Abortion

[Loren Pechtel]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

 

[Bronzeage]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

I don't think that concept applies in the context, really. The sperm and egg are going to fuse. Neither of them die, they just change.

Millions of sperms will die but that one undergoes a metamorphosis, not a death.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

I don't think that concept applies in the context, really. The sperm and egg are going to fuse. Neither of them die, they just change.

Millions of sperms will die but that one undergoes a metamorphosis, not a death.

Never confuse a play on words for an argument. We are not discussing whether something is alive, but whether it has a life.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

We're all doomed.

An ovum outweighs a sperm by about as much as a kid outweighs his measles vaccination -- and he too may be imminently doomed if he doesn't get it. Claiming an ovum isn't alive until a sperm joins it makes about as much sense as claiming the kid isn't alive until he's vaccinated.

 

[steve_bank]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.

As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.

The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.

That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.

True, humans are violent, so are lions and tigers and chimpanzees. Chimps can be cannibals.

Semantics. Homicide is illegal killing with no justfication such as self defense. Killing in war. Here in Seattle teens are killing each other.

Capitol punishment is killing but not murder.


The obvious problem wt abortion is where the line is drawn. That is why I asked the quetion is there a difference between abortion a day before normal delivery and killing the baby just after delivery and the cord is cut.

Why not allow eutenasia up to 1 year old. Maybe a serious birth defect emerges. Maybe the bby is blind, dumb, or deaf. That is the slippery slope the Pro Lifer argue.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

We're all doomed.

An ovum outweighs a sperm by about as much as a kid outweighs his measles vaccination -- and he too may be imminently doomed if he doesn't get it. Claiming an ovum isn't alive until a sperm joins it makes about as much sense as claiming the kid isn't alive until he's vaccinated.

I had my tonsils removed when I was 7 years old. I don't know what happened to them, but for a short time the cells which constituted my tonsils were alive. No one can seriously claim my tonsils were a life.

I'm not sure what they weighed, but I think I was about 60 pounds, which makes as much sense as claiming eggs over easy is a chicken dinner.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.

As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.

The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.

That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.

True, humans are violent, so are lions and tigers and chimpanzees. Chimps can be cannibals.

Semantics. Homicide is illegal killing with no justfication such as self defense. Killing in war. Here in Seattle teens are killing each other.

Capitol punishment is killing but not murder.


The obvious problem wt abortion is where the line is drawn. That is why I asked the quetion is there a difference between abortion a day before normal delivery and killing the baby just after delivery and the cord is cut.

Why not allow eutenasia up to 1 year old. Maybe a serious birth defect emerges. Maybe the bby is blind, dumb, or deaf. That is the slippery slope the Pro Lifer argue.

As I said above, whether or not we decide it's okay to kill someone depends only upon the trouble they will cause if we let them live. There's really no philosophy to it.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

We're all doomed.

An ovum outweighs a sperm by about as much as a kid outweighs his measles vaccination -- and he too may be imminently doomed if he doesn't get it. Claiming an ovum isn't alive until a sperm joins it makes about as much sense as claiming the kid isn't alive until he's vaccinated.

I had my tonsils removed when I was 7 years old. I don't know what happened to them, but for a short time the cells which constituted my tonsils were alive. No one can seriously claim my tonsils were a life.

I'd have thought no one can seriously claim a newly fertilized ovum is a life, and yet here we are. If when you were 7 your tonsils had been put in deep-freeze right away, maybe today somebody could thaw them out, clone them, implant them, and grow your identical twin brother out of them. That's every bit as good a case for your tonsils being "a life" as there is for "Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone."

 

[Bronzeage]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

We're all doomed.

An ovum outweighs a sperm by about as much as a kid outweighs his measles vaccination -- and he too may be imminently doomed if he doesn't get it. Claiming an ovum isn't alive until a sperm joins it makes about as much sense as claiming the kid isn't alive until he's vaccinated.

I had my tonsils removed when I was 7 years old. I don't know what happened to them, but for a short time the cells which constituted my tonsils were alive. No one can seriously claim my tonsils were a life.

