• 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

rivrrat said:
You know, I hate all the mothers that come to work selling their kids cookies. When I was a Girl Scout, I had to sell the darn things myself. ;)

And, btw... I'm glad you're as happy with your choice as I am with mine. See how well that works out? :cool:
Click to expand...

Hey now! I don't hate women who've had abortions so how you gonna hate cookie moms??? Though I will say the Girl Scouts put alot of pressure on the girls to sell these damn cookies. I don't know where these people get off thinking consent to sex means that I'm gonna have to piddle all kinds of crap the whole time my kids are in school. I'm constantly being asked to sell $hit!

And to go back on topic I am glad you are happy with your choice. I'd like to change the mentality that surrounds abortion but I don't want to punish women who've had them in anyway. What's done is done and I don't want anyone spending their life regretting something that can't be changed. I certainly don't think women who've had abortions are evil or cruel but I do question whether or not abortion should be a choice.
 
Re: smallest baby

Forcibly removing a body part is clearly unConstitutional. We can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a court will not rule in favor of forcibly removing an embryo from a woman so they can throw it in an artificial womb. That is just Common and Constitutional sense.
Click to expand...

It would NOT be "forcibly removing an embryo".

IF the mother was going to have an abortion then she wanted it removed.

IF the father wants the embryo to survive and the procedure was simple there would be no reason for a court to say remove it from the mother (because she wanted it removed) and place it in an artificial womb.

The mother would have the unwanted embryo removed from her body (as she wanted done) and the father would have his child.

She would not have it "forcibly removed" because she WANTED it removed....
 
Re: smallest baby

dottedmint said:
It would NOT be "forcibly removing an embryo".

IF the mother was going to have an abortion then she wanted it removed.

IF the father wants the embryo to survive and the procedure was simple there would be no reason for a court to say remove it from the mother (because she wanted it removed) and place it in an artificial womb.

The mother would have the unwanted embryo removed from her body (as she wanted done) and the father would have his child.

She would not have it "forcibly removed" because she WANTED it removed....
Click to expand...

If the removal of the embryo was no more invasive or scarring or debilitating than the original abortion procedure, then sure, why not. Once she discards the embryo, it is clearly not hers anymore. Fine, I will grant you that.

However, if her intent is to have an abortion and the father wants the child, then that is for she and he to work out...not the courts. The courts cannot force an optional medical procedure on the woman for any reason at any time.
 
rivrrat said:
Uh... I've stated it in more than one post. I find nothing wrong with killing the human being that took up residence in my body against my will. I stated to you, quite clearly, that I considered it living, human, and a human being and that I killed it. My intention with the abortion was to end its life - willfully and without remorse, plain and simple. How much more clear would you like me to be?
Click to expand...
Thank you for being clear.

I have another question (of course;) ): Other than those that reside in wombs, are there any other humans you refer to as "it" rather than a more suitable pronoun like "he" or "she?"
 
Felicity said:
Thank you for being clear.

I have another question (of course;) ): Other than those that reside in wombs, are there any other humans you refer to as "it" rather than a more suitable pronoun like "he" or "she?"
Click to expand...

I do...any person or thing which has not had a gender designated or an unknown gender is an "it".

A lot of people on this forum are "its" if they don't declare their gender.
 
jallman said:
I do...any person or thing which has not had a gender designated or an unknown gender is an "it".

A lot of people on this forum are "its" if they don't declare their gender.
Click to expand...

Also when playing tag. YOU'RE IT!
 
jallman said:
I do...any person or thing which has not had a gender designated or an unknown gender is an "it".

A lot of people on this forum are "its" if they don't declare their gender.
Click to expand...

That's just weird.:2razz: You do not--you'd say he or she or s/he or something other than "it." Can you link an example that isn't intentionally derogatory? I'll wait. And the time sig needs to be prior this post ;)
 
jallman said:
A ZEF is an individual only in terms of its unique DNA. All the other designators of individual entity are absent in the ZEF. I don't recall bringing up an appendix at all in this thread.
Click to expand...

Main Entry: 2individual
Function: noun
1 a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a teacher who works with individuals> (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group b : a particular person <are you the individual I spoke with on the telephone?>
2 : an indivisible entity

So an embryo has a "unique DNA".

It is a "single organism"

What other designators are there that I'm missing?

When a parasitic clam reproduces it's larvae attaches themselves to the gills of fish.

Each individual larvae is just that....AN INDIVIDUAL.

It is dependent on the fish for it's life but it is still an individual.

Each larvae is genetically different from each other.

Each larvae is genetically different from the fish that it is attached to.

Being dependent on another organism to live does not make one any less of an individual.
 
Re: smallest baby

jallman said:
If the removal of the embryo was no more invasive or scarring or debilitating than the original abortion procedure, then sure, why not. Once she discards the embryo, it is clearly not hers anymore. Fine, I will grant you that.

However, if her intent is to have an abortion and the father wants the child, then that is for she and he to work out...not the courts. The courts cannot force an optional medical procedure on the woman for any reason at any time.
Click to expand...

It wouldnt' be the first time the courts made a ruling on something that they should have kept their nose out of but that is another issue.

Obviously this whole debate is based on what "might happen" in the future.

We don't know what 100 years will bring in ways of medical science or even what public opinions will be at that time.

Who knows.....

In 100 years it might be the law that anyone under 18 uses birth control or is somehow sterilized (temporarily of course) until their 18th birthday. Or maybe just ANYONE who does not want a child is sterilized until they decide that they WANT a child. No more "Ooops"....

Who knows.....
 
Felicity said:
Thank you for being clear.

I have another question (of course;) ): Other than those that reside in wombs, are there any other humans you refer to as "it" rather than a more suitable pronoun like "he" or "she?"
Click to expand...

Yes. Sometimes when gender is unspecific or unidentified, whether intentionally or not. Sometimes I say "it", sometimes I say "them", sometimes I say "s/he". Ditto with folks I meet and I'm actually unsure of their gender, such as transvesties, transgenders, and cross-dressers.
 
rivrrat said:
Yes. Sometimes when gender is unspecific or unidentified, whether intentionally or not. Sometimes I say "it", sometimes I say "them", sometimes I say "s/he". Ditto with folks I meet and I'm actually unsure of their gender, such as transvesties, transgenders, and cross-dressers.
Click to expand...

Could you give an example sentence that you think is referencing a human as "it" (other than a ZEF) that is not derogatory in nature?
 
Felicity said:
Could you give an example sentence that you think is referencing a human as "it" (other than a ZEF) that is not derogatory in nature?
Click to expand...

1) Why? It's a tad off topic isn't it?
2) Why do I care if it's derogatoy or not?
3) Whether or not it's derogatory is purely subjective.
 
rivrrat said:
1) Why? It's a tad off topic isn't it?
2) Why do I care if it's derogatoy or not?
3) Whether or not it's derogatory is purely subjective.
Click to expand...

Well...technically, it's not grammatically correct either.
Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement
Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement
A pronoun must agree in gender and number with its antecedent. If necessary, vary your choice of pronouns to avoid sexist language. Sometimes the best way to avoid sexist language is to change the singular to the plural.

When the antecedent is a singular indefinite pronoun, use a singular pronoun to refer to it. In such cases, vary your choice of pronouns to avoid sexist language. Sometimes the best way to avoid sexist language is to change the singular to the plural.

But..if you're not concerned with being accurate about WHO you killed (notice I didn't say "what" you killed ;) ) then you're not concerned about being accurate in the logical consistency of your position. And, I'm not surprised that you don't mind being derogatory since one has to be prejudiced against a segment of human beings to consider their lives of less value or, as you appear to believe, of no value.
 
dottedmint said:
I'll start off by saying that I do not support a 100% ban on abortions.

HOWEVER------

An embryo inside of it's mother is "human life".

It has all of the characteristics of "life" and it is "human".

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF "LIFE"

1. Made up of cells
2. Complex organized patterns
3. Use energy
4. Must maintain a stable internal condition
5. Growth and Change
6. Reproduction

It is genetically different from the mother so it is not "part" of the mother.

Neither a sperm nor an egg can be "human life" because 1. they both only have 1/2 the genetic makeup of a human and 2. neither one of them have the ability to (BY THEMSELVES) grow into an adult human.

Once the egg and sperm are joined it is genetically "complete" and has the ability to grow into an adult human.

This means that once an egg is fertilized it is "human life".

We can debate if abortions should be legal or not but human life is human life.
Click to expand...

The pro-abortionists are basing their reasoning on a scientific concept that was disproven hundreds of years ago-spontaneous generation. According to their logic, a fetus is an inanimate object until some random point at which it suddenly becomes alive.

Inanimate objects don't become alive at any point.

A fetus is clearly a living thing, and its DNA proves that it is entirely unique and the human species.

So...killing living humans is ok because...?

It all comes down to the age of the victim. If you are young enough, liberals don't sympathize with you, so they strip you of your most fundamental rights. There is no logic to it, just pure emotion.
 
aquapub said:
The pro-abortionists are basing their reasoning on a scientific concept that was disproven hundreds of years ago-spontaneous generation. According to their logic, a fetus is an inanimate object until some random point at which it suddenly becomes alive.

Inanimate objects don't become alive at any point.

A fetus is clearly a living thing, and its DNA proves that it is entirely unique and the human species.

So...killing living humans is ok because...?

It all comes down to the age of the victim. If you are young enough, liberals don't sympathize with you, so they strip you of your most fundamental rights. There is no logic to it, just pure emotion.
Click to expand...

Do I even have to begin pointing out the lack of truth...nay, utter bullshit...inherent in this post?
 
Felicity said:
But..if you're not concerned with being accurate about WHO you killed (notice I didn't say "what" you killed ;) ) then you're not concerned about being accurate in the logical consistency of your position. And, I'm not surprised that you don't mind being derogatory since one has to be prejudiced against a segment of human beings to consider their lives of less value or, as you appear to believe, of no value.
Click to expand...

Of course they have no value, they're not people. It would only have a value if I *wanted* to nurture it into a person. There's the very distinct possibility that I kill one every month by taking the pill. I don't have a problem with that either.
 
jallman said:
Baby baby baby. It doesn't matter what a prospective mother calls the fetus. She still is the one who confers value to the zef/baby/child/fetus/whatever.
Click to expand...

Yeah you are right because of laws she has the right to kill her BABY if she wants. When it is convinent for people they call it baby, I have never heard anybody say I have a fetus I will have soon it will then be a baby! Even the doctors say your baby has grown so much this month! It doesn't change the fact that is a human heart beating person inside her!
 
rivrrat said:
Of course they have no value, they're not people. It would only have a value if I *wanted* to nurture it into a person. There's the very distinct possibility that I kill one every month by taking the pill. I don't have a problem with that either.
Click to expand...

You are the very first person I have ever heard say that ALL babies have no value....No value to who? To you? Of course they have value, as much as you or me! Ask your mother, or somebody close to you that knew your mom when she was pregnant with you if you HAD VALUE!!!!!!!!!
 
MomOf4Boys1974@aol.com said:
You are the very first person I have ever heard say that ALL babies have no value....No value to who? To you? Of course they have value, as much as you or me! Ask your mother, or somebody close to you that knew your mom when she was pregnant with you if you HAD VALUE!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

...you aint read nothin yet....

Welcome to DP!
 
1069 said:
Don't know what "DP" means?
I'm sure Jerry could help familiarize you with the term, avid pr0n fan that he is.
Click to expand...

...I animated your pic from the member pic forum....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom