Abortion and Handguns

[Coney]

Originally posted by emplynx
State and Federal Government

That is why you and I live in a democracy.

[Wayfarer]

Coney is correct.

America's fedral government is a system of delegated authority, and everything not specificallya ssigned to state or fedral governments are by default the right of the people.

That's opposed to, say, china. Whre teh government has power by default, and can kill it's citizens and force them to have abortions, etc.

a person...is able of independent thought, action and motivation.

Does that mean you're not a person when you're asleep?

I've got to ask: Does abortion not prevent the child from attaining 'personhood'? And isn't that the same as depriving them of it?

One last bit of food for thought: if I go back in time and force your mother to miscarry, am I or am I not guilty of murdering you?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
One last bit of food for thought: if I go back in time and force your mother to miscarry, am I or am I not guilty of murdering you?

That's not really pertinent to the debate at hand, since by doing so, you are taking away the choices of the mother.

[Nibs]

She just vomited your food, Wayfarer!

Or maybe just opted not to ingest it...

[Wayfarer]

LoL Nibs.
Incedentally, that illustrates my previous point nicely. Abortion and Bulimia (eating and then vomiting) both seek to absolve responsibility. You eat the food, and then puke it up. You get pregnant, and then kill the baby. In both cases you must ask: hy did they do it in the first place? And why should we approve of their actions?

BoP: I'd like an answer to my question. Because if it IS murder prevent someone's existance, then abortion is murder. If you like, you can ask: what if the mother goes back in time and convinces her former self to kill the baby?

The point is: it leaves the baby just as dead as anything else

[Coney]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
BoP: I'd like an answer ot the question. Because if it IS murder prevent someone's existance, then abortion is murder.

It depends upon when you beleive life starts.

Which you still havn't answered

[Sister Golden Hair]

You know I have to say that there are worse things then death and many women that abort their babies would have dealt that baby a different death sometime after birth. A death that it would be able to experience in mind first hand, and know the fear of it. Not all, but some. I don't think there is a week that goes by where I don't hear on the news about a child being abused to the point of death. It sickens me a hell of a lot more than abortion. I am pro abortion. I can't think of anything worse than a child being brought into the world unloved and unwanted. Sometimes it's best never to have been born.

[Wayfarer]

Life is: the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms.

Now... I think you would be hard pressed to call a baby 'dead'. It grows and metabolizes, it reproduces at a cellular level, it responds and adapts to the environment of the womb.

So, is there any doubt that a fetus is alive at conception?

But hold that thought, I've got a few questions for you...

#1) Is a one month old fetus in any way harmful to the mother?

#2)Does it have any traits that justify undergoing an invasive procedure to destroy it?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
And why should we approve of their actions?

It has nothing to do with the general populace if a woman has a termination. As far as I'm concerned, it is her business, and she doesn't need our approval.

Wayfarer:
BoP: I'd like an answer to my question. Because if it IS murder prevent someone's existance, then abortion is murder.

Life is being prevented all the time. I don't think the actual prevention of life is murder. Furthermore, how do you draw the line between miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) and surgical abortions?

How do you define life? During the first trimester, when the majority of abortions (miscarriages and surgical abortions) occur, there is no central nervous system.

Wayfarer:
If you like, you can ask: what if the mother goes back in time and convinces her former self to kill the baby?

Then it's her choice, ain't it? Again: this question is rather futile, since the woman in question either decided to go through with the pregnancy at the time, or not.

And as SGH put so eloquently, there are worse things than the death of something so barely developed that it doesn't even have a central nervous system.

Wayfarer:
So, is there any doubt that a fetus is alive at conception?

Is sperm alive? Does that mean everytime some guy gets his jollies, that he's killing off life? A few billion of 'em? Everytime a woman menstruates, that life is dying?

Wayfarer:
But hold that thought, I've got a few questions for you...

#1) Is a one month old fetus in any way harmful to the mother?

#2)Does it have any traits that justify undergoing an invasive procedure to destroy it?

#1) It invades her body like a virus. It saps her strength, makes her physically ill, feeds off her, etc. Some women have been hospitalised due to extreme symptoms of pregnancy.

#2) If it is an unwanted pregnancy, then yes.

[Wayfarer]

Bop: I referred to a specefic age-one month-at which time, as you have pointed out, the fetus is tiny and insignificant-less than half an inch.. It is incapable of making any singificant drain on the mother's resources.

But you seem to believe that it's worthwhile to destroy a barely developing fetus because of what it will or may become. It will become a drain on the mother resources, it will become an inconvenience-so destroy it now, while it's not.

I submit to you that if a fetus can be destroyed because of what it might become, it should equally be spared beause of what it might become?

You justify killing the infant because it will be a strain during the later months of the pregnancy. SGH and Coney both suggest that it's ok if the baby might have been faced with a bad future...
And yet you don't understand how the fact that any embryo might grow up to lead a happy and productive life could be reason to preserve it. Does anyone else sense a double standard here?

I maintain that an embryo has the all the value of what it might become, and that it should be treated accordingly.

[BeardofPants]

You can still get morning sickness and sore boobs within that first month, Wayfarer. A pregnancy starts to take it's toll from the time of conception.

Wayfarer:
I submit to you that if a fetus can be destroyed because of what it might become, it should equally be spared beause of what it might become?

I am not arguing that at all. I was merely outlining that it WAS intefering with the mothers life. To carry a baby to term requires a huge amount of resources. This is why it is important to place the choice of termination in the mothers hands.

Furthermore, your argument doesn't work, because the reason the fetus is being terminated in the first place is not so much what it might become, but because it is unwanted in the first place. You can rationalise all you want, but your mental calenthetics just don't get around the fact that it is the woman's choice whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
And yet you don't understand how the fact that any embryo might grow up to lead a happy and productive life could be reason to preserve it. Does anyone else sense a double standard here?

So does the fetus that has been spontaneously aborted. Should there have been intervention to prevent this? Not all miscarriages are due to bad genetic make-up. This inherent double standard that you imply simply does not stand up to closer inspection, simply because there are other mechanisms which kick in to "prevent life" as you call it. Menstruation. Miscarriage.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
You can still get morning sickness and sore boobs within that first month, Wayfarer. A pregnancy starts to take it's toll from the time of conception.

As BoP has stated, woman DO get morning sickness within first couple of days and weeks of becoming pregnant a lot of times.

I also want to point out that even if the woman is responsible to make sure that contraception is used during sex - it's not always reliable. The condom can breaks or slip off or whatever. The pill isn't even 100% affective.

I'm sorry I just don't see a problem with discarding a bunch of cells even if at one point they MAY grow into a healthy human being. When the fetus has started seriously developing - that is something different.

I guess this is also why I support stem cell research. I don't see a glob of cells as being a baby until it starts forming into one.

[emplynx]

Why a fetus is a human child at conception; once again, with thanks to Randy Alcorn:

Medical Textbooks tell us so:
Dr. Bradley M. Patten's "Human Embryology" states, "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings the to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."
Dr. Keith L. Morre's book says, "The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being."
Drs. Greenhill and Friedman's book says, "The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."
"Parthology of the Fetus and the Infant" says, "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition"
Encyclopedia Britannica says, "A new individual is created when the element of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg"
This list of Docs who will say the same thing goes on and on. I'm not going to type them all unless you really want me to.

Why the child is a seperate being from the mother:
A body part is definied by the common genetic code it shares witht he rest of its body; the unborn's genetic code differes from his mothers!!
The child may die adn the mother live, or visa versa, proving they are 2 separate individuals.
The unborn child takes an active role in his own development, controlling the course of the pregnancy and the time of birth.
Being inside something isn't the same as being part of something.
Humans beings should not be discriminated against because of their place of residence.

[Wayfarer]

Are you trying to tell me, bop, that only people who deserve to exist are those we want to exist? Because it sure sounds like that's what youre getting at.

I'm puzzled you don't mark the difference between death resulting from an accident and death resulting from the intentional acts of a human being. We call one dying 'of natural causes', we call the other murder.

I also want to point out that even if the woman is responsible to make sure that contraception is used during sex - it's not always reliable.

Which is why I made sure to point out that the first choice is always whether or not to have sex...

I'm sorry I just don't see a problem with discarding a bunch of cells even if at one point they MAY grow into a healthy human being.

I am unable to see the reasoning here... at what point does a fetus become a baby... and what is it before that? Sounds like someone has been takin enrest haekel a bit too seriouslyl.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm sorry I just don't see a problem with discarding a bunch of cells even if at one point they MAY grow into a healthy human being.

OK, I see your logic. So if I ever have a child who is abot 3 years old and very ill, I won't see any problem with discarding this bunch of cells even if at one point he may grow into a healthy human being. [sarcasm]That makes complete sence.[/sarcasm]

[emplynx]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I am not arguing that at all. I was merely outlining that it WAS intefering with the mothers life. To carry a baby to term requires a huge amount of resources. This is why it is important to place the choice of termination in the mothers hands.

Once again, that makes perfect sense [also sarcasm...]. Any human being that interferes with someones life should be killed if the person so wishes... Sounds good.

[emplynx]

Some questions for pro-choicers:

• For my own interest, how do you feel about partial birth abortion?
• How would you feel if I stepoed on and crushed an eagle's egg? (that is a crime...)
• How would you feel if I gave a pregnent whale or dolphin medication that would kill it's fetus?

[Silverstripe]

You know what strikes me as very interesting about these babies and small children living in horrible conditions? Some pro-choicers think they'd be better off dead, correct? Yet if someone, for the sake of "mercy," intentionally kills a child after he/she is born, WHATEVER conditions they are living under, it is still considered murder.

[Wayfarer]

I asked before-why don't we kill the mother so she dousen't have to live in those conditions?