I'd have thought no one can seriously claim a newly fertilized ovum is a life, and yet here we are. If when you were 7 your tonsils had been put in deep-freeze right away, maybe today somebody could thaw them out, clone them, implant them, and grow your identical twin brother out of them. That's every bit as good a case for your tonsils being "a life" as there is for "Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone."

There's actually a very little bit of a case for my tonsils becoming my brother.

 

[steve_bank]

When China implemented a one child one family policy there were parents who killed male babies trying again for a male. Traditional in China apparently not a moral issue.

Female infanticide in China - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

China has a history of female infanticide spanning 2,000 years.[1] When Christian missionaries arrived in China in the late sixteenth century, they witnessed newborns being thrown into rivers or onto rubbish piles.[2][3] In the seventeenth century Matteo Ricci documented that the practice occurred in several of China's provinces and said that the primary reason for the practice was poverty.[3] The practice continued into the 19th century and declined precipitously during the Communist era,[4] but has reemerged as an issue since the introduction of the one-child policy in the early 1980s.[5] The census of 1990 showed an overall male-to-female sex ratio of 1.066, while a normal sex ratio for all ages should be less than 1.02.[6]

Current situation​

Roadside sign in Danshan, Yanjiang District, Ziyang, Sichuan, which reads "It is forbidden to discriminate against, abuse or abandon baby girls"

Many Chinese couples desire to have sons because they provide support and security to their aging parents later in life.[17] Conversely, a daughter is expected to leave her parents upon marriage to join and care for her husband's family (parents-in-law).[17] In rural households, which as of 2014 constitute almost half the Chinese population,[18] males are additionally valuable for performing agricultural work and manual labor.[17][1
A 2005 intercensus survey demonstrated pronounced differences in sex ratio across provinces, ranging from 1.04 in Tibet to 1.43 in Jiangxi.[20] Banister (2004), in her literature review on China's shortage of girls, suggested that there has been a resurgence in the prevalence of female infanticide following the introduction of the one-child policy.[21] On the other hand, many researchers have argued that female infanticide is rare in China today,[20][22] especially since the government has outlawed the practice.[23] Zeng and colleagues (1993), for example, contended that at least half of the nation's gender imbalance arises from the underreporting of female births.[22]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Never confuse a play on words for an argument. We are not discussing whether something is alive, but whether it has a life.

I'm not the one doing the word play--that's a pro-"life" position.

You are mixing up "life" (as in alive) with "life" (as in an individual).

The other standard flaw of this sort is mixing up "human" (as in related to homo sapiens) with "human" (as in person.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When China implemented a one child one family policy there were parents who killed male babies trying again for a male. Traditional in China apparently not a moral issue.

Yeah, they don't have the religious-driven insanity. They don't see it as a person until it's functional.

 

[steve_bank]

When China implemented a one child one family policy there were parents who killed male babies trying again for a male. Traditional in China apparently not a moral issue.

Yeah, they don't have the religious-driven insanity. They don't see it as a person until it's functional.

So, if yiur kid has brown eyeas and yiu want blue toss it in a river and try again?

Are you realy justfying infanticide?

When the one child policy was in force I bekleive there were forced abortions.

 

[prideandfall]

So, if yiur kid has brown eyeas and yiu want blue toss it in a river and try again?

Are you realy justfying infanticide?

fuck, if they come out being kinda stupid or taking to hobbies you don't like or having a weird face, chuck them in a river and try again.
what, we're going to run out of people anytime soon? we can afford to be picky, there's no logistical reason that as a species we need to be churning them out as rapidly as possible.

i support abortion until somewhere between 9 and 12 years old... prior to that, humans are indistinguishable and entirely replaceable.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.

This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When China implemented a one child one family policy there were parents who killed male babies trying again for a male. Traditional in China apparently not a moral issue.

Yeah, they don't have the religious-driven insanity. They don't see it as a person until it's functional.

So, if yiur kid has brown eyeas and yiu want blue toss it in a river and try again?

Are you realy justfying infanticide?

No, I am not. By the time it's born it's functional.

When the one child policy was in force I bekleive there were forced abortions.

Abuse by local officials (their system is seriously lacking in checks and balances), not government policy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.

This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

 

[TomC]

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

It would be difficult to explain that concept, "a life", to someone who isn't sure whether or not sperm and ovum are alive.
It would be more productive if you stopped the word games, AKA semantic arguments.
Tom

 

[Bronzeage]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.

This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

It would be difficult to explain that concept, "a life", to someone who isn't sure whether or not sperm and ovum are alive.
It would be more productive if you stopped the word games, AKA semantic arguments.
Tom

It's difficult to explain because you don't really know what it means, it's just an undefined term used to argue your point. It's normally equated with "alive" + something, but that something is never properly pinned down--because there isn't a solid argument in the first place.

Why are neither the sperm nor the ovum worthy of protection but the result of combining them is??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.

This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.

If you can't define the terms you're using you don't have much of a position.

It sounds like the standard definition of pornography.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What about a woman who keeps getting pregnant and can not afford or has no mental capacity to raise kids?

Why did you specify women?
That's a big part of why I find this conversation difficult. People talk about it as though it's strictly a women's issue when it's not.

It is all happening inside the woman, so that would be the source for it being a woman's issue. I mean, as much as you want to make this a male issue, pregnancy, at its basic level, is a female issue.

Axing Roe v Wade will increase suffering, anxiety, depression, and deaths. Where is the moral standing in that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

Actually, "conception" is the most over-rated moment of life ever, because unless the fertilized egg adheres to the uterine wall, it ain't ever going to become life. It'll go the way of your tonsils.

 

[steve_bank]

Is there a difference between 'killing' a germinating seed or 'killing' a flower?

 

[Bronzeage]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

Actually, "conception" is the most over-rated moment of life ever, because unless the fertilized egg adheres to the uterine wall, it ain't ever going to become life. It'll go the way of your tonsils.

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.

This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.

If you can't define the terms you're using you don't have much of a position.

It sounds like the standard definition of pornography.

I just did, but you missed it.

 

[prideandfall]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

Actually, "conception" is the most over-rated moment of life ever, because unless the fertilized egg adheres to the uterine wall, it ain't ever going to become life. It'll go the way of your tonsils.

i think the whole "when does life begin" argument is a red herring from its starting point - it's a distraction meant to confuse the conversation away from the real issue, to derail any discussion of the real subject with a pointless argument about something that doesn't even matter.

when life begins is irrelevant to the discussion of abortion for two reasons:
1. as a society we have collectively decided there are many instances where it's acceptable to kill someone, so the whole 'life is inherently sacred' argument is out on its face because it already has exceptions, and despite the blustering from some people not all the circumstances where we've decided it's OK to kill someone have to do with defending yourself.

2. bodily autonomy already trumps the preservation of life (for example, organ donation) - we even respect that bodily autonomy in death, as we don't harvest fresh organs from corpses without consent.

i for one am sick to death of the "when does life start" debate, so i say fuck it... just concede the point and move on.
life begins at fertilization, fine. the second a sperm hits an egg it's a fully formed 3 year old, whatever.
we should still kill them at every conceivable opportunity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

Actually, "conception" is the most over-rated moment of life ever, because unless the fertilized egg adheres to the uterine wall, it ain't ever going to become life. It'll go the way of your tonsils.

Your definition of the beginning of life results in an average infant mortality rate of about over 1.

 

[steve_bank]

What about a woman who keeps getting pregnant and can not afford or has no mental capacity to raise kids?

Why did you specify women?
That's a big part of why I find this conversation difficult. People talk about it as though it's strictly a women's issue when it's not.

It is all happening inside the woman, so that would be the source for it being a woman's issue. I mean, as much as you want to make this a male issue, pregnancy, at its basic level, is a female issue.

Axing Roe v Wade will increase suffering, anxiety, depression, and deaths. Where is the moral standing in that?

I know, but the broader question is whether the group has something to say about it considering it is about human life.

Plastic surgery for big breastsi s a personal choice and private, the choice is protected by medical privacy laws. Plastic surgery has no moral issue with others.

Is ending a new human life the same as choosing plastic surgery?

Is there a difference between killing a new germinating seed and a fully grown flower? I don't think so,. Life is ended.

The human quuetion is about a subjective comfort zone. From reporting the highest pro chouce support is first term. Less for second term and lowest for third term abortion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What about a woman who keeps getting pregnant and can not afford or has no mental capacity to raise kids?

