So, Abortion.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

Just wanted to make sure you weren't taking the blame-the-victim stance by evoking biologically savvy women.

I don't see anyone as being a victim.

That said, an educated patient who disregards knowledge, preventative measures and all forms of contraception just because "It feels good so I had to have it right now" - ie he forgot his condoms at home - and then blames society and the man for her moment of indiscretion ("because if I get pregnant, he can pay for an abortion") scores really low on my respect-o-meter. This is why I said willpower was important.

Willpower is important. But for those who wish to either change their decision, have momentary lapse in their judgment, have unwittingly made a mistake, or by force of nature had things decided for them, then there should be a way for a recourse. Withholding that recourse is just as grave a sin as withholding self-directed and mandated education (such as abstinence only based sex eds)

[Asuiop]

I agree. An unimplanted, fertilized egg has no right to life. It has human material but there isn't the same level of potentiality involved.

“Life begins at conception” is an emotion-laden, brainless platitude.

Right.

So I'm not sure why you responded to someone who said that they didn't have a uterus and therefore considered it to be entirely up to a woman to decide what happens in her body with the sort of response that you gave.

Maybe you meant to quote someone else?

You could argue that real human life begins at the first brain activity.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

I think we should start by preventing you from ever even slightly coercing a woman into having sex with you. And since we can only be sure you won't have sex is to actually remove the penis, I think we should remove your penis to prevent women who don't want to get pregnant from ever being coerced into sleeping with you.

Whoever said the original quote meant that if you did not want the child, you should not have taken the steps to be with child (sex) and since the natural response is what about rape, I say personally you should keep the baby if you are raped, but as far as government goes, it should legal in that circumstance.

And sex requires two consenting parties. Since the poster seems comfortable putting onus of deciding whether or not a woman should have sex squarely on her shoulders alone, based on his views on responsibility for the resulting pregnancy from the said sex, I'm sure you can agree that in order to remove any possibility of him coercing a woman to sleep with him and then forcing her to raise a child should pregnancy accidentally occur, I suggested removal of his penis as an insurance for all involved.

You are also failing to see the responsibility on the part of the male. Either you ought to also voluntarily choose to be absolutely passive in all sexual interactions (no initiation, no coercion) for the rest of your life lest any sexual intercourse you have with another female result in child, or simply volunteer to have your penis removed as an insurance as well.

[Farnhamia]

Right.

So I'm not sure why you responded to someone who said that they didn't have a uterus and therefore considered it to be entirely up to a woman to decide what happens in her body with the sort of response that you gave.

Maybe you meant to quote someone else?

You could argue that real human life begins at the first brain activity.

You could but in doing so you would seem to be grasping at straws. It comes down to this, reproductive choice is a matter for a woman, her family and her doctor. The State and strangers have no business intruding. If you find abortion morally reprehensible, do not have any and encourage the women in your family not to have any, either. You should also encourage responsible sex education in schools (abstinence-only is not a responsible option). I'd be interested in knowing how many children given up for adoption you plan on taking in. Oh, and if there really is a turn-around and more women keep their babies, you'll need to encourage your elected representatives to increase funding for social services like welfare and Food Stamps and other such things. Are you in?

[Swith Witherward]

The opinion that every fertilized egg has a right to life? Yeah, that is an opinion built entirely on emotion and not even remotely reasonable. That doesn't seem to be what Grid Axes was advocating, however.

I agree. An unimplanted, fertilized egg has no right to life. It has human material but there isn't the same level of potentiality involved.

“Life begins at conception” is an emotion-laden, brainless platitude.

It's an interesting debate and, sadly, science is often abused on both sides of the argument.

Technically, yes, "life" begins at conception.

A single cell organism is alive (excluding viruses... there's still some debate over that one.) Even an individual gamete is alive until it dies. However, the "potential" is different. A zygote (textbook: the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction) is not a human or a chicken or a shrew but it has the potential to develop into these things once it becomes a morula (an embryo in the early stage of embryonic development.)

Does it have a "soul"? I'm not spiritual. My stance would be "no". It isn't a viable human even if it is a human embryo. It lacks human characteristics. Nothing except DNA would indicate that the embryo is H. sapiens. The human body at times treats it as an invasive organism. Many pregnancies end during this stage of embryonic development... it's a natural process. Why would "God" allow the woman's body to "abort" the embryo if it has a soul? Would that make her a murderer? (Uh, no.)

