2020 Election

If what I understand is correct about the very religious judaism laws, it is a sin to masturbate.

The seed itself is part of you and the building blocks of a person.

THERE IS NO WASTAGE ALLOWED!

I'm just saying we can let religion and someones beliefs take us to the extreme. I get thats their belief.

Please dont assume it is mine or welcome REGARDLESS of whether you find your version to make sense.

Because that doesn't mean it makes sense to me

Quote: Face

I wouldn't mind an explanation from one who holds their views. Answers lie in understanding.

Seems the biggest (only?) divide is where we believe life starts. None of us disagree that a newborn is a person, so that's cool. But lemme ask about the start so's I can understand.

Life begins at conception, the moment the egg is fertilized, and destroying it is akin to murder, as it is a person. OK, I disagree, but I at least understand. But as soon as I think further than the subject of politicized abortion, that whole faith falls apart.

A majority, that's greater than 50%, of all natural pregnancies end in self-induced abortion. The zygote was a little wack, mom's bio is a little off, whatever. Nature's metric is not met and *bloop*, the zygote is purged. I don't have a number on hand and I'm too f@#$ed to find one, but natural abortions are as frequent as actual births. Fact.

You ever mourn this? I don't mean planned and accepted pregnancies that end in miscarriage, that is definitively sorrowful and horrible. But the literal millions of "people" per year who "die" due to natural causes, has there ever been a single vigil? I ask because I'm hillfolk; most folks here, some women included, think they pee out of their vaginas. Any faith based view I've challenged is meant with stupor, they're clueless. So, out with civil folk, does this happen?

With my experience of this happening 0 times, it harms this claim that these are people dying, and not just a seed being tossed.

IVF sort of gives it a wailing, too. Most folk I know laud modern medicine's ability to create families, and very few will find a problem with a man or woman overcoming disability and accomplishing what is largely looked at as a person's greatest accomplishment and purpose (parenthood). But this war is one of numbers, and literal millions of "people" are either lost via the same natural process above, or, once past their use by date, are tossed in the incinerator. TWICE as many "people" are killed in this manner than are in elective abortions.

You ever mourn this?

This idea that life begins at conception to me is a non starter. The argument does not have logical consistency that I can see.. And let's not forget, this is an argument that is being used to permit the exertion of your will upon another persons' most critical and important part of their life. Those arguments especially must be nigh unassailable. This...this seems to fall apart at first look.

I'm up for being convinced otherwise.

I'm not some fancy city-slicker who knows about medical stuff, so bear with me. I assume by self-induced abortion you're saying the body itself basically kills off the zygote & such? I've never heard of that (not saying you're wrong, again, I'm no city-slicker doctor), but regardless, I don't see how that really changes anything. It'd likely go unnoticed and if it doesn't, not much you can do if that's how nature works. You can't mourn something if you don't even know that anything happened.

If you're talking about purposeful self-induced abortion like using the ol' wire hanger trick or an accidental fall down the stairs...then I really don't follow what you're saying. Although, I suspect you're talking about what I wrote in the previous paragraph.

Or look at it from a different angle -- do you think it'd be okay to have an abortion performed during labor? What if the head is popping out but most of the body is still inside the woman? I imagine, at some point (during pregnancy / giving birth stages), you'd have to agree that it's wrong. Surely the belief can't be, "Well, the umbilical cord is still attached, not yet a person!"


I'm not entirely sure where I stand on everything. I think abortion, in general, is wrong. But I also don't have a problem with stuff like Plan B. On top of that, I would expect if abortion were to be illegal, that exceptions would be made in cases of rape and where there are severe complications. I'm not entirely sure to which extent I agree with the second part, though...can you get an abortion because your baby is gonna be retarded?


I guess one thing that irks me is that if a woman can have the right to opt-out of having a kid, then I think a man should have the same right -- he shouldn't have to pay child support or have anything to do with the kid. I don't think any of that should be okay.....but if one parent has a right, they should both have that right.

Quote: Face

This idea that life begins at conception to me is a non starter. The argument does not have logical consistency that I can see.. And let's not forget, this is an argument that is being used to permit the exertion of your will upon another persons' most critical and important part of their life. Those arguments especially must be nigh unassailable. This...this seems to fall apart at first look.

I'm up for being convinced otherwise.

OK, quite simply, how can we state life starts at any other time?

At the point of conception, that being is formed. It is separate from the mother, even if it requires the mother to develop. If you do not accept that as the start, then some artificial time must be chosen. Some people say life starts when it "looks like a baby" But who is to say what that means? Heartbeat? A little more logic to that one, but again, what of all the rest that was there and had been growing? It did not just appear that day.

Life begins at conception because that is as far back as you can trace that being. To pick another point is to say building a house does not begin at groundbreaking, but when the framing is finished. Or assembly of a car does not begin at the start of the assembly line but maybe when the drivetrain is mated to the frame?

The reasoning that people give to life starting another time is so they can live without their morality being compromised. Same people who are for abortion on demand because "it is not a life yet" will support throwing the book at you if you destroy a birds nest of eggs.

Quote: rxwine

Some of the proposed laws are crazy enough that your wife or daughter could be raped, and if she were to have that illegal abortion she could be then charged with murder.

None that I have seen. The laws in at least one case specifically exclude prosecution of the woman.

I have to figure if a woman was raped then she would use Plan B as a precaution vs. wait 2-3 months.

Quote: AZDuffman

OK, quite simply, how can we state life starts at any other time?

At the point of conception, that being is formed. It is separate from the mother, even if it requires the mother to develop. If you do not accept that as the start, then some artificial time must be chosen. Some people say life starts when it "looks like a baby" But who is to say what that means? Heartbeat? A little more logic to that one, but again, what of all the rest that was there and had been growing? It did not just appear that day.

Life begins at conception because that is as far back as you can trace that being. To pick another point is to say building a house does not begin at groundbreaking, but when the framing is finished. Or assembly of a car does not begin at the start of the assembly line but maybe when the drivetrain is mated to the frame?

The reasoning that people give to life starting another time is so they can live without their morality being compromised. Same people who are for abortion on demand because "it is not a life yet" will support throwing the book at you if you destroy a birds nest of eggs.

And yet after eschewing other people's definitions you impose your own.

The encyclopedia of Azduffman is NOT accredited. No one here has to take your word for it (especially when that encyclopedia espouses not listening to scientists in other areas. Im sorry but claiming you know better than world scientists smacks of elitism similar to the system believers who think they know better than the wizard)

I would be for limiting abortion to that point when the fetus can can medically sustain itself outside the womb. And yes AZ there is a specific date from conception for that, somewhere in the fifth month I believe or perhaps late 4th month. It can be looked up I am sure.

Think of it from the adult angle. If an adult is unable to live without life support then the decision is made by the family to pull the plug. Because the person cannot live on his own. His brain is not strength enough to power the body.

You arent advocating people on respirators all across the counrty be kept on life support indefinitely are you?

Quote: darkoz

And yet after eschewing other people's definitions you impose your own.

The encyclopedia of Azduffman is NOT accredited. No one here has to take your word for it (especially when that encyclopedia espouses not listening to scientists in other areas. Im sorry but claiming you know better than world scientists smacks of elitism similar to the system believers who think they know better than the wizard)

I would be for limiting abortion to that point when the fetus can can medically sustain itself outside the womb. And yes AZ there is a specific date from conception for that, somewhere in the fifth month I believe or perhaps late 4th month. It can be looked up I am sure.

You can be for that all you want to. That does not change the fact that life begins at conception. That is not "my definition." It is a fact. If it is uncomfortable for you that this collides with allowing abortion before whatever week well that is something personal that you have to get your arms around. I can't help you there.

Quote: AZDuffman

You can be for that all you want to. That does not change the fact that life begins at conception. That is not "my definition." It is a fact. If it is uncomfortable for you that this collides with allowing abortion before whatever week well that is something personal that you have to get your arms around. I can't help you there.

Why does life begin at conception?

My sperm are alive. They move and have purpose.

I say we force men to collect all ejaculate and impregnate all women every ovulation in order to protect life.

Every dropped sperm and egg is life lost

These poor sperm and eggs have no one fighting for their rights

Quote: darkoz

Why does life begin at conception?

My sperm are alive. They move and have purpose.

I say we force men to collect all ejaculate and impregnate all women every ovulation in order to protect life.

Every dropped sperm and egg is life lost

These poor sperm and eggs have no one fighting for their rights

Are you for real?

A sperm by itself and an egg by itself are cells, not life. It is when they unite that life begins. Life begins at conception is because that is when the two unite to form a new life. As soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg will not allow another sperm to penetrate. Change has happened. That change is the formation of a new life.

Like I said, if you feel it is OK to terminate that life at some early point then that is something you have to work out. Pretending it is not life does not change things.

Quote: AZDuffman

Are you for real?

A sperm by itself and an egg by itself are cells, not life. It is when they unite that life begins. Life begins at conception is because that is when the two unite to form a new life. As soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg will not allow another sperm to penetrate. Change has happened. That change is the formation of a new life.

Like I said, if you feel it is OK to terminate that life at some early point then that is something you have to work out. Pretending it is not life does not change things.

Sperm can live up to 5 days inside a woman and for a few minutes outside the body.

Thats LONGER than your fertilized egg will live on its own outside the body.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319669.php#how-long-does-sperm-live-inside-the-female-body

Oh wait, you dont believe doctors if it doesn't suit your needs.

My sperm is more alive than your fertilized egg so we need to protect it.

Stating sperm is not alive is medically wrong. Life always comes from life. Sperm are not dead.

Are you arguing that sperm are dead?

If you aren't why are you not concerned over the life of sperm? What type of inhuman monster doesn't take into account ALL life including that of poor defenseless sperm?

Why does it matter if there has been a change to the life form? Life is life. Why are you so insistent on allowing millions of deaths (all those poor sperm) to die

Quote: AZDuffman

You can be for that all you want to. That does not change the fact that life begins at conception. That is not "my definition." It is a fact. If it is uncomfortable for you that this collides with allowing abortion before whatever week well that is something personal that you have to get your arms around. I can't help you there.

A born baby in America is a citizen. You're giving rights to the unborn as early as conception. So, I guess any illegal immigrant who is pregnant already has an unborn baby with rights as an American citizen as soon as they step foot in the country.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Quote: rxwine

A born baby in America is a citizen. You're giving rights to the unborn as early as conception. So, I guess any illegal immigrant who is pregnant already has an unborn baby with rights as an American citizen as soon as they step foot in the country.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Rx are you trying to be accused of murder?

If you hit AZ with that type of logic his head will explode.

Serious charges may be brought against you

Quote: darkoz

Sperm can live up to 5 days inside a woman and for a few minutes outside the body.

Thats LONGER than your fertilized egg will live on its own outside the body.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319669.php#how-long-does-sperm-live-inside-the-female-body

Irrelevant. It is matter of fertilization.

Quote:

Oh wait, you dont believe doctors if it doesn't suit your needs.

My sperm is more alive than your fertilized egg so we need to protect it.

Stating sperm is not alive is medically wrong. Life always comes from life. Sperm are not dead.

Are you arguing that sperm are dead?

If you aren't why are you not concerned over the life of sperm? What type of inhuman monster doesn't take into account ALL life including that of poor defenseless sperm?

If you did not learn the difference between an individual sperm/egg and a fertilized one in biology class I cannot explain it here.

Quote:

Why does it matter if there has been a change to the life form? Life is life. Why are you so insistent on allowing millions of deaths (all those poor sperm) to die

A sperm or egg alone are not life. Fertilized they become life. Clearly you prefer to ignore this fact so you can live with the idea of unrestricted abortion. Equally as clear you are making a silly argument about sperm/egg to get around when life starts.

Quote: AZDuffman

Are you for real?

A sperm by itself and an egg by itself are cells, not life. It is when they unite that life begins.

No.

I guarantee finding living cells is life, whether you find it here or on Mars. As long as they function, they are life. See link.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831730-300-making-babies-how-to-create-human-embryos-with-no-egg-or-sperm/

Quote: rxwine

A born baby in America is a citizen. You're giving rights to the unborn as early as conception. So, I guess any illegal immigrant who is pregnant already has an unborn baby with rights as an American citizen as soon as they step foot in the country.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Well you are the only one it makes sense to.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Quote: rxwine

No.

I guarantee finding living cells is life, whether you find it here or on Mars. As long as they function, they are life. See link.

Nope. Comparing a single sperm cell to a single-cell organism is faulty.

Quote: rxwine

No.

I guarantee finding living cells is life, whether you find it here or on Mars. As long as they function, they are life. See link.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831730-300-making-babies-how-to-create-human-embryos-with-no-egg-or-sperm/

Are you trying to lay real science on him.

His definition of life is completely different than any scientific explanation yet he claims science proves his claims

Except global warming. Then science proves nothing.

Quote: darkoz

Are you trying to lay real science on him.

Coming from a guy who makes an argument that a sperm or unfertilized egg is the same as a fertilized one?

Quote: AZDuffman

Well you are the only one it makes sense to.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

So then why are you worried about UNBORN non-citizens.

You do realize if they are not born yet and not citizens then they have no constitutional rights to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Or are you saying they are constitutionally protected... except when they are Mexican immigrants? Nothing important about Mexican immigrants unborn children?

Quote: AZDuffman

Coming from a guy who makes an argument that a sperm or unfertilized egg is the same as a fertilized one?

My science is more powerful than your science

There are millions of unborn feared AP team leaders every day that go to an early demise

Quote: AZDuffman

Nope. Comparing a single sperm cell to a single-cell organism is faulty.

Oh but If an organism dies when separated from the host, then it is not a separate organism if you get my drift. If it can live apart independently it is a separate organism.

I actually agree with AZ that all life is sacred includinng sperm and now he doesn't care about life so much.

Millions of dead sperm cells. Millions of victims to his cruelty because he wont fight for their rights.

We can end the suffering

We can mandate that all men ejaculate only in either a woman or at a sperm bank. That would solve this dilemma of sperm - life created inside the testes from going to waste

Quote: darkoz

Quote: AZDuffman

Well you are the only one it makes sense to.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

So then why are you worried about UNBORN non-citizens.

You do realize if they are not born yet and not citizens then they have no constitutional rights to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Or are you saying they are constitutionally protected... except when they are Mexican immigrants? Nothing important about Mexican immigrants unborn children?

I am saying that if you believe in science you have to believe life begins at conception.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: AZDuffman

Well you are the only one it makes sense to.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

So then why are you worried about UNBORN non-citizens.

You do realize if they are not born yet and not citizens then they have no constitutional rights to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Or are you saying they are constitutionally protected... except when they are Mexican immigrants? Nothing important about Mexican immigrants unborn children?

+1

Quote: rxwine

Oh but If an organism dies when separated from the host, then it is not a separate organism if you get my drift. If it can live apart independently it is a separate organism.

Nope. It can be separate and still need it's host.

Nice tries so far, but all both of you are doing is being silly. Neither have not even made a counter-argument as to when you think life begins. I suspect because you will not be able to make a solid defense.

Or either of you can say along the lines of, "Life begins at conception, fine, I (you) don't care, I still support abortion up until 'x'."

Quote: AZDuffman

Nope. It can be separate and still need it's host.

Nice tries so far, but all both of you are doing is being silly. Neither have not even made a counter-argument as to when you think life begins. I suspect because you will not be able to make a solid defense.

Or either of you can say along the lines of, "Life begins at conception, fine, I (you) don't care, I still support abortion up until 'x'."

Or I can say life does not begin at conception and you are wrong.

Life begins when testes create sperm

Show me a scientific study that claims sperm is not living tissue and I will agree with your assessment.

If its living tisue its alive

If its alive its life

Quote: AZDuffman

Nope. It can be separate and still need it's host.

Nice tries so far, but all both of you are doing is being silly. Neither have not even made a counter-argument as to when you think life begins. I suspect because you will not be able to make a solid defense.

Or either of you can say along the lines of, "Life begins at conception, fine, I (you) don't care, I still support abortion up until 'x'."

Well, you can,t fertilize an egg with “dead” sperm so life begins before conception.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencefocus.com/nature/are-sperm-alive/amp/

Here I have given you a scientific analysis of sperm that says its living organisms.

Now show your scientific discourse that claims its not

Quote: AZDuffman

Irrelevant. It is matter of fertilization.



If you did not learn the difference between an individual sperm/egg and a fertilized one in biology class I cannot explain it here.



A sperm or egg alone are not life. Fertilized they become life. Clearly you prefer to ignore this fact so you can live with the idea of unrestricted abortion. Equally as clear you are making a silly argument about sperm/egg to get around when life starts.

Next time you're near a pond, scoop out a school of tadpoles and put them on the bank. See how many survive to become frogs.

Or, I can save you some time: survivors will be zero.

At that stage of development, they are completely dependent on their water-based environment.

A zygote, a fetus, only has the potential for life as an entity, rhe same as a tadpole. The arguments others made about miscarriages and fertilized zygotes in storage awaiting implantation are legitimate. Unless you're suggesting that a woman who has a miscarriage is a murderer, and it's quite common up to the third month, and not uncommon past that, your argument falls apart.

Your stance reveals more about you than about "facts" you choose to advance. You think of women as incubators without any rights or options, not as humans. Your rejection of sperm cells as potential life while claiming a 2 celled zygote (aka fertilized egg) is sacrosanct, is ridiculous and hypocritical. At least be consistent in your misogyny.

Lots of times, an egg becomes fertilized during intercourse, because the woman is ovulating, but it does not implant successfully in the uterus. Could happen numerous times a month - we don't test for it, but we know if happens.

Are you planning to be the vagina monitor for every sexual active woman, and punish her for those discarded zygotes? Are you planning to condemn her to death by forcing her to carry an ectopic pregnancy until her abdomen explodes? Are you planning to charge every woman undergoing IVF with murder when the fertilized egg they implant doesn't take? Those are the logical progressions of your opinion (not "fact") on when life begins.

Also, abortion is an important issue this next election. Some people say it's not going to get overturned, but trump with his nominations and many of the current attempts in the states to get a case before SCOTUS says otherwise.

Muellar speaking at 10:00 am central today from DOJ. No questions.

Lefties will be gnashing their teeth.......once again.

Fox News carrying it live.

I usually don't wade into these political discussions, but I feel the need to question this.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Next time you're near a pond, scoop out a school of tadpoles and put them on the bank. See how many survive to become frogs.

Or, I can save you some time: survivors will be zero.

At that stage of development, they are completely dependent on their water-based environment.

The same could be said for as many 6-month old babies left on the bank of a pond in the woods. None would survive to adulthood without outside intervention.

Quote:

A zygote, a fetus, only has the potential for life as an entity, rhe same as a tadpole.

Wait, are you saying that a tadpole does not constitute life? I can't believe our definitions of 'life' are that far apart.

Quote:

The arguments others made about miscarriages and fertilized zygotes in storage awaiting implantation are legitimate. Unless you're suggesting that a woman who has a miscarriage is a murderer, and it's quite common up to the third month, and not uncommon past that, your argument falls apart.

Your stance reveals more about you than about "facts" you choose to advance. You think of women as incubators without any rights or options, not as humans. Your rejection of sperm cells as potential life while claiming a 2 celled zygote (aka fertilized egg) is sacrosanct, is ridiculous and hypocritical. At least be consistent in your misogyny.

Here's the thing, a zygote starts out as a single cell. Two cells come together to make one cell. A genetically unique and unrepeatable organism. The only logical conclusion is that a new life has begun. Part of the biological definition of life is the ability to grow and develop. A sperm or egg cell can do neither, but the single-celled zygote can.

You talk about the rights of the woman. At some point, this new life will have the same rights as its mother. At that point, the mother will have as much right to destroy the new life as the new life has the right to destroy the mother (which would be none). The crux of the abortion debate is when this life obtains those rights.

Quote:

Lots of times, an egg becomes fertilized during intercourse, because the woman is ovulating, but it does not implant successfully in the uterus. Could happen numerous times a month - we don't test for it, but we know if happens.

Numerous times in a year/lifetime I can see, but numerous times a month? A typical ovulation results in a single egg being produced, which can only be fertilized once, and either implants successfully, or does not. That is, unless you are referring to rare case of multiple eggs being produced from a single ovulation (as in the case of fraternal twins), but I still wouldn't call that "numerous."

Quote:

Are you planning to be the vagina monitor for every sexual active woman, and punish her for those discarded zygotes? Are you planning to condemn her to death by forcing her to carry an ectopic pregnancy until her abdomen explodes? Are you planning to charge every woman undergoing IVF with murder when the fertilized egg they implant doesn't take? Those are the logical progressions of your opinion (not "fact") on when life begins.

Come on, Babs, we both know murder requires intent. There is no intent in any of these examples.

Quote: Joeman

I usually don't wade into these political discussions, but I feel the need to question this.

The same could be said for as many 6-month old babies left on the bank of a pond in the woods. None would survive to adulthood without outside intervention.

Wait, are you saying that a tadpole does not constitute life? I can't believe our definitions of 'life' are that far apart.

Here's the thing, a zygote starts out as a single cell. Two cells come together to make one cell. A genetically unique and unrepeatable organism. The only logical conclusion is that a new life has begun. Part of the biological definition of life is the ability to grow and develop. A sperm or egg cell can do neither, but the single-celled zygote can.

You talk about the rights of the woman. At some point, this new life will have the same rights as its mother. At that point, the mother will have as much right to destroy the new life as the new life has the right to destroy the mother (which would be none). The crux of the abortion debate is when this life obtains those rights.

Numerous times in a year/lifetime I can see, but numerous times a month? A typical ovulation results in a single egg being produced, which can only be fertilized once, and either implants successfully, or does not. That is, unless you are referring to rare case of multiple eggs being produced from a single ovulation (as in the case of fraternal twins), but I still wouldn't call that "numerous."

Come on, Babs, we both know murder requires intent. There is no intent in any of these examples.

The argument here is life in many forms

Some life is sustainable on its own

That which is not sustainable on its own is where pro-choice people try to separate the rights of the woman from the unborn developing child.

AZ says it should be from some random place (conception) that he has chosen. Meanwhile there is life even before conception.

Each individual sperm has its own unique dna characteristics (which is why fraternal twins do not look alike) so the argument after conception there is a new and unique being can be said about individual sperm as well.

Might as well protect sperm life if life is so sacred. But AZ wants to make his own choice where it should be (contrary to science even while he says its scientific while degrading the work of scientists in other areas - ie its nonsensical)

The main problem is he is trying to force his choice on women across the nation. How disgusting can you get?

Quote: Joeman

I usually don't wade into these political discussions, but I feel the need to question this.

The same could be said for as many 6-month old babies left on the bank of a pond in the woods. None would survive to adulthood without outside intervention.

I think there is a difference between being asked to give over biological sharing of organ systems, vs, say, being ordered to provide money or food, or shelter.

