Appreciate your civility also. When my wife and I lived in Yap, they had legalized rape- if the woman was alone. 100% of the Yapese believed it was morally right, but I didn't leave my wife alone for a second.
?????? Whether a man stays or Leaves a woman . . . is irrelevent to his connection to his child If he chose to TERMINATE is CONNECTION to the child he should have EVERY right to do so . . as long as ABORTION is Legal It is the Male Version of an ABORTION ABORTION - the denying a child of Shelter/protection/anything provided my a parent Did she not make the same choice? Why is she given more options? If a man does not want the child . . and expressed it to her in the 1st trimester. . . then she makes the choice to have the child KNOWING he will have nothing to do with it the man should not have to be responsible for HER CHOICE How is that any different than her terminating The Laws of Reproductive Rights is so ONE SIDED and RIDICULOUS It is so ANTI-Man . . no one is screaming for Equal rights there I wonder why? I guess - Killing is Killing Dead Beat Dads - don't fund their kids lives Dead Beat Moms - simply Kill them Rocket River
Really? I'm pretty sure some of the genetic material that was used to create me started out as sperm....which eventually grew into a human, me!
Using an overall subjective impression like this no-one would confuse a baby with a fertilized egg in a dish that is very small and with no human like form. Same with an egg implanted in the uterus within a few weeks of fertilization. I have no problem with discussing/emphasizing the tools of surgical abortion and pictures of later term fetuses/aborted babies so long as the mifepristone pill picture is shown and the typical women's body response to it (which is usually like a period and often no evidence of anything different than a heavy cycle). If the purpose is to reduce human looking babies/fetuses being aborted and grotesque tools being used wider use of mifepristone early in the 1st trimester would help as a last resort past failed pregnancy education and prevention. They are separate organisms (maybe they qualify as a person or fully human), but one is entirely dependent on living from the nutrients and organs of another through most of the pregnancy. If I have to give a kidney to save another person’s life I would do it, but it isn't mandated for everyone. Now if ever medical science can remove a 4 week old (mind you no eyes, legs, hands or detectable brain waves) or less fertilized embryo from the mother and give it a good shot at a healthy life, things will really get sticky for me (right now I have no qualms with say sub 6 month abortions un-interfered by the state). But right now we have a hard enough time sustaining anyone not carried 7 months or so, and that is well after a fetus looks/is fully human/is a baby.
Your argument was that since a fetus is just a mass of cells that only has the potential to grow into a human, abortion is as morally justified as masturbation. Sperm has zero potential to grow into a human without meeting an egg.
"murders of born humans, abuse, rape, incest, whatever" are actions on other human beings. You need motive, action, and very importantly, another human being to carry out a murder. The term "born humans" is the most important part here. The term "unborn baby" is an emotional term, it can't be applied on a sperm, a egg, or a fertilized egg. To be called life, he/she/it has to be able to LIVE in the world, with or without support. A fertilized egg CANNOT live on its own, or on any most advanced technology, therefore it's still a part of that woman's body, instead of an individual life. Even if you collect all the materials you need to build a car, before that car is made, you can NOT call those steel and ruber, a car. Before God made man out of dust, you can't call that dust man. God made woman out of a rib of man, before that's done, you can't call that rib a woman. A fertilized egg might EVENTUALLY become a human, but before it grows all the organs, can live in the world and continue to grow as human, even in a incubate in the hospital, it's NOT human. Therefore, there is NO murder of "unborn baby".
I said "with or without support, even just technology". A fertilized egg, no matter how you "play" with it, it can't become a human, except for being a part of a woman. Therefore, that woman has the say, not us.
These are good points for me. I think it is much easier to understand the broader issue with the visuals you have included. It is much easier to see a 'baby' in a 6 month unborn than with a fertilized egg in a dish. When you speak of viability that is certainly a factor in many issues. For example, one very important issue is that no infant is viable for life after birth unless the mother or someone else furnishes nutrients and helps with waste elimination. As far as other organs I am not sure what impact that has. If an unborn child at 8 months is cut off from the mother's care it will die. If a born child at 14 months is cut off from the same care it will die. Most children are not independently viable for life without care until they are between the ages of 3-4. I would say you could abort from 8 months into the pregnancy to 2 yrs. without doing any more than leaving the infant to feed completely on its own. Of course the unborn baby is being fed if the pregnancy is going as mother nature intended so that would require another means of death besides starvation. I like your points because I at least can see the logic of how a fertilized egg in a dish does not appear human and would not provide any immediate obvious connection to a newborn baby. That makes sense. You have to know though my views are more centered on the following questions. 1. Is an unborn baby that is living worth protecting? 2. Is the value enough to prevent taking the innocent life? 3. Is the reproduction of humans valuable in itself? 4. Should we protect the reproductive process because it results in human life? 5. If a human's life has great value, does conception result in human life and doesn't that give some significant value to the pregnancy? 6. Should a woman become pregnant does she have any responsibility to protect the unborn child during the pregnancy and should it vary according to the choice of the woman? Also I would like to clear up something. A law does not force morals on anyone. Do you feel forced to drive the speed limit? Do you feel forced to drive sober? It is impossible for a law to force you to drive sober. It can influence your own choices but it can force you to do nothing. Laws don't force women to get abortions (at least not yet in America) and laws can't force women not to get abortions. Another thing- I believe women have the choice to murder babies. I would never block a woman's entrance into an abortion clinic, if that is her personal choice. My points are not to say that women shouldn't be allowed to go into abortion clinics, my points are that it is murder and I don't think it should be legal. Like I have said before, I only have this view because of the view I take of the unborn baby. I don't view it the same way pro-choice people view the unborn baby. Just a difference of belief and opinion. Don't let the 'murder' word freak you either, I just mean that they can kill the baby without the baby's consent or any just reason.
