When Does Life End?

I think its' time to leave you alone with your delusions.....since you remain the only person who agrees with you, there is no further need to contradict you......
 
apple0154 said:
If we're talking about "personhood" then it's at birth.

The one fundamental concept our society is built on is we are each individuals. We can not use another living person's body to support us. We are all responsible for our individual actions.

If the unborn are considered "persons" then the woman loses the most fundamental rights to her body including what she can digest, be it food or drugs, to what exercises and physical activities she may participate in.

Then there's the "problem pregnancies" which, in the vast majority of cases, is another term for a woman's faulty body and the widely accepted practice is to kill the innocent unborn person so as the woman with the faulty body may live. Does one not see the danger in classifying something that is unborn as a human being while sanctioning it's murder so that another human being with a defective body may live? Do we need any more lessons on what happens when society places different values on certain groups of human beings?

The absurdity of claiming an unborn is a person is obvious at first glance and the further it's thought through the more preposterous and dangerous it becomes. The most fundamental rights of both individuals become non-existent. Laws and conventions governing every one of us do not apply to either one of them.

We're not looking at a slippery slope. We're looking at a free fall.
Click to expand...
The "it's at birth" is pure unadulterated rubbish. There is no discernable difference between a human one day before birth and one hour after it in terms of development. Pretending they are somehow altered to "person" at that point is just insane. Saying it is okey-dokey to kill them because you want to draw the arbitrary line at the vaginal canal is a very extreme position in today's environment.
 
Damocles said:
The "it's at birth" is pure unadulterated rubbish. There is no discernable difference between a human one day before birth and one hour after it in terms of development. Pretending they are somehow altered to "person" at that point is just insane. Saying it is okey-dokey to kill them because you want to draw the arbitrary line at the vaginal canal is a very extreme position in today's environment.
Click to expand...

I don't know... They have not used their lungs yet. They might not develop much in that time, but do we know that they are viable, in that regard, before birth?

Still, I really don't see how one could justify actively killing (to whatever degree they are alive) them at that point. Unless it has some serious impact on the mother's health.
 
Damocles said:
The "it's at birth" is pure unadulterated rubbish. There is no discernable difference between a human one day before birth and one hour after it in terms of development. Pretending they are somehow altered to "person" at that point is just insane. Saying it is okey-dokey to kill them because you want to draw the arbitrary line at the vaginal canal is a very extreme position in today's environment.
Click to expand...

There are fundamental changes which happen after birth. Whether it's the change in the direction of the blood flow or veins completely going out of service, "drying up", then becoming cords which hold organs in place to the digestive tract "coming on line" to say there is no difference between an unborn and a born is patently untrue.

What human being could continue living if their blood flow changed direction or, worse yet, their veins dried up?
 
Southern Man said:
Technically that's two days Damo. A lot can happen to a kid in that time. [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

You'd be right if you left out the sarcasm. A lot can happen in those two days. A lot more than happens between the time of fertilization and the first signs of activity within the zygote, which I am guessing is a matter of seconds.
 
For those that argue life begins at conception, would you limit the actions a woman can take to prevent implantation, e.g., so called abortion pills?
 
RStringfield said:
You'd be right if you left out the sarcasm. A lot can happen in those two days. A lot more than happens between the time of fertilization and the first signs of activity within the zygote, which I am guessing is a matter of seconds.
Click to expand...
Except we are talking about the day before normal birth and the day after. Do you agree that abortion is simply "a choice" the day before? :)
 
apple0154 said:
Sometimes the facts are disquieting but I still recommend you take something for that headache.
Click to expand...

And sometimes it looks like you're not trying to convince others; but instead are trying to convince yourself. :good4u:

But then, I can see why you're still trying to convince yourself that your agenda is the correct one. :palm:
 
Damocles said:
The "it's at birth" is pure unadulterated rubbish. There is no discernable difference between a human one day before birth and one hour after it in terms of development. Pretending they are somehow altered to "person" at that point is just insane. Saying it is okey-dokey to kill them because you want to draw the arbitrary line at the vaginal canal is a very extreme position in today's environment.
Click to expand...

It does appear that apple believes in the "Baby Fairy", who supposedly has the duty of sprinkling "Humanity" on the new born; thereby changing it from a non-human to human.
 
Southern Man said:
Except we are talking about the day before normal birth and the day after. Do you agree that abortion is simply "a choice" the day before? :)
Click to expand...

Morally, I am not too comfortable with permitting that choice, without a significant threat to the mother or if there is proof the fetus is dead or not viable. But this would impact very few if any abortions.
 
apple0154 said:
There are fundamental changes which happen after birth. Whether it's the change in the direction of the blood flow or veins completely going out of service, "drying up", then becoming cords which hold organs in place to the digestive tract "coming on line" to say there is no difference between an unborn and a born is patently untrue.

What human being could continue living if their blood flow changed direction or, worse yet, their veins dried up?
Click to expand...
Again, your position is extreme today, there is no rational differences in "personhood" between 1 hour before and 1 hour after birth. It's just irrational, selfish, and stupid to suggest that there is.
 
RStringfield said:
Morally, I am not too comfortable with permitting that choice, without a significant threat to the mother or if there is proof the fetus is dead or not viable. But this would impact very few if any abortions.
Click to expand...
Yes, with that exception. If the mother would die without an abortion, or be crippled, etc.
 
According to a JAMA article "viability" is not achieved until AT LEAST the 21st week.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#Definition_of_.22late-term.22

A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. However, the exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 12 completed weeks' gestation as "late".[1][2] Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as "late".[3][4] Three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association could not agree on the definition. Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[5] The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.[6]

The point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to the "viability" (ability to survive outside the uterus) of the fetus. Sometimes late-term abortions are referred to as post-viability abortions. However, viability varies greatly among pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week. Everything in between is a "grey area".[6]
 
RStringfield said:
Morally, I am not too comfortable with permitting that choice, without a significant threat to the mother or if there is proof the fetus is dead or not viable. But this would impact very few if any abortions.
Click to expand...
Yet that is the Democrat Party's position: to allow late term abortions because of a simple choice.
 
I have come to the conclusion that the prolife crowd thoroughly rejects Decartes. I think, therefore I am, is dead in right wing politics, which explains the worship of Palin.
 
Southern Man said:
Yet that is the Democrat Party's position: to allow late term abortions because of a simple choice.
Click to expand...

If that is true (which is not of much importance to me since I am not a Democrat), it seems no more extreme than saying the zygote has the same legal rights as the mother.
 
RStringfield said:
If that is true (which is not of much importance to me since I am not a Democrat), it seems no more extreme than saying the zygote has the same legal rights as the mother.
Click to expand...
That's not the Conservative position. The correct position is that the mother doesn't have the right to kill an unborn child, regardless of its stage of development.

Personally I would support legislation more or less in line with the original Roe decision, which gave the mother the unrestricted right during the first 12 weeks only. Unfortunately Democrats don't seem to want to abide by that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top