Abortion: Murder

[goku]

And think about teenage mothers - Having the baby cant always be the best thing, in most cases it wont have a father and it will now lead a fairly disadvantaged life because the girl will be unable to support herself and the baby throughout its upbringing.

ahh, now we're getting somewhere. abortion is convenient. kill the baby for fear of a troubled life, isn't that playing god?

we see the problem emurging, people don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

and people are getting hornier (lack of better word) because of play boy or lack of morals.

 

as for rape or incest, the baby is always innocent. say it to yourself, the baby is always innocent. that is a scientific fact.

[rockytriton]

So, when a woman miscarries after about a week of pregnancy, do they have a funeral and a viewing for the fetus? Just curious.

[goku]

Cancer is formed of human cells too. Do you think oncologists commit murder when they treat cancer patients? Wouldn't it make more sense for science to discuss a reasonable beginning of life or do you think someone that discards sperm at the sperm bank should be charged with murder? I get the feeling you are trying to provoke an emotional flame war as opposed to seeking an intellctual discussion.

can two cancer cells join to form a baby?

[goku]

So, when a woman miscarries after about a week of pregnancy, do they have a funeral and a viewing for the fetus? Just curious.

i don't know :hihi:

i will say that funerals are for the living, not the dead.

[Jay-qu]

ahh, now we're getting somewhere. abortion is convenient. kill the baby for fear of a troubled life, isn't that playing god?

 

no, playing god would be creating the universe in 6 days

 

I will say that funerals are for the living, not the dead.

 

every funeral I have been to was for a dead person... not much point having one for a living person

[C1ay]

can two cancer cells join to form a baby?

You tell me, you're the one that said:

seems to me that if the fetus is formed from human cells, that would make it human.

My point was simply that human cells do not make a human. Ay what point of development do you think the conceived is a human, a bipedal primate mammal of the genus Homo (H. sapiens)?

And think about teenage mothers - Having the baby cant always be the best thing, in most cases it wont have a father and it will now lead a fairly disadvantaged life because the girl will be unable to support herself and the baby throughout its upbringing.

ahh, now we're getting somewhere. abortion is convenient. kill the baby for fear of a troubled life, isn't that playing god?

So teenagers, even those at their first year of puberty and younger than the age of legal consent should be given no leeway in making any such mistake as having sex without the knowledge of their actions? IOW, some clever 17 or 18 year old boy tricks some 12 or 13 year old girl into something she doesn't understand the implications of and therefore she should forfeit her rights?

 

as for rape or incest, the baby is always innocent. say it to yourself, the baby is always innocent. that is a scientific fact.

It doesn't matter that the baby is innocent. You are implying that a woman that has the gamete of another forced on her against her will resulting in an unwanted zygote should have more rights than she does. Do you really think it's just that black and white?

 

Of incest you feel the baby's innocence should be enough to force that it be carried to term? Does it matter if the incest was a result of a father forcing himself illegally on his daughter? Does it matter if the result is some serious deformity? Again, do you think this is really a black and white issue? That the rights of a zygote should be supreme?

[Edge]

as for rape or incest, the baby is always innocent. say it to yourself, the baby is always innocent. that is a scientific fact.

The same can be said when the mother's life is at risk.

 

I'm sorry, I don't believe that a woman should be forced to have a baby that came from a rape. She didn't do anything wrong. So, it's her choice. As for incest, I think that c1ay explained it better.

 

That being said, I'm not so pro-life, I'm more pro-responsibility. If you didn't have sex on purpose, or when the woman's life is at risk (something that is very rare), then the woman should have the choice.

 

There I explained myself, don't force your opinion on me.

[Jay-qu]

getting this back to a more scientific discussion

 

Consider this: when the sperm fertilises the egg it isnt breathing, it has no heart that could be beating and they are brain dead well they dont even have a brain... to me these are all the things that constitute something to be alive. So at what time of the pregnancy do these things occur?

[C1ay]

So at what time of the pregnancy do these things occur?

That's why I suggested goku start a thread in biology to discuss this.

 

At conception two gametes meet and a zygote is formed. This is the point many religious people claim is the beginning of life, the single celled human. It is not regarded as an embryo until about 2 weeks after conception and a fetus at around 10 weeks. At nearly 26 weeks the first rudimentary brain waves can be detected.

 

IMO, it is at least by this point that an individual exists that is unique from the mother. This is clearly a long time before birth and the question of when does life begin should yield a different answer than the beliefs of pre-technology mankind. Science has the knowledge to move that point in time that is referred to the beginning of life because premature delivery does not mean the mortality of yesteryear. It is hard to move some people to an honest discussion though because they get stuck on religious beliefs.

[Queso]

i don't know :hihi:

i will say that funerals are for the living, not the dead.

hah, what a funny perspective. :cup:

it really is for living people. yes, the deceremony is in commemerance of a once living person-now dead-it is created by living people, operated, and attended by MOSTLY living people. only one dead person can be found at a funeral...that is unless there's an old fasioned shoot out. :cup: :cup:

[cwes99_03]

Perhaps the reason people are having trouble deciding this issue as a whole is that the issue is a theological one. The Christian right, argue that the Bible says that at conception God knows you. That leads to the idea that the moment the egg is fertilized a human life is formed. But then if you are in this camp, then any abortion, at any time, for any reason, is still a disregard for human life and would make you a murderer.

Now I posted on another thread that I believe laws on murder are based upon the Mosaic Law, as it is the first written law that I know of that contains such an idea.

The morning after pill does not prevent conception, nor does it kill the cells. It simply makes it so the uterine wall will not accept implantation of the egg. The body does this itself if the circumstances aren't right, but that is a natural phenomena, hopefully natural because self abuse of the body can cause this as well as abortion.

 

This issue however goes deeper. The questions that will arise, as they already have but no one in this thread has noticed. If we ban abortion by law unless one of the above posed reasons (incest rape defect) is present, how will we prove pre-mortem if these things have actually occured?

 

Another post suggested

Should a morning after pill be allowed or should unactionable pregnancy be a risk of recreational sex, even that sex that occurs as a result of some recreational inebriation?

that abortion allows for more free recreational sex. Sounds like an argument for recreational drug use.

 

Would not allowing any abortions bring forth a new responsibility (after a time of letting it sink in that you cannot have an abortion, because initially it will be tested, and many will seek illegal abortions) among those who have sex? Will there be more "rapes" as girls realize they are pregnant, and since they can't have an abortion, claim that they were raped so that no one knows how "morally loose" they were? Will this in turn lead to more men waiting until marriage?

 

It was Ghandi who said that if people simply lived their lives according to Bible principles then there would be a whole lot fewer (possibly none?) problems in the world.

 

No reason, age of the girl, method of conception, whatever you can think of, is good enough to destroy the life of the unborn. Let it happen naturally, (no i'm not saying God will destroy the baby if it is necessary, that too is an absurd idea as it has no Biblical basis that I know of), assuming that naturally does not mean that the mother malnourish or beat herself so as to cause a miscarriage. These too should be prosecuted.

 

Are all rape victims innocent? Might I ask what were they doing when they got raped that made them easy targets? I know there are some instances where an uncle, who has never shown a tendency as a sexual predator (or has he and no one did anything about it?), rapes his niece, but I'm saying these are also very rare in the number of rapes.

[pgrmdave]

Let's look at the facts:

 

1 - a fetus/embryo/zygote is alive, just like my stomach, or my liver is alive.

 

2 - a fetus CAN be viable very early in a pregnancy, although it is rare.

 

3 - A fetus has DNA that is vastly different from it's mother's or father's, just as different as my mother and I

 

4 - A fetus needs the mother to survive, just like a tapeworm needs a host to survive, both are just as alive, and just as independant in many ways.

 

I think that in most cases, abortion is wrong. In most cases, it is murder. However, I think that the mother's life always takes precedence, and that in cases of rape or incest or when the child's life will be greatly shortened (less than one year or so) by a genetic disorder or disease, then it is possible that it is the right thing to do.

[cwes99_03]

I think that in most cases, abortion is wrong. In most cases, it is murder. However, I think that the mother's life always takes precedence, and that in cases of rape or incest or when the child's life will be greatly shortened (less than one year or so) by a genetic disorder or disease, then it is possible that it is the right thing to do.

I have a good question for you then, I hope you think it is a good question.

When has a doctor ever been 100% sure of birth defects, or the death of the mother due to birth? I'm sure if we wanted, we could go out on the web and find lots of stories where someone will say that they were told their child would die, or they would die if they gave birth, and nothing bad happened. I know that they told my mom that my brother and I would both be girls (20+ years ago) and I'm sorry to inform that doctor that he was quite wrong (or have I been living a lie?).

 

1 - a fetus/embryo/zygote is alive, just like my stomach, or my liver is alive.

Let's not get this confused. A fetus developes into a human, a liver does not (without someone cloning a human from it, thus a clone is human too and should not be aborted).

2 - a fetus CAN be viable very early in a pregnancy, although it is rare.

I believe he means that it can survive outside of the womb.

3 - A fetus has DNA that is vastly different from it's mother's or father's, just as different as my mother and I

I missed where this is relevant to the topic, but true nonetheless.

[C1ay]

Another post suggested that abortion allows for more free recreational sex. Sounds like an argument for recreational drug use.

Are you against birth control too?

 

 

Are all rape victims innocent? Might I ask what were they doing when they got raped that made them easy targets? I know there are some instances where an uncle, who has never shown a tendency as a sexual predator (or has he and no one did anything about it?), rapes his niece, but I'm saying these are also very rare in the number of rapes.

Yes, all rape victims are innocent. No means no.

[cwes99_03]

I didn't say that the rapist wasn't guilty. I just asked if the "victim" was innocent. Two different questions.

 

Define recreational sex.

[pgrmdave]

When has a doctor ever been 100% sure of birth defects, or the death of the mother due to birth?

 

Never, and that's why I said that it is possible that it is the right thing to do, not that it necessarily is.

Let's not get this confused. A fetus developes into a human, a liver does not (without someone cloning a human from it, thus a clone is human too and should not be aborted).

 

I was only using that as a way to show that there is no question that a fetus is alive, just like any other living cell. Not that it was as incomplete as a liver.

[cwes99_03]

Correct, thanks Dave for clearing those things up.