The Great Abortion Debate

[asal]

Your first point is utter bullshit.  And I want you to consider a world devoid of morals, with subjective truth.  Yanno....download the tor browser and enjoy a moraless world if subjective truth and ask yourself if you want to live in that world. That's where we are headed, BTW.

Dove - people are good.  I believe that people are good and we are not headed down any horrible paths.

[Anonymous]

hmm m. OK. Partial answer's don't count



I've been politely asking  ...."when"?  ...in absolute scientific terms ... does it become a baby / human life

  This depends on who you ask.  It's become subjective to allow justifications for abortions. The truth is, life begins at conception. That cell is a living being, separate from the mother but totally dependant.  Whether it's self aware or not is moot....because it is alive. A human zygote.

[asal]

hmm m. OK. Partial answer's don't count



I've been politely asking  ...."when"?  ...in absolute scientific terms ... does it become a baby / human life

  This depends on who you ask.  It's become subjective to allow justifications for abortions. The truth is, life begins at conception. That cell is a living being, separate from the mother but totally dependant.  Whether it's self aware or not is moot....because it is alive. A human zygote.

It is alive.  No disagreement.  A human zygote - sure.  But not a person.  Not self aware and that is not moot - that is significant.  It is alive - it is a foreign object that the body may choose to destroy on its own.  When that destruction happens - when a fertilized egg is absorbed into the uterine lining - it is completely natural.

[Anonymous]

Do I have to google?



There is no thought in the early stages.  It is dividing cells.  The cells could become anything - they might not even form a human, the whole mess could abandon division and just die on its own and get absorbed into the uterine lining.

 so based on this, abortion of a life with a heartbeat is justifiable? I'm not seeing your point. No one even knows they are pregnant in the zygote stage.

Now I have to google when the body starts to secrete growth hormone  



Abortions are illegal after 20 weeks anyways except in dire circumstances.  At 20 weeks there is no brain activity.  It's still moral.  Why would anyone want to impose the belief that they are hurting a baby via abortion.  All evidence points to the object being a developing mass of cells.  People should take comfort in that.  We live in a moral society - finally, in some ways it is moral.

 I honestly feel you have a good positive perspective but I don't think it's totally rooted in reality. I know personally a lot of women who have had abortions after 16 weeks. Just because it's not technically legal doesn't mean it doesn't occur with frequency.

[Anonymous]

hmm m. OK. Partial answer's don't count



I've been politely asking  ...."when"?  ...in absolute scientific terms ... does it become a baby / human life

  This depends on who you ask.  It's become subjective to allow justifications for abortions. The truth is, life begins at conception. That cell is a living being, separate from the mother but totally dependant.  Whether it's self aware or not is moot....because it is alive. A human zygote.

It is alive.  No disagreement.  A human zygote - sure.  But not a person.  Not self aware and that is not moot - that is significant.  It is alive - it is a foreign object that the body may choose to destroy on its own.  When that destruction happens - when a fertilized egg is absorbed into the uterine lining - it is completely natural.

 if miscarriage makes abortion justifiable,  impending death makes murder justifiable. We all die any way, so let's set murders free from prison. Lol.

[asal]

hmm m. OK. Partial answer's don't count



I've been politely asking  ...."when"?  ...in absolute scientific terms ... does it become a baby / human life

  This depends on who you ask.  It's become subjective to allow justifications for abortions. The truth is, life begins at conception. That cell is a living being, separate from the mother but totally dependant.  Whether it's self aware or not is moot....because it is alive. A human zygote.

It is alive.  No disagreement.  A human zygote - sure.  But not a person.  Not self aware and that is not moot - that is significant.  It is alive - it is a foreign object that the body may choose to destroy on its own.  When that destruction happens - when a fertilized egg is absorbed into the uterine lining - it is completely natural.

 if miscarriage makes abortion justifiable,  impending death makes murder justifiable. We all die any way, so let's set murders free from prison. Lol.

    Can't we just kill them?  



It's not that miscarriage makes abortion justifiable - but it helps me to understand it as moral, and I thought it might work in the argument for other people to understand that these things happen naturally anyways.

[Frood]

Do I have to google?



There is no thought in the early stages.  It is dividing cells.  The cells could become anything - they might not even form a human, the whole mess could abandon division and just die on its own and get absorbed into the uterine lining.

 so based on this, abortion of a life with a heartbeat is justifiable? I'm not seeing your point. No one even knows they are pregnant in the zygote stage.

