Political Crossfire Forums

name · Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 144

Please consider the scenario: a man and woman have protected sex with a condom, which breaks. The woman is also on birth control, but the pill doesn't work despite her 100% correct use of it. The woman becomes pregnant, but the pregnancy would be an enormous burden to her life.
If the woman tried but was unable to obtain emergency contraception due to circumstances beyond her control, would you support her decision to have an abortion as soon as possible?
This woman intended to prevent this and was screwed (no pun intended) by a slim chance. But honestly, this early on in pregancy, the issue is who has more rights: a living woman with a life to pursue, or a lump of cells with no sentience. Do we deny the woman the right to end the pregnancy just because she missed out on emergency contraception?
Please no 'keep ya legs closed' arguments.

Green · Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: Re: What if prevention fails?

name wrote: Please consider the scenario: a man and woman have protected sex with a condom, which breaks. The woman is also on birth control, but the pill doesn't work despite her 100% correct use of it. The woman becomes pregnant, but the pregnancy would be an enormous burden to her life.
If the woman tried but was unable to obtain emergency contraception due to circumstances beyond her control, would you support her decision to have an abortion as soon as possible?
This woman intended to prevent this and was screwed (no pun intended) by a slim chance. But honestly, this early on in pregancy, the issue is who has more rights: a living woman with a life to pursue, or a lump of cells with no sentience. Do we deny the woman the right to end the pregnancy just because she missed out on emergency contraception?
Please no 'keep ya legs closed' arguments. There is a .0375% chance that both the pill and the condom fail in this situation(I did the research and calculations). If a woman has safe sex, a woman could have sex 1,000 times and be perfectly fine.

That lump of cells is a person, and it is looking more like a person every day. It has every organ a human person has and the same stature. This is not like stem cell research that there is just one cell that is sacrificed. A cell and a person are very diffrent.

I accidently hit the enter key, so I had to edit.

If anybody asks why I was looking up condoms on Wikipedia, this is my excuse.

name · Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 144

"name wrote:
Please consider the scenario: a man and woman have protected sex with a condom, which breaks. The woman is also on birth control, but the pill doesn't work despite her 100% correct use of it. The woman becomes pregnant, but the pregnancy would be an enormous burden to her life.
If the woman tried but was unable to obtain emergency contraception due to circumstances beyond her control, would you support her decision to have an abortion as soon as possible?
This woman intended to prevent this and was screwed (no pun intended) by a slim chance. But honestly, this early on in pregancy, the issue is who has more rights: a living woman with a life to pursue, or a lump of cells with no sentience. Do we deny the woman the right to end the pregnancy just because she missed out on emergency contraception?
Please no 'keep ya legs closed' arguments. "

quote: "There is a .0375% chanse that both the pill and the condom fail in this situation(I did the research and calculations). If you have safe sex, you could have sex 1,000 times and be perfectly fine.

That lump of cells is a person, and it is looking more like a person every day. This is not like stem cell research that"

Thanks for the response. I wasn't aware of just how slim the chance is, but I'm sure it has happened. In any event, I'm more interested in the moral implications of the situation.
How do you define 'personhood?' In my opinion, a person isn't a person unless he is self-aware and sentient. Without these key factors, cells are cells and the issue is how much value you place on a potential as opposed to a living woman.

Green · Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 10:20 pm Post subject:

Quote:
That lump of cells is a person, and it is looking more like a person every day. This is not like stem cell research that"

Thanks for the response. I wasn't aware of just how slim the chance is, but I'm sure it has happened. In any event, I'm more interested in the moral implications of the situation.
How do you define 'personhood?' In my opinion, a person isn't a person unless he is self-aware and sentient. Without these key factors, cells are cells and the issue is how much value you place on a potential as opposed to a living woman.

Once it is up to a certain point, odds are that the potential will be a person.

I am messing up everywhere today.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

name wrote: In my opinion, a person isn't a person unless he is self-aware and sentient.

:tu:

Welcome brother, we've been expecting you.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

Green wrote: Once it is up to a certain point, odds are that the potential will be a person.

Of course, at birth when the physical separation from the mother forces sentience and awareness upon the newborn child. Sentience is never achieved, it is imposed though our environment. There is no certain point where an embryo attains this status, but there is a moment when it is forced upon the embryo: the moment when the physician cuts the umbilical cord that connects the embryo to its potential, and forces it to become the actual.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

She dosent have to keep her legs closed if she dosent want to. If a bunch of guys on an internet message board know that protection isnt 100% safe, im sure the woman was aware of this too. When she took on sex, she took on everything that comes with it. Possible heartbreak, heartache due to the guy just using her for sex, the possibility of contracting an STD, the possibility of becoming pregnant. I do not think she should be granted an abortion because that ever so small possibility that she was aware of came to fruition. When she had sex, she took on that possibility. Who has more rights? We're talking about the right to life, the right to continue growth and development in order to be born, the right to live....vs....the right to maintain a certain lifestyle. The right to maintain that lifestyle by ending another life you helped to create, and ending the potential that life has to be born, and to one day be sitting at a computer debating abortion, just like you and I. I put that right to life, the potential that life has and the fact that if left unharmed that life WILL be born into this world, above the right to maintain a certain lifestyle, and above the convinience of anyone.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: She dosent have to keep her legs closed if she dosent want to. If a bunch of guys on an internet message board know that protection isnt 100% safe, im sure the woman was aware of this too. When she took on sex, she took on everything that comes with it. Possible heartbreak, heartache due to the guy just using her for sex, the possibility of contracting an STD, the possibility of becoming pregnant. I do not think she should be granted an abortion because that ever so small possibility that she was aware of came to fruition. When she had sex, she took on that possibility. Who has more rights? We're talking about the right to life, the right to continue growth and development in order to be born, the right to live....vs....the right to maintain a certain lifestyle. The right to maintain that lifestyle by ending another life you helped to create, and ending the potential that life has to be born, and to one day be sitting at a computer debating abortion, just like you and I. I put that right to life, the potential that life has and the fact that if left unharmed that life WILL be born into this world, above the right to maintain a certain lifestyle, and above the convinience of anyone.

What of the unwanted pregnancies that occur while the mother does not have enough money to provide for the child, essentially forcing both the child, and the mother, into poverty, creating a poor(er) lifestyle for both people. Whereas, if a pregnancy is thoroughly planned, the financial situation of the parent(s) would be accounted for, and the child could grow up in a much better environment.

Is quantity more important than quality?

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: Is quantity more important than quality? Youre right, I should go kill all the poor people in my city now because they dont have as much material possesions and chances that I do. Of course quantity is more important you ignoramus. Were talking about human lives for gods sake.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

AllAmericanMan wrote: Youre right, I should go kill all the poor people in my city now because they dont have as much material possesions and chances that I do.

What ever floats your boat.

AllAmericanMan wrote: Of course quantity is more important you ignoramus.

Please, make the claims without the insults. It becomes very hard to respect your argument when you resort to immature name-calling because I disagree with you.

AllAmericanMan wrote: Were talking about human lives for gods sake.

No, we are talking about the potential human lives.

... And "God" does not exist.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

LostSoul3412 wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: She dosent have to keep her legs closed if she dosent want to. If a bunch of guys on an internet message board know that protection isnt 100% safe, im sure the woman was aware of this too. When she took on sex, she took on everything that comes with it. Possible heartbreak, heartache due to the guy just using her for sex, the possibility of contracting an STD, the possibility of becoming pregnant. I do not think she should be granted an abortion because that ever so small possibility that she was aware of came to fruition. When she had sex, she took on that possibility. Who has more rights? We're talking about the right to life, the right to continue growth and development in order to be born, the right to live....vs....the right to maintain a certain lifestyle. The right to maintain that lifestyle by ending another life you helped to create, and ending the potential that life has to be born, and to one day be sitting at a computer debating abortion, just like you and I. I put that right to life, the potential that life has and the fact that if left unharmed that life WILL be born into this world, above the right to maintain a certain lifestyle, and above the convinience of anyone.

What of the unwanted pregnancies that occur while the mother does not have enough money to provide for the child, essentially forcing both the child, and the mother, into poverty, creating a poor(er) lifestyle for both people. Whereas, if a pregnancy is thoroughly planned, the financial situation of the parent(s) would be accounted for, and the child could grow up in a much better environment.

Is quantity more important than quality?

The actions we take and the decisions we make in life dictate where our life goes, along with our financial stability throughout life. A planned pregnancy is defiantly better. Are you arguing that a certain amount of evil be placed on the child, that it is somehow responsible for the situation? If we make a decision along the way that sends our life in an unfortunate direction, we should not have the right to end human life, human development, in order to rectify our situation, that we put ourselves in to begin with. If you are arguing that the child puts the mother and itself in an unfortunate situation, you are holding that child responsible for that situation, are you not? When the child was put there in the first place, by the mother and her decision. As I argued with Steen, if the woman is somehow "enslaved," it is not the childs(or unborns) fault, it is a direct result of the mothers decision. If she feels burdened or "enslaved" she is responsible for her own actions. Like I said, the decisions we make dictate where our life goes, and one should not have the right to dictate that through the taking of another human life, born or unborn. We cannot say what will become of that childs life, before it is born and has the chance to live that life.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: No, we are talking about the potential human lives. An outright lie. Has never even come close to being proven.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: The actions we take and the decisions we make in life dictate where our life goes, along with our financial stability throughout life. A planned pregnancy is defiantly better. Are you arguing that a certain amount of evil be placed on the child, that it is somehow responsible for the situation? If we make a decision along the way that sends our life in an unfortunate direction, we should not have the right to end human life, human development, in order to rectify our situation, that we put ourselves in to begin with. If you are arguing that the child puts the mother and itself in an unfortunate situation, you are holding that child responsible for that situation, are you not? When the child was put there in the first place, by the mother and her decision. As I argued with Steen, if the woman is somehow "enslaved," it is not the childs(or unborns) fault, it is a direct result of the mothers decision. If she feels burdened or "enslaved" she is responsible for her own actions. Like I said, the decisions we make dictate where our life goes, and one should not have the right to dictate that through the taking of another human life, born or unborn. We cannot say what will become of that childs life, before it is born and has the chance to live that life.

There is no evil to be placed anywhere, on the embryo or the mother. My argument was that unwanted pregnancies where the parent(s) are not financially prepared to raise a child will often result in a severely lower standard of living for that child. Now, granted, I cannot argue specific speculations with what will happen to an embryo once it is born, but I can confidently say that without proper financial preparation, once that embryo is born, it is not going to have the kind of live that it deserves. In a way, an unwanted pregnancy not only punishes the mother because she is being forced to give birth and change her entire lifestyle without her consent, but it is also punishing the embryo by not providing it with the quality of life that it deserves.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: No, we are talking about the potential human lives. An outright lie. Has never even come close to being proven.

...or disproven.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:47 am Post subject:

LostSoul3412 wrote: name wrote: In my opinion, a person isn't a person unless he is self-aware and sentient.

:tu:

Welcome brother, we've been expecting you.

Indeed. Welcome indeed.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:00 am Post subject:

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: She dosent have to keep her legs closed if she dosent want to. If a bunch of guys on an internet message board know that protection isnt 100% safe, im sure the woman was aware of this too. When she took on sex, she took on everything that comes with it. Possible heartbreak, heartache due to the guy just using her for sex, the possibility of contracting an STD, the possibility of becoming pregnant. I do not think she should be granted an abortion because that ever so small possibility that she was aware of came to fruition. When she had sex, she took on that possibility. Who has more rights? We're talking about the right to life, the right to continue growth and development in order to be born, the right to live....vs....the right to maintain a certain lifestyle. The right to maintain that lifestyle by ending another life you helped to create, and ending the potential that life has to be born, and to one day be sitting at a computer debating abortion, just like you and I. I put that right to life, the potential that life has and the fact that if left unharmed that life WILL be born into this world, above the right to maintain a certain lifestyle, and above the convinience of anyone.

What of the unwanted pregnancies that occur while the mother does not have enough money to provide for the child, essentially forcing both the child, and the mother, into poverty, creating a poor(er) lifestyle for both people. Whereas, if a pregnancy is thoroughly planned, the financial situation of the parent(s) would be accounted for, and the child could grow up in a much better environment.

Is quantity more important than quality?

The actions we take and the decisions we make in life dictate where our life goes, along with our financial stability throughout life. A planned pregnancy is defiantly better. Are you arguing that a certain amount of evil be placed on the child, that it is somehow responsible for the situation?

No, I don’t think he was, since to a point, there is no child.

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: If we make a decision along the way that sends our life in an unfortunate direction, we should not have the right to end human life, human development, in order to rectify our situation, that we put ourselves in to begin with.

True enough. However, since abortion to a point is not the ending of a human life, well then, there should be no qualms with this.

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: If you are arguing that the child puts the mother and itself in an unfortunate situation, you are holding that child responsible for that situation, are you not?

No he was not. There was never a mention of a child. Only a blastocyst or an early embryo. And since it is merely a group of cells with human DNA, and not a “child”, well then of course it can’t be held responsible for it’s actions…no more than a toaster can be held responsible for falling on your head.

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: When the child was put there in the first place, by the mother and her decision.

While a child may eventually emerge, or develop, no ‘child’ was ever put there. Merely a blastocyst.

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: As I argued with Steen, if the woman is somehow "enslaved," it is not the childs(or unborns) fault, it is a direct result of the mothers decision.

And if a person gets cancer from smoking too much, we do not complain when the seek treatment to rectify the situation, despite it being ‘her fault’ that she smoked. Falling down the stairs is also a direct result of your actions, since you chose to take those stairs. After all, didn’t you know that could happen? But there is not reason to refuse treatment to these people, merely because their injuries were a result of their fault. Likewise, since abortion is an effective treatment for an unwanted pregnancy, there also should be no qualms with this as well.

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: If she feels burdened or "enslaved" she is responsible for her own actions. Like I said, the decisions we make dictate where our life goes, and one should not have the right to dictate that through the taking of another human life, born or unborn.

Well, in hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, no one has been able to demonstrate definitively that it is a human life. As I have said time and time again, the anti-choicers strongest line is to appeal to science, which yet still fails them, because they are appealing to a field in which there is no consensus. We know the mother has rights, and is a person, and as such, has sovereignty over her own body.

Even if it were proven conclusively that what is inside is a full complete person, which I am confident will never be done on this forum, or any forum, I still argue it changes nothing, since there is no such thing as a “right to live inside another person.”

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: We cannot say what will become of that childs life, before it is born and has the chance to live that life.

And we do not need to.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

The Grandmaster wrote: No, I don’t think he was, since to a point, there is no child.

Actually, he used the word Child 3 times....I believe he was refering to the Born Child, as was I....

The Grandmaster wrote: True enough. However, since abortion to a point is not the ending of a human life, well then, there should be no qualms with this.

What is a zygote, or an embryo, or a fetus, if it is not, in terms of science, a living human? At what point after conception does it become a living human?

The Grandmaster wrote: No he was not. There was never a mention of a child. Only a blastocyst or an early embryo. And since it is merely a group of cells with human DNA, and not a “child”, well then of course it can’t be held responsible for it’s actions…no more than a toaster can be held responsible for falling on your head.

Did you read his post???? Thats exactly what he was talking about, and the Child is exactly what I was referencing. I dont see the word blastocyst or early embryo used.

The Grandmaster wrote: And if a person gets cancer from smoking too much, we do not complain when the seek treatment to rectify the situation, despite it being ‘her fault’ that she smoked. Falling down the stairs is also a direct result of your actions, since you chose to take those stairs. After all, didn’t you know that could happen? But there is not reason to refuse treatment to these people, merely because their injuries were a result of their fault. Likewise, since abortion is an effective treatment for an unwanted pregnancy, there also should be no qualms with this as well.

We do not complain because the cancerous tumor will eventually kill its host. The embryo will continue to grow and develop and be born. It is the difference in you placing no value in the potential. Thats your opinion, I have mine.

The Grandmaster wrote: Well, in hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, no one has been able to demonstrate definitively that it is a human life. As I have said time and time again, the anti-choicers strongest line is to appeal to science, which yet still fails them, because they are appealing to a field in which there is no consensus.

Well, all we do know, is that everything begins in the development of human life at conception. Whether or not it is "life" or a "person" is arbitrary.

The Grandmaster wrote: since there is no such thing as a “right to live inside another person.”

True enough. However there wouldnt have to be such a right, because if it was as you say, and it was put into law that it IS a full complete person, that person would have the right to life, no matter what the environment. You cannot take the life away from a "full complete person", can you?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: No, I don’t think he was, since to a point, there is no child.

Actually, he used the word Child 3 times....I believe he was refering to the Born Child, as was I....

The Grandmaster wrote: True enough. However, since abortion to a point is not the ending of a human life, well then, there should be no qualms with this.

What is a zygote, or an embryo, or a fetus, if it is not, in terms of science, a living human? At what point after conception does it become a living human?

The Grandmaster wrote: No he was not. There was never a mention of a child. Only a blastocyst or an early embryo. And since it is merely a group of cells with human DNA, and not a “child”, well then of course it can’t be held responsible for it’s actions…no more than a toaster can be held responsible for falling on your head.

Did you read his post???? Thats exactly what he was talking about, and the Child is exactly what I was referencing. I dont see the word blastocyst or early embryo used.

The Grandmaster wrote: And if a person gets cancer from smoking too much, we do not complain when the seek treatment to rectify the situation, despite it being ‘her fault’ that she smoked. Falling down the stairs is also a direct result of your actions, since you chose to take those stairs. After all, didn’t you know that could happen? But there is not reason to refuse treatment to these people, merely because their injuries were a result of their fault. Likewise, since abortion is an effective treatment for an unwanted pregnancy, there also should be no qualms with this as well.

We do not complain because the cancerous tumor will eventually kill its host. The embryo will continue to grow and develop and be born. It is the difference in you placing no value in the potential. Thats your opinion, I have mine.

The Grandmaster wrote: Well, in hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, no one has been able to demonstrate definitively that it is a human life. As I have said time and time again, the anti-choicers strongest line is to appeal to science, which yet still fails them, because they are appealing to a field in which there is no consensus.

Well, all we do know, is that everything begins in the development of human life at conception. Whether or not it is "life" or a "person" is arbitrary.

The Grandmaster wrote: since there is no such thing as a “right to live inside another person.”

True enough. However there wouldnt have to be such a right, because if it was as you say, and it was put into law that it IS a full complete person, that person would have the right to life, no matter what the environment. You cannot take the life away from a "full complete person", can you?

:roll:

You two are arguing over my post when I have already posted a reply...

Scroll up.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Well, all we do know, is that everything begins in the development of human life at conception. Whether or not it is "life" or a "person" is arbitrary.

Arbitrary? No, it is essential.

Green · Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:22 am Post subject:

name wrote: How do you define 'personhood?' In my opinion, a person isn't a person unless he is self-aware and sentient.
You liberals think that when a baby is born, you can't kill it; right. If I were "self-aware and sentient" when I were a baby, I would not have crapped in my polymer white tightes. I would also not have let my parents take embarrasing baby pictures of me naked, or I would have burned them while I was still cute enough to do the puppy eyes and get away with it. Eventually, the baby will grow up to not poop in his pants.