Why did you specify women?
That's a big part of why I find this conversation difficult. People talk about it as though it's strictly a women's issue when it's not.

It is all happening inside the woman, so that would be the source for it being a woman's issue. I mean, as much as you want to make this a male issue, pregnancy, at its basic level, is a female issue.

Axing Roe v Wade will increase suffering, anxiety, depression, and deaths. Where is the moral standing in that?

I know, but the broader question is whether the group has something to say about it considering it is about human life.

There is so much wrong with this statement. Firstly, what group? Right now, abortion rights are favored well above that of eliminating access to abortion. So currently, if we went the "group" way, abortion would be legal. 1000%. But "the group" isn't the people, it consists of partisan politicians elected to office in states with gerrymandered districting. So your statement above, in order to make it accurate with the conditions in the US, "the broader question is whether a bunch of partisans elected to office in gerrymandered states has something to say about considering it..."

Then the moral question is actually, at what point is it moral to tell the woman she no longer has self-autonomy over her body, and instead is at the whim of the majority. And when we say majority, we mean a bunch of Republicans that fixed election borders to gain supermajority control in state legislatures, and not the actual majority of people in the US.

And of course, that then leads us to "is it moral for a bare minority to supersede in the self-autonomy of a woman's body"? If it were the Catholic Church enforcing this type of edict, I bet a whole bunch of people would be upset over that. But make it a bunch of government officials?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.

If you can't define the terms you're using you don't have much of a position.

It sounds like the standard definition of pornography.

I just did, but you missed it.

Huh? You said you didn't need to provide one, then you turned around and said you did provide one--but I see no definition here other than my reference to pornography. You know it when you see it is not a definition!

 

[Bronzeage]

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.

If you can't define the terms you're using you don't have much of a position.

It sounds like the standard definition of pornography.

I just did, but you missed it.

Huh? You said you didn't need to provide one, then you turned around and said you did provide one--but I see no definition here other than my reference to pornography. You know it when you see it is not a definition!

Okay, go back and read the part about baby tonsils. The difference between being alive and being a life is, the life is something that can replicate itself and create a new life. Tonsils, whether in my throat or in a bowl, cannot do that.

If you want your pornography claim to be taken seriously, please provide a few examples of things that are porn and things that are not.

 

[bilby]

The difference between being alive and being a life is, the life is something that can replicate itself and create a new life.

If this were true, vasectomy would invariably be fatal.

There have been many attempts to define ‘life’ and ‘alive’, but they all founder on the fact that they either include stuff we really need to exclude, or (as here) exclude stuff (like sterile people) we really need to include.

 

[Bronzeage]

The difference between being alive and being a life is, the life is something that can replicate itself and create a new life.

If this were true, vasectomy would invariably be fatal.

There have been many attempts to define ‘life’ and ‘alive’, but they all founder on the fact that they either include stuff we really need to exclude, or (as here) exclude stuff (like sterile people) we really need to include.

As Hamlet said, we are undone by equivocation.

There is a distinction between can and must. If my car runs out of gas, very few people would dispute that
it is still a car, whether or not I ever put gas in the tank.

What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The difference between being alive and being a life is, the life is something that can replicate itself and create a new life.

If this were true, vasectomy would invariably be fatal.

There have been many attempts to define ‘life’ and ‘alive’, but they all founder on the fact that they either include stuff we really need to exclude, or (as here) exclude stuff (like sterile people) we really need to include.

As Hamlet said, we are undone by equivocation.

There is a distinction between can and must. If my car runs out of gas, very few people would dispute that
it is still a car, whether or not I ever put gas in the tank.

True. But who would claim you have a car at the start of the assembly line? I mean, yeah, you've got the pieces and a design, but you don't have a car. Your fuel analogy would be equivalent to people questioning whether hungry people are living.

What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.

Because the timing matters. When one says life begins at conception, that means the birth control pill helps contribute to "abortions". Also, with an estimate half or more of blastocysts flushing out of the system, the question of whether something is alive at conception is a bit muddled. Especially when conception doesn't provide any sense of awareness, ability to fend for itself, or to live on its own. All it has is a set of chromosomes and DNA.

 

[Bronzeage]

The difference between being alive and being a life is, the life is something that can replicate itself and create a new life.

If this were true, vasectomy would invariably be fatal.

There have been many attempts to define ‘life’ and ‘alive’, but they all founder on the fact that they either include stuff we really need to exclude, or (as here) exclude stuff (like sterile people) we really need to include.

As Hamlet said, we are undone by equivocation.

There is a distinction between can and must. If my car runs out of gas, very few people would dispute that
it is still a car, whether or not I ever put gas in the tank.

True. But who would claim you have a car at the start of the assembly line? I mean, yeah, you've got the pieces and a design, but you don't have a car. Your fuel analogy would be equivalent to people questioning whether hungry people are living.

What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.

Because the timing matters. When one says life begins at conception, that means the birth control pill helps contribute to "abortions". Also, with an estimate half or more of blastocysts flushing out of the system, the question of whether something is alive at conception is a bit muddled. Especially when conception doesn't provide any sense of awareness, ability to fend for itself, or to live on its own. All it has is a set of chromosomes and DNA.

Why does any of that matter? You are just moving the until you're on the side where you feel comfortable.

 

[bilby]

There is a distinction between can and must.

Indeed; But your definition is based on ‘can’, and so is my objection. Introducing ’must’ is just muddying the waters.

 

[bilby]

What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.

Never mind timing or relevancy; We still have no working definition of ‘a life’.

All we know so far is that it excludes tonsils and men who have had a vasectomy, because things that cannot reproduce may be ‘life’, but are not ‘a life’.

Apparently.

 

[Bronzeage]

What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.

Never mind timing or relevancy; We still have no working definition of ‘a life’.

All we know so far is that it excludes tonsils and men who have had a vasectomy, because things that cannot reproduce may be ‘life’, but are not ‘a life’.

Apparently.

The vasectomy thing is just an absurd quibble.

 

[bilby]

What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.

Never mind timing or relevancy; We still have no working definition of ‘a life’.

All we know so far is that it excludes tonsils and men who have had a vasectomy, because things that cannot reproduce may be ‘life’, but are not ‘a life’.

Apparently.

The vasectomy thing is just an absurd quibble.

Or an inescapable logical flaw in your definition, that you have no reasonable response to.

It’s OK; I have yet to see any adequate definition of life, and suspect that this is because life is an entirely fictional human construct, and not a characteristic of reality at all.

 

[Jarhyn]

This stupid bickering match over "life" doesn't accomplish anything.

Perhaps we can acknowledge that we don't really care about "a life" or "life" in the first place.

As has been discussed, it should not matter whether it is a bright eyed instantaneous 3 year old bawling, begging "please don't kill me mommy," that is onerously tethered to their gestational parent and necessarily doomed if detached.

It's just not important. What is important is that the person they are tethered to says NO, they do not continue to consent.

There is no acknowledged right to walk up to someone and tether yourself to them for 9 months while using yourself as a hostage.

So why the fuck would we allow this to be done by anyone, to anyone, beyond their consent? Because the person doing it is "innocent"? Of what exactly? Certainly it is not innocent of tethering itself parasitically to someone for 9 months in some kind of fucked up hostage situation.

 

[Bronzeage]

What I find strange is, I make a statement that life begins at conception, but that it is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, everybody wants to debate the timing and not the irrelevancy.

Never mind timing or relevancy; We still have no working definition of ‘a life’.

All we know so far is that it excludes tonsils and men who have had a vasectomy, because things that cannot reproduce may be ‘life’, but are not ‘a life’.

Apparently.

The vasectomy thing is just an absurd quibble.

Or an inescapable logical flaw in your definition, that you have no reasonable response to.

It’s OK; I have yet to see any adequate definition of life, and suspect that this is because life is an entirely fictional human construct, and not a characteristic of reality at all.

No, it's still an absurd false equivalency and now you've gone on to propose that life is something created from corporate memory.

You ask a chicken or the egg question, then claim it's not a chicken and there never was an egg.

 

[TomC]

It's just not important. What is important is that the person they are tethered to says NO, they do not continue to consent.

There is no acknowledged right to walk up to someone and tether yourself to them for 9 months while using yourself as a hostage.

