Political Crossfire Forums

Otacon · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject: A Compromise is Needed

Okay, let's say that we do allow abortions, but only up until a certain point when it's undeniable that the fetus is a human. If it's old enough to be born pre-maturely, then abortion should not be allowed. Also, in cases of rape, incest, and threats to the mother's life, abortion would be allowed. After the first trimester would be ideal for a cut-off date. So, what do you say? It's obvious that without a compromise the issue will never be resolved.

Green · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject:

No matter when you do an abortion, it is still murder.

I am ok with contraceptive pills.

Otacon · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject:

Green wrote: No matter when you do an abortion, it is still murder.

I am ok with contraceptive pills.

Not true. You can not tell me that a glob of cells at 2 weeks is a human life, because it is not.

TheCaliforniaLife · Joined: 18 Sep 2005 Posts: 509 Location: California

Otacon wrote: Green wrote: No matter when you do an abortion, it is still murder.

I am ok with contraceptive pills.

Not true. You can not tell me that a glob of cells at 2 weeks is a human life, because it is not.
It is human... that's simple biology.

At conception the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the sperm and the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the ovum come together, they form 46 diploid chromosomes. At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Otacon · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject:

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: Green wrote: No matter when you do an abortion, it is still murder.

I am ok with contraceptive pills.

Not true. You can not tell me that a glob of cells at 2 weeks is a human life, because it is not.
It is human... that's simple biology.

At conception the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the sperm and the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the ovum come together, they form 46 diploid chromosomes. At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Let me ask you this: Why the f**k do you care if we kill a glob of cells?

TheCaliforniaLife · Joined: 18 Sep 2005 Posts: 509 Location: California

Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: Green wrote: No matter when you do an abortion, it is still murder.

I am ok with contraceptive pills.

Not true. You can not tell me that a glob of cells at 2 weeks is a human life, because it is not.
It is human... that's simple biology.

At conception the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the sperm and the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the ovum come together, they form 46 diploid chromosomes. At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Let me ask you this: Why the f**k do you care if we kill a glob of cells?
Terministic screens don't scare me. Use any tactic you want to belittle the actuality of an unborn. You are a “glob” of cells and I am a “glob” of cells. Every human is a “glob” of cells. That is simple biology.

Otacon · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:37 pm Post subject:

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: Green wrote: No matter when you do an abortion, it is still murder.

I am ok with contraceptive pills.

Not true. You can not tell me that a glob of cells at 2 weeks is a human life, because it is not.
It is human... that's simple biology.

At conception the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the sperm and the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the ovum come together, they form 46 diploid chromosomes. At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Let me ask you this: Why the f**k do you care if we kill a glob of cells?
Terministic screens don't scare me. Use any tactic you want to belittle the actuality of an unborn. You are a “glob” of cells and I am a “glob” of cells. Every human is a “glob” of cells. That is simple biology.

The thing that's wrong with that arguement is that I am a glob of cells that processes intelligent thought and can survive outside of my mother's womb. A fetus does not. Oh, and cells don't make something human. A hair is made up of homo sapien cells.

TheCaliforniaLife · Joined: 18 Sep 2005 Posts: 509 Location: California

Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: Green wrote: No matter when you do an abortion, it is still murder.

I am ok with contraceptive pills.

Not true. You can not tell me that a glob of cells at 2 weeks is a human life, because it is not.
It is human... that's simple biology.

At conception the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the sperm and the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the ovum come together, they form 46 diploid chromosomes. At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Let me ask you this: Why the f**k do you care if we kill a glob of cells?
Terministic screens don't scare me. Use any tactic you want to belittle the actuality of an unborn. You are a “glob” of cells and I am a “glob” of cells. Every human is a “glob” of cells. That is simple biology.

The thing that's wrong with that arguement is that I am a glob of cells that processes intelligent thought and can survive outside of my mother's womb. A fetus does not. Oh, and cells don't make something human. A hair is made up of homo sapien cells.
Everything that is wrong with your argument:
Newborns cant process intelligent thought either (since they are not conscious until several weeks after birth).
A fetus can survive outside the womb once it is viable. You clearly implied that in at no time is the fetus able to survive outside the womb.

I need to put this in a separate section-- Did what I said go over your head? I don't mean to be condescending but what you are saying has already been stated in my argument. I'll highlight it:

At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Otacon · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject:

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: Green wrote: No matter when you do an abortion, it is still murder.

