Life At Conception

[babe]

Here's something that is just right.

https://nationalprolifealliance.com/rlacw_petition.aspx?pid=sb21&npla=I1AAAB13I

the only viable scientific definition of life. . . . .a lot of people just don't want to recognize, because there is just no excuse for killing.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Most admit and say that it is life. They just say it is a dependent life form rather than an independent life form. It is dependent on the mother so she gets to choose.

Me personally I think that it should be symmetrical. Once brain activity reaches a certain point for a dying person they are considered dead. Once a fetus reaches a certain point in the development (only a couple of weeks in, I forgot which week exactly) it should also be considered a person. Being dependent or independent is irrelevant.

 

[babe]

Most admit and say that it is life. They just say it is a dependent life form rather than an independent life form. It is dependent on the mother so she gets to choose.

Me personally I think that it should be symmetrical. Once brain activity reaches a certain point for a dying person they are considered dead. Once a fetus reaches a certain point in the development (only a couple of weeks in, I forgot which week exactly) it should also be considered a person. Being dependent or independent is irrelevant.

Well, in ancient times, per the Bible narrative, the Israelites(or their God) placed a huge positive value on life, at least their own lives. A woman who was injured intentionally and was caused to lose her child was considered significantly wronged, but the offender did not get the death penalty like in the case of intentional murder. Accidental murder and accidentally-caused miscarriage did get fairly equal judgment. In those times, children were a postive asset to the small nation with large and powerful empires on either side. Having kids was like it was in Russia propaganda under old Stalin. . . . a woman who produced a lot for the State was a State Hero.

well, I don't like statism, and actually I don't like the government being the battering ram to force everyone to do right, either.

I think your criteria of actual operative intelligence is a pretty good rejoinder to the "Life at Conception" idea, except where do you draw the line. Are conservatives "intelligent" enough to have rights, too?

I saw my kids on ultrasound when they were a few weeks after conception, and you could see the heartbeat in the little human the size of a grain of rice. So far as I'm concerned, they were human already.

I know a lot of people hate the idea of responsibility at that point in development of their kids, but I know a lot of people who hate their teenagers too, and seriously question their humanity.

I draw a direct line of correlation to our killing of our unborn with our uncaring about human rights on every level. In Belgium, euthanasia is being used to destroy mental retarded or otherwise impaired kids just like it is being used to dispose of the useless eater elderly folks.

It's not that hard to just care for human life.

 

[One Brow]

the only viable scientific definition of life. . . . .a lot of people just don't want to recognize, because there is just no excuse for killing.

By the only scientifically viable definition of life, sperm, ovum, and cancer cells are alive (and unmistakably human).

Me personally I think that it should be symmetrical. ... Being dependent or independent is irrelevant.

So, if my kidneys fail and your blood type is compatible, it's OK for me to hook myself into your bloodstream and for you to hook yourself into mine? Or, do you reject for some reason not connected to dependence or independence?

Well, in ancient times, per the Bible narrative, the Israelites(or their God) placed a huge positive value on life, at least their own lives. A woman who was injured intentionally and was caused to lose her child was considered significantly wronged, but the offender did not get the death penalty like in the case of intentional murder. Accidental murder and accidentally-caused miscarriage did get fairly equal judgment.

Accidental miscarriages resulted in a fine. Accidental murder resulted in death, unless the killer managed to reach one of the cities of refuge. I don't consider paying a fine and being forced to flee for your life as "fairly equal judgement".

 

[Tony]

In my opinion, a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body and no one else has any right to try and force their own opinions and beliefs onto that woman because in the end, she's going to have to live with her decision for the rest of her life. Meanwhile, the people who criticize the choice she makes will forget about it eventually. This entire subject is asinine. Every woman should be able to choose. Religion should have NO part in laws involving the matter because everyone has their own religions and some have none. But everyone has their own opinions on the matter. So if you believe babies should never be aborted, then by all means, don't abort. But don't shove your own beliefs down other people throats.

Another thing, if a woman REALLY doesn't want to have a baby, she'll find a way not to and that could involve bodily harm or death. Having the option to have medical treatment is a hell of a lot safer than not having it.

edit: religion should have no part in laws AT ALL.

 

[Hartsock]

Better a baby be aborted ( in the first trimester ideally) than be born to a parent who doesn't want it and won't love it, or to be born and thrown into the hell that is foster care. Don't try and tell me that there are plenty of adoptive parents out there, there aren't. It's not your life so shut the **** up and stay out of it. I also find it odd that the republicans really want smaller government, but they really really want to govern the lives of everyone that doesn't share the same values and ideals as them. Pretty hypocritical IMO.

Also anytime anyone uses the bible as a basis for an argument I automatically assume that argument is baseless.

 

[Gameface]

In my opinion, a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body and no one else has any right to try and force their own opinions and beliefs onto that woman because in the end, she's going to have to live with her decision for the rest of her life. Meanwhile, the people who criticize the choice she makes will forget about it eventually. This entire subject is asinine. Every woman should be able to choose. Religion should have NO part in laws involving the matter because everyone has their own religions and some have none. But everyone has their own opinions on the matter. So if you believe babies should never be aborted, then by all means, don't abort. But don't shove your own beliefs down other people throats.

Another thing, if a woman REALLY doesn't want to have a baby, she'll find a way not to and that could involve bodily harm or death. Having the option to have medical treatment is a hell of a lot safer than not having it.

edit: religion should have no part in laws AT ALL.

I have an honest question. It's not really pro or anti abortion.

If the choice completely belongs to the pregnant woman how is it justified that the biological father is completely at her mercy?

If she decides to have and keep the child when the father doesn't want the child then he is obligated to pay child support.

If she decides to abort the child when the father wants the child then he simply doesn't get to have his child born.

So is this fair?

A woman can opt-out of motherhood if she wants to. A man cannot opt-out of fatherhood (financially) if the woman doesn't want him to.

Why can't a man "abort" his part in a pregnancy? His body is now being controlled by this pregnancy in the sense that he will have to spend his time and effort providing financial support for a child he didn't want...for 18 years. Have no doubt, his body, his existence is being affected by a pregnancy he had no choice to end or continue or anything. He's trapped and completely at the mercy of the mother's will.

 

[Tony]

Better a baby be aborted ( in the first trimester ideally) than be born to a parent who doesn't want it and won't love it, or to be born and thrown into the hell that is foster care. Don't try and tell me that there are plenty of adoptive parents out there, there aren't. It's not your life so shut the **** up and stay out of it. I also find it odd that the republicans really want smaller government, but they really really want to govern the lives of everyone that doesn't share the same values and ideals as them. Pretty hypocritical IMO.

Also anytime anyone uses the bible as a basis for an argument I automatically assume that argument is baseless.

You're 100% right.
Apparently I've repped too many times today so I'll have to rep you when I can.

 

[nightmare3983]

I have an honest question. It's not really pro or anti abortion.

If the choice completely belongs to the pregnant woman how is it justified that the biological father is completely at her mercy?

If she decides to have and keep the child when the father doesn't want the child then he is obligated to pay child support.

If she decides to abort the child when the father wants the child then he simply doesn't get to have his child born.

So is this fair?

A woman can opt-out of motherhood if she wants to. A man cannot opt-out of fatherhood (financially) if the woman doesn't want him to.

Why can't a man "abort" his part in a pregnancy? His body is now being controlled by this pregnancy in the sense that he will have to spend his time and effort providing financial support for a child he didn't want...for 18 years. Have no doubt, his body, his existence is being affected by a pregnancy he had no choice to end or continue or anything. He's trapped and completely at the mercy of the mother's will.

Good post. This is definitely one of the biggest things surrounding abortion that bugs me.

 

[Hartsock]

I have an honest question. It's not really pro or anti abortion.

If the choice completely belongs to the pregnant woman how is it justified that the biological father is completely at her mercy?

If she decides to have and keep the child when the father doesn't want the child then he is obligated to pay child support.

If she decides to abort the child when the father wants the child then he simply doesn't get to have his child born.

So is this fair?

A woman can opt-out of motherhood if she wants to. A man cannot opt-out of fatherhood (financially) if the woman doesn't want him to.

Why can't a man "abort" his part in a pregnancy? His body is now being controlled by this pregnancy in the sense that he will have to spend his time and effort providing financial support for a child he didn't want...for 18 years. Have no doubt, his body, his existence is being affected by a pregnancy he had no choice to end or continue or anything. He's trapped and completely at the mercy of the mother's will.

I'll but in with my opinion even though I know you weren't talking to me.

If the father wants the baby and is willing to take full responsibility for it after birth then I think the woman should have to keep the baby.

If she decides to keep the baby I think the father should pay child support, although I think the child support rates can be a bit steep and pretty unfair. If she wants the baby and he doesn't I think the support should be a lot less than if they had the baby together on purpose and got divorced or broke up or what not.

I also don't think its fair to compare being the full time parent of a child to having to pay a few hundred bucks a month.

Its a tough subject without clear answers though, so I'm interested in hearing others opinions.

 

[Tony]

I have an honest question. It's not really pro or anti abortion.

If the choice completely belongs to the pregnant woman how is it justified that the biological father is completely at her mercy?

If she decides to have and keep the child when the father doesn't want the child then he is obligated to pay child support.

If she decides to abort the child when the father wants the child then he simply doesn't get to have his child born.

So is this fair?

A woman can opt-out of motherhood if she wants to. A man cannot opt-out of fatherhood (financially) if the woman doesn't want him to.

Why can't a man "abort" his part in a pregnancy? His body is now being controlled by this pregnancy in the sense that he will have to spend his time and effort providing financial support for a child he didn't want...for 18 years. Have no doubt, his body, his existence is being affected by a pregnancy he had no choice to end or continue or anything. He's trapped and completely at the mercy of the mother's will.

There are laws in other countries that give fathers just as much say as mothers and if he is willing to take full responsibility for the child, then legally the mother has to have the baby and once it's born full custody is given to the father. There should definitely be laws for this passed in the US but that's not to say there should be laws prohibiting abortion.

 

[Stoked]

I'll but in with my opinion even though I know you weren't talking to me.

If the father wants the baby and is willing to take full responsibility for it after birth then I think the woman should have to keep the baby.

If she decides to keep the baby I think the father should pay child support, although I think the child support rates can be a bit steep and pretty unfair. If she wants the baby and he doesn't I think the support should be a lot less than if they had the baby together on purpose and got divorced or broke up or what not.

I also don't think its fair to compare being the full time parent of a child to having to pay a few hundred bucks a month.

Its a tough subject without clear answers though, so I'm interested in hearing others opinions.

I am one of those men that would have been a single father. Had a baby on the way that the mother did not want. She miscarried, conveniently. She claims that she was so sick that she couldn't keep anything down but we both know she was lying. So I lost my child and had no control over it.

Does my opinion and desires hold no weight? Once she had the child she would be free and clear and I'd even have made sure her name never went on the B.C.

I am personally agaisnt abortion but think that others have the right. I also believe that the biological father should have some level of say and that their say should have weight.

I would not be opposed to having a legal framework in place to allow men to get out from babies they do not want. Before they are born only.

 

[Stoked]

There are laws in other countries that give fathers just as much say as mothers and if he is willing to take full responsibility for the child, then legally the mother has to have the baby and once it's born full custody is given to the father. There should definitely be laws for this passed in the US but that's not to say there should be laws prohibiting abortion.

Partial birth abortion absolutely should be illegal. Early term abortion and morning after pills should be legal.

 

[Hartsock]

I am one of those men that would have been a single father. Had a baby on the way that the mother did not want. She miscarried, conveniently. She claims that she was so sick that she couldn't keep anything down but we both know she was lying. So I lost my child and had no control over it.

Does my opinion and desires hold no weight? Once she had the child she would be free and clear and I'd even have made sure her name never went on the B.C.

I am personally agaisnt abortion but think that others have the right. I also believe that the biological father should have some level of say and that their say should have weight.

I would not be opposed to having a legal framework in place to allow men to get out from babies they do not want. Before they are born only.

When I was 24, I was in a semi long distance thing so we only saw each other every month or so, after one of her weekends up she kind of drops off the face of the earth and sends me some weird text about how I've hurt her so much and all this weird **** and I have no idea what she is talking about. Figure she heard some lie about me or is just a crazy girl or whatever. So I figure we are broken up and am kinda bummed but whatever, I move on. About 6 months later she calls me out of the blue and says " I'm kind of drunk so I think I can finally tell you whats going on" Ummm, ok, goes on to tell me that I got her pregnant, and she wasn't sure how to tell me so she decided to not tell me and stop talking to me. She says she had a miscarriage, I don't completely buy that but I guess its possible. I also would have wanted to keep the baby, I would have taken it, let her go off scot free, no child support no nothing, but I never got the chance. It sucks *** not knowing what really happened, that I could have had a child, or maybe it was just a miscarriage. The father should have some rights, but I also think mothers should get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[fallenchicken]

I actually think this is a complicated question, no matter your religion or spiritual believes. I'm an atheist who certainly supports birth-control--I think a person should only have two kids--but the idea of abortion still makes me a bit queasy. I'm not sure there is a right answer. In my mind you can't force a woman to carry a baby. With how expensive it is to raise a kid these days--when in the past it was an economic asset--it's just not a possibility for some people. The only thing you can do is not put yourself, or your woman, in this moral quagmire and make sure you don't cause any unplanned pregnancies.

And that's why you should always do it standing up; they can't get pregnant that way.

 

[fishonjazz]

Partial birth abortion absolutely should be illegal. Early term abortion and morning after pills should be legal.

My feelings as well

 

[Tony]

Partial birth abortion absolutely should be illegal. Early term abortion and morning after pills should be legal.

I agree that after a certain period of time, a mother is in the wrong to abort. After four months she shouldn't just decide that "Hey, this is too much responsibility." Four months is way too late to make that kind of decision. At that point the baby has already developed nerve endings, has a heart, a liver, kidneys, eyes, fingers, feet. It's a human that feels pain. The only time I see it as being okay is if the mother could potentially die. But like I said, everyone has their own opinions and beliefs, and the mother will ultimately be the one to have to live with her decision. So in the end my own and no one else's opinions matter.

 

[Stoked]

I agree that after a certain period of time, a mother is in the wrong to abort. After four months she shouldn't just decide that "Hey, this is too much responsibility." Four months is way too late to make that kind of decision. At that point the baby has already developed nerve endings, has a heart, a liver, kidneys, eyes, fingers, feet. It's a human that feels pain. The only time I see it as being okay is if the mother could potentially die. But like I said, everyone has their own opinions and beliefs, and the mother will ultimately be the one to have to live with her decision. So in the end my own and no one else's opinions matter.

I'd add the father of the child to the list of people whose opinion matters.

 

[NUMBERICA]

A lot of things are "life", and almost all of them we have no respect for.

 

[Tony]

I'd add the father of the child to the list of people whose opinion matters.

That's not what I'm saying. Of course the father should have a say but I mean the groups and politicians who are trying to make it so women have no right to their own bodies.