So why the fuck would we allow this to be done by anyone, to anyone, beyond their consent? Because the person doing it is "innocent"? Of what exactly? Certainly it is not innocent of tethering itself parasitically to someone for 9 months in some kind of fucked up hostage situation.

This is probably the most appallingly ignorant and unethical argument for feticide rights ever.

Do you even understand where babies come from? That they don't "walk up to someone and tether themselves"? Fetal children aren't parasites who drift around looking for a host to invade. Parents make the choices that involve human beings who don't even exist when they Choose. Choices that are very well understood by competent adults.

When it isn't both parent's decision, that's a whole different crime. It's called rape.

Your premise that parents are the victims of a zygote would be laughable if it weren't so evil.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Do you even understand where babies come from?

Here's where babies come from:



Now you can explain why this little blob of protoplasm, invisible to the naked eye, now has more rights in some places than an actual living breathing human being with memories, preferences, pleasures, pains, friends, family and loved ones.
What a silly idea.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's just not important. What is important is that the person they are tethered to says NO, they do not continue to consent.

There is no acknowledged right to walk up to someone and tether yourself to them for 9 months while using yourself as a hostage.

So why the fuck would we allow this to be done by anyone, to anyone, beyond their consent? Because the person doing it is "innocent"? Of what exactly? Certainly it is not innocent of tethering itself parasitically to someone for 9 months in some kind of fucked up hostage situation.

This is probably the most appallingly ignorant and unethical argument for feticide rights ever.

Do you even understand where babies come from? That they don't "walk up to someone and tether themselves"? Fetal children aren't parasites who drift around looking for a host to invade. Parents make the choices that involve human beings who don't even exist when they Choose. Choices that are very well understood by competent adults.

When it isn't both parent's decision, that's a whole different crime. It's called rape.

Your premise that parents are the victims of a zygote would be laughable if it weren't so evil.
Tom

So you've asserted that I am wrong three times without actually invalidating anything I've said.

The decision to have an orgasm is not a decision to open your genitals to a squatter.

It is the decision to have an orgasm, nothing more, nothing less.

You are exactly the victim of such a thing when you do not consent to it.

That we have the power to assert our rights over some prerogative driven by the selfish gene is a fantastic development.

So yes, I will rebel against aspects of my biology as I may, to prevent it from emitting sperms, or to prevent it from becoming pregnant even in the presence of a squatter upon the threshold my genitals, as the case may be. It is a squatter only so far I decide to continue to have mercy upon it, until I have laid so much mercy upon it that to stop would be to maim it rather than to kill it.

At any rate, do you really want the genetic spawn of those who care so little about human life that they dispose of the life they themselves produce as if it were trash?

I mean, if we're talking about the most inhuman stereotype, I am NOT going to be all tabula rasa on this! I would rather they get an abortion than force that into reproduction. And I maintain that this is still within their rights, and ought be.

 

[TomC]

There is no acknowledged right to walk up to someone and tether yourself to them for 9 months while using yourself as a hostage.

you've asserted that I am wrong three times without actually invalidating anything I've said.

Fetal children do not walk up to anyone and tether themselves.

So, yeah, I'm totally invalidating your post.

To me, you sound like a 19th century slaver whining about their property rights.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

There is no acknowledged right to walk up to someone and tether yourself to them for 9 months while using yourself as a hostage.

you've asserted that I am wrong three times without actually invalidating anything I've said.

Fetal children do not walk up to anyone and tether themselves.

So, yeah, I'm totally invalidating your post.

To me, you sound like a 19th century slaver whining about their property rights.
Tom

Yes, they do. They implant themselves and then tether umbilically to the implanted cyst wall.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is no acknowledged right to walk up to someone and tether yourself to them for 9 months while using yourself as a hostage.

you've asserted that I am wrong three times without actually invalidating anything I've said.

Fetal children do not walk up to anyone and tether themselves.

So, yeah, I'm totally invalidating your post.

To me, you sound like a 19th century slaver whining about their property rights.
Tom

Technically you'd be the one sounding like a slaver because you are going on about your rights to inhibit the rights of another living / breathing human being.

 

[TomC]

Yes, they do. They implant themselves and then tether umbilically to the implanted cyst wall.

And those Africans did sail across the Atlantic headed for South Carolina.
Tom