If Abortion becomes illegal in the US

[Coyote]

You will, most likely, have a great many more unwanted pregnancies carried to term by poor women.

If Palerider is right about the Pill being an aborticant (and I disagree since it is only a remote chance and making the womb inhospitable to life is not the same as forcing that life from it) - you will be removing a major and highly reliable form of birth control for women. You can only HOPE that something else will be developed that is as safe and reliable (and look how long it took to develop safety in the pill).

You will have a lot of children born to people who can least afford them and are least likely to take proper prenatal care to insure a healthy child. You will also have a higher percentage of severely disabled children as well.

Paternity is still sketchy and men are still far more easily able to avoid the responsibilities of paternity then women - that's just a fact of life.

You will still have pregnant teenagers - possibly a lot more, since the Pill will be outlawed - who will drop out of school and quite possibly (given the difficulties of affordable childcare, likelihood low wage jobs, etc.) end up on public welfare rolls.

Women who have been raped being forced to bear the consequences of that rape...with what help? She sure as hell is not going to want to marry a rapist or want him in her child's life, assuming he is even caught and convicted.

Once again, women will likely be stigmatized by out of wedlock pregnancies - something men have never been stigmatized for.

Please add to the list - I'm sure there are more issues.

So - what changes in law and society to you envision to accommodate the massive change that outlawing abortion (and the Pill) will cause?

[palerider]

You will, most likely, have a great many more unwanted pregnancies carried to term by poor women.

If Palerider is right about the Pill being an aborticant (and I disagree since it is only a remote chance and making the womb inhospitable to life is not the same as forcing that life from it) - you will be removing a major and highly reliable form of birth control for women. You can only HOPE that something else will be developed that is as safe and reliable (and look how long it took to develop safety in the pill).

I don't see a reason that a drug can't be developed that would simply prevent ovulation. If abortion is no longer legal, there will be a profit motive for developing the "perfect" contraceptive.

You will have a lot of children born to people who can least afford them and are least likely to take proper prenatal care to insure a healthy child. You will also have a higher percentage of severely disabled children as well.

Do you really believe that parent's financial position or the fact that the child "MIGHT" not be well taken care of is a valid reason to kill?

Paternity is still sketchy and men are still far more easily able to avoid the responsibilities of paternity then women - that's just a fact of life.

I have no problem at all with lowering the boom on deadbeat dads. If the child is theirs, they can be made to shoulder part of the burden or live in abject poverty for the remainder of their lives.

You will still have pregnant teenagers - possibly a lot more, since the Pill will be outlawed - who will drop out of school and quite possibly (given the difficulties of affordable childcare, likelihood low wage jobs, etc.) end up on public welfare rolls.

Are any of these reasons valid reasons to kill an innocent human being?

Women who have been raped being forced to bear the consequences of that rape...with what help? She sure as hell is not going to want to marry a rapist or want him in her child's life, assuming he is even caught and convicted.

There is a party that deserves the full force of the law directed at them, but the one you are talking about killing isn't that one. She can certainly give up the child to someone who will take care of it.

Once again, women will likely be stigmatized by out of wedlock pregnancies - something men have never been stigmatized for.

Is that a valid reason to kill? Maybe men will think twice if they know that there is nearly a 100% chance that they will be made to financer their share of the consequences of their actions.

Please add to the list - I'm sure there are more issues.

By all means add to the list but at the end of each addition, the one making the addition should state whether or not he or she believes that the reason is a valid reason to kill another human being and offer up an argument to justify that position.


So - what changes in law and society to you envision to accommodate the massive change that outlawing abortion (and the Pill) will cause?

Women are a powerful force in the political world now. If abortion is no longer an option, terrible pressure will be placed on men to share the cost of their children. Pressure both political and financial will be laid on pharmaceutical companies to develop better contraceptives. When the fact of really facing the consequences of one's actions sinks in, I'll wager that the numbers of casual sexual encounters will drop and the incidence of STD's will drop accordingly. Face it Coyote, nothing but good can come from people facing the consequences of their actions.

[Pidgey]

Or worse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqSKWqpZTnA

[9sublime]

The fact is that if you make abortion illegal, it WILL still happen, but unsafely, in backstreet clinics.

[palerider]

The fact is that if you make abortion illegal, it WILL still happen, but unsafely, in backstreet clinics.

That is the lamest of all arguments 9sublime. Tell me something that has been stopped by making it illegal. Following that logic, there should be no law against anything because someone is going to do it anyway.

[TruthAboveAll]

Or worse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqSKWqpZTnA

LOL! What a hoot!

[top gun]

The fact is that if you make abortion illegal, it WILL still happen, but unsafely, in backstreet clinics.

And of course you are correct.

The "then there should never be any laws if you don't pass my restriction" that you're hearing is skewed to be self serving.

There are all different kinds of laws and restrictions that conform to differing circumstances.

Terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as killing a newborn baby no matter how many times someone says the words KILL KILL KILL and you can obviously see that there's a much deeper ulterior motive here when you see posts against even the birth control pill.

This is very similar to the argument against embryonic stem cell research in a misguided attempt to force the same legal grounds on even microscopic life as a walking talking human being.

I applaud the fact you see the reality of the situation.

[palerider]

Terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as killing a newborn baby no matter how many times someone says the words KILL KILL KILL and you can obviously see that there's a much deeper ulterior motive here when you see posts against even the birth control pill.

And killing an old man is not the same thing as killing a newborn, and killing a teenager isn't the same as killing an embryo and killing a man isn't the same as killing a woman. They are all different, but they are all killing a living human being. If you can demonstrate that they (unborns) are not human beings, then your argument has merit. If you can't then why bother making it in the first place since it is completely invalid.

This is very similar to the argument against embryonic stem cell research in a misguided attempt to force the same legal grounds on even microscopic life as a walking talking human being.

Again I challenge you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

[Coyote]

Palerider, I am not listing these issues as valid or invalid "reasons to kill". They are real issues. I would seriously like to know how or if they would ever be addressed should abortion become illegal.

[Rick]

Women who have been raped being forced to bear the consequences of that rape...with what help? She sure as hell is not going to want to marry a rapist or want him in her child's life, assuming he is even caught and convicted.

OK, how about just illegalizing the 99% that aren't the result of rape or incest?

The fact is that if you make abortion illegal, it WILL still happen, but unsafely, in backstreet clinics.

So what? Bank robbing is illegal, but banks are still robbed. A woman getting an abortion in an unsafe (as if there were such a thing as a "safe" abortion) backstreet clinic could die, as do bank robbers frequently in the course of trying to rob a bank. Moral to the story? Don't break the law, you might end up dead.

[9sublime]

That is the lamest of all arguments 9sublime. Tell me something that has been stopped by making it illegal. Following that logic, there should be no law against anything because someone is going to do it anyway.

Its hardly a lame argument. You are trying to ban abortion because of the sanctity of life, but if you ban it, children will die and so will their mothers in unsafe abortions.

[palerider]

Its hardly a lame argument. You are trying to ban abortion because of the sanctity of life, but if you ban it, children will die and so will their mothers in unsafe abortions.

I am not trying to ban abortion because of the sanctity of life. I have given you my reasons before and you continue to come back to this fraudulent appeal to emotion as if we have never spoken about my position on the issue.

Let me tell you again. I want to see abortion banned because it is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment of our constitution protects the lives of human beings until such time as they denied that right via due process of the law.

If law were written and legislated by the representatives of the people that specifically denied the right of the unborn to live until such time as they are born, this argument would not exist (in this form anyway).

Now I have explained this to you multiple times. If you ever make the emotional claim again that I am trying to ban abortion because of the "sanctity" of life, I am going to bring back multiple posts where I have explained my position to you and charge you publicly with deliberately misrepresenting my position (lying)

And once again, you make a pitiful argument. You claim that if abortion is banned, that children will die. Hello? 9sublime? Children are already dying in the millions. Every time an abortion is performed a child dies. And I am not particularly concerned about the safety of a woman who sets out to kill a child any more than I am concerned for the safety of arsonists, wife beaters, robbers, or any other lawbreakers.

[Pidgey]

Yeah, you can never charge Pale with being emotional--he's as cold as a witch's heart!

[JavaBlack]

The moment abortion is made illegal, conservatives will say "Mission Accomplished" and guess what that means...
No further attempts to get to the root of the problem and actually reduce the reasons for abortions and thus, the actual number of abortions. Logistically the anti-abortion laws will be nearly impossible to enforce.
Plus it doesn't exactly do society any service to have a lot of pregnancies that are essentially punishments... Not good for a kid to be raised in such a way.
Not good for kids who are not affordable to suffer through life and die in a way other than abortion.

True, None of these arguments make abortion justifiable (except in certain cases)... but the fact remains that once the pro-lifers get the law they want, they will be able to blissfully ignore the abortions that go on underground and feel better by knowing "justice is served" if the offender is caught.
But overall the number of abortions won't be affected and the consequences of abortion will be worse.

That's the problem I have with a lot of policies. It's a band-aid. We'll put it on and ignore the infection that's killing us.
I suggest we work on the infection first.

[USMC the Almighty]

I suggest we work on the infection first.

How? They're is no way to prevent girls from dropping their panties without thinking of the consequences. With condoms, the pill, sex ed, etc. there's not much more we can do.

