Pages

4/27/12

I just watched an abortion video.

Within 2 min, I went from being pro-choice to being pro-life.

I understand the pro-choice argument, but thing is, you're carrying ANOTHER person and that person has rights.

Comments (275)

Best Response
4/27/12

Pro death.

Pro abortion, pro war, pro suicide, pro assisted suicide, pro death penalty, pro whatever makes the line at Starbucks shorter

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

4/27/12

Pro-life. You're not me, so idgaf

I hate victims who respect their executioners

4/27/12

What? Are you also going to stop eating meat after you watch videos of an abattoir?

I do know some people who have, though, so I guess it's not that far-fetched...

4/27/12

Well, thing is, during that video, I could see the little thing still moving (as he was alive).

And that innocence just killed me. I mean, it was a f*cking murder.

4/27/12

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

4/27/12

Are second/third trimester abortions really legal? Because that is beyond is fucked up.

4/27/12

Depends on exactly how far along the pregnancy is, Jeff. 21 weeks or less and the fetus isn't considered viable on its own, or something like that.

In reply to Angus Macgyver
4/27/12
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Life is precious. Intelligent life is even more precious when you realize our current situation (i.e. alone on this small planet, lost in a hostile universe)

In reply to Angus Macgyver
4/27/12
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Go watch the video. I sent it to you.

Then give me your feedback.

4/27/12

I believe in the right to choice up to a certain stage of pregnancy. I agree that aborting a fetus that is 4-6+ months along is wrong, but, like Angus said, at a certain stage the fetus isn't viable on its own and doesn't have a lot of brain functionality. When to exactly draw the line, I don't know. Leave that to the experts.

Not a personal attack or anything, but I've always struggled with the idea that "life is precious/priceless". Everyone says that, and it's nice to think it, but if you truly believed it you would have to sell most of your possessions and start giving to charities that help feed starving children. Hell, I could easily move to Brooklyn and use the $500 in rent savings each month to save like, what, 10-15 lives?

4/27/12

abdel, what about cases of incest or rape

4/27/12

I agree that abortions should be allowed for cases like incest and rape but I don't see why victims of those crimes would wait till their third trimester. They have six months to make that choice which should be plenty of time. An abortion past six months is just cruel and inhumane as a baby is almost formed.

Abdel, do you mind sending me that video also?

4/27/12

As an adopted kid, it'd be pretty fucked up if I weren't pro life. That said, I think the entire fucking species should stop breeding, like, right fucking now.

4/27/12

Intelligent life is precious. The majority of people are not intelligent. I think abortion is kind of dumb since people have countless measures so they never get to that point, but I don't want the government getting involved in personal choice.

How do you feel about national healthcare? Caring about an innocent life shouldn't end once they are born.

4/27/12

Watched the video. So... because it looks like a baby and it's alive, you're against abortion?

Me, I see it a little differently. I think abortion has a net positive effect on general welfare of the population.

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
4/27/12
Edmundo Braverman:

As an adopted kid, it'd be pretty fucked up if I weren't pro life. That said, I think the entire fucking species should stop breeding, like, right fucking now.

100% agree. I became pro-life (within reason) a few years back. I have no problem with early (<8weeks) abortions and Plan B... but when should you ever need a late abortion now?

Other than cases where the mother's life is in danger, the woman likely (a) didn't use the pill (b) didn't use the morning after pill, and (c) sat on her hands for some length of time.

Also agree that more responsible reproduction would be a smart move. There is no good reason to have 7 billion people. And children, in this era of birth control, should not be born to people who have no means of providing for them.

4/27/12

I am anti abortion. However, I would be for a society what was pro choice if it acknowledged that it was killing babies, and that had voted specifically on allowing for the killing of babies until the whatever week of gestation, JUST SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE FACED THE GRAVITY OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

"...all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

- Schopenhauer

4/27/12

Pro-life and vegetarian right here. What I can't stand more than anything are vegetarian liberals who are pro-choice/anti-life and like to make their positions known.

In reply to Abdel
4/27/12
Abdel:

Well, thing is, during that video, I could see the little thing still moving (as he was alive).

And that innocence just killed me. I mean, it was a f*cking murder.

Didn't know they give abortions that late

"One should recognize reality even when one doesn't like it, indeed, especially when one doesn't like it." - Charlie Munger

4/27/12

how about this rape/incest thing

i'd like to know if it is about protecting life or punishing women for getting knocked up

4/27/12

Pro life....

There was a political cartoon a while ago in some periodical and it was a man upset that God (this isn't a deity conversation) never sent someone to cure aids, cancer, war and poverty. Then the diety from above goes " I did and you aborted them"

Eventus stultorum magister.

4/27/12

Because you can only be for or against anything? There is no in between? If you watched a gruesome vidoe of open heart surgery, would you be against that too?

Are you for or against raises: What if it's your raise? What if it's a union boss? What if someone is being promoted? It's not so cut and dry, now is it, there are other considerations.

Beyond general elections, reality is more complicated than simple up/down votes.

I'm pro-choice, but encourage life: abortion is a major proceedure and should be treated as such, and I like children. When people are stupidly anti-choice, I just tell them I'm pro-death and that they can suck it.

Get busy living

4/27/12

i-pro-life...respect for life

In reply to ginNtonic
4/27/12
ginNtonic:

Pro death.

Pro abortion, pro war, pro suicide, pro assisted suicide, pro death penalty, pro whatever makes the line at Starbucks shorter

NICE. Silly people want to get midieval? GET MIDIEVAL!

Get busy living

In reply to ginNtonic
4/27/12
ginNtonic:

Pro death.

Pro abortion, pro war, pro suicide, pro assisted suicide, pro death penalty, pro whatever makes the line at Starbucks shorter

I like you.

Under my tutelage, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into SWANSONS.

In reply to melvvvar
4/27/12
melvvvar:

i'd like to know if it is about protecting life or punishing women for getting knocked up

It's about letting the person most likely to have to raise the kid have a say. If there was serious debate on the ridiculous topic of "punishing women", then be forthright and issue a summons, don't try an endrun around the formal system. Or start snipping men. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

If it was about protecting life, how about start with the mulititude of other areas where life is being wontonly abused: start with the miserable failure of a healthcare system in the US, them move on to diet, substance abuse, smoking, crime, and poverty. Then, move on to war and ethnic cleansing, several million people died over the last few decades and they barely made the news. Use this in a debate and watch them change the subject or get nasty because there's really no way around this logic.

Get busy living

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

4/27/12

Pro-Choice up until a certain point in the pregnancy. I don't think late term abortions should be legal unless:

--the mother's life is at risk
--the babby is extremely fucked up / won't survive after birth (I don't know the technical terms, but the general reasons why late term abortions actually happen). As I understand it, these two points often go hand in hand.

That said, a clump of cells is not a human being. If you take care of it early, it's fine. And I don't want to hear the "it's the possibility of life" argument, because it's total bunk. If you believe that, then stop jerking off.

To add: the entire argument that life begins at conception is complete and total non-sense. It's based on pseudo-science Catholic church crap and should not be taken seriously in the abortion debate. "omg the sperm is in the egg, it's a human life!" Bullshit.

Lastly: it's not going anywhere. So, why not keep it legal and safe instead of having to force women into dangerous black market abortions. Plus, we've got WAY bigger fish to fry than worrying about whether or not 1,000 celled zygotes get sucked out through a vacuum tube.

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
4/27/12
Edmundo Braverman:

As an adopted kid, it'd be pretty fucked up if I weren't pro life. That said, I think the entire fucking species should stop breeding, like, right fucking now.

Steve Jobs was supposedly pro-choice, he certainly had no qualm supporting all those pro-choice Politicians. I guess he truly believed that what he created at Apple was nothing special.

Too late for second-guessing Too late to go back to sleep.

4/27/12

In a situation involving me personally, I will certainly be pro-life (although that's a little empty, since I'm a dude). I would never vote pro-life, however. Ironic how a bunch of old white men think they can tell women what to do with their bodies.

4/27/12

Haven't read the whole string of comments yet, but I'm a poli sci minor. Had a class where we dedicated an entire section on this. In essence, it is not a person. It is not a viable life form as it is unsustainable outside the womb. Also, it is the women's choice. Domestic affairs are private and personal, no regulations should prohibit their actions. Furthermore, if you're the father, wouldn't you want the option of abortion? Even though you can't choose, if you decide YOU don't want a kid either, wouldn't you rather abort than end up paying child support for the next 18 years when you might have other things to focus on? People shouldn't have children till their ready, financially and emotionally. If you have one before that, all your doing is fucking up the kid's life and your own.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to JeffSkilling
4/27/12
JeffSkilling:

Are second/third trimester abortions really legal? Because that is beyond is fucked up.

They are only legal in some cases (called still born abortion, won't go into details, but it's nasty), in which the birth of this child (c sect or other wise) is detrimental to the mother's health and life threatening.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

I'll be pro-life and willing to legislate women's bodies the minute men start getting snipped for unpaid child support.

Have a nice day!

In reply to melvvvar
4/27/12
melvvvar:

abdel, what about cases of incest or rape

Minor's are allowed to only with parent's consent, or court motion (in case of incest when parent may not approve, for some sick reason).

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

Positives far outweigh the negatives and I agree with TNA in this case, any situation that limits the amount of government intrusion on personal freedoms is best.

Also, there are something like 5M kids in the foster system currently. Telling someone they should have a child and put it up for adoption if they can't afford it/don't want it is retarded.

For all you pro lifers, what about in cases of rape? The same thing happens to that poor defenseless fetus, what do you do in that case?

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

4/27/12

Also to point out to people, a lot of people abort because they are unable to provide or not ready (e.g. teen, low income, etc). Allowing them this option is vital. Is forcing them to have the child really going to be the best thing for that child? Granted adoption is an option, but it is not always possible in certain circumstances. I know that the study was sort of proved null, but the micro study on abortions in Freakonomics is still very intriguing and valid in my opinion.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

Only during the work week.

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

Furthermore, if you're the father, wouldn't you want the option of abortion?

There doesn't seem to be a practical way for the man to have much of a say after conception without violating the woman's rights...the reciprocal is allowing woman a say in a guy getting snipped. NOT HAPPENING. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I've thought it over and it seems that with all of the talk of pro-choice, the guy doesn't seem to have one after conception. It seems that the ethics meet reality and lose. Anyone have a take on this?

Get busy living

In reply to Johnny Ringo
4/27/12
Johnny Ringo:

Pro life....

There was a political cartoon a while ago in some periodical and it was a man upset that God (this isn't a deity conversation) never sent someone to cure aids, cancer, war and poverty. Then the diety from above goes " I did and you aborted them"

I've seen that, but it also could've been the next Hitler. See my comment above about who actually usually needs these procedures. The value of life for these children in most cases is not that great.

