My points:
a) Yes, a fetus is alive. So’s a skin cell. BoP is on those asserting that a fetus should be legally protected.
b) It doesn’t matter if it’s alive or not, because it’s not the fetus’s uterus. Even if we legally decide that the union of sperm and egg is a person deserving of all rights thereof, the right to take someone’s blood and nutrients and take up residence in their body without their consent isn’t one of them.
RL: Not that I disagree with you, but playing devil’s advocate here, mightn’t one argue that the act of having sex is a form of “consent to get pregnant”?
As to the OP, I’ve personally never understood how anyone who is a practicing Christian could support abortion. If one actually believes that people have eternal souls that need to be “saved”, how can anyone know for sure when that soul comes into being? I don’t agree with a religious argument, but I do respect those who take a religious position, and I’d never expect them to support abortion.
Even if you do not consider it a human life form yet, you can not deny that it is a potential human life form, and, if complications in the pregnancy or birth do not arise, will grow into a human life form, just like you or me. So, by killing an unborn child you are killing what would otherwise become a human.
yes, so fie on all those men who masturbate, and those women who menstruate, for they are all killing potential human children. there should be laws against that sorta thing.
And you would be wrong. The overwhelming majority of pro-lifers that I’ve worked with don’t see themselves as some kind of resistance party or covert operatives. They see themselves as people trying to make a difference through peaceful means.
My point is that vigilante justice may sometimes be necessary, but that does not mean it is always necessary. Stopping abortion does not necessarily mean killing abortion doctors.
Oh, my! What an eloquent and well-reasoned response! :rolleyes:
As you know full well, my comment regarding slavery was stated in response to greck’s specific statement that
People demanded slavery and perceived an obvious “need” for it. That did not make slavery justified. By the same token, people may demand abortion, and they may proclaim an “obvious need” for it, but that does not justify abortion either. If you’re going to disagree with this point, you had better have a stronger argument than merely rolling your eyes.
They are not conceiving any children.
and how can you stand for such wasted potential?
every sperm has the potential to become human. every egg has that same potential. if it’s potential you’re truly worried about, the previously mentioned practices should be just as wrong as abortion. indeed, in the past there were times when masturbation was a worse crime than rape. but could you imagine a world in which all potential people became actual people? i’m sure i wouldn’t want to live in such a place, but i’m at least as sure that i wouldn’t be able to survive.
[smart-ass pedant] Neither are people getting abortions. [/smart-ass pedant]
No. Riding a motorcycle may result in your brains splattered all over the pavement. This does not mean that riding a motorcycle is consenting to brain-splattering. And what do you mean by ‘consent to get pregnant’? Women don’t need anyone’s consent but their own* to get pregnant, and they shouldn’t need anyone’s consent but their own to stop being pregnant.
*(And a sperm cell. But most women can pick these up fairly easily.)
Where did you register for when your wife gives birth to her skin cell? I’ll send you some diapers.:rolleyes:
I almost apologize for the sarcasm there. The point of this thread isn’t the legality of abortion, it’s to find a position that acknowledges the valid points of both “sides” of the argument, and develop a position that is actually meaningful and inclusive rather than divisive and paralyzing.
My point is that we should be working to find middle ground. No, it’s not an independent life just yet, Yes it will be one some day if all goes well. It’s really a special circumstance. It’s not a skin cell, it’s not a plant, it’s not an architect or an engineer (but it could be).
This seems a pretty simple principle to me. Are we really that entrenched in the argument?
And Yes, we should have respect for all things we kill, we should make no efforts to fool ourselves that eating a head of lettuce is taking a life to some extent. A cheeseburger? Definitely. People’s threshold for what’s too much of a life to take in the name of food (given plentiful supply) varies, but often stops somewhere around “dog” or “horse.”
So an abortion isn’t exactly murder, but it is ending a life at a point in it’s development when it isn’t yet independent enough to sustain itself.
It is also a choice a mother (hopefully more than just the mother) makes about a medical procedure. That choice involves the mother making a decision to end the life of a developing baby.
The mother should be allowed to make this decision given that the life of the fetus is directly tied to hers.
Somewhere between murder and medical procedure lies the truth.
If we didn’t have to have the argument over legality, maybe then we could all feel appropriately sad when the decision has to be made, give appropriate reverence to the gravity of aborting a pregnancy.
True. They are potential children. But they are much further behind on the journey to become a newborn child than a fetus, healthily growing and thriving in the womb. For example, if you were to simply sit back, and let the sperm, or the eggs, do their thing, they will eventually die, or be thrown away by the body, because they were not used. However, if you sit back and let the fetus continue its life, it will grow into a healthy human child. An abortion is directly preventing what is a developing child from being born, while “masturbating or menstruating” are processes which only dispose of tools for creating children, of which there are an infinite amount.
I may be confused, but I thought that conception was defined as the moment the sperm and the egg combined.
seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. you claim that it’s the potential to become a child that’s important. all have potential to become children. why is one more important? and why is potential important if things that have the potential to become humans aren’t valuable?
if you were to simply sit back and let someone have their abortion…
seriously though…you claim the potential to become a human makes a zygote worth saving. i showed you that there are things with the same potential that you don’t consider worth saving. how is this “potential” important then?
I have always had a different view on abortions. I have always thought this issue should only be decided on by women. While I think the mans opinion should be listened to, in the end it is the womens body and mind that must bear the weight of any decision made.
How can any male, no matter how ‘in touch’ they may be, understand what something like that would do/mean to a woman?
Anyway, slight hijack there! back to your regularly scheduled OP.
There is quite a difference between the potential a fertilized egg has of being human and the potential that a single sperm or egg cell has of being human. When an egg is fertilized, it has “officially” started on the path to becoming a human child. If it is left alone, it will develop itself into human being. A sperm cell or an egg cell will not do this. They both lack the tools to become human, and will not develop by themselves if given the chance. A fertilized egg has all of the tools and all of the opportunities, and if you do not interrupt its growth process, it is destined to become human.
Not true. If left alone it will die. It needs a constant infusion of blood and nutrients from somebody else, plus a uterus to attach on to. That makes a big difference.
RNWebner: I was making faceious reference to the fact that if you have an abortion, you didn’t concieve a child.
Lordy, lordy, lordy. Show me a fertilized egg that can become something we all agree is human without benefit of a utuerus and willing female to keep it running. Or, optionally, offer the same courtesy to a sperm cell, with fallopian tubes and an egg cell.
I believe this is not so. Can you tell me precisely what cultures celebrate their conception days rather than birthdays?
What i believe happens is they count years like we count centuries: A child can be said to be 5 years old or to be in his 6th year, it is the same thing. A baby who is 4 monts old is in his first year of life.
I have never heard of any culture that counted from conception and I believe this is a western myth.
That is a bit of a red herring as a new born needs constant nutrition and shelter or it will die. So is the definition of life when a person can be survive on their own? In that case, my 22 year old brother still living with my parents doesn’t qulify. 
SAILOR-I did give a specific country - Korea
I thought there was some research that enabled the egg to reproduce without a sperm cell.
>>"…is on its way to becoming a human…"<<
Yep it is not a human.
About the 9 months thing:
The law in my location allows us to get our learners permit (drivers license) at 15 years and 9 months = 16 years old ???
What I meant when I said that a fertilized egg has all of the “tools” to become human is that it has the DNA required to become human. Yes, it does need nurturing from a female for the DNA to do its job. But that doesn’t change the fact that denying a zygote that nurturing is murdering it.
I can understand your argument, and I used to wonder the same thing myself. After all, by using birth control, aren’t you preventing a potential baby from being conceived, and from eventually being born? In a way, isn’t this the same as having an abortion, making abortion fine and permissible?
However, I now believe that once the baby has been conceived, it has just as much of a right to live as any of us. If the mother and father made a mistake and didn’t use birth control, allowing the baby to be conceived, tough. It was their mistake, not the mistake of the baby, and abortion punishes the wrong person for that mistake.