[palerider]

Yeah, you can never charge Pale with being emotional--he's as cold as a witch's heart!

Other parts too.

[palerider]

No further attempts to get to the root of the problem and actually reduce the reasons for abortions and thus, the actual number of abortions. Logistically the anti-abortion laws will be nearly impossible to enforce.

The root of the problem is that certain people are not willing to face the consequences of their actions and prefer instead to kill a human being rather than face them.

I suggest we work on the infection first.

It is the killing that is the infection

[Coyote]

Other parts too.

:D alright...at least I knew better then to have a mouth full of liquid this time.

[Coyote]

Assume abortion becomes illegal - across the board except when a woman's life is threatened. There is no more argument about whether or not abortion is murder or whether you are killing someone.

These hypothetical problems could become a reality.

How will we, as a society deal with them? Will we be compassionate or will we just say screw it - she should of kept her legs closed, it's her problem now?

[Coyote]

I don't see a reason that a drug can't be developed that would simply prevent ovulation. If abortion is no longer legal, there will be a profit motive for developing the "perfect" contraceptive.


Maybe. Maybe not. The thing is when the pill was first developed it was hyped tremendously. Years later - many years later - it was discovered to have some serious long term health effects. Eventually they decreased the amounts and ratios of the hormones involved and it became safer. It took a long time and it takes a long time for side effects to show up when you are fooling around with hormones. I would hate to see something rushed on the market (and no doubt it would be given the greed of the pharma industry and it's disdain for safety) - but would I want to trust my life to it in the beginning when there is something safer and proven already?

[9sublime]

Let me tell you again. I want to see abortion banned because it is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment of our constitution protects the lives of human beings until such time as they denied that right via due process of the law.

Shouldn't you be voting for Ron 'Dr. No' Paul? Just because the constitution says we shouldn't do it, doesn't make it right... laws can and should, if needs be, changed.


And once again, you make a pitiful argument. You claim that if abortion is banned, that children will die. Hello? 9sublime? Children are already dying in the millions. Every time an abortion is performed a child dies. And I am not particularly concerned about the safety of a woman who sets out to kill a child any more than I am concerned for the safety of arsonists, wife beaters, robbers, or any other lawbreakers.

I'm not going to be able to change anything, there's already been huge threads about this and I give up. I'll just say, I believe abortion is wrong a lot of the time, but to truely understand why abortion should sometimes be allowed, and to understand that some mothers who choose to have abortions are not at all in the same league as arsonists, wife beaters etc. INVOLVES EMOTION, not just the constituion and science.

[JavaBlack]

How? They're is no way to prevent girls from dropping their panties without thinking of the consequences. With condoms, the pill, sex ed, etc. there's not much more we can do.
We could do a betterjob of teaching the consequences... but really you are correct if what you mean is that government can do nothing more.
It is a cultural and social problem.
Part of it is indicative in your only blaming the girls. Boys are just as responsible and our culture makes a game of boys looking for meaningless sex... By default this makes girls socially expected to get involved. Our society encourages sex but stigmatizes the consequences. This is a schitzophrenic society... Any doubt such a social manifestation would result in confusion and chaos?
Instead of blaming the kids, perhaps we should look at the parents of the kids and the other adults that are involved in their lives.
Note Asian kids don't seem to have a premarital sex problem... but strangely Catholics and evangelicals do.

Of course once we bring up the government solution (illegalize abortion), we will continue to sweep the social problems under the mat. We will continue creating a society that encourages irresponsible pleasure but discourages people from taking responsibility for the consequences... or seeking guidance when a consequence occurs.
Illegalization will only increase that latter part by pushing everything underground.

[TruthAboveAll]

Big sigh... Here I go!

I am PRO-LIFE, but not totally ANTI-CHOICE. For me, I believe that from conception a baby is a live, individual human being. No matter what the biological terms are for the different stages of development.

Because I am pro-life, and this developing human is totally defenseless, it should be protected. And like Pale, I do believe that this life IS Constitutionally protected. Therefore, I believe that the original Roe vs Wade ruling and all since regarding this upholding abortion as a right are in error. And the error should be corrected.

Laws can be made, but on a national scale especially, anything in violation of the Constitution should be struck down. That is why we have an amendment process. The whole abortion issue has circumvented that process that should have occurred to bring it to it's current position.

This is another situation of a whole industry driving the national sentiment. There IS an abortion industry out there, and it's been fighting tooth and nail against partial birth or late-term abortions. (An abhorrent act in itself, which should be totally banned nationwide.) Second trimester, I think, should also be banned. When our medical technology has come to the point that premature babies are being saved as early as mid-fourth month it becomes apparent that there is something to this "living being" thing. While fourth and fifth month babies are still very touch and go, sixth month (still 2nd trimester folks!) and on are becoming very commonly viable.

The whole issue is not nearly as "either-or" as it once was. With DNA, we've found that the fetus is individual from the mother. We're finding earlier and earlier survival outside the womb. We're seeing manslaughter and even murder charges and convictions concerning acts against pregnant women.

In some ways, we've come full circle in recognizing and honoring this new life.
Yet it makes no sense: a woman can walk into a clinic and have the baby ripped from her body, yet if she were hit by a drunk driver crossing the road to the clinic, he could be charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for at least vehicular manslaughter for killing her baby? This is insane!

Because of the status of the issue, where it has been for the last 35 years or so, etc., I believe that a fair settlement would be for the Federal government to remain passive on it, allowing states to set their own regulations. And at the same time, work on improving options, education and prevention to make this a truly rare situation.

[top gun]

palerider;17442]And killing an old man is not the same thing as killing a newborn, and killing a teenager isn't the same as killing an embryo and killing a man isn't the same as killing a woman. They are all different, but they are all killing a living human being. If you can demonstrate that they (unborns) are not human beings, then your argument has merit. If you can't then why bother making it in the first place since it is completely invalid.

Again I challenge you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

And of course we've been down this road many times before my friend. And as always I'm certainly not even trying to say that a bioplast or a fetus is ever anything but the human being building blocks that might, if not miscarried or still born, become a self supporting walking talking human being at some point.

Still doesn't change a single solitary thing about my pro-choice position of...

Isn't fully developed where it could survive outside of the womb.

Woman has to be allowed control over her own body and anything therein.

Cannot force a woman to carry a child to term.

The United States Supreme Court after thorough investigation & debate recognised this legal right decades ago.

[palerider]

And of course we've been down this road many times before my friend. And as always I'm certainly not even trying to say that a bioplast or a fetus is ever anything but the human being building blocks that might, if not miscarried or still born, become a self supporting walking talking human being at some point.

They are not building blocks. They are human beings. Immature, sure. Dependent, of course. Are you saying that immaturity and dependence are valid reasons to kill?

The United States Supreme Court after thorough investigation & debate recognised this legal right decades ago. [/COLOR]

Is that just a sentence you memorized and parrot whenever you get the chance? The purpose of the supreme court is to declare constitutional, unconstitutional legal decisions. Actions they declare constitutional must jibe with the constitution. You claim that they thoroughly investigated the issue and found the right in the constitution. Show it to me in the constitution. Show me anyting that resembles a right to abort a child in the constitution.

The supreme court has reversed itself some 280 times clearly proving that they are not infallable. The roe decison was not thoroughly researched, it was a despicable partisan move designed to relieve the democrat majoritiy in the house and senate from having to do their jobs and legislate the issue.

[palerider]

We could do a betterjob of teaching the consequences... .

Nothing teaches consequences like experience.

[palerider]

[QUOTE=9sublime;17493]Shouldn't you be voting for Ron 'Dr. No' Paul? Just because the constitution says we shouldn't do it, doesn't make it right... laws can and should, if needs be, changed.[/'quote]

Are you arguing that we should drop the idea that all rights are secondary to the right to live? If you don't have the right to live, exactly what value do any other rights you claim have?

[vyo476]

Show it to me in the constitution. Show me anyting that resembles a right to abort a child in the constitution.


I believe they based the decision in Roe vs. Wade on the 9th Amendment.

[top gun]

palerider;17534]They are not building blocks. They are human beings. Immature, sure. Dependent, of course. Are you saying that immaturity and dependence are valid reasons to kill?

I think I explained by position in great detail! I'm sorry you don't agree but I've obviously said I agree with abortion being legal. Do the math... I believe the woman has the right to choose whether to carry something inside of her body... or not. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

Is that just a sentence you memorized and parrot whenever you get the chance? The purpose of the supreme court is to declare constitutional, unconstitutional legal decisions. Actions they declare constitutional must jibe with the constitution. You claim that they thoroughly investigated the issue and found the right in the constitution. Show it to me in the constitution. Show me anyting that resembles a right to abort a child in the constitution.

The supreme court has reversed itself some 280 times clearly proving that they are not infallable. The roe decison was not thoroughly researched, it was a despicable partisan move designed to relieve the democrat majoritiy in the house and senate from having to do their jobs and legislate the issue.

Don't have to show it to you in the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has stated for decades... abortion is Constitutional. They know better than I.

Like I said before my friend... Get back to me when they do reverse themselves. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! ;)

[USMC the Almighty]

I believe the woman has the right to choose whether to carry something inside of her body... or not.

So does Palerider. What he (and I) don't believe is that the woman can chose to carry the unborn in her body and then all of the sudden decide that she doesn't want it anymore and have it killed.

[USMC the Almighty]

Like I said before my friend... Get back to me when they do reverse themselves. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! ;)

First of all, what does this have to do with anything? I like you top gun even though we don't see eye to eye, but you seem to have a habit of allowing polls and other people's opinions to govern your own and you're too smart for that.

Secondly, more people identify themselves as "pro-life" than 15 years ago so this movement is growing.

[palerider]

I believe they based the decision in Roe vs. Wade on the 9th Amendment.

Actually, the justices referred to the 14th, and the 9th. Neither of which can be construed to give a woman the right to kill her child. Justice blackmund also stated in the decision with regard to the 14th amendment that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense". Had this decision been thoroughly researched as suggested by top gun, he would have realized that even at that time, unborns had beem treated in certain tort and negligence law as a person. His reference to persons who were less than whole persons harkens back to the bad old days of Dred Scott.

[palerider]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Don't have to show it to you in the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has stated for decades... abortion is Constitutional. They know better than I.


They have reversed themselves no less than 200 times. So much for knowing better than anyone.

[top gun]

First of all, what does this have to do with anything? I like you top gun even though we don't see eye to eye, but you seem to have a habit of allowing polls and other people's opinions to govern your own and you're too smart for that.

Secondly, more people identify themselves as "pro-life" than 15 years ago so this movement is growing.

I appreciate the compliment but the truth is I get so tired of the "pro-life" is on the march speech and the Roe v. Wade is going to get overturned BS that sometimes it's just easier to show a recent poll or to take my own personal opinion out of it and show a quote from some other credible established source. That kinda leaves it at... there ya go... believe what you want.

So you have to understand when you arguing for a womens right to have control over her own body and everything contained therein and the other side is trying to do the "I'm speaking for God" thing or tries to say that abortion is not Constitutional... when it's been judged legal and Constitutional for decades now... I just throw some facts, opinions and statistics out there so the other folks reading it know. At that point I'm not even trying to influence the original poster anymore... they're stuck and I'm leaving 'em there.

As far as the "surge" in pro-life... still about 65% don't want Roe overturned.

And truthfully, and you know this to be true, even if the biggest Republican neo-con high court in history overturned Roe it would then go back to the states and they would then decide and it would all just turn into a matter of travel. Then exactly like with the North/South Civil Rights struggle that would only energize & galvanize groups together to demand pro-choice legislation across the whole country. This Genie will never go back in the bottle my friend. Women just won't allow it!

[top gun]

They have reversed themselves no less than 200 times. So much for knowing better than anyone.

I said better than I. Hit me up when they reverse Roe. :)

[9sublime]

Are you arguing that we should drop the idea that all rights are secondary to the right to live? If you don't have the right to live, exactly what value do any other rights you claim have?

No, I'm just saying that just because the constitution says so isnt a reason on its own.

[palerider]

sometimes it's just easier to show a recent poll or to take my own personal opinion out of it and show a quote from some other credible established source. That kinda leaves it at... there ya go... believe what you want.

A quote from a journalist and accountant is not a credible source when the question is biological in nature.

[palerider]

No, I'm just saying that just because the constitution says so isnt a reason on its own.

The constitution does not "give" us our right to live, or any other rights. The constitution acknowledges our natural rights and establishes a government whose primary role is to protect those rights.

All other rights are secondary to the right to live because without that one, any others aren't worth a hill of beans.

[palerider]

Frame polls in an honest manner and you get results that look more like this:

Abortion should be...

Generally available 35%

Avail., with more limits 23%

Illegal except rape/incest/or save woman’s life 31%

Not permitted at all 9%

Don’t know 2%

The vast majority don't, and never have favored abortion on demand but prefer limiting the availability of abortion. You can quote polls till the cows come home that don't offer the possibility of terminating if the mother's life or health are in danger to the polees and you won't be a bit closer to the truth than you are right now.

[top gun]

A quote from a journalist and accountant is not a credible source when the question is biological in nature.

Well of course they are. All perspectives are important. Even your perspective is important. In the end it's the people who get to decide what is allowable in a democracy. To know what people believe is in the overall best interest in a certain situation or what should take precedent over what you go to the people to find out. I guess you could just pull a guess out of a hat but I think polling and voting are a far superior method of tabulation.

I've never heard anyone say that terminating a pregnancy isn't terminating a pregnancy. Everyone knows what that means. The thing is most people can make the distinction between someone just raving KILL KILL KILL... even the birth control pill is KILLING... it's ALL KILLING... blah, blah, blah... force those pregnancies through:eek:! And all the many factors and the timing involved which have been addressed now several times.

Maybe in your world the majority doesn't rule if you don't agree with the outcome. I myself believe in democracy and I will continue to try and stand up for the women. I feel it's the right thing to do. Discount it, insult it, it doesn't matter.

I believe choice should be left up to the woman in question, her family and her doctor... not you, not me, not the government. And a safe & available medical procedure is necessary so women are never driven into back alley butcher shops again to do what they have always done and will always do.

On this I'm in the majority and yes... it is somewhat reassuring to know that the United States Supreme Court and a majority of Americans agree.

[palerider]

. In the end it's the people who get to decide what is allowable in a democracy.


You are batting 1000. You don't seem to be able to get anyting right. We don't live in a democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Every single point you have attempted to make has been based on information that is simply wrong and yet, you hold your position. Talk about a position of faith.

By the way. The situation, as it stands, is not the product of democracy. It is the result of 9 unelected, unaccountable, black robed judges who made the decision for everyone. Since you bloviate incessantly about democracy, you should be howling even louder than I do about the decision to make abortion legal. That is a more subtle hypocricy in your overwhelmingly hypocritcal position.

[vyo476]

You are batting 1000. You don't seem to be able to get anyting right. We don't live in a democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

...and in a democratic republic the 2 wolves and the sheep vote on who decides what's for dinner.

[Coyote]

Ok, so abortion is already illegal except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

How will we, as a society deal with the problems generated by this? Will we be compassionate or will we just say screw it - she should of kept her legs closed, it's her problem now?

[palerider]

Ok, so abortion is already illegal except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

How will we, as a society deal with the problems generated by this? Will we be compassionate or will we just say screw it - she should of kept her legs closed, it's her problem now?

We don't do that now. What makes you think we would start when abortion becomes illegal. Do you think we will cancel all of the social programs already in existence?

[palerider]

...and in a democratic republic the 2 wolves and the sheep vote on who decides what's for dinner.

We don't live in a democratic republic either. In a democratic republic, a dictator tells the wolves and the sheep how they will vote.

[Coyote]

We don't do that now. What makes you think we would start when abortion becomes illegal. Do you think we will cancel all of the social programs already in existence?

Of course we don't do that now.

I just want to know what could or should happen if abortion became illegal.

If we have obligations as an ethical society to not kill human beings at any stage of development does that obligation end there?

There are always unintended consequences with any decision. Legalizing abortion with few restrictions could be said to have the unintended consequence of promoting abortion as birth control. Ok...so it becomes illegal.

Lets explore the potential unintended consequences of that. The babies life is not the only life in the equation. The potential impact on society could be large.

[top gun]

palerider;17605]You are batting 1000. You don't seem to be able to get anyting right. We don't live in a democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Duuuuuude... I'm really starting to worry. This quote is a little bazaar even for you.:D

Wolves... sheep... dinner... :confused:

The United States of America is a Republic. The definition of a Republic is "a representative democracy". You may want to look that one up before you post again.

Every single point you have attempted to make has been based on information that is simply wrong and yet, you hold your position. Talk about a position of faith.

See above...

By the way. The situation, as it stands, is not the product of democracy. It is the result of 9 unelected, unaccountable, black robed judges who made the decision for everyone. Since you bloviate incessantly about democracy, you should be howling even louder than I do about the decision to make abortion legal. That is a more subtle hypocricy in your overwhelmingly hypocritcal position.

GOTCHA... I'm keepin' track! Freud = idiot... Birth control pill is abortion... Don't live in a democracy (something about sheep & wolves eating dinner)... Duly elected President appointing Supreme court nominiees that then go through a confirmation process through Congress not part of our democracy as set forth in our United States Constitution... top gun bloviates.

GOT IT! :)

[palerider]

Of course we don't do that now.

I just want to know what could or should happen if abortion became illegal.

If we have obligations as an ethical society to not kill human beings at any stage of development does that obligation end there?

There are always unintended consequences with any decision. Legalizing abortion with few restrictions could be said to have the unintended consequence of promoting abortion as birth control. Ok...so it becomes illegal.

Lets explore the potential unintended consequences of that. The babies life is not the only life in the equation. The potential impact on society could be large.


It sounds like you are asking for guarantees. Did you have any when you were born? You had a life and all of the potential for good or bad that goes along with it.

[palerider]

The United States of America is a Republic. The definition of a Republic is "a representative democracy". You may want to look that one up before you post again.

Still batting 1000. We are a representative republic. You might want to look everyting you intend to type before you do it.



[COLOR="DarkRed"]GOTCHA... I'm keepin' track! Freud = idiot... Birth control pill is abortion... Don't live in a democracy (something about sheep & wolves eating dinner)... Duly elected President appointing Supreme court nominiees that then go through a confirmation process through Congress not part of our democracy as set forth in our United States Constitution... top gun bloviates.[/QUOTE]

Keeping track of how many times you get smacked down? Read the constitution. Particularly the section on the role of the supreme court. Making law doesn't appear there.

And if you don't believe that the pill causes the death of unborns, how about you prove it.

[top gun]

palerider;17744]Still batting 1000. We are a representative republic. You might want to look everyting you intend to type before you do it.

Ditto & spell & grammar check evidently...;)

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands...

re·pub·lic (rĭ-pŭb'lĭk)

A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.
A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. A nation that has such a political order.

de·moc·ra·cy (dĭ-mŏk'rə-sē)

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.

Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting is a hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.

Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.

GOTCHA... I'm keepin' track! Freud = idiot... Birth control pill is abortion... Don't live in a democracy (something about sheep & wolves eating dinner)... Duly elected President appointing Supreme court nominiees that then go through a confirmation process through Congress not part of our democracy as set forth in our United States Constitution... top gun bloviates

Keeping track of how many times you get smacked down? Read the constitution. Particularly the section on the role of the supreme court. Making law doesn't appear there.[/B]
LoL :D... I have absolutely No doubt that in your own mind you are Wile E. Coyote super genius (no offense Coyote :D) and much smarter than The United States Supreme Court. Deciding whether an issue is or is not Constitutional is their job and many different issues and circumstances aren't specifically written into the Constitution but of course are still covered under it.

Beep Beep>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And if you don't believe that the pill causes the death of unborns, how about you prove it.

I know... I know. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL! Won't allow fertilized egg to implant in the first place. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!

[palerider]

Sorry guy. We are a representative republic. Just ask the founders.

"I know... I know. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL! Won't allow fertilized egg to implant in the first place. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL! "

Still batting 1000. There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, the egg no longer exists as an egg. It is a human being from that point on and any outside agent that causes it to die has killed it.

I know you want to be right but you just haven't done your homework on the abortion issue or apparently, the structure and nature of our government.

[top gun]

palerider;17798]Sorry guy. We are a representative republic. Just ask the founders.

You do know all the founders are dead... right? Actually it is also sometimes called a representative democratic republic. Which is by definition the same thing as a representative democracy. But I'll be glad to post where I got the words I used... and low and behold it was some founding fathers! OOPS!

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay articulated this conception of a republic in their 1788 essays that were later compiled as The Federalist Papers. These essays, intended to support the ratification of the federal Constitution in New York, distinguished a republic from a pure democracy, describing the latter as "a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person." In the context of The Federalist Papers, a republic differed from a pure democracy only in that it was "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place." According to this interpretation, a republic was a representative democracy. As Madison pointed out, the representative principle militates against the irresponsible exercise of majority power, for it makes a large republic possible, and it is difficult in a large republic for any faction to become a majority. According to these authors, a large republic would foster the formation of many factions, and this sheer multiplicity of interests in turn would create shifting coalitions, which would hinder the formation of an oppressive or irresponsible majority. Furthermore, because of the checks and balances and separation of powers between different branches and levels of government, any upstart tyrannical faction would encounter many legal and institutional roadblocks.


"I know... I know. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL! Won't allow fertilized egg to implant in the first place. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL! "

Still batting 1000. There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, the egg no longer exists as an egg. It is a human being from that point on and any outside agent that causes it to die has killed it.

I know you want to be right but you just haven't done your homework on the abortion issue or apparently, the structure and nature of our government.

When does the fertilized egg implant?
By : Sophia Levis

When the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall and begins to produce hCG it is called implantation. This typically occurs between 6 and 8 days after ovulation.

The egg is fertilized in the outer part of the fallopian tube, generally within 12 hours of ovulation. After it is fertilized, the egg travels down the fallopian tube. The fertilized egg grows as it travels. It doubles, the grows to four cells and then to eight cells as it enters the uterus.

Implantation occurs in the upper third of the uterus. Implantation sometimes can cause bleeding or minor spotting. This is considered normal. You may be able to use Basal Body Temperature to determine when implantation occurs.

OUCH!
Hey Wile E. :D Beep Beep>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[palerider]

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay articulated this conception of a republic in their 1788 essays that were later compiled as The Federalist Papers.

Funny you should reference the federalist papers since you have obviously never read them. Here, let me introduce you to the words of the founders:

Federalist 29 - In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition.


Federalist 48 -The founders of our republics have so much merit for the wisdom which they have displayed, that no task can be less pleasing than that of pointing out the errors into which they have fallen. A respect for truth, however, obliges us to remark, that they seem never for a moment to have turned their eyes from the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate, supported and fortified by an hereditary branch of the legislative authority. They seem never to have recollected the danger from legislative usurpations, which, by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations.

Federalist 51 - 51 In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government.

Federalist 63 - 63 The difference most relied on, between the American and other republics, consists in the principle of representation; which is the pivot on which the former move, and which is supposed to have been unknown to the latter, or at least to the ancient part of them.

Federalist 83 - 83 The friends and adversaries of the plan of the convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government.

Hey Wile E. :D Beep Beep>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You already got slapped down once for using non scientists as references for scientific matters. Are you incapable of learning. Here again, you post words from a non expert as if they proved something. If you want to know facts, you go to a medical text book.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc (fertilized egg) is not used in this book."Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

Ouch!!

[top gun]

palerider;17865]Funny you should reference the federalist papers since you have obviously never read them. Here, let me introduce you to the words of the founders:

Exactly... The Federalist Papers...and what was the interpretation of that, which I presented...

In the context of The Federalist Papers, a republic differed from a pure democracy only in that it was "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place. " According to this interpretation, a republic was a representative democracy. The United States government is not an absolute or pure democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a representative democratic republic.

Your problem I keep seeing you repeat is that you know the analogies are correct but in some grandiose self important way can't help yourself but to try and find some flaw that makes you feel better about yourself.

No one ever said the word Republic isn't used in the federalist papers or the Constitution. What was presented was the documentation of the intent behind them... come on you know that. You can read that. And the really bizarre thing is that even though the text book definitions of Representative democratic republic and Representative democracy... are exactly the same thing you choose to argue over it. It really is just a bizarre trait. Cow/bovine exact same thing. :)

You already got slapped down once for using non scientists as references for scientific matters...

Oh pleeeease! Come on Wile E.

Yet again you intentionally miss my point...

zygote
Ovum (egg) after fertilization but before it undergoes cleavage to begin embryonic development.This article is © Research Machines plc 2004. All rights reserved. Helicon Publishing is a division of Research Machines plc.

Once an egg has been released, the sides of the fallopian tube periodically spasm aiding the egg in traveling down the tube towards the uterus. If the egg fails to be fertilized during this time, it will break up once it reaches the uterus. Additionally, since your thickened endometrium is also no longer needed as there is no fertilized egg to implant itself into the lining, the lining will shed over a period of three to eight days. This discharge is what makes up your menstrual flow.

Thesaurus: Noun 1. fertilized egg - an animal organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation that in higher forms merge into fetal stages but in lower forms terminate in commencement of larval life

I could go on forever. But again my only point is there is such a thing as a fertilized egg. Anyone can Goggle fertilized egg and see it referenced a hundred times or more. And not just in commentary but in medical research documents. Can you call it something else? Can you describe it in different ways... sure. My point was very simple though. There is such a thing as a fertilized egg. That was it.

Beep Beep>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Oh and I have another question now from the wife. Since you've made it clear your opinion that Birth control pills are performing an abortion. And since you believe so strongly that even microscopic life should not be "killed".

You could never be satisfied with just making abortion illegal to be consistent and not hypocritical you also would want Birth control pills to be made illegal with all the penalties you strive for to be enacted upon them also.

Now this is her and not me but she says if you say no then your whole long argument is a sham.

And if you say yes everyone should be very afraid of you and you should seek mental health counseling immediately. :eek:

Again this is from a woman... not me.

[palerider]

Exactly... The Federalist Papers...and what was the interpretation of that, which I presented...

I gave you what the founders said, not an interpretation of what they said. Throughout the federalist papers, they describe the government they were instituting as a representative republic. Interpret it how you will, but any interpretation other than representative republic is wrong.

Your problem I keep seeing you repeat is that you know the analogies are correct but in some grandiose self important way can't help yourself but to try and find some flaw that makes you feel better about yourself.

I am sure that is what you think. The fact is that I correct you when you are wrong. If you were right, or using apt analogies, I would not be correcting you.


Yet again you intentionally miss my point...

I got your point and yet again, it was wrong.

There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. The term is outdated. Modern technology has rendered it obsolete. When fertilization is complete, a new human being exists, not a fertilized egg.

The reference I gave you is from an actual medical school textbook. Note the date. Your infomation has been outdated since at least 1996.

I could go on forever. But again my only point is there is such a thing as a fertilized egg. Anyone can Goggle fertilized egg and see it referenced a hundred times or more. And not just in commentary but in medical research documents. Can you call it something else? Can you describe it in different ways... sure. My point was very simple though. There is such a thing as a fertilized egg. That was it.

And you would be wrong forever. Every textbook on embryology and human developmental biology states quite clearly that when fertilization is complete, a zygote exists, not a fertilized egg. A zygote is a human being. The term fertilized egg is used by people who don't grasp the biology so that they can feel like they do.

Oh and I have another question now from the wife. Since you've made it clear your opinion that Birth control pills are performing an abortion. And since you believe so strongly that even microscopic life should not be "killed".

Human beings, not microscopic life. Why can't you say what it is rather than hiding behind the language?

You could never be satisfied with just making abortion illegal to be consistent and not hypocritical you also would want Birth control pills to be made illegal with all the penalties you strive for to be enacted upon them also.

If roe is overturned, it will be because personhood has been established for the unborn. I don't often go into this but if personhood is established and roe is overturned for that reason, it will not be possible for any state to allow abortion either. Justice blackmund, in the roe decision, admitted that if personhood is established for the unborn, that the framework of roe will fail because the unborn will be entitled to 14th amendment protection. No state can allow women to simply kill human beings that have the protection of the 14th amendment.

If personhood is established and with it, 14th amendment protections, any contraception that is not strictly contraception will also become illegal. Pharmaceutical companies will have to develop a pill, or implant, or injection that prevents ovulation as its means of operating without creating an inhospitable environment in the uterus should a woman ovulate and become pregnant anyway since creating an inhospitable environment that results in the death of a person with 14th amendment protection would be manslaugher at the very least.

Now this is her and not me but she says if you say no then your whole long argument is a sham.

Sorry, you won't find any inconsistencies in my argument. I have done my homework.

And if you say yes everyone should be very afraid of you and you should seek mental health counseling immediately. :eek:

Again this is from a woman... not me.

You call names and make impotent little jokes, she simply attacks the person. Nice family you have there. No debating skills, but then no family has everything, right?

There is no hypocricy in my position. The pro choice side however, is riddled with hypocricy since your postion requires that you single out one group to whom you must apply an entirely different set of rules.

[top gun]

I gave you what the founders said, not an interpretation of what they said.

Me too plus the interpretation. And like I said it's a ridiculous argument because the two things by definition are exactly the same thing... which I also provided. Rabbit/Bunny... exact same thing.


[QUOTE]There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. The term is outdated. Modern technology has rendered it obsolete. When fertilization is complete, a new human being exists, not a fertilized egg.

The reference I gave you is from an actual medical school textbook. Note the date. Your infomation has been outdated since at least 1996.

Another opinion that you're entitled to hold I guess. There are documented medical and medical research testimonies that do not say that... the one I posted was from 2004. I encourage everyone to Goggle "fertilized egg" and see if they come up with only a blank screen or only information dating back before 1996. They won't but we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

And you would be wrong forever. Every textbook on embryology and human developmental biology states quite clearly that when fertilization is complete, a zygote exists, not a fertilized egg. A zygote is a human being. The term fertilized egg is used by people who don't grasp the biology so that they can feel like they do.

Okaaaaaay? Whatever?
zygote
Ovum (egg) after fertilization but before it undergoes cleavage to begin embryonic development.This article is © Research Machines plc 2004. All rights reserved. Helicon Publishing is a division of Research Machines plc.

Human beings, not microscopic life. Why can't you say what it is rather than hiding behind the language?

Are you serious. You can't be serious. Human beings have to be microscopic life at some point. You're saying they're concieved full size? Whatever... believe what you want.

If personhood is established and with it, 14th amendment protections, any contraception that is not strictly contraception will also become illegal. Pharmaceutical companies will have to develop a pill, or implant, or injection that prevents ovulation as its means of operating without creating an inhospitable environment in the uterus should a woman ovulate and become pregnant anyway since creating an inhospitable environment that results in the death of a person with 14th amendment protection would be manslaugher at the very least.

Finally, there you go! Thank you! Everyone can now finally see the real you and what you want. Your not only out to stop abortions you're out to put women in jail for manslaughter for taking traditional Birth Control Pills.

Now everyone sees behind the curtain to how far reaching this attitude really is and where this argument truly leads. Now anyone reading this can visualize just what life would be like for women and teenage girls if you ever got your way. You just did more to help pro-choice in one paragraph than I ever could.

Wife was right.

[palerider]

Me too plus the interpretation. And like I said it's a ridiculous argument because the two things by definition are exactly the same thing... which I also provided. Rabbit/Bunny... exact same thing.

Another opinion that you're entitled to hold I guess. There are documented medical and medical research testimonies that do not say that... the one I posted was from 2004. I encourage everyone to Goggle "fertilized egg" and see if they come up with only a blank screen or only information dating back before 1996. They won't but we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. [/COLOR]

Not opinion. Fact. Information from medical textbooks is not opinion as opinion is not taught in medical school. The sort of information that you presented is opinion. I used the edition of the book from 1996 to demonstrate that this is not new knowledge. The 2006 edition says exactly the same thing. Would you prefer that I use the same words and cite the 2006 edition of the book?

And exactly what do you think googling fertilized egg and getting results proves? That it is possible to get incorrect information from the internet? Try googling "no such thing as a fertilized egg" if you want to get accurate information as opposed to just information. The first hit you get will be from a scientific text on the topic of syngamy . Here is what it says about fertilized eggs:

"Early in the evolution of eukaryotes, a new method of recombination appeared... syngamy. Most textbooks will refer to this process as fertilization. I hope you will leave that out of your vocabulary...pehaps saving it for when you are discussing compost or fertilizers. Males are fertile without a female contribution and vice-versa so we do not make each other fertile. There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg"...once syngamy has occurred it is a zygote... no longer any kind of egg. Hens that have been visited by roosters do not lay eggs...they lay zygotes (or young embryos) in a shell. The only hens that lay eggs are those who live in factory farms that never see a rooster; no amount of incubation will result in their hatching. I think you have the picture! "

http://plantphys.info/Plant_Biology/lifecycle.html

[QUOTE=top gun;17896]Are you serious. You can't be serious. Human beings have to be microscopic life at some point. You're saying they're concieved full size? Whatever... believe what you want.

Are you saying that they are not human beings until some point at which you can see them unaided? The term microscopic life without adequate description evokes bacteria and parameciums living in pond water and attempts to distract from the fact that we are talking about human beings.

Finally, there you go! Thank you! Everyone can now finally see the real you and what you want. Your not only out to stop abortions you're out to put women in jail for manslaughter for taking traditional Birth Control Pills.

Traditional birth control pills are abortifacients. They mostly prevent ovulation but when a woman ovulates and becomes pregnant, they create a hostile environment which results in the death of the child.

Do you think that there is some moral difference between dying due to being torn apart and dying due to being put in an environment in which you can not live? Explain that logic. If the personhood of unborns is established, they will have the protection of the 14th amendment meaning that they can not be killed without first having due process of the law. Contraception is fine, abortion is not.

Now everyone sees behind the curtain to how far reaching this attitude really is and where this argument truly leads. Now anyone reading this can visualize just what life would be like for women and teenage girls if you ever got your way. You just did more to help pro-choice in one paragraph than I ever could.

Sees what? That I am not a hypocrit? Tell me what is the difference between killing via surgical procedure and killing via drugs? And once again, I see no reason that a more perfect contraceptive drug can not be developed. Are you under the impression that what we have is the best that we could hope for?

Wife was right.

Since you have been wrong on every point you have tried to make, and have been dishonest in your characterizations of my arguments, I fail to see how you are qualified to proclaim anyone right.

[Mare Tranquillity]

That is the lamest of all arguments 9sublime. Tell me something that has been stopped by making it illegal. Following that logic, there should be no law against anything because someone is going to do it anyway.

Unenforced and unenforceable laws SHOULD be taken off the books, laws like that lull people into believing that something is being done about the problem when in reality it isn't.

If Catholics believed in reincarnation I'd suspect that Pale was the return of Nicolae Ceausescu, the Romanian dictator who decreed a death penalty for any woman who had an abortion. It didn't work very well, in fact it was a disaster because ol' Nico did exactly what Pale is recommending: pass the law making abortion illegal and THEN try to figure out how to deal with the hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. Ceausescu couldn't figure it out and when the population revolted and put him to death there were orphanages all over the country overflowing with sick, neglected, starving babies that no one wanted. Pale always tries to make it a discussion of why an innocent should be killed, but the discussion is really about the lesser of two evils, aborting fetuses that no one wants or forcing women to carry and birth them first and then letting them die by inches in a culture that hates welfare and has continually reduced money for the care of infants, children and pregnant women. Ronald Reagan is the poster boy for this attitude with his belief that: Life begins at conception and ends at birth.

I don't know how many abortions are done each year in this country, but I do know that the systems for caring for unwanted children are stretched to the breaking point right now and if we do as Pale's emotional appeals ask, then we will dump tens of thousands more unwanted babies into a system that doesn't want and cannot care for the ones that is has right now. It will be just like in Romania, an unmitigated disaster--for which women will receive the majority of suffering and blame.

I think that the idea of new and better birth control products is a good one, but let's get them online before we ban the tools we have now. If the religious people and Pale, are so unhappy with things as they are now, then they should put political pressure on the government to fund more research and give money themselves for research.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Again I challenge you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

And I challenge you, Pale, to provide some credible science that states that only human life has the inalienable right to exist. You made the statement, so back it up.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Its hardly a lame argument. You are trying to ban abortion because of the sanctity of life, but if you ban it, children will die and so will their mothers in unsafe abortions.

Which is what happened in Romania, thousands of children were orphaned when their mothers died from back-alley abortions due to new, unwanted pregnancies. Instead of one death we now have two, and a bunch of children with no mother. Two wrongs don't make a right, neither do three or four. We have to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies before we ban abortions or we will simply make the situation worse.

