Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2008-01-22 11:56:50
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6879|The Land of Scott Walker

SenorToenails wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Not sure where you're going with that question.  Again, the only time the definition would be debatable is when a person is NOT dead and someone wants to change the definition to make killing them permissible.
You asked me the same question yesterday.

Don't you think that the definition of when life begins and when life ends are linked?  If life ends at the cease of brain function, then should not life begin at the start of brain activity?
When a person dies, they lose all brain activity, their heartbeat ceases and their other organs shut down.  In contrast, an infant has a heartbeat at 3 weeks while it's organs and brain activity develop.  The two are very different.  I keep reiterating this point, but once again, ignoring an infant's strong heart beat and normal development and choosing to focus on brain activity is only an attempt to justify ending the baby's life.  A person with a heartbeat outside the whom is alive and a person inside the whom with a heartbeat is also alive.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2008-01-22 12:01:36)

2008-01-22 12:36:10
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|7128|San Francisco

Stingray24 wrote:

Marconius wrote:

I think that if you can't ovulate, you should generally shut the hell up about abortion.  Anti-abortion legislation directly breaches a woman's right to privacy with her own body.
Since the baby that is about to be torn limb from limb inside his/her mother doesn't have a voice, I will not shut up.  What about his/her rights?  Oh that's right, you don't think a growing human infant is really human.
And again, since the interpretation of when a fetus becomes a baby is up in the air, what business is it of yours to tell/enforce what a woman can or can't do within her own body?  You cannot legislate morality.  If you don't like abortion, don't have one.  If you don't personally like abortion, don't try to force your own interpretation of ethics onto others.
2008-01-22 12:53:41
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6564|North Tonawanda, NY

Stingray24 wrote:

When a person dies, they lose all brain activity, their heartbeat ceases and their other organs shut down.  In contrast, an infant has a heartbeat at 3 weeks while it's organs and brain activity develop.  The two are very different.  I keep reiterating this point, but once again, ignoring an infant's strong heart beat and normal development and choosing to focus on brain activity is only an attempt to justify ending the baby's life.  A person with a heartbeat outside the whom is alive and a person inside the whom with a heartbeat is also alive.
Ugh.  No, I don't think that 'ignoring' an infant's heartbeat, etc... is a way to justify ending a life.  The problem is, I don't think that there is a life there.  At least, not yet.  When the fetus is viable to live outside the womb, then there is life.

And if you go down that road, I like how you use 'infant' and 'person' to represent 'fetus' in an attempt to justify blocking abortion.

On the "when life starts" debate, the fetus, infant, person, or whatever is biologically human (or will be), and I won't argue that.  But this decision, regardless of the definition of life, should be up to the woman.  She is the one that needs to carry and support it until birth.  If she doesn't want it, why should she carry it?
2008-01-22 12:58:21
mikkel
Member
+383|7035
People have been masturbating since the dawn of time. Since then, on average about 160 million human sperm per ejaculation have been killed.  Could one of those little ones have grown up and discovered the cure for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, etc?  Life is a gift.  If you or someone you love is masturbating, please reconsider.  This is what you will miss out on …

https://osteopathy-za.com/db5/00403/osteopathy-za.com/_uimages/Babies1.jpg

https://www.geogate.org/images/pro-life.jpg

https://www.fingers-to-toes.co.uk/Images/baby%20massage%20hat.jpg

https://www.forparentsbyparents.com/images/cute_baby_2007/toddler_mollie_aug07_400.jpg

https://www.haloimages.com/imgs/MK00409_FPO_PREV.jpg

https://www.kidsallowed.com/userimages/ka_web_stock/toddlers.jpg

https://www.firstbaptistwheaton.com/files/images/TCgirl1.jpg

https://www.thriftyfun.com/images/feedback_image.lasso?id=39058440

Last edited by mikkel (2008-01-22 12:59:35)

2008-01-22 13:01:19
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|7128|San Francisco
Ugh...nice try mikkel.  Let's just repress everyone, shall we?
2008-01-22 14:25:45
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6879|The Land of Scott Walker
You missed biology class, Mikkel.
2008-01-22 14:32:46
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6989
You'll be pleased to hear that Mikkel will soon by a fully paid up citizen of the USA, so he told us in another thread. Perhaps a tighter immigration policy is in order?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-22 14:36:42)

2008-01-22 14:35:24
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6879|The Land of Scott Walker

SenorToenails wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

When a person dies, they lose all brain activity, their heartbeat ceases and their other organs shut down.  In contrast, an infant has a heartbeat at 3 weeks while it's organs and brain activity develop.  The two are very different.  I keep reiterating this point, but once again, ignoring an infant's strong heart beat and normal development and choosing to focus on brain activity is only an attempt to justify ending the baby's life.  A person with a heartbeat outside the whom is alive and a person inside the whom with a heartbeat is also alive.
Ugh.  No, I don't think that 'ignoring' an infant's heartbeat, etc... is a way to justify ending a life.  The problem is, I don't think that there is a life there.  At least, not yet.  When the fetus is viable to live outside the womb, then there is life.

And if you go down that road, I like how you use 'infant' and 'person' to represent 'fetus' in an attempt to justify blocking abortion.

On the "when life starts" debate, the fetus, infant, person, or whatever is biologically human (or will be), and I won't argue that.  But this decision, regardless of the definition of life, should be up to the woman.  She is the one that needs to carry and support it until birth.  If she doesn't want it, why should she carry it?
Ok, we've found a point of agreement, that the infant is biologically human.  That's a start.  If a woman doesn't want to be a mother and carry a child, she should use contraception and/or demand that her partner do so.  All I ask is that people be responsible and use contraception if they don't want to be parents.
2008-01-22 15:26:29
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6839|North Carolina
I see no one wanted to address the economics of this issue like I did.  Could it be that many pro-lifers here realize the logical flaws in the mindsets of many of their conservative brethren?

I repeat -- you have only two choices: allowing abortion and moving towards smaller government or banning it and embracing the nanny state (in a quite literal sense of that phrase).

Think about it.  I have a feeling that a lot of you who supposedly believe in smaller government will have quite a dilemma with this one.
2008-01-22 15:43:31
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6564|North Tonawanda, NY

Stingray24 wrote:

Ok, we've found a point of agreement, that the infant is biologically human.  That's a start.  If a woman doesn't want to be a mother and carry a child, she should use contraception and/or demand that her partner do so.  All I ask is that people be responsible and use contraception if they don't want to be parents.
An infant (a baby that has been born and is no longer in the womb) is indeed human.  A fetus is genetically human, but I do not believe that it has a right-to-life until it is viable to live outside the womb.  Let's be generous and set a limit at like 20 weeks.

But yes, people ought to exercise some personal responsibility.  But you can't legislate morals.  If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.

Turquoise:  You raise some good points.
2008-01-22 16:05:08
mikkel
Member
+383|7035

Stingray24 wrote:

You missed biology class, Mikkel.
Oh, really? What makes you say that?
2008-01-22 18:01:41
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|7128|San Francisco
I, too, would like to see Turquoise's points addressed by the pro-lifers.
2008-01-22 22:27:54
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|7081

Marconius wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Marconius wrote:

I think that if you can't ovulate, you should generally shut the hell up about abortion.  Anti-abortion legislation directly breaches a woman's right to privacy with her own body.
Since the baby that is about to be torn limb from limb inside his/her mother doesn't have a voice, I will not shut up.  What about his/her rights?  Oh that's right, you don't think a growing human infant is really human.
And again, since the interpretation of when a fetus becomes a baby is up in the air, what business is it of yours to tell/enforce what a woman can or can't do within her own body?  You cannot legislate morality.  If you don't like abortion, don't have one.  If you don't personally like abortion, don't try to force your own interpretation of ethics onto others.
Isn't that basically what the law is?
2008-01-22 22:41:11
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|7128|San Francisco
No, the law is secular and is to remain secular and based on common sense.  While anyone can petition and put forth a law, it still needs to be voted on by everyone else encompassed within it's power, and it's Constitutionality needs to be checked.  Morals are subjective; if one small group tries to pass a law based on their own morals that end up infringing on the rights of someone else without that same set of morals, then that violates a chief foundation of this country.  The law is meant to be objective.
2008-01-22 23:00:20
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|7081

