A
awantz
Guest
Science says life begins at conception Therefore, abortion is murder and murder is illegal. Therefore, abortion is/ should be illegal.
- Status
K
Kahlan_Amnell
Guest
Actually, science doesn’t really know exactly where human life begins. All cells are living, but scientists disagree about when the point in development is that the group of cells/embryo/fetus becomes a “human.”
I think the secular argument is all about where life begins, because the people who aren’t against abortion just don’t believe that it is the same as ending a life. If someone doesn’t believe that life begins at conception, one could probably argue that it begins when the heart starts beating. This happens about three weeks after conception, which could be long before the woman even notices she’s pregnant.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
kahlan, I would suggest that you review the link I provided above with respect to what science has to say about when a new human organism is created. Second, it seems to me that in your post, what you are really talking about is personhood, since science is actually very clear about when a new life begins. Once you delve into parsing different stages of development, you are, I submit, talking about personhood, since the species of the organism does not change with stage of development. I would further suggest science would not be the right branch of learning to make the call on personhood anyway; rather, it is for science to supply the data, and for philosophy, etc. to decide on personhood, from a secular perspective anyway.
Defining life as beginning at any stage after the creation of the zygote is inherently arbitrary. The zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/newborn/toddler is self-organizing and interdependent from the moment of its creation.
Defining life as beginning at any stage after the creation of the zygote is inherently arbitrary. The zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/newborn/toddler is self-organizing and interdependent from the moment of its creation.
R
Rence
Guest
I think you’re right about people confusing “life” with “personhood” when debating abortion. I just can’t stomach arguing with someone who says that “life” doesn’t begin at conception, because it’s just blatantly denial. Of course life starts with conception, no matter what is conceived, whether it’s a human, a cow, a dog, a bird: when sperm meets egg and unites, “new life” is created. Now, I find that determining when that new life is a “person” is harder to debate because it can’t be proven, at least not by science.
I think so too.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
Rence: “I think so too”
Great minds think alike, no?
Great minds think alike, no?
R
Rence
Guest
Actually, the man did have a choice: He chose to have sex. In addition, the courts will never absolve a man’s responsibility to help contribute to the raising of a child that he participating voluntary in bringing to life. While the woman is in charge of her own body by law, once a child is born and outside of her body, he/she has two parents obligated to care for him/her.That will never change in this country. The only way a man will not have to support a child is to keep it in his pants.
T
Timothias
Guest
My actual opinion being catholic is that a man is responsible, but only in so far as the woman also must not be free to choose abortion when ever she chooses. The whoe deal is a contract.
A priori in justic means that if you remove the rights of the man when it comes to pregnancies(choices) then he cannot be held liable. The current statute law system states that a man has no say, however they then hold him liable. The father pays becasue he does not legally know how to deal with the position and bear in mind I live in Australia and I have met people who use the law to avoid their supposed liabilities when it comes to payment for children.
Whilst I disagree in my heart I find it hard to convict those men for using their knowledge of the law to avoid what is effectively an illegally imposed liability.
So we are in fact in a diffucult position whereby I do believe a man should be repsonsble, but however the law by its actions actually removes his laibilities, jusiticably speaking.
Are you aware the legal system does it this way to make it easy for the government, not because it is just or fair. It is much easier to attempt to legislate away your rights rather than attempt to deal with them.
A priori in justic means that if you remove the rights of the man when it comes to pregnancies(choices) then he cannot be held liable. The current statute law system states that a man has no say, however they then hold him liable. The father pays becasue he does not legally know how to deal with the position and bear in mind I live in Australia and I have met people who use the law to avoid their supposed liabilities when it comes to payment for children.
Whilst I disagree in my heart I find it hard to convict those men for using their knowledge of the law to avoid what is effectively an illegally imposed liability.
So we are in fact in a diffucult position whereby I do believe a man should be repsonsble, but however the law by its actions actually removes his laibilities, jusiticably speaking.
Are you aware the legal system does it this way to make it easy for the government, not because it is just or fair. It is much easier to attempt to legislate away your rights rather than attempt to deal with them.
R
Rence
Guest
Who made the contract? People have sex all the time, with or without intention of commitment. Yes, when a woman gets pregnant, it is she who is carrying, so she has the sole responsibility. Men will never again dictate what happens with a woman’s own body, not here in the U.S. anyway. Some restrictions may happen, especially for late-term abortion, but total restriction will never happen here. The man doesn’t get say, because he’s not the one who ends up being pregnant.
I’m sure there are some men who get away with legally absolving themselves of liability, but it doesn’t happen often here in the U.S. I’ve seen men go to jail over not paying their child support. I’ve seen them go heavily in debt to make back-payments because they tried to avoid it for years. Here, child support is taken out of their paycheck automatically. The only time I’ve seen a man waive his rights, thereby making him not responsible, is if it’s a mutual agreement between the woman and man, and usually the woman is remarried. I’ve seen men ordered to pay for child support for a child conceived from an extramarital affair, while the woman remained married to her husband, who took care of his own children. If a paternity test proves that a child was fathered by a man, in this country, he is ordered to pay child support. And that’s the way it should be.
As long as it takes two to bring a child in the world, and once that child is born, it’s the responsibility of both parties. And in the U.S. it’s enforced.
It’s not easy in the US for a man to waive his parental rights. Who will pay for that child’s expenses if those rights are waived? The taxpayers? I don’t think the laws will change anytime soon…in fact, it’s probably going to get more stringent.
D
dotFaith
Guest
Earlier in this thread, there was a discussion about why those in the pro-life movement aren’t concerned with world poverty. Here is my take on that as a practicing Catholic.
In emergency rooms there are triage units. These are areas where patients in the most need of care are treated. There are also others in the emergency room with non life-threatening issues. Those in the triage unit receive intense and immediate care. This doesn’t mean that the doctors and nurses don’t care about all the other patients, it just means that the triage patients must be treated with extreme care as they are in more immediate danger than the other patients.
My analogy is this: I see those in danger of being aborted as “triage patients”…if you will. These are the most vulnerable. These are the ones who are in danger of imminent death. These are the ones we are called to defend the most.
After thinking about this thread a lot, I wanted to add this: most people, regardless of political affiliation or religion “I think” would agree that we need to feed the hungry worldwide…therefore it seems to me that there is much more social acceptance and financial assistance (ie: Farm Aid, Live Aid, The World Food Programme, etc.) for doing so.
Unfortunately, for those who are trying to protect the lives of the pre-born, that social acceptance is, for the most part, NOT there. Their financial resources are limited. People in the pro-life movement do not have the support of our government or Hollywood¸ leaving them basically on their own, relying on donations and help from the Church. They’re also far less likely to receive attention and help from the public overall.
So yes, I do care about those who are hungry - believe me, and I do try to help when I can, but I grieve for those who will not even be given a chance at life at all. We have to do whatever we can to educate and support mothers with unexpected babies. We must defend life first and foremost until the world finally understands that the child in the womb is alive and the work of God’s hands.
In emergency rooms there are triage units. These are areas where patients in the most need of care are treated. There are also others in the emergency room with non life-threatening issues. Those in the triage unit receive intense and immediate care. This doesn’t mean that the doctors and nurses don’t care about all the other patients, it just means that the triage patients must be treated with extreme care as they are in more immediate danger than the other patients.
My analogy is this: I see those in danger of being aborted as “triage patients”…if you will. These are the most vulnerable. These are the ones who are in danger of imminent death. These are the ones we are called to defend the most.
After thinking about this thread a lot, I wanted to add this: most people, regardless of political affiliation or religion “I think” would agree that we need to feed the hungry worldwide…therefore it seems to me that there is much more social acceptance and financial assistance (ie: Farm Aid, Live Aid, The World Food Programme, etc.) for doing so.
Unfortunately, for those who are trying to protect the lives of the pre-born, that social acceptance is, for the most part, NOT there. Their financial resources are limited. People in the pro-life movement do not have the support of our government or Hollywood¸ leaving them basically on their own, relying on donations and help from the Church. They’re also far less likely to receive attention and help from the public overall.
So yes, I do care about those who are hungry - believe me, and I do try to help when I can, but I grieve for those who will not even be given a chance at life at all. We have to do whatever we can to educate and support mothers with unexpected babies. We must defend life first and foremost until the world finally understands that the child in the womb is alive and the work of God’s hands.
D
Darnrarejob
Guest
It’s also important to remember that those who are living in poverty are dying naturally, and those who die from abortion are having their lives taken from them.
B
Black_Rose
Guest
So it is morally acceptable just to let them die and not do anything when their deaths are easily preventable? I guess economically developed countries should not entitle their citizens in the health care systems with antibiotics then so they can “die naturally”. From a utilitarian consequentialist perspective, sins of omission and commission are equivalent if they have the same consequences.
A
Apryl
Guest
No.please wait 2 seconds for an uncompressed image, or press Ctrl+F5 for original quality page
No one said that
What would make a person get that from the post that was posted?
T
TenBobNote
Guest
Here it is, a property rights argument against abortion.** Please read the whole thing**, he begins by refuting a previous claim, so stick with him, it’s the saving of lives we are talking about here after all!
libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-16.pdf
libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-16.pdf
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
This is excellent, thank you!
M
Mimi
Guest
Which is why it is SO important to know a presidential candidates views on Roe and other related decisions. As I recall, even Justice Roberts said Roe was settled law, and he is there to uphold the law. Thus, we must work to have it repealed. We have almost 40 years of testimonies of injured women and ruined lives, Planned Parenthood protecting sexual predators/child molesters, & deaths. Men are starting to come out also, regretting their lost fatherhood.
One statistic that should make an impact on those born after 1973 is that 1/3 of their generation is *missing/I]! abort73.com/end_abortion/10_ways_you_can_help is a good web site to direct young ppl to (for one).
And our African-American borthers and sisters are finally getting more vocal about how they have been targeted all along. Yet, Margaret Sanger is still hailed as some kind of hero (to some). Sigh.
Violence is violence, and abortion is violence against a specific segment of the population, unable to defend themselves, much as the slaves were before the civil war and Emancipation.
(Going to go check out Nat Hentoff now…groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/hentoff.html. Thanks for that reference!)
Mimi*
M
Mimi
Guest
Wow - there ya go; proof that there is indeed an agenda, a “culture of death” to carefully and systematically idoctrinate society. 40 yrs later, here we are, with many (can no longer say “most”) people saying abortion should be okay, legal and readily available.
sedonaman, could you provide a link to that magazine/journal?
Mimi
M
Mimi
Guest
I could’ve written that - wish I had! Nice work, dotFaith.
And doesn’t the idea of subsidiarity also come into it? Kinda like “Think globally, act locally”, though I don’t really like that phrase. What we do on the local scene has some far-reaching consequences which, at the time we act, we may not be aware. Like convincing a mother to turn away from the abortion mill, and that baby grows up to be a scientist who invents a way to make clean water freely available to impoverished people in other countries.
Peace,
Mimi
C
CPA2
Guest
This is part of my argument with an atheist:
Knowledge and reason are two different things. You cite our current knowledge, which we both agree is incomplete. I cite reason.
I think that it is reasonable to assume that the unborn baby is a human being. I have beg you to answer the question, When does the fetus become a human being? Is it at birth?
You have not documented your argument with any studies on fetal research. You discount the whole thrust of scientific research. Studies are showing that the unborn are looking more and more like human beings. There are more and more studies showing the likelihood of fetal pain. You discount those studies by comparing fetal pain with the pain of an earthworm!
I think that we need to consider the experience of the aborted baby, and not be so prone to discount the pain of a fetus as inconsequential. I think that it is also appropriate to consider the brutality of the abortion procedure.
It was not my purpose in starting this thread to talk about my beliefs concerning life and abortion. Arguments about our beliefs can easily get very abstract. I would hope that you have the right beliefs. However, it does not matter if you are pro-life or not. Abortion is about bloodshed and victims. Over 4,000 babies are being killed every day, and we are not doing anything about it. Babies in the womb should be protected. **The failure to protect life is a betrayal of human decency. **
- Status