I am ok with contraceptive pills.

Not true. You can not tell me that a glob of cells at 2 weeks is a human life, because it is not.
It is human... that's simple biology.

At conception the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the sperm and the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the ovum come together, they form 46 diploid chromosomes. At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Let me ask you this: Why the f**k do you care if we kill a glob of cells?
Terministic screens don't scare me. Use any tactic you want to belittle the actuality of an unborn. You are a “glob” of cells and I am a “glob” of cells. Every human is a “glob” of cells. That is simple biology.

The thing that's wrong with that arguement is that I am a glob of cells that processes intelligent thought and can survive outside of my mother's womb. A fetus does not. Oh, and cells don't make something human. A hair is made up of homo sapien cells.
Everything that is wrong with your argument:
Newborns cant process intelligent thought either (since they are not conscious until several weeks after birth).
A fetus can survive outside the womb once it is viable. You clearly implied that in at no time is the fetus able to survive outside the womb.

I need to put this in a separate section-- Did what I said go over your head? I don't mean to be condescending but what you are saying has already been stated in my argument. I'll highlight it:

At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Basic Biology will tell you that a system of cells is not neccasarily make something a human. If you will actually read my opening post, I am opposed to abortion once it is undeniable that the fetus is alive. If it can be born pre-maturely, then it's definately alive.

Varyag · Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Posts: 397 Location: Melos

When somobody else kills a fetus its called murder, why the double standard? If you're such a libertarian then why are you arguing that mothers be allowed to absolve themselves of personal responsibility for their own actions? I thought personal responsibility was a cornerstone of libertarianism? Guess not. 99% of abortions should be illegal, until then people will get away with murder.

TheCaliforniaLife · Joined: 18 Sep 2005 Posts: 509 Location: California

Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: Green wrote: No matter when you do an abortion, it is still murder.

I am ok with contraceptive pills.

Not true. You can not tell me that a glob of cells at 2 weeks is a human life, because it is not.
It is human... that's simple biology.

At conception the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the sperm and the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the ovum come together, they form 46 diploid chromosomes. At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Let me ask you this: Why the f**k do you care if we kill a glob of cells?
Terministic screens don't scare me. Use any tactic you want to belittle the actuality of an unborn. You are a “glob” of cells and I am a “glob” of cells. Every human is a “glob” of cells. That is simple biology.

The thing that's wrong with that arguement is that I am a glob of cells that processes intelligent thought and can survive outside of my mother's womb. A fetus does not. Oh, and cells don't make something human. A hair is made up of homo sapien cells.
Everything that is wrong with your argument:
Newborns cant process intelligent thought either (since they are not conscious until several weeks after birth).
A fetus can survive outside the womb once it is viable. You clearly implied that in at no time is the fetus able to survive outside the womb.

I need to put this in a separate section-- Did what I said go over your head? I don't mean to be condescending but what you are saying has already been stated in my argument. I'll highlight it:

At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Basic Biology will tell you that a system of cells is not neccasarily make something a human. If you will actually read my opening post, I am opposed to abortion once it is undeniable that the fetus is alive. If it can be born pre-maturely, then it's definately alive.
Did I ever say a system of cells is what makes something human? I said system of cells is what makes a species. That is basic biology. An embryo/fetus is a system of homo sapien chromosomes. This equates to being a homo sapien.

Otacon · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject:

Varyag wrote: When somobody else kills a fetus its called murder, why the double standard? If you're such a libertarian then why are you arguing that mothers be allowed to absolve themselves of personal responsibility for their own actions? I thought personal responsibility was a cornerstone of libertarianism? Guess not. 99% of abortions should be illegal, until then people will get away with murder.

Yes, I am an advocate of personal responsibility.

If either side of the arugement wants this issue to be resolved, a compromise is needed.

Otacon · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject:

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Otacon wrote: Green wrote: No matter when you do an abortion, it is still murder.

I am ok with contraceptive pills.

Not true. You can not tell me that a glob of cells at 2 weeks is a human life, because it is not.
It is human... that's simple biology.

At conception the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the sperm and the 22 haploid chromosomes and one sex chromosome in the ovum come together, they form 46 diploid chromosomes. At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Let me ask you this: Why the f**k do you care if we kill a glob of cells?
Terministic screens don't scare me. Use any tactic you want to belittle the actuality of an unborn. You are a “glob” of cells and I am a “glob” of cells. Every human is a “glob” of cells. That is simple biology.

The thing that's wrong with that arguement is that I am a glob of cells that processes intelligent thought and can survive outside of my mother's womb. A fetus does not. Oh, and cells don't make something human. A hair is made up of homo sapien cells.
Everything that is wrong with your argument:
Newborns cant process intelligent thought either (since they are not conscious until several weeks after birth).
A fetus can survive outside the womb once it is viable. You clearly implied that in at no time is the fetus able to survive outside the womb.

I need to put this in a separate section-- Did what I said go over your head? I don't mean to be condescending but what you are saying has already been stated in my argument. I'll highlight it:

At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.

Basic Biology will tell you that a system of cells is not neccasarily make something a human. If you will actually read my opening post, I am opposed to abortion once it is undeniable that the fetus is alive. If it can be born pre-maturely, then it's definately alive.
Did I ever say a system of cells is what makes something human? I said system of cells is what makes a species. That is basic biology. An embryo/fetus is a system of homo sapien chromosomes. This equates to being a homo sapien.

A fetus at two weeks old is not human, or atleast is not a developed human that can survive outside of the mother's womb. It should be up to mother whether or not development should continue.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 11449 Location: Zagreb

Otacon wrote: Okay, let's say that we do allow abortions, but only up until a certain point when it's undeniable that the fetus is a human. If it's old enough to be born pre-maturely, then abortion should not be allowed. Also, in cases of rape, incest, and threats to the mother's life, abortion would be allowed. After the first trimester would be ideal for a cut-off date. So, what do you say? It's obvious that without a compromise the issue will never be resolved.

i think it's a good idea.

unfortunaly, anti abortionists wouldn't go along with it. for them, the only answer is no abortion.

Otacon · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: A Compromise is Needed

The Comrade wrote: Otacon wrote: Okay, let's say that we do allow abortions, but only up until a certain point when it's undeniable that the fetus is a human. If it's old enough to be born pre-maturely, then abortion should not be allowed. Also, in cases of rape, incest, and threats to the mother's life, abortion would be allowed. After the first trimester would be ideal for a cut-off date. So, what do you say? It's obvious that without a compromise the issue will never be resolved.

i think it's a good idea.

unfortunaly, anti abortionists wouldn't go along with it. for them, the only answer is no abortion.

Yeah, that's true. They don't realize that a compromise is the only way to limit abortion. They will never be able to fully ban abortion, so I don't see why they aren't willing to atleast put some restrictions on it.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 11449 Location: Zagreb

Otacon wrote: The Comrade wrote: Otacon wrote: Okay, let's say that we do allow abortions, but only up until a certain point when it's undeniable that the fetus is a human. If it's old enough to be born pre-maturely, then abortion should not be allowed. Also, in cases of rape, incest, and threats to the mother's life, abortion would be allowed. After the first trimester would be ideal for a cut-off date. So, what do you say? It's obvious that without a compromise the issue will never be resolved.

i think it's a good idea.

unfortunaly, anti abortionists wouldn't go along with it. for them, the only answer is no abortion.

Yeah, that's true. They don't realize that a compromise is the only way to limit abortion. They will never be able to fully ban abortion, so I don't see why they aren't willing to atleast put some restrictions on it.

people will always find a way. atleast having limited, legal, safe abortion is a way to not only reduce it slightly but to insure that the mother is unharmed(as is the case in back alley abortions).

WeThePeople · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: A Compromise is Needed

The Comrade wrote: Otacon wrote: The Comrade wrote: Otacon wrote: Okay, let's say that we do allow abortions, but only up until a certain point when it's undeniable that the fetus is a human. If it's old enough to be born pre-maturely, then abortion should not be allowed. Also, in cases of rape, incest, and threats to the mother's life, abortion would be allowed. After the first trimester would be ideal for a cut-off date. So, what do you say? It's obvious that without a compromise the issue will never be resolved.

i think it's a good idea.

unfortunaly, anti abortionists wouldn't go along with it. for them, the only answer is no abortion.

Yeah, that's true. They don't realize that a compromise is the only way to limit abortion. They will never be able to fully ban abortion, so I don't see why they aren't willing to atleast put some restrictions on it.

people will always find a way. atleast having limited, legal, safe abortion is a way to not only reduce it slightly but to insure that the mother is unharmed(as is the case in back alley abortions).

I hate to sound callous, but to think of reducing the # of abortions in a purely pragmatic way...
Wouldn't making abortions illegal not only cause many women who are on the edge err on the side of not breaking the law? And as pertains to back alley abortions, if women know that these are dangerous, wouldn't that simply add to the deterent effect?

I understand that some women will make the decision to have back alley abortions regardless, and that this puts them at risk, but how can you argue that legalizing abortions would make them less prevalent?

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 11449 Location: Zagreb

WeThePeople wrote: The Comrade wrote: Otacon wrote: The Comrade wrote: Otacon wrote: Okay, let's say that we do allow abortions, but only up until a certain point when it's undeniable that the fetus is a human. If it's old enough to be born pre-maturely, then abortion should not be allowed. Also, in cases of rape, incest, and threats to the mother's life, abortion would be allowed. After the first trimester would be ideal for a cut-off date. So, what do you say? It's obvious that without a compromise the issue will never be resolved.

i think it's a good idea.

unfortunaly, anti abortionists wouldn't go along with it. for them, the only answer is no abortion.

Yeah, that's true. They don't realize that a compromise is the only way to limit abortion. They will never be able to fully ban abortion, so I don't see why they aren't willing to atleast put some restrictions on it.

people will always find a way. atleast having limited, legal, safe abortion is a way to not only reduce it slightly but to insure that the mother is unharmed(as is the case in back alley abortions).

I hate to sound callous, but to think of reducing the # of abortions in a purely pragmatic way...
Wouldn't making abortions illegal not only cause many women who are on the edge err on the side of not breaking the law? And as pertains to back alley abortions, if women know that these are dangerous, wouldn't that simply add to the deterent effect?

I understand that some women will make the decision to have back alley abortions regardless, and that this puts them at risk, but how can you argue that legalizing abortions would make them less prevalent?

it's not a matter of all illegal or all legal.

you can get an abortion in the weeks of pregnancy. if you're past that, oh well. abortions where the baby risks the life of the mother are also legal.

and back alley abortions aren't like they used to be. it's not a coat hanger up the vag anymore. usually it's in a doctors office(still risky as without the proper tools things have to be..improvized).

and if a woman is desperate enough she'll probably be willing to do anything to get rid of the fetus.

WeThePeople · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:12 pm Post subject:

Quote: and back alley abortions aren't like they used to be. it's not a coat hanger up the vag anymore. usually it's in a doctors office(still risky as without the proper tools things have to be..improvized).

and if a woman is desperate enough she'll probably be willing to do anything to get rid of the fetus.

*shrug*
But see, thats my point. Back alley abortions still wouldn't be safe, and even if they weren't as dangerous as they used to be, the perception of most people would remain that they are dangerous, and that perception is all that counts, when it comes to deterrence.

And sure, the woman that are desperate enough will likely go to such extreme measures regardless. My point was that not all women who get abortions are that desperate, and if the abortion was illegal, they wouldn't take the risk.

I just think its fallacious to think that if abortions were illegal, that the amount of abortions currently happening wouldn't change whatsoever. I thinks it's likewise foolish to think that by making abortions legal, we have somehow decreased their frequency. By making something safer, legal, and culturally acceptable, you aren't exactly going to convince someone not to do it :wink:

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 11449 Location: Zagreb

WeThePeople wrote: *shrug*
But see, thats my point. Back alley abortions still wouldn't be safe, and even if they weren't as dangerous as they used to be, the perception of most people would remain that they are dangerous, and that perception is all that counts, when it comes to deterrence.

so instead of having a safe way, let's have an illegal, non safe way of doing it so instead of no one getting harmed by it, you have those that do get the procedure done dying like flies.

i would say that's a good idea.

WeThePeople wrote: And sure, the woman that are desperate enough will likely go to such extreme measures regardless. My point was that not all women who get abortions are that desperate, and if the abortion was illegal, they wouldn't take the risk.

so then they have a child they don't want.

that makes a healthy home life.

wethepeople wrote: ]I just think its fallacious to think that if abortions were illegal, that the amount of abortions currently happening wouldn't change whatsoever. I thinks it's likewise foolish to think that by making abortions legal, we have somehow decreased their frequency. By making something safer, legal, and culturally acceptable, you aren't exactly going to convince someone not to do it :wink:

instead of being able to get an abortion whenever, you can only get one within weeks of fertilization. that would most certainly decrease the numbers.