Marconius wrote:

No, the law is secular and is to remain secular and based on common sense.  While anyone can petition and put forth a law, it still needs to be voted on by everyone else encompassed within it's power, and it's Constitutionality needs to be checked.  Morals are subjective; if one small group tries to pass a law based on their own morals that end up infringing on the rights of someone else without that same set of morals, then that violates a chief foundation of this country.  The law is meant to be objective.
I'm secular. It's not a religious belief. I wouldn't say one small group feels this way either. Every poll I've seen shows peoples opinions are around 50/50 regarding this issue.
2008-01-23 10:46:02
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6564|North Tonawanda, NY

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

I'm secular. It's not a religious belief. I wouldn't say one small group feels this way either. Every poll I've seen shows peoples opinions are around 50/50 regarding this issue.
Also, these laws then need to be weighed against your personal rights and those of others.  That is why this is so hard-- Is the fetus 'alive'?  Do its rights outweigh those of the mother?  Is it right to force someone to carry and give birth to a child if she doesn't want to?
2008-01-23 13:19:46
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6879|The Land of Scott Walker

Marconius wrote:

While anyone can petition and put forth a law, it still needs to be voted on by everyone else encompassed within it's power, and it's Constitutionality needs to be checked.
Exactly, the issue should be voted on by the states, but Roe vs Wade circumvented that process.  The previous law already allowed for abortion when the life of the mother was in danger.  Roe vs Wade changed it to allow abortion for any reason up the point of viability which is estimated at 24 weeks.
2008-01-23 13:54:17
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7066|949

Stingray24 wrote:

Marconius wrote:

While anyone can petition and put forth a law, it still needs to be voted on by everyone else encompassed within it's power, and it's Constitutionality needs to be checked.
Exactly, the issue should be voted on by the states, but Roe vs Wade circumvented that process.  The previous law already allowed for abortion when the life of the mother was in danger.  Roe vs Wade changed it to allow abortion for any reason up the point of viability which is estimated at 24 weeks.
The issue shouldn't be voted on at all.  If you are against abortions, you can decide not to have one.  Outlawing abortions for any reason will only result in backroom abortions - unregulated and probably leading to more loss of life.

Surely the male in the relationship (assuming there is a relationship at the time of conception) should have some input, but ultimately I think it is up to the person incubating the baby (female).
2008-01-23 13:56:36
stkhoplite
Banned
+564|6913|Sheffield-England
Not sure if i want kids, looking at that last picture
2008-01-23 16:55:16
.:ronin:.|Patton
Respekct dad i love u always
+946|7243|Marathon, Florida Keys
Theres to many people on this planet anyway.
https://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/patton1337/stats.jpg
2008-01-24 18:10:57
The_Mob_Returns
Member
+72|7156|Indianapolis, IN
Now, did anyone see who "Roe" has backed in this election?
The answer might just surprise you.

While I believe that life begins at conception and that I have seen pictures of my cousins baby who is the youngest survivor at Rochester-Mayo.....
I disagree with pro-lifers!  Yep, you heard me right, I, The_Mob_Returns, disagree with pro-lifers!  I think that abortion should stay legal but I will say that the government should stop funding them.  If a women wants to get an abortion, that is her own issue, and she must live with the pain that will inevitably come from the abortion (sometime later in life).   If we ban abortions, we are going to have women who still want it done, and even more these days since Abortion has been legal for so long, that will get it done in any way possible.  Which will most likely mean, not sterile.  I also believe that, Crisis Pregnancy, would not have much of a mission to young women any more if abortions were made illegal.  They work that they do is incredible and it will only go on, if abortion is kept legal.

Yet, at the same time I believe that it is a state's issue to deal with.  That is how it should have been done with at the start but now it would be nearly impossible to change.
2008-01-24 19:35:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6839|North Carolina
I'm pro-choice, but I would agree that it should be a state issue.  I hate how it became a federal issue since it means abortion becomes the bullshit issue of every presidential election for certain people.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard