• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can two lives become one?

quip said:
It's an vague generalization intentionally designed by anti-choicers to call a calculated end to any further critical inquiries onto the issue.
Click to expand...
No it isnt. Its a means by which to put the entire debate into its proper context. Thats why you oppose it.
 
Fletch said:
No it isnt. Its a means by which to put the entire debate into its proper context. Thats why you oppose it.
Click to expand...
On the contrary. Proper context would include the mother's rights. Anti-choice completely and conveniently avoids this distraction.
 
quip said:
Perhaps, by refusing to hide behind the vague pronouncement of "life" and taking an earnest, non-reactionary examination of the issue.
Click to expand...
agree. human life is a process from embryo to development in the womb, to birth. but an embryo is not a human being.

It's like saying a germinating seed is an oak tree. It's obviously not. Science is the guideline -but for legal purposes (abortion/personhood)
we set certain measures for when abortion is OK and when it's not -even though an abortion is terminating "life'
 
Fletch said:
Why would they change. Life begins at conception. Those who believe that abortion ends a human life are correct. There is nothing to think over.
Click to expand...

Sure there is. Like, does it matter?


j
 
Fletch said:
Why would they change. Life begins at conception. Those who believe that abortion ends a human life are correct. There is nothing to think over.
Click to expand...
Sure there is, such as the woman's life, her situation her rights, and what difference "life" makes as that is not the issue.
Fletch said:
There is nothing vague about life or when it begins. Unless your goal is to terminate that life without a guilty conscience.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone feel guilty?
Fletch said:
No it isnt. Its a means by which to put the entire debate into its proper context. Thats why you oppose it.
Click to expand...
Proper context: Abortion is a legal and personal issue. As such, there is no rational or legal reason to restrict abortion at all and its an issue between a woman and her doctor and no one else's business or concern.
 
Fletch said:
No it isnt. Its a means by which to put the entire debate into its proper context. Thats why you oppose it.
Click to expand...
Except that in one of my examples (identical twins), one of the lives did not exist at conception. In the other (chimerism), when did the life itself end if we only have one baby born? And belief in a soul would put this on another level as well.
 

How's any of that relevant to the issue of abortion? If separate lives hypothetically begin or end during the processes you described, it still would be a matter of natural processes and have nothing to do with the issue.
 
Noodlegawd said:
How's any of that relevant to the issue of abortion? If separate lives hypothetically begin or end during the processes you described, it still would be a matter of natural processes and have nothing to do with the issue.
Click to expand...
How does the issue of when life begins or ends matter to abortion is part of the point.

Laws are being written claiming life begins at conception and that there are rights given at conception, even legal recognition in some states at conception. If taxes are affected according to how many "people" are there, then it matters when it comes to abortion. Additionally, if you aborted twins, is that one count or two? So if you abort a chimera fetus, is that one count or two?
 
Read Nomadology: The War Machine yet?
 
Fletch said:
Why would they change. Life begins at conception. Those who believe that abortion ends a human life are correct. There is nothing to think over.
Click to expand...
I agree. People that belong to this point of view are not going to change. No amount of logic, philosophy, religion, statistical evidence will change these people way of thinking. What often does change though is the act of getting an abortion when a pregnancy becomes an embarrassment or an impediment. The % of anti-abortion advocates that get abortions is almost exactly the same as the general population of those who advocate for legal abortion.
 

Either way, there's at least one "life" according to the theory. The laws being written based on that theory would be the same whether one or two "lives" are involved.

What taxes are affected by how many "lives" there are in a woman's uterus?
 
Noodlegawd said:
Either way, there's at least one "life" according to the theory. The laws being written based on that theory would be the same whether one or two "lives" are involved.

What taxes are affected by how many "lives" there are in a woman's uterus?
Click to expand...
In Georgia, a person can claim the unborn on state taxes due to their heartbeat law.
 
roguenuke said:
In Georgia, a person can claim the unborn on state taxes due to their heartbeat law.
Click to expand...

That's based on when a heartbeat can be detected, not on life beginning at conception.
 
Fletch said:
Why would they change. Life begins at conception. Those who believe that abortion ends a human life are correct. There is nothing to think over.
Click to expand...
Of course there is. Even though a fertilized ovum may be a human life, it is not a person. Abortion does not end a human life, because abortion only occurs after an embryo is implanted into the living body of the woman, who is a person.

After implantation, a placenta forms of the cells of that person and the embryo, and it transfers the person's oxygen, nutrients, antibodies, etc., to the embryo. The person's biological systems, organs, homeostasis, etc., substitute for those the embryo lacks, e.g., the embryo has no heart, but the person's heart substitutes for it.

The placenta is not a human life and not a person. On one hand, a placenta has no rights and a human life has no rights, but a person does have rights. However, even if the embryo were defined as a person, it would not have the right to use the woman's body to save its life. Hence, if she wants to end the implantation, she certainly would have the right to end it.

Once the placenta isn't connected to her body, the embryo won't continue to live. I don't see that as a direct killing of the embryo. The embryo simply dies because it isn't a human life that is separate from the implantation.
 
Nobody has the right to stop a person from removing something from their body that they do not want there and that can cause them health issues up to and including death. Basically any person against abortion is a scumbag.
 
Bodi said:
Nobody has the right to stop a person from removing something from their body that they do not want there and that can cause them health issues up to and including death. Basically any person against abortion is a scumbag.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.