How many men have no clue

This is another dead thread.
We may have gone far afield but a few things are still certain, without a doubt.
1. Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.
2. This is not a religious issue.
3. Every Human Being has access to a humans basic rights. First and foremost being, the right to life.
I have yet to see a compelling argument against these facts.
Only Feelz and "scumbaggery" (as another poster put it).
Thank you for participating.

a reply to: Quadrivium

1. Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.

Your opinion

2. This is not a religious issue.

That's right, it's a medical one. One that should be between a woman and her doctor.

3. Every Human Being has access to a humans basic rights. First and foremost being, the right to life.

You mean like a woman deciding they know what to do with their bodies?

a reply to: JAGStorm

1. No, he is quoting science. That has been proven over and over many times in this thread. The cells involved were always alive and human. At the moment of conception, the egg cell is also a human being. That is science, like it or not. Abortion is literally defined as the killing of the zygote/embryo/fetus, which is, scientifically, an early developmental stage of a living human being.

2. It is a legal issue based on a medical procedure.

3. There are two people whose rights are at odds. Three if one counts the father who was also directly involved with creating the human being involved. You mention one of them.



That said, there is legal precedent for early-stage abortions. When a person is injured or ill to the point of death, it is usually still possible to continue their life process artificially. Few take this option, because at that point there is such a small chance of recovery to a self-sustaining condition. The cost to the family (or to the government if the family cannot afford it) is astronomical. Because of this, artificial life support is normally only used when the cost factor exceeds the chance of recovery.

Sometimes the provider of the artificial life support and the family of the person disagree. That can easily wind up in court, where the rights of the provider are weighed against the rights of the person.

In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the situation is essentially identical. The child is a living human being, but it is being kept alive artificially by the mother's body; it cannot survive without that temporary life support. It will take about 9 months from the moment of conception until the child emerges in the infant stage of development where it no longer needs that life support. It's chances of recovery (making it to that infant stage where it no longer requires the uterus for life support) is actually quite small at that point; most pregnancies self-abort before anyone knows they exist, others become ectopic and must be terminated, some reach a point where the child's development becomes dangerous to the mother's life and future health, still others develop a genetic defect that makes it impossible (or at least severely difficult) for the child to survive to infanthood and beyond.

The "pill" (let's get that one out of the way) does not destroy even a fertilized egg; it simply tricks the body into thinking it is already pregnant, so no eggs are released to fertilize.

The "morning after pill" does prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. Before implantation, the fertilized egg has a very minimal chance of recovery to infanthood, like a brain-dead person on life support with life-threatening injuries has a very minimal chance of recovery. So I have no issue with that, nor do I think most people would have an issue with it.

As the pregnancy develops, the chances of recovery increase. Also, as the pregnancy progresses, the future cost to the mother (the provider of life support*) decreases; the pregnancy will end about 9 months from the conception, so a 6-month pregnancy only has three months to go. At some point, there is sufficient chance of recovery to infanthood to outweigh the cost to the mother for providing life support. At that point, the right of the child to be born (to live) outweighs the right of the mother to not be inconvenienced.

I don't know exactly where that line should be drawn; I doubt anyone does, really. I have my opinions, and so does everyone else... that's why we have politics. But that is what needs to be argued: where is that point where the right of the child to live outweighs the right of the mother to be inconvenienced? It does no good to argue that the child is dead, not human, or not a separate being from the mother; that only serves to present the arguer as ignorant of the science involved.

* when I say "cost to the mother," I am speaking legally, not financially. That total cost to the mother would include financial costs for prenatal care, of course, but would also include career interruption, mental anguish, life disruption, etc.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JAGStorm

Your opinion

Actually, it is not opinion. It is scientific fact.

That's right, it's a medical one. One that should be between a woman and her doctor.

Um, no.
That is only your opinion/belief. There is a third human beings life to consider.
The body inside of a pregnant woman is not her body.

You mean like a woman deciding they know what to do with their bodies?

