If Life begins at conception

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[natty dread]

Im not dodging, Im not falling for the bait.
You know the answer to what I believe.

I am respectfully not making this personal. You on the other hand are dying for me to make it personal, which I wont.

Sorry to disappoint.

Ok, so you're all talk and rhetoric then. Good to know.

You talk big about how you consider abortion to be murder, but when it comes to actual people, you're not willing to hold on to your beliefs. Maybe at some level you actually realize how wrong your beliefs are...

[daddy1gringo]

and abortion is murder,
then women who have miscarriages should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

No- miscarriages are a form of abortion. And abortion, of course, to play the devil's advocate, is murder. Miscarriages are murders, plain and simple. Unless, of course, abortion isn't actually murder.

This line of argument, or at least the implication that it disproves the pro-life, or let us use the term, anti-abortion, position, is built on two semantic problems.

Now the saying "Abortion is murder" is a slogan, boiled down to three words for bumper-stickers and picket signs. The problem with such a slogan is that it is imprecise. We run across problems with the definitions of both of the operative words: "abortion" and "murder".

OK, a miscarriage is medically referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" so technically the term "abortion" includes events over which no one had control, and which possibly nobody even wanted. Obviously those who believe abortion should be illegal are not talking about that, and to use that is a bit of shameless chicanery, so can we just get past that?

But that's not true. If pregnant women were plugged into feeding machines and did nothing but sit, then the chances of miscarriages would very likely drop. To do otherwise would increase the risk of miscarriage, which means that the risk of killing a person has increased.

If a miscarriage were to occur and if full safety and care weren't exercised, then we have a case of negligent homicide. The pro-life "fetus=person" argument is absurd.

You're seriously going to go with that line of argument? So you're saying that if it could be determined that the fetus is a person, then if somebody didn't "{get} plugged into feeding machines and did nothing but sit", that would have to be treated legally the same as someone saying "this kid interferes with my fun" and make the appointments and payments to kill it? Really? I'll give you a pass to reconsider that one, BBS, because that is absurd.

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[Neoteny]

Life obviously begins at the cortical reaction. Belief of anything different is immoral and ignorant. You're all fools.

[Lootifer]

Natty.

Why must you always try to make things personal and resort to name calling and belittling.

Why cant you respect my belief that life begins at conception and abortion is murder? Because you think its wrong? So what, its my belief.

Im not asking you to believe it, Im stating what I believe.

I am clearly avoiding making this personal, but you clearly want it to be.
Again, Its not going to happen.

Because Natty doesnt actually care about issues, he just likes to use argument as a channel to exhibit how smart he is (like John does in a similar but different way).

[natty dread]

Natty.

Why must you always try to make things personal and resort to name calling and belittling.

Why cant you respect my belief that life begins at conception and abortion is murder? Because you think its wrong? So what, its my belief.

Im not asking you to believe it, Im stating what I believe.

I am clearly avoiding making this personal, but you clearly want it to be.
Again, Its not going to happen.

Um, I haven't called you any names. Nice try trying to divert and dodge the issue though.

You don't want to make it personal? Tough, you already did. It is personal to me.

For example, if you go on forums saying "all black people are criminals" and some black person comes along and says "so, you think I'm a criminal?" you can't just cop out of it by saying "hey, I don't want to make it personal". You already made your claim, you're trying to pass judgement of other people's actions based on your own moral views...

[natty dread]

Because Natty doesnt actually care about issues, he just likes to use argument as a channel to exhibit how smart he is (like John does in a similar but different way).

Oh look, it's Lootifer posting a moronic ad-hominem attack without providing any substance or rational arguments.

Like John does, but in a different way.

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[natty dread]

wow, you dont get it at all.

Life begins at conception, abortion is murder.
That is my religious belief.

Also, Im going to pray for your forgiveness and you cant stop me.

Oh, it's your religious belief. Well that makes it all ok then.

My religious belief is that you're a rapist and a wife beater. I can say anything I want about you and as long as I prefix it with "religious belief" it's all ok, right?

[john9blue]

Because Natty doesnt actually care about issues, he just likes to use argument as a channel to exhibit how smart he is (like John does in a similar but different way).

Oh look, it's Lootifer posting a moronic ad-hominem attack without providing any substance or rational arguments.

Like John does, but in a different way.

oh look, it's *insert someone that disagrees with me* doing *insert some obviously poor debate tactic*

like *insert another person who disagrees with me*, but in a different way.

funny how you two are both too stupid to realize that in BOTH of your posts, you BOTH did the EXACT SAME THINGS that you accuse me of doing.

dumb hypocrites.

[natty dread]

Because Natty doesnt actually care about issues, he just likes to use argument as a channel to exhibit how smart he is (like John does in a similar but different way).

Oh look, it's Lootifer posting a moronic ad-hominem attack without providing any substance or rational arguments.

Like John does, but in a different way.

oh look, it's *insert someone that disagrees with me* doing *insert some obviously poor debate tactic*

like *insert another person who disagrees with me*, but in a different way.

funny how you two are both too stupid to realize that in BOTH of your posts, you BOTH did the EXACT SAME THINGS that you accuse me of doing.

dumb hypocrites.

Oh look, it's John.

nuff said

[bedub1]

Im going to pray for your forgiveness and you cant stop me.

[rdsrds2120]

Woop woop. Try to control any/all name-calling from anyone. Gettin' kind of edgy.

-rd

[Victor Sullivan]

I just believe the studies that demonstrate that abortion can be emotionally traumatic to many families (think of the "my child would have been XX years old today" speeches), even in the cases of 'therapeutic abortion' when the families abort the fetus because of a genetic disorder or some other such thing.

Every year in the United States approximately one and one-half million legal abortions are performed. According to some authorities, ten to fifteen percent of women who have had an abortion are subject to long-term depression or emotional distress caused by the procedure; other studies have found that fewer than ten percent of women who have had a legal abortion during their first trimester develop long-term psychiatric or emotional reactions.

-Sully

[john9blue]

I just believe the studies that demonstrate that abortion can be emotionally traumatic to many families (think of the "my child would have been XX years old today" speeches), even in the cases of 'therapeutic abortion' when the families abort the fetus because of a genetic disorder or some other such thing.

Every year in the United States approximately one and one-half million legal abortions are performed. According to some authorities, ten to fifteen percent of women who have had an abortion are subject to long-term depression or emotional distress caused by the procedure; other studies have found that fewer than ten percent of women who have had a legal abortion during their first trimester develop long-term psychiatric or emotional reactions.

-Sully

yeah but the catholic church violated some kids, which is SO MUCH WORSE, because kids who are dead can't go through emotional trauma, and kids who are raped can.

the catholic church also hates abortions. so it's probably a good idea to do abortions, because those child molesters can't be trusted

Logic

[BigBallinStalin]

and abortion is murder,
then women who have miscarriages should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

No- miscarriages are a form of abortion. And abortion, of course, to play the devil's advocate, is murder. Miscarriages are murders, plain and simple. Unless, of course, abortion isn't actually murder.

This line of argument, or at least the implication that it disproves the pro-life, or let us use the term, anti-abortion, position, is built on two semantic problems.

Now the saying "Abortion is murder" is a slogan, boiled down to three words for bumper-stickers and picket signs. The problem with such a slogan is that it is imprecise. We run across problems with the definitions of both of the operative words: "abortion" and "murder".

OK, a miscarriage is medically referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" so technically the term "abortion" includes events over which no one had control, and which possibly nobody even wanted. Obviously those who believe abortion should be illegal are not talking about that, and to use that is a bit of shameless chicanery, so can we just get past that?

But that's not true. If pregnant women were plugged into feeding machines and did nothing but sit, then the chances of miscarriages would very likely drop. To do otherwise would increase the risk of miscarriage, which means that the risk of killing a person has increased.

If a miscarriage were to occur and if full safety and care weren't exercised, then we have a case of negligent homicide. The pro-life "fetus=person" argument is absurd.

You're seriously going to go with that line of argument? So you're saying that if it could be determined that the fetus is a person, then if somebody didn't "{get} plugged into feeding machines and did nothing but sit", that would have to be treated legally the same as someone saying "this kid interferes with my fun" and make the appointments and payments to kill it? Really? I'll give you a pass to reconsider that one, BBS, because that is absurd.

Of course, it's absurd. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. I brought an argument to its logical conclusion.

The tradeoff between the satisfaction of the pregnant mother and the maximization of safety for the fetus (by decreasing the risk of a spontaneous abortion, i.e. the murder of an innocent person) can't be denied.

1. The fetus is a human being.
2. Abortion is murder.
3. If any miscarriage is partially due to the mother's insufficient attempts at decreasing the risk of a spontaneous abortion,
4. then the mother is partly responsible for murdering an innocent person.

Sorry, but that's taking the "fetus=person" and the "abortion=murder" argument to its logical conclusion. The mother should've took more care in reducing the risk of a miscarriage. The greatest way to reduce that risk is to sit in a hospital bed for nine months and be fed "perfect" food through tubes, etc.

[oVo]

Logical conclusion? Wouldn't that be that a fetus may be a living thing but it is not yet a person at conception, as it still requires a bit of time to develop. From a religious point of view if a fetus is not carried to term is it sinless?

Should masterbating men be charged with manslaughter?

[john9blue]

Should masterbating men be charged with manslaughter?

the only way idiotic arguments like this can become so popular is with a groupthink/sheep mentality.

i mean, everyone does it, but it's really sad how people blindly repeat shit like this that they hear, without thinking about what they are saying

ovo, i challenge you to sit down and think for ten seconds, then come back and tell me the difference between a sperm cell and a fetus

i'll give you a hint: it's your own username

[Baron Von PWN]

Of course, it's absurd. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. I brought an argument to its logical conclusion.

The tradeoff between the satisfaction of the pregnant mother and the maximization of safety for the fetus (by decreasing the risk of a spontaneous abortion, i.e. the murder of an innocent person) can't be denied.

1. The fetus is a human being.
2. Abortion is murder.
3. If any miscarriage is partially due to the mother's insufficient attempts at decreasing the risk of a spontaneous abortion,
4. then the mother is partly responsible for murdering an innocent person.

Sorry, but that's taking the "fetus=person" and the "abortion=murder" argument to its logical conclusion. The mother should've took more care in reducing the risk of a miscarriage. The greatest way to reduce that risk is to sit in a hospital bed for nine months and be fed "perfect" food through tubes, etc.

Dear god what about all the miscarriages we don't even know about (many miscarriages occur with the woman not even knowing she was pregnant)? If life starts at conception women could be risking human lives every time they have sex without contraceptives.

Is ignorance protection from manslaughter? If not ,then if legally life began at conception, women would probably have to avoid doing anything dangerous like going outside or engaging in society. After all by doing that they could be killing someone.

Either that or abstain from sex.

[Haggis_McMutton]

wow, you dont get it at all.

Life begins at conception, abortion is murder.
That is my religious belief.

Also, Im going to pray for your forgiveness and you cant stop me.

Can you really not consider the consequences of your beliefs? The source of the belief is irrelevant.

You are proposing that every 20 year old who screws up, gets knocked up and has an abortion so that she can actually finish college and make something of herself needs to be treated the same way as a hitman.
Both people performed cold calculated murder from your point of view and should probably serve life in prison.

Do you agree with this view (which would have as a logical repercussion you believing natty is an accessory to murder and should serve 10+ years in prison) or do you not? It being a "religious belief" doesn't mean the consequences disappear.

yeah but the catholic church violated some kids, which is SO MUCH WORSE, because kids who are dead can't go through emotional trauma, and kids who are raped can.

the catholic church also hates abortions. so it's probably a good idea to do abortions, because those child molesters can't be trusted

Logic

Yes, the people who claim to SPEAK FOR THE FUCKIN CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE and are therefore morally superior to all of us, betrayed the trust of their followers in the most heinous way possible.

But it's no biggy, it's all cool.

-------

As far as I'm aware there are two common reasons to claim abortion is murder. (if someone has another reason please share)
1. You are convinced that what makes a clump of matter a person is a divinely granted soul. You are also convinced that god gives people this soul at conception. Ok, cool, but accept that a lot of other people don't have those religious convictions and address the matter of practicality, should abortion really be legally equivalent to murder?

2. You think potential to become human is the same as being human. I.E. just because if "left undisturbed" a cell might turn into a human, it already has the right to life that we grant humans. This isn't actually consistent, because it ignores the probabilities. Potential to become human isn't binary. What about pulling out? is that depriving a potential human from being born? What about a device that if left undisturbed will impregnate a cell, does stopping that device make me a murderer?

[chang50]

and abortion is murder,
then women who have miscarriages should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Or God should be held responsible,he is the biggest abortionist of all.

[daddy1gringo]

No- miscarriages are a form of abortion. And abortion, of course, to play the devil's advocate, is murder. Miscarriages are murders, plain and simple. Unless, of course, abortion isn't actually murder.

This line of argument, or at least the implication that it disproves the pro-life, or let us use the term, anti-abortion, position, is built on two semantic problems.

Now the saying "Abortion is murder" is a slogan, boiled down to three words for bumper-stickers and picket signs. The problem with such a slogan is that it is imprecise. We run across problems with the definitions of both of the operative words: "abortion" and "murder".

OK, a miscarriage is medically referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" so technically the term "abortion" includes events over which no one had control, and which possibly nobody even wanted. Obviously those who believe abortion should be illegal are not talking about that, and to use that is a bit of shameless chicanery, so can we just get past that?