[Mare Tranquillity]

How? They're is no way to prevent girls from dropping their panties without thinking of the consequences. With condoms, the pill, sex ed, etc. there's not much more we can do.

So the problem cannot be solved? And you support Pale's ban on all abortions? Hello? Are you dim? What do you think will be accomplished with this insane policy?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nothing teaches consequences like experience.
So I suppose that distributing razors and guns to grade school children would be good because it would teach them by experience about the dangers of those items.



Your signature line makes your compassion seem Catholic and hollow.

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'

[Mare Tranquillity]

If personhood is established and with it, 14th amendment protections, any contraception that is not strictly contraception will also become illegal. Pharmaceutical companies will have to develop a pill, or implant, or injection that prevents ovulation as its means of operating without creating an inhospitable environment in the uterus should a woman ovulate and become pregnant anyway since creating an inhospitable environment that results in the death of a person with 14th amendment protection would be manslaugher at the very least.

So, Pale, are you in favor (would you vote for) a law that would charge women for manslaughter if they took birth control pills?

[USMC the Almighty]

So the problem cannot be solved? And you support Pale's ban on all abortions? Hello? Are you dim? What do you think will be accomplished with this insane policy?

What policy? I was just asking what else we could do to prevent the need for abortions. Do you have any ideas?

[dahermit]

Playing devil's advocate; Palerider: If there were to be an amendment to the Constitution (very unlikely) that defined human life as being only later than the first month after conception and specified that there were no rights recognize until after that first month, would you be inclined to view an abortion of such as murder? And, if yes, on what basis?

[palerider]

And I challenge you, Pale, to provide some credible science that states that only human life has the inalienable right to exist. You made the statement, so back it up.

Science could care less who or what has a right to live. Science can only say what is alive and what it is.

[palerider]

So I suppose that distributing razors and guns to grade school children would be good because it would teach them by experience about the dangers of those items.



Your signature line makes your compassion seem Catholic and hollow.

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'

So in addition to your irrational hatred for all men, you harbor the same sort if irrational hatred for catholics? And in the case of men you particularly dislike, by some demented logic, you assume they must be catholic?

You aren't a rational person mare. Your sort of irrationality is far more dangerous in the world than my cold reason. Radical islamists operate on your frequency.

[palerider]

So, Pale, are you in favor (would you vote for) a law that would charge women for manslaughter if they took birth control pills?


If roe collapses because the personhood of the unborn is established in the eyes of the law, and as a result, the unborn recieve thier rightful protection under the 14th amendment, then no, I would not favor charging women who knowingly take an abortifacient birth control pill with manslaughter. If they take a pill that they know can cause the death of a person protected by the 14th amendment, that is killing with intent and warrants a charge of murder.

[palerider]

Playing devil's advocate; Palerider: If there were to be an amendment to the Constitution (very unlikely) that defined human life as being only later than the first month after conception and specified that there were no rights recognize until after that first month, would you be inclined to view an abortion of such as murder? And, if yes, on what basis?

The law can't define human life. Human life is what it is and no law can change that. If, however, an amendment or even law were written and legislated by our duely elected representatives that stated in a straight forward manner that the right to live was being denied to HUMAN BEINGS until such time as they were born, or were viable, or whatever timeframe the representatives agreed upon and stated explicitly why that right was being denied, then I would have little, if any basis upon which to carry forth this argument.

To play devil's advocate myself, however, most abortions don't happen until after 6 0r 8 weeks. A month would pass before most women were even aware that they were pregnant, and then some time would pass making a decision. The victims of over 80% of all abortions already have faces and fingerprints; that's almost enough to get a passport.

[Coyote]

If roe collapses because the personhood of the unborn is established in the eyes of the law, and as a result, the unborn recieve thier rightful protection under the 14th amendment, then no, I would not favor charging women who knowingly take an abortifacient birth control pill with manslaughter. If they take a pill that they know can cause the death of a person protected by the 14th amendment, that is killing with intent and warrants a charge of murder.

That would be problamatic wouldn't it? It only has a miniscule chance of causing an abortion, probalby no higher then a woman's chance of dying in pregnancy....and there is no "body", no sure victim...you would only be guessing that there might be or have been. That isn't enough to pin a charge of murder:confused:

[palerider]

That would be problamatic wouldn't it? It only has a miniscule chance of causing an abortion, probalby no higher then a woman's chance of dying in pregnancy....and there is no "body", no sure victim...you would only be guessing that there might be or have been. That isn't enough to pin a charge of murder:confused:

I don't think miniscule is the word. If you can demonstrate that the rate of ovulation occuring in any given woman on any given month is no more than 12 per 100,000 then I will withdraw my objection. A quick glance at non pro life sites however places the failure rate at between 3 and 13% per year for any given woman and their definition of failure is actually becoming pregnant. If between 3 and 13 % of women taking the pill actually become pregnant, then the rate of ovulation actually occuring would by no means fall in the "miniscule" range.

If I poison a system (say a water system) with the intent of killing people and am caught, I will be charged for a very serious crime even if it can not be proven that I have killed someone.

My point is that if unborns gain the protection of the 14th amendment, pharm companies will simply stop manufacturing any drug that has an abortificent property. They will be pulled from the shelves from your local drug store and a national recall issued. One would have to enter a black market (a crime in itself) to even procure them.

[vyo476]

How? They're is no way to prevent girls from dropping their panties without thinking of the consequences. With condoms, the pill, sex ed, etc. there's not much more we can do.

Sex ed is the main issue. At my high school sexual education is abstinence-only, which is basically the teacher standing in front of the class saying, "If you have sex, you will get pregnant, or you will die. Don't have sex." Contraceptive education is non-existent. Education regarding any form of sexuality other than biological, reproductive sexuality between married persons is harshly punished (a teacher at my school got fired for answering a legitimate question about oral sex).

[Coyote]

I don't think miniscule is the word. If you can demonstrate that the rate of ovulation occuring in any given woman on any given month is no more than 12 per 100,000 then I will withdraw my objection. A quick glance at non pro life sites however places the failure rate at between 3 and 13% per year for any given woman and their definition of failure is actually becoming pregnant. If between 3 and 13 % of women taking the pill actually become pregnant, then the rate of ovulation actually occuring would by no means fall in the "miniscule" range.


Is a 3-13% chance enough for a verdict of murder in a court of law????


If I poison a system (say a water system) with the intent of killing people and am caught, I will be charged for a very serious crime even if it can not be proven that I have killed someone.


I don't think that is the same or a comparable analogy.


My point is that if unborns gain the protection of the 14th amendment, pharm companies will simply stop manufacturing any drug that has an abortificent property. They will be pulled from the shelves from your local drug store and a national recall issued. One would have to enter a black market (a crime in itself) to even procure them.

Yes...that is true...

[Coyote]

Perhaps we should legislate that any male who fails to take responsibility for his side of the pregnancy equation should be sterilized?

Maybe that would cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies?

[palerider]

Is a 3-13% chance enough for a verdict of murder in a court of law????

You are missing the fact that it is possible, with a very simple blood test, to determine that a woman has been pregnant, not that I am suggesting that we go to such lengths. A woman found in posession, however, could easily be tested to see if she had actually killed another human being with those pills.

I don't think that is the same or a comparable analogy.

I don't see why. Elaborate.

[palerider]

Perhaps we should legislate that any male who fails to take responsibility for his side of the pregnancy equation should be sterilized?

Maybe that would cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies?

Sterilized and garnished until the child graduates from college. I have no patience with people who won't face the consequences of their actions. Male or female.

[top gun]

palerider;17996] Another opinion that you're entitled to hold I guess...

The Question is Also What it Is, Not Just When it Begins
Published by Warren September 14th, 2006
With the fairly recent decision by the FDA to provisionally allow distribution of the “Plan B” pill and the attendant noise from (what are increasingly known as) anti-choice activists, it’s easy to see why the subject of abortion specifically, and conception control in general, is on my mind. I’m hardly unique, after all.

(As an aside, the “Plan B” type pills were approved without fuss in many other nations which had already settled their abortion issues. The US is lagging in this, quite badly.)

The history of Plan B is painful. Initially the pill was to be freely available over the counter to pretty much anyone who asked for it, but FDA approval was stalled. Minimum age requirements were then put in place, but approval was still stalled. This continued for several cycles until the minimum age was set to 18, at which point the pill passed the FDA review board.

It comes back, by long and discursive means that include boogeymen such as teenagers having sex (What? Never!) and the desire by at least some men to have control over women, to abortion.

There are plenty on the anti-abortion side who claim that Plan B is an abortion pill, but it isn’t. The pill just prevents an egg from implanting on the uterine wall. This actually happens quite frequently due to natural biological processes, and even after implantation the zygote isn’t guaranteed to survive. About half of all “pregnancies” end somewhere in the early implantation stage, before the woman could ever know she has a fertilized egg in her.

The only difference between spontaneous flushings like this and what Plan B provides … is that the woman decides, in the latter case, that she will take an additional precaution against pregnancy. That decision alone is enough for some to call taking the pill an abortion, but that is a semantic quibble, not a factually-valid argument.

