Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Inventor
#51 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 2:12 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Zoxell
This is laughable. Please check your facts before you post. It is a proven fact that the child reacts to the mother's voice and can show recognition of the father's voice as early as 28-30 weeks. There are a host of other external stimuli that the child will respond to all throughout pregnancy. You don't have the luxury of ignoring the proven facts, or worse, fabricating contradictory ones to help support your flawed logic. I suggest you educate yourself and stop being led around like mindless cattle toward the liberal agenda.
I won't lower myself to your level of rudeness, but I will suggest that you check your facts and point out that an embryo in reference to human pregnancy refers to the 'child' (as you insist on calling it) up until 8 weeks gestation. At 28-30 weeks gestation you are talking about a late-term foetus - potentially a premature newborn - which is a completely different situation and one that I have already offered my opinion on. If you don't have the decency and maturity to respect that, there is no point in you, or I, being a part of this debate.

Please call me Laura
"The gene pool needs more chlorine."
My Site
Advertisement
Lab Assistant
#52 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 3:16 PM
Quote: Originally posted by longears15
I won't lower myself to your level of rudeness, but I will suggest that you check your facts and point out that an embryo in reference to human pregnancy refers to the 'child' (as you insist on calling it) up until 8 weeks gestation. At 28-30 weeks gestation you are talking about a late-term foetus - potentially a premature newborn - which is a completely different situation and one that I have already offered my opinion on. If you don't have the decency and maturity to respect that, there is no point in you, or I, being a part of this debate.

No rudeness on my part was intended or committed. You may make the distinction between embryo, foetus, and human. I see them as stages of a child's development which would then go on to include newborn and toddler, etc. And I will not remove myself from any abortion debate while there are children being denied the basic human right to life.

The Barimen Legacy (complete) - https://zoxell.wordpress.com/chapters/
The Stacpoole Legacy (gen 1) - https://zoxell.wordpress.com/the-stacpoole-legacy/
Mad Poster
#53 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 4:01 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Zoxell
It is a proven fact that the child reacts to the mother's voice and can show recognition of the father's voice as early as 28-30 weeks.


At which stage a pregnancy has gone past the point at which it can be legally terminated, based on the statutory presumption that a foetus under 28 weeks could not survive outside the womb.

Abortion is allowed because prior to that stage a foetus could not survive outside the mother, therefore it is not a 'life' in it's own right.
Lab Assistant
#54 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 4:45 PM
Quote: Originally posted by el_flel
At which stage a pregnancy has gone past the point at which it can be legally terminated, based on the statutory presumption that a foetus under 28 weeks could not survive outside the womb.

Abortion is currently legal in the United States. There is no limit, currently, to the gestational age of the child. Only a procedure called partial birth abortion is banned. This is a procedure where a "doctor" pierces the skull and brain with a medical instrument and extracts the child from the mother's womb intact, albeit quite dead.
Quote: Originally posted by el_flel
Abortion is allowed because prior to that stage a foetus could not survive outside the mother, therefore it is not a 'life' in it's own right.

I disagree. Many people have medical conditions that require constant care and life support who otherwise would die without them. This is the slippery slope that the choice supporters navigate. Abortion proponents pick and choose their facts to support a choice of lifestyle over another person's right to exist.

The Barimen Legacy (complete) - https://zoxell.wordpress.com/chapters/
The Stacpoole Legacy (gen 1) - https://zoxell.wordpress.com/the-stacpoole-legacy/
Mad Poster
#55 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 5:55 PM
I'm from the UK, and UK law states that an abortion cannot be legally carried out once the pregnancy has exceeded 24 weeks.

The issue of medical conditions that require constant care isn't really relevant. ALL babies need constant care in order to survive, what the law is referring to in terms of abortion is that a foetus could not physically survive outside the body. When a baby is born it can (medical conditions aside) breath for itself, its heart beats, it will be alive. A foetus born prior to 28 weeks gestation couldn't.

"Abortion proponents pick and choose their facts to support a choice of lifestyle over another person's right to exist."
That's your opinion. Mine is that people who are wholly against abortion think that simply being alive is more important than that person's quality of life, which I disagree with.
Inventor
#56 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 6:10 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Zoxell
I disagree. Many people have medical conditions that require constant care and life support who otherwise would die without them. This is the slippery slope that the choice supporters navigate. Abortion proponents pick and choose their facts to support a choice of lifestyle over another person's right to exist.
With all respect, I don't think that's relevant. To someone who is pro-choice (not, I might add, pro-abortion) there is a world of difference between a living person and an embryo. As it happens, I'm also pro-euthanasia, but a person with a medical condition requiring life-support is another debate entirely.

You are still ignoring the other facets of the issue and referring consistently to choice of lifestyle. Again, what about a woman who has been raped? What about a woman for whom continuing with a pregnancy is likely to result in her death?

A hypothetical, but realistic situation for you: A woman develops a very serious complication during pregnancy - one that threatens her life and that of the foetus. Left alone, both mother and baby will die. An abortion will save the mother's life. How can you stand in judgement and say that she is wrong?

Quote: Originally posted by Zoxell
No rudeness on my part was intended or committed. You may make the distinction between embryo, foetus, and human. I see them as stages of a child's development which would then go on to include newborn and toddler, etc. And I will not remove myself from any abortion debate while there are children being denied the basic human right to life.
I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. You informed me that my post was laughable before checking your own facts, you accused me of fabrication and lumped me in as one of a group of 'mindless cattle'. Intended or not, personally I consider that to be extremely rude.

Please call me Laura
"The gene pool needs more chlorine."
My Site
Instructor
#57 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 10:44 PM
Quote: Originally posted by el_flel
I'm from the UK, and UK law states that an abortion cannot be legally carried out once the pregnancy has exceeded 24 weeks.

The issue of medical conditions that require constant care isn't really relevant. ALL babies need constant care in order to survive, what the law is referring to in terms of abortion is that a foetus could not physically survive outside the body. When a baby is born it can (medical conditions aside) breath for itself, its heart beats, it will be alive. A foetus born prior to 28 weeks gestation couldn't.


I think you've met to say 28 weeks. Let's see... There is 4 weeks in the month. And 28 divided by 4 is 7 months if I could figure it correctly. By 7 months ending, in the UK, a fetus cannot survive out of the mother for 7 months unless it's a premature baby, which is usually born at 6 to 7 months. I think Obama is allowing partial birth abortion again by installing in the new judge which is probably more liberal than some of the judges in the Supreme Court.

Now there is the fact that politics is the gambling game to see if abortion is made illegal or not. You gamble away your life for this simple yet complex decision the woman can make. You may take away the woman's right to choice, but she will always have freewill to rebell.

God, please protect me from your idiot followers for they have blinded themselves with bleach.

Money doesn't buy you happiness but it buys you beer and coffee.

Life is like Go. Its takes smart and amoral people to make decisions based on their strategies of living.
Mad Poster
#58 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 10:57 PM
No it's definitely 24 weeks in the UK, which is just over halfway in a pregnancy.
Instructor
#59 Old 14th Jun 2009 at 11:14 PM
Quote: Originally posted by el_flel
No it's definitely 24 weeks in the UK, which is just over halfway in a pregnancy.


Oh... so it's illegal to have abortions after 24 week, heh?

God, please protect me from your idiot followers for they have blinded themselves with bleach.

Money doesn't buy you happiness but it buys you beer and coffee.

Life is like Go. Its takes smart and amoral people to make decisions based on their strategies of living.
Scholar
#60 Old 15th Jun 2009 at 12:17 AM
The law in the UK was only changed last year, from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. The amendments to lower it to 22 or 20 were both defeated. And you can still have an abortion after that cutoff in the cases of fetal abnormality, or grave physical and mental injury to the woman.
Mad Poster
#61 Old 15th Jun 2009 at 12:33 AM
^^ That. Other places in Europe have much lower cut-off periods, some of them only allow abortion up to 12 weeks.
Scholar
#62 Old 15th Jun 2009 at 2:40 AM
Quote: Originally posted by el_flel
As a pro-choicer I think it's far more cruel to bring a child into this world who is not wanted, and who is at a high risk of having a poor quality of life, than it is to terminate that 'life' whilst it is still in the womb and totally incapable of feeling or knowing anything.


Not to mention, unwanted children from low income families, teenage mothers, or single parent households are more likely to commit crime and become an economic burden on society through subsequent processing through the penal system. Statistically speaking, over large numbers of cases.


The reasons why I'm pro-choice are not related to this, but I would be more sympathetic to the pro-life stance if that position included an emphasis on a feasible solution for how to support and care for all the unwanted babies who are either thrown into the adoption system or wind up going home with mothers without the means.


Quote: Originally posted by Zoxell
I disagree. Many people have medical conditions that require constant care and life support who otherwise would die without them. This is the slippery slope that the choice supporters navigate. Abortion proponents pick and choose their facts to support a choice of lifestyle over another person's right to exist.


It appears to me that your refusal to refer to the developing human according to its stage (embryo, fetus, infant, etc.) despite the extreme morphological differences in cognition and function of each stage, is characteristic of the same "picking and choosing of facts" you're accusing your opponents of.

.:Kitty Klan:.
Visit for Sims 3 Hair, Tattoos, and other free custom content downloads.

.For website updates, subscribe to my RSS feed at.
Dreamwidth Blog
Lab Assistant
#63 Old 15th Jun 2009 at 6:33 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Zoxell
Splurgy,
Yes, the cells are alive and the beginning of a human life. You really don't want to me to post graphics to prove my point that abortion is murder.

My point was that if that ball of eight cells is alive and has rights, why isn't a sperm cell alive? After all, each healthy sperm cell is a potential human life. Maybe people shouldn't be allowed to masturbate, lest potential children die. And what of those selfish women who menstruate! Fancy that, letting an egg cell that could have grown into a baby bleed out! It's deplorable!
And you're not going to freak me out by posting abortion pictures. Having seen various aborted and pickled foetuses in a hospital's embryology ward, you're not going to move me. I could post images of massively deformed foetuses with an eye in the middle of its face and a proboscis on its forehead if you'd like.
Quote: Originally posted by Zoxell
...toward the liberal agenda.

As a liberal, I'm shocked to hear we have an agenda. Could you a) fill me in on the details and b) prove this agenda exists?
Lab Assistant
#64 Old 15th Jun 2009 at 7:50 PM Last edited by Zoxell : 15th Jun 2009 at 8:26 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by Splurgy
As a liberal, I'm shocked to hear we have an agenda. Could you a) fill me in on the details and b) prove this agenda exists?

That's an entirely different debate, now, isn't it?

Look gang, I suppose we can continue to villify each other over something that ultimately will be re-addressed in the courts. I know what I believe is exactly the right thing for me to believe. I feel strongly about it, strongly enough to go toe-to-toe with a forum filled with people who disagree with me. We are clearly not going to change each other's opinions, but all I can hope for is that somebody maybe hesitated and thought for a moment about the rights of unborn children.

*Goes back to playing Sims 3*

The Barimen Legacy (complete) - https://zoxell.wordpress.com/chapters/
The Stacpoole Legacy (gen 1) - https://zoxell.wordpress.com/the-stacpoole-legacy/
Field Researcher
#65 Old 15th Jun 2009 at 9:44 PM
Splurgy, does one sperm have 46 chromosomes, the equivalent to any living human? Nope. They have 23. Eggs only have 23 as well. When they meet, that is when the zygote is formed and has all the genetic material that makes up this new human being. That's why sperm and eggs are not considered human lives that are allowed their own rights.

And I have yet to see any scare tactics, which in my opinion, are an extremely cheap way to debate.
Inventor
#66 Old 15th Jun 2009 at 10:20 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Zoxell
That's an entirely different debate, now, isn't it?

Look gang, I suppose we can continue to villify each other over something that ultimately will be re-addressed in the courts. I know what I believe is exactly the right thing for me to believe. I feel strongly about it, strongly enough to go toe-to-toe with a forum filled with people who disagree with me. We are clearly not going to change each other's opinions, but all I can hope for is that somebody maybe hesitated and thought for a moment about the rights of unborn children.

*Goes back to playing Sims 3*
Fair enough, if that's what you want. As a final point about something that ultimately will be re-addressed in the courts - although you will disapprove, you may be interested to know that the move is toward making abortion easier to access. Where I live, abortion was technically illegal. We had major reforms last year to legalise abortion.

Please call me Laura
"The gene pool needs more chlorine."
My Site
Scholar
#67 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 12:40 AM
Quote: Originally posted by BR_FL
Splurgy, does one sperm have 46 chromosomes, the equivalent to any living human? Nope. They have 23. Eggs only have 23 as well. When they meet, that is when the zygote is formed and has all the genetic material that makes up this new human being. That's why sperm and eggs are not considered human lives that are allowed their own rights.

Some people have more than 46 chromosomes, such as those with Down's syndrome or Klinefelter's syndrome.

Anyway, at what stage during this 'meeting' does this new human being form? If life begins at conception, when during the process of conception is this?
Instructor
#68 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 2:00 AM
Would you have a child grow up to be a maniacal killer because you have no money and resources to care for his mental illness as well as state of poverty?

Think about this man when you have a baby out of wedlock and in poverty...



This mad freak would be your son. Killing his father and disposing it in the sewers.

God, please protect me from your idiot followers for they have blinded themselves with bleach.

Money doesn't buy you happiness but it buys you beer and coffee.

Life is like Go. Its takes smart and amoral people to make decisions based on their strategies of living.
Lab Assistant
#69 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 1:25 PM
Quote: Originally posted by longears15
As a final point about something that ultimately will be re-addressed in the courts - although you will disapprove, you may be interested to know that the move is toward making abortion easier to access. Where I live, abortion was technically illegal. We had major reforms last year to legalise abortion.

And as a final point from me, It will only take a couple generations for those who celebrate and practice abortion to weed themsevles out of the gene pool, while those who celebrate and practice responsibility and child-rearing will replace them. I love how nature works itself out.

The Barimen Legacy (complete) - https://zoxell.wordpress.com/chapters/
The Stacpoole Legacy (gen 1) - https://zoxell.wordpress.com/the-stacpoole-legacy/
Field Researcher
#70 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 2:04 PM Last edited by Thrior : 16th Jun 2009 at 8:14 PM.
I probably shouldn't get included in this but just wanted to tell my opinion. I accept abortion. If a woman doesn't want to be a mother and doesn't feel she's ready for it, then nobody has right to force her. It's her body and it affects her life in every aspect. Why should she carry the child for 9 months, only to dump her/him later or raise the child in poor conditions, without feeling any love and affection towards it? Yeah, I may sound cruel but why would just a "ball of 8 cells" have more rights than a moving, thinking, feeling, speaking human being? Yeah, now someone says that ball of cells is a human being too. Perhaps but I don't care if I sound cruel or not. In my eyes the woman IS more important. She's already in this world and can make decisions. She's not a birth factory.

I do despise people who don't take any responsibility over this by just having sex without thinking about consequences and then making abortion after abortion but I despise those too who just say "it's a murder" and think it's perfectly right to force a woman to carry a child who can be a result of rape.
If I got pregnant now by accident, I WOULD do abortion with a good conscience. It's my body and my life. I'm not ready to be a mother and I don't want to be one of those people who just gives birth to a child and then gives her/him up for adoption. When I would actually BE ready to be a mother, I couldn't bring myself to get any new children with the knowledge that I abandoned the first one. In any case I couldn't keep the baby now. I would feel awful about abandoning the child for strangers but keeping it would honestly ruin my life. Nobody could point a finger at me and claim they have a right to order me around with this. I'm the one who's pregnant.

Of course there has to be some restrictions. Abortion should be done when it's still early and the child isn't developed too far but my overall opinion stands: I accept abortion. That's my final comment to this and it won't change. I have heard all those arguments before and they honestly can't affect my opinion in any way at all. I keep the pregnant woman in higher value than the unborn child.
Instructor
#71 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 3:09 PM
Thinking about my choice as the mother, I don't want to give the child up for adoption to abusive parents or even fanatical parents. I know about open adoptions in which you can give up the child to those that you know but that is the another story. Since I'm in class right now and working on being the scientist, I can't let the child ruin my chance at being the physics engineer. It has to be when I am out of college and married/ living together with the person that loves me dearly when I could have a child that I would keep. I would have two and adopt about two to three more from other countries so that I can have a family.

In this state right now, I don't have enough money or resources to start a family apart from the hamster, which is technically my only child pet.

If you have a child and you don't have money for psych services, how would you feel if the child that grew up in poverty with you starts acting abusive and eventually dangerous? Another thing, Medicare and Medicaid won't pay for those with inborn mental illnesses and other developmental disabilities. It would be nice if people have services from medicare for autism here in Missouri so they don't have to wait for psych services or even autism related services.

That is one of the things why you abort because if you don't have the means to take care of the child, why search for jobs that might reject you? And why take care of him when he is going to be a burden on the society that doesn't want to deal with the poor and the underprivileged members of society?

God, please protect me from your idiot followers for they have blinded themselves with bleach.

Money doesn't buy you happiness but it buys you beer and coffee.

Life is like Go. Its takes smart and amoral people to make decisions based on their strategies of living.
Scholar
#72 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 4:12 PM
Quote: Originally posted by BR_FL
Splurgy, does one sperm have 46 chromosomes, the equivalent to any living human? Nope. They have 23. Eggs only have 23 as well. When they meet, that is when the zygote is formed and has all the genetic material that makes up this new human being. That's why sperm and eggs are not considered human lives that are allowed their own rights.

And I have yet to see any scare tactics, which in my opinion, are an extremely cheap way to debate.


Technically, by that definition, a single brain cell or liver cell would contain all the genetic material required to make up a new human being. In fact, some cells are still undifferentiated (such as in the bone marrow), and could be classified as "adult stem cells." That is, cells within your body that [theoretically], upon being extracted and put in the right lab conditions, independently have the potential to create a new human being. Should these cells be granted the same rights as an adult?

.:Kitty Klan:.
Visit for Sims 3 Hair, Tattoos, and other free custom content downloads.

.For website updates, subscribe to my RSS feed at.
Dreamwidth Blog
Theorist
#73 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 5:33 PM
My DNA wants a sandwich and a new home.

Just as a thought experiment for the anti-abortion folks:
For the women whose bodies aren't able to properly sustain an embryo or fetus for an entire pregnancy for one reason or another, if it's murder, then how long should we put those women in prison compared to the women who've been raped and had abortions, since they'd technically be committing at least reckless endangerment or manslaughter in many jurisdictions? How long should we put the women who have a glass of wine in prison for versus the ones who smoke, or the ones who just wear tight clothing that might restrict blood flow to the uterus.

Also, how many adopted children do you have and what percentage of your income do you commit to sustaining low income children outside of your household?
Field Researcher
#74 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 6:06 PM
Zoxell, too bad that's not true, huh? Many people get abortions early on because they're not in the right circumstances to raise a child but later on they have more children. Some people get abortions after they already have children (I know one woman who got one recently because she didn't want to give her already living son a bad life by bringing a new child into the world too soon after he was born). Many pro choice people never have abortions but will still raise pro choice children. I'm pro choice and I'll be having/adopting 6 children, all of which will hopefully realize how important it is for abortions to be legal and thus be pro choice themselves. Some pro life people have abortions ("The only moral abortion is MY abortion"). Some pro life people raise pro choice children (I know quite a few). Just because people abort doesn't mean they don't end up having children, and just because people think abortion should be legal doesn't mean they have or will abort. Rape will always happen, unplanned pregnancies will happen (unless a miracle birth control is released at a tiny price or for free), medical conditions that require abortions will always happen. Unless all of the things that are reasons to get an abortion are eliminated, there will be people who want abortion to stay legal.
Lab Assistant
#75 Old 16th Jun 2009 at 6:12 PM
Quote: Originally posted by BR_FL
Splurgy, does one sperm have 46 chromosomes, the equivalent to any living human? Nope. They have 23. Eggs only have 23 as well. When they meet, that is when the zygote is formed and has all the genetic material that makes up this new human being. That's why sperm and eggs are not considered human lives that are allowed their own rights.

And I have yet to see any scare tactics, which in my opinion, are an extremely cheap way to debate.

I know gametes are haploid, but that's not the point. If a ball of eight cells have the potential to become a human (but could just as well not "take" and be menstruated out/miscarry at some later point/be stillborn) and so should be treated as actual humans, then surely everything with the potential to become a human should be treated as such. The zygote can only become a human if it remains in the womb. A spermatozoa can only become human if it successfully fertilises the egg cell, and manages to see itself through to full term.
Leading on from this, couldn't you then argue any woman who isn't TRYING TO GET PREGNANT AT ALL TIMES SINCE HER MENARCHE killing unborn humans, because those egg cells could have been fertilised and become people? They certainly had the potential.
 
Page 3 of 21
Back to top