Abortion - Free Will and Responsibility of Women, NOT Mankind

Originally posted by windword
I say a sperm is life and I don't a moral problem with murdering it. I say that not all life is sacred.

You can't murder sperm, or an arm, or a hair follicle. A sperm is life, but it is not A life. I'm sure you know the difference.

Originally posted by Bone75
You can't murder sperm, or an arm, or a hair follicle. A sperm is life, but it is not A life. I'm sure you know the difference.

There is no official definition or recognition for "a life", this is just some word I've first heard from you and Quad on this thread. It's also interesting that fertilized eggs are referred to as "a life", instead of just you two simply referring to them as human beings as this is the crux of the pro-life argument. Either we're talking about human life or human beings, there's nothing in between.

And no, fertilized eggs are not human beings, they cannot be afforded the same rights simply because they are not human beings. Abortion is not murder, it is a legal practice and has been so for some time now, it's not going away, women have their rights come first, it's not your position to tell them otherwise. Moaning all day about it isn't going to change this reality.

reply to post by Quadrivium

I have not and will not try to FORCE anything on anyone.

Let's bring up the definition of force:

Power made operative against resistance; exertion: use force in driving a nail.
b. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force.
3.
a. Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech.
b. Moral strength.
c. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy:
To gain by the use of force or coercion

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Your position is the same as that of a pro-life position, that fertilized eggs are human beings and there for should be afforded the same rights as human beings, these rights include the right to live. Because we're talking about fertilized eggs within the bodies of women, human beings with those afforded rights too, we're crossing their own rights on what they choose to do with their bodies, because the position here is that the rights of those fertilized eggs outweigh the choices of those women. Your position is that women should not have that choice, that they should be legally compelled or coerced into a 9 month pregnancy of pain, labour, over their own bodies through law and punishment, that is force. You are attempting to force your moral and ethical beliefs on other women, fortunately the law isn't on your side on this matter.

The fertilized egg is the first step in human development.

You mean to say you believe a fertilized egg is a human being? Because it appears you and bone are skirting this very definition. Either you believe fertilized eggs are human beings and should be afforded the exact same rights as children, adults, babies, or you don't, simple.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

SG,
It amazes me how much your argument sounds like that of a Southern Democrat from the 1700's who is in favor of slavery.
Slaves could be killed because they were considered less than human as well.
I find many, that are pro-choice, have similar arguments as those who were pro-slavery.
Sad, really, that they can not see their own hypocritical ways.
Quad

Originally posted by Quadrivium
It amazes me how much your argument sounds like that of a Southern Democrat from the 1700's who is in favor of slavery. Slaves could be killed because they were considered less than human as well.

It just baffles me how you came to make this comparison. In one instance we're talking about a racial and ethnic group of peoples that were at one time legally not considered person(s) to the political benefit of slaveholders, in another instance we're talking about a zygote, two gamete cells, dependent upon a host body of a women. They are two different things, there is no consensus that the latter is a human being, only opinions.

I find many, that are pro-choice, have similar arguments as those who were pro-slavery.

Funny that, I could argue that I've heard arguments from many self proclaimed pro-lifers on this forum about the matter of slavery and treatment of black Americans, you know? how it should have been preserved as a states right. These same people who spout off about poor unborn babies will enter other threads on the topic of slavery to argue that the matter of dehumanizing and enslaving black Americans should have been left as a States issue because you know, it was constitutional? But now, how about those unborn babies?

Hypocrisy alright.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I fail to see his correlation as well. I do however see a comparison when these pro-lifers/personage people want to force an unwilling woman to carry her unwanted pregnancy to term. They see the female as a reproductive slave to her biology.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I fail to see his correlation as well. I do however see a comparison when these pro-lifers/personage people want to force an unwilling woman to carry her unwanted pregnancy to term. They see the female as a reproductive slave to her biology.

To put it in simple terms Windword, if men also had to physically go through with pregnancy, this wouldn't be an issue up for debate. Behind the guise of the pro-life movement is a religious and cultural agenda to enforce values, those values that women *must* be obedient. Then again there's the argument that many women oppose abortions... but then again there were many women who opposed voting rights for their own gender, women who opposed other rights that would eventually advance their own. There were also many blacks who supported the Confederacy during the civil war. Stockholm syndrome is an interesting psychological phenomenon that you should read up on sometime.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Bone75
You can't murder sperm, or an arm, or a hair follicle. A sperm is life, but it is not A life. I'm sure you know the difference.

