---

The point is that a collection of cells that have the potential to be human, do not warrant being called "Little innocent babies" and aborting the process in the first trimester is NOT the same as MURDER.  
Nor is it killing. Something must be alive in order to be dead, abortion is the prevention of life, not the revocation of it.

---

If those cells are not human, then you wouldn't mind stating the taxonomic classification that they hold now would you?

It is also nice to see that you do believe in abiogenesis, and are prolly some Bible-thumping loony who believes that God just poofed living matter from non-living matter in the space of 7 days to create all the life that we currently find on the planet.

-------
whoisabs i'm not sure
Guess who's back?

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 9:30 am on Aug. 24, 2008

---

Quote: from Nimzo at 5:20 am on Aug. 24, 2008

---

For all those opposing abortion, are you also opposed to IVF? I fail to see why abortion is so controversial but IVF is okay.

---

 

 I'm curious...what's wrong with IVF?

---

Nothing. If you happen to be pro choice.

Basically, for every IVF cycle they implant a few embryo's which they pick from a batch of about 20-30, then the leftovers are often destroyed, i'm pretty sure that's during the blastocyst stage (70-100 cells). Alternatively the parents have the CHOICE (funny that) to have them cryogenically frozen (generally for a charge) or used in research, medical schools etc. In the end though most are eventually destroyed (or "murdered" if your pro-life).  

Apparently in Britain they've destroyed about 1 Million embryo's in the last 14 years which you can read about here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3108160.ece

and in america they have a few hundred thousand in cryo so i'm guessing they will eventually need to be destroyed too.

The point is that if you're going to cry about those poor fertilized eggs, then there are way more "potential adults" being tossed into the garbage through IVF than there are being aborted.

---

Ah, thank you for clarifying.

---

What is Plan B, if not an abortion?

---

A birth control pill for people dumb enough to not be on it already when they have sex. Plan B is different from RU486...whereas the latter results in the abortion of an already implanted fetus, Plan B does the same thing that regular birth control pills do and prevents implantation (most of the time; I'm sure someone will come up with a "BUT SOMETIMES IT KICKS PUPPIES TOO!" type of scenario, but from what I've read, as with the birth control pill, that is rare). A zygote that doesn't implant will never mature, and is actually a fairly common occurence, even in women who don't take hormonal birth control.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

It is funny when morons don't understand the life sciences for shit attempt to talk.

---

---

They can't seem to understand the difference between a gamete and a complete and unique individual.

---

Is this directed towards people who say, "Well then why aren't condoms bad?!"

I don't think YOU understand the differences between gametes, embryos, fetuses, and infants.

---

They can't seem to understand the difference between humans and animals.

---

---

They can't seem to understand that both flora and fauna are living creatures.

---

Yes, we know that flora and fauna are biotic... what the fuck are you getting at? Are you comparing abortion to spraying weed-be-gone on a dandelion?

---

They can't seem to understand the difference between living and non-living creatures.

---

I think you are taking what I am saying too literally.
I do not mean that the fetus is abiotic, I'm saying that it is not "alive" in the sense that we humans ascribe to that word. It doesn't think, it can't feel, it can't see, it can't survive, it can't reproduce, it can't grow without the mother's womb, it is of course the natural process for creating another human life, but that is just what it is, the natural process for CREATING another human life, at it's completion [or near completion].

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

If those cells are not human, then you wouldn't mind stating the taxonomic classification that they hold now would you?

---

I would consider it a developing fetus, it is still part of the mother. Yes, I would classify it as human, since the DNA within its cells would be human, and it is obvious that after the developmental processes [Hell, I'd say during the second trimester, even] one could consider it alive. [again, not biotic or the life sciences definition of "living", the definition that is ascribed to how humans live.

---

It is also nice to see that you do believe in abiogenesis,

---

---

and are prolly some Bible-thumping loony who believes that God just poofed living matter from non-living matter in the space of 7 days to create all the life that we currently find on the planet.

---

Of course, I prolly am right?

Pseudo-intellectuals piss me off

Also, thanks ER, I wasn't sure how Plan B thwarted pregnancy. Thanks for clearing it up.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

It is a very simplistic thing to say because two things look different that they aren't the same.  A 5 lb baby looks nothing like the 300lb man he will grow to be but that does nothing to make them different things.

It is a very simplistic thing to say because two things look different that they aren't the same.  A 5 lb baby looks nothing like the 300lb man he will grow to be but that does nothing to make them different things.[/quote

However, the fetus --according to your view-- has the right to grow within the mother, feed off of her nutrition, and tap her energy source all before it can think, breathe, or even live on its own. While the mother has no right to remove the fetus from her. She is forced to care for this child, or force someone else to care for it, and changer her entire life around simply because this organized collection of cells is developing inside of her.

I, personally of course, think that if the mother is intent on having an abortion, then there is obviously some reason for it -remember abortions aren't like getting your teeth cleaned, it is a very difficult procedure for most women. No one should be FORCED to deliver a child.
To say that because the fetus can grow up to be an adult that aborting it would be MURDER is silly. Yes, abortion is a touchy subject and should not be taken lightly, but it should also not be taken so heavily.

I don't understand why people take the aborting of fetuses so heavily... It is not murder, it is the prevention of life --not altogether a good thing, but definitely not a morally heinous thing.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

Quote: from Elm at 7:16 am on Aug. 25, 2008Equal in many ways, not equal in some.  Not equal in mass, visual acuity, lung volume...but equal in the fact they are both the full form of a living human being and since all living humans have inalienable rights (seems self-evident to me) than it is morally wrong to infringe on those rights.  

 It is a very simplistic thing to say because two things look different that they aren't the same.  A 5 lb baby looks nothing like the 300lb man he will grow to be but that does nothing to make them different things.[/quote ]

However, the fetus --according to your view-- has the right to grow within the mother, feed off of her nutrition, and tap her energy source all before it can think, breathe, or even live on its own. While the mother has no right to remove the fetus from her. She is forced to care for this child, or force someone else to care for it, and changer her entire life around simply because this organized collection of cells is developing inside of her.  

---

Lets back up the timeframe shall we?  In order to get pregnant one must either willfully pursue artificial insemination, willfully consent to the sex act which has a known consequences of pregnancy, or one is forced into the sex act (the most remote chance of happening and the least likely of all to become pregnant).

Thus in the first two the woman consented to the risk of pregnancy, just as one consents to the possibility of having a broken arm when rock climbing.  Thus she already gave permission to the fetus.  Now she is free by all means to limit such a risk (as the rock climber uses safety gear and is observant) but should it come to happen the mother must deal with being pregnant and the rock climber must deal with having a cast and medical bills.  It is the risk of the activity after all.

In the last case those rare few unfortunate times a woman becomes pregnant through rape she did not offer an consent to the risks so her rights are being violated during the pregnancy however the child itself committed no wrong and while I would not desire any legal consequences for cases like this (for the woman may truly value liberty over life - we know a few Founding Fathers did) I would caution people to accept the execution of an innocent person for any reason.

Quote: from Event Horizon at 10:11 am on Aug. 25, 2008

---

I, personally of course, think that if the mother is intent on having an abortion, then there is obviously some reason for it -remember abortions aren't like getting your teeth cleaned, it is a very difficult procedure for most women. No one should be FORCED to deliver a child.  

---

No one should be forced to die from saline burns or their brain vacuumed out via a tube either.  If you like I'll capitalize the word force for effect - just let me know.
Quote: from Event Horizon at 10:11 am on Aug. 25, 2008

---

To say that because the fetus can grow up to be an adult that aborting it would be MURDER is silly. Yes, abortion is a touchy subject and should not be taken lightly, but it should also not be taken so heavily.  

---

Only as silly as saying that killing an infant that can grow up to be an adult is silly, or a toddler, or a teen.  Do human rights now magically only apply to adults or whatever shifting standard makes your opinion convenient?

Quote: from Event Horizon at 10:11 am on Aug. 25, 2008

---

I don't understand why people take the aborting of fetuses so heavily... It is not murder, it is the prevention of life --not altogether a good thing, but definitely not a morally heinous thing.

---

It is murder.  It is the killing of an innocent human being.  Simply because some people who want abortion repeat the mantra that it isn't murder doesn't change the facts.  The facts themselves are immutable and there for discovery by anyone who has the interest and capacity for logical rigor to find them.

---

Lets back up the timeframe shall we?  In order to get pregnant one must either willfully pursue artificial insemination, willfully consent to the sex act which has a known consequences of pregnancy, or one is forced into the sex act (the most remote chance of happening and the least likely of all to become pregnant).

---

Agreed.

---

Thus in the first two the woman consented to the risk of pregnancy, just as one consents to the possibility of having a broken arm when rock climbing.

---

---

Thus she already gave permission to the fetus.  Now she is free by all means to limit such a risk (as the rock climber uses safety gear and is observant) but should it come to happen the mother must deal with being pregnant and the rock climber must deal with having a cast and medical bills.  It is the risk of the activity after all.

---

By consenting to the risks, one does not welcome them.
Child berth and care should not the the product of some sort of punishment --"You knew the risks, and you got pregnant, so deal with it"-- it should be the result of someone WANTING the child.

---

In the last case those rare few unfortunate times a woman becomes pregnant through rape she did not offer an consent to the risks so her rights are being violated during the pregnancy however the child itself committed no wrong and while I would not desire any legal consequences for cases like this (for the woman may truly value liberty over life - we know a few Founding Fathers did) I would caution people to accept the execution of an innocent person for any reason.

---

A fetus is not innocent, nor is it evil, it is nothing, it has done nothing, and is capable of doing nothing. Its incapacity to do anything makes it ineligible to be called "an innocent person". You are not executing a fetus, you are stopping it from living, two very different things.

---

No one should be forced to die from saline burns or their brain vacuumed out via a tube either.  If you like I'll capitalize the word force for effect - just let me know.

---

Show me how the two scenarios are similar and I will concede.

---

Only as silly as saying that killing an infant that can grow up to be an adult is silly, or a toddler, or a teen.

---

A fetus is NOT the same thing as a child. Physically, mentally, or in ANY way.

---

Do human rights now magically only apply to adults or whatever shifting standard makes your opinion convenient?

---

No, but the question is whether the right of the pre-living should outweigh the rights of the living...
Should the fetus, which cannot exist without the mother, force its birth on the her, effectively changing her entire life?

I'm not saying it is a nice thing to think about, but come on. Can you really argue that simply because, "The fetus hasn't done anything wrong" that the mother should be subjected to child bearing? She is a woman, with a life of her own, she should be able to make the decision about whether she wants to bring a child into the world or not. Our population is far too high to mandate that she MUST.

---

It is murder.  It is the killing of an innocent human being.

---

That is just romantic bullshit.
The fetus isn't standing there pleading for its life, while the doctor stabs it repeatedly. The fetus is idly growing and developing when the doctor simply comes and extracts it.

This is silly, really, arguing that a fetus can be murdered.

---

Simply because some people who want abortion repeat the mantra that it isn't murder doesn't change the facts.  The facts themselves are immutable and there for discovery by anyone who has the interest and capacity for logical rigor to find them.

---

Your FACTS are subjective romanticisms. While you consider 16 cells that contain human DNA to be a living being capable of being murdered, my specifications are more stringent. I do not believe that a half developed fetus, with the beginning of a nervous system [that does not function] and the start of human semblance is capable of being killed. I think that one has to be ALIVE in order to be killed.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

I am advocating abortion for first trimester pregnancies only. After that, I feel that the fetus has developed enough of a nervous system that there could, in fact, be the sensation of pain.

---

---

Agreed, but does one deserve to break their arm while rock climbing, simply because they consented to the possibility?
If one consents to the possibility that he will become paralyzed while rock climbing, does that mean that if he climbs, and becomes paralyzed, he shouldn't want a different outcome?
Then, if there IS a way to change the outcome [fix the paralysis] is he not entitled to it?

---

If the fix for his paralysis or broken arm involves killing another innocent person then absolutely not.

---

I am advocating abortion for first trimester pregnancies only. After that, I feel that the fetus has developed enough of a nervous system that there could, in fact, be the sensation of pain. And while I maintain that it would still not know what was happening, and would still not really "care" that it was dieing [since it didn't know what it was like to live] the infliction of pain would be morally wrong.

A fetus is NOT the same thing as a child. Physically, mentally, or in ANY way.

---

At least you got that going for you. Although I don't like abortion in general I'm definitely much more against second and third trimester abortions.

How do you guys feel about it being solely the womens choice? I would be livid if I found out someone bearing my child had an abortion. It's just as much my child as it would be hers. Shouldn't I get a say in the murder of my child?

-------
" I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel,
but I am, so that's how it comes out. " - Bill Hicks

---

How do you guys feel about it being solely the womens choice? I would be livid if I found out someone bearing my child had an abortion. It's just as much my child as it would be hers. Shouldn't I get a say in the murder of my child?

---

While I agree with you partly, keep in mind that you don't have to go through nine months of major changes to your body and major limitations as far as what you can do are concerned. I do think that women should discuss whether or not they have an abortion with the child's father; I have a feeling at least some abortions would be avoided that way. The decision, though, is ultimately hers...it's still her body that's going to be affected, unless the father wants to go through the trouble of finding and arranging for a surrogacy or something along those lines (though by the time it all went through, I'm pretty sure it would be a biological impossibility).

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

That's how we ALL started out

-------
My president is black. So what?!