Now I have to google when the body starts to secrete growth hormone  



Abortions are illegal after 20 weeks anyways except in dire circumstances.  At 20 weeks there is no brain activity.  It's still moral.  Why would anyone want to impose the belief that they are hurting a baby via abortion.  All evidence points to the object being a developing mass of cells.  People should take comfort in that.  We live in a moral society - finally, in some ways it is moral.

 I honestly feel you have a good positive perspective but I don't think it's totally rooted in reality. I know personally a lot of women who have had abortions after 16 weeks. Just because it's not technically legal doesn't mean it doesn't occur with frequency.

What about RU486, Dove? You know, the morning after pill? Do you consider that abortion?

[Anonymous]

Do I have to google?



There is no thought in the early stages.  It is dividing cells.  The cells could become anything - they might not even form a human, the whole mess could abandon division and just die on its own and get absorbed into the uterine lining.

 so based on this, abortion of a life with a heartbeat is justifiable? I'm not seeing your point. No one even knows they are pregnant in the zygote stage.

Now I have to google when the body starts to secrete growth hormone  



Abortions are illegal after 20 weeks anyways except in dire circumstances.  At 20 weeks there is no brain activity.  It's still moral.  Why would anyone want to impose the belief that they are hurting a baby via abortion.  All evidence points to the object being a developing mass of cells.  People should take comfort in that.  We live in a moral society - finally, in some ways it is moral.

 I honestly feel you have a good positive perspective but I don't think it's totally rooted in reality. I know personally a lot of women who have had abortions after 16 weeks. Just because it's not technically legal doesn't mean it doesn't occur with frequency.

What about RU486, Dove? You know, the morning after pill? Do you consider that abortion?

No. Abortion never occurs until a woman knows she's pregnant and typically doctors will not do it until 7, 8 weeks gestation because it's unsafe to do it sooner.

[Anonymous]

http://www.prochoice.com/abort_how.html">http://www.prochoice.com/abort_how.html just so we all understand what and how abortion is. The earliest you can get one is 7 weeks. A 7 weeker, isn't a clump of cells.

[Frood]

Do I have to google?



There is no thought in the early stages.  It is dividing cells.  The cells could become anything - they might not even form a human, the whole mess could abandon division and just die on its own and get absorbed into the uterine lining.

 so based on this, abortion of a life with a heartbeat is justifiable? I'm not seeing your point. No one even knows they are pregnant in the zygote stage.

Now I have to google when the body starts to secrete growth hormone  



Abortions are illegal after 20 weeks anyways except in dire circumstances.  At 20 weeks there is no brain activity.  It's still moral.  Why would anyone want to impose the belief that they are hurting a baby via abortion.  All evidence points to the object being a developing mass of cells.  People should take comfort in that.  We live in a moral society - finally, in some ways it is moral.

 I honestly feel you have a good positive perspective but I don't think it's totally rooted in reality. I know personally a lot of women who have had abortions after 16 weeks. Just because it's not technically legal doesn't mean it doesn't occur with frequency.

What about RU486, Dove? You know, the morning after pill? Do you consider that abortion?

No. Abortion never occurs until a woman knows she's pregnant and typically doctors will not do it until 7, 8 weeks gestation because it's unsafe to do it sooner.

But the drug (Mifepristone) blocks progesterone and causes miscarriage? It's also over the counter or simply requires a quick GP visit and script in a great number of countries these days. I've heard a lot of anti-abortion proponents say that life begins at conception. Mifepristone works up to 7-9 weeks. To say that until a woman has been verified pregnant, they're not with child, et cetera, seems odd to me.



Menstrual periods get missed for most pregnant women in that time frame, as in, nonexistent. They cease. Unprotected or poorly protected sex followed by up to two months of no regular menstrual flow is pretty much a good indicator of a possible pregnancy (besides the swollen bits and mood changes).



I'm pro choice but pro life as well. When I ask that you explain yourself further, I'm asking that you isolate that moment where religious people who are against aborting life can rationalize life. If I were to sleep with a dozen Somali teenagers in Noble Park tonight and took RU486 at the chemist first thing tomorrow morning when they open, is that abortion? If I had a romantic interlude aside from my marriage and missed a period by a few days then took RU486, is that abortion? What if hubby and I didn't use a condom 3 weeks ago and I'm weeks late still?



Please explain yourself.

[keeper]

Do I have to google?



There is no thought in the early stages.  It is dividing cells.  The cells could become anything - they might not even form a human, the whole mess could abandon division and just die on its own and get absorbed into the uterine lining.

Killing unborn babies asal?

Sometimes it has to be done.

[Wulf]

So if abortion is not murder, then why when a pregnant woman is tragically killed in a homicide, the perpetrator runs the risk of being slapped with double murder or manslaughter charges?



It seems to me that as a society we want it both ways. Is one form of murder okay and sanctioned by the state while another isn't? Doesn't exactly sound right, does it?

[Anonymous]

Do I have to google?



There is no thought in the early stages.  It is dividing cells.  The cells could become anything - they might not even form a human, the whole mess could abandon division and just die on its own and get absorbed into the uterine lining.

 so based on this, abortion of a life with a heartbeat is justifiable? I'm not seeing your point. No one even knows they are pregnant in the zygote stage.

Now I have to google when the body starts to secrete growth hormone  



Abortions are illegal after 20 weeks anyways except in dire circumstances.  At 20 weeks there is no brain activity.  It's still moral.  Why would anyone want to impose the belief that they are hurting a baby via abortion.  All evidence points to the object being a developing mass of cells.  People should take comfort in that.  We live in a moral society - finally, in some ways it is moral.

 I honestly feel you have a good positive perspective but I don't think it's totally rooted in reality. I know personally a lot of women who have had abortions after 16 weeks. Just because it's not technically legal doesn't mean it doesn't occur with frequency.

What about RU486, Dove? You know, the morning after pill? Do you consider that abortion?

No. Abortion never occurs until a woman knows she's pregnant and typically doctors will not do it until 7, 8 weeks gestation because it's unsafe to do it sooner.

But the drug (Mifepristone) blocks progesterone and causes miscarriage? It's also over the counter or simply requires a quick GP visit and script in a great number of countries these days. I've heard a lot of anti-abortion proponents say that life begins at conception. Mifepristone works up to 7-9 weeks. To say that until a woman has been verified pregnant, they're not with child, et cetera, seems odd to me.



Menstrual periods get missed for most pregnant women in that time frame, as in, nonexistent. They cease. Unprotected or poorly protected sex followed by up to two months of no regular menstrual flow is pretty much a good indicator of a possible pregnancy (besides the swollen bits and mood changes).



I'm pro choice but pro life as well. When I ask that you explain yourself further, I'm asking that you isolate that moment where religious people who are against aborting life can rationalize life. If I were to sleep with a dozen Somali teenagers in Noble Park tonight and took RU486 at the chemist first thing tomorrow morning when they open, is that abortion? If I had a romantic interlude aside from my marriage and missed a period by a few days then took RU486, is that abortion? What if hubby and I didn't use a condom 3 weeks ago and I'm weeks late still?



Please explain yourself.

 There is plan B, which stops conception. Then there is the abortion pill. You can't be pro choice and pro life....that makes no sense.  The plan b pill is supposed to be taken the very next morning after possible conception to stop conception....it wasn't intended to be used up to several weeks. If you and hubby didn't use a condom, go take the pill the very next morning. You don't sit on that and wait to see if your oops created a life. You and hubby understand that by having sex, you just may create a life, right?

[Anonymous]

So if abortion is not murder, then why when a pregnant woman is tragically killed in a homicide, the perpetrator runs the risk of being slapped with double murder or manslaughter charges?



It seems to me that as a society we want it both ways. Is one form of murder okay and sanctioned by the state while another isn't? Doesn't exactly sound right, does it?

 It's murder if you want the baby. It's a terminated clump of cells if you dont. This, of course, makes zero sense.

[Anonymous]

1.Abortion is moral - it is the destruction of developing cells without consciousness or any form of brain.  

2.Abortion is the socially responsible choice that we all benefit from - less unwed mothers being a social financial burden.  Less children born into poverty.  Less young women being unable to achieve financial stability - or at least postponing being a financial burden on society.  Less burden on men that also need time to achieve financial stability.

3.Developing cells do not have brains or any form of consciousness.  

4.The body might decide on its own to terminate a pregnancy if the conditions of the pregnancy or genetic development are unfit.



What is the problem?  I already won this debate on page four (4) when there were 12 minutes of silence at which point I declared a knock out.

Asal, there is nothing moral about slaughtering unborn babies.