Political Crossfire Forums

[WeThePeople]

Quote: 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.

My point was simply to discuss whether this would be one of the consequences of making abortion illegal, and therefore unsafe.
It simply serves as a fact of the debate, not as an answer to the debate itself.

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

that makes a healthy home life.
Wheras a dead child would have a much "healthier" home life? I fail to see convenience for the mother as an excusable reason for the termination of an innocent life.

Quote: 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.

I disagree. The same number of women would be having abortions, they would simply be having them earlier.

[Green]

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.

But before the split, the cell is not a Human

[The Comrade]

WeThePeople wrote: Wheras a dead child would have a much "healthier" home life? I fail to see convenience for the mother as an excusable reason for the termination of an innocent life.

it's not a child. it's a mass of cells. there is no emotional attachment, therefor, no emotional despair.

and who says it' for the mother? there is a higher chance for the child to be neglected if born. abused. murdered maybe.

that child might then pass that abuse onto his child and so on and so forth.


wethepeople wrote: I disagree. The same number of women would be having abortions, they would simply be having them earlier.

wrong.

people get abortions later on because they did't know they were pregnent. they thought they wanted it but then found out they didn't way later on.

the people would then be stuck.

[Varyag]

Otacon wrote: 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.

Why compromise with people who in favor of literally killing babies? Compromise is for the weak, compromise is what Chaimberlain did about Hitler. Abortion was off the books before the 70's, and given the rightward shift in politics in the USA and elsewhere in West, it can easily be done again.

[Varyag]

The Comrade wrote: WeThePeople wrote: Wheras a dead child would have a much "healthier" home life? I fail to see convenience for the mother as an excusable reason for the termination of an innocent life.

it's not a child. it's a mass of cells. there is no emotional attachment, therefor, no emotional despair.

and who says it' for the mother? there is a higher chance for the child to be neglected if born. abused. murdered maybe.

that child might then pass that abuse onto his child and so on and so forth.

By day 18 the heart starts beating and all the major organs have already developed. Notably watching a fetus sucking its thumb or seeing its beating heart on an ultrasound is not good for business at an abortion clinic. This convincing, visual evidence that a pregnant woman is carrying life ought to be written into law so that a mother can make an informed decision before allowing anyone to so painfully destroy her baby. The ugly reality of abortion was shown in a controversial BBC documentary, “My Foetus”, on May 8th, 2004. It was produced by Julia Black 13 years after she had an abortion at the age of 21, to “demystify what remains one of the most common, yet controversial, medical procedures.” In the documentary, you see sonogram images of the fetus’ tiny hands, feet and beating heart, as it s*cks its thumb. The film erases any doubt that an abortion involves a living human infant. The doctor in the documentary then proceeds to use a manual suction procedure to remove the fetus before your eyes. The abortion was over in less than three minutes. The film enflamed the abortion debate and created a furor in Britain when it was shown 4 months earlier. Some viewed it as a direct attack on the abortion industry and the “right to choose”.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

Otacon wrote: 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.
I just proved it is a human :(


Quote: 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.
I noticed a lot of pro-choicer’s and pro-abortionists have a hard time believing that something that doesn't look like a human is a human. Check the DNA of an unborn at any point in the embryonic development and fetal. The phenotype, genotype, and chromosomes are that of a post-natal human.

[gemma]

Varyag wrote: This convincing, visual evidence that a pregnant woman is carrying life ought to be written into law so that a mother can make an informed decision before allowing anyone to so painfully destroy her baby.

And after a woman views the film? What if she still wants/needs an abortion? What then? Make her sign a murder confession, and wheel her in to have at it?

Anyway I'm pro-choice and I am unapologetic about it. The way I see it, if any compromise at all were to be reached, we would probably be asking a lot more from the pro-life camp than we expect to give of ourselves. A true pro-life position is to allow no abortion at all.

We pro-choicers value the woman's judgment (with her doctor if she's lucky enough to have one) above the cells/fetus/what-have-you. But when a pro-life person supports abortion when giving birth "endangers the life of the mother," (or the other reasons given) they by definition are conceding the woman's life is more important than the "baby's," which puts their position in a quandary.

The solution is not simple, any way you look at it. A compromise will not be reached, on this forum, or anywhere. Best we can do is the best we can do.

[The Comrade]

Varyag wrote: The Comrade wrote: WeThePeople wrote: Wheras a dead child would have a much "healthier" home life? I fail to see convenience for the mother as an excusable reason for the termination of an innocent life.

it's not a child. it's a mass of cells. there is no emotional attachment, therefor, no emotional despair.

and who says it' for the mother? there is a higher chance for the child to be neglected if born. abused. murdered maybe.

that child might then pass that abuse onto his child and so on and so forth.

By day 18 the heart starts beating and all the major organs have already developed. Notably watching a fetus sucking its thumb or seeing its beating heart on an ultrasound is not good for business at an abortion clinic. This convincing, visual evidence that a pregnant woman is carrying life ought to be written into law so that a mother can make an informed decision before allowing anyone to so painfully destroy her baby. The ugly reality of abortion was shown in a controversial BBC documentary, “My Foetus”, on May 8th, 2004. It was produced by Julia Black 13 years after she had an abortion at the age of 21, to “demystify what remains one of the most common, yet controversial, medical procedures.” In the documentary, you see sonogram images of the fetus’ tiny hands, feet and beating heart, as it s*cks its thumb. The film erases any doubt that an abortion involves a living human infant. The doctor in the documentary then proceeds to use a manual suction procedure to remove the fetus before your eyes. The abortion was over in less than three minutes. The film enflamed the abortion debate and created a furor in Britain when it was shown 4 months earlier. Some viewed it as a direct attack on the abortion industry and the “right to choose”.





looks human to me...

[AllAmericanMan]

Green 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.

But before the split, the cell is not a Human

And we have absolutely no way of aborting that single cell before the split.

[Otacon]

Varyag wrote: Otacon wrote: 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.

Why compromise with people who in favor of literally killing babies? Compromise is for the weak, compromise is what Chaimberlain did about Hitler. Abortion was off the books before the 70's, and given the rightward shift in politics in the USA and elsewhere in West, it can easily be done again.

Compromise is not for the weak, it means that you are willing to entertain a solution other than the one you desire. You can't just scream as loud as you can and expect the abortion issue to be resolved. Neither side is going to give in to either of the extremes, so compromise the logical solution.

[Gilbert1908]

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.

This is not really much of a compromise since 90% of all induced abortions are done in the first trimester already.

However, I would agree without question knowing that some number of abortions will no longer take place.

However this would not end the discussion since your premise is flawed. An embryo is both human and alive from the moment of conception, this is undeniable by any objective medical science and common sense.

The issue from those who seek to maintain abortion at will is that it is not a "person" or endowed with "humanness" or some other philosophical contrivance to support the abortion position which dehumanizes the human life in order to make abortion "morally" acceptable.

[Varyag]

The Comrade wrote: Varyag wrote: The Comrade wrote: WeThePeople wrote: Wheras a dead child would have a much "healthier" home life? I fail to see convenience for the mother as an excusable reason for the termination of an innocent life.

it's not a child. it's a mass of cells. there is no emotional attachment, therefor, no emotional despair.

and who says it' for the mother? there is a higher chance for the child to be neglected if born. abused. murdered maybe.

that child might then pass that abuse onto his child and so on and so forth.

By day 18 the heart starts beating and all the major organs have already developed. Notably watching a fetus sucking its thumb or seeing its beating heart on an ultrasound is not good for business at an abortion clinic. This convincing, visual evidence that a pregnant woman is carrying life ought to be written into law so that a mother can make an informed decision before allowing anyone to so painfully destroy her baby. The ugly reality of abortion was shown in a controversial BBC documentary, “My Foetus”, on May 8th, 2004. It was produced by Julia Black 13 years after she had an abortion at the age of 21, to “demystify what remains one of the most common, yet controversial, medical procedures.” In the documentary, you see sonogram images of the fetus’ tiny hands, feet and beating heart, as it s*cks its thumb. The film erases any doubt that an abortion involves a living human infant. The doctor in the documentary then proceeds to use a manual suction procedure to remove the fetus before your eyes. The abortion was over in less than three minutes. The film enflamed the abortion debate and created a furor in Britain when it was shown 4 months earlier. Some viewed it as a direct attack on the abortion industry and the “right to choose”.





looks human to me...

