Abortion and You

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

If you want to make sure that no one is denied existence than you should have an
aggressive scheme of mandatory breeding.

Billions upon billions of people are denied existence because people don't breed
constantly.

Which is not the same thing as what Neal was talking about at all...

[geetrue]

The only difference between the way the KKK killed black people and the way abortion kills black people is that it takes less time.

It only takes three days in America for the abortionist to kill the same amount of black people that the KKK has killed in all of the years they have been around.

I know it's a cruel world ... facts don't lie.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by geetrue

The only difference between the way the KKK killed black people and the way abortion kills black people is that it takes less time.

It only takes three days in America for the abortionist to kill the same amount of black people that the KKK has killed in all of the years they have been around.

I know it's a cruel world ... facts don't lie.

Perfect post.

I'm personally in the middle. Not wanting to give Gov the control, but also thinking Mothers should bear the consequences of ones actions.

I am for abortion where mother life is threatened, or rape.

I also don't want to go back to a time when Government forced women to threaten ones life with a coat hanger or something.

I guess we must take the good with the bad.

-S

[Letum]

Originally Posted by August

Which is not the same thing as what Neal was talking about at all...

The connection you are failing to make is that Neal thinks that "denying some
eventual human being the complete right to exist" is wrong.

This is the same logic that causes the catholic church to ban condoms and it is a
deeply flawed logic, even if like Neal, you do not carry it all the way to its logical,
yet aubsurd, conclusions.

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

The connection you are failing to make is that Neal thinks that "denying some eventual human being the complete right to exist" is wrong.

This is the same logic that causes the catholic church to ban condoms and it is a
deeply flawed logic, even if like Neal, you do not carry it all the way to its logical,
yet aubsurd, conclusions.

Not the same thing at all Letum. Abortion shouldn't be considered just another form of birth control regardless of whether you're Catholic or not.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by August

Not the same thing at all Letum. Abortion shouldn't be considered just another form of birth control regardless of whether you're Catholic or not.

I'm not saying it is!

My only point in the first post of mine that you quoted is that:
"denying some eventual human being the complete right to exist" leads to absurd
conclusions and is thus a poor stance to argue from.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Letum

The connection you are failing to make is that Neal thinks that "denying some
eventual human being the complete right to exist" is wrong.

This is the same logic that causes the catholic church to ban condoms and it is a
deeply flawed logic, even if like Neal, you do not carry it all the way to its logical,
yet aubsurd, conclusions.

Uh, wrong. Why would you pretend to think I meant "eventual human being" as billions of isolated sperm and eggs cells? You know I was referring to an eventual human being that exists genetically at conception. I'm not going to explain it to you, the difference between conception and the capacity for conception should be obvious.



.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Uh, wrong. Why would you pretend to think I meant "eventual human being" as billions of isolated sperm and eggs cells? You know I was referring to an eventual human being that exists genetically at conception. I'm not going to explain it to you, the difference between conception and the capacity for conception should be obvious.

The difference is obvious, but the your definitions are not.

In what way are isolated gametes not an "eventual human being", even if they are destined to join,
but
A fertilized gamete is a "eventual human being" even tho it is destined to die before it becomes one?

Isn't that a inconsistency?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Letum

A fertilized gamete is a "eventual human being" even tho it is destined to die before it becomes one?

Isn't that a inconsistency?

No, it's not. Once they are joined and form a zygote, that minute group of cells will become a human being, unless interrupted by an outside force. If that is not the point where life begins, what is?

[Tchocky]

I never know where to draw the line.
Maybe real life begins at the moment the fetus is not dependent on a single exclusive person, ie at the moment of birth. But that's extremely problematic.

*sigh*

Let it be legal, if only so we don't end up criminalising women who make the choice.

[joegrundman]

Life begins when the child has left university with a professional degree.

[Sailor Steve]

I've mentioned on a similar thread an old Jules Pfeiffer cartoon. A young girl is talking about herself, and it goes something like this:

"I was born in a ghetto. My father left home when I was five. I was raised on the streets. I was given drugs when I was ten. I was raped by a gang. Now I'm fourteen and pregnant. So you tell me - when does life begin?"

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

No, it's not. Once they are joined and form a zygote, that minute group of cells will become a human being, unless interrupted by an outside force. If that is not the point where life begins, what is?

It is no more objective to take that as the point where something will "become a
human being" than any other.

If two particular isolated gametes are destined to become a human unless
interrupted by an outside force (i.e. a condom or the lack of a mandatory breeding
program), then it is utterly arbitrary to chose any one point as the point where a
human becomes eventual or inevitable. Especially since the eventuality is guaranteed
at no stage.


The "point where life begins" is a whole new question!
For this one we need a good tight definition of what "life" is.
I don't think there is any need to have a good tight definition and no need to decide
when "life begins" because what we do does not change because of a label we give
something.
Perhaps you disagree, in which case, for arguments sake, I would life to see what definition of "life" you favor.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I never know where to draw the line.
Maybe real life begins at the moment the fetus is not dependent on a single exclusive person, ie at the moment of birth. But that's extremely problematic.

*sigh*

Let it be legal, if only so we don't end up criminalising women who make the choice.

Pragmatic, not the ideal solution (if there is any), but acceptable. I tend to agree.

I just remind that there is the option to make it /leave it legal and always possible for the mother to give her kid away for adoptions, unhindered and undiscriminated. That still leaves the mother with nine months - but then: no need to abort. And she might change her mind in that time, and after birth. I would always mention this option, and encourage and support to chose for it. But legal pressure not to abort I must refuse.