Upon fertilization, sperm and egg cease to exist, and a brand new life is created. After that point, all future changes can be described as development. Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, etc. are simply different developmental stages of the same organism. I wouldn't expect to outlaw abortion overnight. However, if pro-abortion activist judges would stop usurping legislative authority, I believe that abortion could be gradually restricted with broad public support. If you don't believe that laws impact behaviors, study the Prohibition era. Alcohol-related deaths and illness were drastically reduced. Unlike alcohol, however, I can't imagine that outlawing abortion would ever result in a lucrative abortion black market run by organized crime. The types of "commodities" and "market" dynamics are vastly different. As for drugs, I support marijuana legalization because I don't believe that significant social harm would result, even if use increased. The same cannot be said about hard narcotics. Of course, this is a separate discussion altogether.
Agreed. But you are focusing on the fact that they're the same organism, whereas I am focusing on the fact that they're different developmental stages. A first-trimester human fetus is almost indistinguishable from a first-trimester pig fetus. Neither have any capacity for reasoning. What does the potential for future ability to reason have to do with the fact that here and now, it has no such ability to reason? And the amount of deaths caused by gangsters, funded primarily by the alcohol black market, made up for this reduction many times over. There are black-market doctors today who perform illegal medical procedures. They aren't widespread simply because most of these procedures are not in high demand. Abortion doctors WOULD be in high demand if abortion was criminalized.
I agree that it is developmental stages of the same organism. I still disagree that a brand new life has been created. I will use the same example I used the Morning After Pill thread (Womens Interest): If you eat an omlette for breakfast, is that the same thing as eating 3 chickens for breakfast? In my opinion, no. You clearly consumed chicken eggs, and not chickes. Is a turtle egg, burried in the sand, a life? Again, maybe, but in my opinion, no. It is a developing organism, but it is not a new life until it hatches, or until it has developed enough to hatch with potential for survival. Could you call such an egg a turtle? No, it is clearly a turtle egg. The same logic applies with human development. An zygote or blastocyst is a developing human, but is not a human, or a life. It is not a human being until it has the potential to survive on its own, or in my opinion, not a life either. It is alive and developing, but is not an independent life.
My (reformed) opinion is abortion is wrong once the fetus becomes a viable life - say, five months or so. My problem with full-out bans is that they don't solve the reasons why people have abortions in the first place. For example, proposed bans do nothing to promote contraceptive education, make them less expencive and easier to aquire, or give extra funding to women who chose to be single mothers. In addition, morality is objective. For example, because I alone chose not to eat animals because I disagree with the conditions they are kept in, is it right to impose veganism on everyone?
I agree that abortion is acceptable prior to the fetus having a potential for a viable life. I think this is still to black and white, though, and idealistic. Life is so complex. Benefits and risks need to be considered on an individual basis.
Just put dead beat dads on death row ...a lot less people that aren't ready will be having unprotected sex... bwah ha ha ha ha. OOO...or better yet, put em on the firing line.
What's even more idealistic is that many (no, not all) who are anti-abortion are also for abstinance only education. I went to a Catholic High School where we were told that condoms don't work. How do people expect to stop surgical abortions when the only contraceptive meathod they endorce is abstinance?
I've never been a fan of the belief that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a human after it can survive on its own. So what? It still isn't a human being. Yes, a 6-month-old fetus could theoretically survive "on its own" (meaning in intensive medical care) if it were removed from the womb. Medical science is continually making the survival date earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. Are you saying that it's moral to abort a 3-month-old fetus now, because it couldn't survive on its own, but it may not be moral to do so ten years from now? It's still the same 3-month-old fetus, regardless of the world's level of medical development.
Abstinence only education is an OUTRAGE! How can people be expected to make sound decisions without proper education? This is both unfair, and negligent of the educators and buerocrats who institute it. The purpose of an education is not to be taught someone elses opinions and morals. The purpose is to be given reliable and relatively complete information so you can form you own opinion/morals. Instead of creating intelligent thinkers, school systems have developed a system I call "academic bulemia." Their only interest is to tell you information, and have you regurgitate back to them, verbatim. Is there any evidence supporting the use of abstinence only programs? How does it affect abortion rates? I am going to check out cdc.gov, see if there are any statistics. Even if the statistics favor abstinence only education as a means of lowering abortion rates, it is still imoral for educators to do so. After all, if they stopped teaching biology and chemistry, eventually all abortion doctors would die, and we would have no one to replace them with. That would dramaticly lower abortion rates, especially since back alley abortions are not likely to be reported to CDC, which would also cease to exist. If they dumb us all down enough, the "moral" leaders of this country can take complete control, and abstience only education is a step in that direction.
If it still needs to be in an incubator, and other technologies to mimic the womb, then no. This is artificial pregnancy, if you will. This is more like a test tube baby. It still is not an independent sustainable life form. This brings up another question (especially for Huck): If I work in a fertility lab, and I drop a beaker of fertilized eggs, am I guilty of manslaughter. I certaintly don't think so.
quoted: ...as long as the dead beat dads aren't fetuses, that's perfectly moral. Oooo...maybe we can get it passed by Congress..unless Congressmen are deadbeat dads..hmmm. quoted:..If I work in a fertility lab, and I drop a beaker of fertilized eggs, am I guilty of manslaughter. I certaintly don't think so. Nope...but if those were my eggs I'm going to kick your ass. Do you have any idea what it's like to get a shot every day for over a month just to get those lil things ready for harvesting?
Exactly - it's a moot point. If I don't like eating meat, then I won't eat meat. If I (hypothetically)didn't like gay marriage, then I wouldn't get marred to a chick. If I don't like abortions after the fifth month, then I won't have abortions after the fifth month.
I wouldn't put all my eggs into one basket, so to speak. Alternately, I could just tell you that the fertilization was unsuccessful, better luck next time, please pay the cashier on your way out... ChaChing! What a great way to drum up repeat business! (sarcasm, in case you didn't catch it)
DUH DUH DER....moron! That's what a human life is! Once fertilization takes place, a distinct human life is formed with it's own DNA and cells. NO NEW CELLS will be added until the human life dies, it just needs time to develop them. You are pathetic. I could care less how old you are, age does not reflect intelligence, as you have so clearly shown, since you still don't even comprehend basic 10th grade biology. Your fingernails are not a distinct human life that has it's own DNA and chromosomes You are trying to use uneducated comparisons to de-humanize unborn human beings, and it's pathetic. I mean seriously, you actually said, "SO YOUR DEFINITION OF A HUMAN LIFE IS ANYTHING THAT HAS 46 CHROMOSOMES AND HUMAN DNA."
You need to study biology again. New cells are added constantly, UNTIL the human life dies, and cell reproduction stops.
Quote: Originally Posted by Balbus I quote from your anonymous ‘friend’ – "The George Will piece you posted was especially good...Will is my favorite right winger and I often find him quite persuasive." - I think anyone that would find the right wing rantings of someone like George Will persuasive is a right winger, even if, like you they think they are not. And if you do not then it show a very marked lack of insight on your part or that personal prejudice has irrevocably eroded your judgement. I think that only an arrogant buffoon could so smugly denigrate the intelligence of someone as articulate as George Will. Like many people I’ve met, I often disagree with Will, but I have great respect for him. Your knee-jerk, condescending dismissal of anyone who strays from your leftist dogma is the epitome of ideological blindness. Please give me your analysis of the article by George Will? This was mine – "He seems to argue that four things have caused this woman to commit the action she took. However since he gives no evidence of direct links or a detailed history of the situation and other background material I can only assume that he is using the incident to push certain prejudices he already harbours. Education ("teach sex education in the modern manner, which has been well-described as plumbing for hedonists") Popular Culture Television and Film ("watching movies and television programs not designed to suggest that sexuality has morally complex dimensions and serious consequences") music ("coarsening lyrics of popular music") The type of society ("a social atmosphere") The availability of abortion ("Roe v. Wade") The problem is that he - in line with the normal ‘anti’ practices - likes to be negative, he rants well against things but seems to have no solutions. I did a search on google to see if he had anything positive to say on how these things could be reformed or improved but there was nothing. So can the anti’s tell me - How they will improve the level and type of education supplied in the US? From what I’ve heard, from many Americans here, education levels are often low and resources have been cut. He implies that the sex education taught now is new (modern) so is he calling for a return to and old form of SE and if so what was it? ** As to popular culture (television, film, music) the US is a very capitalist society and most popular culture is based on and financed by the market. Would anti’s want to limit the markets influence, bring in censorship? ** As to the type of society that the US has, what would you want and how would you accomplish it? ** As to abortion why does it seem to be wanted?" ** Quote: Did I say we should scrap the prosecution of murders or rapists as defined by the laws in place? My call was for the understanding of the reason for the people committing such crimes. In other words, you don’t believe that outlawing murder and striving to prevent it are mutually exclusive? That’s exactly what I’ve been saying about abortion policy. You see the death of innocent people as being necessary, if they take place in wars that you support, their deaths are for you ok since they are for what you think is the greater good? Quote: What public policies should be sought to address conditions that foster crime? I don’t really want to go down this rabbit trail. This thread is already scattered enough. Don’t worry I started another thread, see you there? Quote: Originally Posted by Balbus Now you say that you want astronomically more people in the world even when you say you know what kind of environmental problems it would create? I reject the notion that killing is an acceptable means of population control. But you do see killing as an acceptable means to gain the US a strategic advantage in another region? Quote: I think anyone reading your views is unsure of the extent of your environmental knowledge and commitment. Why, because I don’t believe that murdering the unborn is sound environmental policy? But for other political reasons you accept killing? Quote: Originally Posted by Balbus Tenfold increase, how do you know? I ask you about your view on the uptake of abortion on page 32 post 317 "I would also ask what the figures are based on, since if the procedure was illegal or very much limited (legally) we would need to look at many other possibly related statistics (child abandonment, suicide) not all of them available, such as how many self aborted or had successful illegal operations?" Your reply was a link (AGAIN) someone elses words one Dr Frank Beckwith, (the Doctor is for Philiosophy not medicine) at http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html. This man has written defences of religion who in the book "David Hume's Argument Against Miracles" claimed miracles were real. The argument was that since "there is no absolute certainty that there may have been some violation of scientific laws, then David Hume's objection to miracles as events that transgress an otherwise orderly universe is not a valid one". In other words if you want to believe something happened that has no scientific basis then that’s ok, which leads me to his paper that you cited in defence of your claim about the huge increase in abortions when they became legal. Which seems to argue that since we have no figures to show that the number of illegal abortion was large or widespread the number must have been low. Also he is a committed ‘anti’ and so to paraphrase Huck’s very words "You seriously believe that Dr Frank Beckwith is an "unbiased" source? His article cites the testimony of leading abortionists prior to Roe v. Wade such as Bernard Nathanson, who explains how he and others deliberately fabricated the number of illegal abortions in order to advance their agenda of legalizing abortion. I’ve never seen any credible evidence to the contrary. If you have some, please share it. You want me to supply you with the accurate number of illegal unrecorded abortions that took place, and at the same time I suppose you wish me to give you the accurate number of illegal unrecorded drug transactions that too place in the US this year? Quote: I gave you a logical argument for the increase in abortions after it was made more widely available, you haven’t refuted my premise only disputed it and as the abortion ‘expert’ on this thread it makes me think that you may not have looked at the ‘evidence’ dispassionately. Is it possible that you may be moulding ‘facts’ to fit in with personal prejudices unrelated to the subject? So you agree that there was likely a dramatic increase in abortion after it was made legal? You previously suggested that there was an unmet "demand" for abortion before it was legalized. I don’t doubt that there were people who wanted abortions but didn’t get them. They didn’t end up dead in back alleys. They found other ways to deal with their unwanted pregnancies, and as a result, their children’s lives were spared. OH Huck please read the damn post before reacting to them!!!! The above was a quote from a while ago the logical argument" was that of uptake which meant that there was an "increase" in the number of legal abortions. Stop trying to score points and actually engage in the discussion? Quote: Originally Posted by Balbus To use your own words "you discarded my references as "biased" without even attempting to deal with their content" Huck Finn Page 5, Post 247 You never engaged the Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils article; you merely latched onto an obviously slanted Planned Parenthood article that glibly dismissed it as flawed. Again my dear Huck read the posts! I gave my view on the Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils article in post 408. I said that the ‘evidence’ was open to interpretation and that the Center for Disease Control and the United States Heath and Human Services had come to the conclusion that better education in the use of contraception was to account for the results while the CSPRC (who by the way are now called the Physicians Consortium) interpreted it was due to abstinence based education. I then said "Basically it is up to trusting the impartiality of the Physicians Consortium a group solely dedicated to abstinence based education or these other organisations?" **
