A Non-Religious Abortion Debate

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Nephalim

 

- The father has no rights or responsibilities until the child is born so the father is not responsible for the medical bills. Once the baby is born the mother can file for child support and a sharing of non covered medical expenses so at that point the father can be responsible for future medical bills but during pregnancy the father is not responsible for the bills nor does he have any rights to the child or decisions made by the mother.
Family Law Answers

That makes no friggin sense whatsoever dude. None.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
To me if you are going to take a pro-life position and require women to have children they can't afford to raise then you are making yourself responsible for their care. You don't get to have it both ways.

I disagree, One argument I hear over and over is that by aborting you are stopping a bad life from happening...you are stopping a life period. To try and justify it by saying "oh the child would have a hard life, it is better that they are not born at all...etc" is almost offensive in suggesting no life is better than a poor life, like we can predict the outcome. I do know if I had a choice I will pick life and let the chips fall as they might over no life at all...lol

reply to post by charles1952


I think we can discount the theory that a fertilized egg is automatically a human life. The fertilized egg lives and grows much the same way a tumor lives and grows. I have been reading science articles that imply the processes that a fertilized egg goes through in development is very similar to the process a developing tumor goes through.

It is increasingly evident that genes known to perform critical roles during early embryogenesis, particularly during stem cell renewal, pluripotentiality and survival, are also expressed during the development of cancer. In this regard, oncogenesis may be considered as the recapitulation of embryogenesis in an inappropriate temporal and spatial manner.

www.nature.com...

In fact, it is possible for a fertilized egg to become a cancerous tumor.

In a partial molar pregnancy, an egg is fertilized normally, but the cells around it develop into fluid-filled vesicles, instead of a placenta. The fertilized egg may develop into an embryo, but the embryo will not survive. In a complete molar pregnancy, an egg lacking a nucleus is fertilized by sperm, and a cluster of abnormal cells develops with no embryo inside. In both cases, hormones associated with pregnancy rise, and the uterus starts to enlarge, as though it is expanding to accommodate an embryo.

www.wisegeek.com...

Thus, I think we can use the term "potential life" to categorize a fertilized egg. Once it is determined that a fertilized egg is developing normally (maybe after the first trimester?), we can then call the development a definite life, but only has the potential for being a child. So now, we need to decide whose rights supersede whom? A "potential child" or a definite woman?

That brings us to the third trimester, when the developing fetus can theoretically survive outside the womb. So now, it is more than just the potential for being a child. But as long as the child is still in the mother's womb, the mother's right to life will still supercede the child's right to life. Why is that? I suppose it is because the mother was here first, so she gets first rights to life.

I just don't see how the Court could have ruled any other way, legally. Morally, they could have ruled differently, but that's not their job, is it?

reply to post by kaylaluv


Wrong. You can't call it a potential human life because it can't be both potential and actual. The life starts at conception and ends at death. Nowhere else in this timeline does a fertilized egg all of a sudden gain an identity. DNA proves that it becomes a human upon fertilization. End of story.

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Wrong. You can't call it a potential human life because it can't be both potential and actual. The life starts at conception and ends at death. Nowhere else in this timeline does a fertilized egg all of a sudden gain an identity. DNA proves that it becomes a human upon fertilization. End of story.

Nope. Since a fertilized egg could be a molar pregnancy or an ectopic pregnancy (which will NEVER become a human life), there is only the potential for a fertilized egg to become a human life. DNA of a donor organ is separate from the person it is transplanted to, and yet it is not, nor will it ever be a human life. A fertilized egg gains an identity as a human once it can survive outside the womb, i.e., it is a fully-fledged human. And THAT is the end of THAT story.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Its either a human or it isn't. There's no such thing as a "potential human ". You're grasping at straws.

This is a silly thread.

If a lump of cells is a human, are my toenails a human?

If a lump of human cells can survive on it's own, it's a human. If it can't; it's not alive.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Bone75

 

No, I understand that a new and completely unique human life begins at fertilization.

No No, don't deflect. I asked you if you believe, or understand, same difference, that life begins at fertilization.

Your answer states YES.

So what gives you that 'understanding' or that idea?

~Tenth

Basic Biology gives me that understanding.

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Its either a human or it isn't. There's no such thing as a "potential human ". You're grasping at straws.

edit on 8-7-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

It isn't a human at the moment the egg is fertilized. At the moment an egg is fertilized, it may be a developing human, but it may not be (see molar pregnancy). The point is, we won't know at the point the egg is fertilized. That's what makes it a potential life. Potential means it has the possibility of being either a clump of cells that will develop into a life or a clump of cells that will never become a life.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Its either a human or it isn't. There's no such thing as a "potential human ". You're grasping at straws.

edit on 8-7-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

It isn't a human at the moment the egg is fertilized. At the moment an egg is fertilized, it may be a developing human, but it may not be (see molar pregnancy). The point is, we won't know at the point the egg is fertilized. That's what makes it a potential life. Potential means it has the possibility of being either a clump of cells that will develop into a life or a clump of cells that will never become a life.

It is a human, basic biology tells us this. It is a growing and developing human, but it is a human. At any time during that development...something can go wrong to cause it to die...just like it can in a newborn, a child, an adolescent, or an adult...but that doesn't mean it isn't human.

But since that is your opinion on things, you now have a difficult task of setting some random point in development to say that this is when it "becomes human"...so where is that point? You can't use science to determine this, science defines this point at conception as it does with every other living thing...so you are going to have to rely on some personal philosophy, or the opinions of lawyers, to define this point...but you can't use science...and that is where you should realize you have a flaw in your opinion.