I personally feel biological sharing of organ systems is a decision between me and whomever is trying to share it, and no one else's decision.

Quote: Joeman

I usually don't wade into these political discussions, but I feel the need to question this.

The same could be said for as many 6-month old babies left on the bank of a pond in the woods. None would survive to adulthood without outside intervention.

Thats not a good analogy. I mean an adult bound to a wheelchair could be left in the forest and die.

You are confusing starvation and nurturing with the biological aspects of survival such as brain, tissue and heartbeat.

When we say an unborn fetus wont survive without its mother we mean its internal organs even with the best medical care and sustenance possible will not survive.

A 3 month old fetus is dying separated from the womb no matter what medical science of today is administered.

A 6 month old baby left in the woods is just abandonment. If someone finds them they can survive if given the proper sustenance and care in time

Besides everyone knows abandoned babies are raised quite well by wolves and apes when abandoned in the woods. Hasnt anyone read Tarzan?

Heh, this aspect I hadn't considered. What's the only thing we can call our private territory as a human even if we own nothing at all? Why OUR body. Do we not own everything inside to the outside of our skin.

Therefore, we have ultimate dominion over anyone or anything living inside. Not for anyone else to decide.

Quote: darkoz

Thats not a good analogy. I mean an adult bound to a wheelchair could be left in the forest and die.

You are confusing starvation and nurturing with the biological aspects of survival such as brain, tissue and heartbeat.

When we say an unborn fetus wont survive without its mother we mean its internal organs even with the best medical care and sustenance possible will not survive.

A 3 month old fetus is dying separated from the womb no matter what medical science of today is administered.

A 6 month old baby left in the woods is just abandonment. If someone finds them they can survive if given the proper sustenance and care in time

Well, technically I was refuting Babs' assertion about tadpoles, not fetuses. But you are right that before a certain time, a fetus cannot survive outside the womb (I read it is 22 weeks). I'm curious, does your stance on legal abortion change if the fetus is viable outside the womb?

Quote:

Besides everyone knows abandoned babies are raised quite well by wolves and apes when abandoned in the woods. Hasnt anyone read Tarzan?

Indeed! :) So, are you saying tadpoles could not be raised just as successfully by wolves and apes? ;-)

Joeman already answered this very well, I will try to not be redundant as much as possible.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Next time you're near a pond, scoop out a school of tadpoles and put them on the bank. See how many survive to become frogs.

Or, I can save you some time: survivors will be zero.

At that stage of development, they are completely dependent on their water-based environment.

A zygote, a fetus, only has the potential for life as an entity, rhe same as a tadpole. The arguments others made about miscarriages and fertilized zygotes in storage awaiting implantation are legitimate. Unless you're suggesting that a woman who has a miscarriage is a murderer, and it's quite common up to the third month, and not uncommon past that, your argument falls apart.

That the tadpoles "cannot survive" is not the issue. They are living. Life for them began when the eggs were fertilized. By definition a miscarriage is the death of a fetus/developing baby. Thus my argument does not fall apart but becomes even stronger.

Quote:

Your stance reveals more about you than about "facts" you choose to advance. You think of women as incubators without any rights or options, not as humans. Your rejection of sperm cells as potential life while claiming a 2 celled zygote (aka fertilized egg) is sacrosanct, is ridiculous and hypocritical. At least be consistent in your misogyny.

GO BACK AND RE-READ MY POSTS BEFORE YOU CHARGE ME WITH MISOGYNY! In the series of posts this morning I have not made one statement that says there should be any restrictions on abortion. I have not discussed the legal issues at all. All I have done is state that life begins at conception and have defended that position. Several folks here cannot handle that fact. I suspect it is because they want some kind of comfort for when they defend their abortion position.

As to this silly argument about sperm cells. Thank you for calling them "potential life." Please inform those who post otherwise.

You want to charge me with "thinking women are incubators" but at the same time you appear to think of the unborn as some kind of blob of cells. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

Quote:

Lots of times, an egg becomes fertilized during intercourse, because the woman is ovulating, but it does not implant successfully in the uterus. Could happen numerous times a month - we don't test for it, but we know if happens.

Are you planning to be the vagina monitor for every sexual active woman, and punish her for those discarded zygotes? Are you planning to condemn her to death by forcing her to carry an ectopic pregnancy until her abdomen explodes? Are you planning to charge every woman undergoing IVF with murder when the fertilized egg they implant doesn't take? Those are the logical progressions of your opinion (not "fact") on when life begins.

See above.

Quote: rxwine

Heh, this aspect I hadn't considered. What's the only thing we can call our private territory as a human even if we own nothing at all? Why OUR body. Do we not own everything inside to the outside of our skin.

Therefore, we have ultimate dominion over anyone or anything living inside. Not for anyone else to decide.

Except we already have several laws restricting what we can and can't do to our own bodies. It is illegal in most places to try to kill yourself. The government restricts what substances we can put in our bodies. Etc.

Quote: Joeman

Except we already have several laws restricting what we can and can't do to our own bodies. It is illegal in most places to try to kill yourself. The government restricts what substances we can put in our bodies. Etc.

Doesn't mean it's right. Drug laws come about because people often go out and do stupid stuff and were not actually made to control what you put in your body, afaict. Just ends up that way, unfortunately.

Suicide laws are kind of useless. I mean for self-suicide. For someone intending to help you commit suicide, they may be effective.

Quote: Joeman

Except we already have several laws restricting what we can and can't do to our own bodies. It is illegal in most places to try to kill yourself. The government restricts what substances we can put in our bodies. Etc.

I dont believe you are correct about suicide laws in this country at least.

Has anyone ever faced trial or criminal charges for attempted suicide? (Obviously no point in filing charges if it was successful)

People are forced to medical intervention yes, but criminal charged no.

Otherwise we would see a lot of people in prison for failed suicide attempts

Quote: darkoz

I dont believe you are correct about suicide laws in this country at least.

Has anyone ever faced trial or criminal charges for attempted suicide? (Obviously no point in filing charges if it was successful)

People are forced to medical intervention yes, but criminal charged no.

Otherwise we would see a lot of people in prison for failed suicide attempts

Yes, it looks like they have done away with suicide lawn in most states. Although it seems like they rarely enforced these laws in the past, Wikipedia says they convicted a Maryland man for attempted suicide just last year.

Quote: Joeman

Except we already have several laws restricting what we can and can't do to our own bodies. It is illegal in most places to try to kill yourself.

The Middle East and another dozen countries in Africa is absolutely not "most places" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation#/media/File:Suicide_legislation.svg

Quote: Joeman

The government restricts what substances we can put in our bodies. Etc.

The government permits us to put most substances into our bodies. The entire abortion issue comes down to the idea of if the rights and freedoms we have to put these substances into our bodies (like a coat hangers or a mega-dose of over the counter medication) should be taken away from some people, but not the rest of us?

Quote: Joeman

Yes, it looks like they have done away with suicide lawn in most states. Although it seems like they rarely enforced these laws in the past, Wikipedia says they convicted a Maryland man for attempted suicide just last year.

Following there references is somewhat interesting: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-suicide-criminal-charge-20180222-story.html and https://www.myeasternshoremd.com/stardem/news/local_news/rare-attempted-suicide-charge-goes-through-caroline-court/article_3e8f7813-a2c6-555c-a8cd-7876e09013e3.html

No laws against it, but still plead guilty to it

Quote: AZDuffman

OK, quite simply, how can we state life starts at any other time?

I'll play. Preemptive apologies for length; I'm still stuck in this chair and yelling at the internet is my only ability.

Firstly; while I thank you for the reply, my question was ignored. I know your stance. What I asked is how you reconcile your stance with all these other incidents that are identical in their result, but garner none of your attention. Your argument is that life begins at conception and all life is sacred. Got it. But if this is really a stance, then other actions should surely follow. Typically, I find when a belief is whole and true, MANY actions follow. But here, I simply fail to find ANY. I see no hashtag support for pre-natal care to lessen these natural abortions, I see not only a lack of education and resources in sex ed and health but actual resistance to these things, all of which are factually proven to lower the rates of these abortions that vex you so. I see no funding or charities to support research to really batten down this IVF thing so all these "people" stop being "killed", nor do I see protests (or even mention, let alone resistance) of same.

That is hypocrisy. A textbook bad faith argument. And, IMO, when speaking in terms of legality, laws and legislation, bad faith is a non-starter.

Let's continue; I'll show you mine, etc...

From individual sex cells to newborn, it's definitely living. No argument there. But I think the real argument is not whether it's living, but whether it's human life. That, as far as I know, is a mostly philosophical question with no black and white, line in the sand designation in the science community, so we have to debate. What IS a person?

Based on limited experience (docs and news) it seems that there's a sort of majority agreement that our humanity lies entirely within and is solely created by our minds. Remember Terry Schiavo (sp)? Or any of the many thousands of folks who TBI into nothingness every year? The fact that they are humanoid and possibly stable / self supporting is not the metric we use in these cases, as it is largely accepted that no brain = no life. I cannot think of a single one of you who have ever opposed this and I know there is no...sorry my PC and vocab ran out at the same time... but there is no vegetable industrial complex propping up all these non responsive persons. It seems in almost 100% of the cases that all these incidents are left to the families themselves to decide, with legal scrutiny only given if the family disagrees. That seems absolutely correct, and, at least in my very limited and wholly anecdotal experience, widely accepted. I know exactly zero people who defend the right to life for non responsive persons.

So, if the part of the brain that makes us human is how we define humanity (or human life), then the presence and function of that part of the brain must be present and functioning to consider this human life. And if we look to see when that happens., we find it begins in the 3rd trimester and "turns on" shortly before birth.

Boom. The genesis of my stance.

I try to pick it apart, refine it a bit more, but I admittedly can't, or at least not as neatly as I could the rest. If you can't argue both sides, you can't argue period, IMO, so.. hey Face, false equivalence. Non responsive cannot get better. A developing fetal cerebrum can. Busted. And that is true. But then you are left with convincing me that to save another "life", the state can take a person's bodily autonomy, that they can force a woman to endure. That has never flew nowhere, nowhen.. But just as an anti gunner who does not want to take all your guns winds up giving power to those who will abuse it to take all your guns, so too does your anti abortion fervor wind up in the hands of f#$%wits who make heartbeat laws and seriously harm the womenfolk of our country, of our families. I suspect this is why Babs is so critical, as I see it too, and it's hurtful as a mother#$%er.

Getting me to nail an exact point in time where I lose my resolve is likely impossible, and I think it's supposed to be. Am I, as one man, or even in a congress of men, supposed to consider every possible scenario? You'd never hear me campaigning for birthing a baby then killing it. Until, of course, you mention previously unknown fatal diseases that result in an agonizing death after just 4hrs of life. Reckon I'd flop deep in to pro pretty quick after that. Tell me another story and I might reign right in. Start talking politics and I'll start supporting reeeeally late term abortions, like 1,498th trimester late =p

I guess my point is I don't know exactly, but I feel I've gained enough evidence to show that this situation is not one to be decided by people who have literally no connection, right of control, or interaction with those they aim to affect, and will further (for a vast majority) will never be faced with this choice, or be affected by another who has. To promote someone to do that...I don't know how you do that.

If you can explain your side, I'm still here.

“How many abortions have you personally instructed your mistresses to have?”

Wouldn’t it be amazing the 2020 Dem candidate asked this of Donald on the debate stage? You know the answer is definitely not 0.

Remember: he implied to Howard Stern that he wanted Marla to abort Tiffany when he found out she was pregnant.

Very thoughtful post, Face, thanks.

The thing about fetal heartbeat, that's a misleading marker, IMO. They can, and have, grown heart tissue in labs and induced heartbeats in it. It's what those cells are designed to do, and with the right micro-electrical stimulation, they do. The cells replicate and thrive with the right nutrients. It's a step away from growing a replacement heart from the recipient or a LIVING donor. Wouldn't that be a miracle, to grow your own organs for replacement when the others wear out? It's in the near future.

So back to the central discussion: does that then constitute a living being? It has a heartbeat. So does a lump of cells hooked by an umbilical to a mother. No brain cells, no consciousness, no lungs, just a pump with fluids circulating. But for these legislators, it's a human.

Which is not really their agenda. As you say, abortion rates drop significantly with access to real sex education and free or very cheap birth control. The number of active teens drops, many many less unintended pregnancies happen, abortions become rarer. If everyone is considered equally responsible, equally valued, that's the real, long-term solution.

Quote: Face

I'll play. Preemptive apologies for length; I'm still stuck in this chair and yelling at the internet is my only ability.

Firstly; while I thank you for the reply, my question was ignored. I know your stance. What I asked is how you reconcile your stance with all these other incidents that are identical in their result, but garner none of your attention. Your argument is that life begins at conception and all life is sacred. Got it. But if this is really a stance, then other actions should surely follow. Typically, I find when a belief is whole and true, MANY actions follow. But here, I simply fail to find ANY. I see no hashtag support for pre-natal care to lessen these natural abortions, I see not only a lack of education and resources in sex ed and health but actual resistance to these things, all of which are factually proven to lower the rates of these abortions that vex you so. I see no funding or charities to support research to really batten down this IVF thing so all these "people" stop being "killed", nor do I see protests (or even mention, let alone resistance) of same.

That is hypocrisy. A textbook bad faith argument. And, IMO, when speaking in terms of legality, laws and legislation, bad faith is a non-starter.

Lets see if I can tie all of this together. As to "reconciling" things, its a bit complicated. On "natural" abortions, you are talking about active vs. passive. I think we have plenty of pre-natal care and more than enough sex education. If we want to improve sex education, we need to show young girls that life as a single mother is statistically a life of poverty. It will mean a much higher chance your kid ends up in prison. One of Ann Coulter's books mentioned that if you norm for absent fathers the Black/White incarceration rate difference is negligible. Need to explain to them that their chances of finding a man for marriage fall as perhaps half of men have a "no single moms" dating policy. For the boys need to explain they will have 12-20%+ of their income taken as child support. Add that more and more places will take their right to drive away at the least and give them three squares and a cot in county at the worst.

Quote:

Let's continue; I'll show you mine, etc...

From individual sex cells to newborn, it's definitely living. No argument there. But I think the real argument is not whether it's living, but whether it's human life. That, as far as I know, is a mostly philosophical question with no black and white, line in the sand designation in the science community, so we have to debate. What IS a person?

Based on limited experience (docs and news) it seems that there's a sort of majority agreement that our humanity lies entirely within and is solely created by our minds. Remember Terry Schiavo (sp)? Or any of the many thousands of folks who TBI into nothingness every year? The fact that they are humanoid and possibly stable / self supporting is not the metric we use in these cases, as it is largely accepted that no brain = no life. I cannot think of a single one of you who have ever opposed this and I know there is no...sorry my PC and vocab ran out at the same time... but there is no vegetable industrial complex propping up all these non responsive persons. It seems in almost 100% of the cases that all these incidents are left to the families themselves to decide, with legal scrutiny only given if the family disagrees. That seems absolutely correct, and, at least in my very limited and wholly anecdotal experience, widely accepted. I know exactly zero people who defend the right to life for non responsive persons.

Yes, I remember Terri. My answer was I am old school. Had her husband's name it was her husband's call. While partly a valid comparison, not total. The unborn will develop into a viable human. The human who has become a vegetable will not recover. If I get as bad as Schivo I want to be taken out and shot.

"What is a person?" One goofy woman tried to get out of an HOV ticket by saying she was pregnant so had "2 persons" in the car. That is clearly not in the spirit of definition of "person" for that law. OTOH, the baby has it's own DNA. Has it's own organs and systems, even if still being developed. Do note that the crazy wing of modern feminists now and always have called it a "fetus" to "a blob of cells." IMHO, and I may be repeating here, this is so they can give themselves a mental free-pass. Notice the rage they have if they are forced to see the ultrasound, or whatever the new imaging is called. Same reasoning.

Quote:

So, if the part of the brain that makes us human is how we define humanity (or human life), then the presence and function of that part of the brain must be present and functioning to consider this human life. And if we look to see when that happens., we find it begins in the 3rd trimester and "turns on" shortly before birth.

Boom. The genesis of my stance.

I try to pick it apart, refine it a bit more, but I admittedly can't, or at least not as neatly as I could the rest. If you can't argue both sides, you can't argue period, IMO, so.. hey Face, false equivalence. Non responsive cannot get better. A developing fetal cerebrum can. Busted. And that is true. But then you are left with convincing me that to save another "life", the state can take a person's bodily autonomy, that they can force a woman to endure. That has never flew nowhere, nowhen.. But just as an anti gunner who does not want to take all your guns winds up giving power to those who will abuse it to take all your guns, so too does your anti abortion fervor wind up in the hands of f#$%wits who make heartbeat laws and seriously harm the womenfolk of our country, of our families. I suspect this is why Babs is so critical, as I see it too, and it's hurtful as a mother#$%er.

Getting me to nail an exact point in time where I lose my resolve is likely impossible, and I think it's supposed to be. Am I, as one man, or even in a congress of men, supposed to consider every possible scenario? You'd never hear me campaigning for birthing a baby then killing it. Until, of course, you mention previously unknown fatal diseases that result in an agonizing death after just 4hrs of life. Reckon I'd flop deep in to pro pretty quick after that. Tell me another story and I might reign right in. Start talking politics and I'll start supporting reeeeally late term abortions, like 1,498th trimester late =p

Do note that there is a procedure where all but the head of the baby is delivered then it is killed. To maintain any standing on the Left you must favor this being legal. Didn't Obama vote to let delivered survivors die or something like that? See below for more thoughts.

Quote:

I guess my point is I don't know exactly, but I feel I've gained enough evidence to show that this situation is not one to be decided by people who have literally no connection, right of control, or interaction with those they aim to affect, and will further (for a vast majority) will never be faced with this choice, or be affected by another who has. To promote someone to do that...I don't know how you do that.

If you can explain your side, I'm still here.

"My side" is that while it is not the most important issue to me, we are promoting far too many abortions. If you have taken an eHarmony assessment it would be "pro-life, not all that important." But I can say I will not vote for these pro-abortion politicians. They have just gone around the bend. Signs at the state line that say you can still get an abortion, lighting up buildings to celebrate a law allowing abortion up until birth, women dancing and being proud of their abortions. These are signs of a sickly society in severe decline.

Consider places like Russia, where the abortion rate is over 50%. Is anything about that healthy? Is it healthy that women are told if a baby is "inconvenient" you can just get rid of it? For sure there is a cause/effect relationship that is another discussion. But my point is when the number of abortions fall, the "choice" crowd thinks that is a bad thing. That there is something wrong.

Which is why I call that side "pro-abortion" not "pro-choice." Look at the rallies. The women are almost all moonbat crazy. Seriously, I listen to them and cannot picture having a normal conversation with them on any subject. I can't picture even being around them for longer than a minute or two. They are all angry and miserable. Impossible to deal with.

OTOH the pro-life side is not like that. And before someone retorts, I am not talking about radicals like the one in Buffalo 20 years ago. The women on the pro-life side are just nicer, actually act feminine. Aren't trying to be men. Well, the pro-abortion side are not trying to act like men, because any man who acted like them would get the crap kicked out of himself sooner or later.

I still stick with life begins at conception.

This site seems to need an abortion thread.

Quote: MaxPen

This site seems to need an abortion thread.

Or thunderdome.

Two enter, one leaves.

Quote: AZDuffman

Lets see if I can tie all of this together. As to "reconciling" things, its a bit complicated. On "natural" abortions, you are talking about active vs. passive. I think we have plenty of pre-natal care and more than enough sex education. If we want to improve sex education, we need to show young girls that life as a single mother is statistically a life of poverty. It will mean a much higher chance your kid ends up in prison. One of Ann Coulter's books mentioned that if you norm for absent fathers the Black/White incarceration rate difference is negligible. Need to explain to them that their chances of finding a man for marriage fall as perhaps half of men have a "no single moms" dating policy. For the boys need to explain they will have 12-20%+ of their income taken as child support. Add that more and more places will take their right to drive away at the least and give them three squares and a cot in county at the worst.



Yes, I remember Terri. My answer was I am old school. Had her husband's name it was her husband's call. While partly a valid comparison, not total. The unborn will develop into a viable human. The human who has become a vegetable will not recover. If I get as bad as Schivo I want to be taken out and shot.

"What is a person?" One goofy woman tried to get out of an HOV ticket by saying she was pregnant so had "2 persons" in the car. That is clearly not in the spirit of definition of "person" for that law. OTOH, the baby has it's own DNA. Has it's own organs and systems, even if still being developed. Do note that the crazy wing of modern feminists now and always have called it a "fetus" to "a blob of cells." IMHO, and I may be repeating here, this is so they can give themselves a mental free-pass. Notice the rage they have if they are forced to see the ultrasound, or whatever the new imaging is called. Same reasoning.



Do note that there is a procedure where all but the head of the baby is delivered then it is killed. To maintain any standing on the Left you must favor this being legal. Didn't Obama vote to let delivered survivors die or something like that? See below for more thoughts.



"My side" is that while it is not the most important issue to me, we are promoting far too many abortions. If you have taken an eHarmony assessment it would be "pro-life, not all that important." But I can say I will not vote for these pro-abortion politicians. They have just gone around the bend. Signs at the state line that say you can still get an abortion, lighting up buildings to celebrate a law allowing abortion up until birth, women dancing and being proud of their abortions. These are signs of a sickly society in severe decline.

Consider places like Russia, where the abortion rate is over 50%. Is anything about that healthy? Is it healthy that women are told if a baby is "inconvenient" you can just get rid of it? For sure there is a cause/effect relationship that is another discussion. But my point is when the number of abortions fall, the "choice" crowd thinks that is a bad thing. That there is something wrong.

Which is why I call that side "pro-abortion" not "pro-choice." Look at the rallies. The women are almost all moonbat crazy. Seriously, I listen to them and cannot picture having a normal conversation with them on any subject. I can't picture even being around them for longer than a minute or two. They are all angry and miserable. Impossible to deal with.

OTOH the pro-life side is not like that. And before someone retorts, I am not talking about radicals like the one in Buffalo 20 years ago. The women on the pro-life side are just nicer, actually act feminine. Aren't trying to be men. Well, the pro-abortion side are not trying to act like men, because any man who acted like them would get the crap kicked out of himself sooner or later.

I still stick with life begins at conception.

Maybe posters would feel less frustration with you if your arguments didnt include s lot of untrue statements

Like stating abortion is legal right up till birth. I dont know anywhere in the US at least where this is true.

And why the hell do you care what happens in Russia. Your knowledge of russian abortion laws seem hilarious to me when you are such s trump supporter (hint: collusion and fake American divisive profiles run by russians)

Seriously forget nathan and Kentry. Has anyone on this forum actually met AZ?