An embryo doesn't become a fetus until @eight weeks after fertilization. Is this when it is assigned a "soul"? Tough call, since the woman's body can (and does) occasionally self-terminate the pregnancy at this stage. If I were to call it, I'd say that anything after the 9th week of pregnancy constitutes "life", meaning that the DNA has sorted and the thing is on track to become the offspring of whatever species (in this example, human) conceived it. "Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen. The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation." (wiki)

(Let's be clear... the woman's body can self-terminate the pregnancy at any time. A miscarriage is a miscarriage.) That said, anything after 23 weeks can technically exist on its own (albeit with extreme medical intervention depending on when in the trimester it was born).

My personal belief is that a pregnancy shouldn't be terminated after the 23 week benchmark unless there is a valid medical reason. The fetus is "alive" and a "person". In some cases, the development is so compromised that, although the fetus can be carried full gestation, the baby itself would be unable to function no matter how much life support is given ergo termination is the most humane thing to do.

I'm assuming the crux of the "pro-life" belief is that any embryo has the potential to become a human being (or is a human being) thus abortion is murder? Again, technically, the former part of their argument is accurate. It has the potential. The grey area is "does the potential to become human = the embryo is a human being"? We could go further to explore the argument that "birth control is wrong, PERIOD, because it denies life!" Goodness, an unfertilized chicken egg has the potential to become a chicken if fertilized instead of made into a scrumptious omelet. Does eating omelets thus make us guilty of animal cruelty?

[The New World Oceania]

You could argue that real human life begins at the first brain activity.

You could but in doing so you would seem to be grasping at straws. It comes down to this, reproductive choice is a matter for a woman, her family and her doctor. The State and strangers have no business intruding. If you find abortion morally reprehensible, do not have any and encourage the women in your family not to have any, either. You should also encourage responsible sex education in schools (abstinence-only is not a responsible option). I'd be interested in knowing how many children given up for adoption you plan on taking in. Oh, and if there really is a turn-around and more women keep their babies, you'll need to encourage your elected representatives to increase funding for social services like welfare and Food Stamps and other such things. Are you in?

Obviously, what occurs in another one's body is not one else's personal concern.

It is, however, their economic concern. It only makes sense for someone to pay for an abortion which they have no say in.
Thus bringing me to my usual point that the government really needs to step out of the scenario.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

I agree. An unimplanted, fertilized egg has no right to life. It has human material but there isn't the same level of potentiality involved.

“Life begins at conception” is an emotion-laden, brainless platitude.

It's an interesting debate and, sadly, science is often abused on both sides of the argument.

Technically, yes, "life" begins at conception.

A single cell organism is alive (excluding viruses... there's still some debate over that one.) Even an individual gamete is alive until it dies. However, the "potential" is different. A zygote (textbook: the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction) is not a human or a chicken or a shrew but it has the potential to develop into these things once it becomes a morula (an embryo in the early stage of embryonic development.)

Does it have a "soul"? I'm not spiritual. My stance would be "no". It isn't a viable human even if it is a human embryo. It lacks human characteristics. Nothing except DNA would indicate that the embryo is H. sapiens. The human body at times treats it as an invasive organism. Many pregnancies end during this stage of embryonic development... it's a natural process. Why would "God" allow the woman's body to "abort" the embryo if it has a soul? Would that make her a murderer? (Uh, no.)

An embryo doesn't become a fetus until @eight weeks after fertilization. Is this when it is assigned a "soul"? Tough call, since the woman's body can (and does) occasionally self-terminate the pregnancy at this stage. If I were to call it, I'd say that anything after the 9th week of pregnancy constitutes "life", meaning that the DNA has sorted and the thing is on track to become the offspring of whatever species (in this example, human) conceived it. "Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen. The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation." (wiki)

(Let's be clear... the woman's body can self-terminate the pregnancy at any time. A miscarriage is a miscarriage.) That said, anything after 23 weeks can technically exist on its own (albeit with extreme medical intervention depending on when in the trimester it was born).

My personal belief is that a pregnancy shouldn't be terminated after the 23 week benchmark unless there is a valid medical reason. The fetus is "alive" and a "person". In some cases, the development is so compromised that, although the fetus can be carried full gestation, the baby itself would be unable to function no matter how much life support is given ergo termination is the most humane thing to do.

I'm assuming the crux of the "pro-life" belief is that any embryo has the potential to become a human being (or is a human being) thus abortion is murder? Again, technically, the former part of their argument is accurate. It has the potential. The grey area is "does the potential to become human = the embryo is a human being"? We could go further to explore the argument that "birth control is wrong, PERIOD, because it denies life!" Goodness, an unfertilized chicken egg has the potential to become a chicken if fertilized instead of made into a scrumptious omelet. Does eating omelets thus make us guilty of animal cruelty?

Doesn't your argument indicate that science is only abused by the pro-life party?

[Czechanada]

Pregnancy can result in death for the woman.

Therefore, those who advocate against abortion are hypocritical to state that they are "pro-life".

[Farnhamia]

You could but in doing so you would seem to be grasping at straws. It comes down to this, reproductive choice is a matter for a woman, her family and her doctor. The State and strangers have no business intruding. If you find abortion morally reprehensible, do not have any and encourage the women in your family not to have any, either. You should also encourage responsible sex education in schools (abstinence-only is not a responsible option). I'd be interested in knowing how many children given up for adoption you plan on taking in. Oh, and if there really is a turn-around and more women keep their babies, you'll need to encourage your elected representatives to increase funding for social services like welfare and Food Stamps and other such things. Are you in?

Obviously, what occurs in another one's body is not one else's personal concern.

It is, however, their economic concern. It only makes sense for someone to pay for an abortion which they have no say in.
Thus bringing me to my usual point that the government really needs to step out of the scenario.

As far as I am aware, no government money in the United States goes toward abortions. I don't personally agree that that is right, as I think that there ought to be single-payer, government-provided health care, but that's just my opinion, as yours is yours.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

Obviously, what occurs in another one's body is not one else's personal concern.

It is, however, their economic concern. It only makes sense for someone to pay for an abortion which they have no say in.
Thus bringing me to my usual point that the government really needs to step out of the scenario.

As far as I am aware, no government money in the United States goes toward abortions. I don't personally agree that that is right, as I think that there ought to be single-payer, government-provided health care, but that's just my opinion, as yours is yours.

True. Federal government block grants/funds are prevented from being used to pay for abortion. Medicare funds are, however, allowed.

[Asuiop]

You could argue that real human life begins at the first brain activity.

You could but in doing so you would seem to be grasping at straws. It comes down to this, reproductive choice is a matter for a woman, her family and her doctor. The State and strangers have no business intruding. If you find abortion morally reprehensible, do not have any and encourage the women in your family not to have any, either. You should also encourage responsible sex education in schools (abstinence-only is not a responsible option). I'd be interested in knowing how many children given up for adoption you plan on taking in. Oh, and if there really is a turn-around and more women keep their babies, you'll need to encourage your elected representatives to increase funding for social services like welfare and Food Stamps and other such things. Are you in?

1. It is morally reprehensible, but it has nothing to do with religion/spirituality, and therefore should be banned. It is also killing a living human being, which should be protected under the law if not for the Roe v Wade case, however the supreme court is not always right. (Remember Dredd Scott and slaves not being considered humans but rather property? Rather similiar isn't it?)
2. Abstinence-only education is idiotic
3. Sorry, being in college really limits adoption opportunities.
4. Well not welfare/foodstamps but rather a larger ophanage program... Its very sad, I have to admit, but thats the price to pay in order to save millions of human beings over the course of a decade.

[Czechanada]

You could but in doing so you would seem to be grasping at straws. It comes down to this, reproductive choice is a matter for a woman, her family and her doctor. The State and strangers have no business intruding. If you find abortion morally reprehensible, do not have any and encourage the women in your family not to have any, either. You should also encourage responsible sex education in schools (abstinence-only is not a responsible option). I'd be interested in knowing how many children given up for adoption you plan on taking in. Oh, and if there really is a turn-around and more women keep their babies, you'll need to encourage your elected representatives to increase funding for social services like welfare and Food Stamps and other such things. Are you in?

1. It is morally reprehensible, but it has nothing to do with religion/spirituality, and therefore should be banned. It is also killing a living human being, which should be protected under the law if not for the Roe v Wade case, however the supreme court is not always right. (Remember Dredd Scott and slaves not being considered humans but rather property? Rather similiar isn't it?)
2. Abstinence-only education is idiotic
3. Sorry, being in college really limits adoption opportunities.
4. Well not welfare/foodstamps but rather a larger ophanage program... Its very sad, I have to admit, but thats the price to pay in order to save millions of human beings over the course of a decade.

So according to who's morality is abortion reprehensible?

[Farnhamia]

As far as I am aware, no government money in the United States goes toward abortions. I don't personally agree that that is right, as I think that there ought to be single-payer, government-provided health care, but that's just my opinion, as yours is yours.

True. Federal government block grants/funds are prevented from being used to pay for abortion. Medicare funds are, however, allowed.

Are they? Good.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

True. Federal government block grants/funds are prevented from being used to pay for abortion. Medicare funds are, however, allowed.

Are they? Good.

Indiana wanted to block even that, but was overturned by 7th CA. Thankfully (or perhaps unfortunately, depending on your point of view) Supreme court declined to hear the challenge on the ruling by Indiana.

[Crumlark]

But with those, there is no chance, or 'potential', of all the consciousnesses surviving uninhibited after a brief period with which in the case of a child, would be the act of being born, and thus would be independent.

