Albany,n.y. Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 The fertilized egg has a unique set of human chromosomes. The fertilized egg is living. It carries out the the processes necessary for life (haven't read this in a long time, but I believe there are 7). I've got no problem with that one, but in the beginning it still is just a potential person, who cannot survive by itself. Look at it from the other side, aren't you are imposing your morals on the pro-life people? Pro-choice, means just that. Nobody who is pro-choice is demanding that people who are anti-abortion get abortions. The place where pro-lifers should be up in arms is China, where they do indeed force their morals on the anti-abortion citizens. Want an abortion-pay for it yourself. No insurance or public funds. Since abortion is legal, it is affordable to just about everyone who wants one, even if they have to pay over time. Therefore I agree with you on this one. If you want an abortion, I see nothing wrong with paying for it. Look into the history of Planned Parenthood. Margret Sanger was a racist. Does this mean that all people should eschew birth control? Planned parenthood should mean birth control before conception, not after it, if they're doing their stated plan correctly. A lot of people in history were racists, yet we don't toss all their thoughts because of it. The founding fathers cannot be classified as anything but racists under today's standards. They owned slaves and did not consider blacks to be equal to whites, considering them only a fraction of a white person-you can't get more evidence of racism than that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 The fertilized egg has a unique set of human chromosomes. The fertilized egg is living. It carries out the the processes necessary for life (haven't read this in a long time, but I believe there are 7). Skin cells have seven chromosomes. And a fertilized egg does not carry out the processes necessary for life - at least, not to any degree beyond cellular. In other words, not beyond anything a skin cell might do (and you don't even know how many processes there are, much less what they are, so how the !@#$ would you know?) And my wife's exfoliating right now...you going to run right over and stop the murder? Look at it from the other side, aren't you are imposing your morals on the pro-life people? Hmmmm...no. I'm merely helping to enforce people's constitutional right to choose their own religious beliefs and not have yours forced down their throats (or up their vaginas, as the case may be). That's why it's called "pro-choice". Look into the history of Planned Parenthood. Margret Sanger was a racist. 722052[/snapback] What a poigniant and relevant observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 What a poigniant and relevant observation. 722232[/snapback] Are you sure you're using "poignant" properly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Skin cells have seven chromosomes. And a fertilized egg does not carry out the processes necessary for life - at least, not to any degree beyond cellular. In other words, not beyond anything a skin cell might do (and you don't even know how many processes there are, much less what they are, so how the !@#$ would you know?) And my wife's exfoliating right now...you going to run right over and stop the murder? Hmmmm...no. I'm merely helping to enforce people's constitutional right to choose their own religious beliefs and not have yours forced down their throats (or up their vaginas, as the case may be). That's why it's called "pro-choice". What a poigniant and relevant observation. 722232[/snapback] Please take the time to read a little better. Every fertilized egg has a unique combination of genes due to recombination during meiosis in the maturation of the gametes. A unique set of chromosomes. I did not say that cells have 7 chromosomes. The reason I forgot the the seven processes for life is because thery are introduced in chapter one of the Intro to Bio book, a book I read a long, long, long time ago. Didn't have to use it since then. I pulled my old book off the shelf. All living things, unicellular or multicellular have seven signs of life (as the textbook put it) : 1. Complexity and high organization. 2. Respiration-convert one form of energy to another.The energy stored in the atomic bonds of a a sugar molecule is converted to energy to move structures inside the cell. 3.Homeostaesis-maintaing a constant internal environment 4.Response to stimuli. 5.Reproduction. 6. Growth. 7. Adaptation. On a side note- what makes you an expert on everything? You have a tendency to insult anybody that disagrees with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Look at it from the other side, aren't you are imposing your morals on the pro-life people? There's no obvious answer to the question of when exactly life begins. But it is a question that absolutely has to be answered in the eyes of the law. Ultimately, a discussion like this has to end by someone imposing their morals on someone else. Let me illustrate. Suppose someone came up with the idea that the defining characteristic of human life was unique intelligence. Under this theory, you don't truly become human until you're smarter than any animal. According to an MIT researcher, a macaw has the intelligence of a five year old child. Hence, according to this way of thinking, four year old children and many Florida voters are animals, because they're no smarter than certain animals. So if a mother wanted to kill her four year old child, she could do so. To most people, this would be an act of murder. But to a woman who bought into the above line of thinking, it's a matter of personal choice. Should we believe this woman when she says we don't have the right to impose our moral views on her? After all, we don't have to kill our children if we think human life begins before age four. If her views on when life begins are different than ours, shouldn't she have the right to act on these beliefs? The answer is clearly no, she shouldn't have this right. Someone else's morals should be imposed on this woman, to prevent the murder of her child. If you believe someone is a living human being--as the pro-life faction believes for unborn babies--you are justified in asking this person's life be legally protected. What I'm asking you to see is that the pro-lifers' positions are reasonable if you accept their starting premise that life begins at conception. I find this idea a little hard to swallow myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Hmmmm...no. I'm merely helping to enforce people's constitutional right to choose their own religious beliefs and not have yours forced down their throats (or up their vaginas, as the case may be). That's why it's called "pro-choice". What a poigniant and relevant observation. 722232[/snapback] I'm replying to your opinions in the whole thread moreso than just the one I've quoted. I disagree that the argument of "when life begins" is inherently religious. It happpens that current day arguments are often carried out by religious people but that does not make the argument itself religious. Certainly it is philosophical, almost certainly moral, and mostly carried out by reliogious/non-reliogious people. Science can also play a role, maybe moreso in the future. It would be great if it were totally scientific, but it certainly is not. No scientist, cleric or philosopher can currently be precise about when life begins. It is widely agreed that infanticide is wrong, and most people agree that using birth control is morally ok (i.e. a separate sperm and egg do not constitute a life merely out of potential). So pretty much everyone agrees on two things after that: 1. Life begins after sex/insemination 2. Life begins at or before birth. If the "right answer" could be nailed down then the correct law would be easy to decide. Which is the best way to nail it down? Scientifically? Morally? Philosophically? Majority rule? It's a very tough question and not just a religious one. You could be a reasonable person and believe that a fertilized egg has value as a life. If you believe this, then you would have a strong opinion that was anti-abortion. You could also be a reasonable person and believe life starts at birth. In this case, abortion during labor would be just dandy. Where's the right answer? Personally, I don't think I know with enough confidence to join a picket line for either side. But I do think I if I felt sure that I knew scientifically, morally, or philosophically, I'd probably join one of the picket lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 There's no obvious answer to the question of when exactly life begins. But it is a question that absolutely has to be answered in the eyes of the law. Ultimately, a discussion like this has to end by someone imposing their morals on someone else. Let me illustrate. Suppose someone came up with the idea that the defining characteristic of human life was unique intelligence. Under this theory, you don't truly become human until you're smarter than any animal. According to an MIT researcher, a macaw has the intelligence of a five year old child. Hence, according to this way of thinking, four year old children and many Florida voters are animals, because they're no smarter than certain animals. So if a mother wanted to kill her four year old child, she could do so. To most people, this would be an act of murder. But to a woman who bought into the above line of thinking, it's a matter of personal choice. Should we believe this woman when she says we don't have the right to impose our moral views on her? After all, we don't have to kill our children if we think human life begins before age four. If her views on when life begins are different than ours, shouldn't she have the right to act on these beliefs? The answer is clearly no, she shouldn't have this right. Someone else's morals should be imposed on this woman, to prevent the murder of her child. If you believe someone is a living human being--as the pro-life faction believes for unborn babies--you are justified in asking this person's life be legally protected. What I'm asking you to see is that the pro-lifers' positions are reasonable if you accept their starting premise that life begins at conception. I find this idea a little hard to swallow myself. 722302[/snapback] Even though I posted an hour after you, we were typing at the same time. I had my window open and was paging in and out. I wasn't just being a macaw to your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 You could also be a reasonable person and believe life starts at birth. In this case, abortion during labor would be just dandy. 722327[/snapback] I appreciate that you point out that reasonable people can have different opinions. But I really, really doubt that most pro-choice people feel that abortion during labor would be "just dandy." In fact, most would probably feel there'd have to be a damn good reason for it to be happening, and that it would be a sad, sad affair nonetheless. Generally, I feel that a woman and her partner should have made the decision to have an abortion before the third trimester. However, I feel that laws against such an action are made by people who have never walked a mile in someone else's shoes and don't forsee the limited situations where it may be necessary. And they're generally made with the ultimate goal of eliminating all abortion rights. Still, I don't like it and our family would never do it unless my wife's health was in danger. If, god forbid, someone else attacked her, we would not carry someone else's child. And I feel strongly that that's our right to decide. Not jimshiz's, not the Supreme Court's, not anybody's but ours. Pro-choice people are not "anti-life," and any indication that they are is a result of the stupid dichotomy that has become part of the public discourse. I'm for the choice, but like all choices, I'd like for it to always be made with a lot of careful thought and consideration. I'll agree that a lot of people don't make the choice to get pregnant (or take the steps to do so) with any careful thought, either, but it's a whole new ballgame when you are bringing a child into the equation, and a stupid, spiteful quest for responsibility doesn't seem to be the right thing for a child, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I appreciate that you point out that reasonable people can have different opinions. But I really, really doubt that most pro-choice people feel that abortion during labor would be "just dandy." In fact, most would probably feel there'd have to be a damn good reason for it to be happening, and that it would be a sad, sad affair nonetheless. Generally, I feel that a woman and her partner should have made the decision to have an abortion before the third trimester. However, I feel that laws against such an action are made by people who have never walked a mile in someone else's shoes and don't forsee the limited situations where it may be necessary. And they're generally made with the ultimate goal of eliminating all abortion rights. Still, I don't like it and our family would never do it unless my wife's health was in danger. If, god forbid, someone else attacked her, we would not carry someone else's child. And I feel strongly that that's our right to decide. Not jimshiz's, not the Supreme Court's, not anybody's but ours. Pro-choice people are not "anti-life," and any indication that they are is a result of the stupid dichotomy that has become part of the public discourse. I'm for the choice, but like all choices, I'd like for it to always be made with a lot of careful thought and consideration. I'll agree that a lot of people don't make the choice to get pregnant (or take the steps to do so) with any careful thought, either, but it's a whole new ballgame when you are bringing a child into the equation, and a stupid, spiteful quest for responsibility doesn't seem to be the right thing for a child, IMO. 722410[/snapback] To the point I highlighted..... I never used the word most. I could counter by saying most pro-life people do not believe condoms are murder. To your overall points.... The answer to the question "When does life begin?" is invariably an opinion. This presents a quandary for government (one of the relative few government quandaries that are not self created by government). If you knew that life begins at conception, and you value life, it would be reasonable to try and protect life and have abortion banned. If you knew that life does not begin until birth, you would be reasonable in supporting abortion rights until birth. The reality is that no one knows when life begins, but many people on both sides believe they know (or at least belive the other side is wrong). Just because "most" people believe that life begins well after conception and well before birth, does not make it correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 People should have the right to do what they want so long as it does not adversly affect the majority, and they follow the law. Abortion is legal, therefore, no matter what I personally believe, I have to deal with it. I am actually ok with abortions, but what pisses me off is retards who use it as birth control. If you have had more than one abortion in your lifetime, then generally, there is something seriously wrong with your lifestyle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts