Australia in abortion pill vote

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Australia in abortion pill vote (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4696374.stm)

Australia's Senate has voted to take control of a controversial abortion pill away from the government.


The current system means the RU486 pill is effectively banned in Australia.

Under proposed legislation, which now passes to the House of Representatives, the state medical regulatory body would decide when the pill can be used.

Proponents believe that body, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, will follow the lead of other regulatory bodies around the world and allow it. <!-- E SF -->

[Melz]

On this abortion pill thing, the main opponents of it say it is unsafe. I oppose it because it is abortion. I would not support the pill, safe or not, and any government who uses that deciding factor doesn't really win points.

How much do I care if someone who wants to kill their baby is safe in doing so?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Melz, have you read the article? The only reason I ask is that I had to read it a couple of times to understand what was going on. The government (through the minister, who is a strong Catholic / anti-abortion) banned the abortion pill, their legislature wants to take it out from under government control and give it to a regulatory agency they beileve will be more apt to make it legal.

[Tumblehome]

I'd be surprised if the Australian populace supported banning a morning after pill (is that what this is?) because it "kills babies". Perhaps they'd do it if it was deemed unsafe for the woman.

The stance that a mere fertilized egg is a human baby is rather extreme. I would be very surprised if any country, even the US, had a majority with that stance.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

The stance that a mere fertilized egg is a human baby is rather extreme.

It is human, isn't it? Isn't that enough to warrant giving life a chance? What is extreme is extinguishing (human) life once it's created.

[SmellyFed]

If we (as a nation) weren't so irresponsibile with sexuality we wouldn't have to split hairs over when a baby is a human and when it isn't.

If people want to engage in sex but don't want to have a child why is it so difficult to use any number of the available methods of birth control? We're up to 46,000,000 abortions now in the US - those aren't all the products of rape victims as the liberals would have us believe. They are the products of irresponsibility.

This whole issue disgusts me - such reckless disregard for human life. Babies exhibit unique traits while still in the womb that they will carry with them for the rest of their lives - they are humans and they are life.

Reconcile yourself with that and at the very least, be responsible when engaging in leisure-sex.

[cerberus]

It is human, isn't it? no

[Longhorn_Platinum]

cerberus:
no

:unsmile: Yes.

[Republican_Legion]

:unsmile: Yes.

I agree.:grin:

[SmellyFed]

I agree.:grin:

Me too.

[Melz]

Melz, have you read the article? The only reason I ask is that I had to read it a couple of times to understand what was going on. The government (through the minister, who is a strong Catholic / anti-abortion) banned the abortion pill, their legislature wants to take it out from under government control and give it to a regulatory agency they beileve will be more apt to make it legal.

I had read the article over once and was having trouble figuring out if they were trying to make it legal or illegal so thanks for summing that up for me :)

Why would folks try so hard to make sure there is another legal means for a woman to kill her child, even circumventing the government to do so..argh.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by HomeschoolrsRUs
It is human, isn't it?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

no

Really?! What species is it then?

[TechnoPrincess]

Really?! What species is it then?


Good Question Sis Homes!

I've alsways wondered about that when ppl have said it. I mean, it's not like it's going to suddenly become a fish or a turtle or a monkey. If a fetus is allowed to progress to full gestation there is only ONE thing it can become - a person.

[TechnoPrincess]

How much do I care if someone who wants to kill their baby is safe in doing so?

Because someday that person may totally change their mind on the subject and become a vocal opponent to abortion. Sometimes in the throws of youth people make rash and bad decisions. Some of the best and most powerful speakers I have heard against abortion are women who had one early in their lives.

Personally, I don't believe that abortion will ever go away. However, I think it should be regulated and controlled in the same manner as any other medical procedure. They should have to conform to normaly medical surgical sites, should have to do all of the warnings that every other surgery requires and also should have to fully explain what the procedure is going to do.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Good Question Sis Homes!

I've alsways wondered about that when ppl have said it. I mean, it's not like it's going to suddenly become a fish or a turtle or a monkey. If a fetus is allowed to progress to full gestation there is only ONE thing it can become - a person.

One minor point -- it doesn't become a person, per se, it is a unique human life at conception ... single celled organism, zygote, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, child, adolescent, youth, teen, young adult, adult, middle aged adult, senior adult, seasoned citizen = they are one and the same, they don't become different species in the different stages, just different stages of the same species. It is man that assigned the stages different names, but the entitity, the human life, remains the same, :smirky:. The pro-deather's like to point out out that a zygote has to "become" a person, that it has no inherent personhood at conception. That's just not true ... it can't be anything else BUT a person, else we'd have all sorts of funky hybrid ani-ples or peop-imals running around :grin: .

[TechnoPrincess]

Totally agree, you said it better than I could have :)

[Tumblehome]

It is human, isn't it? Isn't that enough to warrant giving life a chance? What is extreme is extinguishing (human) life once it's created.

It is still an extreme position whether you are right or wrong. You are on the extreme on this issue as opposed to the norm opinion. I would be very suprised if I was wrong about that.

As to it being "human" and being "life", yes it is, but so is a sperm or a hair cell. A seed is not a tree. We've been down this road before and I think we eventually agreed to disagree. I don't think there is anything you could do to convince me that a merely fertilized egg is something I should care for and protect and I don't think I could convince you otherwise.

[TechnoPrincess]

It is still an extreme position whether you are right or wrong. You are on the extreme on this issue as opposed to the norm opinion. I would be very suprised if I was wrong about that.

As to it being "human" and being "life", yes it is, but so is a sperm or a hair cell. A seed is not a tree. We've been down this road before and I think we eventually agreed to disagree. I don't think there is anything you could do to convince me that a merely fertilized egg is something I should care for and protect and I don't think I could convince you otherwise.

And where are you coming up with what is the "norm" opinion? Your own?

A sperm is not A human, nor is a hair. They are parts of a human, they can come from a human, but they are not A human.

If you are correct, and a fertilized egg is not something that should be protected, why do we protect Bald Eagle eggs. They aren't Bald Eagles. Why do we protect Sea Turtle eggs, they are not Sea Turtles.

So a fertilized Bald Eagle or Sea Turtle egg is worthy of being protected, but not a human one?

When do you consider life to start?

[Republican_Legion]

It is still an extreme position whether you are right or wrong. You are on the extreme on this issue as opposed to the norm opinion. I would be very suprised if I was wrong about that.

As to it being "human" and being "life", yes it is, but so is a sperm or a hair cell. A seed is not a tree. We've been down this road before and I think we eventually agreed to disagree. I don't think there is anything you could do to convince me that a merely fertilized egg is something I should care for and protect and I don't think I could convince you otherwise.

I dont think Liberals have a Clue whatsoever what is an extremist view.

[Tumblehome]

why do we protect Bald Eagle eggs. They aren't Bald Eagles. Why do we protect Sea Turtle eggs, they are not Sea Turtles.

