. Others argue otherwise that a 14 weeks old fetus is capable of sensorial reception and reacts to pain, cold, hot etc.... However, there is no possible doubt that an embryo (that is before the end of the 8th week) has NO capacity to experience sensorial reception. Let alone a zygote.

I would definitly have an ethical issue if anyone could present scientificaly based evidence that a zygote has any sensorial capacity of reception and possible interpretation.

[Eagle-eyeTerra]

I think we should all have been wild animals. Wild animals don't abort their babies. Wild animals look after their children and don't dump them in the garbage or flush them down the toilet or have doctors shove them down the garbage disposal.

[Pilgrim]

I think we should all have been wild animals. Wild animals don't abort their babies. Wild animals look after their children and don't dump them in the garbage or flush them down the toilet or have doctors shove them down the garbage disposal.

It is amazing, is it not, how easily and instinctual the mothering impulse is for animals.

[Wyzaard]

It is amazing, is it not, how easily and instinctual the mothering impulse is for animals.

Unfortunately for your position, this instinct has limits... in some situations, mothers/fathers of many species will abandon or kill their young, particularly when there is a threat that might doom both parents AND their kids... which is not altogether dissimilar from the pro-family choices many women make at the clinic.

[Eagle-eyeTerra]

Unfortunately for your position, this instinct has limits... in some situations, mothers/fathers of many species will abandon or kill their young, particularly when there is a threat that might doom both parents AND their kids...
It's true animals do that isn't it just shocking?!

which is not altogether dissimilar from the pro-family choices many women make at the clinic.
Unlike animals "humans" have other options.
Some evolutionists believe that by evolving we have become more intelligent.

[Wyzaard]

It's true animals do that isn't it just shocking?!


Not really.


Unlike animals "humans" have other options.

Yeah, like abortion services.

[Eagle-eyeTerra]

Not really.

Sorry the first comment was in jest some people do find the act of animals killing their young shocking but think nothing of abortion.

Yeah, like abortion services.

Eh I was thinking more along the lines of adoption. And I think you mean abortion disservice.

[Pilgrim]

Unfortunately for your position, this instinct has limits... in some situations, mothers/fathers of many species will abandon or kill their young, particularly when there is a threat that might doom both parents AND their kids... which is not altogether dissimilar from the pro-family choices many women make at the clinic.

Don't be dishonest, it does a disservice to your point of view. And you are being dishonest here. In over 97% of abortions it is completely dissimilar to the animal kingdom example as 97% of abortions are not performed for any real threat to the life of the mother or father or even the child, they are done for reasons of convenience and because of poor planning. In other words, as a method of birth control to absolve the parents of responsibility. But as you have found out, not their guilt and need to rationalize the act eh? To quote Rose "They wait for an absolution that does not come."

Be that as it may, I'm in favor of a choice when there is a health issue that threatens the life of the mother or where the child can not otherwise be carried to term, ie an ectopic pregnancy. (It's not a choice my wife or I would personally make unless the situation was dire. We believe in the gospel principle of the stronger always sacrificing for the weaker. (Something I should think an anarchist like yourself would understand. But I guess the instinct to self preservation, or at least of your personal status quo and convenience is stronger than your self proclaimed philosophy of always challenging power for the sake of the weaker or the oppressed.) Still, even though that choice is not one we would make, I understand how others could reasonably come to that conclusion)

[Pilgrim]

Yeah, like abortion services.

If your imagination and creative impulse can only come up with an idea that leads to death when you've done something you are afraid to take responsibility for then I fear that your intelligence is not what it ought to be. But you're still young. There are other answers out there and maybe you will come to them once you realize you don't already have all of them. Until then, might I suggest controlling your baser instincts with either your will (if it's strong enough) or a responsible use of contraception?

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think we should all have been wild animals. Wild animals don't abort their babies. Wild animals look after their children and don't dump them in the garbage or flush them down the toilet or have doctors shove them down the garbage disposal.

It is amazing, is it not, how easily and instinctual the mothering impulse is for animals.Don't some animals eat their young? Don't some males kill the babies because of fear of competition? Don't some mothers not care for their babies at all?

Such an argument seems a bit odd... and well... very off-topic. It is difficult enough to have this thread started to ask pro-choicers their opinion on the issue... in a forum that doesn't allow for debate against pro-life. Makes it even harder when a pro-lifer then makes with a derail, which is almost goading people into breaking the forum rules.

[lao tzu]

This thread needs to be moved.

[themuzicman]

NICK;

An EMPATIC NO.
for the follwing reasons:

1. These Children are unwanted in the first place. What are we supposed to do with these millions of unwanted children? If "Adoption" was such an easy "option", then why do we have so many orphanages and or foster children?

There is a two year waiting list for infant adoption. This is a total red herring.

2. There are too many people in the world as it is.

Cheers,

Nick

The world's population will decline beginning around 2050, in part as a result of abortion. The world will also experience a significant aging of the population, causing suffering and starvation among the elderly, because these generations did not produce enough children to replace themselves.

So, your 2nd argument doesn't hold water, either.

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is a two year waiting list for infant adoption. This is a total red herring.Just wanted to make the qualification stand out a bit more.

[lao tzu]

Dipping as close to the line as I can manage in this forum, I find the OP question is a misrepresentation of fact and opinion. It implies that neither a sperm cell nor an ovum is alive, a position that I personally find factually deficient. It further implies that pro-choicers do not recognize a fertilized ovum as alive, either, a position I find does not reflect common belief in the community.

[nickcopernicus]

The standard of want seems to fail. "I killed my wife. You see, I didn't want her anymore, what am I supposed to do with a wife I don't want?"
Nick:

Hey it worked for the Israelites......

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

There is a two year waiting list for infant adoption. This is a total red herring.
Nick:
That's mostly because of the high cost and absurd amount of trouble one has to go thru in order to get adopted. It's not a red herring.

Now, how about answering the question. why all the foster children "wards of the state" and orphanages?
themuzicman
The world's population will decline beginning around 2050, in part as a result of abortion. The world will also experience a significant aging of the population, causing suffering and starvation among the elderly, because these generations did not produce enough children to replace themselves.

So, your 2nd argument doesn't hold water, either.

Michael
Nick:
:limbo:
I must say that I find it hilarious that you would actually associate starvation with abortion.
Would you like to provide some sort of evidence for your claim?

As natural resources are being used up faster then they are replinishing themselves....
the world population about 20 years ago was around 4 billion. It's now very close to six.

And you would claim that ABORTION would cause a DECLINE of the world population.....And it's a BAD thing?

that's rich

Cheers,

Nick

[Pilgrim]

Nick:

Hey it worked for the Israelites......

Cheers,

Nick

Tu quo que much?

[Rahab]

Dipping as close to the line as I can manage in this forum, I find the OP question is a misrepresentation of fact and opinion. It implies that neither a sperm cell nor an ovum is alive, a position that I personally find factually deficient. It further implies that pro-choicers do not recognize a fertilized ovum as alive, either, a position I find does not reflect common belief in the community. HRG made a quick mention already and left the thread.... I brought up the same "dilemna".

By the way, none of the pro choice posters have been moderated (so far) for justifying their vote. Do not be so "muted"....:wink:

[Wyzaard]

Eh I was thinking more along the lines of adoption.

I think you mean 'forced procreation'.

[Wyzaard]

Don't be dishonest, it does a disservice to your point of view. And you are being dishonest here. In over 97% of abortions it is completely dissimilar to the animal kingdom example as 97% of abortions are not performed for any real threat to the life of the mother or father or even the child, they are done for reasons of convenience and because of poor planning.