Sperm vs. Fetus - deathmatch!! Seriously, neither one has the potential to grow into a human without a series of events happening. You yourself recognize that even a newborn can't survive on its own, either. Which brings me to my argument....my argument WAS that it is funny how time changes everything. Today, you're definition of life is apparently the fetus stage (mine obviously isn't, but yours is). Tomorrow (as in next year, decade, century, millenium, 10,000 years), who knows what we'll discover that'll would change your view??
No, he had his choice when he left his seed someplace where he didn't want it to grow. Because it is her body, thus she has more options. He lost his ability to choose when he failed to keep a tight leash on his sperm. Agreed. Reproductive rights law is one sided, but men have every opportunity to keep control of their little swimmers. I was able to do it for 35 years, so I have very little sympathy for someone who found it too difficult. However, most people don't see abortion as "killing," so your statement is not particularly valid except to people who believe the same things you do.
I'm personally against abortion, but I believe we do each have our own morals. And moral issues to me should be decided by society to set societies rules. If society wants drugs outlawed, outlaw them. If society wants to allow abortions, allow them. I however do have a huge problem with any abortions that occur after the first 12 weeks. I also have a problem with girls under 18 being allowed to get an abortion without the parents even knowing about it (there is something on the ballot here in CA for Tuesday's vote to fix that). I will say though that regardless of what the laws are, abortions of convenience sicken me.
This is not the place for a discussion of drugs, so I will let this one go... I am pretty much with you on this. I am not against reasonable restrictions on abortion, but I am 100% against an all-out ban.
I qualified that once you consider a fertilized egg/fetus/unborn baby a human person the equation changes. But my main point from this is using the mortality rate/risk from abortions to the mother isn't a reasonable deterrent, because purely from the mother's physical health perspective carrying a baby to term through childbearth is more dangerous than abortion. Yes this is just one part of the discussion, but human child bearing is a lot more dangerous to and demanding of the mother than often recognized in this debate.
I would like to thank my mother, who is Mexican and dirt poor for staying the course for me. It was a great sacrifice on her part during pregnancy and raising me as a single parent under very very difficult conditions. Mothers can be our greatest examples. We owe them alot.
Sorry, I missed it, had to go find the compromise. I would accept that compromise in a heart beat. You see, I love children so any reduction in abortion blesses me greatly. This isn't a political issue at all for me, I really love children. Thanks for the offer I wish you had great political clout.
I look at two issues: 1) viability (can the baby live with care/nuitrients from someone other than his/her mother in the womb) 2) when does personhood/being a human start. Now the time fetuses are viable (could live outside the mother with reasonable care) this fetus by all sensory perspectives is a little human, a baby. I have no qualms of having policy/laws against abortion here, pending some exceptions when there is danger to the parties. Enforcement here becomes thorny, I rather rely on physicians consultations with patients than a judge, but if there is reasonable system of medical/judicial review, fine. Now there is for me an fuzzier area. Clearly a fetus late in its 2nd term from the sensory perspective sure seems like a little human (including feeling pain), but it is not viable without the mother carrying it do term. Even the best medicine to date and non-carrying parent can't help this fetus/baby, only its biological mother. I would be fine with restrictions on abortion here, perhaps not quite as restictive as above or maybe the same, not too sure. But now a fertilized egg to a fetus 6 weeks or younger without question is not viable without a child carrying mother. Given it has no limbs, no evidence for consciousness or feeling pain, etc, I certainly don't see it as a person either. It is a potential person yes. But a collection of any live cells--unfertilized egg, skin cells, other tissue cells-- we might be able to clone into a potential person too, not a genetically unique person, but so what. If being genetically unqiue was a prerequisite for being a person identical twins would be less than a full person. Until a fertilized egg has components of being a person/human--most notable consciousness and feeling pain, I see it as a collection of cells that is a potential human life but not a person/human life. At this point it is entirely the mothers decision whether to keep allowing these cells to grow into a human/person/baby. By the way Rhester, where do you stand on fertilized eggs in fertility clinics, do you see their destruction as murder?
she lost hers when she allowed the little swimmers in because it is HIS Money . . .thus He should have more say in how it is spent she lost hers when she allowed the sperm to enter her Many Nuns seems to have gone a lifetime with getting impregnated. so Why do you have so much sympathy for a woman who finds it too difficult to keep her legs closed? Dehumanizing something so you can kill it . . is nothing new Rocket River . . . once upon a time i was considered 3/5ths of a man