24 days ...

[Varyag]

Otacon wrote: Varyag wrote: Otacon wrote: 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.

Why compromise with people who in favor of literally killing babies? Compromise is for the weak, compromise is what Chaimberlain did about Hitler. Abortion was off the books before the 70's, and given the rightward shift in politics in the USA and elsewhere in West, it can easily be done again.

Compromise is not for the weak, it means that you are willing to entertain a solution other than the one you desire. You can't just scream as loud as you can and expect the abortion issue to be resolved. Neither side is going to give in to either of the extremes, so compromise the logical solution.

Nope, I can't speak for a all pro-life people (I prefer to call myself anti-abortion actually) but most of us are already compromising by saying that approx. 1% of those abortions are legitimate, thats more than enough. No need for compromise, babykilling can't be defended, even from a legal standpoint.

[The Comrade]

Varyag wrote: The Comrade wrote: Varyag wrote: The Comrade wrote: WeThePeople wrote: Wheras a dead child would have a much "healthier" home life? I fail to see convenience for the mother as an excusable reason for the termination of an innocent life.

it's not a child. it's a mass of cells. there is no emotional attachment, therefor, no emotional despair.

and who says it' for the mother? there is a higher chance for the child to be neglected if born. abused. murdered maybe.

that child might then pass that abuse onto his child and so on and so forth.

By day 18 the heart starts beating and all the major organs have already developed. Notably watching a fetus sucking its thumb or seeing its beating heart on an ultrasound is not good for business at an abortion clinic. This convincing, visual evidence that a pregnant woman is carrying life ought to be written into law so that a mother can make an informed decision before allowing anyone to so painfully destroy her baby. The ugly reality of abortion was shown in a controversial BBC documentary, “My Foetus”, on May 8th, 2004. It was produced by Julia Black 13 years after she had an abortion at the age of 21, to “demystify what remains one of the most common, yet controversial, medical procedures.” In the documentary, you see sonogram images of the fetus’ tiny hands, feet and beating heart, as it s*cks its thumb. The film erases any doubt that an abortion involves a living human infant. The doctor in the documentary then proceeds to use a manual suction procedure to remove the fetus before your eyes. The abortion was over in less than three minutes. The film enflamed the abortion debate and created a furor in Britain when it was shown 4 months earlier. Some viewed it as a direct attack on the abortion industry and the “right to choose”.





looks human to me...

24 days ...




mine is from 18 days.


there is no way the fetus grows that big in six days. it's the size of a grape at 18 days and i doubht it's much bigger in six more.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

The Comrade wrote: Varyag wrote: The Comrade wrote: Varyag wrote: The Comrade wrote: WeThePeople wrote: Wheras a dead child would have a much "healthier" home life? I fail to see convenience for the mother as an excusable reason for the termination of an innocent life.

it's not a child. it's a mass of cells. there is no emotional attachment, therefor, no emotional despair.

and who says it' for the mother? there is a higher chance for the child to be neglected if born. abused. murdered maybe.

that child might then pass that abuse onto his child and so on and so forth.

