The zygote contains all genetic material for an individual human being. Why should it matter how many cells the unborn child consists of, if its DNA is all there for its full development.

3/7/2006 1:35:01 PM

my original statement was made in contention to your claim

Quote :

"both are human beings"

my statement is not that

development = human

more along the lines of

zygote =/= human

3/7/2006 1:36:24 PM

Women should have the right to choose whether or not they want to have the child.

I know of at least 3 children (without giving it much thought) who would have been better off aborted.

3/7/2006 1:36:44 PM

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 1:38 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/7/2006 1:38:14 PM

So what gives you the right to judge that someone is better off dead?

The time to decide whether you want to have a child is before you have it. Once you have created the child, you should no longer be able to say "Nah, I changed my mind, I don't want to have a child after all". You DO have one now, after conception.

What about the two year old child scenario? He is as much a human being as the unborn child. He is as much "here" as the unborn child.

Woodfoot: I understand that is your conclusion, but I am not dealing with your conclusion at this time, I am attacking your premise. And since your conclusion is that "therefore, zygote =/= human" your major premise must be a definition of humanity (from which your minor premise will exclude "zygote")

The logical syllogism goes:
Major premise: (broad category) is X.
Minor premise: (specific object) is not X.
Conclusion: Therefore, (specific object) is not (broad category).

You've stated that your conclusion is "Therefore, a zygote (specific object) is not a human (broad category)." Therefore, your major premise must be "A human is X". THAT is what I am attacking - what is X for you, and why?

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 1:44 PM. Reason : tired of using ^'s]

3/7/2006 1:39:33 PM

^^^ poor kids. I hope you don't consider yourself a friend of theirs. How about say adopted instead of aborted, considering they're already alive.

Ok so the fact that all genetic material from which we develop and hold onto throughout life is contained in that zygote doesn't make you reconsider what you're saying is the right stage at which to consider a human being ineligible for abortion?

Aaaand after looking up some more specifics, already by week three the heart and brain are developing. So when, during the pregnancy, do you consider it a human being that shouldn't be aborted? Or do you believe it's okay until the child is born?

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2006 1:40:33 PM

All the genetic material needed to make a human being is in every cell of skin that falls off of your body. That's meaningless.

3/7/2006 1:48:30 PM

^^a seed has all the genetic material to make a plant
but that doesn't make it a plant

and
^^^i can't give you a definition on just how much "Development" makes a "human being"
so if thats what you're expecting out of me, i'm going to have to defer to folks that know more, or really, care more

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 2:05 PM. Reason : `]

3/7/2006 1:49:33 PM

Spooky: Every skin cell that falls off your body has the complete DNA sequence of a brand new human being, completely distinct from your own? I'm afraid I'd need to see some scientific support before I could believe that.


Woodfoot: But you are the one making an argument, and you don't even understand your major premise? That is kind of an important thing to understand - that's why it's called "major". Why would you make an argument that you cannot back up with logic? Now that you have admitted you cannot back up your argument with logic, are you prepared to change your conclusion?

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 1:51 PM. Reason : add]

3/7/2006 1:49:49 PM

Quote :

"Many women are subjected to domestic violence to coerce them into having abortion, many women are coerced anyway by a boyfriend unwilling to pay child support, and abortion can have not only severe physical consequences for the woman but also extreme emotional consequences."

So because there's the potential for women to be forced to do A, we should instead have the government force women to do Not A.

Good thinking.

Yet another example of how disingenious the religious right is. Keep it up, though. This way I never have to worry about you guys actually winning any legal battles.


P.S.: I'm still wondering how we would effectively police an antiabortion law. All of them so far have been failures.



[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2006 1:50:19 PM

We're not talking about the potential to clone. We're talking about what a unique human being develops from (the DNA from two parents). Your argument is thin.

Woodfoot, I just want to know at what point do you personally consider it wrong to abort an unborn child, since you seem strongly pro-abortion. Or are you considering yourself more pro-choice, and unclear about when you believe it wrong to abort.


[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2006 1:51:02 PM

Quote :

"Every skin cell that falls off your body has the complete DNA sequence of a brand new human being, completely distinct from your own?"

That is neither what I nor ncsutiger claimed.

3/7/2006 1:51:15 PM

Quote :

"So what gives you the right to judge that someone is better off dead?"

I don't think I said that, they would be better off if they had never been born.
Constant psychological abuse is every bit as bad as physical abuse, and yet there is little legal recourse.

Quote :

"The time to decide whether you want to have a child is before you have it."

Victims of rape might not agree with you there.

Quote :

"Once you have created the child, you should no longer be able to say "Nah, I changed my mind, I don't want to have a child after all"."

Isn't it better to decide that before the child is born rather than after?
I understand adoption is one path for the folks deciding after conception that "they changed their mind" but how often do you think this happens?

You have to be realistic. In an ideal world there would be no conception unless the future parents were ready and willing to accept the responsibility. We don't live in an ideal world.

3/7/2006 1:53:13 PM

And the beauty of all of this is that, as a Catholic, I'm guessing Wolfpack2K is opposed to the use of any birth control and even condoms.

I could be wrong, though. Maybe he's not that crazy.

3/7/2006 1:56:07 PM

Spooky: But it is an essential fact that causes your comparison to be invalid.

Boonedocks: That was an example. Read more on the website. The statement was made in response to a question about why do the 99% of women who spoke about the devastating consequences of abortion matter.

Erudite: Born or not, the child was alive in the womb. And if you are saying that he would have been better off if he were aborted, then you're saying he would be better off if that life had been terminated. And we usually use the word "dead" to refer to someone whose life has been terminated, do we not?

Birth does not really matter. The child is just as alive before birth as after birth. So the time to decide that you do not want a child is before the child comes into being, that is, before conception. Birth is largely irrelevant.

I understand we do not live in an ideal world; however that is no reason to kill a child.

3/7/2006 1:56:41 PM

It's silly to argue this with a guy who only views the world as black and white.

Right or wrong,

this is an area of our lives that the government should have absolutely no jurisdiction over.

3/7/2006 1:57:26 PM

How not? The government has jurisdiction to criminalize murder. The federal Constitution specifically states the right to life, and I doubt there is anyone who argues that criminalizing murder is not a legitimate exercise of the state's police power.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 2:00 PM. Reason : add]

3/7/2006 2:00:19 PM

I would hope that no parents actually "change their minds." That would imply that the parents were prepared to have the child.

I don't think it is a matter of changing minds but of irresponsibility (in consensual instances) and ignorance. Some people end up resorting to abortion because they weren't educated on contraception, and they likely weren't educated on what's going on in their bodies, and what resources are at their fingers if they were to carry through with the pregnancy. They felt like they had no choice.

The other extreme are those very "open-minded" women that view abortion as almost a birth control method. I had a friend like that - she just considered it another form of birth control, where she could just have an abortion b/c she didn't want a kid, as though it was just like popping a pill. In cases like those the women should be doing everything within their power to prevent pregnancy, and hopefully if they still got pregnant they would realize what a miracle it was that it happened, and view it more positively.

3/7/2006 2:01:16 PM

So what about people who are anti-choice but anti-birth control as well?

Also, are you opposed to hormonal birth control, ncsutiger?

3/7/2006 2:04:27 PM

If the birth control has the effect, or can have the effect, of killing the unborn child after conception, then there is no difference between that and surgical abortion. Thus there would be no reason to favor one but not the other.

3/7/2006 2:07:16 PM

Quote :

"How not? The government has jurisdiction to criminalize murder. The federal Constitution specifically states the right to life, and I doubt there is anyone who argues that criminalizing murder is not a legitimate exercise of the state's police power."

For starters, roughly half the country doesn't think it's a right to life issue.

Then, it's mostly a religious issue.

Finally, the enforcement of said law would be a mess. With the roaring success that the War on Drugs has been, imagine how successful we'll be at policing a commodity that doesn't need to be manufactured or transported.

3/7/2006 2:07:36 PM

Quote :

"Born or not, the child was alive in the womb"

So you're telling me that a "child" is "alive" one month after conception - even though it cannot be "born" "alive"?

3/7/2006 2:08:52 PM

Quote :

"If the birth control has the effect, or can have the effect, of killing the unborn child after conception, then there is no difference between that and surgical abortion. Thus there would be no reason to favor one but not the other."

Plenty of people do.

And that still doesn't explain the rationale behind any opposition to condom usage.

3/7/2006 2:09:01 PM

Constitutional questions are not decided by majority rule, but by the Constitution itself. Secondly, what about those states like South Dakota that do view it as a right to life issue? Finally, enforcement would be difficult but it would not be as difficult as people think - it would be easy to shut down the abortion facility, and to seize the licenses of "doctors" who violate the law.


Erudite: I don't understand the question. At the time the unborn baby is formed in the womb (scientifically called "conception"), he is alive at that moment. Now it is beyond dispute that some time in the future his life will terminate (nothing is certain except death and taxes). Whether that life terminates before birth or after is largely irrelevant, he still was alive and is now dead.

Spooky: If someone supports chemical abortion (aka "morning after pill" type of birth control) but does not support surgical abortion, then they are not logically consistent. There is no reason to support one but not the other.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 2:12 PM. Reason : erudite and spooky]

3/7/2006 2:09:34 PM

Quote :

"I just want to know at what point do you personally consider it wrong to abort an unborn child"

oh i pretty much think abortion is "wrong"
and i would probably be just as affected by my "child's" mother aborting it as she would, if anyone is willing to believe me

but i care more about living in a country that doesn't allow people to make bad choices more than i care about living in a country full of people making bad choices

thats why i can manage to be pro-choice, but certainly not "pro-abortion"

the choices i have, do, and would make for my life should not define the choices other people have

3/7/2006 2:11:14 PM

I wouldn't call it anti-choice. Unless there are actually people out there that don't believe in a woman's right to choose.

Hormonal birth control covers all birth control pills correct? No I'm not opposed to it, because it's not affecting what happens once conception has occurred. As far as I know it merely prevents the egg's release to where it can be fertilized. I suppose you could then use that to argue that in that case I would be supporting alteration of the natural reproduction cycle, but I do view that a completely different concept from abortion. In that case you may as well say the same thing about withdrawing before ejaculation to avoid getting pregnant, if you are of the belief that sex was created for reproduction. I am opposed to the morning after pill b/c of the possibility of fertilization already having occurred.

People that are anti-birth control are being as irresponsible as those that don't use it.

3/7/2006 2:14:51 PM

Woodfoot; Murder is not just a "bad choice". Why is it not ok, in your judgment, to criminalize murder of the pre-born, but it IS ok in your judgment (I assume) to criminalize murder of the born? Both are bad choices, to be sure. But why should one of them be a legal bad choice while one of them is an illegal bad choice?

Further, you are making an assumption. You are coming from the pre-assumed position that abortion is a choice someone has and pro-life people are trying to take the choice away. I am stating that abortion was never a choice that you have to begin with, because it is killing a human being which should never be a viable choice.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 2:16 PM. Reason : add]

3/7/2006 2:15:02 PM

Quote :

"Constitutional questions are not decided by majority rule, but by the Constitution itself. Secondly, what about those states like South Dakota that do view it as a right to life issue?"

Let's not think if we should or not. What matters is if we can.

Yeah.

Also, they aren't decided my majority rule (how ironic for some who is against "legislating from the bench" to say this) but they are decided by whether they comply with the 1st Amendment.

Quote :

"Finally, enforcement would be difficult but it would not be as difficult as people think - it would be easy to shut down the abortion facility, and to seize the licenses of "doctors" who violate the law."

And that will stop it.

3/7/2006 2:16:04 PM

for the record

i'd never murder anyone either

3/7/2006 2:16:29 PM

The First Amendment is not really in question here; abortion laws are judged under what is called "substantive due process" under the Fourteenth Amendment. There are no First Amendment issues.

whether criminalizing abortion stops it or not is also not relevant. The purpose of the criminal law is not to completely abolish something from the face of the earth. We know that peple will break the criminal law, and that is why there are penalties. People break the law all the time. That does not mean we should do away with the law, it means we penalize the people who break it. The purposes of the criminal law are to serve as deterrent, and to a lesser extent incapacitation.

3/7/2006 2:19:09 PM

So you basically oppose abortion, support choice, but the difference between you and I is that you're kind of arguing on the other side rather than your own (as far as the whole developmental stages/when it's "okay" to abort, etc). I can appreciate critical thinking, but when it causes you to argue a point that is opposite of what you personally believe, it doesn't seem right.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 2:21 PM. Reason : woodfoot, that is]

3/7/2006 2:21:04 PM

Quote :

"Erudite: I don't understand the question. At the time the unborn baby is formed in the womb (scientifically called "conception"), he is alive at that moment. Now it is beyond dispute that some time in the future his life will terminate (nothing is certain except death and taxes). Whether that life terminates before birth or after is largely irrelevant, he still was alive and is now dead."

So if an embryo/zygote is miscarried one month after conception, it lived and died?
Would you have a funeral for this "son/daughter"? Not that you could tell which it was.

And on a side topic - anyone who thinks that outlawing abortion will stop people from getting abortions is again living in an ideal world that does not exist. It is better to have the procedure performed in a controlled environment than not.

3/7/2006 2:22:53 PM

Yes, and yes. I know many people who have had memorial services for their children who passed away before birth.

About your issue about stopping people from having abortions, read my post above. That is not the point of the criminal law. Further, it is silly to say "People are going to break the law, so we should make it as safe as possible for them to break the law." That hardly makes any sense at all.

3/7/2006 2:24:44 PM

Quote :

"Hormonal birth control covers all birth control pills correct? No I'm not opposed to it, because it's not affecting what happens once conception has occurred."

Hormonal birth sometimes prevents the implantation of fertilized eggs.

3/7/2006 2:28:02 PM

Quote :

"People are going to break the law, so we should make it as safe as possible for them to break the law." That hardly makes any sense at all."

People are going to speed and drive wrecklessly. Car companies have made it as safe as possible for them to do so (airbags, crash testing, etc.). That hardly makes any sense at all.

3/7/2006 2:30:30 PM

ncsutiger

there are plenty of things that i believe are "wrong" that are perfectly acceptable in our society, but i would never argue that these things should be determined illegal based on my personal beliefs

i guess that separates me from certain types of people

which i'm fine with

3/7/2006 2:38:38 PM

Erudite; But the GOVERNMENT does not take upon itself the responsibility to make sure the environment is as safe as possible for people to break the law. Secondly, I doubt that airbags and crash testing were designed for the purpose of encouraging people to drive recklessly.


Woodfoot: So where is the line? Clearly we do use our personal values to influence our lawmaking; stealing is wrong, so we outlaw stealing. Killing is wrong, so we outlaw killing. But, to use an example of my personal beliefs, eating meat on Friday is wrong but we don't outlaw eating meat on Friday. So the line seems to be the fact that it hurts someone else. When someone does something we think is wrong and it hurts someone else, that is when we can make it illegal. As the legal maxim goes, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. So why suddenly here, where the issue is not merely hurting but KILLING another person, do you suddenly come up with this "hands off, we can never make things illegal because we think they're wrong" approach?

3/7/2006 2:46:17 PM

^abortion isn't against the law.

3/7/2006 2:51:47 PM

i guess the line ends for me just about a minute or two after a fetus becomes a human being

if you can give me a good enough reason to believe a zygote is a human being, it will def cut down on the grey area

call me crazy
but i kinda see grey sometimes

3/7/2006 2:52:01 PM

I know what you're saying Woodfoot, and I don't think I was clear enough. I meant that I can understand your method of critically thinking about the main issue at hand - that South Dakota should not ban abortion because it is a choice of the woman's to determine, even though you yourself do not support abortion. The only issue I had with your arguments, once I found out you don't like abortion, is that at one point you argued about the zygote being a single cell, etc, insinuating that stage was okay for abortion, as though that was your personal belief. I wouldn't have misunderstood you if you had said something to clarify that it's what pro-abortion people believe. You, on the other hand, seem to actually believe that it's wrong to abort at any stage.

Okay based on ^ I was wrong...

spookyjon, my knowledge about birth control is that it prevents the eggs from being released, and therefore fertilized, in the first place. If I researched and found that no form of birth control does just this, and that they all actually aborted the fertilized egg, then I would resort just to condoms. Either way would include withdrawal before ejaculation anyway because I don't want to get pregnant right now.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 2:55 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2006 2:52:52 PM

Quote :

"But the GOVERNMENT does not take upon itself the responsibility to make sure the environment is as safe as possible for people to break the law. "

Yes, they make sure the roads are safe for speeds well in excess of what is legal (I can have someone from the NCDOT call you and confirm this).

Quote :

"Secondly, I doubt that airbags and crash testing were designed for the purpose of encouraging people to drive recklessly."

Abortion being legal doesn't encourage it to happen. Car companies (and even tire manufactures) know that people will drive over the speed limit - so they adjust their product accordingly. People still drove too fast before all the safety features, they just didn't survive the wrecks.
I guess car companies should remove any safety feature that might save someone's life if they decide to break the law? And tires should explode if the car reaches 71 mph. That would keep everyone from breaking the law.

3/7/2006 2:53:55 PM

Quote :

"You, on the other hand, seem to actually believe that it's wrong to abort at any stage."

in my feelings towards abortion, there are degrees of "wrong", like most people

making an exception for rape, incest, or mothers safety, to me, is no different than making an exceptin for "development" (cue wolfpck4life to spin his wheels about that again)

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 2:57 PM. Reason : are you married ncsutiger?]

3/7/2006 2:56:40 PM

Quote :

"are you married ncsutiger?"

Yes

3/7/2006 3:01:36 PM

ok nevermind

3/7/2006 3:07:27 PM

Soap Box Died

3/7/2006 4:41:05 PM

Wolfpack2k, if you think that unborn children are deserving of the rights any other human being is at the federal level, then try to organize a bunch of your extremist buddies and draft a constitutional amendment.

Anything short of this, at the federal level, is hijacking our country's legal process.

3/7/2006 4:52:33 PM

Is it too late to abort Treetwistah?

I mean his continued existence obviously poses a threat to logic.

3/7/2006 5:05:23 PM

Quote :

"Hormonal birth control covers all birth control pills correct? No I'm not opposed to it, because it's not affecting what happens once conception has occurred. As far as I know it merely prevents the egg's release to where it can be fertilized. I suppose you could then use that to argue that in that case I would be supporting alteration of the natural reproduction cycle, but I do view that a completely different concept from abortion. In that case you may as well say the same thing about withdrawing before ejaculation to avoid getting pregnant, if you are of the belief that sex was created for reproduction. I am opposed to the morning after pill b/c of the possibility of fertilization already having occurred. People that are anti-birth control are being as irresponsible as those that don't use it. "

Hormonal birth control=The Pill (or The Patch). They are designed to prevent conception, BUT THEY DO, IN FACT, also work by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs (zygotes).

the morning after pill works the same way--it is designed to prevent conception, but failing that,also by preventing implantation.


therefore:

Quote :

" I am opposed to the morning after pill b/c of the possibility of fertilization already having occurred"

is wrong. There is no difference between the two. Hell, the morning after pill is basically just a large dose of birth control pills, anyway.


furthermore, if you're ok with birth control/morning after pill, I don't see what the big deal is about being ok with very early stage chemical abortion (i.e. RU-486 within the first few weeks). After that, I think there is a real concern. I don't think we should generally allow abortion after the 1st trimester, and probably should draw the line well before the end of the first trimester. However, I think it's kind of dumb to be fine with being on BC, but not with taking the "abortion pill" (NOT mornign after pill) as soon as you're late and test + on pregnancy test.

3/7/2006 6:10:23 PM

Quote :

"work by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs"

sometimes

3/7/2006 7:11:50 PM

right, that's what i was saying...but by her logic, that makes it no different than the morning after pill, and either the same or pretty damned close to the ethical equivalent of early stage chemical abortion (RU-486).

3/7/2006 10:49:54 PM