:$ KC did you read my post? It's a SIMPLE violation of the social contract, there is nothing religious about it. Life scientifically begins at conception, it is a human in devolopment just like you and I. Unless that child is infringing on your life (or rape of course), LEGALLY, you should not have a right to kill it. You can, like me, be against abortion and not have your faith drawn into it. We are both Libertarians for the most part, I think you should really look into this.
I agree. Exhibit A, simple, : Marilyn Monroe, had like...two (maybe just one not excatly sure) "back-alley" abortions. Consequently, later in life was not able to have kids. The way I see it, Abortion needs to be legal, with minimized side effects and risks to the uterus. so, right on meishka!
*pours bleach all over this obnoxious thread* *grumbles obscenities in Mui's direction* *kills Huck for posting FAKE pictures(as in NOT abortion pics)* *makes trade deal to sell aborted feti to exotic dining facilities* *smacks pro-lifers with leftover aborted feti*
. First of all, I wasn't going to partake of this argument for the simple fact that our bodies are our own, and the decision to have or not to have an abortion lies within the woman but, you have said some things that piqued my interest, and I figured I would clarify some things, if not for you, for others who don't know. The cells contained in sperm, by itself could not develop into a fetus. Both an x, and y chromosome is needed. The egg by itself could not develop into a fetus for the same reasoning, that is the purpose of women's menstrual cycles, if the egg is not FERTILIZED it is sloughed off along with the uteruine lining. Technology to clone:this brings up another debate entirely! Is it morally just to clone? Who are we to take that respponsibility into our own hands? Once the cells have joined, and started to grow and divide, there is no other thing they can become but a human, they are a human, just in a different state of development than us as adults. Miscarriages, are a spontaneous involuntary happening. They are not planned out, nor are they able to perform at will. how can a spontaneous event (like dying?) be considered manslaughter?
All together now: Every sperm is sacred Every sperm is great If a sperm is wasted God gets quite Irate Let the heathen spill theirs Upon the Dusty ground lalalalalalal (can't remember the rest of the words) Every sperm is sacred Every sperm is good Every sperm is needed In your neighborhood Courtesy of Monty Python's Flying Circus
Maggie and Otter are evidently incapable of grasping the elementary biology that is so succinctly explained in Flutterby's post.
Flutterby explains quite well how human life begins at conception, and the best you can do is Monty Python? Well that takes the cake. There is a huge difference between a fertilized zygote, a distinct human life, and a guy "shooting his load in the shower." Like I said, I am not against abortion for moral reasons or becasue I am Catholic, I am against it becasue it's a violation of the social contract.. You are infringing on someone's right to life, and until your life is at danger (or you are raped) you and the father have responsibilty for it. Or put it up for adoption, don't kill it for Christ's sake.
I can respect people's pro-life stance on the debate, but as other's have said, outlawing abortion will not prevent it from happening and will cause greater harm than good.
See the above post to Huck Finn Jozak. It was a joke. This thread is so unbelievably stupid at this point, it isnt worthy of much more then jokes.
No one is attcking you for making jokes. Actually, it was quite refreshing! As I stated in my first post, I was not going to partake in this thread, but the blatant lack of common knowledge, really disturbed me. Therefor, I felt it was my duty to clarify very simply how our reproductive systems really work. This forum is about Free speech, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and no one needs to feel attacked. No one should try to force their opinion on someone else either. This is just obviously a very touchy subject, but I'm glad it's here because a lot of us are getting to vent, and justify our morals and beliefs. I have not yet taken a side, and I don't wish to. If I had to, I would, but it's all redundant at this point, both sides have been covered very well, and to me, it just seems like there isn't much left to say. I'll leave you with this, you may be done with the past, but the past is not done with you, and we are all responsible for the choices we make. As long as you can search your heart and soul, and live your life with no regrets, then you and only you, are doing the right thing.
What scientific journal is this published in? I have never seen this "fact," and I have been studying for 7 years, so far, after high school... If this logic is correct, should we institute death penalty for rapists? In my most recent biology class, life was defined by, among other things, ability to survive on its own. I am not saying you are right or wrong, as I have heard your definition also. I just don't think it is fair to call it a scientific fact.
Oh, why didn't everyone else realize life was this simple? All along you had all the answers... Give me a break.
I usually don’t get involved with in discussion about abortion, because it is such a big deal for many Americans. Well you might say that that doesn’t seem to stop me in other areas but what is clear in many discussions I have been involved in and the many more I’ve read it is clear that many Americans views on this subject are based on religious belief rather than any logical thought. As Huck and others know I don’t have a very high regard for religion and although I understand many people like that crutch, that doesn’t mean I understand why they have chosen such an irrational one. ** Is abortion right or wrong, well I’ll tell you one thing it is repulsive, but then so is war and dropping bombs when it is known that many will kill totally innocent men, women and children. But many of the Christian right that shout the loudest about being against abortion are often the ones that defend such actions as being for the ‘greater good’. In my view war can be necessary but I also think that all other practical avenues that might avoid it must be explored. The other thing with war is that if it is threatening or is needed then the circumstances and problems that have mean it is imminent have been overlooked or ignored. So to me if there is a bloody conflict it is it is never glorious and a time for waving flags it is a failure and we should feel collective shamed. I think the same of abortion. But that doesn’t mean I would not necessarily support a war or an abortion. So like conflict, shouldn’t we be asking why it has got to such a repulsive point? What can we do to limit or stop the seeming necessity of the action. This is where the anti-abortionist seem to me to show the paucity of their argument which seems to be based on the idea that since they (and in many cases their religion) says it is wrong then it must be stopped. When it comes to the social, economic and cultural problems that cause the large amount of abortions in the US they don’t seem to have many realistic ideas. ** Thank you Jozak your ‘social contract’ idea is interesting and really raises the tone. But again it seems to flounder when it come to the point at which it is asked what has society done to help the person not getting into the situation of needing or desiring an abortion? It comes down to the individual’s rights and responsibility in regard to the state and those of the state to its citizens. So you would need to know how the individual become pregnant and why they feel the need to have an abortion and what the state has done to help the individual’s sexual education and how much it has done to create a society in which abortion is not thought to be needed? It could be argued that the individual is at fault for being pregnant but has the state put in the system that has nurtured the individual education to the level that they are able to make an informed decisions? Has it given the individual the means to protect itself from unwanted pregnancy and relief from societal pressures to become sexually active. It then has to be asked what kind of society is it that when faced with pregnancy an individual would want an abortion? Remember that the culture of a society and very often the religion dictates how such things can be looked at. In times past ‘unmarried mothers’ have been very badly treated, even today women that have become pregnant (even when due to rape) have been killed for bringing shame on family or community. There was also double standards men ‘sowing their wild oats’ was thought to be healthy. Today there is a variation on that practice of shaming ‘fallen’ women in the opprobrium heaped on ‘welfare mothers’. In many societies pregnancy is seen as an economic burden on the individual and the state. There are people here that seem to believe the poor should not have the right to breed as they cannot effort to have children and so make life more difficult for such people to discourage them from breading. First I would ask why and then comment that in such a society abortion might seem the preferred choice for many. ** Also as we have an abortion thread can we try and keep discussion on the subject limited to just here?
Right back atcha, baby! I felt humor was the only recourse at this stage in this 27 page thing. Balbus and Photo have some good things to say, too. I won't argue about it anymore. I'd rather at this point, leave the philosophy of the question to Micheal Palin and John Cleese....
THERE A LOT OF EXTREMISTS ON THIS ISSUE. I'M NOT. THERE ARE VALID REASONS FOR AND AGAINST AN ABORTION. PRO-LIFERS AND PRO-CHOICERS NEED TO START FINDING SOME MIDDLE GROUND OR THIS A GOING TO BE A NEVER ENDING BATTLE...
See http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html. "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoa and the resulting mingling of the chromosomal material each brings to the union that culminates the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual. Every one of the higher animals starts life as a single cell the fertilized ovum. The union of two such sex cells to form a zygote constitutes the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual." Bradley M. Patten, M.D. (3rd Edition, 1968), New York City: McGraw-Hill. "The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual." Leslie Arey. (7th Edition, 1974). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. "Zygote. This cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being ... Development begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte to form a zygote. Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote." K.L. Moore. (2nd Ed., 1977). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 1 and 12. "The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. . Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 17 and 23. "A human being develops from a mass of living material no larger than a pinhead, material contributed by both parents and capable of living and growing for a lifetime ... This genetic makeup was established at the beginning of your life, when a haploid egg and a haploid sperm combined to produce a diploid zygote, your first somatic cell." J.H. Otto and A. Towle. . New York City: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1969. "The zygote is the starting cell of the new individual." Salvadore E. Luria, M.D. <36 Lectures in Biology>. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, 1975, page 146. "It is widely accepted and widely taught that human beings as well as other organisms reproducing by sexual reproduction …this is nothing unique to humans; this is a general biological principle ..start their existence at the time of conception or fertilization, as a single cell, the zygote." Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, M.D., Harvard Medical School, quoted in the , 97th Congress, 1st Session, April 23, 1981. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. ., 3rd Edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii. "Based on my education and background, therefore, I believe that from the moment of the union of the sperm and the egg in the human species, there is present a new living human being. The human life is there from the moment of fertilization, and its very essence starts early but is not completed until the second decade of life. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood, and that interruption at any point constitutes termination of human life." Alfred M. Bongiovanni, M.D., University of Pennsylvania Medical Professor, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 24, 1981. "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra- or extra- uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices [emphasis added]." "A New Ethic for Medicine and Society," 113 67, 68 (1970). "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being, a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings ... Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species." Report of the Senate Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to the Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981, page 7.