But that's not true. If pregnant women were plugged into feeding machines and did nothing but sit, then the chances of miscarriages would very likely drop. To do otherwise would increase the risk of miscarriage, which means that the risk of killing a person has increased.

If a miscarriage were to occur and if full safety and care weren't exercised, then we have a case of negligent homicide. The pro-life "fetus=person" argument is absurd.

You're seriously going to go with that line of argument? So you're saying that if it could be determined that the fetus is a person, then if somebody didn't "{get} plugged into feeding machines and did nothing but sit", that would have to be treated legally the same as someone saying "this kid interferes with my fun" and make the appointments and payments to kill it? Really? I'll give you a pass to reconsider that one, BBS, because that is absurd.

Of course, it's absurd. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. I brought an argument to its logical conclusion.

The tradeoff between the satisfaction of the pregnant mother and the maximization of safety for the fetus (by decreasing the risk of a spontaneous abortion, i.e. the murder of an innocent person) can't be denied.

1. The fetus is a human being.
2. Abortion is murder.
3. If any miscarriage is partially due to the mother's insufficient attempts at decreasing the risk of a spontaneous abortion,
4. then the mother is partly responsible for murdering an innocent person.

Sorry, but that's taking the "fetus=person" and the "abortion=murder" argument to its logical conclusion. The mother should've took more care in reducing the risk of a miscarriage. The greatest way to reduce that risk is to sit in a hospital bed for nine months and be fed "perfect" food through tubes, etc.

No, because by that same reasoning,you could also indict any parent who let their child go outside, cross the street, ride in a car, join the soccer team or eat a cheeseburger. You're throwing in the extra absurd assertion that ANY choice that may increase the risk of something is the same as a premeditated course of action to accomplish that something. I dealt with the issue of different levels of responsibility for the end of someone's life in the other part of my post, which you conveniently left out. Look it up.

Edit on second thought, I'll just re- post it:

Now the semantic problem with the term "murder" is a little more complex. There are many different circumstances under which one might end a life, and not all of them are "murder". Situations that most would say are certainly not "murder" would include self-defense, and the defense of other lives. Beyond that there are a whole range of circumstances with varying degrees of controversiality (e.g. war). In the legal system various circumstances are called "manslaughter" or even "justifiable homicide". These take into account the mental state and motivation of the person. To be considered "murder" there has to be a degree of specific malice toward the deceased, among other things. If someone is convinced that the, let's use the term "embryo", is just a lump of tissue, or part of the mother's body that is just being removed, that hardly fits.

The problems with the oversimplified slogan “Abortion is murder” do not in any way contradict the well-considered, and I believe true, position that the child in the womb is a person, and that abortion means ending her life. We can discuss the complexities of the various circumstances, and the efficacy of various consequences, but that is a different issue.

[BigBallinStalin]

Logical conclusion? Wouldn't that be that a fetus may be a living thing but it is not yet a person at conception, as it still requires a bit of time to develop. From a religious point of view if a fetus is not carried to term is it sinless?

Should masterbating men be charged with manslaughter?

Premise 1: "The fetus is a human being." I've used human being and person interchangeably, but it doesn't undermine my argument. If premise 1 is true, then my argument holds.

(I disagree that it is true, but many pro-lifers disagree. So I'll just go with their stance and show how ridiculous it can be).

Finally, sperm != fetus.

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course, it's absurd. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. I brought an argument to its logical conclusion.

The tradeoff between the satisfaction of the pregnant mother and the maximization of safety for the fetus (by decreasing the risk of a spontaneous abortion, i.e. the murder of an innocent person) can't be denied.

1. The fetus is a human being.
2. Abortion is murder.
3. If any miscarriage is partially due to the mother's insufficient attempts at decreasing the risk of a spontaneous abortion,
4. then the mother is partly responsible for murdering an innocent person.

Sorry, but that's taking the "fetus=person" and the "abortion=murder" argument to its logical conclusion. The mother should've took more care in reducing the risk of a miscarriage. The greatest way to reduce that risk is to sit in a hospital bed for nine months and be fed "perfect" food through tubes, etc.

Dear god what about all the miscarriages we don't even know about (many miscarriages occur with the woman not even knowing she was pregnant)? If life starts at conception women could be risking human lives every time they have sex without contraceptives.

Is ignorance protection from manslaughter? If not ,then if legally life began at conception, women would probably have to avoid doing anything dangerous like going outside or engaging in society. After all by doing that they could be killing someone.

Either that or abstain from sex.

Unfortunately, those are the choices imposed upon everyone from the above moral stance.