A Non-Religious Abortion Debate

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

Evidence for this? Its mainly male politicians trying to ban contraception and abortions. They just cant handle women having choices, its vagina envy

Not at all. It’s mainly men trying to ban abortions because it’s mainly men in charge of this country.

Do the math. How many women vs men in congress? 15% women? 18% women?

I'm sorry, you really let the cat out of the bag (no pun intended) in this thread.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Evidence for this? Its mainly male politicians trying to ban contraception and abortions. They just cant handle women having choices, its vagina envy

Not at all. It’s mainly men trying to ban abortions because it’s mainly men in charge of this country.

Do the math. How many women vs men in congress? 15% women? 18% women?

I'm sorry, you really let the cat out of the bag (no pun intended) in this thread.

Manly men

Look, dont envy me, i cant help it that i can bare children and you cant. You can do other useful things... like... opening jars?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

Manly men

Look, dont envy me, i cant help it that i can bare children and you cant. You can do other useful things... like... opening jars?

You're over the top and out of control, SearchLightsInc!

I'm out of here! Thanks for the friendly banter! I hope you learned a lot.

Peace....

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Contraception fails, abortions are necessary. They will be sought whether legal or not. It matters how society accommodates this need. Banning it out right will not make it go away.

Men should be punished for knocking up a woman and refusing responsibility by having their testicles cut off. That should be a good deterrent.

Killing babies and cutting off men's testicles for non-payment of child support????

What a barbaric outlook on life.

I feel so sorry for any man in her life.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Manly men

Look, dont envy me, i cant help it that i can bare children and you cant. You can do other useful things... like... opening jars?

You're over the top and out of control, SearchLightsInc!

I'm out of here! Thanks for the friendly banter! I hope you learned a lot.

Peace....

Peace

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Evidence for this? Its mainly male politicians trying to ban contraception and abortions. They just cant handle women having choices, its vagina envy

Not at all. It’s mainly men trying to ban abortions because it’s mainly men in charge of this country.

Do the math. How many women vs men in congress? 15% women? 18% women?

I'm sorry, you really let the cat out of the bag (no pun intended) in this thread.

Your point is moot. Below is a picture of the all male Supreme Court that ruled in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion.



It's not men who want abortion banned. Most men are happy to see an unwanted pregnancy taken care of and will pay to see it happen. Nope, it's the ultra nutty religious righteous right that's outraged at the wanton sexuality that birth control and abortion bring to society.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Manly men

Look, dont envy me, i cant help it that i can bare children and you cant. You can do other useful things... like... opening jars?

You're over the top and out of control, SearchLightsInc!

I'm out of here! Thanks for the friendly banter! I hope you learned a lot.

Peace....

Hey! It's your right to "abort" the discussion. I don't think you're selfish for doing so. I think that you know that it's something that's not the right thing for you to do right now. Imagine if this passionate discussion was to change your life forever!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75

 

Life is life. Your theory that human life is somehow special is invalid in a non-religious debate on the origin of life.

Changing the subject like the nutty professor I see. I haven't even begun to talk about how special humans are, and all that requires is observation anyways.

Just some background information, and a couple of questions.

Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development.

The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. --- Professor Maureen Condic

"From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals." --- Ultrasound pioneer, Sir William Liley, M.D. 1967.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." --- Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris. He discovered the Down syndrome chromosome.

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." --- Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School.

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." --- Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.

abortion.netfirms.com...

Certainly we should be able to agree that, at the very least, there is scientific controversy over whether there is a human life created at conception.

Question 1. Two hunters are in the woods when they see a rustling of branches. One hunter says it is a deer, but the other says it's a little girl. In the absence of any other information, is it morally acceptable to take the shot?

Question 2. Two doctors are talking to an abortionist. One says that what's in the woman is a human life, the other says it isn't. In the absence of any other information, is it morally acceptable to perform the abortion?

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

You're denying 2 proven facts :
1. A fertilized egg is a living human being.
2. A human being's life begins the moment the egg is fertilized.

Now you can go off track and start arguing terminology if you like, but at some point you're going to have to let those 2 statements sink in because they are irrefutable.

To answer you


A fertilised egg is 'an embryo' (an animal organism in the early stages of growth)

which will not survive outside the uterus. After 8 weeks it merges into the 'fetal'

stage which takes it to 40 weeks (full term) when it will survive as a 'baby.'

However the 'fetus' will not survive outside the uterus before at least 24 weeks and

then will only maybe survive after that with medical intervention.


So the embryo/fetus/parasite /potential baby is totally dependant on the mother/host for

living ... and a human beings life only begins the moment it takes a breath on its own:

reply to post by charles1952

Certainly we should be able to agree that, at the very least, there is scientific controversy over whether there is a human life created at conception.

Charles,

I can't speak for others who have opined in this thread, but as for myself, I have always asserted that "human" sperm is alive and that a woman's eggs is human and is alive. But I can't agree that a human life is created at conception or that it's good and fair science to suggest so. Life is not created in this reality. Not yet anyway. Life was mysteriously created billions of years ago and continues to persist through various biological methods. But, we are nowhere near being able to create life within ourselves. We are only able to activate an ancient process.

As for the quotes you present as evidence, I find their wording to exhibit a bias toward the pro-life movement in order for these professionals to assist in promoting the idea that a fertilized egg is a person, and not necessarily based in solid science. For example:

Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second.

A zygote doesn't magically come into existence. The ova, through it's union the sperm transforms, by way of chemical reaction, into what we call a zygote. What Prof Condic calls a "new" cell is simply the result of the process of cell division.

zygote, fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm). In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells.
www.britannica.com...

and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.

More biased wording. A zygote is a stage of human development but is far from being a person, or human being, as the Prefessor claims. What we have is a development stage in a potential person, or "human being".

"From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals." --- Ultrasound pioneer, Sir William Liley, M.D. 1967.

A fertilized egg has no personality. A personality is a complex set of circumstances of self awareness and self expression.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." --- Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris.

A fertilized egg is not a person. Again with more biased language based on personal and religious belief. Let's look at Dr. Lejeune's background and his allegiance to the Pope and the Vaican.

Lejeune regularly traveled to Rome to meet with the Pope, to attend meetings of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and to participate in other church events, such as the 1987 Synod of Bishops. The Pope wanted to name Jérôme Lejeune as the president of a new pontifical academy that was dear to his heart: the Pontifical Academy for Life. Dr. Lejeune painstakingly drafted its bylaws and the oath of the Servants of Life that each member of the Academy must take.

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences (Latin Pontificia Academia Scientiarum) is a scientific academy of the Vatican, established in 1936 by Pope Pius XI. It is placed under the protection of the reigning Supreme Pontiff. Its aim is to promote the progress of the mathematical, physical and natural sciences and the study of related epistemological problems en.wikipedia.org...

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." --- Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School. "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." --- Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.

No matter how many times pro-lifers claim that a fertilized egg is a person, it is only their far reaching opinion. And, of course life is present at conception, it was always present, but never created by sexual activity. That's a fact that the pro-life community conveniently leaves out simply to promote their (religiously based) opinion.

Here are some rebuttal quotes.

What are the odds of a fertilized egg becoming a person?

This is what we know: During the period of embryonic development that begins with fertilization and ends with successful implantation, about 50 percent of human conceptions fail to survive. The main reason for this high failure rate is the inability of huge numbers of fertilized eggs to implant.

What science has found is that around half of all conceptions don't make it to implantation. Calling a fertilized egg a person flies in the face of this cruel biological reality. Half of all fertilized eggs cannot even become an embryo, much less a person.

Indeed, given the grim odds that face fertilized eggs, no one in science or medicine refers to a fertilized egg as an embryo unless it manages to implant. By talking about embryos and fertilized eggs as equivalent, (Personhood supporters) are not even using the correct scientific definition of an embryo. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. www.nbcnews.com...

Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said... The (Personhood) legislation is worrisome in that it is real, not just in someones mind or imagination, but actually going for a vote. I thought we were past the eras where religion and moral convictions trumped science and biology. I guess we are not. ..
bioethicsdiscussion.blogspot.com...

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine represents fertility specialists in the United States and more than 100 other countries. The group's spokesman, Sean Tipton says while a fertilized egg is necessary to make a person, fertilization alone is not enough to create a new human being. "A fertilized egg has to continue to grow, attach itself to a woman's uterine wall and gestate for nine months before it is born, and there are many potential missteps (that can happen) along the way."

reply to post by windword


Are you ever going to answer why murder is illegal if "life" has no beginning or end?

This is the basis of your argument on why abortion is ok...because according to you conception is not the "beginning" of the life cycle. And using that logic, death isn't the end of the life cycle either.

So why is abortion legal and murder not?

I don't know why everybody even debates this back and forth. We all know the facts. A fertilized egg, with good luck, becomes a person.

It is a kind of murder, yes. It is also another mouth to feed and care for, for the rest of your life. Sex is something humans want inately. We don't necessarily want a child every time we have sex. But whether by accident or negligence fertilization happens.

People should look at this pragmatically. The earth is not ever expanding, it is finite. We already have created a world where there is less die off as it is, so we are consuming resources 100x faster than 150 years ago.

Prolifers are thinking with their hearts and I get it, but the reality is much more stark. Face it, if every aborted child was not aborted, there would quickly be more unadopted children than the system could handle. Granted, this "may" make humans take more precautions, but would they for sure? It would take a full generation of societal issues to become changed, but by then new problems will have arisen also.

I can imagine America with no abortion. First off, the stories of botched abortions would be headlines for several years until these stories got boring to the public, meanwhile, in the first 10 years women of all ages, and mostly under 20 something, will all be popping out babies. A good many will go on govt aid, but that will crash the system or force rule changes within years. Lot's of children raising children will raise more ignorant children who will raise children. But not only will our population deteriorate intellectually(that's scary in itself), the strain on our communities and resources will be exascerbated. In the first year or 2 after a change in abortion law, all the lifers will try to adopt these kids, but that won't last long. People want their own children. They also will not be so happy to release these unwed mothers and fathers of their new burdens because the reality is, kids are work and are expensive! After 5-10 years the rules will again change back, but by then lifers will decide to look the other way.

It aint pretty, but this is a very possible reality.

Now, if there was a paradigm shift in society in some way, it would have to be a worldly shift, maybe abortion could be curbed, but I can't even imagine what would do this other than, a plague wiping out a large portion of humans, and humans then deciding to repopulate.

reply to post by firemonkey

So why is abortion legal and murder not?

Abortion isn't murder.

reply to post by SunnyDee






Can't disagree with much of what you said.....Every time anyone mentions over population

my imagine goes into over drive and I see a 'mini' (or a small rocky island) and ~ 'How many

people can you get into a mini?' or 'How many people can you fit on a small island?' and

then when there is no room left along come big strong bulkier people and discard those

already there just because they can ... Survival of the fittest??


However I have an issue with something you said, what is...Quoting you

"A kind of murder"?? ..............

reply to post by firemonkey







You cannot 'murder' that which does not breathe or that which is totally dependant

on a 'Host' for its survival!

What is unfortunate is that you, and those who agree with you, do not respect the right of others to an opinion.

Then don't use contraceptives or have an abortion. And don't legislate YOUR morality. Problem solved!

I am pro-choice, but this kind of argument is really bad. Bone75 believes abortion is morally like murder. You expect him to let others get away with murder based on this kind of thinking? You bet he wants to force his morality, I would do the same if I thought abortion is comparable to murder! I just dont think it is.

reply to post by firemonkey

So why is abortion legal and murder not?

Murder is not killing a human life. Murder is killing a human person. One of the prerequisites of personhood is some minimal mental attributes, sentience or consciousness. Killing humans without these, for example braindead but otherwise living patients, or early-term foetuses, is not murder.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by seabag

Not at all. It’s mainly men trying to ban abortions because it’s mainly men in charge of this country.

Not true, contrary to popular belief, there is very little gender divide in abortion issues.

spectator.org...

Originally posted by eletheia

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

You're denying 2 proven facts :
1. A fertilized egg is a living human being.
2. A human being's life begins the moment the egg is fertilized.

Now you can go off track and start arguing terminology if you like, but at some point you're going to have to let those 2 statements sink in because they are irrefutable.

To answer you


A fertilised egg is 'an embryo' (an animal organism in the early stages of growth)

which will not survive outside the uterus. After 8 weeks it merges into the 'fetal'

stage which takes it to 40 weeks (full term) when it will survive as a 'baby.'

However the 'fetus' will not survive outside the uterus before at least 24 weeks and

then will only maybe survive after that with medical intervention.


So the embryo/fetus/parasite /potential baby is totally dependant on the mother/host for

living ... and a human beings life only begins the moment it takes a breath on its own:

Link to image

The link above is a photo of Samual Armas having surgery to treat a condition called Spina Bifida. Your logic assumes this surgery wasn't performed on a human being, and if ever asked, Samual should say "No, I've never had surgery in my life."