• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When does "life" begin


It is not the government's business to declare abortion "acceptable" or "barbaric", and I doubt ANY pregnant woman would influenced by a government proclamation. The government did declare abortion illegal for about 100 years and it had little, if any, effect on the numbers of abortion. The government could be more effective in forcing abortions as it is difficult to hide an advancing pregnancy.


Here are some interesting numbers in reference to the age of women having abortions:

Entrez PubMed
"Women aged 18-19 continue to have the highest abortion rate of any group (60/1000). ... The highest abortion ratios are found among .. women 40 and older (51%), teenagers (42%).."
 
jallman said:
It is human. But it is certainly not "a human".
Click to expand...

Sure it's a human, the question is... SO WHAT? The whole idea that just because it's got human DNA, it should be protected is ludicrous.

Tell that to George Bush and the 3000+ dead soldiers he's got in Iraq.
 
Cephus said:
Sure it's a human, the question is... SO WHAT? The whole idea that just because it's got human DNA, it should be protected is ludicrous.

Tell that to George Bush and the 3000+ dead soldiers he's got in Iraq.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that each individual human's life is obviously and without question NOT inherently valuable and that human lives should not be valued, respected, or have an assumed "right to life"?
 
talloulou said:
So are you saying that each individual human's life is obviously and without question NOT inherently valuable and that human lives should not be valued, respected, or have an assumed "right to life"?
Click to expand...

Tell the kids starving to death in Somalia or other African nations about their 'right to life'. Come on back when they stop laughing.
 
Cephus said:
Tell the kids starving to death in Somalia or other African nations about their 'right to life'. Come on back when they stop laughing.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. There are children in this country who are not properly provided for and they are children who have the capability of feeling hunger and who are capable of desiring life and have self awareness and feel emotions that make us human.

When there are no more of these children going without, then I might find it in me to give a damn about the plight of an unthinking, unaware, unfeeling mass of cells with no more humanity than my hand severed from my wrist.
 
Cephus said:
Tell the kids starving to death in Somalia or other African nations about their 'right to life'. Come on back when they stop laughing.
Click to expand...

I don't support abortion and I don't support kids starving to death anywhere. In fact I actively go about finding ways to support poor children throughout the world while I don't actively do anything to stop abortion. When it comes to abortion I speak out against it because it is wrong. I don't view it as the most important issue though and I certainly don't vote on politicians based on their abortion stance nor do I stand outside clinics with signs. I merely speak my opinion online and express my belief that it is barbaric and tragic. As far as Africa goes though we have actually adopted a family of farmers and my kids enjoy receiving letters from the family talking of their progress and how our money helps them. Whether our money actually does help them or not is something I often question but my belief that it is even slightly possible that our money may in fact help this small family gives me enough hope to keep plopping that check to World Vision in the mail every month. On top of that I am also willing to put my money where my mouth in as far as charities that I genuinely feel are trying to make the world a better place for more people, especially children, whether they reside here at home or abroad.

I do not financially fund any anti-abortion campaigns or participate in any rallies because it is not my goal to harass desperate women making a desperate choice in a social climate that supports that choice. I do however, when the topic comes up, repeatedly use my voice to point out that, like the death penalty, abortion is barbaric and we would be better served by recognizing it as such and going about the business of promoting family planning that is safe, cheap, and easily accessible which doesn't involve the killing of human organisms. I believe we are advanced enough to view family planning as a means to actually control ones ability not to reproduce vs fighting for the opportunity to terminate humans that have already been brought into being.
 
Last edited:
tecoyah said:
Thank You...it seems talloulou made this position quite clear, and in fact I agree a human lifeform is genetically created at that point. My dispute is the difference in actual function of these cells vs. those of your wolf.
Click to expand...

Alright....

Then just change the wolf with some single celled organism.

Or better yet....

Instead of a wolf use a tadpole of a Leopard Frog.

The human embryo would be Homo sapien and the tadpole of the Leopard Frog would be Rana pipiens.

The tadpole looks nothing like the adult frog and yet they are the same species.

The human embryo looks nothing like an adult human and yet they are the same species.
 

As stated, I am aware of this position, as quite well stated by talloulou previously in this thread. I do not dispute the genetics of these cells, merely the abilities of the same. To clarify, I do not give the same status to these cells, as I do to a completed Human. We simply hold differing perceptions on Biology it seems...which is fine.
 
tecoyah said:
To clarify, I do not give the same status to these cells, as I do to a completed Human. .
Click to expand...
What's a "completed human?" We are always having cells die and replenish--we are always learning new things--when are we "complete" and why do you consider that "complete?"
 
Felicity said:
What's a "completed human?" We are always having cells die and replenish--we are always learning new things--when are we "complete" and why do you consider that "complete?"
Click to expand...

Perhaps, one that is capable autonomous survival, capable of living outside somebody else's body, of surviving without extracting somebody else's bodily resources.
When one is dependent upon a parasitic biological relationship with another human being in order to "live", one can't really be said to be "living" at all.
One is "living", at best, only at the whim of one's host, and only as long as one's host is also "living".


Just a guess.
 

I will bow out at this point, and just agree with the above description, rather than detail my own. There are times when debate becomes a pointless gesture, likely to become unpleasant....it is virtually inevitable when certain parties become involved.
 
I will bow out at this point, and just agree with the above description, rather than detail my own.
Click to expand...

By all means, "detail your own".

I said it was just a guess.

:shrug:

There are times when debate becomes a pointless gesture, likely to become unpleasant....it is virtually inevitable when certain parties become involved.
Click to expand...



I hope I'm not the "pointless and unpleasant" party you are obliquely referring to; if I am, though, don't worry: I scarcely involve myself at all in abortion debates anymore. Roe will be upheld come what may; discussion of it becomes redundant and tedious after awhile.
So by all means, carry on. I'll cheerfully recuse myself from the discussion, if my presence and involvement intimidates you.
 
1069 said:
Perhaps, ......Just a guess.
Click to expand...
That's the point. It is completely subjective and based on an individual's value decision. It eventually ALWAYS leads to a certian bigotry toward some human. This is so because an individual choses the criteria for what human life is valuable and that individual making that determination is the one with power and therefore subjugates that human life that is without a means to defend against the subjugation.



I hope I'm not the "pointless and unpleasant" party you are obliquely referring to;
Click to expand...
It's me...tecoyah's got issues with my expressing myself concerning some past behaviors.
 

Well if the human in question is not dead than it most certainly must be living. I don't see how that could even be up for question.

One is "living", at best, only at the whim of one's host, and only as long as one's host is also "living".
Click to expand...
On that we agree completely. The unborn most certainly are dependent upon the mercy and whims of their mothers.
 

I understand that sort of standard. The problem that I have with it is that your standard ...well... changes.

We just recently heard a story of a pre-mature baby the size of soda can (or something really small like that) that survived and was heading home.

I forget at what "age" she was born but clearly using your standard a fetus that age is human. Right? After all she was no longer "dependent upon a parasitic biological relationship with another human being" and that seems to be your standard for when one is "living".

50 years ago however she would not have survived being born that early.

50 years ago would she NOT have been "living"? But now she is?

When we get to a point where a month old embryo can be saved with medical technology does that mean that it is "living"? After all it would no longer be "dependent upon a parasitic biological relationship with another human being".

The point is that you cannot give a specific date/age when a human is actually "living".

As medical technology improves the point that an embryo is "dependent upon a parasitic biological relationship with another human being" also changes. This changes the point that you say something is "living".

Either something is "living" or it is not "living".

It should not change as technology changes.
 

The day when society agrees to allow induction of premature labor as an alternative to second or third trimester abortion, your point might be relevant.
Until then, it is not.

If I were antichoice, that would be a goal I would be working toward.
 
1069 said:
The day when society agrees to allow induction of premature labor as an alternative to second or third trimester abortion, your point might be relevant.
Until then, it is not.

If I were antichoice, that would be a goal I would be working toward.
Click to expand...

Not according to your standard.

You said a being is "living" once it is no longer "dependent upon a parasitic biological relationship with another human being".

If medical technology gets to a point where a 1 month old embryo could survive outside of the mother then it would no longer be "dependent upon a parasitic biological relationship with another human being".

This would mean that according to your standard it would be "living".

BTW....

I looked it up.

The baby that I was thinking of weighed 8.6 oz and was less than 10 inches long when she was born after only 26 weeks in her mother.

So after 26 weeks a fetus is no longer "dependent upon a parasitic biological relationship with another human being".

This means that any fetus older than 26 weeks is "living" .

Or are you going to change your standard for when a being is "living" ?
 
You said a being is "living" once it is no longer "dependent upon a parasitic biological relationship with another human being".
Click to expand...

No, I said that was my guess as to what tecoyah meant by "living".
I guess we'll never know whether I was right, since tecoyah became intimidated by me and/or Felicity, and fled the scene.

I'll concede (and always have) that a fetus is living; if it weren't, it would be decomposing, and causing gangrene, ergo could hardly just be left inside a woman's uterus to rot, any more than any other part of her body could simply be left attached to her, if it ceased to be "living".

A fetus is living like my little toe is living; ie, as long as it is attached to my body, it will continue to live, although disconnected from my body, it will not.
A fetus is also "human", in that it contains human DNA (again, like my little toe).
It is not, however "a human", nor "a human being", because that suggests a level of autonomy, and a capacity for autonomous existence, which a fetus does not possess.

What's wrong with allowing elective induced premature labor, if the point is to save "lives", rather than to enslave and subjugate women?
Oh, wait... it's not.


Actually (don't ask me why I'm bothering to help you... I can't seem to resist being a know-it-all), the youngest surviving premature infant so far (which has survived for any length of time, that is) was born recently in Florida, at only 21 weeks gestation.
Her name is Amillia Taylor.
Statistically, African-American female preemies do better than any other race or gender.
They have good lung development.
 
Last edited:

Close.... But not exactly.

A fetus is a living organism.

A fetus has all the characteristics of a living organism.

A fetus also has the ability to be removed from the mothers body at 21 weeks gestation and continue to live.

50 years ago this would not be possible.

In another 50 years that fetus might be able to survive after only 18 weeks gestation.

Your toe is not.

Your toe does not have the characteristics of a living organism.

Your toes does not have the ability to be removed from your body and continue to live.

Also.....According to your data a fetus has "a capacity for autonomous existence" after 21 weeks gestation. Your toe does not have that "capacity" .

So after 21 weeks are you saying that a fetus is now "a human" ?


What's wrong with allowing elective induced premature labor, if the point is to save "lives", rather than to enslave and subjugate women?
Oh, wait... it's not.
Click to expand...

In some cases that happens...

So instead of aborting a 22 week old fetus you would support inducing premature labor and giving that child up for adoption?
 
Last edited:
In some cases that happens...
Click to expand...

Oh? Name one.

So instead of aborting a 22 week old fetus you would support inducing premature labor and giving that child up for adoption?
Click to expand...

That would be up to the woman involved.
At present, it is not an option.
You should turn your energies toward making it one.
 
1069: What's wrong with allowing elective induced premature labor, if the point is to save "lives", rather than to enslave and subjugate women?
Oh, wait... it's not.
Click to expand...

Dottedmint: In some cases that happens...
Click to expand...

1069: Oh? Name one.
Click to expand...

OK....

Here ya go.

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | World's smallest baby goes home

Doctors induced the birth after fears for her mother's health.

Her mother developed arteritis - an inflammation of the arteries that led doctors at one point to consider amputating her leg and prompted them to deliver the baby early.
Click to expand...

1069: That would be up to the woman involved.
At present, it is not an option.
You should turn your energies toward making it one.
Click to expand...

Of course it is an option.

I just provided a link to a story where a baby was delivered prematurely.

IF that mother had not wanted that baby she easily could have given that child up for adoption at that point.

IF the mother does not want the child why does she have the right to KILL a "living human" that has "a capacity for autonomous existence" ?

IF she does not want the child.

Fine.

Give it up for adoption.

It is POSSIBLE for that child to be adopted at 21 weeks.

I thought that we were only worried about removing this paracite from the mother.

I didn't know that we had to kill it as well...
 
I thought that we were only worried about removing this paracite from the mother.

I didn't know that we had to kill it as well...
Click to expand...

Whether or not we "have to kill it" to remove it is up to doctors and legislators.
The fact that women do and will continue to have the legal right to end pregnancies if they don't want to be pregnant is non-negotiable, and isn't going to change, after nearly forty years.

Whether an option should exist whereby women who find continuing a pregnancy unendurable or otherwise impossible could rid themselves of the unwanted fetus via elective induction of premature labor instead of second- or third-trimester abortion is really up to legislators and voters.
As of right now, women do not have that option.
 
1069: As of right now, women do not have that option.
Click to expand...

Of course they have that OPTION.

Don't lie.

I gave a link to an example where a baby was intentionally delivered early.

According to your data at 21 weeks a fetus is a "living human" that has "a capacity for autonomous existence".

So at 21 weeks they have the option of induction of premature labor.

Induce premature labor and give the child up for adoption.

It is after all a "living human" that has "a capacity for autonomous existence".

Why kill it?
 
dottedmint said:
Of course they have that OPTION.
Don't lie.
I gave a link to an example where a baby was intentionally delivered early.
Click to expand...

They don't have an OPTION. The only reason an abortion would be done at that time is MEDICAL, which means it is not REALLY an option.


1. The chances of early birth resulting in irreparable damage to the fetus is too great to attempt that except for drastic medical reasons.

2. Women don't wait until 21 weeks and THEN decide they WANT an abortion.
 
OKgrannie said:
They don't have an OPTION. The only reason an abortion would be done at that time is MEDICAL, which means it is not REALLY an option.
Click to expand...

I guess you did not read the article that I linked to.

In that article it points out that the mother was having MEDICAL problems and because of these medical problems they delivered the baby early.

So YES it is an option.

IF a mother decided that she did not want to have the baby she has the option to deliver the baby early and give it up for adoption.



1. The chances of early birth resulting in irreparable damage to the fetus is too great to attempt that except for drastic medical reasons.

2. Women don't wait until 21 weeks and THEN decide they WANT an abortion.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out in my other comments 50 years ago a baby delivered at 21 weeks would NOT have survived but with the improvements of medical technology babies that small can survive and many times survive without any long term damage.

BTW....IF the mother does not want the baby why would you care if there was any damage done to it or not? After all she was going to kill it. I would think you could call death via abortion irreparable damage. And in another 50 years as medical technology improves even more the odds of a baby this small being OK would be even greater.

Also ...

Every now and then you hear a story of a woman who didn't even know she was pregnant giving birth to a baby .

This means that some may not even realize that they were pregnant until after 21 weeks.

So yes...

Some may not decide to have an abortion until after 21 weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…