I can see the problem, I think. Hardliners who are dead set against abortion in any context, even in the case of rape, incest or the mother’s life being endangered by the pregnancy, seem to hold as their central argument that life begins at conception — but the clear fact is that conception is not a single point that can be fixed in time. It’s actually a process that requires three stages to be completed before it can be argued to have happened:

Sperm is accepted by egg (the egg chooses the sperm that fertilizes it; it doesn’t just go to the strongest swimmer as was once thought).
Egg implants on the uterine wall.
Egg remains on the uterine wall long enough to actually form something more complex than a mass of stem cells (days, at the very least).
But at any of these three stages, if anything goes awry, the fertilized egg or zygote is flushed from the woman’s body, terminating the pregnancy before it can even be detected.

So the problem facing the “life begins at conception” camp is twofold; first, when exactly is the moment of conception? And second, does this apply to every conception? If so, what about the half or so that never make it past stage 3, above?

These questions have to be asked and answered, and it’s a problem because just as soon as you start asking these questions, anti-abortion hardliners seem to get very hostile. They don’t seem to want to have to think about it too much, maybe because what they’re proclaiming sounds like nonsense, even to themselves.

I think — though I can’t be sure — that what is meant by “life” in the hardline anti-abortion camp is closer to “ensoulment”. That is, the moment the sperm and ovum join, the product is something possessed of a literal, actual soul, despite the utter untraceability of such a thing.

This is close enough to a belief in magic that it makes many people feel a little queasy when they really think about it. It’s only slightly less primitive than believing a man’s sperm is “seed” that is “sown” into the “fertile place” of a woman’s body — that is, the woman is a passive receptacle for the man’s Baby Juice, and all she really acts as is an incubator with legs and a convenient double-spigot milk dispenser.

And this still begs the question of what it means to the idea of ensoulment that half of all fertilized eggs are jettisoned by women’s bodies.

The tangential question — the definition of a soul — is crucial to this discussion as well.

Saying the I that I think I am existed from conception doesn’t make sense from a simple perceptual perspective. I can’t offer proof of my own consciousness existing prior to a period some time after the infant I used to be was born; if I had actually been in full existence prior to that time, why wouldn’t I be able to remember it?

It is obvously foolish to assert that my mind has remained fixed over all those years, that it emerged from the moment of conception as a solid, finished whole. Well, if a soul is somehow attached to this consciousness, wouldn’t it be apparent as some kind of eternal, unchanging thing, or something that has never modified itself from that first moment when two gametes met?

Wouldn’t I be aware of it somehow?

Is a soul, something eternal and changeless and ostensibly present from the moment of conception (or a moment somewhere in the process of conception), really that much harder to find than my left big toe?

Or is it possible that, if a soul exists, it develops along with the mind, the consciousness, the awareness?

That would be much more convenient in terms of abortion — if we can say that a soul grows, as a body or a mind grows, then we don’t have to explain the fifty-percent success rate of fertilized eggs. We don’t actually have a moment of ensoulment, any more than we have a moment of consciousness.

With consciousness there is no clear line of demarcation. We can’t fix a point in time in any one person’s development and say, “Before that moment, there was no consciousness; after that moment, there was total and fully-functional consciousness.”

Ensoulment, then, like consciousness, becomes an emergent property of a complex biological process, subject to all the fuzz and uncertainty that conscious development holds. The problem there is that hardliners want to make unambiguous something that, by its nature, must be uncertain. It’s required not just from their religious perspective, but from a legal point of view as well.

Laws, in order to be universally applicable and consistently enforcable, seek to place on life the one thing life can’t have: Fixed, unambiguous certainty. And since neither conception nor ensoulment nor consciousness can be said to have happened at a specific single point in time, attaching laws to when abortion is permissible and when it is not becomes much, much harder.

Of course, this “development of soul” outlook will be resisted by the magical thinkers, who aren’t comfortable with analyzing their “life begins at conception” claims too closely — but it will also be rejected by insightful faith-holders, who understand that by suggesting a soul is an emergent process like consciousness, it’s an easy step to suggest the soul itself just doesn’t exist. It’s an unnecessary complication; human life and awareness doesn’t need a soul to be understood.

Now for many a soul is a nice idea, a comforting thought; however, it is not necessary. There is no aspect of human behavior that requires the presence of a soul to be understood; there is no part of human life that is comprehensible with the idea of a soul but incomprehensible if the idea of a soul is taken away.

I’m not trying to convert anyone to atheism, so I’ll leave this part of the discussion and move on to life — which is ever so much easier to define.

Life’s tricky. I see it as a kind of standing wave in otherwise unremarkable matter. After all, living things absorb chemicals, keep those chemicals for a while, and then pass those chemicals along; there’s no clear boundary with the body of a living organism, any more than there is no clear point at which it can be said consciousness has come into being.

Of course, this can be related back to the abortion discussion. There is definitely a time when a fetus is more like a newborn infant than not, in terms of development and ability to survive without its umbilicus and mother’s body; and there is a time when the fetus is much less like a newborn infant. Most people would probably be comfortable agreeing that abortion is more acceptable in the latter time, and progressively less acceptable the closer the fetus comes to being like a newborn infant. But again we have the problem of fixing an arbitrary point when we say “This fetus may no longer be aborted.”

Unless we do one of two things: Make all abortion illegal, or make all abortion legal.

Neither alternative is palatable to a surpriusingly large number of people, but from a standpoint of human health and dignity alone, I think it’s wiser to slip to the side of total legalization than a total ban. If we’re caught having to decide one or the other, with no middle ground or compromise, I think the majority would agree — however grudgingly — with that assessment.

Part of being a civilized society includes protecting innocents — but I have to decide that a functioning, pregnant human being is more “alive” than the fetus she has and does not want or cannot bear; in my view, this means the mother’s needs must always matter more than the desires of those who do not want her to end her pregnancy.

That aside, we will never be able to reach a completely-satisfying conclusion, because in order to do so we’d have to be able to say, with absolute certainty, when life begins, when it ends, what it means to be alive, what the nature of consciousness is … and what it actually means to be human.

[dahermit]

The law can't define human life. Human life is what it is and no law can change that. Playing devil's advocate again; thank you for indulging me.

On one slide is a human egg next to a human spermatozoa. On another is a human egg that has just been fertilized with a spermatozoa. What is your basis for determining that the second slide is a human being and the first slide is not?

[palerider]

Playing devil's advocate again; thank you for indulging me.

On one slide is a human egg next to a human spermatozoa. On another is a human egg that has just been fertilized with a spermatozoa. What is your basis for determining that the second slide is a human being and the first slide is not?

Aside from the obvious difference in appearance, the sperm, like an egg only has 22 chromosomes plus one X sex chromosome in the case of the egg and and an X or a Y sex chromosome in the case of the sperm. . The egg that has been fertilized has a full compliment of 46 chromosomes just like the reast of us and is therefore a human being.

[Coyote]

You are missing the fact that it is possible, with a very simple blood test, to determine that a woman has been pregnant, not that I am suggesting that we go to such lengths. A woman found in posession, however, could easily be tested to see if she had actually killed another human being with those pills.


A blood test could detect pregnancy before implantation even occured?

[palerider]

A blood test could detect pregnancy before implantation even occured?

Yes. Immediately after fertilization is complete, the unborn begins chemical communication with its mother's body directing her via hormones not to attack it as an invader.

There is a race among makers of early pregancy tests to produce a test that can detect pregnancy at the earliest date. My bet is that within 10 years, over the counter tests will be sensitive enough to detect pregnancy within hours of fertilization.

You may want to keep tabs of the makers of such tests for your stock portfolio.

[r0beph]

So riddle me this, pale. What of eggs which are fertilized outside the body, you know, in a petri dish? Are these also human? Is it wrong to toss these dishes aside? Is a human life created when some PhD squeezes a syringe of semen into a dish containing an egg? You are asserting that this is the case. I call shenanigans.

On this same note, there has been elsewhere, discussion of clones. It is said that human life in this case "could" conceivably be created without conception/egg & sperm. While this is theoretical (and well debated) it is a viable question. Since clones form from implanted dna, and form in a very similar manner as eggs do, at which point would they be considered human? Is it as cell division begins? Is it at the point that it begins "communication" (in your case, hormone communique)? What if this is purely outside the womb and the formation was directed towards only the growth of an organ? is this a human still at the low stage of cellular development before one directs the growth?


While I know this is all hypothetical and somewhat on the fantastical, at some point this may become reality and is very relevant.

Lastly, the supposition that the ability to communicate makes the cells human is not a validation of the argument. Communication is by no means a directly human trait. And I imagine you're trying to equate autonomous communication with life. This also is not exactly a valid argument, as I can show you plenty of examples of software that is autonomous and communicative. Of course I digress. I simply cannot find any justification for stating that the cellular conception of an egg is A human life.

I know much of what I asked here is a bit abstract and far reaching, but so is your suppositions.

[palerider]

So riddle me this, pale. What of eggs which are fertilized outside the body, you know, in a petri dish? Are these also human?

Of course. We don't become something different because of our geographical location (inside/outside). We are just what we are in a different location.

Is it wrong to toss these dishes aside? Is a human life created when some PhD squeezes a syringe of semen into a dish containing an egg? You are asserting that this is the case. I call shenanigans.

Yes it is if fertilization is complete. Do you believe it is fine to create human beings for the purpose of medical experimentation? Those stem cell lines that are presently being used are in effect families of human beings who will never have any chance at life beyond being the subject of medical research.

On this same note, there has been elsewhere, discussion of clones. It is said that human life in this case "could" conceivably be created without conception/egg & sperm. While this is theoretical (and well debated) it is a viable question. Since clones form from implanted dna, and form in a very similar manner as eggs do, at which point would they be considered human?

At the point that is analogous to fertilization. At the point that it has a complete set of 46 chromosomes.

Is it as cell division begins?

No.

Is it at the point that it begins "communication" (in your case, hormone communique)?

No. It has been alive for some small time before it organizes enough to begin communication.

What if this is purely outside the womb and the formation was directed towards only the growth of an organ? is this a human still at the low stage of cellular development before one directs the growth?

Again, we aren't a different thing because we are in a different geographical location. If you began with a liver cell for instance and were able to direct the growth of a liver from that cell without having to create an embryo first, then you would not be experimenting on human beings, you would be experimenting with human tissue which is fine by me.

Lastly, the supposition that the ability to communicate makes the cells human is not a validation of the argument.

I never suggested that they were human because they could communicate. They are human beings by virtue of what they are. I merely pointed out that they communicate with their mother to explain to coyote that we can detect that a woman has been pregnant even if the child never implants into the uterus.

I simply cannot find any justification for stating that the cellular conception of an egg is A human life.

Then the fault lies with you and your inability to grasp the biology of developmental biology. No offense but that is explanation enough. I simply can't wrap my mind around certain concepts in quantum physics (effect being a precursor to cause for example). The fact that I can't grasp the concept however has absolutely nothing to do with the reality.

[dahermit]

The egg that has been fertilized has a full compliment of 46 chromosomes just like the reast of us and is therefore a human being. How many chromosomes do chimps, and orangutans have? Under that difinition, if 46, chimps would be human. However, my main quesiton is: Who's definition (above), is that?
1) Legal
2)Scientific
3)Religious
4) Other

It is not likely number one because you said: "...The law can't define human life. Human life is what it is and no law can change that..."

How about number two? Everything I have read that was derived from science referred to a fertilized egg as a "Zygote", or a human zygote, not a human being. Nevertheless, please provide a citation if this is the basis for your statement.

If number three, Mare will jump on you like a duck on a June bug; God help you.

Number four is offered because you may have a basis that I have not anticipated and do not want to put boundaries on your definition.

[palerider]

How many chromosomes do chimps, and orangutans have? Under that difinition, if 46, chimps would be human.

Chimps and orangutans have 48 chromosomes.

However, my main quesiton is: Who's definition (above), is that?
1) Legal
2)Scientific
3)Religious
4) Other

It is not likely number one because you said: "...The law can't define human life. Human life is what it is and no law can change that..."

How about number two? Everything I have read that was derived from science referred to a fertilized egg as a "Zygote", or a human zygote, not a human being. Nevertheless, please provide a citation if this is the basis for your statement.

What the material you are reading would depend upon the agenda of the writer or what the purpose of the material was and the readership it was intended for.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.


"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990;

These are from medical textbooks and peer reviewed medical journals. The agenda is to teach and to pass on accurate information. If you want more citations, I can provide more.

[dahermit]

What the material you are reading would depend upon the agenda of the writer or what the purpose of the material was and the readership it was intended for.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.


"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990;

These are from medical textbooks and peer reviewed medical journals. The agenda is to teach and to pass on accurate information. If you want more citations, I can provide more. No, I am sure that these will be enough for your adversaries on this thread to provide counter citations from scientific journals. I am not here to tell anyone they are wrong, I just want to hear the best arguments from both sides.

[palerider]

What the material you are reading would depend upon the agenda of the writer or what the purpose of the material was and the readership it was intended for.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
No, I am sure that these will be enough for your adversaries on this thread to provide counter citations from scientific journals. I am not here to tell anyone they are wrong, I just want to hear the best arguments from both sides.

I have been waiting for more than a decade for someone to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being. So far, no one has stepped up and delivered.

Calling a zygote a human zygote instead of a human being is like calling an infant a human infant instead of a human being. Zygote, infant, blastocyst, toddler, embryo, adult, old geezer etc. etc. They are all just words some common, some scientific that are used to describe a human being at various stages of his or her life or development.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have been waiting for more than a decade for someone to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being. So far, no one has stepped up and delivered.
Calling a zygote a human zygote instead of a human being is like calling an infant a human infant instead of a human being. Zygote, infant, blastocyst, toddler, embryo, adult, old geezer etc. etc. They are all just words some common, some scientific that are used to describe a human being at various stages of his or her life or development.

You may have done it yourself when you stated that humans have a "spark" that makes them more than animals because you then went on to say that only human life has an inalienable "right to life". As far as I know no one has been able to detect or prove when that "spark" enters the fetal human, or even if that "spark" exists. If it does not exist, then humans are animals with no inalienable "right to life".

You are the scientist who is postulating a theory that appeals to you emotionally and been waiting for DECADES that someone prove you wrong. One cannot prove a negative, one cannot prove that God doesn't exist, one cannot prove that the "spark" of which speak does not exist. It's your theory, the onus is on you to prove your theory correct. None of the citations in your post did that, opinions were expressed (just like you have done) but no PROOF has been given.

[dahermit]

You may have done it yourself when you stated that humans have a "spark" that makes them more than animals because you then went on to say that only human life has an inalienable "right to life". As far as I know no one has been able to detect or prove when that "spark" enters the fetal human, or even if that "spark" exists. If it does not exist, then humans are animals with no inalienable "right to life".
If palerider did indeed use these words it suggests a religious argument after all despite his insistence that his argument is solely based on logic and science. Hmmmm. Well, palerider is this true?

[palerider]

You may have done it yourself when you stated that humans have a "spark" that makes them more than animals because you then went on to say that only human life has an inalienable "right to life". As far as I know no one has been able to detect or prove when that "spark" enters the fetal human, or even if that "spark" exists. If it does not exist, then humans are animals with no inalienable "right to life".

Are you completely unable to express anything in an honest manner. I never said that we were more than animals. In fact, I repeatedly point out to you our position in the food chain. Is it that you are deliberately obtuse or are you really this stupid? I stated clearly that there is something different about us in that we can see we have options. That you have glomed onto that word as if it means more than I said, is just another indication of your basic dishonesty.

You are the scientist who is postulating a theory that appeals to you emotionally and been waiting for DECADES that someone prove you wrong. One cannot prove a negative, one cannot prove that God doesn't exist, one cannot prove that the "spark" of which speak does not exist. It's your theory, the onus is on you to prove your theory correct. None of the citations in your post did that, opinions were expressed (just like you have done) but no PROOF has been given.

OK. I challenge you to provide some evidence of emotionality in my position. Bring it forward or admit that you are a liar.

I have never asked for anyone to prove a negative mare. Again, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. I can prove that the sun is not cold. I can prove that the moon does not have grass growing on its surface. I can prove that sea water is not made of sulfuric acid. I can prove that a chimp is not a turtle. Proving what a thing is not does not constitute proving a negative. If unborns were not human beings from the time they are concieved, that could be proven and would not constitute proving a negative.

[palerider]

If palerider did indeed use these words it suggests a religious argument after all despite his insistence that his argument is solely based on logic and science. Hmmmm. Well, palerider is this true?

Did I use the word spark? Yes. Did I use it in the context that mare suggests, no.

Here is the specific post.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18298&postcount=22

I have never denied that I have religious beliefs. They never enter into my argument, however. If I can prove my point without ever touching on religious belief, then what I believe simply meshes with what is.

If I have a religious belief that chilli peppers are hot, I can argue the fact that chilli peppers are hot without bringing my belief into the argument then what I believe is really not relavent to the fact that chilli peppers are hot.

[dahermit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChair General
But the point- and what Im trying to get to, is why is it wrong to kill an unborn? Personally, I happen to believe in the principles laid out in our founding documents. That we do come into being with certain rights.

If, as you say, it is a game, and all our rights to live and be free are merely figments, I woud prefer to play the game than to live the alternative; the jungle. I have been there and don't care to go back. Today, right now, every unborn lives in the jungle. He or she can be killed anytime, without cause and without legal consequence.

I believe that there is something different in us, some spark if you will, that makes us different from every other species on the face of the earth and that spark, whatever you care to call it (if you care to name it at all) is why we can see that we have options. Eeither play the game as we do, or drop the game and join the animals.




Let me see if I have this right. Humans unlike all other animals have some yet undefined "spark" that allows them to be aware of their choices. This sounds to me to be intelligence. Be that so, if a living entity does not have this intelligence, then it is not human. Therefore, a zygote consisting of only eight or so cells (or more), does not produce brain waves, is not self aware, does not feel pain, is completely unaware of its choices...does not have the "spark" yet... is not human?

[9sublime]

Let me see if I have this right. Humans unlike all other animals have some yet undefined "spark" that allows them to be aware of their choices. This sounds to me to be intelligence. Be that so, if a living entity does not have this intelligence, then it is not human. Therefore, a zygote consisting of only eight or so cells (or more), does not produce brain waves, is not self aware, does not feel pain, is completely unaware of its choices...does not have the "spark" yet... is not human?

This is a great point. The human being has the potential to have this 'spark' and be a human, but it clearly does not possess this spark whilst in the womb. Therefore, by terminating it, you are not terminating the spark, but if you feel so strongly about the potential of the zygote, then maybe you shouldn't waste a