We protect them because Bald Eagles and Sea Turtles are in danger of extinction. Humans certainly are not.


When do you consider life to start?

When did I consider life to start? A long long long time ago. Life is continuous. The fertilized egg is alive and it may develop into a being such as you and I. The egg before fertilization is alive, as is the sperm, and they may meet to form a fertilized egg. The egg and sperm were produced from other living cells which were produced from other living cells and so on and so on way back into time.

[Tumblehome]

I dont think Liberals have a Clue whatsoever what is an extremist view.

You have been living under a rock, perhaps somewhere in the bible belt if you believe that equating a fertilized egg to you and I is a mainstream idea to the people of the planet earth. It wouldn't shock me if it wasn't even a mainstream idea amongst US Christians.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Honestly, you really believe that "normal" people do not consider the product of conception to be human life (NOT just life, or alive). I cannot believe, I refuse to believe, and unless and until their is a world-wide vote that proves it unequivocally, that human life does not have an innate, inherent, intrinsic value over and above that of any other living being/entity. HUMANS are the ONLY ones who have advanced civilization, shoot we have advanced the animal world as well!

I am not extreme believing that human life deserves the benefit of the doubt -- IF there is even a minute CHANCE that "whatever" it is when sperm and egg unite is human life (and it IS), then life should trump any supposed "right" of the mother to extinguish it. One's rights end where another's begins, it's as simple as that. And the "right" of a person to OWN another person, ot POSSESS another person, ended with the abolition of slavery.

It grieves my heart more than words can express to think of all the differences those lost children could have made in this world.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Tumblehome:
It is still an extreme position whether you are right or wrong. You are on the extreme on this issue as opposed to the norm opinion.

:unsmile: I don't give a rat's aß about the "norm opinion", certainly not what you wish was the "norm opinion". I'm tired of people looking for mindless rationales to justify the taking of these innocent lives.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

HomeschoolrsRUs:
I am not extreme believing that human life deserves the benefit of the doubt -- IF there is even a minute CHANCE that "whatever" it is when sperm and egg unite is human life (and it IS), then life should trump any supposed "right" of the mother to extinguish it. One's rights end where another's begins, it's as simple as that. And the "right" of a person to OWN another person, ot POSSESS another person, ended with the abolition of slavery.

:unsmile: If pro-lifers are wrong, then we're guilty of depriving women of their civil liberties, for nine months at a time. If the pro-abortion wackos are wrong, then they've deprived people of life, PERMANENTLY.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Tumblehome:
You have been living under a rock, perhaps somewhere in the bible belt if you believe that equating a fertilized egg to you and I is a mainstream idea to the people of the planet earth. It wouldn't shock me if it wasn't even a mainstream idea amongst US Christians.

:rolleyes: Prior to 1492, the "mainstream idea to the people of planet [E]arth" was that the world is flat. It was a majority that elected Hitler. Majority opinion isn't always right.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Tumblehome:
Life is continuous.

:rolleyes: So is humanity. It doesn't take a break, while it waits for a zygote to become a human.

[aaron11]

no

Its not human? Then what? Alien, chimp, donkey?

You're beyond dork-hood, you're a flaming idiot.

[Tumblehome]

:rolleyes: Prior to 1492, the "mainstream idea to the people of planet [E]arth" was that the world is flat. It was a majority that elected Hitler. Majority opinion isn't always right.

Never said it was. You seem to be reading into this more than was was written or inteded. I was refering to Australians' and the words' likely opinions and thus actions on the matter. I wasn't making a value judgment.

[Republican_Legion]

You're beyond dork-hood, you're a flaming idiot.

I agree.

[Tumblehome]

:rolleyes: So is humanity. It doesn't take a break, while it waits for a zygote to become a human.

Well duh, yes. If life is continuous then human life is continuous.

The value judgment people are making on this issue is:

What makes an entity worth protecting and what makes an entity equal to you and I?

Is it the mere possession of human DNA? Maybe, maybe not. We don't value an individual human cell other than a fertilized egg cell as our equal (or do you?)

Is it concioussness or pain sense? Again maybe, maybe not. Don't we value people who are in comas and can't sense pain?

Is it determinism (that the fertilized egg is at an earlier stage of development but will grow into a being like you and I)? Again maybe, maybe not. Unless you are monty python, few would pronounce that every sperm is sacred. Is stopping the joinder of sperm and egg murder?

Is it a combiniation of all of the above? Probably. Is it a subjective "know it when you see it" kind of thing? Probably.

Aside from religious dogma, which may be a factor, I think it is mostly just a simple case of empathy, seeing yourself in another being. The more it is like us, the more we are likely to relate to it and care to protect it. This explains why showing pictures of fetuses with lil hands etc is such an effective tool in converting pro-choicers to a more pro-life position.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Tumblehome:
Never said it was.

:rolleyes: If majority opinion isn't always right, then why did you bring it up? Was there a point to it?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Tumblehome:
The value judgment people are making on this issue is:

What makes an entity worth protecting and what makes an entity equal to you and I?

:smirky: What people are doing that? Are they judging which HUMAN entities aren't worth protecting? What about old people, or quadriplegics? Do we allow people to judge if they're worth protecting? Didn't Hitler presume to know which "lives [are] not worth living"?

[Tumblehome]

:rolleyes: If majority opinion isn't always right, then why did you bring it up? Was there a point to it?

Read the threat title and the article. Then read the most I made. Maybe you can figure this out.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Tumblehome:
Read the threat title and the article. Then read the most I made. Maybe you can figure this out.

:unsmile: Your comment had nothing to do with the title of this thread. It was a reply to Republican Legion, & the thread isn't about "the people of the planet [E]arth".

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

One more point of contention -- yes sperm and egg are living material, but they, in and of themselves are NOT human life proper. A sperm requires more than time and gestation to FURTHER develop into a singular human life/entity, same with an egg. HOWEVER, once egg and sperm have united, the ONLY thing needed is time for development (not counting the incubation facility, which is a given).

My question is why ISN'T a (human) fertilized egg considered a human life then? Because it hasn't developed to the point of visual recognition (i.e. it doesn't look like a baby yet)? So what? Eventually IT WILL. That is the WORST kind of discrimination I can think of! How many disease cures could have been developed, musical compositions created, works of literature, art, architecture, etc., have been denied the world because their authors were DENIED life?

I do not believe in the theory of "out-of-sight, out-of mind." Again, I will say this till I breathe my last breath, when it comes to the issue of abortion human life deserves the benefit of EVERY doubt. The "right" to life has been established since the formation of this country, and to deny this fact effectively tarnishes everything in that document AND the Constitution, imho.

[Rink]

no

I guess Cerberus thinks the human race was hatched off a rock instead of being conceived and born.

Once conceived it becomes a human being and cerberus is exercizing self-blindness and censorship in refusing to see and acknowlede this immutable fact.

[True Grace]

What I love is how these people who worship science try to feign ignorance about when life begins.

It's called DENIAL.

[Tumblehome]

HOWEVER, once egg and sperm have united, the ONLY thing needed is time for development (not counting the incubation facility, which is a given).

Few fertilized eggs do indeed develop into grown people. The majority of them don't take. From what I've read the figure is somewhere around 70% of fertilized eggs that don't develop. Should we hold a funeral each time this happens?


My question is why ISN'T a (human) fertilized egg considered a human life then? Because it hasn't developed to the point of visual recognition (i.e. it doesn't look like a baby yet)?

I still don't see why you make the distinction against sperm and egg. They must join together to develop further. But isn't that joinder just a stage of development taking place? Is human life not continuous?



So what? Eventually IT WILL.

If it is in that lucky 30% or so sure.


That is the WORST kind of discrimination I can think of! How many disease cures could have been developed, musical compositions created, works of literature, art, architecture, etc., have been denied the world because their authors were DENIED life?

This is determinism then. You care about the egg because of what it could become and you don't want to stop it from developing because its development could lead to wonderful things. Why don't you extend this to the joinder of sperm and egg? If that sperm doesn't join with that egg that person has been denied life too, no? If you are going to go as far as you do, why do you stop there?

[The_Elucidator]

Homeschooler said the following:
HOWEVER, once egg and sperm have united, the ONLY thing needed is time for development (not counting the incubation facility, which is a given).

You followed up with:

Few fertilized eggs do indeed develop into grown people. The majority of them don't take. From what I've read the figure is somewhere around 70% of fertilized eggs that don't develop. Should we hold a funeral each time this happens?


And you consider this an intelligent debate?

She said when the egg and sperm have UNITED!!! Good Grief!

:thud:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Few fertilized eggs do indeed develop into grown people. The majority of them don't take. From what I've read the figure is somewhere around 70% of fertilized eggs that don't develop. Should we hold a funeral each time this happens?

A natural order and course of things, most women don't even know if this occurs. If they DO know (miscarriage), they are free to hold a funeral if it helps them deal with the loss. I know of at least three individuals who did just that -- one of them a dear friend of mine, had two within months of each other, and I was right there with her grieving the loss of Aaron and Abigail (btw, both of these miscarriages occurred at an early stage, and while we don't know for SURE they were boy and girl, my friend, the mom, felt sure of who they were).

Your point, however, has NOTHING to do with women making a conscious choice to extinguish the life within them. Your referring to a natural occurrence, and I am referring to a planned and purposefully carried out act.

I still don't see why you make the distinction against sperm and egg. They must join together to develop further. But isn't that joinder just a stage of development taking place? Is human life not continuous?

Because sperm without egg is not A human life, neither is egg without sperm -- they are the living materials which WHEN JOINED, create A unique individual human life. It takes a purposeful ACTION (intercourse) to create A human life. A chicken egg, flour, milk, butter, vanilla flavoring, WILL make a cake, but if you don't combine them, they'll never be more than they are.


This is determinism then. You care about the egg because of what it could become and you don't want to stop it from developing because its development could lead to wonderful things.

No, you aren't going to paint me into a corner of a box -- I care about the life for MANY reasons, only one of which is that to extinguish it is to remove from this world a vast amount of potential. But that is not the ONLY reason.
1. Abortion is wrong because man did not originate life, God did, therefore it's not man's right to terminate that of another which he did not endow in the first place.
2. Abortion is wrong because this country was founded upon the self-evident, unalienable truth that each of us has a "right" to life, and that can ONLY be interpretted as a right to exist in the first place, because the other two rights deal with HOW we live.
3. Abortion is wrong because essentially one's rights end where another's begins, and at conception that unique individual human life's right to it, begins.
4. Abortion is wrong because human life has a basic intrinsic, inherent, innate value in and of itself, and IF there is the slightest doubt as to WHEN that "life" begins (in the case of the dubious -- not me, I KNOW when it begins), then human life most assuredly deserves the benefit of the doubt. The course of LEAST harm should always be followed -- death is not least harm, it is fatal harm.

And I'm sure I could provide more.

Why don't you extend this to the joinder of sperm and egg? If that sperm doesn't join with that egg that person has been denied life too, no? If you are going to go as far as you do, why do you stop there?

Because there is a proper order to life. Because I firmly believe in the One Who Ordained the proper order of life. The joining of sperm and egg is NOT a given -- a conscious decision has to be made for the act to occur, and even THEN a natural bodily function must occur which is beyond the control of the participants once consumated. The termination of a life is not a given -- it may (miscarriage) or may not (pregnancy) occur, but to OVERRIDE the life once created is to deny the right of the life ALREADY created.

[Tumblehome]

So slow to understand yet so quick to attack.

She said when the egg and sperm have UNITED!!! Good Grief!:thud:

Indeed. And only 30% after that point (after sperm and egg have united) make it to birth based on what I've read.

[Tumblehome]

A natural order and course of things, most women don't even know if this occurs.

True. And if millions of people, indeed 70% of the human race, are getting dead every day without us knowing about it, shouldn't there be some massive outcry to research and find ways to save these people?

If we accept that each of these fertilized eggs are our equals shoulndn't we go beyond merely banning abortion and indeed control all sexually active women and how they handle their bodies?

Should sexually active women be charged for negligence leading to death if they keep themselves in poor health and that health effects the likelihood of a fertilized egg cell attaching?

Is a suicide attempt by a sexually active woman tantamount to reckless abandon and creating a situation of danger for those lives potentially within her? This could snowball into a whole new and very strict regulatory regime very quickly.


Because sperm without egg is not A human life, neither is egg without sperm -- they are the living materials which WHEN JOINED, create A unique individual human life.

They are alive and they contain human DNA. What are they if not human life? The main difference between them and the fertilized egg cell is that they have a lesser chance of developing into a human. They need both union and survival. The fertilized egg needs only survival.

In either case, at the present time all of sperm, egg, and fertilized egg are little more than cells with some nucleic acid. Is that really sufficient to draw your compassion, or is the determinism (that these may develop into something greater) what brings you to care for them?


It takes a purposeful ACTION (intercourse) to create A human life.

Why does that matter? Is this about a choice being made and an action being taken for which the woman should be held responsible?

Does this open the door for those pro-choicers who like to say that raped women should be allowed abortions? They didn't make a choice.


No, you aren't going to paint me into a corner of a box -- I care about the life for MANY reasons, only one of which is that to extinguish it is to remove from this world a vast amount of potential. But that is not the ONLY reason.

Ok. I didn't think so. So lets look at the others you present.


1. Abortion is wrong because man did not originate life, God did, therefore it's not man's right to terminate that of another which he did not endow in the first place.

This one I expected. Your religious dogma tells you that abortion is wrong, so you accept it as wrong.


2. Abortion is wrong because this country was founded upon the self-evident, unalienable truth that each of us has a "right" to life, and that can ONLY be interpretted as a right to exist in the first place, because the other two rights deal with HOW we live.


This one is a case of legal semantics. Defining person to exclude a fertilized egg defeats this argument completely. Defining it to include only those fertilized eggs that have developed further scales this argument back.Defining it to include sperm and egg takes this argument to include them. It is all very arbitrary.

I also must note that Legal "rights" are not necesarily based on moral values. It could be written into law that people have a "right" to do all sorts of nasty things.


3. Abortion is wrong because essentially one's rights end where another's begins, and at conception that unique individual human life's right to it, begins.

Along with the one above this argument is also based on the question of when you consider the entity in the womb to be our equal. If a fertilized egg cell is our equal, then this argument works. If it isn't, then it doesn't. So it goes right back to my post above. The question is at what point in development from sperm and egg to baby does the entity become one that is our equal and one that draws our empathy.


4. Abortion is wrong because human life has a basic intrinsic, inherent, innate value in and of itself, and IF there is the slightest doubt as to WHEN that "life" begins (in the case of the dubious -- not me, I KNOW when it begins), then human life most assuredly deserves the benefit of the doubt. The course of LEAST harm should always be followed -- death is not least harm, it is fatal harm.

There is no doubt of when life "begins". It doesn't begin. It began ages ago and nobody truly knows how or why. Since then it has been continuous.


And I'm sure I could provide more.


I'd like to hear more.



The joining of sperm and egg is NOT a given

Nor is the development of a fertilized egg cell into a baby at birth.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

True. And if millions of people, indeed 70% of the human race, are getting dead every day without us knowing about it, shouldn't there be some massive outcry to research and find ways to save these people?

You are parsing this to a ridiculous degree, and an unnecessary one. A miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) is the natural course. It happens for any of a number of reasons, and as stated before not from PURPOSEFUL action. It wouldn't be surprising to me if there wasn't actually research being done to help women in matters of pregnancy (difficulties with miscarriage / spontaneous abortion).

If we accept that each of these fertilized eggs are our equals shoulndn't we go beyond merely banning abortion and indeed control all sexually active women and how they handle their bodies?

Not necessary. If abortion were illegal, as it should be, these women would suffer the consequences of their actions, and I would wager the number of convenience abortions would DRASTICALLY reduce, as well as the NEED for such (i.e. fewer "unwanted" pregnancies due to promiscuous or unsafe behavior).


Should sexually active women be charged for negligence leading to death if they keep themselves in poor health and that health effects the likelihood of a fertilized egg cell attaching? Is a suicide attempt by a sexually active woman tantamount to reckless abandon and creating a situation of danger for those lives potentially within her? This could snowball into a whole new and very strict regulatory regime very quickly.


We cannot mandate preventative maintenance, we can hold those responsible when they contribute to the harm of their child. I do believe that in some states women CAN be held liable legally for transmitting harmful drugs to their child if they are on crack or other addictive substances including alcohol.

Again, you are trying to extend and equate this issue to absurd lengths, in an attempt to weaken the initial issue. My argument is not against sexually active women, women who don't take care of their health and as a result reduce the chances of conception, implantation, gestation, or birth. I am talking about the PURPOSEFUL action to terminate A human life created when sperm and egg unite.





They are alive and they contain human DNA. What are they if not human life?

I answered that question. They are living material which WHEN UNITED create A unique individual life. Alone they are the living building blocks, bot NOT A unique individual life.

The main difference between them and the fertilized egg cell is that they have a lesser chance of developing into a human.

Wrong, not a lesser chance, NO chance. A sperm alone will NEVER further develop into A human life. An egg alone will NEVER further develop into A human life. BOTH require each other, THEY require a specific ACTION, a purposeful action.

They need both union and survival. The fertilized egg needs only survival.

That's not a "main" difference, that is a HUGE difference.


In either case, at the present time all of sperm, egg, and fertilized egg are little more than cells with some nucleic acid. Is that really sufficient to draw your compassion, or is the determinism (that these may develop into something greater) what brings you to care for them?

I believe I provided you with an ample answer to that question. Revisit my previous post.




Why does that matter? Is this about a choice being made and an action being taken for which the woman should be held responsible?

I am FULLY pro-choice ... we differ where the line of choice begins, ends, and for whom and when.

A woman makes a choice when she decides to engage in an action that COULD result in a pregnancy ... a pregnancy IS a new life created.

A man makes a choice when he decides to engage in an action that COULD result in a pregnancy ... a pregnancy IS a new life created.

What happens to the "choice" of the life created?

Does this open the door for those pro-choicers who like to say that raped women should be allowed abortions? They didn't make a choice.

IF a woman has been a victim of rape or incest, AND a pregnancy results, a new life is created ... that new life should NOT have to suffer the punishment for the crime(s) of their parent(s). Therefore "choice" to terminate the new life created effectively negates the right of choice for the new life created. Again, one's rights end where another's begins. It's a bad situation all the way around, HOWEVER good CAN come out of it -- I was a product of rape, I know people who were, should their lives be negated BECAUSE of the action that created them?





This one I expected. Your religious dogma tells you that abortion is wrong, so you accept it as wrong.

I am not the only one. It is written into the founding document of this country ....

"We hold these truths1 to be self-evident2, that all men3 are created equal4, that they are endowed by their Creator5 with certain6 unalienable7 Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
The Declaration of Independence

This one is a case of legal semantics.

No, it is established fact, it is written, it is an integral and specific part of the founding of this country -- let's break it down:

The rights above are 1) truth, 2) self-evident, 3) concern all men (mankind), 4) equal, 5) endowed by a Creator, 6) certain, and 7) unalienable. In other words they are completely understood, recognized, agreed upon, and individually specific. The first right listed is that of "Life." It can ONLY mean the right of existence, BECAUSE the other two rights deal with HOW we have a right to live that existence ... with liberty, and with the ability to pursue happiness (we are not granted the right TO happiness).

Ergo, each and every person's "right to life" (right to exist) is first and foremost before all other rights and extended equally to all, it is endowed by a Creator NOT man and therefore it is not man's to negate for another, it applies to ALL human life, it is individual specific, and is NOT negated by the right to "pursue happiness" (which could be claimed by the (so-called) "mother."

One final note, the DoE precedes the Constitution, SO if it is not specifically listed IN the Constitution, that means it was already agreed upon and settled PRIOR to the Constitution, and not forseen that anybody would EVER question or refute it.

Defining person to exclude a fertilized egg defeats this argument completely.

Of course it does! And so completely eliminates what this country was founded upon!

It could be written into law that people have a "right" to do all sorts of nasty things.

How prophetic ... homosexual marriage, polygamy, sex with minors, yes they are all on the horizon thanks to the devaluation of human life and basic morality.


Along with the one above this argument is also based on the question of when you consider the entity in the womb to be our equal. If a fertilized egg cell is our equal, then this argument works. If it isn't, then it doesn't. So it goes right back to my post above. The question is at what point in development from sperm and egg to baby does the entity become one that is our equal and one that draws our empathy.

Okay, you want to use the term "personhood" instead of A human life? Can YOU tell me with absolute knowlege, when personhood begins? It is an impossibility, ergo, the "person" deserves the benefit of the doubt ... if not, a great risk is taken that a person has been murdered. When in doubt, the path of LEAST harm should always be followed -- death is FATAL harm, not least harm.




There is no doubt of when life "begins". It doesn't begin. It began ages ago and nobody truly knows how or why. Since then it has been continuous. [/qipte]

I wasn't quibbling about when life begins, I was stating there is a difference between life and A human life, which DOES begin at the moment egg and sperm unite. Sperm or egg alone is NOT A human life, but the living material which when united creates A unique, individual human life.



I'd like to hear more.

I think we have plenty to deal with for now.

[quote=Tumblehome]Nor is the development of a fertilized egg cell into a baby at birth.

True, but the future for that fertilized egg cell is determined naturally if left alone, as it should be. But I can GUARANTEE you 100% that fertilized egg cell WON'T further develop at ALL if it is aborted.

One more point, you DO realize that the vast majority of abortions that are performed are well past the one-celled fertilized egg gestational stage, right? Within hours after conception that one-celled fertilized egg splits, and continues splitting, growing, and FURTHER developing. Most women don't even KNOW they are pregnant until after their first missed menstrual cycle, and that human life growing within them is certainly no longer a one-celled fertilized egg.

[Tumblehome]

You are parsing this to a ridiculous degree

I'm just following the logical consequences of accepting the premise you propose (that fertilized eggs are our equals). If that is true then a woman's body is the root of greater natural disasters than any floor or earthquake. A full 70% of all people are killed in the womb. You'd think that'd motivate us to take drastic measures in trying to change this with both massive amounts of research and controlling laws over how women sexually active women (those who could hold fertilized eggs within them) use and abuse their bodies.


Not necessary. If abortion were illegal, as it should be, these women would suffer the consequences of their actions,

Including those oft-brought up coathanger abortions,

I would wager the number of convenience abortions would DRASTICALLY reduce,

Here we agree.


as well as the NEED for such (i.e. fewer "unwanted" pregnancies due to promiscuous or unsafe behavior).

I'm not so sure. I'm not convinced that sexually active people are thinking that far forward.


We cannot mandate preventative maintenance,

Why not? We force you to take safe control of your automobile etc. Why is it not negligence causing death if a sexually active woman destroys a life within her by poor lifestyle choices?
I see that as a logical extension of accepting a fertilized cell as an equal.


I do believe that in some states women CAN be held liable legally for transmitting harmful drugs to their child if they are on crack or other addictive substances including alcohol.

And what about neglect? Once the baby is born you can get arrested for murder if you fail to feed it etc. What if you fail to do waht you could have done to bring it to birth (ie, live healthy).


Again, you are trying to extend and equate this issue to absurd lengths

I'm extending it as the premise logically flows. If it logically leads to absurd results the premise must be absurd.

My argument is not against sexually active women, women who don't take care of their health and as a result reduce the chances of conception, implantation, gestation, or birth.

But if the fertilized eggs and earliest stages of development thereafter are our equals, then why does this argument not follow?


They are living material which WHEN UNITED create A unique individual life. Alone they are the living building blocks, bot NOT A unique individual life.

So uniqueness is important here?


I am FULLY pro-choice ... we differ where the line of choice begins, ends, and for whom and when.

If you beleive that the choice begins, ends, and is differnt for whom and when, you're not FULLY pro choice now are you. Neither am I. Somebody FULLY pro-choice is a scary thought.


IF a woman has been a victim of rape or incest, AND a pregnancy results, a new life is created ... that new life should NOT have to suffer the punishment for the crime(s) of their parent(s).

I agree with this completely. It has nothing to do with choice. The choice that people made is completely irrelevant to the rights of the entity within the womb. If that entity deserves our protection why does it matter what choices or purposeful actions others have made?

Moreover why is a purposeful action being taken the dividing line for what we should protect and what we should not? The sperm and egg need a purposeful choice to be made so that they unite. The fertilized egg can develop further without such a pronounced choice. So what? Why is somebody elses choices (other than the being in the womb) so important here?


I am not the only one. It is written into the founding document of this country ....

Yes and the words you quote can be taken literaly or can be interpretted to mean many different things. Even you do not intend to take them literally. If you did you'd only care about the male ones ("all men").

Moreover, just because something was the foundation of a country doesn't make it good or right.



Can YOU tell me with absolute knowlege, when personhood begins?

Nope. Hence the question I posed in the previous thread. When does the being in the womb develop to such a stage that it is our equal, draws our sympathy, and should be called a "person"?


I think we have plenty to deal with for now.


Maybe I'm just greedy, but I want more. :crazy:



One more point, you DO realize that the vast majority of abortions that are performed are well past the one-celled fertilized egg gestational stage, right?

Yes I do. But if we are to talk about abortions within the later stages of development we'd be in agreement. You are on one extreme end of this argument. I have converations with those on the other extreme as well (mostly on the liberal boards). I see your position as extreme as that which claims that a baby is not an equal until it is out of the womb and breathing. The only reason I'm conversing on this topic is because these two extreme mindsets are fascinating and hard to understand.

[The_Elucidator]

So slow to understand yet so quick to attack.


Not quite on both counts; I have been following this thread and have watched you get dissected in ways that would make Jack the Ripper proud, yet you still keep on with,

Yes it is...

No it isn't

Yes it is...

No it isn't

Oh, yeah, well...Your religion

Blah, Blah, Blah...

Again - :thud:


Homeschooler - you did a wonderful job of explaining the "Obvious."

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I'm just following the logical consequences of accepting the premise you propose (that fertilized eggs are our equals).

No, that's not what you are doing. You are throwing out red-herrings to derail a serious issue about a PURPOSEFUL action that results in the denial of the right to life.

If that is true then a woman's body is the root of greater natural disasters than any floor or earthquake. A full 70% of all people are killed in the womb. You'd think that'd motivate us to take drastic measures in trying to change this with both massive amounts of research and controlling laws over how women sexually active women (those who could hold fertilized eggs within them) use and abuse their bodies.

You know what, Tumble, if abortion were made illegal I would have no problem with the increase in research, and/or the ATTEMPT to bring controlling laws over sexually active women. But that is not currently on the horizon, nor is it relevant to a decision regarding medical abortions, which IS what I am talking about ... I thought you didn't believe in the "slippery slope" argument, :smirky: ? Maybe that's someone else I was thinking about regarding the issue of homosexual marriage.


Including those oft-brought up coathanger abortions,

I'm sorry I have no sympathy for a woman who would resort to a coathanger abortion. She has MORE wrong with her (mentally) than a mere pregnancy if she chooses this route. Besides, that is an emotional ploy, much as the "other side" accuses the pro-life side of when we use pictures of aborted babies. Unless you can provide me with accurate statistics, actual witness accounts, and/or some other type of proof, I would hardly call the amount of "so-called" coathanger abortions rationally comparable to that of the millions of children aborted.

BTW, the glorious medical abortion is also NOT without complication, injury, and death. Believe me, I KNOW this one, because I lived it. My uterous was lacerated during my abortion, and I almost bled to death. I was also told I would never conceive or carry another child because of it.


Here we agree.

I KNEW we could find SOMETHING to agree upon, :thumb: .


I'm not so sure. I'm not convinced that sexually active people are thinking that far forward.


Then they should be, and I do believe the consequences WILL impact future actions. Isn't that one of the reasons we have laws on the books with recorded punishments? I do not steal from my neighbor not ONLY because it is wrong, but because I could get caught and punished. Any factor of motivation that STOPS a negative action from happening (such as in the case of abortion -- please don't go chasing rabbits again with another topic), sounds pretty fair in my book.

There WAS a time when abortion was rare -- when it was illegal. Abortion should AGAIN be as rare (if not totally wiped out -- I'm not an idiot, I know there will be those who seek them, no matter how wrong and unsafe they are.)


Why not? We force you to take safe control of your automobile etc. Why is it not negligence causing death if a sexually active woman destroys a life within her by poor lifestyle choices?

Hey, if you believe it, go for it. I'm not concerned with that at the moment, so I am unwilling to travel down that rabbit hole with you. Perhaps I will AFTER abortion is made illegal -- but right now it's not relevant to the issue at hand. Until then, I remained focused on stopping the purposeful action of medical murder perpetrated against preborn children. I see that as a logical extension of accepting a fertilized cell as an equal.

And what about neglect? Once the baby is born you can get arrested for murder if you fail to feed it etc. What if you fail to do waht you could have done to bring it to birth (ie, live healthy).

Tumble, if there are people that want to take up this cause, more power to them. The issue of life has many facets to it, but I don't have to deal with those to facilitate dealing with the issue of abortion. Abortion ABSOLUTELY terminates A human life, we know that conclusively. So, I don't need to deal with those OTHER factors that MAY contribute to miscarriage/spontaneous abortion, because there aren't people out there being HIRED to assist these women in the murder of their unborn child, which IS what I am opposed to.


I'm extending it as the premise logically flows. If it logically leads to absurd results the premise must be absurd.

No, as I said, you are throwing in everything but the kitchen sink to confuse the issue, water it down, and try to prove it absurd. It is not. Whether or not the premise can be extended to encompass your "logical flow" is irrelevant to the issue of abortion, right here, right now. IF there are those who wish to take up the issue from there, fine, but those "flows" don't change the facts regarding medical abortions.

But if the fertilized eggs and earliest stages of development thereafter are our equals, then why does this argument not follow?


ANY issue can be extended down a path of "logical flow," as you put it. SO WHAT? Aren't we as a society free to deal with that flow when we are faced with it? It DOESN'T impact the issue at hand RIGHT NOW. Again, my focus is a very narrow one -- medical abortion for ANY REASON OTHER than extreme risk to the mother's life (such as ectopic pregnancy) ... that includes abortions for convenience, rape, and incest.


So uniqueness is important here?


We've already established this. You're planning another trip down a rabbit hole with this, I would predict, :smirky: .


If you beleive that the choice begins, ends, and is differnt for whom and when, you're not FULLY pro choice now are you. Neither am I. Somebody FULLY pro-choice is a scary thought.


No, I stated my position quite clearly. You cannot extend choice past the point of impact upon ANOTHER'S choice (again, keep your focus narrow here Tumble, I am referring to abortion, no red-herrings, no rabbits).


I agree with this completely. It has nothing to do with choice. The choice that people made is completely irrelevant to the rights of the entity within the womb. If that entity deserves our protection why does it matter what choices or purposeful actions others have made?

Tumble, I am not a lawyer, as you are -- this paragraph confuses me, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Huh? Could you make this one a little clearer for me.

Moreover why is a purposeful action being taken the dividing line for what we should protect and what we should not? The sperm and egg need a purposeful choice to be made so that they unite. The fertilized egg can develop further without such a pronounced choice. So what? Why is somebody elses choices (other than the being in the womb) so important here?


Thought I was pretty clear on this one too. One's right's end where another's begins. The real CHOICE is made when two people choose to engage in an act that COULD result in the creation of A human life. IF A human life is created, they cannot choose for it whether it should live or die (based on convenience, or the circumstances of creation, i.e. rape/incest -- none of which is the fault of the baby) because that OVERRIDES its right to life.




Yes and the words you quote can be taken literaly or can be interpretted to mean many different things.

Only if you are Bill Clinton, or one of his lawyers.

Even you do not intend to take them literally. If you did you'd only care about the male ones ("all men").

"Men" is frequently used as a synonym for "mankind," other than that you'll have to jump through a lot of hoops to twist and distort that paragraph to include the right to kill a preborn child.

Moreover, just because something was the foundation of a country doesn't make it good or right.

True, but in this case, it is right. You know, if I were of a mind, I could provide you with a "logical flow" on the denial of the right to life based upon the "right of privacy to abort." We could discuss euthenasia, infanticide, assisted suicide, etc. I do not think it WRONG to argue in defense of LIFE over the defense of DEATH. (Please do not confuse this as a desire TO discuss those things, I DO NOT, only as evidence that your "logical flow" has implications in the other direction as well.")

Nope. Hence the question I posed in the previous thread. When does the being in the womb develop to such a stage that it is our equal, draws our sympathy, and should be called a "person"?


Hence my reference, when in doubt, human life should be given the benefit of the doubt. When in doubt, the path of LEAST harm should be followed. Abortion is not least harm, but fatal harm.


Maybe I'm just greedy, but I want more. :crazy:

Sure, as soon as you and I have settled the above, I'll be glad to move on. Until then, we don't need no more stinkin' rabbits. :smirky:


Yes I do. But if we are to talk about abortions within the later stages of development we'd be in agreement.


So at what point, SPECIFICALLY, do we intersect in agreement. I want to know at exactly what stage your opposition to abortion begins. I would ask that you use specific terms, such as "when brain waves are detected," or "when the heart beats," something that is measurable.

Also, do you believe abortions for "convenience" are wrong or acceptable?

You are on one extreme end of this argument. I have converations with those on the other extreme as well (mostly on the liberal boards). I see your position as extreme as that which claims that a baby is not an equal until it is out of the womb and breathing. The only reason I'm conversing on this topic is because these two extreme mindsets are fascinating and hard to understand.

Let's make sure we clarify, how am I extreme? Could you recount my position for me, so that I can make sure you understand my position correctly? (Not being facetious here, I really would like to know, so I could clarify any misconceptions, if any.)

One side note, I come by my position through intimate knowledge on the subject coming from several different directions (product of rape, was adopted out, was raped, was pregnant, had an abortion, abortion was botched, etc.) It is quite an experience to look into the eyes of the woman who carried and gave birth to you as she tells you had abortion been legal (1973) the year you were born (1963), you would not exist. Another thing I can share, it doesn't ease my mind, nor would I be comforted, in the fact that had that happened I wouldn't know it because I was only a clump of cells.

[Peachy]

I'm curious, when would each of you define a human being as being dead? Not as in "when the soul leaves the body", but when should a person be declared dead?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I'm curious, when would each of you define a human being as being dead? Not as in "when the soul leaves the body", but when should a person be declared dead?

Good question for a new thread, I suggest you start one.

[TechnoPrincess]

You are parsing this to a ridiculous degree, and an unnecessary one. A miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) is the natural course. It happens for any of a number of reasons, and as stated before not from PURPOSEFUL action. It wouldn't be surprising to me if there wasn't actually research being done to help women in matters of pregnancy (difficulties with miscarriage / spontaneous abortion).




Yes Homes, there is research being done. March of Dimes does a TON of research regarding this. I am sure that there are other organizations, I just personally know of the March of Dimes.

And as you stated earlier, there are women who do grieve over the loss of their babies to miscarriage. Some women never get over it truly.

[Peachy]

Good question for a new thread, I suggest you start one.

Why don't we answer it here? Its a nice quick and easy answer, and its pertinent to the discussion at hand.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: I think the suggestion was made to start another thread, because it's off-topic here. If you can show in your new thread how it applies here, you can always come back.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Peachy:
I'm curious, when would each of you define a human being as being dead?

Its a nice quick and easy answer,...

:rolleyes:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

LP,
FYI, Peachy is another of our "visitors" from FSTDT.


------------------

Peachy,
I do not wish to answer your question here, because I know what will happen if I do. You, or another, will seize the opportunity to take this thread even further off-topic, thereby providing golden tidbits for can quote-mining to be posted on a site elsewhere.

I believe my suggestion was courteous, helpful and practical. You are free to start another thread with that as its topic, if you have not already done so (I just logged on and haven't yet worked my way through all the new posts/threads).

[Tumblehome]

No, that's not what you are doing. You are throwing out red-herrings to derail a serious issue about a PURPOSEFUL action that results in the denial of the right to life.



I addressed this above. It isn't a red herring. It is a logical extension of the belief that a mere fertilized egg is our equal. How does it not follow from that?



I thought you didn't believe in the "slippery slope" argument, :smirky: ? Maybe that's someone else I was thinking about regarding the issue of homosexual marriage.


I don't think it was me. I am against state support of marriage altogether, which is I think where the "slippery slope" argument re gay marriage would take you.




I'm sorry I have no sympathy for a woman who would resort to a coathanger abortion. She has MORE wrong with her (mentally) than a mere pregnancy if she chooses this route.


This isn't really my argument but just one that I figured should be thrown out there because it is made so often. But I gotta say, you don't feel for the woman, but do you feel for the coathanger aborted child? Especially if that child could have been aborted back when it was little more than a fertilized egg?


Besides, that is an emotional ploy, much as the "other side" accuses the pro-life side of when we use pictures of aborted babies.


Actually I only think pictures of aborted fetuses is off the mark if they are of fetuses in a later stage of development than what is being argued against aborting. I otherwise think it is a useful way to convince people not to allow an abortion. Its based on empathy, which works.


As for the prevalence of coathanger abortions, I agree with you that they were far more rare than abortions today. And as I noted above I'm against abortion in the vast majority of cases. I just don't go to the extreme of including fertilized eggs as our equals.



There WAS a time when abortion was rare -- when it was illegal. Abortion should AGAIN be as rare


You know, we probably agree on this point. The only disagreement is how to define the ban on abortion. I want abortion to be rare too. And I want stricter and stricter bans on abortions the later the pregnancy.



I am unwilling to travel down that rabbit hole with you.



Come on Alice! Have some tea! :grin:


Whether or not the premise can be extended to encompass your "logical flow" is irrelevant to the issue of abortion, right here, right now.


For most abortions, this is true. And we don't disagree on those ones. For mere fertilized cells, ie the morning after pill that is the topic of this tread, it is completely relevant. If you show a great concern for very few of these beings being terminated selectively but little concern for a vast quanitity of these beings being whiped out by natural disaster something is out of whack.



We've already established this. You're planning another trip down a rabbit hole with this, I would predict, :smirky: .


We have earl grey. We have chinese tea too. The hatter really wants to meet you. :grin:


You were refering to the choice that must be made for sperm and egg to unite. You were placing that choice, the deliberate act, in a place of importance. That is why I asked what relevance choice is. I say that the question is whether or not the being in the womb is entitled to our protection. I say that what choices others have made (in helping or not helping the being along in its development) is not relevant.

The bottom line is that the fertilized egg, sperm, and unfertilized egg are all just cells with some DNA in them. Absent consideration of what they may become in the future I see no reason to have empathy towards any of them.


The fertilized egg may develop into a grown human (about 30% do). The sperm and egg may unite into a fertilized egg and do the same (far fewer do). The sperm and egg are one step behind the fertilized egg in producing a baby. You seem to be unwilling to go that next step with your empathy because other humans make a choice that causes the step to take place. I fail to see why this choice by others to aid in the development of a baby is so pivotal to you.


In your cake example you said that the ingredients for cake are not cake if we don't mix them together (implying the act of intercourse I presume). This is true. But to carry the analogy further, the mixture doesn't become cake unless it is heated. For the analogy lets say this happens spontaneously (without the decision of others) by falling into an open oven about 30% of the time.

Now why exactly is the distinction between the aided action of mixing the ingredients and unlikely natural action of falling into the open oven so important? Why does the mixed but unbaked ingredients draw your compassion but the unmixed ingredients do not?

Lets throw that research we were talking about earlier into our analogy too. With science we may be able to develop a means of putting the mixture into the oven by choice. In doing so we may manage to save much of that 70% of mixture that never becomes cake.


Hence my reference, when in doubt, human life should be given the benefit of the doubt. When in doubt, the path of LEAST harm should be followed. Abortion is not least harm, but fatal harm.


But you don't extend this to stages prior to the fertilized egg.



So at what point, SPECIFICALLY, do we intersect in agreement. I want to know at exactly what stage your opposition to abortion begins. I would ask that you use specific terms, such as "when brain waves are detected," or "when the heart beats," something that is measurable.


That is the million dollar question. And I don't have a specific answer for you. Each of those signs, brain waes, heart beat, ability to feel pain, are all relevant but I don't single any one out as the benchmark. It is really hard to say where exactly the turning point is that draws my compassion. All I can tell you is that it is well before a thinking, sensing fetus and well after a fertilized egg cell.


Also, do you believe abortions for "convenience" are wrong or acceptable?


I'm not sure what you mean by an abortion for "convenience". I don't really see convenience as relevant. If you are terminating a soon to be born fetus for whatever reason, convenience or otherwise, I oppose it. If you are terminating just a fertilized egg cell I really don't care what your reasons are, I don't object.


Let's make sure we clarify, how am I extreme? Could you recount my position for me, so that I can make sure you understand my position correctly?


My understanding (and please to correct any misconception) is that you see a fertlized egg cell as equal to you and I. This is the point on which we disagree.



One side note, I come by my position through intimate knowledge on the subject coming from several different directions (product of rape, was adopted out, was raped, was pregnant, had an abortion, abortion was botched, etc.) It is quite an experience to look into the eyes of the woman who carried and gave birth to you as she tells you had abortion been legal (1973) the year you were born (1963), you would not exist.


This shows subjectivity and it makes your holding the position that you do more understandable. I suspect that you have empathy for all aborted because your above experiences re abortion helps you relate to them.


I am male, was not to my knowledge planned to be aborted, wasn't adopted (though my father was), and have never to my knowledge impregnated a woman who had an abortion. I have no personal or emotional interest in the abortion debate and speak entirely from an objective and detached viewpoint. My experiences do not make me relate to the aborted because they are aborted but only because they draw my empathy in other ways (being a similar being to myself).



Another thing I can share, it doesn't ease my mind, nor would I be comforted, in the fact that had that happened I wouldn't know it because I was only a clump of cells.

Yet what you say is true. You would not know it and you would have no mind to ease.

[Maggie_T]

It is a logical extension of the belief that a mere fertilized egg is our equal.

*S N O R T*

That's a liberal for you. They think that animals are our equals, but a fertilized human egg is not. :rolleyes:

Thanks to Warlady for shoving this moron out the FC door.

[Tumblehome]

*hugs maggie g'bye then whipes the foam from her mouth for her*

[Maggie_T]

Keep your paws off me.



Hey, Warlady. I thought you'd taken the trash out. What's up.

[Republican_Legion]

Thanks to Warlady for shoving this moron out the FC door.

It appears he can still post.

[Republican_Legion]

Hey, Warlady. I thought you'd taken the trash out. What's up.

Perhaps he is using a Proxy :question:

[Maggie_T]

You know what they say, RL. Bad things are hard to get rid of.

[Tumblehome]

lol! No I'm not using a proxy, WarLady is just slow. I'm sure I'll be gone soon enough.

Oh and Maggie, yes I would put my dog's life above your (or anybody elses's) fertilized egg. If you find that revolting, well I'd find you saying the opposite equally revolting, so there we have it.

[Maggie_T]

*Y A W N*

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Tumblehome:
But I gotta say, you don't feel for the woman, but do you feel for the coathanger aborted child?

:unsmile: No, I don't feel for the woman. She heartlessly kills her own baby, so why should I?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I addressed this above. It isn't a red herring. It is a logical extension of the belief that a mere fertilized egg is our equal. How does it not follow from that?[./quote]

It is a red-herring. Neither a sperm nor an egg is equal to human life, because they both lack a key ingredient. A fertilized egg is not lacking in ingredient.

[quote=Tumblehome]I don't think it was me. I am against state support of marriage altogether, which is I think where the "slippery slope" argument re gay marriage would take you.

When life is devalued at its most vulnerable state (the beginning), there is nothing to stop it from happening in its other states/stages. Either life has value, or it doesn't -- there can reasonably be no in between.

This isn't really my argument but just one that I figured should be thrown out there because it is made so often.

Yes, that is called a red-herring.


<DIR>red herring n : a diversion intended to distract attention from the real issue


</DIR>(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

But I gotta say, you don't feel for the woman, but do you feel for the coathanger aborted child? Especially if that child could have been aborted back when it was little more than a fertilized egg?

My statement was for effect, and it was in bad taste. I apologize. I do feel for the woman, she obviously needs help, but I don't think killing the child will really be much help. It didn't help me -- I consulted psychologists, psychiatrists, and support groups, none of which helped until I gained peace in the Lord.


As for the prevalence of coathanger abortions, I agree with you that they were far more rare than abortions today. And as I noted above I'm against abortion in the vast majority of cases. I just don't go to the extreme of including fertilized eggs as our equals.

And yet you cannot provide a definitive point at which it is wrong vs. okay to abort.

You know, we probably agree on this point. The only disagreement is how to define the ban on abortion. I want abortion to be rare too. And I want stricter and stricter bans on abortions the later the pregnancy.

That would be acceptable as a starting point, with the ultimate goal being all abortions made illegal with the exception of extreme danger to the health of the mother (such as ectopic pregnancy).

Come on Alice! Have some tea! :grin:

No thank you, I do not care for tea.



For most abortions, this is true. And we don't disagree on those ones. For mere fertilized cells, ie the morning after pill that is the topic of this tread, it is completely relevant. If you show a great concern for very few of these beings being terminated selectively but little concern for a vast quanitity of these beings being whiped out by natural disaster something is out of whack.

There is a big difference between a natural resolution and a man-made one. I don't believe man should have a hand in the PURPOSEFUL destruction of life in this manner.

We have earl grey. We have chinese tea too. The hatter really wants to meet you. :grin:

My dance card is full.


The bottom line is that the fertilized egg, sperm, and unfertilized egg are all just cells with some DNA in them. Absent consideration of what they may become in the future I see no reason to have empathy towards any of them.

Human life has an innate, inherent, intrinsic value -- no other creature can do or accomplish what man can. You are the one being illogical. If it's okay to kill one stage of life, why is it wrong to kill another?


The fertilized egg may develop into a grown human (about 30% do). The sperm and egg may unite into a fertilized egg and do the same (far fewer do). The sperm and egg are one step behind the fertilized egg in producing a baby. You seem to be unwilling to go that next step with your empathy because other humans make a choice that causes the step to take place. I fail to see why this choice by others to aid in the development of a baby is so pivotal to you.

Because I don't believe that choice (to create life) should be taken so lightly or treated so trivially when it does occur. People should take responsibility for their actions. A man and woman who KNOWING engage in an activity which COULD create another living person, should have to face the consequences of their actions if they DO create life. Some things don't get a "do-over."

Tumblehome is no longer among us, but I wanted to reply to his post instead of letting it stand unanswered.

[Republican_Legion]

:unsmile: No, I don't feel for the woman. She heartlessly kills her own baby, so why should I?

I agree with that totally.

If a man is holding a gun to someones head and a Cop from a distance snipes the 'bad guy' I could careless about the bad guy who might have killed a innocent civilian.

When a Arsonist accidently burns himself to death do I care about the arsonist ? No. When a woman gets a Illegal backalley abortion and she dies do I care ? No. Why because the persons in these situations put themselfs at risk performing/receiving an Illegal act.