Abortion Debate Forum - When does a unique human life begin ?

diamondsz

replied on March 17th, 2009

Extremely eHealthy

Re: When does a unique human life begin ?

LampofLight wrote:

So what is the reasoning or justification for the destruction ?

s there anything besides a personal want or desire involved ? Not sayign some aren't perhaps justified medically, but discounting a medical reason, what other justification could there possibly be for destroying a unique human life ? Seems selfish and/or self serving at the expense of a human being, and as a direct result of sexual irresponsibility to me.
I welcome your thoughts.

The justifications of abortions are many, some fall under Roe vs wade, which entitles a woman to a procedure offered and done by medical professionals, instead of back alley abortions. Why is it legal then?

Define a person, a human person is a unique individual, can you be unique while using someone else resources? Playing a game of following the leader, you havenâ€™t developed your own set of unique characteristics that set you apart or you have some self-esteem issues and thats besides the point.

Potential is a big wordin regards to children that is, I was to become a potential manager but I got laid off, it has a potential to either be neutral, positive or negative.

So why does a woman have more rights than a fetus? Possibly because she wouldnâ€™t be allowed to eat, drink, sleep walk much less go outside, if she had a miscarriage, she would be held for contempt in a court law, much less to say possibly even homicide. For example these products in our everyday items are dangerous to a pregnancy, caffeine, mercury, chlorine, Uva etc etc..

A person with a mental disability is only stabilized by their prescription and yet all drugs (good or bad) are harmful to a pregnancy, by entitling a fetus to contain more rights would enforce slavery upon a woman. By accepting that a fetus is on the same level as a woman is incorrect, it has the potential to be the next woman, if you can look at it that way you have removed the dignity, legality, and equality of every single woman in this world. A fetus is the woman, even though it has its own unique Dna, it only survives by nutrients and oxygen provided from her body through an umbilical cord.

A z/e/f is not unique as it is the woman or you can go to the other extreme and say it shares characteristics with a parasite.

So you may possibly respond with, why not give it up for adoption, please explain why the demand of parents cannot be met and why there is millions of children on a waiting list? That is not the answer though, the true though of pro-choice is the fact that wanted and unwanted pregnancies are accepted, the decision they choose to make is what we support, why should we have a right to speak for others? My question to you is should anyone who proclaims themselves pro-life, should they be responsible to foot the bills for all unwanted pregnancy/children? It would only make it responsible, donâ€™t you think?

Responsibility can be a very hard word to understand, since it can mean both parenting and abortion, since perceptions ideally are not reality but what you make of them as a unique individual.

Could you explain to me why a newborn cannot drink alcohol but a mother can? We have established that both are human but one does not have the same as the other, must it be age? Or maybe if we look deeply you can see that it is actually â€œjudgment.â€ What I mean by that is a conscious, mentality and/or grasping a context of legality. Another way to look at this is what separatesâ€™ us from other animals?

The problem it comes down to is that if woman are forced to carry pregnancies, men will be forced to have vasectomies, then we have no population. We are outweighing pros vs cons and right now a human being (person) outweighs human DNA.

Since everyone on this planet has a unique belief or perception, law was created to be unbiased and outweigh (more so be neutral) to all parties, even though an act may be morally right or wrong, law was created to make a standard for all that benefits us without bias or opinions.

In the end here are the reasons why abortion is right....
It is done to protect woman from
Health problems, discrimination, opression and slavery
It provides woman with
Equality, resources, sense of being, the option to be a parent, provides quality health care, respect, dignity, empathy, compassion and the best of all choices.

Whether that be a choice to work, a choice to go to school, a choice to date whom I please and a choice without repercussions to have sex with the person I love.

In the end the difference between pro-life/pro-choice is the same difference to quantity and quality.

Pro-choice kills human dna
Pro-life kills human beings mentally

|

Users who thank diamondsz for this post: lucy315 motherofhighspiritedones

lucy315

replied on March 17th, 2009

Experienced User

Re: When does a unique human life begin ?

[quote="diamondsz"]

LampofLight wrote:

S
A person with a mental disability is only stabilized by their prescription and yet all drugs (good or bad) are harmful to a pregnancy, by entitling a fetus to contain more rights would enforce slavery upon a woman.

I am so glad you brought this up, as this was my reason for having an abortion. But it wasn't just the meds that could have harmed the fetus (that I was not willing to stop taking anyway) but the fact that the second my pregnancy symptoms kicked in, my anxiety and OCD went out of control. I literally had to double my doses just to get by. I felt terrible and was a ball of nerves. There was no way I was going to live like that for 9 months.

|

oopoopoop

replied on March 18th, 2009

Extremely eHealthy

No other creature -- whether human, animal or divine -- has the right to enslave another. If it's living in my uterus, and I want it out, it's gone.

|

Users who thank oopoopoop for this post: Darkmoon

Darkmoon

replied on March 18th, 2009

Active User, very eHealthy

oopoopoop wrote:

No other creature -- whether human, animal or divine -- has the right to enslave another. If it's living in my uterus, and I want it out, it's gone.

Very true. As I've mentioned before, pregnancy is like slavery to a woman. People want special conditional laws to apply to them that don't apply to anyone else. They want to pat their bellies, restrict their diets and movements and basically treat them like cows.

No, I don't think so. I'll kill myself first. Some freak tries to rub my stomach out of the blue from some sense of "life" entitlement, I kick the hell out of him/her for sexual assault.

Newsflash people: It's NOT cool to touch pregnant women's bellies without their consent and even then, you should get to know said pregnant woman first. She is still a person, she's not just a handbag for the fetus.

|

Users who thank Darkmoon for this post: diamondsz

diamondsz

replied on March 18th, 2009

Extremely eHealthy

[Sorry going to vent on this one, when I was preggo, people would not even ask, they would just touch my stomach, without my permission and for god sakes at least effin ask~!

What iffs(post wise) me is the fact that these people probably already have a life of quality and yet they continue to say that it is not right for others to have the same as them.

Vent done~!

|

diamondsz

replied on March 18th, 2009

Extremely eHealthy

Re: When does a unique human life begin ?

[quote="lucy315"]

diamondsz wrote:

LampofLight wrote:

S
A person with a mental disability is only stabilized by their prescription and yet all drugs (good or bad) are harmful to a pregnancy, by entitling a fetus to contain more rights would enforce slavery upon a woman.

I am so glad you brought this up, as this was my reason for having an abortion. But it wasn't just the meds that could have harmed the fetus (that I was not willing to stop taking anyway) but the fact that the second my pregnancy symptoms kicked in, my anxiety and OCD went out of control. I literally had to double my doses just to get by. I felt terrible and was a ball of nerves. There was no way I was going to live like that for 9 months.

This is exactly what I mean!!!!

I understand feeling like a ball of nerves, might have been slightly different for me but being pregnanct and carrying forth PPD into another pregnancy was brutal. What they don't tell you is that alot of these pills take away the effects of birth control and so we are pretty much S-o-luck. I was denied prescriptions for anti-depressants while pregnant and I was quite the mess, they offered me some form of couselling but couselling does not assist with chemical imbalance that occur in the brain.

I'm sick of being judged or seeing other woman judged from a medical standpoint because of their reporductive status, whether it is delaying wait times in the ER, to xrays, medications etc.

|

LampofLight

replied on March 18th, 2009

New User

Thank you for your reply diamondsz.

you said:
"The justifications of abortions are many, some fall under Roe vs wade, which entitles a woman to a procedure offered and done by medical professionals, instead of back alley abortions. Why is it legal then?"

I was speaking to the moral justification as opposed to the legal. There is no question a person is legally justified, but that does not mean it is necessarily morally justified. Laws do not define what is moral, although in general, they seemingly aspire to be moral(for the most part). Why is it legal ? because the people with authority to establish the law of the land made it legal.

you said:
"Define a person, a human person is a unique individual, can you be unique while using someone else resources? Playing a game of following the leader, you havenÃ¢ï¿½ï¿½t developed your own set of unique characteristics that set you apart or you have some self-esteem issues and thats besides the point."

Sure you can be unique while utilizing or depending upon someone elses resources. My children a good example. they are completely dependent upon the resources I provide them in order to survive (ie: food, shelter, clothing, etc). Withought me providing them resources (or someone else fillign my shoes and providing it), their survivability goes WAY WAY down. But how about elderly people in a nursing home ? They are purely dependent upon the resources and care-giving of the nursing home, without which they would perish. Are we to consider that young children and the elderly should have no rights, since, after all, they are dependent upon resources that are not theirs in order to survive ?
I must apologize I do not folow the "unique characteristics that set you apart", or the self esteem issues thats beside the point" part...were you speaking to the zygote/embryo/fetus ? how do they have self esteem issues ? or Was this some kind of vieled personal attack ?

you said:
"Potential is a big wordin regards to children that is, I was to become a potential manager but I got laid off, it has a potential to either be neutral, positive or negative."

So by your reasoning then, my child has the potential to grow into adulthood, but potential is a big word in regards to children, and has the potential to either be neutral, positive , or negative...so should I have the right to kill my child, since, after all, potnetial to grow to adulthood could be negative ?

you said:
"So why does a woman have more rights than a fetus? Possibly because she wouldnÃ¢ï¿½ï¿½t be allowed to eat, drink, sleep walk much less go outside, if she had a miscarriage, she would be held for contempt in a court law, much less to say possibly even homicide. For example these products in our everyday items are dangerous to a pregnancy, caffeine, mercury, chlorine, Uva etc etc.. "

So the defense is based upon potential abuse of the system >? Or the potential to be punished for a perceived abuse of the system ? Like a seat belt law for example ? I should take certain actions to protect my child, and in this case, a seat belt which the law prescribes, but we shouldn't have a seat belt law, because I might get prosecuted for not exercising caution and obeying the law by buckling up my children ? Should I get into a car acident, and my child dies, I might get prosecuted for not obeying the law, or exercising care/caution as regards the child ? Or is that different ? I guess one could argue that they might not KNOW they had a child to buckle up, and so the analogy is invalid for that reason, but assuming you KNEW you had a child to care for, why would the analogy not apply ?

you said:
"A person with a mental disability is only stabilized by their prescription and yet all drugs (good or bad) are harmful to a pregnancy, by entitling a fetus to contain more rights would enforce slavery upon a woman. By accepting that a fetus is on the same level as a woman is incorrect, it has the potential to be the next woman, if you can look at it that way you have removed the dignity, legality, and equality of every single woman in this world. A fetus is the woman, even though it has its own unique Dna, it only survives by nutrients and oxygen provided from her body through an umbilical cord."

So are you saying that a mentally disabled person needs to have their children aborted always ? Isn't that the precise reasoning of hitlers, and why he had all the mentally ill people sexually neutered ??

Just because the fetus requires the nutrients the mother supplys does not make the fetus the woman. Science can clearly demonstrate that this is not a matter of fact or truth. If the fetus was TRULY the woman, they would be unable to differentiate between the fetus and the woman, but they can most assuredly demonstrate they are NOT the same person. survivability does not a person make. refer back to the elderly in the nursing home. Some of them have ZERO chance of survivability without nutrients and oxygen supplied by the nursing home. Should they not be considered unique persons with rights, and instead be considered the nursing homes private property ?

you said:
"A z/e/f is not unique as it is the woman or you can go to the other extreme and say it shares characteristics with a parasite."

So by your reasoning then the elderly in nursing homes requiring care are equally to be considered parasites that should be terminated if the property owner (in this case the nursing home) decides they no longer desire to provide them care ?

you said:
"So you may possibly respond with, why not give it up for adoption, please explain why the demand of parents cannot be met and why there is millions of children on a waiting list? That is not the answer though, the true though of pro-choice is the fact that wanted and unwanted pregnancies are accepted, the decision they choose to make is what we support, why should we have a right to speak for others? My question to you is should anyone who proclaims themselves pro-life, should they be responsible to foot the bills for all unwanted pregnancy/children? It would only make it responsible, donÃ¢ï¿½ï¿½t you think?"

But who speaks on behalf of the unique human that cannot yet speak on their own behalf ? What unique human person doesn't desire to live as opposed to die (other then someone who is mentally ill). As to the position of paying for it, I suggest that human life is worth payign for. Out of curiosity, how much more does it cost to deliver a baby as opposed to aborting it ? That would really be the only issue, since , as you stated, there are lines a mile long to adopt them. Is the difference of cost/price to much to pay for the saving of an innocent human life that cannot yet plead it's own case for life ? I suggest it isn't. I further suggest that the pro-lifers would gladly foot the bill. We shouldn't put the value of money ahead of the value of human life. Is the almighty dollar truly that important to supercede the value of a human life ?

you said:
"Responsibility can be a very hard word to understand, since it can mean both parenting and abortion, since perceptions ideally are not reality but what you make of them as a unique individual."

There is no doubt that our soceity today is havign a great amount of difficulty with responsibility. It is glaringly obvious. Accountability and responsibility are things that people seem to want to avoid like the plague these days. never-the-less, how do you arrive at the conclusion that "perceptions ideally are not reality, but what you make of them as a unique individual". To the contrary, perceptions IDEALLY are reality, and what we make of perceptions as unique individuals is often NOT reality. Sure, our personal perceptions become our own personal reality, but that however does not make it reality. I could see spiders walkign on my body all the time, and to my perception it is reality, however, it is not true reality, but ratehr a delusion of my mind. So IDEALLY, our perceptions ARE reality (whether or not its true reality, is really beside the point).
But how does any of this matter in the case of abortion , responsibility, or accountability ? I mean I could preceive I have no obligation to obey the traffic light, but the true reality is very different, even if my own percieved reality is not.

you said :
"Could you explain to me why a newborn cannot drink alcohol but a mother can? We have established that both are human but one does not have the same as the other, must it be age? Or maybe if we look deeply you can see that it is actually Ã¢ï¿½ï¿½judgment.Ã¢ï¿½ï¿½ What I mean by that is a conscious, mentality and/or grasping a context of legality. Another way to look at this is what separatesÃ¢ï¿½ï¿½ us from other animals?"

While I appreciate your example, it is apples and oranges. Teh rights denied to the child (ie: alchohol) is not a permanent exclusion. The child at some point will be able to exercise his right to drink. The aborted baby , on the other hand, is excluded from the fundamental right to life. The aborted baby will NEVER have the opportunity to "age" or aquire the appropriate "judgement" that it otherwise would have enjoyed as a matter of course, if it had not been aborted.

you said:
"The problem it comes down to is that if woman are forced to carry pregnancies, men will be forced to have vasectomies, then we have no population. We are outweighing pros vs cons and right now a human being (person) outweighs human DNA."

How does vasectomies play into it ? Are you sayign if women should be prevented from being able to abort their babies, that men should be forced to receive vasectomies ? I don't follow your reasoning here. If population is your concern, shouldn't you be falling on the side of pro-life ? i mean after all, every aborted baby is one less person in the population...isn't it ? It seems your logic is skewed if you think a person should be able to have an abortion in order to keep the population growing.

you said:
"Since everyone on this planet has a unique belief or perception, law was created to be unbiased and outweigh (more so be neutral) to all parties, even though an act may be morally right or wrong, law was created to make a standard for all that benefits us without bias or opinions."

I disagree. The primary purpose of law is to establish an ordered society.How a particular society establishes law is based upon the particular outlook or views of that society (particularly the controlling power of that society). As it turns out, that resulting law which is established is a reflection upon those ideals or beleifs of that particular society(or the controlling power). So in the case of Islamic nations, they have sharria law. In that instance, there is no consideration for being "neutral" to all parties, and the law is entirely based upon religious morals. Furthermore, in the case of the united states, it was founded upon and devloped as a direct result of christian ideals and the belief in a creator God. (ie: we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, etc.) It just so happens we have moved from our roots as a christian nation to blatently attempting to rewrite history in order to erase those christian roots, and over the course of time we have become secularized to a very great degree. As result, while there are many laws in the U.S. that are morally founded and rooted, there has been a shift to move away from that base line.

you said:
"In the end here are the reasons why abortion is right....

It is done to protect woman from Health problems,...."

If the womans life or health is at risk, it should be her decision to choose abortion or not.

" discrimination, opression and slavery"

How does abortion prevent discrimination ? oppression ? slavery ? I guess one argues oppression/slavery in that they don't want to have a child that they are now carrying, but isn't that an issue of personal responsibility and accountability ? I mean one would not be having that issue if one simply exercised caution or restraint. The way I see it, sexual interaction requires a certain amount of maturity and understanding, and by extension personal responsibility and accountability. If I made a bad decision about takign out a loan i couldn't afford, who is goign to say I should be able to tear up the loan documents because of an irresponsible decision I made ? How much more shoudl the loan be enforced as regards the death of a unique human life ? Oh, wait..I see it now.. its the almighty dollar superceding the value of human life again. I wonder if there is any almighty dollars to be made on the tissues and parts of the aborted babies ? Do you think so ?

you said:
"It provides woman with Equality, resources, sense of being, the option to be a parent, provides quality health care, respect, dignity, empathy, compassion and the best of all choices. "

You can't be serious. Equality to who ? resources... you mean nutrients ? and those can't be resupplied ? sense of being ?? how does killing your baby provide you a sense of being ? beign what ..a destroyer of human life ? the option to be a parent has ALWAYS been there, you should have said the option to NOT be a parent even though you acted irresponsibily and put yourself in the position where you ARE a parent and now want to shirk the responsibilty by causing the death of your own child. Since when does having an abortion provide respect ? and from whom ? dignity ? dignity to whom and in what manner ? empathy...empathy for the unborn ? or exlusively for the mother alone ? compassion for whom ? the mother alone at teh expense of the unborn child ? the best of all choices should have been handled responsibly to begin with. The choice for abortion is a direct result of irresponsibility and personal selfishness at the cost of human life in the VAST majority of cases.

you said
"Whether that be a choice to work, a choice to go to school, a choice to date whom I please and a choice without repercussions to have sex with the person I love."

whther or not you can or can't have an abortion should not in any way affect your ability to work (the law requires paid leave), a choice to go to school (pregnant women go to school all the time), a choice to date whom you please (pregnant women can date whomever they please), a choice without repercussions to have sex with the person you love (you can have sex with the person you love in a responsible manner (and in a variety of ways)that pretty much excludes any possibility of getting pregnant, and if you truly loved the person, why would you want to kill the unified flesh of the two of you...the direct product of the love you expressed ? Seems a bit uncaring, and lacking in love, compassion, and empathy to me, with a totally selfish and self serving agenda with no consideration of the unborn baby in the least (who is seemingly viewed as a parasite or some such thing).

you said:
"In the end the difference between pro-life/pro-choice is the same difference to quantity and quality.

Pro-choice kills human dna
Pro-life kills human beings mentally "

Are you saying that more humans are less quality humans ? How is that even rational ? And comon now, how many pro-chpice women are walking around out there that have been KILLED MENTALLY by the process of destroying their own child ? Are you kidding me ?

Your statement SHOULD have been

pro-choice kills human dna and kills human beings mentally as well.
pro-life kills human beings mentally who were not capable of, or mature enough, to exercise their sexual escapades in a responisble manner and actually be able to be both responsible and accountable to their own actions. Sure, raising children is tough, I should know since I have three of them. If a person is destroyed mentally by the task of child rearing, then they frankly were mentally unstable to begin with.

|

LampofLight

replied on March 18th, 2009

New User

oopoopoop wrote:

No other creature -- whether human, animal or divine -- has the right to enslave another. If it's living in my uterus, and I want it out, it's gone.

But isn't the woman in effect acting like a slave holder in your scenario ? Isn't the unborn baby being treated like a piece of propety, and VERY similiarly to the way the white man used treat the african slave ? (ie: it is just property with no human rights)

|

motherofhighspiritedones

replied on March 18th, 2009

Moderator

LampofLight wrote:

Sure you can be unique while utilizing or depending upon someone elses resources. My children a good example. they are completely dependent upon the resources I provide them in order to survive (ie: food, shelter, clothing, etc). Withought me providing them resources (or someone else fillign my shoes and providing it), their survivability goes WAY WAY down. But how about elderly people in a nursing home ? They are purely dependent upon the resources and care-giving of the nursing home, without which they would perish. Are we to consider that young children and the elderly should have no rights, since, after all, they are dependent upon resources that are not theirs in order to survive ?
I must apologize I do not folow the "unique characteristics that set you apart", or the self esteem issues thats beside the point" part...were you speaking to the zygote/embryo/fetus ? how do they have self esteem issues ? or Was this some kind of vieled personal attack ?