There is no official definition or recognition for "a life", this is just some word I've first heard from you and Quad on this thread.

First of all, its not A word, its 2 words, a term or phrase...

"A life" in the context being used in this thread refers to an individual life form's existence from beginning to end.

It's also interesting that fertilized eggs are referred to as "a life", instead of just you two simply referring to them as human beings as this is the crux of the pro-life argument. Either we're talking about human life or human beings, there's nothing in between.

I am a human being. I did not exist before I was conceived. I began as a single cell. I did not begin as a fully formed baby. A fertilized egg and a human being are two different stages of the same life.

So don't tell me I have to use the term "human being" due to your lack of comprehension.

We have been arguing this one freaking point for 20 something pages now and I'm simply dumbfounded at how all of you are acting like you don't comprehend what we're saying.

Does A life start as a single cell or does it not? Its about as simple of a question as it gets! How many different ways do I have to word it before one of you finally says yes?

reply to post by Bone75

Does A life start as a single cell or does it not?

No!

A single living cell (ova) is transformed by chemical reaction caused by an interaction with a living sperm. Life doesn't start! It doesn't just begin. There is no magical life fairy!

Originally posted by Bone75
"A life" in the context being used in this thread

Yes, it is a term made up and used by you two in this thread as in excuse to avoid having to defend arguing the implications of granting fertilized eggs the same rights as humans. There is human life and then there is human being which forms one of the examples of human life. Sperm is human life, hair is human life. If you believe a fertilized egg is not merely human life but in actual fact a human being, no different from born human beings, then it shouldn't be too hard to admit this position. There's no use for the term "a human life" because it is just another definition for something that is not the same as a human being.

A fertilized egg and a human being are two different stages of the same life.

If this is your position then clearly you do not believe fertilized eggs are human beings, otherwise you would not be putting so much effort into making up some secondary term for them. Yet you continue to argue that they should be afforded the same rights and human beings because well, aborting them would be murder because well, they're human beings and murdering human beings is bad, but then again they are not quite human beings as you appear to be stating here?

Clearly you haven't thought enough about your position here, maybe you should take some time to re-examine what your argument is here.

So don't tell me I have to use the term "human being"

I'll tell you what I want to tell you and you can choose to either respond or ignore. From what I can tell, you clearly have not taken the time to think over your position in this debate. You argue that abortion is murder. Clearly by murder we are talking about human beings here, clearly by "right to life" we are talking about the lives of human beings, because I'm certain this debate isn't about the right to life for all animal species. If then your position is that killing fertilized eggs is murder, then you believe that fertilized eggs are in actual fact human beings, that they are no different. Either you believe that you are a human being from the moment an egg is fertilized or you don't, make up your mind.

Does A life start as a single cell or does it not?

Personally? I believe the development of human life begins at fertilization, however this is not the consensus of the scientific community where many believe life to be continuous. Does this mean I believe a fertilized egg is a human being? No, I believe a fertilized egg is human life that has the potential of becoming a human being. I believe that being a human being is much more than that of two gamete cells. I don't believe abortion is murder, but on a personal level I would not choose that path because I view it as a potential human being in time, I believe in giving potential life a chance. I also believe that woman should always reserve the right to decide what do with their bodies, I don't believe two gamete cells, a zygote, should overrule the rights of a women to do what she wishes with her own body. It's her decision, and it need not be any of your business. People like you need mind your own backyard and stop trying to interfere with the lives of others. You want small government? You can start by tending to your own values and beliefs, not anybody elses.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75

 

Does A life start as a single cell or does it not?

No!

A single living cell (ova) is transformed by chemical reaction caused by an interaction with a living sperm. Life doesn't start! It doesn't just begin. There is no magical life fairy!

How in the hell did you guys manage to sway our courts with arguments like this?

reply to post by Bone75


With the help of people like this professor from Yale University.



I know it's long, and don't let the title fool you, he explains the cycle of life in the first 15 minutes. The rest is good stuff to know too.

I found this website that has many articles, books and statements about abortion and when a human life begins. There are several statements from people you maybe surprised to read their real thoughts. With that being said, my belief is a life starts at day one of conception. Cells are dividing and individual DNA is being created within those cells.

Please note all external content came from the same webpage. Please read the entire webpage linked here. www.abort73.com...

Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate concedes this simple fact.

Planned Parenthood's longest reigning president in the US, Faye Wattleton thoughts on abortion & killing a fetus.

She argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine: I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.

Ann Furedi's, chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, on abortion & human life. Her last sentence should wake America up.

She said this in a 2008 debate: We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life… the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?

Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist author & abortion supporter. IMHO, I think this is what American's who approve of aborting are really concerned about.

She makes a similar concession when she writes: Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.

David Boonin even wrote a book, A Defense of Abortion.

He makes this startling admission: In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.

Peter Singer, philosopher and public abortion advocate writes about when conception & a human being is formed.

He joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes: It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.

Bernard Nathanson, co-founded NARAL & once served as medical director for the largest abortion clinic in the US. He shares his views of when a human life begins.

In 1974, he wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in which he states, "There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy..." Some years later, he would reiterate: There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.

This goes with my last reply. It continues to show that abortion rights defenders publicly admit to abortion as killing a human being(s). I also have inserted portions of Roe vs Wade and how it has impacted and changed America.

Don't miss the significance of these acknowledgements. Prominent defenders of abortion rights publicly admit that abortion kills human beings. They are not saying that abortion is morally defensible because it doesn't kill a distinct human entity. They are admitting that abortion does kill a distinct human entity, but argue it is morally defensible anyway. We'll get to their arguments later, but the point here is this: There is simply no debate among honest, informed people that abortion kills distinctly human beings.

www.abort73.com...

Roe vs Wade should haunt us all. Norma McCorvey was 21 when she became pregnant out of wedlock. She made up a story about being raped. She had worked with two lawyers who wanted to challenge Texas abortion laws. McCorvey states she was not respected and was used by these lawyers to make abortion legal. Both plaintiffs seek to overturn their cases claiming they were only used as pawns.

The problem is, Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 verdict which legalized abortion in the U.S. is actually built on the claim that there's no way to say for certain whether or not abortion kills because no one can say for certain when life begins. Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored the majority opinion wrote: The judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to... resolve the difficult question of when life begins... since those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus. Justice Blackmun's assertion is a ridiculous one, at least as it applies to the field of medicine.

www.abort73.com...

Dr. Nathanson opening admits that the final victory had been propped up on misreading of obstetrics, gynecology and embryology. Our court system let this law pass by lack of reading. Now 40 million+ embryos and fetuses have been aborted by a lack of reading and interpreting what these readings meant. Wow!!

Dr. Nathanson had this to say about the ruling: Of course, I was pleased with Justice Harry Blackmun's abortion decisions, which were an unbelievably sweeping triumph for our cause, far broader than our 1970 victory in New York or the advances since then. I was pleased with Blackmun's conclusions, that is. I could not plumb the ethical or medical reasoning that had produced the conclusions. Our final victory had been propped up on a misreading of obstetrics, gynecology, and embryology, and that's a dangerous way to win.

www.abort73.com...

Later in life, Dr. Nathanson would also change his mind and abandon his support for abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court made no use of the knowledge given to them that a human life begins at fertilization. As Americans, we should be outraged!!

Dr. Nathanson would eventually abandon his support for elective abortion and note that "the basics [of prenatal development] were well-known to human embryology at the time the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 1973 rulings, even though the rulings made no use of them." In biological terms, life's beginning is a settled fact. Individual human life begins at fertilization, and there are all sorts of authoritative, public resources to prove this.

www.abort73.com...

Sources can be found on the same website to support when a human life begins.

A quick video to go with the past two replies about abortion, when a human life begins and US Supreme Court.

reply to post by GideonFaith


The very first paragraph in the article you link is patently false, and it's ideology is formed from an emotionally based bias.

Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate concedes this simple fact.

The rest of it's testimony is solely based on the same old tired emotionally driven argument.

There is no such thing as "new" life. There is no markers for the beginning of a "new" life. There is no such thing as a "new" fairy. Life is a continuous cycle.

That's not to say that there is unlife in conception, it's just that's there's a chemical reaction that is "transforming" an already existent presence of life, and it's continuing biological mechanisms.

Even though your church may tell you that sex is an holy union, before the eyes of God, there is in fact nothing sacred or holy about the act of sex. It is a primal human urge meant to trick unwitting humans into parenthood for the overall survival of the species.

It is absurdly hypocritical in my mind to tell people that they must control their biologically driven sexual urges, yet once those urges result in what biology intended, biology is God and it's result must stand.

Either we have the right to control our biology or we don't.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by GideonFaith

 

The very first paragraph in the article you link is patently false, and it's ideology is formed from an emotionally based bias.

Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate concedes this simple fact.

The rest of it's testimony is solely based on the same old tired emotionally driven argument.

There is no such thing as "new" life. There is no markers for the beginning of a "new" life. There is no such thing as a "new" fairy. Life is a continuous cycle.

That's not to say that there is unlife in conception, it's just that's there's a chemical reaction that is "transforming" an already existent presence of life, and it's continuing biological mechanisms.

Even though your church may tell you that sex is an holy union, before the eyes of God, there is in fact nothing sacred or holy about the act of sex. It is a primal human urge meant to trick unwitting humans into parenthood for the overall survival of the species.

It is absurdly hypocritical in my mind to tell people that they must control their biologically driven sexual urges, yet once those urges result in what biology intended, biology is God and it's result must stand.

Either we have the right to control our biology or we don't.

edit on 27-11-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

Windword, I am beginning to think with you that if someone showed you something, you still would find a way to dismiss it in your mind. Nothing in that paragraph or anywhere that I posted had to do with God or the Church or whether sex was holy or not. Seems to me you like to bring God and Church into arguments to fit something you assume of people. Why did you distinguish "your church"? Whether sex is holy or not, it depends upon the people having sex. I'm not present every time someone has sex to determine whether it was holy or not. Ridiculous!! Urges are just that, but there are no excuses for being stupid and getting pregnant and then aborting because of an urge. I don't know where your coming from, but then again, I never have. Nothing you posted really applied to what I posted anywhere! But then again, changing the subject around is your tactic.

reply to post by GideonFaith

Windword, I am beginning to think with you that if someone showed you something, you still would find a way to dismiss it in your mind.

Ditto.

Nothing in that paragraph or anywhere that I posted had to do with God or the Church or whether sex was holy or not. Seems to me you like to bring God and Church into arguments to fit something you assume of people. Why did you distinguish "your church"?

Your avatar's religious overtones betray the origin of your belief that the sexual act creates "new life," This erroneous dogma is carried over from the belief that God created life from dust and breathed life into lifelessness. It's a pretty little myth, but is biologically incompatible with what we know of reproduction mechanism today.

Whether sex is holy or not, it depends upon the people having sex. I'm not present every time someone has sex to determine whether it was holy or not.

So sex is sometimes holy, but there needs to be an observing judge to determine whether it's holy or not?

Ridiculous!! Urges are just that, but there are no excuses for being stupid and getting pregnant and then aborting because of an urge.

And there it is, judgement against women for being stupid enough to get pregnant. Yet your "personage" agenda would ban most types of birth control being used by fertile woman today, lending to more stupid women getting pregnant because of sinful urges that lead to sacred life! Then again, infertile woman would no longer have access to in vitro either.

I don't know where your coming from, but then again, I never have. Nothing you posted really applied to what I posted anywhere! But then again, changing the subject around is your tactic.

I'm not changing the subject. I'm sticking to the same subject that I've been asserting all along. That is, biology and it's reproductive mechanism doesn't create new life. It transforms life. There is no such thing as "new life." It's unfortunate that your myopic opinion blinds you from the realities of science. Biology is not God. Not all life is sacred or holy. What is sacred and holy is only so based on opinion.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by GideonFaith

 

Ridiculous!! Urges are just that, but there are no excuses for being stupid and getting pregnant and then aborting because of an urge.

And there it is, judgement against women for being stupid enough to get pregnant. Yet your "personage" agenda would ban most types of birth control being used by fertile woman today, lending to more stupid women getting pregnant because of sinful urges that lead to sacred life! Then again, infertile woman would no longer have access to in vitro either.

Once again, the only ones who need to control or curb their urges are women. The only ones blamed for abortions are women. Where are people admonishing men for falling prey to their urges and getting women pregnant?

Just look at the title of the thread, something I have pointed out several times in this thread, that this is made to play the blame game with only one half of the sex that results in a possible future human.

I was in a Philosophy class where a woman shared a story from when she was a teenager. Her mom told her to "never get pregnant, don't have sex, keep your legs closed" and then turned to her brother and said "just don't get a girl pregnant."

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by GideonFaith

Windword, I am beginning to think with you that if someone showed you something, you still would find a way to dismiss it in your mind.

Ditto.

I showed a webpage with content that even abortion defenders believe it is murder and its a living human being. Not a ditto. Sorry!

Nothing in that paragraph or anywhere that I posted had to do with God or the Church or whether sex was holy or not. Seems to me you like to bring God and Church into arguments to fit something you assume of people. Why did you distinguish "your church"?

I see you skipped things to justify them for yourself again. Trying to make this about religion, when I said nothing about religion. Not going there with you.

Your avatar's religious overtones betray the origin of your belief that the sexual act creates "new life," This erroneous dogma is carried over from the belief that God created life from dust and breathed life into lifelessness. It's a pretty little myth, but is biologically incompatible with what we know of reproduction mechanism today.

So, now my avatar scares you and makes you assume things about me. Please point out to me where in my avatar does it state anything remotely about sexual acts create new life?? You don't know what I believe, your assuming again.

Winword: Even though your church may tell you that sex is an holy union, before the eyes of God, there is in fact nothing sacred or holy about the act of sex. It is a primal human urge meant to trick unwitting humans into parenthood for the overall survival of the species.

Whether sex is holy or not, it depends upon the people having sex. I'm not present every time someone has sex to determine whether it was holy or not.

So sex is sometimes holy, but there needs to be an observing judge to determine whether it's holy or not?

To some people it maybe holy. You posted about holy sex in your last post about it, not me. You tell me if someone needs to be there to judge it? I said I wasn't there with the people to determine if their sex was considered holy to them or not. You are the one stating "my church" teaches its holy, when it's not holy. How you know that about me or "my church", I will never know. Maybe the same way you know that sex is not holy to some people and it is just wild urges. Maybe that is a thread you can start and ask people.

Ridiculous!! Urges are just that, but there are no excuses for being stupid and getting pregnant and then aborting because of an urge.

Ridiculous, went with last part of my post on holy sex. Because I think it is ridiculous you would even bring that up. It has nothing to do with what I posted about abortion and a human life.

And there it is, judgement against women for being stupid enough to get pregnant. Yet your "personage" agenda would ban most types of birth control being used by fertile woman today, lending to more stupid women getting pregnant because of sinful urges that lead to sacred life! Then again, infertile woman would no longer have access to in vitro either.

Only judgement word was stupid, this day and time it is stupid to not be protected when you have these so called urges that you can't resist. It's in black and white if you need to read the previous post again about abortion and a human life. It's murder!! There you go again, knowing all things about me. Stick to what I posted about.

I don't know where your coming from, but then again, I never have. Nothing you posted really applied to what I posted anywhere! But then again, changing the subject around is your tactic.

I'm not changing the subject. I'm sticking to the same subject that I've been asserting all along. That is, biology and it's reproductive mechanism doesn't create new life. It transforms life. There is no such thing as "new life." It's unfortunate that your myopic opinion blinds you from the realities of science. Biology is not God. Not all life is sacred or holy. What is sacred and holy is only so based on opinion.

edit on 27-11-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

Once again, you prove my point that you can't keep religion out of it. I wasn't posting about religion. I was posting about how abortion defenders even say its a human life and it is murder or killing of life. Sounds like you need to get over the religion part and find something new to put in your debates. If you would like to continue the debate, please stick to what I post and not what kind of person you assume I am.