A question for anti-choicers

Onceler said:
I think it does, and again, I think your characterization of "child" is inappropriate. A zygote is not a baby, just as a baby is not an adult.

Far more people oppose late-term abortions than abortion in general. Even I oppose late-term abortions. Therefore, there must be something along the way that changes a lot of minds with regard to human rights.

The reason I keep bringing up "microscopic" and zygote is because I think most reasonable, intelligent people can make the determination that terminating a small grouping of cells, with no brain or nervous development whatsoever, does not equate to anything even akin to "murder." It's an area that most can find consensus on.

I think during the course of even the 1st trimester, the questions of "personhood" become fuzzier, as human characteristics begin to develop, and brain & nervous development commence. Certainly, in the later trimesters, fetuses have actual response to simuli & some consciousness, and even a devout pro-choicer like myself does not support abortion at that time.

To me, it's about finding a place where you are not ending a conscousness - an individual that is unique not just genetically, but cognitively. I know that's me, and not everyone. But I think it's important that women have some window, no matter how small, to make a decision on whether they not only want to put their body through the rigors of pregnancy & birth, but also if they are ready on every level to bring a child into the world.
Click to expand...

Child is a term I equate to offspring.... it does not refer to any particular stage of development in my opinion. I will always be the 'child' in relationship to my parents. I was called their child when I was a baby, toddler, adolecent, teen, college drunk, young adult and even today. But I will try to refrain from using it if it bothers you.

I understand your position when referring to microscopic, clump of cells etc... while it is ending a life, I do understand what you mean when you say it doesn't equate to murder.

I also understand the 'don't bring the child into this world if you are not ready to love and take care of it' argument. I think this is where the education part needs to come into play in my opinion. Because that is something we should all think about PRIOR to having sex. I am a proponent of birth control education... especially to teens (as they are most likely NOT prepared for parenthood).

As for the 'consciousness' comment... while I think this is a legitimate argument as at that point it is true their would be 'no pain' and 'no awareness'. The problem I have is that we KNOW that awareness is only days/weeks/months away. What we don't know... is that the next Einstein, MLK, Ghandi??? (obviously it could go the other way with Bundy, Dahmer etc...)
 
christiefan915 said:
Yes, the woman has the last word on what happens with her body, but that didn't mean the entire topic was closed for discussion from the onset. I also might think that the man should have a vasectomy to prevent future occurrences of this dilemma but I don't have the last word on what he does with his own body.

I don't know everything but I sure as shooting know that a man will never understand the physical and emotional ramifications of pregnancy, which makes a sea change in the woman's life even when it's desired. You're not arguing from a position of strength here.
Click to expand...

you're not even arguing from logic :pke:
 
christiefan915 said:
Surely you're not suggesting he shouldn't be financially responsible?

You're starting to talk in circles, yurtie. First you say the man should have a choice in whether the woman has an abortion. Then you complain that if the woman exercises her choice to have the baby, the man is FORCED to be financially responsible for it. I don't know where you're going with this.

If the man doesn't want the financial responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy, should he be personally responsible for protected sex? If the sex was unprotected and the woman becomes pregnant, isn't the man half responsible, so why shouldn't he be financially responsible also?

You're also forgetting that if the man doesn't pay, then the woman is 100% financially responsible for a life that both contributed to making. Is that fair?
Click to expand...

you make no sense and only see and understand that which comports to your world view. you are not open in this discussion for anything other than your world view.

you want the man to have no say regarding abortion. yet you want the man to have responsibility if the woman does not abort. it is a hypocritical stance, you want the woman to have all the choices, but offer zero the man. if the woman does not want to bear the financial burden, she can abort. the man, has no such option.

it is about equality of decisions and fairness. step back for a moment and reflect on what i am really talking about, because so far you haven't a clue and continually show you have no comprehension of the discussion.
 
Superfreak said:
Child is a term I equate to offspring.... it does not refer to any particular stage of development in my opinion. I will always be the 'child' in relationship to my parents. I was called their child when I was a baby, toddler, adolecent, teen, college drunk, young adult and even today. But I will try to refrain from using it if it bothers you.

I understand your position when referring to microscopic, clump of cells etc... while it is ending a life, I do understand what you mean when you say it doesn't equate to murder.

I also understand the 'don't bring the child into this world if you are not ready to love and take care of it' argument. I think this is where the education part needs to come into play in my opinion. Because that is something we should all think about PRIOR to having sex. I am a proponent of birth control education... especially to teens (as they are most likely NOT prepared for parenthood).

As for the 'consciousness' comment... while I think this is a legitimate argument as at that point it is true their would be 'no pain' and 'no awareness'. The problem I have is that we KNOW that awareness is only days/weeks/months away. What we don't know... is that the next Einstein, MLK, Ghandi??? (obviously it could go the other way with Bundy, Dahmer etc...)
Click to expand...

I'm glad you can see what I'm saying. I don't really expect us to agree on what the best solution is, but at least you understand what I'm trying to present. I also understand the basic position you have taken, though I do not agree with it.

As for the last point above, I have never put too much stock in it. It's just one of those arguments that you could keep carrying out to the extreme; should we TRY to bring more babies into the world, in the hopes of creating more Einsteins & Ghandis? I know that's not what you're necessarily stating, but it's where the thought process leads, imo...
 
Onceler said:
I don't know what that law is that you're posting, but that gets back to using Webster's. Laws are wildly inconsistent on this topic, and discussion of what is right & wrong is independent of what the legality is at any given time, imo. Roe is the law of the land, but I don't use that to tell pro-lifers "here is the definitive answer, so pipe down."

And I disagree on the acorn analogy; as the discussion has progressed, I actually think it's pretty perfect. Both SF & PMP have said the acorn is OAK, but not a tree. The zygote is HUMAN, but it is not a human being/person. A zygote is not a baby, and a baby is not an adult.

You didn't answer MY question: do you now think that destroying a frozen embryo or terminating something that is microscopic with no brain or nervous system development is definitively MURDER.
Click to expand...

we established it is human. however, its like saying a sapling is not a tree. it is a tree and an oak, just not mature. a human zygote is simply not a matured adult, just like a child is not a mature adult, however, all are human and as you've stated, a zygote is life and since its human, it is human life.

i posted the CA murder code (in an attempt to answer your question) to show what murder is in CA. and i'm sure other state statutes are too different. murder is the killing of a human with malice aforethought. it is bizarre to me that a woman can kill a human fetus and it is not murder, however, if anyone else does, they will be charged with murder. i'm discussing this in an attempt to address whether i think it is murder.

an frozen embryo, imo, is a complex question. it is outside an environment that is necessary for maturation. it was placed outside the environment on purpose so that it could one day be placed in an environment that will faciliate maturation. if it is indeed human life, then isn't this like putting infants in an orphanage until they are adopted or matured to adulthood?
 
Yurt said:
link up....link to where they say human life does not begin at conception

i also want to see a link where "most" scientist are pro-choice

this is absolutely something for science to answer, you're just pussing out because so far SF and I are the only one's to show that science does believe human life begins at conception.....i don't believe all scientists believe this, but from what i have seen, most do....

so back your stuff up
Click to expand...

Well then by all means link us to the page that backs up your claim that "most scientists" believe life begins at conception.

Numbers please...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Well then by all means link us to the page that backs up your claim that "most scientists" believe life begins at conception.

Numbers please...
Click to expand...

uh....i didn't make the claim, i just don't believe his right....and he still can't provide a link

please get a clue on debate etiquette
 
Onceler said:
As for debating the zygote stage, I'm aware that abortions are allowed past that. I'm trying to establish a point at which most would agree termination isn't "murder" for the purposes of the larger debate (and sorry - but most people would not equate terminating a microscopic grouping of cells as "murder")
Click to expand...

of what value would it be to agree that it would not be 'murder' at the zygote stage, when the child is past the zygote stage before anyone even knows it exists?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
of what value would it be to agree that it would not be 'murder' at the zygote stage, when the child is past the zygote stage before anyone even knows it exists?.......
Click to expand...

It would be of tremendous value to start the discussion at a point of some level of agreement. IF most parties agree that terminating a microscopic grouping of cells with no characteristics, brain or nervous development, consciousness, etc. is NOT murder, then we can start to reasonably look at establishing consensus on what other factors should weigh in and what a reasonable (albeit) arbitrary point is in the development to start discussing human rights.

Right now your fallback position, and that of many on the pro-life side, is that life AT the point of conception should be eligible for all of the rights of a baby or adult. You may feel this way as a matter of morality, but the fact is that many don't like the arbitrary nature of considerations beyond that point, so retreat to it as a kind of security blanket & means of avoidance.
 
Onceler said:
It would be of tremendous value to start the discussion at a point of some level of agreement. IF most parties agree that terminating a microscopic grouping of cells with no characteristics, brain or nervous development, consciousness, etc. is NOT murder, then we can start to reasonably look at establishing consensus on what other factors should weigh in and what a reasonable (albeit) arbitrary point is in the development to start discussing human rights.

Right now your fallback position, and that of many on the pro-life side, is that life AT the point of conception should be eligible for all of the rights of a baby or adult. You may feel this way as a matter of morality, but the fact is that many don't like the arbitrary nature of considerations beyond that point, so retreat to it as a kind of security blanket & means of avoidance.
Click to expand...

and your position is that since it's okay to kill a microscopic life form it's okay to kill a fetus that compares equally to a birthed child except for the cutting of the umbilical.......you have to admit, by the time the mother knows the fetus exists, it has more in common with a fully developed child than it does a zygote....l.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
??.....you mean between 1972 and today?......1972 till today!.......
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm not talking about individual states passing random restrictions, or a once-a-year march on the nation's capital. When have there ever been serious, country-wide movements of anti-abortion individuals protesting, marching, and lobbying to get Roe v. Wade overturned?

I think you know the answer is "never", because the majority of Americans favor legalized abortion and their differences lie in the cut-off dates.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I have known two women who were pregnant and chose to carry the child to birth and place it for adoption.....I raised those children to adulthood and thank both women for the opportunity.....
Click to expand...

You get all credit for walking the walk rather than simply talking the talk, but you're in the minority.
 
Yurt said:
you make no sense and only see and understand that which comports to your world view. you are not open in this discussion for anything other than your world view.

you want the man to have no say regarding abortion. yet you want the man to have responsibility if the woman does not abort. it is a hypocritical stance, you want the woman to have all the choices, but offer zero the man. if the woman does not want to bear the financial burden, she can abort. the man, has no such option.

it is about equality of decisions and fairness. step back for a moment and reflect on what i am really talking about, because so far you haven't a clue and continually show you have no comprehension of the discussion.
Click to expand...

My world view is simple.

Both individuals are responsible for birth control.

If a child is born, both individuals are financially responsible for it.

If the woman is considering abortion and the man persuades her to carry to term, both individuals are responsible for the child.

If the woman is considering abortion and the man cannot persuade her to carry to term, the woman has the last word re: abortion.

The man can fight in court for custody, visitation, financial responsibility, etc. of a child born but cannot have the final decision over a woman's pregnant body.

Clear enough for you?
 
Onceler said:
I don't know what that law is that you're posting, but that gets back to using Webster's. Laws are wildly inconsistent on this topic, and discussion of what is right & wrong is independent of what the legality is at any given time, imo. Roe is the law of the land, but I don't use that to tell pro-lifers "here is the definitive answer, so pipe down."

And I disagree on the acorn analogy; as the discussion has progressed, I actually think it's pretty perfect. Both SF & PMP have said the acorn is OAK, but not a tree. The zygote is HUMAN, but it is not a human being/person. A zygote is not a baby, and a baby is not an adult.

You didn't answer MY question: do you now think that destroying a frozen embryo or terminating something that is microscopic with no brain or nervous system development is definitively MURDER.
Click to expand...

There is no mystery when human life begins. For most people...it begins with the process of fertilization. From that point on to death, its only a matter of maturing, growing, aging...

This fact has nothing to do with abortion, the soul, viability, murder, feeling, etc.(unrelated strawman arguments)
This fact has nothing to do with gametes, zygotes, embryos, etc....(stages of human development)

Fertilization itself is not even an instantaneous event, but rather a process that takes 20-22 hours between the time the sperm penetrates the outermost layers of the egg and the formation of a diploid cell, so it is within this timeframe one can debate, "when does human life begin"....

Most people, with no political or social axe to grind usually accept this ....

Abortion advocates need other explanations so as to ease their conscience and their need to try to win acceptance by others...to deny they are in fact killing humans in the earliest stages of life..(we, as a society can define murder to be anything we want to mean)

Liberals like Cypress view pregnancy as a disease, Onceler can't separate the abortion issue from the start of human life issue ...

As a side note...I think that the moment of death is harder to determine than when life begins...
 
Last edited:
I don't make the arguments I do to "ease my conscience." To me, the destruction of something microscopic, with no consciousness, no brain & nervous development, no sensitivity to pain, etc - it's not murder, not by a long shot.

I have acknowledged that this gets fuzzier & fuzzier as development continues. But the only thing unique about the life created at conception is a genetic code - a certain array of proteins. Cognizance, viability, et al. ARE considerations, whether you like it or not.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
I don't make the arguments I do to "ease my conscience." To me, the destruction of something microscopic, with no consciousness, no brain & nervous development, no sensitivity to pain, etc - it's not murder, not by a long shot.

I have acknowledged that this gets fuzzier & fuzzier as development continues. But the only thing unique about the life created at conception is a genetic code - a certain array of proteins. Cognizance, viability, et al. ARE considerations, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

i do understand what your thinking is....however, you've stated that a zygote is life and is human....according to murder statutes you need a human to commit murder
 
christiefan915 said:
My world view is simple.

Both individuals are responsible for birth control.

If a child is born, both individuals are financially responsible for it.

If the woman is considering abortion and the man persuades her to carry to term, both individuals are responsible for the child.

If the woman is considering abortion and the man cannot persuade her to carry to term, the woman has the last word re: abortion.

The man can fight in court for custody, visitation, financial responsibility, etc. of a child born but cannot have the final decision over a woman's pregnant body.

Clear enough for you?
Click to expand...

why state the obvious again? i already knew your thoughts on this. fuck the man and give the woman all the power, despite the fact both are responsible....

asinine
 
Yurt said:
i do understand what your thinking is....however, you've stated that a zygote is life and is human....according to murder statutes you need a human to commit murder
Click to expand...

My discussion of this topic, as always, is independent of any statutes & whatever the current legality is.
 
Yurt said:
why state the obvious again? i already knew your thoughts on this. fuck the man and give the woman all the power, despite the fact both are responsible....

asinine
Click to expand...

It's not really that asanine. I understand what you are trying to say, but the fetus needs the woman's body; it doesn't need the man's.

That's why consideration of the man is kind of on the sidelines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top