Stance on Abortion?

[Sailsia]

The moral difference is that fetuses do have the potential to become life and they do simply by remaining in the womb.

Sperm cells do nothing on their own. The same goes for unfertilized eggs.

You do know fetuses do nothing on their own, right? They require the right conditions, the same as sperm and eggs.

Of course he doesn't know- he has a bad memory!

[Raeyh]

The moral difference is that fetuses do have the potential to become life and they do simply by remaining in the womb.

Sperm cells do nothing on their own. The same goes for unfertilized eggs.

You do know fetuses do nothing on their own, right? They require the right conditions, the same as sperm and eggs.

That condition is being in the womb, right?

[Mavorpen]

You do know fetuses do nothing on their own, right? They require the right conditions, the same as sperm and eggs.

That condition is being in the womb, right?

Indeed. You claimed that a sperm cell and an egg can't do anything on their own. Neither can a fetus.

[Des-Bal]

One is passive, one is active.

So that's where you draw the line? Then what about protection? Just like abortion human intervention is preventing the creation of a baby.

[Sailsia]

You do know fetuses do nothing on their own, right? They require the right conditions, the same as sperm and eggs.

That condition is being in the womb, right?

You do understand why sex does not result in pregnancy every time, right?

Since you don't: Stress, temperature, time, development, the mother's health, are all factors. And even then, the fetus can't survive without the mother's nutrients.

[Samuraikoku]

You do know fetuses do nothing on their own, right? They require the right conditions, the same as sperm and eggs.

Of course he doesn't know- he has a bad memory!

He demonstrated to me otherwise, lately.

[Raeyh]

That condition is being in the womb, right?

Indeed. You claimed that a sperm cell and an egg can't do anything on their own. Neither can a fetus.

But the fetus starts out in the womb, so it's pretty much guaranteed to happen.

[Dempublicents1]

its almost funny that every pro-life opinion is quickly marked "wrong" when all they wanted was an opinion. Its like pro-choice people the lack confidence to stand by their answer. Whatever, I'll probably just let everyone stand in their own self righteous ways and watch as the population of "pro-choicers" decreases.

Funny, no one has ever told me that I'm wrong for my pro-life position on abortion. Maybe you just get the sense that people do that because your opinion is either based in ignorance or because you're pushing for others to abide by it?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Indeed. You claimed that a sperm cell and an egg can't do anything on their own. Neither can a fetus.

But the fetus starts out in the womb, so it's pretty much guaranteed to happen.

No. See earlier in this thread, it's not even likely that conception will necessarily lead to birth.

[Mavorpen]

Indeed. You claimed that a sperm cell and an egg can't do anything on their own. Neither can a fetus.

But the fetus starts out in the womb, so it's pretty much guaranteed to happen.

And? Again, that's a chance of circumstances. If you want to compare a fetus to a sperm released by masturbation and not into the female, take out the fetus and watch it die because it can do nothing on it's own.

[Sailsia]

Indeed. You claimed that a sperm cell and an egg can't do anything on their own. Neither can a fetus.

But the fetus starts out in the womb, so it's pretty much guaranteed to happen.

It doesn't start in the womb

[Deus Malum]

Indeed. You claimed that a sperm cell and an egg can't do anything on their own. Neither can a fetus.

But the fetus starts out in the womb, so it's pretty much guaranteed to happen.

Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[17] The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception,[12] and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners have the ability to detect the presence of an embryo.[18] Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Spontaneous

As usual, the facts disagree with your assertions.

[Raeyh]

But the fetus starts out in the womb, so it's pretty much guaranteed to happen.

No. See earlier in this thread, it's not even likely that conception will necessarily lead to birth.

It's still pretty likely compared to the egg and sperm which never meet. Both of which have no chance.

[Dempublicents1]

Besides, even if the law is as it is, there is no reason it can't be changed. Why should a woman whose life is not in danger be allowed to throw away future life?

All pregnancies carry a number of risks, up to and including death. Even if a woman's right to control the use of her womb were predicated on a danger to her life, simply being pregnant would, in fact, meet that bar.

[Sailsia]

No. See earlier in this thread, it's not even likely that conception will necessarily lead to birth.

It's still pretty likely compared to the egg and sperm which never meet. Both of which have no chance.

No chance? Artificial insemination, bro. The fact that you didn't know the egg is fertilized in the uterus is troubling too.

EDIT: Not sure people are going to understand I'm not being serious about the uterus part

[Farnhamia]

But the fetus starts out in the womb, so it's pretty much guaranteed to happen.

It doesn't start in the womb

That's right. There's a small laboratory outside Trenton, New Jersey, that ... well, I'd better not say, but there are a lot of storks in the area.

[French Union]

Neutral, I could care less.

[Des-Bal]

It's still pretty likely compared to the egg and sperm which never meet. Both of which have no chance.

It's only likely if all the pieces fall together just right. By your logic interfering with those circumstances to prevent the creation of a baby is murder, that includes making sure there's no uterus involved.

[Farnhamia]

It's still pretty likely compared to the egg and sperm which never meet. Both of which have no chance.

It's only likely if all the pieces fall together just right. By your logic interfering with those circumstances to prevent the creation of a baby is murder, that includes making sure there's no uterus involved.

I believe that's the position Pope Paul VI took in Humanae Vitae.

[Raeyh]

It's still pretty likely compared to the egg and sperm which never meet. Both of which have no chance.

No chance? Artificial insemination, bro. The fact that you didn't know the egg is fertilized in the uterus is troubling too.

I don't think those places just accept everyone.

Uterus is latin for womb.

[Farnhamia]

No chance? Artificial insemination, bro. The fact that you didn't know the egg is fertilized in the uterus is troubling too.

I don't think those places just accept everyone.

Uterus is latin for womb.

They accept most anyone with money. Of course, their doctors will want to decide if you're capable of conceiving.

[Sailsia]

No chance? Artificial insemination, bro. The fact that you didn't know the egg is fertilized in the uterus is troubling too.

I don't think those places just accept everyone.

Uterus is latin for womb.

I was mocking the usage of womb vs uterus but it might be construed as trolling so I retract that. But you still haven't set a line between [sperm] [egg] and [spermegg]. They are both not human, yet contain the same potential for becoming human.

[Raeyh]

I don't think those places just accept everyone.

Uterus is latin for womb.

They accept most anyone with money. Of course, their doctors will want to decide if you're capable of conceiving.

There you go, our teenager doesn't have money so we are left with him having 0% potential of having children again.

I was mocking the usage of womb vs uterus but it might be construed as trolling so I retract that. But you still haven't set a line between [sperm] [egg] and [spermegg]. They are both not human, yet contain the same potential for becoming human.

The line that separates them is sex/insemination. Without that action, there is no chance for reproduction to occur.

[Des-Bal]

There you go, our teenager doesn't have money so we are left with him having 0% potential of having children again.

The aborted fetus has no chance of becoming a baby, what's your point? Removing the uterus from the equation is no different than preventing birth by inducing abortion you've drawn an arbitrary line.

[Raeyh]

There you go, our teenager doesn't have money so we are left with him having 0% potential of having children again.

The aborted fetus has no chance of becoming a baby, what's your point? Removing the uterus from the equation is no different than preventing birth by inducing abortion you've drawn an arbitrary line.

Look at the word "abortion." You are stopping what is currently going on, right?