Do elderly people depend on someone else's BODILY resources? Do they depend on someone else's BLOOD to recieve oxygen and nutrients? Do your children do the same? Ok then, your scenario does NOT apply. Sorry, but if a being (whether a tapeworm or embryo) is depending on MY body, not artificial and external means, MY BODY, for oxygen, basic support, and vitamins, nutrients, then I have the right to remove that being.

|

diamondsz

replied on March 18th, 2009

Extremely eHealthy

LampOflight wrote:

Thank you for your reply diamondsz.

I was speaking to the moral justification as opposed to the legal. There is no question a person is legally justified, but that does not mean it is necessarily morally justified. Laws do not define what is moral, although in general, they seemingly aspire to be moral(for the most part). Why is it legal ? because the people with authority to establish the law of the land made it legal.

Morals only exist as a person who choose to believe in them

LampOflight wrote:

Sure you can be unique while utilizing or depending upon someone elses resources. My children a good example. they are completely dependent upon the resources I provide them in order to survive (ie: food, shelter, clothing, etc).

The difference is I can go to the bar and leave my children with a sitter, someone else can feed them, someone else can watch them, biology is irrelevant.

LampOflight wrote:

So by your reasoning then, my child has the potential to grow into adulthood, but potential is a big word in regards to children, and has the potential to either be neutral, positive , or negative...so should I have the right to kill my child, since, after all, potnetial to grow to adulthood could be negative ?

not only would that be illegal but that "born" child has already been able to learn, can grasp critical thinking, has a concsious and can feel.

LampOflight wrote:

So are you saying that a mentally disabled person needs to have their children aborted always ? Isn't that the precise reasoning of hitlers, and why he had all the mentally ill people sexually neutered ??

Are you saying that they should stop taking their pills so they throw themselves off a bridge?

LampOflight wrote:

Just because the fetus requires the nutrients the mother supplys does not make the fetus the woman. Science can clearly demonstrate that this is not a matter of fact or truth. If the fetus was TRULY the woman, they would be unable to differentiate between the fetus and the woman, but they can most assuredly demonstrate they are NOT the same person.

How can they not be the same person? By the law the woman is the only person in a pregnancy, I like your semantics.

LampOflight wrote:

So by your reasoning then the elderly in nursing homes requiring care are equally to be considered parasites that should be terminated if the property owner (in this case the nursing home) decides they no longer desire to provide them care ?

Any nursing can refuse patients, its based on a pay system you pay we provide or maybe the concept of reciprocity to make it sound sugar coated.

LampOflight wrote:

But who speaks on behalf of the unique human that cannot yet speak on their own behalf ? What unique human person doesn't desire to live as opposed to die (other then someone who is mentally ill).

So you have a right to impose your belief but call it speaking for others, disgracful.

As to the position of paying for it, I suggest that human life is worth payign for. Out of curiosity, how much more does it cost to deliver a baby as opposed to aborting it ? That would really be the only issue, since , as you stated, there are lines a mile long to adopt them. Is the difference of cost/price to much to pay for the saving of an innocent human life that cannot yet plead it's own case for life ?
Question how would one rather die, a life with regrets or a life of happiness? What is worse physically or emotional abuse, they both the same, so how can you make physical abuse seem worse?

LampOflight wrote:

There is no doubt that our soceity today is havign a great amount of difficulty with responsibility. It is glaringly obvious. Accountability and responsibility are things that people seem to want to avoid like the plague these days. never-the-less, how do you arrive at the conclusion that "perceptions ideally are not reality, but what you make of them as a unique individual". To the contrary, perceptions IDEALLY are reality, and what we make of perceptions as unique individuals is often NOT reality. Sure, our personal perceptions become our own personal reality, but that however does not make it reality. I could see spiders walkign on my body all the time, and to my perception it is reality, however, it is not true reality, but ratehr a delusion of my mind. So IDEALLY, our perceptions ARE reality (whether or not its true reality, is really beside the point).
But how does any of this matter in the case of abortion , responsibility, or accountability ? I mean I could preceive I have no obligation to obey the traffic light, but the true reality is very different, even if my own percieved reality is not.

Playing of words
"Perception is all there is, as there is no reality." Tom peters
so because abortion is wrong to you, it has to be wrong, when I look at history, it has always been available or sometimes even forced, although you may not agree. So what is right a quality or quantity of life? Resbonsibility would be having children when you are financially, physically and emotionally stable, otherwise you are not providing that child with what it could have!

I could have seen god last week, well he told me to tell everyone who follow him to jump off a bridge, are you jumping off a bridge? why not?

LampOflight wrote:

While I appreciate your example, it is apples and oranges. Teh rights denied to the child (ie: alchohol) is not a permanent exclusion. The child at some point will be able to exercise his right to drink. The aborted baby , on the other hand, is excluded from the fundamental right to life. The aborted baby will NEVER have the opportunity to "age" or aquire the appropriate "judgement" that it otherwise would have enjoyed as a matter of course, if it had not been aborted.

Not once during this paragraph has the mother been taken into conclusion, I guess it suck to be her for being a human being and not having the right to excercize the exact same things you do on a daily basis.

LampOflight wrote:

How does vasectomies play into it ? Are you sayign if women should be prevented from being able to abort their babies, that men should be forced to receive vasectomies ? I don't follow your reasoning here.

Population is irrelevant because we know in first world countries there is always space but they are over populated in Primitive/third world countries. I think that if I should be forced to carry a pregnancy, that men should not have the right to make one pregnant, therefore by obtaining a vasectomy. It also will provide a solution or put an end to abortion.

LampOflight wrote:

I disagree. The primary purpose of law is to establish an ordered society.How a particular society establishes law is based upon the particular outlook or views of that society (particularly the controlling power of that society).

Coming from a law background, law is to provide an equal unbiased standard unfortunatly it can go to both extremes, explain to me why a picture of a scale was used to describe law?

LampOflight wrote:

How does abortion prevent discrimination ? oppression ? slavery ? I guess one argues oppression/slavery in that they don't want to have a child that they are now carrying, but isn't that an issue of personal responsibility and accountability ? I mean one would not be having that issue if one simply exercised caution or restraint. The way I see it, sexual interaction requires a certain amount of maturity and understanding, and by extension personal responsibility and accountability.

Sexual intercourse is a normal biological act in which humans conform to, unfortunatly since we no longer in this old ancient biological world you are talking about it has also become recreational. Intimacy is what is practiced in most relationships, anyone can have but the quality of the sex will make for a better relationship over the quantity. When you tell me you see people running around naked, the ones who have completed disregared any sense of materialism, medical science or possibly any logical thinking, then ill believe in complete biology.

[quote="LampOflight"]
its the almighty dollar superceding the value of human life again. I wonder if there is any almighty dollars to be made on the tissues and parts of the aborted babies ? Do you think so ? If they truly wanted to they could donate it to benefit other lives with stem cell research.

LampOflight wrote:

You can't be serious. Equality to who ? resources... you mean nutrients ? and those can't be resupplied ? sense of being ?? how does killing your baby provide you a sense of being ? beign what ..a destroyer of human life ?

You mean you destroy human life as well but because its not physical its okay to bully people into believeing your concept is the only right one, wait were you talking to god again? I'm talking about equality between a man and a woman, men do not have to partake in a pregnancy at their own dispense, therefore why should woman be forced through it. If i start calling myself a man tommorrow, will it be okay for me to abort then?

LampOflight wrote:

the option to be a parent has ALWAYS been there, you should have said the option to NOT be a parent even though you acted irresponsibily and put yourself in the position where you ARE a parent and now want to shirk the responsibilty by causing the death of your own child. Since when does having an abortion provide respect ? and from whom ?

since when does Bigotry require respect?????

LampOflight wrote:

dignity ? dignity to whom and in what manner ? empathy...empathy for the unborn ? or exlusively for the mother alone ?

I have empathy for the unborn and the mother but I also respect she is person for whom it affect mosts, do you have empathy for a woman?

LampOflight wrote:

compassion for whom ? the mother alone at teh expense of the unborn child ? the best of all choices should have been handled responsibly to begin with. The choice for abortion is a direct result of irresponsibility and personal selfishness at the cost of human life in the VAST majority of cases.

A conversation between Socrates and Diotima(philosophy) Man only wants what he cannot obtain and by that he wants immortality, since power can be obtained. Immortality can only be sought by regeneration. Pretty selfish reason to me, everyone in this world is selfish for their own self-interest, a good read would be the selfish gene (Richard Dawkins.) Basically, if you are selfish for having children and I am selfish for having an abortion, who is right if we are both wrong to begin with, if it is done both with the intent of self-interest.

LampOflight wrote:

whther or not you can or can't have an abortion should not in any way affect your ability to work (the law requires paid leave), a choice to go to school (pregnant women go to school all the time).

Nope actually there is small print here, that you don't know about, the law requires that they do not discriminate against you for the pregnancy but if you miss work due to complications, even with necessary medical documentation, they can let you go, based on requirements/business needs.

LampOflight wrote:

a choice to date whom you please (pregnant women can date whomever they please), a choice without repercussions to have sex with the person you love (you can have sex with the person you love in a responsible manner (and in a variety of ways)that pretty much excludes any possibility of getting pregnant, and if you truly loved the person, why would you want to kill the unified flesh of the two of you...the direct product of the love you expressed ?

Love means sex or intimacy in regards to a relationship, sex does not mean pregnancy or abortion, it is an act or a verb.

LampOflight wrote:

pro-choice kills human dna and kills human beings mentally as well.
pro-life kills human beings mentally who were not capable of, or mature enough, to exercise their sexual escapades in a responisble manner and actually be able to be both responsible and accountable to their own actions.

So now I must define a whole definition of sex because you say so? I say you must be held accountable and responsible for your ways of bigotry, therefore lock you in a cage,throw away the key and let you breed all you want like animals you are.

LampOflight wrote:

Sure, raising children is tough, I should know since I have three of them. If a person is destroyed mentally by the task of child rearing, then they frankly were mentally unstable to begin with.

So woman are mentally unstable if they cannot cope with the task of child rearing, so only woman are capable of child rearing?

So a woman choose to go to school and leave her children with their father, such as myself and I am unstable because some uneducated little shyte decided that my only task in life was child rearing.

No only have you proven to me you think yourself as a non-existenal being, you have no respect for yourself nor do you think woman are anything more than containers meant for breeding fodder.

Smart, Im going back to school, thank god I have enough sense to get myself a better job!

|

Users who thank diamondsz for this post: motherofhighspiritedones motherofhighspiritedones

motherofhighspiritedones

replied on March 18th, 2009

Moderator

LampofLight wrote:

Pro-choice kills human dna
Pro-life kills human beings mentally "

No, you seem to be missing the ENTIRE pro-choice agenda. Pro-choice SUPPORTS any woman WHATEVER HER CHOICE IS. It is POSSIBLE to be pro-choice and NOT LIKE the idea of abortion. But I respect every woman, no matter her choice, no matter the circumstances. Because its NOT MY BODY, its not ME. I have no RIGHT to tell her what to do or what NOT to do. Pro-life is about sticking their noses into a complete stranger's business and telling her what she can and cannot do, without regards to circumstances. Prolifers are for the most part okay with an abortion if the woman was raped, a victim of incest, is in danger of losing her life, or if the fetus in question would not live for long after birth. They are not okay with accepting abortion for financial, emotional, personal reasons. To sum it up, prolife is not really about caring about the life of the unborn, they care about the way it was concieved. If you are poor, too bad, if you are not financially ready, too bad, if you cannot bear carrying for nine months, too bad. If you never wanted children (and did everything to protect yourself, except the doctor says you are too young for a tubal, or that you cannot have a tubal until you have one kid because you might change your mind), too bad. If you were raped, its okay. If your life is in danger, its okay. If the fetus will not live in the end, its okay. See, its all about conception. Being pro-choice, I understand that it is not my decision to make for another woman. I do not know why she is choosing to abort, and its none of my business. For all I know, she could be dying of cancer. For all I know, the woman who is THINKING of abortion might change her mind and adopt out. For all I know, she may decide to parent it. All three choices are acceptable. Because it is not my right to make those choices for another.

|

motherofhighspiritedones

replied on March 18th, 2009

Moderator

LampofLight wrote:

So are you saying that a mentally disabled person needs to have their children aborted always ? Isn't that the precise reasoning of hitlers, and why he had all the mentally ill people sexually neutered ??

Just because the fetus requires the nutrients the mother supplys does not make the fetus the woman. Science can clearly demonstrate that this is not a matter of fact or truth. If the fetus was TRULY the woman, they would be unable to differentiate between the fetus and the woman, but they can most assuredly demonstrate they are NOT the same person. survivability does not a person make. refer back to the elderly in the nursing home. Some of them have ZERO chance of survivability without nutrients and oxygen supplied by the nursing home. Should they not be considered unique persons with rights, and instead be considered the nursing homes private property ?

You MAJORLY twisted Diamondz' post up here. MAJORLY. She NEVER said that every woman with a disability should abort. She just simply stated that some of these women have prescription medications that they HAVE to take and what they take COULD affect the unborn fetus. Imagine if you really wanted a baby, went ahead and concieved yet you were on some medication that you could not stop taking, a medication that would give your child birth defects? Are you that selfish to allow that child to be born with those defects? How bad it would feel to look at that child every day, knowing you were the one that caused its defects. What she means by the fetus being the woman is that EVERYTHING the woman digests, goes INTO THE FETUS. That is why certain drugs cannot be taken in pregnancy. Learn to read.

|

Users who thank motherofhighspiritedones for this post: diamondsz

oopoopoop

replied on March 18th, 2009

Extremely eHealthy

LampofLight wrote:

oopoopoop wrote:

No other creature -- whether human, animal or divine -- has the right to enslave another. If it's living in my uterus, and I want it out, it's gone.

But isn't the woman in effect acting like a slave holder in your scenario ? Isn't the unborn baby being treated like a piece of propety, and VERY similiarly to the way the white man used treat the african slave ? (ie: it is just property with no human rights)

Nope. A woman is simply as entitled to remove an unwanted growth from her insides, as a man is to have a mole removed or even to have his penis cut off if he wants to. We are not talking about sentient, thinking, feeling breathing people. The slave owner did not have a slave growing inside their bodies. It's more like Sigourney Weaver in Alien.

A woman is as entitled to control her body as anyone else. If she CHOOSES to let something grow inside her, that is up to her. I wouldn't.

|

NeutralUsername

replied on March 18th, 2009

Active User, very eHealthy

Re: When does a unique human life begin ?

LampofLight wrote:

Science clearly can discern whether a zygote is human or not.

Science can clearly tell us if the zygote is dead or alive.

