Quote :

"Perhaps Mrs. Palin will put the secret service on my every time i beat off and kill 100,000,000 miracles of life and potential HUR Jr's"

plz stop posting. besides how is this different than your precious joe biden, who admits he feels the same way?

9/16/2008 10:13:55 AM

conception

9/16/2008 10:14:51 AM

Quote :

"Doesn't matter. Convenience has always decided whether someone deserves to live or die."

9/16/2008 10:17:44 AM

Okay I'll bite.

Life begins with brain wave activity. Or at least, that's our most reliable scientific indicator for the presence of life. Once we seen brain activity, it's reasonable to assume that there's something we would consider human life going on in there. At that point, it would be irresponsible to terminate it, or so I think.

In other words, once the baby-like-thing in there starts to become capable of having subjective experience (a perspective, much like we do), then we have an ethical responsibility to respect it and grant it rights. In situations where the rights of the baby are stacked against the rights of the mother, it gets stickier. I'm more likely, in that case, to trade off the life of the baby, as its cognitive experiences are still quite undeveloped and unsophisticated compared to the mother. But it's a pretty gray issue to say the least.

The first argument that people naturally bring up in objection to my view (or views like it) is: what about somebody who's sleeping or in a coma? Since the baby, before it develops perspective/consciousness/whatever is much like somebody in a coma or asleep, what does it matter if you similarly kill these types of people?

I think that argument is built on a false analogy. The baby at that point in time has never had experiences, so its life hasn't yet begun. In the case of people in a coma or asleep, there's epistemic uncertainty (stronger in one case than the other, albeit) that the person will regain consciousness -- but the idea is that once consciousness is attained again, there's continuity stretching from past experience. In one case it's ending a life, in the other it's not allowing it to begin (much like abstaining from sex in the first place, except with bad health effects on the mother in some circumstances).

9/16/2008 10:20:39 AM

well when does a baby have brain wave activity?

9/16/2008 10:55:11 AM

definitely do not define at these extremes. its heartbeat and brainwaves for me -- by run of the mill definitions, that makes me pro life

^^ what he said

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 11:09 AM. Reason : ]

9/16/2008 11:08:07 AM

Putting down a dog at the local animal shelter should be a far greater moral crisis to society than aborting a 2nd or 3rd trimester baby.

If you don't think so, then you're a human elitist.

Now, I'm talking this as it pertains to society. Naturally, it's different for the parents. There's certainly a little bit of a moral conflict (to say the least) when talking about aborting something living inside you. It's just intensely personal, that's all.

There's not a damned good reason for us, as a society, to protect that life any more than Old Yeller about to get put down.

9/16/2008 11:27:34 AM

Life starts at conception.

9/16/2008 11:55:25 AM

Has anyone seen an abortion performed? Did you know the doctor has to piece to together the parts of the baby (after he vacuums it out of the womb) to ensure that none of its body parts is left in the mother?

9/16/2008 12:28:42 PM

Who cares, they gotta pull it out of there one way or another

9/16/2008 12:29:39 PM

It's tricky when you use terms like "the beginning of human life" in your question.

Sure, I think the beginning of human life is at conception. A fertilized human egg isn't going to produce a parrot, or a vegetable after all. But I don't consider aborting a just-conceived fetus the equivalent of murder.

Life, as it relates to murder, begins at self-awareness. Which is heavily related to Str8Foolish's brain wave activity.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ...]

9/16/2008 12:33:00 PM

^ GTFO. This discussion warrants no scare tactics to make a point. I hate that shit.

9/16/2008 12:34:17 PM

Indeed.

Or should we talk about the beautiful process de-limbing processes that keep us safe from terrorism?

9/16/2008 12:35:41 PM

Quote :

"Putting down a dog at the local animal shelter should be a far greater moral crisis to society than aborting a 2nd or 3rd trimester baby. If you don't think so, then you're a human elitist. Now, I'm talking this as it pertains to society. Naturally, it's different for the parents. There's certainly a little bit of a moral conflict (to say the least) when talking about aborting something living inside you. It's just intensely personal, that's all. There's not a damned good reason for us, as a society, to protect that life any more than Old Yeller about to get put down."

I am a human elitist. And you should be, too.

Out of morbid curiosity, are you a mammalian elitist, or is all life of equal worth? Do you weep at the thought you may have stepped on an ant?

If not, I would love to hear some contorted rationale by which you judge a dog's worth equal to humans, but not a fly or an ant.

9/16/2008 12:40:12 PM

I'll give you his rationale: FAGGOT COLLEGE KID.

9/16/2008 12:48:19 PM

Quote :

"how is it ok to extend the right-the-life to someone that isnt even born? you cant stifle the rights of the mother for the rights of the fetus."

I was just trying to poke a hole in the "only-when-the-mother's-life-is-in-danger" argument, which has always struck me as hypocritical. If you're going to be against abortion and say that the fetus is a living human in its own right, then you've got to go all the way with that. Would the same people making this argument find it acceptable to kill a random person off the street in order to save a woman whose life was in danger? Who the hell decided the woman was so much more important than everybody else?

Secondly, and at the risk of repeating myself, you seem to have missed the point. Your complaint makes perfect sense if the fetus is not a living person. It would seem silly to "stifle the rights of the mother" over some inanimate nonperson. But if the fetus is a living person, then again, who decided the woman was so goddamn important? Now we get to go around killing people just because they inconvenience women?

Which brings me back to the main point I make in all abortion threads: the only relevant question is when life as a person begins.

Quote :

"Life, as it relates to murder, begins at self-awareness."

Of course, this opens the door for exterminating fully-grown people with a variety of mental disorders and health conditions.

Quote :

"Did you know the doctor has to piece to together the parts of the baby (after he vacuums it out of the womb) to ensure that none of its body parts is left in the mother?"

What does this conceivably have to do with when life begins? I could smash a doll with a hammer and then have to put the pieces back together, that doesn't make it a person.

Go ahead and learn this trick quick: Nobody in the Soap Box gives half a shit about your dead-fetus-poster emotional pleas. Half the people on here find dead babies, in an abstract sort of way, funny. Go talk about it in Chit Chat and see how many pictures you get of clothes hangers and stairs.

9/16/2008 1:06:09 PM

I bet 99.9% of the people that vehemontly(sp?) protest against abortion have never volunteered at an orphanage or considered adopting a child.

9/16/2008 1:16:13 PM

Quote :

"I am a human elitist. And you should be, too."

Simple bullshit.

Bit of wisdom: If you can't voice why you think something, then you're probably wrong. I'll tell you why taking the baby's life and dog's life is tantamount - they have about the same level of sentience. Really, the dog probably has more.

There is value to life and suffering should be avoided. People can agree on these points. The life and suffering value associated with an abortion is extremely little. The main human cause associated with an abortion is the stress it imposes on the mother.

That's what I believe, and I can at least write a proper justification for my stance.

Quote :

"I'll give you his rationale: FAGGOT COLLEGE KID."

And when we check the TWW registration dates...

Quote :

"I bet 99.9% of the people that vehemontly(sp?) protest against abortion have never volunteered at an orphanage or considered adopting a child."

I would take that bet too.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 1:20 PM. Reason : ]

9/16/2008 1:16:45 PM

If you kill a pregnant woman, how many counts of murder are you charged with? It seems like if we want to be consistent in our stances legally, then the point where you are charged with 2 counts of murder (or receive a higher sentence than you would if she weren't pregnant) is the same point that we should say life begins when considering whether or not an abortion is murder.

Quote :

"I was just trying to poke a hole in the "only-when-the-mother's-life-is-in-danger" argument, which has always struck me as hypocritical. If you're going to be against abortion and say that the fetus is a living human in its own right, then you've got to go all the way with that. Would the same people making this argument find it acceptable to kill a random person off the street in order to save a woman whose life was in danger? Who the hell decided the woman was so much more important than everybody else?"

To be fair, the fetus in this case isn't just a random person. In this particular case, it is the person who is actively threatening and endangering the life of another, regardless of intent. In a way, it's a self defense issue. But even if you don't want to frame it that way, you could frame it from a purely logistical standpoint. A live mother can reproduce again, and requires relatively few resources to be able to reach that point. A live baby on the other hand is not guaranteed to reach the age of reproduction nor are they guaranteed to reproduce and they will consume many more resources getting there. So strictly speaking, from a net benefit to society standpoint, aborting the child is the better route, though this really should be left as a matter of choice, if the mother wants to sacrifice herself, that's not something the government needs to have a say in.

Quote :

"I bet 99.9% of the people that vehemontly(sp?) protest against abortion have never volunteered at an orphanage or considered adopting a child."

I bet you're wrong.

Quote :

"I'll tell you why taking the baby's life and dog's life is tantamount - they have about the same level of sentience. Really, the dog probably has more."

Incidentally, killing a dog is a crime in most areas, so why shouldn't killing a baby be?

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 2:00 PM. Reason : asdfadsfa]

9/16/2008 1:59:54 PM

Quote :

"If you kill a pregnant woman, how many counts of murder are you charged with? It seems like if we want to be consistent in our stances legally, then the point where you are charged with 2 counts of murder (or receive a higher sentence than you would if she weren't pregnant) is the same point that we should say life begins when considering whether or not an abortion is murder. "

In North Carolina, it is only one count.

9/16/2008 2:03:50 PM

even if life does begin at conception, i'm still ok with abortion. breaking up a group of cells that might grow into a person does not seem like murder to me.

9/16/2008 2:47:21 PM

^^And likewise, in North Carolina, abortion isn't murder. The unfortunate difference is, North Carolina could change the first law, but not the second.

^ And you are fundamentally different from a group of cells how? Thats really what all of this hinges on, at what point is your group of cells a person?

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM. Reason : sadf]

9/16/2008 2:47:38 PM

fortunately, North Carolina will not chance the second law.

9/16/2008 2:48:46 PM

Quote :

"Has anyone seen an abortion performed? Did you know the doctor has to piece to together the parts of the baby (after he vacuums it out of the womb) to ensure that none of its body parts is left in the mother? "

you take a pill your doctor gives you and have a quite night at home while your boyfriend comforts you with kisses and icecream as your body has a miscarriage. I know a chick who had an abortion this way around 4 weeks after conception. What you are describing is the case with late term abortions which are illegal if they are partial birth aboritions.

9/16/2008 4:10:55 PM

Quote :

"What you are describing is the case with late term abortions which are illegal if they are partial birth aboritions. "

[NO]

9/16/2008 4:46:58 PM

Quote :

"I bet 99.9% of the people that vehemontly(sp?) protest against abortion have never volunteered at an orphanage or considered adopting a child. "

put me in the 0.01% category then.

9/16/2008 4:54:29 PM

^Me too.


Heck, I know lots of people who are in this 0.01% category.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2008 4:59:36 PM

Quote :

"I think this whole debate comes down to your religious position. "

it's not necessarily a religious question, although you may find a religious answer.




i'm not interested in hearing any other beaten-to-death abortion arguments. just post if you define the beginning of human life at either of these extremes.


ENOUGH with the extra commentary, though. nobody has made any argument in this thread that we haven't all heard 100 times before.

Quote :

"Neither. And I think it's a somewhat unimportant question. "

"Neither" is also my opinion...but HOW IN THE HELL could you possibly view it as an unimportant question?

Quote :

"Putting down a dog at the local animal shelter should be a far greater moral crisis to society than aborting a 2nd or 3rd trimester baby. "

That is fucking amazing.

Quote :

"I'll give you his rationale: FAGGOT COLLEGE KID."

Yeah, pretty much.

Quote :

"Which brings me back to the main point I make in all abortion threads: the only relevant question is when life as a person begins. "

exactly.

9/16/2008 5:00:25 PM

Abortion for some, miniature American flags for others

9/16/2008 5:01:08 PM

at any rate, the reason i asked the question was just to get people to come out and admit to taking those stances before i asked a couple of other questions.

I can see the rationale behind believing tbat conception defines the formation of a human being, although that's not my personal opinion. The idea that the line should be drawn at birth is fucking absurd, but only one or two people took that stance. I was going to argue that, but it's really just pointless. if you're so lacking in judgement as to take that stance, it's futile for me to try to explain to you otherwise.



For all of you who stated that you believe that a fertilized egg constitutes a human being, i.e., human life beginning at conception, what do you think about birth control (The Pill, The Patch, etc)? What do you think about fertility treatments?

9/16/2008 5:06:50 PM

d

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 6:47 PM. Reason : a]

9/16/2008 6:46:37 PM

birth is pretty much how we do it here in the good old usa

no one gives a shit about your conception certificate, only your birth certificate

incidentally, a birth certificate is required for every other form of ID

if there was some arbitrary line that made you a person in utero, why doesnt the government recognize it with the paperwork that you get when you are born?

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 7:00 PM. Reason : 

9/16/2008 6:58:19 PM

Quote :

"if there was some arbitrary line that made you a person in utero, why doesnt the government recognize it with the paperwork that you get when you are born?"

Mostly tradition would be my guess, after all, a birth certificate is really arbitrary, and originally was a form of record keeping. That we use it for ID has no bearing on whether or not you're a person before it's granted.

9/16/2008 7:31:31 PM

Quote :

"Incidentally, killing a dog is a crime in most areas, so why shouldn't killing a baby be?"

To further muddy the waters, I'll note that killing a pig isn't. Yet pigs are about as smart a dogs.

9/16/2008 7:41:13 PM

Quote :

"For all of you who stated that you believe that a fertilized egg constitutes a human being, i.e., human life beginning at conception, what do you think about birth control (The Pill, The Patch, etc)? What do you think about fertility treatments?"

I'm against the use of hormonal contraceptives, as I believe that part of their design is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg by messing with the uterine lining. That, of course, is a topic of disagreement, but I do believe that is part of the 'backup system' inherent in the contraceptive.

Condoms, awareness of when the woman is ovulating, etc. - no problem with those methods.

9/16/2008 7:47:18 PM

Life never begins. I support killing infants at all ages.

9/16/2008 7:49:12 PM

^^ incorrect. Hormonal contraceptives like shots, daily pills, and the patch prevent ovulation. The Plan B pill prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg.

9/16/2008 8:02:55 PM

Do pro-lifers understand that women miscarry a large percentage of the eggs fertilized in her body over the course of her life? Women are practically abortion machines.

9/16/2008 8:23:07 PM

Quote :

"^^ incorrect. Hormonal contraceptives like shots, daily pills, and the patch prevent ovulation. The Plan B pill prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg."

It is correct.

Preventing ovulation is their primary means for contraception.

But, as we all know, people can and do still get pregnant on the pills, patches and shots. That means they don't always prevent ovulation.

As a backup mechanism to prevent pregnancy in the case of fertilization (which IS possible), the shots, pills and patches also alter the uterine lining to make them less receptive to the fertilized egg.

There are plenty of reputable BC-providers and gynecologists who advertise this backup system, and it does add to the effectiveness rate of hormonal BC.

I don't have too many links available, but a quick google search:

Emory University Health Services (http://www.emory.edu/UHS/health_topics/pfs_files/hormonal.html): "There are some appealing advantages of hormonal birth control. It is very effective in preventing pregnancy, due to triple action of suppressing ovulation, thickening cervical mucus, and thinning the uterine lining"

And Pfizer itself advertising this effect in Depo-Provera (http://www.pfizer.com/files/products/ppi_depo_provera_contraceptive.pdf): "DEPO-PROVERA Contraceptive Injection
also causes changes in the lining of your uterus that make it less likely for pregnancy to
occur."

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 8:45 PM. Reason : a]

9/16/2008 8:40:53 PM

In a similar vein to the above, that is why IUD's are so effective. They make it damn near impossible for a fertilized egg to implant.

9/16/2008 9:48:07 PM

Quote :

"Women are practically abortion machines."

2nd LOL in this thread.

9/16/2008 9:53:11 PM

Ever since staring medical school and having some basic medical embryology the pool has been muddied for me.

As it turns out, not all fertilized eggs that implant result in fetuses. Some can actually turn into aggressive cancers (i.e. Hydatidiform moles).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_pregnancy

For what it's worth I think that it is between conception and birth. As more things become available in neonatology, premies can live longer and longer. On the flip side, a fertilized egg has no potential to become anything without first implanting and then following proper development. Simply having human DNA and following a pathway towards development doesn't signify personhood to me, either. That's what cancers do.

The majority of the medical community considers "the beginning of life" to start at implantation. I'll post my thoughts later when I've collected them. Just know that this is considered a complicated issue by just about everyone.

9/16/2008 9:59:51 PM

I'd venture to say, strictly based on the process of fertilization & Cellular Mitosis, I'd have to go with "At conception." (Based on this, an embryo that doesn't implant dies.)

Is that really the question? Or is the question at what point does a soul (or self-awareness) come into the picture? I'd venture to say that there is some kind of correlation between brainwave activity and the soul / self-awareness, but that's just a guess.

Unless it's testable, it seems to me the civilized thing to do would be to limit the possibility killing a human "soul" as much as possible. (Anyone who has been in a long term relationship with a "pregnancy scare" can attest to the fact that, for the most part, it does not take months to realize that one is, or might be, pregnant.)

It's also interesting to look at where we sit with regards to the rest of the world on this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png

9/16/2008 10:44:20 PM

Alright, firstly

partial birth abortions = infanticide

I just want to throw that out there. Contraceptives, abortion, and infanticide and entirely different things with no gray area in my mind. If you prevented it, it's the first one, you kill it while it's in you it's the second, kill it while it's out of you it's the third. If it grows a few years before you kill it, maybe that will be another word.

Quote :

""I'll give you his rationale: FAGGOT COLLEGE KID." Yeah, pretty much."

Keep up the good work sleuth!

9/16/2008 11:21:34 PM

We, as a society, seemed to have defined when life ends pretty universally. The whole "brain dead" deal seems to be a consensus opinion on the end of life. So, even if we haven't explicitly defined life, we seem to have practically defined life.
So, like Str8Foolish, I believe life begins with brain wave activity. Before then, it's a boring lump of replicating cells. After that, it's some sort of life. So the only question is to definitively decide when brain activity begins.

9/17/2008 8:39:08 PM

technically you dont remember thing anything before age 2...they could screen them for more shit and kill the weaklings

9/18/2008 9:01:54 PM

Quote :

"it's a boringn exciting!!! lump of replicating cells"

Biology is fun!

9/18/2008 9:31:50 PM

Quote :

"I believe life begins with brain wave activity. Before then, it's a boring lump of replicating cells."

are moneras alive? how about protista? fungi? plants? none of them have brain wave activity but they all have replicating cells

do things have to have brains to be considered alive now? might wanna go holler at some biologists...why do hippies care when timber companies cut down trees? they don't have any brain waves and they never have (and unlike a fetus, they never WILL)

9/18/2008 9:34:28 PM

so like are you saying we shouldn't eat mushrooms or something?

9/18/2008 9:51:52 PM

some of them are poisonous, so you should be wary

but no thats not what im saying

9/18/2008 9:52:51 PM