By day 18 the heart starts beating and all the major organs have already developed. Notably watching a fetus sucking its thumb or seeing its beating heart on an ultrasound is not good for business at an abortion clinic. This convincing, visual evidence that a pregnant woman is carrying life ought to be written into law so that a mother can make an informed decision before allowing anyone to so painfully destroy her baby. The ugly reality of abortion was shown in a controversial BBC documentary, “My Foetus”, on May 8th, 2004. It was produced by Julia Black 13 years after she had an abortion at the age of 21, to “demystify what remains one of the most common, yet controversial, medical procedures.” In the documentary, you see sonogram images of the fetus’ tiny hands, feet and beating heart, as it s*cks its thumb. The film erases any doubt that an abortion involves a living human infant. The doctor in the documentary then proceeds to use a manual suction procedure to remove the fetus before your eyes. The abortion was over in less than three minutes. The film enflamed the abortion debate and created a furor in Britain when it was shown 4 months earlier. Some viewed it as a direct attack on the abortion industry and the “right to choose”.





looks human to me...

24 days ...




mine is from 18 days.


there is no way the fetus grows that big in six days. it's the size of a grape at 18 days and i doubht it's much bigger in six more.
Your's is from 24 days o.O Right click the image and it says 24days.

[Erasmus]

Even if you do not believe that the cells are human, you must believe that the cells will become human. Preventing cells from becoming human could be just as bad as killing the human itself. It really all depends on your view of life. If you cherish the possibility of life as much as you cherish life itself, then you will agree that the cells are human.

[Kt]

How about people accept the fact that women will always have the ability and right to abort at any time. So long as they have control over their own body and actions.

There are many ways to self-abort, even if it's illegal it can and will still happen.

[Gilbert1908]

Helena` wrote: How about people accept the fact that women will always have the ability and right to abort at any time. So long as they have control over their own body and actions.

There are many ways to self-abort, even if it's illegal it can and will still happen.

The fact that people DO things which are either wrong, dangerous, stupid or harmful does not justify the acceptance of the things they do. Self abortion is all of the above even if you have no objection to legal abortion.

A woman TODAY in the USA does NOT have the right to abort at any time during her pregnancy. The state's interest can and is enforced after the 24th week.

[The Comrade]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: The Comrade wrote: Varyag wrote: The Comrade wrote: Varyag wrote: The Comrade wrote: WeThePeople wrote: Wheras a dead child would have a much "healthier" home life? I fail to see convenience for the mother as an excusable reason for the termination of an innocent life.

it's not a child. it's a mass of cells. there is no emotional attachment, therefor, no emotional despair.

and who says it' for the mother? there is a higher chance for the child to be neglected if born. abused. murdered maybe.

that child might then pass that abuse onto his child and so on and so forth.

By day 18 the heart starts beating and all the major organs have already developed. Notably watching a fetus sucking its thumb or seeing its beating heart on an ultrasound is not good for business at an abortion clinic. This convincing, visual evidence that a pregnant woman is carrying life ought to be written into law so that a mother can make an informed decision before allowing anyone to so painfully destroy her baby. The ugly reality of abortion was shown in a controversial BBC documentary, “My Foetus”, on May 8th, 2004. It was produced by Julia Black 13 years after she had an abortion at the age of 21, to “demystify what remains one of the most common, yet controversial, medical procedures.” In the documentary, you see sonogram images of the fetus’ tiny hands, feet and beating heart, as it s*cks its thumb. The film erases any doubt that an abortion involves a living human infant. The doctor in the documentary then proceeds to use a manual suction procedure to remove the fetus before your eyes. The abortion was over in less than three minutes. The film enflamed the abortion debate and created a furor in Britain when it was shown 4 months earlier. Some viewed it as a direct attack on the abortion industry and the “right to choose”.





looks human to me...

24 days ...




mine is from 18 days.


there is no way the fetus grows that big in six days. it's the size of a grape at 18 days and i doubht it's much bigger in six more.
Your's is from 24 days o.O Right click the image and it says 24days.

then why is mine less developed then yours.


and answer how a fetus can grow that big in 24 days.

[Prog]

Varyag wrote:
Compromise is for the weak.

No, uncompromising and rigid stances such as your's are for the weak-minded; compromise is for the wise.


I like the "compromise idea" yet, it simply will never come to pass as the objectively reasonable idealist must inevitably deal with the narrow-minded rhetorisists such as Varyag here.