In 99% of cases they made a choice on "what to do with their bodies" before a third party entered the picture.
What you, and many others, want isn't rights over your own bodies.
You want the rights to another human beings body.

a reply to: TheRedneck
I honestly don't see this as a religious, political or even an issue of law.
It has been proven that what has been considered a "clump of cells" is actually a human being in the beginning stage of their life cycle.
In 99% of cases two people freely chose to try and create this new human being.
If human rights exist at all, then one human should not lose their life due to the careless actions of someone else.
We continually change throughout our entire life cycle.
From the moment mitosis begins, until the day we die.
We change, we develop.
If you would not kill a toddler, a teen or a senior, why is ok to kill a preborn?
They are all human beings and have the same basic human right to life.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Abortion is an issue of law. As you say, there are more than one human being to consider; the unborn child is a human being. Anytime the rights of two separate human beings conflict, it becomes, by definition, an issue of law.

The way I see it, one side (the abortion on demand folks) want to completely ignore the fact that a human being is being killed. That is simply not an acceptable or a sustainable position. As you have said before, it is the same basic argument that was used to justify black slavery in America for nearly 100 years. The other side (anti-abortion) has a fringe element that does indeed want to ban contraception... that is also unacceptable and unsustainable. Both lives must be weighed against each other, and that is why we have the legal system in the first place.

When my mother died, I signed a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order for her. It was hard to do... I wanted her to recover and come home. But at the same time, I also knew she was tired of fighting and the chances of her approaching anything resembling a recovery were slim to none. She was dying. So I signed the order telling the hospital to not try and save a human life.

That happens every day across the country. When a life hangs in the balance and that life has a good chance of recovery, refusing to render aid would be criminal. However, when there's little to no chance of recovery, it is not considered a criminal act, but rather an act of mercy.

An abortion can be an act of mercy as well; it all depends on the specific case. The daughter I lost we discovered afterward was developing without a functioning brain; she would not have survived even if the miscarriage had not happened. If it had not happened, an abortion would have been a merciful act, both for her and for my wife. That situation does occur, and the one thing I do not to come out of this debate is for women and children to be tortured unnecessarily over an overzealous law.

Of course, the other side of that coin is that abortion has been used for simple birth control, with no thought whatsoever given to the life being terminated. That is why I am pro-life. The very idea that it might be OK to kill a child mere seconds before the head emerges during birth is despicable, abhorrent, and disgusting to the maximum for me. But since we have people willing to literally kill children like that, I have no choice but to oppose abortion on demand.

It would be wonderful if we could leave this decision to the woman and her doctor... but that has simply not worked. So now, just like a child who refuses to listen to reason, we have to have laws involved. It is what it is.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Quadrivium

1. Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.

True, its a developing human, is it a fully formed human, not until later in the development process.

2. This is not a religious issue.

Yes and no... If you are religious it is a religious issue...

3. Every Human Being has access to a humans basic rights. First and foremost being, the right to life.

Well no they don't... A much larger percentage of the population doesn't, than does. If we are talking just the US and maybe EU then they do, but even then it is not 100%. Death penalty anyone? Assisted suicide? Self Defense? pull the plug?

I have yet to see a compelling argument against these facts.

If you are suggesting a developing human the size of a pea is a fully formed human then that is a 100% religious ideal. My sperm is human too, can't be anything else. On the nonreligious side it is basically a chemical process that if allowed to progress becomes a full human.

Now the question is when should we as a society set limits to preventing this human from fully developing? In India they see that using a condom is prevent life from fully developing, so bad. Then we have the morning after pill that will prevent it. We then have ways to abort the process using meds still further in the development process, and finally abortion.

So where is that line my friend?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Abortion - here is the actual definition

the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

You don't think they give "abortions" to women with dead fetuses inside of them?

I really hope you don't argue with me on this since it happened to me.

abortion is ending a pregnancy, not always ending a "human life". Sometime that ending already happened.

legislature.maine.gov...

A. "Abortion" means the intentional interruption of a pregnancy by the application of external agents, whether chemical or physical, or the ingestion of chemical agents with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus, regardless of the length of gestation.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: TheRedneck

Abortion - here is the actual definition

the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

You don't think they give "abortions" to women with dead fetuses inside of them?

I really hope you don't argue with me on this since it happened to me.

abortion is ending a pregnancy, not always ending a "human life". Sometime that ending already happened.

legislature.maine.gov...

A. "Abortion" means the intentional interruption of a pregnancy by the application of external agents, whether chemical or physical, or the ingestion of chemical agents with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus, regardless of the length of gestation.

Don't let them bait you. That's all they've done in this thread.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Now the question is when should we as a society set limits to preventing this human from fully developing? In India they see that using a condom is prevent life from fully developing, so bad. Then we have the morning after pill that will prevent it. We then have ways to abort the process using meds still further in the development process, and finally abortion.

So where is that line my friend?

In 99% of abortions the line should be after mitosis begins.
At that point a new human comes into being, with it's own unique DNA.
Not the mothers (egg).
Not the fathers (sperm).
It is a new human being that both parties decided to bring into being.

If you are suggesting a developing human the size of a pea is a fully formed human then that is a 100% religious ideal

Um, no.
No it's not. It is still very much a scientific fact.
The only difference in a human being after mitosis begins and a human being at age 90 is a matter of form.
It is still the same human being just at a different point of their life cycle.
Religion doesn't tell me that. Simple biology does.
Religion/faith and philosophy comes in when you start talking about "sentience", "being self aware, etc.....
Your life cycle began once Mitosis began in your mother's womb.
Your life cycle will finish the day you die.
You will constantly change between those two periods of your life cycle.
The only thing people find hard about this subject is the fact that (in 99% of abortions) they want the right to another human being beings body/life and don't want to admit it.

I have asked this question numerous times and no one will answer, I think you might, so:

If you would not kill a toddler, a teen or a senior, why would you be willing to kill a preborn human being and why?

originally posted by: VierEyes

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: TheRedneck

Abortion - here is the actual definition

the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

You don't think they give "abortions" to women with dead fetuses inside of them?

I really hope you don't argue with me on this since it happened to me.

abortion is ending a pregnancy, not always ending a "human life". Sometime that ending already happened.

legislature.maine.gov...

A. "Abortion" means the intentional interruption of a pregnancy by the application of external agents, whether chemical or physical, or the ingestion of chemical agents with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus, regardless of the length of gestation.

Don't let them bait you. That's all they've done in this thread.

With truth and facts?
How's that work?
Oh......
Feelz

originally posted by: Quadrivium

In 99% of abortions the line should be after mitosis begins.
At that point a new human comes into being, with it's own unique DNA.
Not the mothers (egg).
Not the fathers (sperm).
It is a new human being that both parties decided to bring into being.

Both parties decided to have sex, maybe in a drunken orgy...lol

By what authority are you setting limits in once the sperm hits the egg its an untouchable event?

No it's not. It is still very much a scientific fact.

We both agree it is a ball of cells that will over time develop into a human, so what makes it so special that you can't stop it 24 hours after sex when you could stop it with a rubber during sex and that is all good.

The only thing people find hard about this subject is the fact that (in 99% of abortions) they want the right to another human being beings body/life and don't want to admit it.

As I said we legally kill people all the time. Death penalty, self protection, war, assisted suicide, pull the plug events, so why is it all of a sudden that life is so special in this case of stopping a human from developing?

I have asked this question numerous times and no one will answer, I think you might, so:

If you would not kill a toddler, a teen or a senior, why would you be willing to kill a preborn human being and why?

Because it isn't fully developed, same reason why I want limits on abortion as I disagree with later term. I personally don't value all life, BTW. If you want to get scientific then you need to understand that even the term "life" is a human construct to describe a natural chemical process within our universe.

You have the luxury to debate the value of human life, but it is all just smoke and mirrors BS that we keep telling ourselves as that value can disappear in a wink of an eye. Let LA run out of power and see how many vegetarians turn to cannibalism within a month?

The only way for you to actually maintain your stance that unique DNA is human, so it is untouchable, then you better be ready to say you also agree with there is zero reason to abort even if the mother or baby will die at birth, even if it is a rape or incest. You also will need to say that even if someone tries to kill you are anyone else you will let them do it and not kill them first, so unless you are willing to go all Gandhi on us you are full of crap.

I on the other hand see it as a developing human lifeform and say there is a time and place we should be able to end it just like we do a dozen of other ways with human life.

a reply to: JAGStorm

You don't think they give "abortions" to women with dead fetuses inside of them?

A dead fetus is... well, dead. It is no longer alive. At that point there is only one person involved: the mother, and the mother needs medical attention if her body doesn't self-expel the dead fetus. Even if it does, she needs to be checked out medically to ensure there is no tissue from the child remaining inside her.

None of that has anything to do with what we are talking about. We are talking about aborting a living human being. I have never met anyone who thought that medical attention after a fetal death should be illegal... no one!

I'm sorry you experienced that. But it is disingenuous to try to equate it to the present conversation.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xtrozero

Death penalty, self protection, war, assisted suicide, pull the plug events

Death penalty: the ultimate punishment, applicable only after a particularly heinous crime. It is only used in Alabama after the criminal sentenced either intentionally kills two or more people during the same criminal activity, or when the convicted kills another person with malice during commission of another felony. It is not about ending a life; it is about preventing the worst criminals in society from ending lives.

Self-protection is by definition the protection of one's own life (or the lives of innocent bystanders) when someone is intent on killing them. It is used to protect life, not to destroy it.

War is not a legal action. The only reason it is not specified in legal codes is that it is, by definition, the action of an entire country and therefore outside the venue of legal states. I find it interesting that you compare abortion, which you so obviously support, with something as terrible as war.

Assisted suicide is illegal in most states.

Pull the plug events I already addressed in detail above. It seems you didn't bother reading all the replies before you posted.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Death penalty: the ultimate punishment, applicable only after a particularly heinous crime. It is only used in Alabama after the criminal sentenced either intentionally kills two or more people during the same criminal activity, or when the convicted kills another person with malice during commission of another felony. It is not about ending a life; it is about preventing the worst criminals in society from ending lives.

First, I'm not for abortions... BUT I can understand the reasons that have both good results and bad ramifications from such actions. I wish women would not have them, and if they do it is a once in a lifetime event for them that with many can haunt them the rest of their lives.

I think you missed my point that morality is a privilege of only those that live an easy life. We do not need the death penalty as we can put people away until they die of old age, so your statement above is moot.

Self-protection is by definition the protection of one's own life (or the lives of innocent bystanders) when someone is intent on killing them. It is used to protect life, not to destroy it.

So you break into my house at 2 AM, and I can do a few different things, one of them is shoot you dead. Now I can come up with many reasons why, but I could also take other actions and you do not die. Killing someone in that situation is perfectly legal and shooting you in the leg could be illegal in the same situation. Then we can talk about how some states gives you the right to protect your property and your neighbor's too with lethal force. So you break into my neighbor's house and take their TV I can "legally" shoot you dead for that too. It's pretty damn grey when we want to talk about whether it is morally OK to kill if it was only on a legal issue.

War is not a legal action. The only reason it is not specified in legal codes is that it is, by definition, the action of an entire country and therefore outside the venue of legal states. I find it interesting that you compare abortion, which you so obviously support, with something as terrible as war.

So if abortions are legal then it is not a legal issue either, but a human life is taken in both cases.

You seem to want to deal more with what is legal or not, then a morality issue here. The whole "once the sperm hits the egg is now an untouchable event" type narrative I find rather ridiculous as much as the statemen from the pro choice group that "it isn't human until the first breath".

The question is when can we take a life, or prevent a life from developing? Its so easy now to be on our high horses, but as I suggested that all can go out the window in a wink of an eye when our lives are not so easy anymore and life in general becomes very cheap.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You seem to want to deal more with what is legal or not, then a morality issue here.

I was simply responding to your own comparisons ,which were pretty darn moot themselves. The war comparison I thought was particularly silly.

The question is when can we take a life, or prevent a life from developing?

That is the question, but in order to get a meaningful answer to a question, that question must be based in reality. I could ask you what unicorn farts smell like and you could reply "onions with a hint of lemon." It wouldn't matter because my question is nonsensical and thus so is your answer.

Science has discovered certain truths that are not in dispute (except when abortion proponents show up). We have laws, which I detailed above, that would appear to be potential precedent for future decisions and thus could provide an answer to the legality question. Unless we all agree on the science, however, nothing else is going to make any sense. The question becomes nonsensical and so do the answers... answers which, legally, a lot of women are going to have to live with until those who claim to support them can start acting like they do.

Laws in this country are by representation, not by decree.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I was simply responding to your own comparisons ,which were pretty darn moot themselves. The war comparison I thought was particularly silly.

So, it is still my decision to go kill in war and all is good, even with God...lol A life is a life is a life... Are we going to say that a fertilized egg is some untouchable thing and all these other ways to kill is justified?

In the end there is a time and place to kill.... Always will be.

Science has discovered certain truths that are not in dispute (except when abortion proponents show up). We have laws, which I detailed above, that would appear to be potential precedent for future decisions and thus could provide an answer to the legality question. Unless we all agree on the science, however, nothing else is going to make any sense. The question becomes nonsensical and so do the answers... answers which, legally, a lot of women are going to have to live with until those who claim to support them can start acting like they do.

Laws in this country are by representation, not by decree.

TheRedneck

Representation is driven by social norms.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So, it is still my decision to go kill in war and all is good, even with God...lol

No. No one gets to make that decision for themselves to go to war. That's the most screwed up ideology I have heard.

So far I know of 4 Alabamians who tried to make that kind of decision. 2 are dead and the other 2 are sitting in a Russian jail somewhere.

Representation is driven by social norms.

To some degree. But representation in a legislature cannot change on a whim like social norms. One must wait until an election to make changes, and social norms can change daily.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

No. No one gets to make that decision for themselves to go to war. That's the most screwed up ideology I have heard.

So far I know of 4 Alabamians who tried to make that kind of decision. 2 are dead and the other 2 are sitting in a Russian jail somewhere.

Are we talking US/EU or the world here my friend. Your replies are drifting in I think we are talking about abortions in America. I have already stated in another post where someone said that "life has a right to live" and I said only in a few countries like America that may be true, but most of the world, no. So yes I agree with you for much of the world people have no right to choice... But every American in the last 20+ years killing in War, or supporting killing in war was a choice. With my 28 years in the service I think I can see that.

To some degree. But representation in a legislature cannot change on a whim like social norms. One must wait until an election to make changes, and social norms can change daily.

I didn't list a timetable, but social norms drive it all in the end. I agreed with the reversal of Roe, I agree with states making their choice, or Congress making whatever federal, I'm good either way with it all. It is interesting that legal abortions has reduced crime in America starting about 18 years after Roe came about. I also see if abortions were on every street corner free for all we could as a society slowly lower our value of life in general, so what Pandora's box does that open up. We see it with our over all support to the LBGTQ community that turns into 81 genders, and an explosion of trans everywhere to include Elementary schools. We saw it with BLM and how that evolved into defund the police, weak prosecutors on crime etc and now we have an explosion of crime hitting all time highs. So with just about everything where you agree and give an inch they take a foot and evolve into something that has not much to do with the original intent.

So take this and apply it to the value of life and see what horrendous directions society could go with that if we lower that value even a little. That is why I see abortions as a fine line that we need to set in place something that most likely neither side agrees to, but they can hold their noses and say OK, and that OK will need to be some limited form of abortion available, and 12 or 14 weeks like the EU is fine with me to draw a line in the sand.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Both parties decided to have sex, maybe in a drunken orgy...lol
By what authority are you setting limits in once the sperm hits the egg its an untouchable event?

How do mammal reproduce? Sex
I don't have any authority to set limits. I am just stating facts.

We both agree it is a ball of cells that will over time develop into a human, so what makes it so special that you can't stop it 24 hours after sex when you could stop it with a rubber during sex and that is all good.

That's the thing, it isn't "just a clump of cells". It is a human being.
Sperm is not a human being.

As I said we legally kill people all the time. Death penalty, self protection, war, assisted suicide, pull the plug events, so why is it all of a sudden that life is so special in this case of stopping a human from developing?

Because it isn't fully developed, same reason why I want limits on abortion as I disagree with later term. I personally don't value all life, BTW. If you want to get scientific then you need to understand that even the term "life" is a human construct to describe a natural chemical process within our universe.
You have the luxury to debate the value of human life, but it is all just smoke and mirrors BS that we keep telling ourselves as that value can disappear in a wink of an eye. Let LA run out of power and see how many vegetarians turn to cannibalism within a month?

This begs the question, why haven't you committed suicide yet?
Because you know life does have meaning. It has meaning to the individual.

The only way for you to actually maintain your stance that unique DNA is human, so it is untouchable, then you better be ready to say you also agree with there is zero reason to abort even if the mother or baby will die at birth, even if it is a rape or incest. You also will need to say that even if someone tries to kill you are anyone else you will let them do it and not kill them first, so unless you are willing to go all Gandhi on us you are full of crap.

I on the other hand see it as a developing human lifeform and say there is a time and place we should be able to end it just like we do a dozen of other ways with human life.

I have never once said there should not be exceptions. I keep saying that in 99% of abortions, a couple had a choice and made the choice.
Regardless of how you see it, after mitosis begins, a new human being begins their life cycle. This is a simple biological fact.

The process of fertilization actually begins with conditioning of the spermatozoon in the male and female reproductive tracts. Thereafter, fertilization involves not only the egg itself but also the various investments, which surround the egg at the time it is released from the ovary follicle. Fertilization, therefore, is not an event, but a complex biochemical process requiring a minimum of 24 hours to complete singamy, that is the formation of a diploid set of chromosomes. During this process, there is no commingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes within a single nuclear membrane (pre-zygote); after this process the parental chromosomes material is commingled (zygote).

Among the many other activities of this new cell, most important is the recognition of the new genome, which represents the principal information centre for the development of the new human being and for all its further activities. For the better understanding of the very nature of the zygote, two main features are to be at least mentioned here. The first feature is that the zygote exists and operates from singly on as a being, ontologically one, and with a precise identity. The second feature is that the zygote is intrinsically oriented and determined to a definite development. Both identity and orientation are due essentially to the genetic information with which it is endowed. That is why many do believe that this cell represents the exact point in time and space where a new human individual organism initiates its own life cycle.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

On life and death:
If you are brutally murdered, you wouldn't care after it was done. That is not what makes murder immoral.
It is not the act of causing another human being to become unconscious.
It is not even the act of taking someone life.
While both of these are immoral, it is not the worst that can be done to a human being.
The worst thing, IMHO, is the act of causing disability on another human being.
Inflicting Total Irreversible disability.
Here is a good article on the subject:
jme.bmj.com...

So...

As I said we legally kill people all the time. Death penalty, self protection, war, assisted suicide, pull the plug events,

These human beings made a choice, that led up to their total disability/death (except in the case of "pulling the plug", these have already lost all their total ability).

so why is it all of a sudden that life is so special in this case of stopping a human from developing?

These human beings didn't.