True. I was just thinking of a way to logically apply medical definitions to when life began as opposed to religious/moral definitions, and restrict abortions to prior to the point when life begins to appease both sides of this argument. You points about the government misgivings are very valid.
You're 33 years old according to your birthday. Your life didn't begin when you were born. That's silly.
I agree Timing, your life doesn't begin when you exit the womb. It begins much earlier than that. The idea that the birthday marks the beginning of the life of a baby is simply laughable. This is merely a social convention that has been adopted to simplify the age-recording process. It's easy to mark when you were born but it is not as easy to mark when you were conceived. Therefore the birthday has more meaning in our society. The birthday is just when the life of the child begins *outside* of the parent. It's moving from the inside of the womb to the outside. Changing location, not initiating life.
My life didn't begin when my parents had sex. THAT'S silly. If you and Trader Jorge read my post I stated Of course I realize I was a living being in utero before I was born into this world. Life begins at some point in utero, but not at the moment of conception. This is the point I was trying to explore. In my opinion, A division of cells is not life.
Bingo. The brainwaves thing makes some sense, if we want a medical definition. If you use division of cells, then it's difficult to separate a fertilized egg from a nascent tumor. I guess we could always start a pro-tumor group though.
I think that the issue is that I woman should be allowed to have control of her own body. Child bearing can be risky. My son was born via Ceasarian section and I don't think that the government should be able to force a woman to go through that procedure. Similarly, I don't think that the government should be able to force me to donate a kidney or bone marrow to save a life.
Oh gawd. She exerted control over the bodies of her children, after they were born. So is your point to take freedoms from women, a la the stone age, or 19th century America? I'd love for you to answer that question. What is your point, other than to post an inflamatory non-sequitor? Maybe if she had really had full reproductive freedom (as in, "honey I'm really depressed, maybe having more kids isn't the best idea"), that horror would not have happened. We will never know.
Originally posted by VooDooPope My life didn't begin when my parents had sex. THAT'S silly. Conception is the initiation of a human life and you wouldn't exist without it. Try to create a human life without conception, I dare ya.
b-bob -- What I'm saying is that you can not give women full control over the issue. Too many will use abortion as an escape clause to a wild night gone bad. I view abortion as the ending of a life (or potential life -- depending on your definition of life). Women deserve choices, no doubt. However they do not deserve the choice to end an innocent baby's life. It's not only her body that she is exercising control over when she chooses to have an abortion, but the body of a child as well. Murdering a baby in the womb is the same in my book as murdering a 3-hour old baby. The only difference is the location of the child. To answer your incendiary question, yes, I believe the freedom to kill babies should be taken away from women.
I am pro-life but I think that oneof the stronger arguements that the pro-choice position has is that when you choose between the life of a fetus and a woman, obviously you should be concerned with the life and quality of life of the woman. One of the core differences between the two sides is whether or not a human life is being killed. The pro-choice positition generally refers to it as "a mass of tissue" or at best "a fetus." The pro-life position refers to it as "an unborn baby." On the question of the identity of the fetus, I believe that it is clearly a living thing. We would categorize plants and one celled organisms as living (until they die, of course). Furthermore, if you look at how we know if a human being is alive (in the event of an accident, for example) we look for a heartbeat, brainwaves, and reaction to stimuli. All of these signs are present a few weeks after conception. (To be perfectly honest, I don't recall how many weeks. I know it is fewer than six.) I object to the use of the term "mass of tissue" on the basis that it is used to encourage woman not to believe that the fetus looks like anything at all until some moment well after they would have an abortion. Five fingers can be discerned in the and at five weeks. During week seven the embryo begins to move spontaneously, the jaw forms, including teeth buds in the gums. By week nine the fingerprints begin to form. Finally, as to whether it is human life, I think there is little question as to what sort of life it will become. A newborn hardly looks like much - yes I think they are a bit cute but JV insists they look like aliens. All the same, they will eventually look like the sort of beings that we would call humans. All that aside though, there is still a question as to whether this developing fetus is more important than the quality of life for the woman. I think there is an assumption that a woman's life is going to be a great deal better without the burdens of motherhood. There is a lot to be said about this and much has been said before. I'll give you two additional things to consider, as I understand it, women who have had an abortion before having a child incur a significant increase in risk for breast cancer. The reason for this is that a woman's breasts begin to change when she is pregnant to prepare for breast feeding. When you have a naturally occuring miscarriage the body undergoes a long process of reversing this process. With an abortion the body does not go through the same process so that some hormones remain at elevated levels. The second thing to consider is a little related to a problem that occurs with the pill. A surprising number of single men have adopted the attitude that it is a woman's choice and therefor a woman's problem if she chooses to keep the child. After all, if she didn't want to be a single Mom, she had an option.
I have two children, I know how to create life. You want to argue semantics and avoid discussion of the point I was trying to make. Conception may be the "initiation" of human life, but there is a differnce between having the foundation for life and being ALIVE. I still believe If you don't want to discuss the point I was trying to make then keep your condesending "That's Silly" comments to yourself and leave me alone. Stop trying to force your opinion on other people.