Of course there is. Don't treat the schizophrenics and multiple personalities. They will live as long as they can. And I would suggest that you don't ever say pregnancy is "brief".

You are comparing unlike things. That being 'sharing one mind' and 'sharing one body', and in the case of the latter, the connection is temporary before the connection is no longer needed to sustain the two, thus leading to two independent individuals.

Mental diseases are not unborn children.

[Asuiop]

1. It is morally reprehensible, but it has nothing to do with religion/spirituality, and therefore should be banned. It is also killing a living human being, which should be protected under the law if not for the Roe v Wade case, however the supreme court is not always right. (Remember Dredd Scott and slaves not being considered humans but rather property? Rather similiar isn't it?)
2. Abstinence-only education is idiotic
3. Sorry, being in college really limits adoption opportunities.
4. Well not welfare/foodstamps but rather a larger ophanage program... Its very sad, I have to admit, but thats the price to pay in order to save millions of human beings over the course of a decade.

So according to who's morality is abortion reprehensible?

As of March 23, 2012, 50% of people in the United States of America believe abortion should be illegal. 41% believe it should be legal. Does that answer you question?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-c ... d-low.aspx

As of 2013, 58% of Americans appose all or most of abortions
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/10/gall ... abortions/

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

1. It is morally reprehensible, but it has nothing to do with religion/spirituality, and therefore should be banned. It is also killing a living human being, which should be protected under the law if not for the Roe v Wade case, however the supreme court is not always right. (Remember Dredd Scott and slaves not being considered humans but rather property? Rather similiar isn't it?)

You post makes it sounds like there is an inherently morally reprehensible aspect of abortion besides "killing a living human being". What might that be?

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

Of course there is. Don't treat the schizophrenics and multiple personalities. They will live as long as they can. And I would suggest that you don't ever say pregnancy is "brief".

You are comparing unlike things. That being 'sharing one mind' and 'sharing one body', and in the case of the latter, the connection is temporary before the connection is no longer needed to sustain the two, thus leading to two independent individuals.

Mental diseases are not unborn children.

No, but you focused on consciousness, so I made an argument for the case of mental illness to be prevented from being treated, all based on your logic. Neat isn't it?

[Czechanada]

So according to who's morality is abortion reprehensible?

As of March 23, 2012, 50% of people in the United States of America believe abortion is reprehensible.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-c ... d-low.aspx

So? They have no right to impose their personal morality on the rest.

[Farnhamia]

So according to who's morality is abortion reprehensible?

As of March 23, 2012, 50% of people in the United States of America believe abortion should be illegal. 41% believe it should be legal. Does that answer you question?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-c ... d-low.aspx

That's disappointing. Still, Gallup's polling method does lean toward landline respondents ("Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region.") by 20%, which will tend to get an older, more conservative opinion.

[Asuiop]

As of March 23, 2012, 50% of people in the United States of America believe abortion is reprehensible.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-c ... d-low.aspx

So? They have no right to impose their personal morality on the rest.

As of 2013, 58% of Americans are apposed to all or most of abortions
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/10/gall ... abortions/

[Asuiop]

As of March 23, 2012, 50% of people in the United States of America believe abortion should be illegal. 41% believe it should be legal. Does that answer you question?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-c ... d-low.aspx

That's disappointing. Still, Gallup's polling method does lean toward landline respondents ("Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region.") by 20%, which will tend to get an older, more conservative opinion.

But, its the best poll we have

[Czechanada]

That's disappointing. Still, Gallup's polling method does lean toward landline respondents ("Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region.") by 20%, which will tend to get an older, more conservative opinion.

But, its the best poll we have

You know, there are things called academic journals.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

As of March 23, 2012, 50% of people in the United States of America believe abortion should be illegal. 41% believe it should be legal. Does that answer you question?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-c ... d-low.aspx

As of 2013, 58% of Americans appose all or most of abortions
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/10/gall ... abortions/

Nice, way to omit the most recent poll.
As of May 10, 2013, 52% believe abortion should be legal in certain cases, 26% believe it should be legal in all cases, and 22% believe it should be illegal in all cases.
You know, I have a specific word for people who intentionally mislead by presenting misinformation...

[Individuality-ness]

As far as I am aware, no government money in the United States goes toward abortions. I don't personally agree that that is right, as I think that there ought to be single-payer, government-provided health care, but that's just my opinion, as yours is yours.

True. Federal government block grants/funds are prevented from being used to pay for abortion. Medicare funds are, however, allowed.

Even then, only if medically necessary. Otherwise, you're screwed.

(Also, I think it's Medicaid, as I don't see 70-yr-old grannies getting abortions any time soon.)