Abortion Laws: Pro Life or Pro Choice(v2)?

That was, oh, how shall we say, COMPLETLY FARKING RIDICOULOUS.

Diffrence: Sperm isnt human- yet. To become a human it requires an egg as well. Its not human till the sperm and egg meet and fuse. Then it has 23 Chromosomes. Thus, human.

I'm just using your logic. A fertilized egg is just like the sperm, even if it's fused with the sperm.

If a fetus were actualy the equivilent of a sperm (or an unfertilized egg) I'd be all for abortion. The diffrence is once they meet, they become a SEPERATE LIVING BEING. And definatly a Human.

Not separate from the womb, though. There's the difference. Plus there are no brainwaves until the second trimester (or end of the first). This would not make the baby "human" as we know it.


Ill give you that. But lets change it to Geneticaly Seperate. Point still stands.

I've debated with your kind before, always changing the "rules" or your points to suit your own views.

 

I could take some of my living skin cells and keep them alive separate from me. It is a separate life form in many ways more advanced than just a fertilized egg. I could even infect them with a benign virus so that its genetic structure would be different from mine. Should it be treated as a separate human life with all the rights and privileges thereof?

Each cell in my body is a separate living entity. And I can say that my mussel cells are genetically different and unique compared to my skin cells, and so on. Where and why do you draw the line?

If you say that a fertilized egg will become a full human, but is not yet (like a model airplane kit is not an airplane, but it will be), then it changes the structure of the debate a bit.

Yes, I am taking what you are saying literally, but how am I wrong?

 

If that clump of cells is growing, taking nourishment, and reacting to outside stimuli, it's alive. Scientific fact.

Then why don't we make it illegal for doctors to remove tumors from cancer patients?

 

Then why don't we make it illegal for doctors to remove tumors from cancer patients?

Interesting question!

 

Just like people who aren't black have no right to think slavery or racism is wrong, or people who aren't Jewish aren't allowed to believe that Hitler was wrong to exterminate Jews.

No, people who aren't black or Jewish aren't allowed to think slavery or racism is right, or that Hitler was right to exterminate the Jews.

Why would black or Jewish people be upset about a white or non-Jewish person defending them?

Be pro-choice all you want. That tells me that you admit that you don't understand what it might be like for the woman.

Or do you believe that we nasty humans are "superior" to the point that even human embryos are vastly superior to other already-born life forms?

Not superior, just equal.

So, since you're pro-life, do you avoid stepping on bugs?

If that clump of cells is growing, taking nourishment, and reacting to outside stimuli, it's alive. Scientific fact.

So eggs and sperm are also alive. Are you against birth control?

Sperm isnt human- yet.

Neither is an embryo. It isn't human--yet.

Women have the inheirent human right to decide who or what is inside her body, especially if it is feeding directly off of her body.

Amen.

Why is it that I don't feel like this would be an issue if men got pregnant? Men would never allow themselves to be enslaved to having a 15-pound bowling ball sitting on their bladders for nine months, or having to deal with the agony of childbirth--not to mention the slavery of 18 years plus raising a child, a job that often falls primarily on the mother. All this as a "consequence" of having sex--something many men feel is their divine right and shouldn't have consequences?

I once saw a bumper sticker that said "If men got pregnant, abortion would be available at drive-through windows." I believe it.

Then why don't we make it illegal for doctors to remove tumors from cancer patients?

Amen.

I wonder why I consented for the doctor to remove endometrial scar tissue from my abdominal cavity last month. After all, it was "growing and taking nourishment". It was also putting me in some pretty nasty pain and causing other damage--but so does pregnancy, but that doesn't seem to matter, because the tissue seems to come first.

 

All this as a "consequence" of having sex--something many men feel is their divine right and shouldn't have consequences?

It seems like that opinion is not men's but rather your own.

Also, to the sperm=embryo debate: drop it. You know why it is not a valid argument and you are using it only so you can make cute comments.

And for all the tumors and skin cells injected with virus talk, retake your basic high school biology and come back when you have learned something.

 

Also, to the sperm=embryo debate: drop it. You know why it is not a valid argument and you are using it only so you can make cute comments.

Don't tell me what I do and don't know. It most certainly is a valid argument. They are both potential humans.

And for all the tumors and skin cells injected with virus talk, retake your basic high school biology and come back when you have learned something.

I'm sorry, my high school biology teacher wasn't biased in favor of the anti-choice movement. Is that why I didn't learn anything?

I have not only had high school biology, but I had two college biology courses. When you have caught up with me, come back and we'll talk.

 

Don't tell me what I do and don't know. It most certainly is a valid argument. They are both potential humans.

BS.

From my American Heritage College Dictionary (4ed):

Human: A member of the genus Homo and esp. of the species H. sapiens.

Now, an embryo fits within that definition. A sperm cell does not.

 

From my American Heritage College Dictionary (4ed):

Human: A member of the genus Homo and esp. of the species H. sapiens.

Now, an embryo fits within that definition. A sperm cell does not.

So is a corpus, but they are not alive.

EDIT: And the talk about turmers is a valid point. Some of the pro-life people here have said that growing human cells are human life and are equal to the rest of us. Either A. you really believe that literally and need to think more about these (yes, extream) contradictions, or B. you are not being clear with your views (and go to the second line of my sig). Either way, this debate will get nowhere if you don't explain your views clearly the way we (at least as clear as I feel I) have.

 

Now, an embryo fits within that definition.

No, it doesn't--not any more than a sperm cell does.

They will both develop into humans. What is the difference?

And again--because you've never answered this one--what about women who spontaneously abort without knowing it? What about methods of birth control that prevent the zygote from implanting into the uterine wall? Should we be having funeral services for all these "lost children"?

 

Goddamn back button. It just erased 90% of my post.

And again--because you've never answered this one--what about women who spontaneously abort without knowing it? What about methods of birth control that prevent the zygote from implanting into the uterine wall? Should we be having funeral services for all these "lost children"?

Although I have answered this many times, I will do so again for your convenience.

A woman who spontaneously aborts bears no fault in the death of her child.

Birth control that prevents the zygote from implanting into the uterine wall is bad because it kills the human.

Funeral services are mainly for closure and to recognize what that person accomplished in life. Since nobody has gotten to know these "lost children" a funeral service would be pretty useless.

 

Birth control that prevents the zygote from implanting into the uterine wall is bad because it kills the human.

Well, damn...

I guess someone needs to call the police then. I probably killed 60 "people" during the five years or so that I used that type of birth control.

The idea of considering an embryo from the time of gestation as equal to a contributing citizen is not only ridiculous but insulting to those of us who have already been born.

 

Then consider yourself insulted.

 

Funeral services are mainly for closure and to recognize what that person accomplished in life. Since nobody has gotten to know these "lost children" a funeral service would be pretty useless.

Well, we could cremate the embryo. You know, make a little urn for it. I mean, going by your logic we should.

And for all the tumors and skin cells injected with virus talk, retake your basic high school biology and come back when you have learned something.

It is a valid argument, you're arguing over cells that are growing. Plus you could take cell matter and add other materials and create a new cell structure. You take a high school biology class, because what my teacher told me was that cells are living and actually have different functions that make you work.

 

It is a valid argument, you're arguing over cells that are growing. Plus you could take cell matter and add other materials and create a new cell structure.

Yes, you could. If you take a cell and inject it with a virus, the cell becomes a virus. However, if you take a human egg and inject it with a sperm, it becomes a human.


[/i] You take a high school biology class, because what my teacher told me was that cells are living and actually have different functions that make you work.[/i]

Yes, human cells have different functions. However, the embryo is a grouping of unspecified cells that can turn into many other different kinds of cells. It is the cell from which all the others get their functions. That is why people want to use them for stem cell research.

So, we have now established that the embryo is made up of special kinds of cells whose sole purpose is to create a fully grown human and will be able to do that without any additional genetic input.

And tell me again how this is not human.

 

Because it is not aware. It is not thinking, it is not feeling, reasonaing, or anything even close to those things.

 

Because it is not aware. It is not thinking, it is not feeling, reasonaing, or anything even close to those things.


None of those define humanity.

 

Yes, you could. If you take a cell and inject it with a virus, the cell becomes a virus. However, if you take a human egg and inject it with a sperm, it becomes a human.

It has the potential to become a human, just because you inject it with sperm doesn't mean *poof* that it is a human. Merely a potential human. You follow?


Yes, human cells have different functions. However, the embryo is a grouping of unspecified cells that can turn into many other different kinds of cells. It is the cell from which all the others get their functions. That is why people want to use them for stem cell research.

I believe I read that stem cells form human features, take those away and the potential human is just a cell to be absorbed by the woman's body. They (stem cells) tell which parts to grow where, theoretically you could grow an arm from an embryo (I think). So the assumption that it is a human at conception is in my opinion only conjecture and opinion. Realms best left out of law. From a moral perspective pro-lifers wouldn't even hold up because it'd still be their opinion. Being for the choice means that you want women to have that option, therefore there's no opinion within. You could go on forever debating this, but until there's actual proof either way then you're never going to outlaw abortion.

So, we have now established that the embryo is made up of special kinds of cells whose sole purpose is to create a fully grown human and will be able to do that without any additional genetic input.

And tell me again how this is not human.

Because it's potentially a human, it is not a human yet. Once you reach the second trimester it begins to form a human. Until then it's no more than a tumor, hair cell, skin cell, or muscle cell.


None of those define humanity.

WT* are you smoking? Yes they do!

 

Exactly--potential human does not equal fully developed human.

If you take a cell and inject it with a virus, the cell becomes a virus.

No, it becomes a cell injected with a virus.

 

So the assumption that it is a human at conception is in my opinion only conjecture and opinion.

So is the assumption that you or I are human. Humanity is a matter of definition.

If we are going by biology, embryos are human.

If we are going by appearances, ability to do something, or development, embryos are not human.

It is just a matter of which defintion we apply human rights too.

 

None of my biology texts discussed embryos being humans--rather, they were potential humans.

They are certainly not capable of thought, or viability outside the womb with or without the aid of machines.

 

None of those define humanity.

Then a human corpuse is a human life. Explain that contradiction. A dead human body will still grow a little bit, most of the cells will still be alive and going for a while. Yet it is not alive. Yes, awareness I feel is the big way human life is defined.

 

So is the assumption that you or I are human. Humanity is a matter of definition.

It is? Well I could've sworn that scientists have already catagorized us as human. My mistake, primates.


If we are going by biology, embryos are human.

A human embryo is different than a regular old embryo. A human embryo is also different from being a human. How would you define a human? You clearly don't think that our minds do, or any of the other things that humans have. *cough*BS*cough*.


If we are going by appearances, ability to do something, or development, embryos are not human.

Oh, but you see humanity is more than just appearences, it's also going by what makes us human to begin with. Without a neo-cortex, or thoughts, feelings, or the ability to reason then we are not humans. Which is why our ancestors are not called homo-sapiens.


It is just a matter of which defintion we apply human rights too.

I'd like my government giving rights to actual humans as opposed to potential humans.

 

[arnold] "It's not a tumah! It's name is Junior!" [/arnold]

 

>>>> "If men got pregnant, abortion would be available at drive-through windows." <<<<

Well, that's it, isn't it. My partner and I both got pregnant - only she was carrying the baby. In a way I was pregnant too.

I went throught the labor of birth.

I helped deliver the two boys we now have.

I went through the pain of it all as much as she did.

My wife enjoyed being pregnant. And ask her, it was not a watermelon delivery. Some woman somewhere came up with that phrase and now every feminist used it to kind of explain what it would be like. Some girls have a small birth canal and some don't. But according to her, it was nothing like a watermelon. Sure it hurt, but that is what it is all about. And gues what? We had the option to abort, but we decided to continue the journey into parenthood. The choice was there. And the choice not to abort is there as well. It's about choice. Don't you get it people.

And, as I said before, IF the choice "IS NOT THERE", HOP ON A PLANE AND GO TO WHERE THERE IS choice.

So, the sticker is wrong is stating abortion is not there. It is just a feminist way of having a dig in making a statement like that. Why not make a sticker and says...

"fly to Germany and abort - where there is choice".

The choice is there. If not in the United States, the choice is there somewhere. Drive-through or not.