And who are you to judge what constitutes a 'real threat'? I agree though... the effects of increased poverty on families can become quite inconveinent. But... why should we punish people for poor planning, when in most cases, people in these positions have few such choices to begin with?


In other words, as a method of birth control to absolve the parents of responsibility.

By having the abortion, these women are taking responsibility for their lives and the lives of their families... and you have not shown anything otherwise.


But as you have found out, not their guilt and need to rationalize the act eh? To quote Rose "They wait for an absolution that does not come."

I have nothing to absolve... no guilt, no wrongs. What problems I DO have, are with people who think women are brood mares... ones who I will probably have to fight in the future.

Yeah, I'm pointing at you, bub.


Be that as it may, I'm in favor of a choice when there is a health issue that threatens the life of the mother or where the child can not otherwise be carried to term, ie an ectopic pregnancy. It's not a choice my wife or I would personally make unless the situation was dire.

How understanding... poor women everywhere shed tears at your show of mercy.
:ahem:


We believe in the gospel principle of the stronger always sacrificing for the weaker. Something I should think an anarchist like yourself would understand.

I do... as it comes to people, such as those women who get unintentionally pregnant.


But I guess the instinct to self preservation, or at least of your personal status quo and convenience is stronger than your self proclaimed philosophy of always challenging power for the sake of the weaker or the oppressed.

Status quo and convenience... you mean being able to have a roof over our heads?

And again... the blastocyst isn't a person; the WOMAN is. Repeat that for me.


Still, even though that choice is not one we would make, I understand how others could reasonably come to that conclusion

The rational, moral choice? Yep... we did. :wink:

[freethinker]

No.
I already know that life begins before conception. Every egg cell is a potential human.
Abortion makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Mothers who abort are more likely to have bad mothering genes which will be passed on to their children. It is better to delete those genes from the gene pool. This will reduce the rate of abortion in the future. Life is paradoxical; the more you push one way the more you are shoved the other way.

[Pilgrim]

And who are you to judge what constitutes a 'real threat'? I agree though... the effects of increased poverty on families can become quite inconveinent. But... why should we punish people for poor planning, when in most cases, people in these positions have few such choices to begin with?

I agree, we need to figure out the social situations in this country and offer better choices and a more compassionate way of helping the poor. But we all, poor or otherwise always have the choice of self control. Unless you're arguing that the poor are some how less able to control themselves? That seems to be a bit of classism to me though.

By having the abortion, these women are taking responsibility for their lives and the lives of their families... and you have not shown anything otherwise.
Yeah, because Wyz says so. talk about not really showing anything. The statistics show that a majority of abortions are the result of not taking responsability for ones actions and the a woman, once having used abortion as birth control, is more likely to do so again. And you have not shown anything other wise. Except that fact that you like abortion on demand so that you can have as much sex as you want.

I notice that you've not mentioned anything about your own responsibility or that of men in general. Basically, abortion is a way of removing any responsibility from your shoulders and you like that.

I have nothing to absolve... no guilt, no wrongs. What problems I DO have, are with people who think women are brood mares... ones who I will probably have to fight in the future. Yeah, I'm pointing at you, bub.

Violence eh? Well, I guess that follows. You sure are getting defensive for a guy who has nothing to absolve. Brood mares? Right. You're the one who wants abortion so you can bed the women when ever you want. Your position is the one that sees women as nothing more than an object to tickle your...er...fancy. And as long as there is abortion on demand as a means of birth control, you can continue to objectify any woman you want.

How understanding... poor women everywhere shed tears at your show of mercy.
:ahem: I can guarantee you that I do more along the ways of helping the poor than you ever have done. That's not boasting, it's just the reality of what I am committed to as a Christian and spiritual progressive.

I do... as it comes to people, such as those women who get unintentionally pregnant.

Let's drop the dishonesty. Everyone knows that there is no 100 percent perfect birth control. You have sex, there is always the reality that you may get pregnant. To pretend that you don't realize that is either very dishonest or very stupid. Again, your line of reasoning indicates that you think women aren't capable of evaluating cause and effect. At it's core, your reasoning is misogyny.

Status quo and convenience... you mean being able to have a roof over our heads?
You had a roof over your head and bringing the child to term would not have jeapordized that. Adoption from your side of things is not the same as adoption from the other side of things. Any couple who wants to have the child can have all the medical paid for and the child would be placed the day after birth. All this arguing about the waiting lines is just crap. Yes there's a waiting list in many places. But that's a frustration for prospective parents, not for parents giving up a child or the child him or herself. Any child given for adoption can be placed with a family with in hours of birth.

The reality is that many folks just don't want to do the work. 200 dollars and 30 minutes gets rid of all the responsibility.

[quote]And again... the blastocyst isn't a person; the WOMAN is. Repeat that for me. [quote]

Hey, tell yourself what ever you have to to rationalize your actions. Go for your sonogram and the nurse doesn't call it a "blastocyst" she says "There's your baby." The only people who call it a blastocyst are the people trying to rationalize their choices. Doesn't make you correct. Bottom line is that your line of reasoning reduces poor women to unthinking sex tools for men. It also seems to indicate that you think you and people like you have no self control, that you're like rodents acting on pure instinct. I really hope that's not so. I really hope that some where deep down, after you get past the need to vindicate an action you know was wrong, you understand that you are more than your basest instincts.

Look, I really feel for you. Making choices like that can't be easy. Then again, it shouldn't be an easy choice.

[themuzicman]

Just wanted to make the qualification stand out a bit more.

As a part of the abortion debate, we're talking about infants, not 10 year olds. Every conception is a wanted conception, even if the mom isn't the one who wants it.

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

As a part of the abortion debate, we're talking about infants, not 10 year olds. Every conception is a wanted conception, even if the mom isn't the one who wants it.

MichaelSo sad that the Pro-life contingent doesn't want the 10 year olds too.

[Pilgrim]

So sad that the Pro-life contingent doesn't want the 10 year olds too.

Anyone say that? BTW, how many have adopted?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyone say that?I'll openly admit to using exaggeration. Though according to themuzicman, 10 year old orphans don't matter in the abortion debate. I can only assume that it means he doesn't think adoption of an unwanted 10 year old is feasible for the pro-lifer who is against abortion. That the only option would be to adopt unwanted babies.

Granted, it is a leap, however, themuzicman is the one that casted 10 year old orphans well beneath that of unborn embryos.

[lao tzu]

And again... the blastocyst isn't a person; the WOMAN is. Repeat that for me. Hey, tell yourself what ever you have to to rationalize your actions. Go for your sonogram and the nurse doesn't call it a "blastocyst" she says "There's your baby." The only people who call it a blastocyst are the people trying to rationalize their choices.

FYI:

A sonogram can't detect a blastocyst, even should anyone be foolish enough to make the attempt. In humans, a blastocyst is composed of 70 to 100 undifferentiated cells. It is the stage that is frozen prior to implantation in IVF. After implantation, it is no longer called a blastocyst. The blastocyst follows the zygote (fertilized ovum) and precedes the embryo.

Immediately after implantation, the embryo is known as a blastula, basically a ball of cells surrounding a fluid center. Next, an indentation appears and sucks in to form an inner (endoderm), middle (mesoderm) and outer (ectoderm) portion of the embryo, it is known as a gastrula until about the fourth week when the process of organogenesis begin.

From wikicommons: Formation of the gastrula from the blastula.

44211

Sonograms aren't normally used until the embryo has become a fetus, sometime around the 7th week after gestation.

As ever, Jesse

[Pilgrim]

Thanks for the clarification Jesse. That's good information. The point still stands.

[lao tzu]

You're quite welcome, Pilgrim,

Just pointing out that some of us do use the term blastocyst correctly, in particular, when discussing the harvesting of stem cells from superfluous blastocysts destined to be discarded. (When discussing abortion, I generally refer to fetuses.)

On another note, I've dated more than one woman who can actually feel the moment of ovulation. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find many women can physically sense implantation as well, but I've never heard even anecdotal stories about it.

Prior to implantation, one is not medically considered pregnant. (Around half of all blastocysts fail to implant.)

As ever, Jesse

[nickcopernicus]

Tu quo que much?
Nick:
I have to "tie my fingers" in fear of going outside of the OP.

Suffice it to say that

1. "Life begins at conception" is absurd.
2. Even if we considerd these zygotes/feti/blastocytes "human" there are plenty of "humans" that get spontaneously miscarried without the Mother even knowing. Where is your bleeding heart for them?

Cheers,

Nick

[a_Mister_Smith]

Its a new human. Humans are persons and persons are humans.
But it doesn't even know it exists, no pain -no pain. No harm no foul.
Let the woman kill it because it won't care because it doesn't have a care in the world till it has a brain.

Mr Smith

[Wyzaard]

I agree, we need to figure out the social situations in this country and offer better choices and a more compassionate way of helping the poor. But we all, poor or otherwise always have the choice of self control. Unless you're arguing that the poor are some how less able to control themselves? That seems to be a bit of classism to me though.

This has nothing to do with 'self-control', which is a term you have decided to inject into the conversation... one you have decided to apply to such women. All I have pointed out is that the poor have few viable choices and little information and material resources to be able to apply to such problems effectively. Unless you are willing to:

Provide free, various methods of birth control.
Promote comprehensive sex ed.
Promote gender equality.
Provide free health and day care services.

... you will not cut down on the rate of abortions.


Yeah, because Wyz says so. talk about not really showing anything. The statistics show that a majority of abortions are the result of not taking responsability for ones actions

That is an unsupported value judgment, not a statistic... nice try. Again, why shouldn't I consider getting an abortion as a responsible act?


and the a woman, once having used abortion as birth control, is more likely to do so again.

Perhaps... just perhaps... because they "have few viable choices and little information and material resources to be able to apply to such problems effectively". This is a socio-economic issue, not a character-oriented one.


Except that fact that you like abortion on demand so that you can have as much sex as you want.

Oh... so THAT'S what you're afraid of? People having sex?

Stay out of our pants, perv.


I notice that you've not mentioned anything about your own responsibility or that of men in general. Basically, abortion is a way of removing any responsibility from your shoulders and you like that.


Having an abortion is a responsible act when having a child would inflict hardship of the mother, father, AND the child; neither having the economic nor emotional resources for raising a family makes raising one irresponsible.

Would buying a new car be a responsible act for a broke man? Nope... then why is having an unaffordabvle family a responsible act? You have no leg to stand on here, bub.


Violence eh? Well, I guess that follows. You sure are getting defensive for a guy who has nothing to absolve.

I get testy when people threaten those I love.


Brood mares? Right. You're the one who wants abortion so you can bed the women when ever you want. Your position is the one that sees women as nothing more than an object to tickle your...er...fancy. And as long as there is abortion on demand as a means of birth control, you can continue to objectify any woman you want.

Strange that the woman's desires don't seem to enter into your picture... what about their desire to bed the men they want to?

Oh that's right... you don't care what they want...


I can guarantee you that I do more along the ways of helping the poor than you ever have done. That's not boasting, it's just the reality of what I am committed to as a Christian and spiritual progressive.

Except when it comes to tying women to the bed...


Let's drop the dishonesty. Everyone knows that there is no 100 percent perfect birth control. You have sex, there is always the reality that you may get pregnant. To pretend that you don't realize that is either very dishonest or very stupid. Again, your line of reasoning indicates that you think women aren't capable of evaluating cause and effect. At it's core, your reasoning is misogyny.

Complete balderdash. To choose to have sex does not mean a woman chooses to become pregnant, as driving a car does not mean the driver chooses to get in a wreck. You have shown NO necessary, obligatory connection between her choice to have sex and any responsibility to carry an unintended (the woman doesn't throw a switch, moron) child.


You had a roof over your head and bringing the child to term would not have jeapordized that. Adoption from your side of things is not the same as adoption from the other side of things. Any couple who wants to have the child can have all the medical paid for and the child would be placed the day after birth. All this arguing about the waiting lines is just crap. Yes there's a waiting list in many places. But that's a frustration for prospective parents, not for parents giving up a child or the child him or herself. Any child given for adoption can be placed with a family with in hours of birth.

And why should we be obligated to make this hideous choice, either being forced to bear a child we cannot care for or giving it up to the slavers? There are plenty of kids that need adoption in the US... to add one more deprives that slot for another deserving child. But of course... healthy white babies are the freshest meat...


The reality is that many folks just don't want to do the work. 200 dollars and 30 minutes gets rid of all the responsibility.


Or it is the most responsible choice... that also treats the woman's body as her own, rather than as an incubator.


Hey, tell yourself what ever you have to to rationalize your actions. Go for your sonogram and the nurse doesn't call it a "blastocyst" she says "There's your baby." The only people who call it a blastocyst are the people trying to rationalize their choices. Doesn't make you correct.

Guess what, chum? A blastocyst is WHAT IT IS, biologically. I could give less than a rat's rear for what you or others wish to call it... which by the way, you have not shown why I should do so.


Bottom line is that your line of reasoning reduces poor women to unthinking sex tools for men.

No... it treats them as people possessing full rights over their own bodies. Your line of unreasoning reduces them to incubators.


It also seems to indicate that you think you and people like you have no self control, that you're like rodents acting on pure instinct. I really hope that's not so. I really hope that some where deep down, after you get past the need to vindicate an action you know was wrong, you understand that you are more than your basest instincts.

Our decision was a rational and merciful one... neither of which you seem to understand in your quest to enslave the female sex to your religious zealotry.


Look, I really feel for you. Making choices like that can't be easy. Then again, it shouldn't be an easy choice.

It wasn't... but it was the right choice, regardless.

[Rahab]

FYI:

A sonogram can't detect a blastocyst, even should anyone be foolish enough to make the attempt. In humans, a blastocyst is composed of 70 to 100 undifferentiated cells. It is the stage that is frozen prior to implantation in IVF. After implantation, it is no longer called a blastocyst. The blastocyst follows the zygote (fertilized ovum) and precedes the embryo.

Immediately after implantation, the embryo is known as a blastula, basically a ball of cells surrounding a fluid center. Next, an indentation appears and sucks in to form an inner (endoderm), middle (mesoderm) and outer (ectoderm) portion of the embryo, it is known as a gastrula until about the fourth week when the process of organogenesis begin.

From wikicommons: Formation of the gastrula from the blastula.


44211
Sonograms aren't normally used until the embryo has become a fetus, sometime around the 7th week after gestation.

As ever, Jesse Precisely, a fetus at the end of the 8th week. Some of us will use a precise terminology as the timeline of the human gestation becomes important if a central argument to an ethical issue.

The accusation that such specific terminology is for the purpose of "rationalizing our actions" is quite inflammatory. The reality remains that some of us rely on a criteria other than biological life and human DNA to consider members of our species "alive". So we do not regard the termination of a pregnancy in such early stages as a "murder". We take in account the stages of in utero development and use medicaly and scientificaly accurate terms which define those various stages.

If we consider sensorial reception to be the drawing line for example, such criteria would obviously not apply to "life starting at conception". The same way, such criteria would not apply to a 35 year old without any cortical and stem functions.

I do not think it is rational to attempt to impose a theorical and quite abstract belief such as "life starts at conception" (especialy while not differenciating what makes each of us today "alive") as a justification to condem abortion at all stages of the human gestation.