Also, to everyone saying you're prolife bc of abortions after 2nd trimester, that answer is irrelevant because there is actually a cut off point. You can't say you aren't pro choice if you think it is okay before the 2nd trimester because that is really the only option.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

Haven't read the whole string of comments yet, but I'm a poli sci minor. Had a class where we dedicated an entire section on this. In essence, it is not a person. It is not a viable life form as it is unsustainable outside the womb. Also, it is the women's choice. Domestic affairs are private and personal, no regulations should prohibit their actions. Furthermore, if you're the father, wouldn't you want the option of abortion? Even though you can't choose, if you decide YOU don't want a kid either, wouldn't you rather abort than end up paying child support for the next 18 years when you might have other things to focus on? People shouldn't have children till their ready, financially and emotionally. If you have one before that, all your doing is fucking up the kid's life and your own.

Wow, so you've had a section of one semester of your minor in a bullshit subject talk about abortion and now you can inform us of the truth? The adults are talking, let us know how sophomore year goes.

To those throwing around the rape/incest argument, those account for less than 1% of abortions in this country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Unite...

Anyone that has seen video of a fetus before birth but thinks that there's some magic moment where they go from non-human to human is delusional.

In reply to TheKing
4/27/12
TheKing:

That said, a clump of cells is not a human being. If you take care of it early, it's fine.

A fetus is only a clump of cells for a very short time. At just 5-6 weeks from conception the heart starts beating. I think many people may not realize that.

"Sincerity is an overrated virtue" - Milton Friedman

In reply to UFOinsider
4/27/12
UFOinsider:
streetwannabe:

Furthermore, if you're the father, wouldn't you want the option of abortion?

There doesn't seem to be a practical way for the man to have much of a say after conception without violating the woman's rights...the reciprocal is allowing woman a say in a guy getting snipped. NOT HAPPENING. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I've thought it over and it seems that with all of the talk of pro-choice, the guy doesn't seem to have one after conception. It seems that the ethics meet reality and lose. Anyone have a take on this?

This is true and unfair to men, however I respect the logic behind it. If you knock up some crazy chick who wants the baby when you're both 19 and you plan on going to college and having a career, it can really screw things up. But I guess equal equity in this case is not really an option.

This would be an interesting thing to research, have there ever been any cases regarding a male trying to get out of child care on grounds of his lack of choice in the matter?

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

Pro-choice. Only for first trimester abortions though.

In reply to RagnarDanneskjold
4/27/12
RagnarDanneskjold:

Pro-choice. Only for first trimester abortions though.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:
UFOinsider:
streetwannabe:

Furthermore, if you're the father, wouldn't you want the option of abortion?

There doesn't seem to be a practical way for the man to have much of a say after conception without violating the woman's rights...the reciprocal is allowing woman a say in a guy getting snipped. NOT HAPPENING. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I've thought it over and it seems that with all of the talk of pro-choice, the guy doesn't seem to have one after conception. It seems that the ethics meet reality and lose. Anyone have a take on this?

This is true and unfair to men, however I respect the logic behind it. If you knock up some crazy chick who wants the baby when you're both 19 and you plan on going to college and having a career, it can really screw things up. But I guess equal equity in this case is not really an option.

This would be an interesting thing to research, have there ever been any cases regarding a male trying to get out of child care on grounds of his lack of choice in the matter?

Not paying for the kid, well, I can't respect a man that doesn't. It seems that on this issue, there is no middle ground. Anyone else?

Get busy living

4/27/12

abortion is an issue that i won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

Money Never Sleeps? More like Money Never SUCKS amirite?!?!?!?

In reply to Abdel
4/27/12
Abdel:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Life is precious. Intelligent life is even more precious when you realize our current situation (i.e. alone on this small planet, lost in a hostile universe)

So what you are saying is that if the fetus has downs, it should get aborted?
Because the average iq of down syndrome kids is right on par with the iq of dogs and parrots.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Angus Macgyver
4/27/12
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

4/27/12

Pro-life. And I am astonished at the false comparison of Angus. If an animal moves, it means the animal is alive. So what? But if a human moves, it means the HUMAN is alive. It is wrong to kill innocent humans. The OP is asserting that it is a human and it is alive, and he claims what he saw in the video as evidence. What do slaughterhouses have to do with anything?

4/27/12

Maybe a touchy issue, but aborted embryos are an important factor in stem cell research. Repairing paralysis for example, or healing AIDs, cancer, MS. The list goes on. These are benefits of this perhaps otherwise considered unacceptable act.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

More is good, all is better

4/27/12

Also, question for everyone:

When you say you are pro life, does that mean you'd support legislation prohibiting all abortion?

Or is this more of a personal moral stand point you choose to observe?

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to Argonaut
4/27/12
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

I am pro choice, and you seem to be? but food for thought, are people on life support living or dead? does this make them as disposable as an unsustainable fetus?

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

Maybe a touchy issue, but aborted embryos are an important factor in stem cell research. Repairing paralysis for example, or healing AIDs, cancer, MS. The list goes on. These are benefits of this perhaps otherwise considered unacceptable act.

False. Aborted embryos aren't used, don't let the obsessed pro-life jeeeeeezus crowd fool you.

"Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro--in an in vitro fertilization clinic--and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body."
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

Shit has nothing to do with abortion.

In reply to TheKing
4/27/12
TheKing:
streetwannabe:

Maybe a touchy issue, but aborted embryos are an important factor in stem cell research. Repairing paralysis for example, or healing AIDs, cancer, MS. The list goes on. These are benefits of this perhaps otherwise considered unacceptable act.

False. Aborted embryos aren't used, don't let the obsessed pro-life jeeeeeezus crowd fool you.

"Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro--in an in vitro fertilization clinic--and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body."
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

Shit has nothing to do with abortion.

Good post. Did not know this.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

I find that there tends to be a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. People will beat their drum and yell Pro-Life all day...until their thirteen year-old daughter gets pregnant.

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

I am pro choice, and you seem to be? but food for thought, are people on life support living or dead? does this make them as disposable as an unsustainable fetus?

I am pro-choice, and I would even say pro-abortion.
Giving birth to retarded and crippled children for parents' emotional indulgence is utterly idiotic and irresponsible.
We need quality workforce, not resource drains.
(however, I maintain the choice should remain with the parents)

More is good, all is better

In reply to RagnarDanneskjold
4/27/12
RagnarDanneskjold:

I find that there tends to be a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. People will beat their drum and yell Pro-Life all day...until their thirteen year-old daughter gets pregnant.

Get busy living

In reply to OhYeah
4/27/12
OhYeah:
TheKing:

That said, a clump of cells is not a human being. If you take care of it early, it's fine.

A fetus is only a clump of cells for a very short time. At just 5-6 weeks from conception the heart starts beating. I think many people may not realize that.

Technically we still are a clump of cells

In reply to Surefire
4/27/12
Surefire:
OhYeah:
TheKing:

That said, a clump of cells is not a human being. If you take care of it early, it's fine.

A fetus is only a clump of cells for a very short time. At just 5-6 weeks from conception the heart starts beating. I think many people may not realize that.

Technically we still are a clump of cells

Haha, so are you condoning murder?

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Well, yes. It's an argument that's taken a flying leap off of the slippery slope.

What it probably boils down to is - do you think a fetus is a living human being? If you do, then you're probably going to be anti-abortion. If you don't, then you'll likely be pro-choice. And if you think that there's some arbitrary sort of line during the pregnancy where the fetus becomes more human than clump-of-cells, then chances are that you will support abortion before that point, and oppose it after.

In reply to Argonaut
4/27/12
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

You're an idiot. OP was aruing that since a human-looking object that came from a human womb moved and squirmed, reasoning would imply that it is human and isn't an inanimate and unconscious group of cells. He wasn't arguing that because something moves, it happens to be human. In fact, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that was the argument he was trying to make since it's an absurd one. Nice straw man.

It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive. It is taking in nutrients, it is taking in oxygen, it is digesting sustenance, it grows, etc. The debate is over whether it is a HUMAN life and has human rights. Even though it may just be "just a clump of cells," by definition a clump of cells are alive. You state this originally and then for some reason state that the fetus isn't alive because it can't survive out of the womb, that it's no different than a tumor. Well then humans aren't alive because we can't survive outside of Earth's atmosphere, we're "trapped" by our surroundings and since we can't survive without living off the Earth's resources and food, we're tumors as well.

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:
TheKing:
streetwannabe:

Maybe a touchy issue, but aborted embryos are an important factor in stem cell research. Repairing paralysis for example, or healing AIDs, cancer, MS. The list goes on. These are benefits of this perhaps otherwise considered unacceptable act.

False. Aborted embryos aren't used, don't let the obsessed pro-life jeeeeeezus crowd fool you.

"Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro--in an in vitro fertilization clinic--and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body."
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

Shit has nothing to do with abortion.

Good post. Did not know this.

Yes but that's the point, fertilzing eggs in vitro just to kill them later and use them for research is the same thing as aborting cells that came about naturally. This is an extreme example, but imagine cloning someone just to later kill them and use them for their organs (i.e. The Island). Also, again, I really don't care that much about abortion, but let the record show that not only can we obtain stem cells easily from exisiting people, but scientific rigor ALWAYS has us test theories like these in mice/other animals first. Studies show that adult stem cells have benefits but never have they ever been able to reproduce the miraculous benefits of embryonic ones as well as adult ones in mice whatsoever. For some stupid reason though, people think that they may have benefits in humans without any evidence to suggest so other than speculation. It's really an extremely unscientific approach. Never do any drugs or therapy treatments advance to human testing unless they can find some sort of benefit in lower animals. Talk to any MD about it who works in the area.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/23/study-embryonic...

4/27/12

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro life.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro choice is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on society.

Whereas pro life is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the choice of the individual and how they conduct there private/ household lives.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro life should not be legislated.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

I would have to say I am pro-life, but sit on the fence as to whether or not I care enough about what other people choose. I grew up going to church so it's something that I wouldn't want to do, but I also understand that you can't legislate morality.

There are a couple issues that are critical in the abortion argument. First is when life actually starts and the inevitable follow-up 'but' questions (as mentioned above)...but what about rape and incest. Clearly the second part doesn't have an easy answer but I often wonder about the first. If a person is alive until their heart stops, wouldn't that indicate that they are alive once their heart starts?

Now, I'm not arguing a certain position here, so much as just raising some questions. If I shot you, I will likely be charged with attempted murder. If I shot you and your heart stops, I will likely be charged with murder. If the heartbeat determines death, should it also not determine life?

As for rape and incest, I don't know where I saw it, but recall reading that rape and incest abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions...so while it is an issue to some, it's more of a straw man when it comes to the abortion argument.

Personally I think adoption should be an option for all pregnant women who don't think they want their baby but sadly, in nearly all cases, it's rarely encouraged. I recall reading about the adoption statistics for Planned Parenthood and they are, almost literally, nonexistent...almost every woman that walks into Planned Parenthood pregnant looking for her options ends up aborting her child/fetus/cell/embryo.

Anyways, I do think there is a cause for concern when you factor in the aspect of moral decay. What has a society come to when it doesn't protect it's most vulnerable, the young and the old? The irony in all of this is how people, mainly the left, champion the right for women to choose but fail to realize that in doing so the woman is giving up her most sacred possession, her womb. As is pointed out in this video, is there any other person on earth that should be more safe than a child in their mother's womb? It's like there has been such a severe push for women to assert their rights that they are almost leaving behind the characteristics that make them a woman to begin with. Just food for thought.

Anyways, this video was sent to me recently and is rather great. This isn't your standard abortion hit piece but it does make you think about where you stand and your choice about a number of things...

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro life.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro choice is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on society.

Whereas pro life is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the choice of the individual and how they conduct there private/ household lives.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro life should not be legislated.

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro-choice.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro-life is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on a person's right to life.

Whereas pro-choice is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the right of the individual and gives someone the right to take a child's life in their own hands when they fully are aware that sex will possibly lead to pregnancy.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro-choice should not be legislated.

You see where I'm going with this? It's not that I'm even that pro-life, which I'm not, I'm just trying to point out that this argument falls COMPLETELY on someone's opinion of whether the fetus is human and I'm playing devil's advocate with you.

If the fetus isn't human --> government is taking liberty away from the woman.

If the fetus is human --> government is allowing a woman to kill the human.

This is why libertarians are divided on the issue. If the fetus has a right to liberty and life, you're staunchly pro-life. It's EXTREMELY socially disturbing then that somone would advocate the legality of murduring. If the fetus isn't a human, you're staunchy pro-choice. Perspective is everything.

4/27/12

Forget fetus, I don't even consider babies human until they are able to walk me through a DCF.

Under my tutelage, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into SWANSONS.

In reply to Flake
4/27/12
Flake:

Forget fetus, I don't even consider babies human until they are able to walk me through a DCF.

Laughed out loud in work, bravo.

Pro choice, only first trimester abortions.

In reply to Whgm45
4/27/12
Whgm45:
Flake:

Forget fetus, I don't even consider babies human until they are able to walk me through a DCF.

Laughed out loud in work, bravo.

Pro choice, only first trimester abortions.

Haha, me too, trying to contain myself in an office with three other people

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro life.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro choice is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on society.

Whereas pro life is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the choice of the individual and how they conduct there private/ household lives.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro life should not be legislated.

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro-choice.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro-life is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on a person's right to life.

Whereas pro-choice is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the right of the individual and gives someone the right to take a child's life in their own hands when they fully are aware that sex will possibly lead to pregnancy.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro-choice should not be legislated.

You see where I'm going with this? It's not that I'm even that pro-life, which I'm not, I'm just trying to point out that this argument falls COMPLETELY on someone's opinion of whether the fetus is human and I'm playing devil's advocate with you.

If the fetus isn't human --> government is taking liberty away from the woman.

If the fetus is human --> government is allowing a woman to kill the human.

This is why libertarians are divided on the issue. If the fetus has a right to liberty and life, you're staunchly pro-life. It's EXTREMELY socially disturbing then that somone would advocate the legality of murduring. If the fetus isn't a human, you're staunchy pro-choice. Perspective is everything.

I'm very confused by your formatting choice. But, this argument has nothing to do a fetus is or is not a baby before a certain point. I do not advocate abortion after I believe 2nd trimester (or 1st), as it is a viable life form. I find it strange for someone to consider it "alive" before that point when science indicates it is not self sustaining or viable, hence not alive.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to cphbravo96
4/27/12
cphbravo96:

I would have to say I am pro-life, but sit on the fence as to whether or not I care enough about what other people choose. I grew up going to church so it's something that I wouldn't want to do, but I also understand that you can't legislate morality.

There are a couple issues that are critical in the abortion argument. First is when life actually starts and the inevitable follow-up 'but' questions (as mentioned above)...but what about rape and incest. Clearly the second part doesn't have an easy answer but I often wonder about the first. If a person is alive until their heart stops, wouldn't that indicate that they are alive once their heart starts?

Now, I'm not arguing a certain position here, so much as just raising some questions. If I shot you, I will likely be charged with attempted murder. If I shot you and your heart stops, I will likely be charged with murder. If the heartbeat determines death, should it also not determine life?

As for rape and incest, I don't know where I saw it, but recall reading that rape and incest abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions...so while it is an issue to some, it's more of a straw man when it comes to the abortion argument.

Personally I think adoption should be an option for all pregnant women who don't think they want their baby but sadly, in nearly all cases, it's rarely encouraged. I recall reading about the adoption statistics for Planned Parenthood and they are, almost literally, nonexistent...almost every woman that walks into Planned Parenthood pregnant looking for her options ends up aborting her child/fetus/cell/embryo.

Anyways, I do think there is a cause for concern when you factor in the aspect of moral decay. What has a society come to when it doesn't protect it's most vulnerable, the young and the old? The irony in all of this is how people, mainly the left, champion the right for women to choose but fail to realize that in doing so the woman is giving up her most sacred possession, her womb. As is pointed out in this video, is there any other person on earth that should be more safe than a child in their mother's womb? It's like there has been such a severe push for women to assert their rights that they are almost leaving behind the characteristics that make them a woman to begin with. Just food for thought.

Anyways, this video was sent to me recently and is rather great. This isn't your standard abortion hit piece but it does make you think about where you stand and your choice about a number of things...

Regards

You also need to determine quality of life (a whole other subject). But if someone's heart is beating, but brain dead forever and can't eat, move, talk, blink, etc, are they alive? Would you rather exist this way? Or be "unplugged"? I would prefer the latter myself.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

Here's the video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db9_1335502312

Watch it if you have the courage.

In reply to Abdel
4/27/12
Abdel:

Here's the video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db9_1335502312

Watch it if you have the courage.

Two things you forgot to mention:

1. NSFW
2. It's a jungle down there

Under my tutelage, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into SWANSONS.

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro life.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro choice is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on society.

Whereas pro life is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the choice of the individual and how they conduct there private/ household lives.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro life should not be legislated.

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro-choice.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro-life is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on a person's right to life.

Whereas pro-choice is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the right of the individual and gives someone the right to take a child's life in their own hands when they fully are aware that sex will possibly lead to pregnancy.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro-choice should not be legislated.

You see where I'm going with this? It's not that I'm even that pro-life, which I'm not, I'm just trying to point out that this argument falls COMPLETELY on someone's opinion of whether the fetus is human and I'm playing devil's advocate with you.

If the fetus isn't human --> government is taking liberty away from the woman.

If the fetus is human --> government is allowing a woman to kill the human.

This is why libertarians are divided on the issue. If the fetus has a right to liberty and life, you're staunchly pro-life. It's EXTREMELY socially disturbing then that somone would advocate the legality of murduring. If the fetus isn't a human, you're staunchy pro-choice. Perspective is everything.

I'm very confused by your formatting choice. But, this argument has nothing to do a fetus is or is not a baby before a certain point. I do not advocate abortion after I believe 2nd trimester (or 1st), as it is a viable life form. I find it strange for someone to consider it "alive" before that point when science indicates it is not self sustaining or viable, hence not alive.

The formatting was the same as who I responded to, I was just pointing out the other side to the argument. And it has everything to do with whether or not the fetus is human before a certain point, since science indicates that the fetus is, by definition, alive. Viable in what sense? Viable outside the womb? Is a baby who needs life support to stay alive viable outside the womb? Does it mean technically premature babies who can't make it on their own aren't alive? Is it viable if the parents don't feed it? Viable is a relative term. As I've said before, the fetus is growing, taking in nutrients, digesting them, using oxygen, etc. It's absolutely viable as a life form feeding off of the placenta similarly as parasite is a viable life form. The "clump of cells" are alive. They're not dead. That's a scientic fact - there's no debating that. Now the quesiton of whether those cells are human and have human rights? That's the debate, not whether the cells themselves are alive, which they are. I think you and I are just using different definitions for "alive." Scientifically, the fetus is a life form. However, whether that life form is human or not is up for debate, so in that sense the fetus isn't "alive" in the same sense a human is alive.

In reply to ginNtonic
4/27/12
ginNtonic:

Pro death.

Pro abortion, pro war, pro suicide, pro assisted suicide, pro death penalty, pro whatever makes the line at Starbucks shorter

I'm pro life and this is fantastic. +1

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro life.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro choice is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on society.

Whereas pro life is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the choice of the individual and how they conduct there private/ household lives.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro life should not be legislated.

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro-choice.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro-life is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on a person's right to life.

Whereas pro-choice is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the right of the individual and gives someone the right to take a child's life in their own hands when they fully are aware that sex will possibly lead to pregnancy.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro-choice should not be legislated.

You see where I'm going with this? It's not that I'm even that pro-life, which I'm not, I'm just trying to point out that this argument falls COMPLETELY on someone's opinion of whether the fetus is human and I'm playing devil's advocate with you.

If the fetus isn't human --> government is taking liberty away from the woman.

If the fetus is human --> government is allowing a woman to kill the human.

This is why libertarians are divided on the issue. If the fetus has a right to liberty and life, you're staunchly pro-life. It's EXTREMELY socially disturbing then that somone would advocate the legality of murduring. If the fetus isn't a human, you're staunchy pro-choice. Perspective is everything.

I'm very confused by your formatting choice. But, this argument has nothing to do a fetus is or is not a baby before a certain point. I do not advocate abortion after I believe 2nd trimester (or 1st), as it is a viable life form. I find it strange for someone to consider it "alive" before that point when science indicates it is not self sustaining or viable, hence not alive.

The formatting was the same as who I responded to, I was just pointing out the other side to the argument. And it has everything to do with whether or not the fetus is human before a certain point, since science indicates that the fetus is, by definition, alive. Viable in what sense? Viable outside the womb? Is a baby who needs life support to stay alive viable outside the womb? Does it mean technically premature babies who can't make it on their own aren't alive? Is it viable if the parents don't feed it? Viable is a relative term. As I've said before, the fetus is growing, taking in nutrients, digesting them, using oxygen, etc. It's absolutely viable as a life form feeding off of the placenta similarly as parasite is a viable life form. The "clump of cells" are alive. They're not dead. That's a scientic fact - there's no debating that. Now the quesiton of whether those cells are human and have human rights? That's the debate, not whether the cells themselves are alive, which they are. I think you and I are just using different definitions for "alive." Scientifically, the fetus is a life form. However, whether that life form is human or not is up for debate, so in that sense the fetus isn't "alive" in the same sense a human is alive.

The only reason that they are alive is because they are in the womb. A baby outside on life support has the possibility of life. If you remove the cells, they do not have a chance of growing, no matter how incubated. That is viable, not only being sustainable, but it is past a point where it is able to grow. Even though premature births do sometimes die, even on life support, the opportunity if you will, of their success in surviving is possible. It is not when they are still in the first trimester. That is my point.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

The only reason that they are alive is because they are in the womb. A baby outside on life support has the possibility of life. If you remove the cells, they do not have a chance of growing, no matter how incubated. That is viable, not only being sustainable, but it is past a point where it is able to grow. Even though premature births do sometimes die, even on life support, the opportunity if you will, of their success in surviving is possible. It is not when they are still in the first trimester. That is my point.

I agree. I'm merely pointing out that "alive" isn't a good word for pro-choice advocates to use since by definition since the fetus isn't inanimate and isn't dead, it's alive. I think the right phrasing is as you said, "viable" or maybe "formed human" or something.

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

I'm very confused by your formatting choice. But, this argument has nothing to do a fetus is or is not a baby before a certain point. I do not advocate abortion after I believe 2nd trimester (or 1st), as it is a viable life form. I find it strange for someone to consider it "alive" before that point when science indicates it is not self sustaining or viable, hence not alive.

Should we be able to 'abort' cancer patients or diabetics, since they aren't self-sustaining and use machines and/or medicine to stay alive?

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

4/27/12

I'm pro life, but fetus consumption cured my paralysis.

In reply to Flake
4/27/12
Flake:
Abdel:

Here's the video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db9_1335502312

Watch it if you have the courage.

Two things you forgot to mention:

1. NSFW
2. It's a jungle down there

It's an abortion video, no need for NSFW.

This is what I forgot to mention:

1. I feel sorry for pussy eating guys.

haha

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

You also need to determine quality of life (a whole other subject). But if someone's heart is beating, but brain dead forever and can't eat, move, talk, blink, etc, are they alive? Would you rather exist this way? Or be "unplugged"? I would prefer the latter myself.

Yeah, I think by any definition of the law, they are alive. At any rate, that doesn't typically apply to abortion cases, but if that was a consideration, where does it stop? Birth defects? Missing limbs? Down syndrome? Genetic predispositions for incurable diseases?

The ultimate question is how do you know what quality of life a person can have when they are just a fetus...or ever, for that matter? Wilma Rudolph was diagnosed with Poliomyelitis as a child and was told by doctors that she would have to wear leg braces the rest of her life. Well, she didn't have any on when she won 3 gold medals at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome. Catch my drift?

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

You're an idiot. OP was aruing that since a human-looking object that came from a human womb moved and squirmed, reasoning would imply that it is human and isn't an inanimate and unconscious group of cells. He wasn't arguing that because something moves, it happens to be human. In fact, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that was the argument he was trying to make since it's an absurd one. Nice straw man.

It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive. It is taking in nutrients, it is taking in oxygen, it is digesting sustenance, it grows, etc. The debate is over whether it is a HUMAN life and has human rights. Even though it may just be "just a clump of cells," by definition a clump of cells are alive. You state this originally and then for some reason state that the fetus isn't alive because it can't survive out of the womb, that it's no different than a tumor. Well then humans aren't alive because we can't survive outside of Earth's atmosphere, we're "trapped" by our surroundings and since we can't survive without living off the Earth's resources and food, we're tumors as well.

Nobody argued it was inanimate in the first place. Live cells by definition are animate. But fetus, for the most part, is not conscious. Conscience comes from the brain activity, and the brain activity in fetus does not begin until about week 25 - shortly before the 3rd trimester.
It's not fucking digesting sustenance, it is absorbing nutrients from the blood of the mother. It's a parasite. A vampire.

There are several scientific definition of what is considered life, but at the core of them all are sustenance, reproduction, and adaptability to the environment. A fetus is able to neither sustain itself, nor survive in ambient conditions.

Yeah, we are tumors on the earth, and when the earth decides to abort, there's nothing we can do. Moreover, Mars and Venus aren't sitting there and debating if Earth has the right to erupt a volcano and kill us.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Abdel
4/27/12
Abdel:

Here's the video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db9_1335502312

Watch it if you have the courage.

Gross. The lady needs a bush-whacker.
Also in the case of the video that fetus is at least 6 months along; nobody here advocates 3rd trimester abortions unless absolutely necessary.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Argonaut
4/27/12
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

You're an idiot. OP was aruing that since a human-looking object that came from a human womb moved and squirmed, reasoning would imply that it is human and isn't an inanimate and unconscious group of cells. He wasn't arguing that because something moves, it happens to be human. In fact, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that was the argument he was trying to make since it's an absurd one. Nice straw man.

It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive. It is taking in nutrients, it is taking in oxygen, it is digesting sustenance, it grows, etc. The debate is over whether it is a HUMAN life and has human rights. Even though it may just be "just a clump of cells," by definition a clump of cells are alive. You state this originally and then for some reason state that the fetus isn't alive because it can't survive out of the womb, that it's no different than a tumor. Well then humans aren't alive because we can't survive outside of Earth's atmosphere, we're "trapped" by our surroundings and since we can't survive without living off the Earth's resources and food, we're tumors as well.

Nobody argued it was inanimate in the first place. Live cells by definition are animate. But fetus, for the most part, is not conscious. Conscience comes from the brain activity, and the brain activity in fetus does not begin until about week 25 - shortly before the 3rd trimester.
It's not fucking digesting sustenance, it is absorbing nutrients from the blood of the mother. It's a parasite. A vampire.

There are several scientific definition of what is considered life, but at the core of them all are sustenance, reproduction, and adaptability to the environment. A fetus is able to neither sustain itself, nor survive in ambient conditions.

Yeah, we are tumors on the earth, and when the earth decides to abort, there's nothing we can do. Moreover, Mars and Venus aren't sitting there and debating if Earth has the right to erupt a volcano and kill us.

Dude... a fetus is the first stage of a human being, and hopefully if it lives long enough to reproduce, it does so then. I never said a fetus was its own species. And that's fine if you want to argue it's not conscious. That was my point - arguing things like consciousness are appropriate, but the "it's not alive" statement isn't.

4/27/12

Well sure, in absolute terms, all lives are equal (plants, humans, etc.) in the sense that if we're thrown into space, the universe won't make the distinction between a human and a plant. He'll kill us both.

However, if we apply that reasoning to everyday's life, then one shouldn't have a problem with eating fellow humans or even a human fetus. I mean, if we discover that some of our body parts are tasty, why not have a slaugherhouse for humans?

Also, I'll be able to kill people out in the street for no reason and I won't be thrown in jail. I mean, if I can walk on an ant & kill it, why not run over humans & kill them?

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

You're an idiot. OP was aruing that since a human-looking object that came from a human womb moved and squirmed, reasoning would imply that it is human and isn't an inanimate and unconscious group of cells. He wasn't arguing that because something moves, it happens to be human. In fact, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that was the argument he was trying to make since it's an absurd one. Nice straw man.

It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive. It is taking in nutrients, it is taking in oxygen, it is digesting sustenance, it grows, etc. The debate is over whether it is a HUMAN life and has human rights. Even though it may just be "just a clump of cells," by definition a clump of cells are alive. You state this originally and then for some reason state that the fetus isn't alive because it can't survive out of the womb, that it's no different than a tumor. Well then humans aren't alive because we can't survive outside of Earth's atmosphere, we're "trapped" by our surroundings and since we can't survive without living off the Earth's resources and food, we're tumors as well.

Nobody argued it was inanimate in the first place. Live cells by definition are animate. But fetus, for the most part, is not conscious. Conscience comes from the brain activity, and the brain activity in fetus does not begin until about week 25 - shortly before the 3rd trimester.
It's not fucking digesting sustenance, it is absorbing nutrients from the blood of the mother. It's a parasite. A vampire.

There are several scientific definition of what is considered life, but at the core of them all are sustenance, reproduction, and adaptability to the environment. A fetus is able to neither sustain itself, nor survive in ambient conditions.

Yeah, we are tumors on the earth, and when the earth decides to abort, there's nothing we can do. Moreover, Mars and Venus aren't sitting there and debating if Earth has the right to erupt a volcano and kill us.

Dude... a fetus is the first stage of a human being, and hopefully if it lives long enough to reproduce, it does so then. I never said a fetus was its own species. And that's fine if you want to argue it's not conscious. That was my point - arguing things like consciousness are appropriate, but the "it's not alive" statement isn't.

Sperm is the first stage of fetus. Stop killing thousands of children with your masturbation.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Argonaut
4/27/12
Argonaut:

Sperm is the first stage of fetus. Stop killing thousands of children with your masturbation.

No, a sperm does not have all of the DNA/chromosomes of a human. Sperm isn't alive anyway. It doesn't grow and is reabsorbed by the body if it isn't used.

In reply to cphbravo96
4/27/12
cphbravo96:
streetwannabe:

You also need to determine quality of life (a whole other subject). But if someone's heart is beating, but brain dead forever and can't eat, move, talk, blink, etc, are they alive? Would you rather exist this way? Or be "unplugged"? I would prefer the latter myself.

Yeah, I think by any definition of the law, they are alive. At any rate, that doesn't typically apply to abortion cases, but if that was a consideration, where does it stop? Birth defects? Missing limbs? Down syndrome? Genetic predispositions for incurable diseases?

The ultimate question is how do you know what quality of life a person can have when they are just a fetus...or ever, for that matter? Wilma Rudolph was diagnosed with Poliomyelitis as a child and was told by doctors that she would have to wear leg braces the rest of her life. Well, she didn't have any on when she won 3 gold medals at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome. Catch my drift?

Regards

I agree to a point. But there is a large gap in quality of life ( which doesn't do any justice to what I'm trying to say ) in someone who is brain dead and someone with paralysis.

Also agree with your above topic. However it is your designated to someone to usually decide whether to pull the plug, the actual term "alive" or "life" are not adequate as language itself has shortcomings in fully describing certain elements of reality. They are very subjective terms that people throw around without actually considering what "life" is or is not.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

Fuck talking about abortion. R v Wade won't be overturned ever. Unless there is legislation that will start legalizing late term abortions, I am just not going to talk about it. It is a lose lose for anyone involved in that conversation. We will all figure out who was right or wrong when we are dead.

In the meantime, we should really be just focusing on the economy.

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
4/27/12
Nobama88:

Fuck talking about abortion. R v Wade won't be overturned ever. Unless there is legislation that will start legalizing late term abortions, I am just not going to talk about it. It is a lose lose for anyone involved in that conversation. We will all figure out who was right or wrong when we are dead.

In the meantime, we should really be just focusing on the economy.

Haha, I like this. But it is just an academic discussion exploring different aspects of the two camps. I don't plan on gaining anything from this except hearing well structured debates from both sides and analyzing their critiques and premises of their platform.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
4/27/12
Nobama88:

Fuck talking about abortion. R v Wade won't be overturned ever. Unless there is legislation that will start legalizing late term abortions, I am just not going to talk about it. It is a lose lose for anyone involved in that conversation. We will all figure out who was right or wrong when we are dead.

In the meantime, we should really be just focusing on the economy.

THIS, abortion is a distraction issue IMO. While the electorate is split 50-50 arguing pro-life(best branding name ever) vs pro-choice the politicians rape our freedoms and bank accounts.

I always avoid abortion debates like the plague and try my hardest to not even mention anything about it around co workers. There are zealots on both sides and people get legit upset if your on the other side.

Now back to the NFL draft

Pages

What's Your Opinion? Comment below:

Login or register to get credit (collect bananas).
All anonymous comments are unpublished until reviewed. No links or promotional material will be allowed. Most comments are published within 24 hours.
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling