yguy

Your transparent evasion of the point is noted.

Not at all. If a fetus is human five minutes before birth, than it may be human any time between birth and conception. If you find the idea of aborting a fetus five minutes or a week before birth unpleasant, is that merely because of the health risk to the mother, or for some other reason?

What's the title of this thread again?

A zygote is obviously alive. If it weren't, it would be dead, wouldn't it?

No, the burden of proof falls upon those who desire to kill what may be a human life.

Jewel

Actually, Yguy, I have just grown tired of your insistance that a womans reproductive cycle be subject to your version of morality. A view I do not share and I doubt I ever will.

The operative term being may be. Late term abortions are performed because there is either a danger to the mothers life or because there is a severe abnormality in the fetus. I know of no cases where a late term pregancy is terminated willy nilly.

And since you've repeatedly used the 5 minutes before birth senario repeatedly to show that all abortions should be considered murder I fail to see your point at pointing out the name of the thread at this juncture.

Just as every cell in my body is alive -- but it is not nessessarily a life.

Again the operative term being may be. The burden is still on the one asserting the positive position. You cannot change the rules simply because you do not agree with them.

As I said before, I grow tired of this. If you want the last word badly enough you can have it.

yguy

I have no idea how to make it any more plain than I have.

Put any one of those cells in a womb by itself, and when it grows into a breathing human being, I will call that cell a human life.

As the one asserting the right of the mother to kill the unborn child, I guess that would be you.

Your rules are for others.

Tony

Vylo:
“I found any support for the abortion child that is healthy and not concieved from rape to be a horrible thing, a support for the murder of innocent lives.”
“If the mother's life is at risk, then that is a different matter, but in cases where the abortion is done because the child is an "inconvience" the mother it is simply murder. Murder should not be legal.”

Dear Vylo,

It is still a particular woman’s body. It is HER BODY. She’s got only one body for life. She is the only owner of her body. NOBODY ELSE HAS A RIGHT TO DESIDE.

Regards.

Jewel

Actually, Yguy, I found that I do have one more thing to say. My right to an abortion is not in question. The courts have decided that I have that right -- and many times at that. You assert that a zygote/embreo/fetus is a person and as such deserves the protections afforded other persons. Since this assertion is the only thing that remotely makes your argument plausable, I ask you: precisely when does personhood occur and where is the undeniable scientific proof to back it up?

yguy

At some point between conception and birth. Since you don't know when that point is, you may be advocating murder. Were I in those shoes, I would make sure I knew whether it was a human life before I ripped it to shreds. Since it is you who has seen fit to wear those shoes and not me, proving the right to kill what may be a human life is entirely your responsibility.

fromtheright

Toto,

I have never seen a persuasive argument against abortion.

Not a persuasive one, or just not one that has persuaded you?



I recently attended a debate in which an evangelical Christian debater argued against abortion, but claimed to base his case on science and not religion. Needless to say, his science was bogus, and he relied on arguments that resembled creationism.

I'm just curious--what was his "bogus science" and what arguments that resembled creationism."

Toto

I have never heard an argument against abortion that made me think there was anything behind it but religious sentiment.

The debater I heard was Scott Klusendorf of Stand to Reason. (His writings are here but I don't see this particular debate topic). He purported to "prove" that a zygote-embryo-fetus was a person from the moment of conception; he used the "law of abiogenesis" - which I had to look up on the web, and which turned out to say that life cannot arise from inorganic matter, and is only used by creationists, not by real scientists.

I don't remember his other arguments in detail. He argued a lot that if we can't pinpoint the exact moment of viability when the fetus turns into a separate person for legal purposes, we have to play it safe by picking the moment of conception, otherwise we just slide down that slippery slope to genocide and the complete debasement of all human life. When people tried to push him to realize the implications of life-begins-at-conception - such as executing a woman who had an abortion and her doctor for first degree murder - he backed away and said he was not talking about any legal issues.

He was very smooth and an excellent debater, but would have collapsed if the person debating him had actually attacked his "scientific" statements for the nonsense that they were.

Jewel

In other words, you cannot prove your assertion so you are just going to avoid it altogether and try to shift the responsibility to someone else. How transparent of you. I guess there truly is nothing else to say. Have a lovely, self rightous life. :boohoo:

Vylo

Ok some interesting replies while I was gone for the weekend.

The question of when a fetus is considered to be human is most interesting to me. It must occur before birth obviously, because there is little difference between a baby that was just born, and that same baby 1 day earlier.

One thing to keep in mind when we talk about a women's rights over their body, is that while the fetus is attached to their body, the fetus is still a seperate organism with a different body. This becomes a sticky point.

Some of you have questioned why I would allow a woman to make a choice when raped (or in the case of chronic deformities) but not otherwise. It is a matter of responsibility. A raped woman is not responsibile for the child. I would not desire any healthy child to be aborted, but in the case of a rape victim, the circumstances were outisde of the woman's control. I would hope that she would choose life, but I don't think I have the right to tell her to keep the child, as she bears no responsibility . Other women DO bear the responsibility for taking the risk, if you don't want the risk, DON'T TAKE IT.

You do not have to have sex. You can restrain yourself from this action.

That is why there is adoption. Many of my relatives were adopted and have had very decent lifestyles.

I am not saying that. I am saying the mother is not responsible for the child's life. I would chose life, but it is the woman's decision, not mine.

Very interesting point. It is difficult to draw the line. You say an infant is a full fledged human being, but an infant cannot survive on its own. Where do we draw the line? I am still considering this question. I have always leaned towards the time the egg is fertilized, for this is when our life starts. From that point on, it is a living organism. I can see why there is a lot of debate around this.

Because the woman is not responsible for the child's conception in the case of rape.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I oppose the abortion of a healthy child, not born of rape due to the issue of responsibility. The woman is responsible for her actions.

I am fairly certain that most people would agree that we should be responibile for our own actions. If I go out and hit someone with my car due to carelessness, am I to be cleared of my responsibility?

A fetus has it's own body. It may be attached to the womans, but it is not her own.

I don't see you, or any other woman as an incubator, I see you as a human being. Since you are a human being, you are responsibile for the mistakes you make.

In some cases I wouldn't, but that is why there is adoption.

Definetly something to watch out for, very good point.

Um, what overpopulation? The earth has more then enough resources to support the human race, they just aren't distributed evenly. This nation is no where close to oeverpopulation, we have 70 % ariable land.

Society is in transition, not necessarily a breakdown.

The negligence that even with contraceptives, you are taking the risk of a pregnancy.