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Its either a human or it isn't. There's no such thing as a "potential human ". You're grasping at straws.

edit on 8-7-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

It isn't a human at the moment the egg is fertilized. At the moment an egg is fertilized, it may be a developing human, but it may not be (see molar pregnancy). The point is, we won't know at the point the egg is fertilized. That's what makes it a potential life. Potential means it has the possibility of being either a clump of cells that will develop into a life or a clump of cells that will never become a life.

It is a human, basic biology tells us this. It is a growing and developing human, but it is a human. At any time during that development...something can go wrong to cause it to die...just like it can in a newborn, a child, an adolescent, or an adult...but that doesn't mean it isn't human.

But since that is your opinion on things, you now have a difficult task of setting some random point in development to say that this is when it "becomes human"...so where is that point? You can't use science to determine this, science defines this point at conception as it does with every other living thing...so you are going to have to rely on some personal philosophy, or the opinions of lawyers, to define this point...but you can't use science...and that is where you should realize you have a flaw in your opinion.

Let's stop calling it something so arbitrary as "abortion" then, and call it what it really is, Preterm Delivery. At 10 weeks or 39 weeks, if the resulting biological mass can exist on it's own, can we all agree that it is alive?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Let's stop calling it something so arbitrary as "abortion" then, and call it what it really is, Preterm Delivery. At 10 weeks or 39 weeks, if the resulting biological mass can exist on it's own, can we all agree that it is alive?

Can a newborn at 40 weeks exist "on it's own"?

Why is it that if a mother doesn't feed a 40 week old human (40 weeks from conception) it is neglect, but if she doesn't provide for a 2 week old human (2 weeks from conception) it isn't?

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Let's stop calling it something so arbitrary as "abortion" then, and call it what it really is, Preterm Delivery. At 10 weeks or 39 weeks, if the resulting biological mass can exist on it's own, can we all agree that it is alive?

Can a newborn at 40 weeks exist "on it's own"?

Why is it that if a mother doesn't feed a 40 week old human (40 weeks from conception) it is neglect, but if she doesn't provide for a 2 week old human (2 weeks from conception) it isn't?

I totally accept your caveat.

If a 2 week old embryo that survives pre-term delivery is able to continue to assimilate nutrients, it is alive. If not, it is not. Is that better?

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Its either a human or it isn't. There's no such thing as a "potential human ". You're grasping at straws.

edit on 8-7-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

It isn't a human at the moment the egg is fertilized. At the moment an egg is fertilized, it may be a developing human, but it may not be (see molar pregnancy). The point is, we won't know at the point the egg is fertilized. That's what makes it a potential life. Potential means it has the possibility of being either a clump of cells that will develop into a life or a clump of cells that will never become a life.

It is a human, basic biology tells us this. It is a growing and developing human, but it is a human. At any time during that development...something can go wrong to cause it to die...just like it can in a newborn, a child, an adolescent, or an adult...but that doesn't mean it isn't human.

But since that is your opinion on things, you now have a difficult task of setting some random point in development to say that this is when it "becomes human"...so where is that point? You can't use science to determine this, science defines this point at conception as it does with every other living thing...so you are going to have to rely on some personal philosophy, or the opinions of lawyers, to define this point...but you can't use science...and that is where you should realize you have a flaw in your opinion.

Not all scientists agree with you.

In this slim volume, two science professors provide a new perspective on the abortion debate. The issue central to the debate has always been whether the developing fetus is a “person” entitled to legal protection. Morowitz and Trefil approach this issue as scientists, regarding the fetus as part of the complex web of life and focusing on the purely scientific question of when the fetus becomes uniquely human. They argue that the issue is not when the fetus becomes a person—personhood is a legal concept that applies at birth in Western cultures. Nor is the issue when life begins—the sperm and egg are both alive before conception. For Morowitz and Trefil, the issue is: “When does the embryo or fetus acquire those characteristics that distinguish human beings from other living things, or humanness?”

Sidestepping emotionally charged political, ethical, and religious concerns, the authors present a rational review of fetal development, drawing from advances in biology, embryology, neurophysiology, and neonatology. They conclude that humanness depends on the intellectual sophistication associated with a well-developed cerebral cortex. This development begins during the twenty-fourth week of intrauterine life. Coincidentally, the probability of survival before this age is extremely poor, and the survival rate after this age rises significantly.

www.enotes.com...

Wow I used to think this place was full of intelligent rational thinkers, but I've come to realize that a frightening majority of you are simply the outspoken victims of brainwashing and incapable of undoing the damage.

Originally posted by Bone75
Wow I used to think this place was full of intelligent rational thinkers, but I've come to realize that a frightening majority of you are simply the outspoken victims of brainwashing and incapable of undoing the damage.

Unwind from that fetal position, friend. Why not attack our points instead of attacking us?

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Bone75
Wow I used to think this place was full of intelligent rational thinkers, but I've come to realize that a frightening majority of you are simply the outspoken victims of brainwashing and incapable of undoing the damage.

Unwind from that fetal position, friend. Why not attack our points instead of attacking us?

You haven't made one yet.

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Bone75
Wow I used to think this place was full of intelligent rational thinkers, but I've come to realize that a frightening majority of you are simply the outspoken victims of brainwashing and incapable of undoing the damage.

Unwind from that fetal position, friend. Why not attack our points instead of attacking us?

You haven't made one yet.

Your refusal to validate my point does not negate its existence and says more about your character than mine.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Bone75
Wow I used to think this place was full of intelligent rational thinkers, but I've come to realize that a frightening majority of you are simply the outspoken victims of brainwashing and incapable of undoing the damage.

Unwind from that fetal position, friend. Why not attack our points instead of attacking us?

You haven't made one yet.

Your refusal to validate my point does not negate its existence and says more about your character than mine.

Since when does blatant denial of a proven fact constitute as a point?