Thus, science can clearly tell us if this human life is alive or not.

Is it a unique human life ? Of course it is. What makes a unique person ?
Science can clearly tell us that it is our unique genetic make-up which makes us who we are, and thus, the full unique human being is contained within the zygote. It is only a matter of time until it grows into a unique human adult. There is no scientific question as to whether it is a unique human life, and there is no scientific question as to when that unique human life begins...at conception.

The only debate between pro-choice and pro-life is when that unique human life has the right not to be killed. I posit that all human life has the right to live. I posit that the argument "it's a woman's body, and it's her choice", is completely lame, for the fact that it IS NOT just the woman's body, there is a UNIQUE HUMAN LIFE besides her's that is not being granted basic human rights, and yet, it is human, it is alive, and it is a unique being.

Why is a person not granted any basic human rights until they are grown to a certain size ? All of the arguments I have heard against are because "it doesn't look liek a human", or "it looks just liek every other animal in the first x weeks", etc, but the fact of reality is just because it doesn't look human, doesn't mean it isn't...science CLEARLY can tell us it is...and just because it looks like other animals in the first stages, doesn't mean it isn't human..it IS human.

So what is the reasoning or justification for the destruction ?
Is there anything besides a personal want or desire involved ? Not sayign some aren't perhaps justified medically, but discounting a medical reason, what other justification could there possibly be for destroying a unique human life ? Seems selfish and/or self serving at the expense of a human being, and as a direct result of sexual irresponsibility to me.

I welcome your thoughts.

The only really good argument from pro-choicers when it comes to the right of abortion is that no one should use anyone's body without their consent. I don't completely agree since I see the unborn as young, innocent human beings and it is not their fault they were conceived. And the unborn would have to die to remove them from a woman's body. But, I see where they are coming from.

Now, abortions for health reasons, I see as self-defense and I believe everyone has the right to do whatever it takes to save their own life. It is still not the unborn's fault, but it is instinct to want to protect yourself from death. It wouldn't even make sense to die for the unborn if that unborn is not viable (cannot survive on own).

What I don't understand is when someone mentions how it doesn't look human, or it's tiny, or it doesn't think, or whatever. It does not matter. The unborn are human. Our species did not change at birth. We ALL were zygotes, embryos and fetuses. You can't deny that. We ALL looked like we did in the womb. I hate when I hear pro-choicers say or imply that the unborn are not even human, or they are just a ball of cells and nothing more (even though us being here proves that is not actually true). There is no reason to dehumanize the unborn when it comes to the abortion debate. You can still admit it's a unique human is still be pro-choice.

|

diamondsz

replied on March 18th, 2009

Extremely eHealthy

Re: When does a unique human life begin ?

NeutralUsername wrote:

[. There is no reason to dehumanize the unborn when it comes to the abortion debate. You can still admit it's a unique human is still be pro-choice.

The way pro-life dehumanizes woman and their capabilities of being than a container?

The only active conception or debat pro-life has is that it is killing human Dna but we all know legally in North America that it is legal to have an abortion.

|

oopoopoop

replied on March 18th, 2009

Extremely eHealthy

Re: When does a unique human life begin ?

NeutralUsername wrote:

What I don't understand is when someone mentions how it doesn't look human, or it's tiny, or it doesn't think, or whatever. It does not matter. The unborn are human. Our species did not change at birth. We ALL were zygotes, embryos and fetuses. You can't deny that. We ALL looked like we did in the womb. I hate when I hear pro-choicers say or imply that the unborn are not even human, or they are just a ball of cells and nothing more (even though us being here proves that is not actually true). There is no reason to dehumanize the unborn when it comes to the abortion debate. You can still admit it's a unique human is still be pro-choice.

What I don't get about this line of argument is, what is so precious and important about it being human? So what? it's not like there's a shortage. It's not like being human is something so special. Whoopie do. It's a species just like any other.

|

LampofLight

replied on March 18th, 2009

New User

Ahhh.. I see you edited your post to remove the french. Good on you Smile

It was the right thing to do. I know these topics are emotional.

|

LampofLight

replied on March 18th, 2009

New User

hmm... when I posted I got as warnign saying there was objectionable material in my post. I re-read it, but couldn't find it, so maybe I will get banned, I don't know.

Anyways, thanks all for your responses. I engaged with diamondsz first, so I sort of wanted to finish it. I am not ignoring the other posts, but only have so much time and energy. I apologize.

|

motherofhighspiritedones

replied on March 18th, 2009

Moderator

LampofLight wrote:

I see. So people should be free to do what they want, when they want. There is truly no right or wrong, only what we want or desire on a personal level. Yet you are IN FACT arguing pro-choice is RIGHT. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim there is nothign moral, and then try to claim your position on ANYTHING is somehow RIGHT. If there is no moral issues, then it is IMPOSSIBLE it is right or wrong, by the very definition of what is right, which is derived from what is RIGHTEOUS, which is derived from the morality supplied by God through various assorted belief systems.

Actually, what Diamondz is trying to get across to you is that morals VARY. I may be pro-choice or pro-life based on my PERSONAL morals. I may be anti-death penalty or for it based on my personal morals.

|

12 3 4 5 >>