TJ, Okay I get it now, even if I don't entirely agree. The A. Y. reference is to underline your point that killing little beings is killing little beings, and in your view, the arbitrary line of birth should not make a big difference. I get it, my bad. Peace. I will say, just from my various female friends who've been in tight spots, I don't think the escape clause to a wild night really tells the whole story. Again, I'm a guy, and I don't really know. But I don't think the process of an abortion is trivial, and I don't think anybody just yawns and says "oh, well. I'm knocked up again, better set aside 30 minutes some time to fix the mistake." Anyway, we're completely on the same page if you agree that zero abortions would be ideal. I think a lot of people would agree with that, given equally ideal notions of adequate knowledge and use of birth control, zero instances of rape, etc.
What? You said life didn't begin when your parents had sex and have just ceded that life begins at conception. Make up your mind man. An embryo is very much alive as well. I'm not forcing any beliefs on anyone but if you're going to claim something I guess you should be prepared to support that opinion.
Thank You, some people do not think about those children homeless on the street, or in homeless shelters. Thank GOD for my grandparents, because I would have been one.
I did not cede that life begins with conception. You keep trying to force that view on me. Conception begins a division of cells that form an embryo, which eventually becomes a fetus. At some point the fetus shows signs of "life" which are heartbeat, brainwaves, and reaction to stimuli. Take an "alive and well" embryo out of the host and put it in a incubator and see how long it lasts. With out it's host an embryo is not able to sustain life on this planet. My point again, for the last time is... I never claimed anything. I put an opinion on the begining of life based on medical facts and medical definitions out for discussion. You on the other hand have spent the better part of the afternoon trying to make me believe your point of view and have been very condensending in the process.
I said this in another abortion thread. It is a lot harder to defend being pro-choice (pro-abortion), when the "choice" is revealed as killing babies. I have never had any problem with defending letting babies be born, no matter the language used to describe it. Only the pro-choice crowd needs to be able to frame the debate and limit the terminology to that which they can accept. They will never say, yes I want to make it okay to kill babies. Pro-choice proponents argue semantics more than issues. If you want to call a baby something else, go for it. That doesn't change the fact that you are killing a baby, phetus, embryo, whatchamacallit, whatever. Abortion is murder, deal with it. Unlike many of the pro-lifers, I do not believe in making an exception in cases of rape and incest. If the woman cannot view the child as the silver lining of the dark cloud of her rape, then she can put the baby up for adoption. The only time an abortion should be a consideration is when carrying the child to term will result in the death of the mother. At that point, a decision must be made between two innocent lives. Excepting the case where the life of the mother is at risk, why is adoption not always preferable to abortion? Is carrying a child for nine months such an imposition that it should be summarily executed instead? Since so many cling to their abortion rights like a lifeboat in a storm, I propose an interim solution until abortion is made illegal. Instead of eliminating the child early in its development, behind the cover of a doctor and without facing the victim, the woman can bring the child to term and then strangle it once it exits her womb. She can look into the child's eyes as the spark of life leaves them and then she can truly understand the consequences of her actions.I don't think it would be so easy for her without the excuses like, "It is just a collection of cells." Here is a very long, and IMO, a very good abortion thread.
Originally posted by VooDooPope I never claimed anything. I put an opinion on the begining of life based on medical facts and medical definitions out for discussion. You on the other hand have spent the better part of the afternoon trying to make me believe your point of view and have been very condensending in the process. No, this is me discussing conception as the beginning of life and you talking about your life beginning 33 years ago because that's your birthday. An embryo is alive and just because it is not viable outside of the womb doesn't make it not alive. According to you life does not begin at the moment of conception but conception is the initiation (ie begining) of human life. Life begins at some point in utero, but not at the moment of conception. Conception may be the "initiation" of human life, but there is a differnce between having the foundation for life and being ALIVE. I still believe. As for my views on abortion that I have so shamefully tried to force on you (yeah right), I have trouble with the issue. I don't believe people should be told what to do with their bodies however as JoeJoe once pointed out, no right should take precedence over the right to life. It is a difficult question to be sure.
co You sure paint with broad strokes, wild accusations, and a conviction that your point of view is the only acceptable point of view. You can be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. I'm not for killing babies. I'm for establishing a medical definination of when life begins and making it illegal after that point. You may believe the moment the sperm penatrates the egg live begins, I would say it's later in the pregnancy when the fetus has shown the signs that would meet the medical definition of when life begins. This protects the living baby in the womb and provides a very short window when the cells that <b>may</b> (if conditions are right) lead to life could can be aborted. A fair compromise based on science not morality. People may have views that differ from your own. You may think yours are right but that doesn't make it so. Running around yelling "baby killer" and "abortion is murder deal with it" doesn't help your case and can hardly be construed as arguing semantics more than issues.
