• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Life at Conception

minnie616 said:
I posted this from from: The Consciousness Meter: Sure You Want That?:



The Consciousness Meter: Sure You Want That? - Wired Science

From the following article:



The Uncertain Science Of Fetal Pain - The Daily Beast
Click to expand...
I think abortion, like evolution, is another reason the Religious Right rejects science. An objective view of science leads to some harsh realities.

Evolution tells the religious that we originated from an ape-like ancestor and are biologically little different than our nearest cousins the chimps and bonobos. Abortion makes the Religious deal with the idea that a soul is not created at conception, but rather that a brain slowly develops and thereby eventually manifests a unique personality.
 
minnie616 said:
I posted this from from: The Consciousness Meter: Sure You Want That?:



The Consciousness Meter: Sure You Want That? - Wired Science

From the following article:



The Uncertain Science Of Fetal Pain - The Daily Beast
Click to expand...
Yea I've read anywhere form 20-30 weeks on the pain thing as well. It's still a scientific guess though. My thought process is if it can move, makes sense it'd be able to feel something.
I understand the ruling put it at 24 weeks on viability right? and it has since been pushed back to 22-23 weeks later cases. I believe Planned Parenting V Casey in 1992 correct? And really no restrictions up to week 13 and minimal ones through week 22- 24 where states can ban all abortion except danger to the mother.
I'd really love to see a great compromise on this issue. No side is completely happy. I wrote it somewhere in one of the polls... Something to this effect No restrictions through week 12. after week 12 Only in cases with danger to the mother.
Another option, which I think can hold a lot of weight, if not for Roe V Wade is Restrictions at every level, except cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother and cases where the fetus if allowed to fully develop will have zero chance of survival outside the womb for more then a few days. Such as not developing a heart, or lungs, or brain. Organs developing outside the body. I of course am against all abortions, but this is a compromise I can be content accepting. Again Roe V Wade would have to be overturned, or reworded in order for this to happen.
What do you think about those two options?
 
Steve Ja said:
Yea I've read anywhere form 20-30 weeks on the pain thing as well. It's still a scientific guess though. My thought process is if it can move, makes sense it'd be able to feel something.
I understand the ruling put it at 24 weeks on viability right? and it has since been pushed back to 22-23 weeks later cases. I believe Planned Parenting V Casey in 1992 correct? And really no restrictions up to week 13 and minimal ones through week 22- 24 where states can ban all abortion except danger to the mother.
I'd really love to see a great compromise on this issue. No side is completely happy. I wrote it somewhere in one of the polls... Something to this effect No restrictions through week 12. after week 12 Only in cases with danger to the mother.
Another option, which I think can hold a lot of weight, if not for Roe V Wade is Restrictions at every level, except cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother and cases where the fetus if allowed to fully develop will have zero chance of survival outside the womb for more then a few days. Such as not developing a heart, or lungs, or brain. Organs developing outside the body. I of course am against all abortions, but this is a compromise I can be content accepting. Again Roe V Wade would have to be overturned, or reworded in order for this to happen.
What do you think about those two options?
Click to expand...

It's "asleep" 95% of the time until birth. But, be that as it may, I am not a big fan of third trimester abortion. It's way too much like a real baby by then.

Nonetheless, if a fetus jeopardizes the mother in any way, aborting it at 24-36 weeks is a no-brainer. Also, if a weird life-ending/shortening deformity is discovered at 24 weeks like it lacks a brain or lungs or a complete heart, I favor letting the mother choose. I also do not have a problem with the mother choosing to abort a child with Downs or another major mental defect because caring for such a child really causes an undue burden on the unsuspecting. After all, it's not like the parents chose to have a mentally ill child.
 
calamity said:
Abortion makes the Religious deal with the idea that a soul is not created at conception.
Click to expand...

Imagine God creating a soul for a one cell human at conception but a few days later the organism splits into triplets. Since souls are immune to merely physical events, this means only one of the three will have a soul. God has to “come back” to the scene to create two more souls. On the other hand, God is supposed to be smart and knowledgeable. If God knows in advance that there will be triplets or even that there might be triplets then isn’t the smartest thing to do is simply wait for the splitting to happen before making any of the three souls? Yet this violates the claim that God creates souls at conception! But so what? Religions have been wrong about their claims before! :lol:
 
Steve Ja said:
Yea I've read anywhere form 20-30 weeks on the pain thing as well. It's still a scientific guess though. My thought process is if it can move, makes sense it'd be able to feel something.
I understand the ruling put it at 24 weeks on viability right? and it has since been pushed back to 22-23 weeks later cases. I believe Planned Parenting V Casey in 1992 correct? And really no restrictions up to week 13 and minimal ones through week 22- 24 where states can ban all abortion except danger to the mother.
I'd really love to see a great compromise on this issue. No side is completely happy. I wrote it somewhere in one of the polls... Something to this effect No restrictions through week 12. after week 12 Only in cases with danger to the mother.
Another option, which I think can hold a lot of weight, if not for Roe V Wade is Restrictions at every level, except cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother and cases where the fetus if allowed to fully develop will have zero chance of survival outside the womb for more then a few days. Such as not developing a heart, or lungs, or brain. Organs developing outside the body. I of course am against all abortions, but this is a compromise I can be content accepting. Again Roe V Wade would have to be overturned, or reworded in order for this to happen.
What do you think about those two options?
Click to expand...

No compromise. The govt. has no business in the wombs of the nation.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Imagine God creating a soul for a one cell human at conception but a few days later the organism splits into triplets. Since souls are immune to merely physical events, this means only one of the three will have a soul. God has to “come back” to the scene to create two more souls. On the other hand, God is supposed to be smart and knowledgeable. If God knows in advance that there will be triplets or even that there might be triplets then isn’t the smartest thing to do is simply wait for the splitting to happen before making any of the three souls? Yet this violates the claim that God creates souls at conception! But so what? Religions have been wrong about their claims before! :lol:
Click to expand...
Funny how that plays out.

What did that one site someone posted earlier say?

It takes 48 hours to actually conceive. Add to that the roughly 6 weeks women typically wait before knowing that the zygote planted itself in her uterus and...Well, let's just say God must be one patient SOB.
 
Scrabaholic said:
No compromise. The govt. has no business in the wombs of the nation.
Click to expand...

See. That should be the basic response from the "freedom first" crowd. But yet...they want to monitor the womb and the bedroom, if you happen to be gay.

What's up with that?
 
Scrabaholic said:
No compromise. The govt. has no business in the wombs of the nation.
Click to expand...

If there was a ''compromise,'' the only thing the pro choicers in a nation have to do is secure elective abortion in the first trimester and some of the second trimester since those are the places where over 95% of abortions happen anyways.
 
calamity said:
Funny how that plays out.

2. What did that one site someone posted earlier say?

3. It takes 48 hours to actually conceive. Add to that the roughly 6 weeks women typically wait before knowing that the zygote planted itself in her uterus and...

4. Well, let's just say God must be one patient SOB.
Click to expand...

1. Exactly though this only applies to the religious pro lifers who make that claim. You would have to come up with tougher arguments to debunk pro life athiests and agnostics who don't even know they're taking up religious values on human life.

2. I haven't seen it though probably close to what I said a bit ago.

3. Yes, somewhere around there.

4. If a god does exist he would be smart enough not to give a one cell human a soul.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
1. Exactly though this only applies to the religious pro lifers who make that claim. You would have to come up with tougher arguments to debunk pro life athiests and agnostics who don't even know they're taking up religious values on human life.

2. I haven't seen it though probably close to what I said a bit ago.

3. Yes, somewhere around there.

4. If a god does exist he would be smart enough not to give a one cell human a soul.
Click to expand...

1. I know several pretty wise men, who are anti-abortion and agnostic. Their take is that being yeay or nay on said subject is a moral stance, therefore inflexible. So, yeah. It is a weird pov for the non-religious.

4. Right. WTF is he thinking?
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
1. Exactly though this only applies to the religious pro lifers who make that claim. You would have to come up with tougher arguments to debunk pro life athiests and agnostics who don't even know they're taking up religious values on human life.

2. I haven't seen it though probably close to what I said a bit ago.

3. Yes, somewhere around there.

4. If a god does exist he would be smart enough not to give a one cell human a soul.
Click to expand...

GBR...you're right.

I've read a number of sites where so-called atheists offer up a secular arguments for abortion and they sound remarkably like theists argument so...who knows? I think that those sites are spoofs of some kind.
 
Happy New Year...all of you hardcore DP'ers...and you know who you are. :2wave:
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
If there was a ''compromise,'' the only thing the pro choicers in a nation have to do is secure elective abortion in the first trimester and some of the second trimester since those are the places where over 95% of abortions happen anyways.
Click to expand...

It already is a compromise: No one forces the woman to do anything...have a baby or have an abortion.

No compromise is MUST have baby.

No compromise is MUST have an abortion.
 
calamity said:
I think abortion, like evolution, is another reason the Religious Right rejects science. An objective view of science leads to some harsh realities.

Evolution tells the religious that we originated from an ape-like ancestor and are biologically little different than our nearest cousins the chimps and bonobos. Abortion makes the Religious deal with the idea that a soul is not created at conception, but rather that a brain slowly develops and thereby eventually manifests a unique personality.
Click to expand...

Until the Catholic religion insisted that ensoulment happens at fertilization most religions including the early Catholic Church believed that ensoulment happened later in a pregnancy ( around quickening ) or at birth.
 
Scrabaholic said:
No compromise. The govt. has no business in the wombs of the nation.
Click to expand...

Actually many of us feel that Roe vs Wade was a compromise because it gave states rights to have a compelling interest in potentiality of life once the fetus becomes viable.
 
minnie616 said:
Actually many of us feel that Roe vs Wade was a compromise because it gave states rights to have a compelling interest in potentiality of life once the fetus becomes viable.
Click to expand...

I believe that RvW is a compromise. The decision clearly states that the unborn have no rights. The only reason the state has any power to restrict abortion (other than protecting the mother's rights) is this "state's interest in protecting potential life", an interest I haven't seen anywhere else in the law. RvW doesn't mention any basis for this interest. It merely claims that it exists.
 
Steve Ja said:
That baby could be a world leader, a doctor, teacher, police officer. Huge impact on the entire world.
Click to expand...
That is a naive argument at best. The same odds exist for being a criminal or mass murdering dictator.
 
Steve Ja said:
I'm sure there are numerous other posts regarding this, but I decided to post mine anyways. I believe life begins at conception and abortion is unacceptable under any circumstances, except when the mothers life is in danger. I consider it murder of an innocent life, that had no say in how it was conceived. The argument about it being the woman's body and it should be her choice makes me giggle often. She gets to make the decision on whether the baby lives or dies? As if it is only her this is affecting. The entire world is affected by abortions. The next cure, the next big discovery etc etc might be killed with that abortion. some make it seem like the ability to bring life into this world is such a burden. I wish I had the capabilities to get pregnant. A wonderful gift that only women were given. But that does not mean they should also have the right to kill off babies before they are born. Nobody should be given that authority, except nature. Nature will determine if the baby is viable or not.

What are your thoughts on this touchy subject
Click to expand...

Do you believe in the holy spirit? The invisible, magical "soul" that supposedly inhabits our bodies along with us? That is the only reason to believe that a human is created at conception. Humans have properties that are not consistent with an embryo, like a functioning higher brain. Embryos are all "brain dead" and we disconnect brain dead "humans" all the time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom