Virginia House vote states life starts at conception

[Minor Axis]

I agree, but most libs won't.

Again, I agree. I can't resist pointing out, though, that you were the one who tried to inject souls into the discussion.

I don't think you are right. Liberals know the fetus is alive, it boils down to what rights the fetus is given. The religious right wants the word "life" to connotative not just something that is alive, but a human life with full human rights. There I disagree.

Regarding souls, Minor humor...

I definitely don't think everyone agrees with this.

It depends on what you mean. These cells are alive and of course sperm and eggs are also alive and they have potential to develop into a viable human being. But when I say life starts at conception, I'm saying a trigger has been pulled allowing the start of development. However we don't give rights to cell clusters, although the religious right wants to. The religious right wants to classify cell clusters not just as life, but as human life equal to you and me. So when they say "Life" they mean a Human Being with full rights under the law. As explained, I disagree. Fetuses have never been given rights until they are viable outside the womb. Does that sound any better?

 

[Panacea]

Minor humor...



It depends on what you mean. These cells are alive, of course sperm and eggs are also alive and they have potential to develop into a viable human being, but we don't give rights to cell clusters, although the religious right wants to. The religious right wants to classify cell clusters not just life, but human life equal to you and me. As explained, I disagree. Does that sound any better?

I definitely agree with the part you listed earlier, essentially, what matters is what we do with it...basically what you've explained here.

I've always held that viewing abortion as a procedure which should be legal means you have to suspend some of the conditions of your typical tenets of morality for the sake of a mother's best interest, and often the child's best interest (though that is certainly debatable). Understandably, many don't like it. The religious right goes absolutely fucking batshit.

 

[Minor Axis]

I definitely agree with the part you listed earlier, essentially, what matters is what we do with it...basically what you've explained here.

I've always held that viewing abortion as a procedure which should be legal means you have to suspend some of the conditions of your typical tenets of morality for the sake of a mother's best interest, and often the child's best interest (though that is certainly debatable). Understandably, many don't like it. The religious right goes absolutely fucking batshit.

Personally I am Pro-Choice, I think the decision is the woman's, hopefully the father's, and her doctor. The government should not be in the middle, but crazy Republican's like Santorum don't think you should be able to use birth control either. He's a scary asshole. That said, I don't think couples as a rule should be using abortion as birth control. What I find amusing is the religious right's insistence that human cells are sacred and must be allowed to be born, but then they don't care about the circumstances into which a baby is born and they definitely don't want to be bothered with this human being later if they need help... we fought for your life, now you can go live in the gutter... it does not quite add up imo.

 

[Panacea]

Personally I am Pro-Choice, I think the decision is the woman's, hopefully the father's, and her doctor. The government should not be in the middle, but crazy Republican's like Santorum don't think you should be able to use birth control either. He's a scary asshole. That said, I don't think couples as a rule should be using abortion as birth control. What I find amusing is the religious right's insistence that human cells are sacred and must be allowed to be born, but then they don't care about the circumstances into which a baby is born and they definitely don't want to be bothered with this human being later if they need help... we fought for your life, now you can go live in the gutter... it does not quite add up imo.

The thing about the religious right and crazy assholes like Santorum is, they'd like to lead you to believe it's common to use abortion the first line of birth control, and that partial birth abortions are common, and that it's common for men to cry in their beers because their women go off killing their sons as they plead to be a father.

These are emotional, inflated arguments- they are not reality. That's really the only problem I have with the anti-choice movement. The false information. If one is informed about what actually happens in the real world regarding abortion, and they oppose, that's their opinion and I have nothing to say.

 

[CityGirl]

What I find amusing is the religious right's insistence that human cells are sacred and must be allowed to be born, but then they don't care about the circumstances into which a baby is born and they definitely don't want to be bothered with this human being later if they need help... we fought for your life, now you can go live in the gutter... it does not quite add up imo.

Exactly! I wish someone would explain this.

 

[Minor Axis]

These are emotional, inflated arguments- they are not reality. That's really the only problem I have with the anti-choice movement. The false information. If one is informed about what actually happens in the real world regarding abortion, and they oppose, that's their opinion and I have nothing to say.

Fathers and Mothers show their ability to abandon born children on a regular basis. I see nothing that people like that would be more enamored with their unborn children. On the other hand, there are people who care, but ultimate responsibility or irresponsibility has to sit with the mother. Is the state prepared to lock the mother up and put her under full time care to see to the needs of her unborn child? Unlikely. Here is one interesting point of current law- If you accidentally kill a pregnant mother in a car crash, how many deaths are you charged with?

I'll just clarify it was Accountable's premise that life starts at conception. I agreed with him that these cells are alive, we all know they are alive, but I don't think he agrees that "Life" with full honors as a human life, as described by religious conservatives, starts at conception. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he will correct me.

 

[Accountable]

I'll just clarify it was Accountable's premise that life starts at conception. I agreed with him that these cells are alive, we all know they are alive, but I don't think he agrees that "Life" with full honors as a human life, as described by religious conservatives, starts at conception. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he will correct me.

He/she is absolutely and undeniably a living human being, and as such deserves every protection we give every other citizen of our country.

Having said that, .......... I posted this in another forum but I haven't been able to improve on it, so I'll paste it here.

I was in a conversation with a coworker and very close friend and the issue of abortion came up. Now, I want you to understand that I know - more than believe - that a human being is a human being long before (s)he is born, draws breath, or has a discernible heartbeat. A zygote is a human by scientific definition, with DNA identifiably unique from other humans. This human has two parents, a father and a mother, both of whom have equal responsibility for producing him/her, and ought to have equal say in any decisions about him/her.

But nature doesn't work that way. Nature assigns definite and different roles regarding the early development of a child that can't be ignored.

Sparing you the details of how I came to this decision, here is the crux:

Given:
Parents are legally responsible for making the decision of whether to keep a child on life support or to turn the machine off. When the life support is provided by a man-made machine, that decision is and should be borne equally by both parents.

Given:
A human is dependent upon life support provided by the mother. The baby/zygote/fetus/whatever cannot survive without the apparatus, and the apparatus cannot function outside of the mother.

Therefore:
The decision of whether the new human remains on the natural life support provided by the womb can only be made by the mother.

Any other option is a violation of liberty resulting in what can only be described as slavery, which is illegal.

It sucks. It bites. It shouldn't be that way. But there it is. Research in the transplanting of a human, removing him/her from the womb of a woman who does not want him/her and placing him/her in the womb of a willing mother, is therefore the most important research that should be done today, and the only research I personally would support my tax dollar going to.

 

[Panacea]

It sucks. It bites. It shouldn't be that way. But there it is. Research in the transplanting of a human, removing him/her from the womb of a woman who does not want him/her and placing him/her in the womb of a willing mother, is therefore the most important research that should be done today, and the only research I personally would support my tax dollar going to.

What happens to all of these abandoned zygotes? What's the next step in this plan?
It seems possible there are far more abandoned children/sperm banks/orphans/surrogates than there are willing parents already.

Just a genuine question of curiosity.

 

[Accountable]

What happens to all of these abandoned zygotes? What's the next step in this plan?
It seems possible there are far more abandoned children/sperm banks/orphans/surrogates than there are willing parents already.

Just a genuine question of curiosity.

I don't know what you mean when you mention abandoned zygotes, but since zero are being helped now, I'd say that any number above that is a plus.

 

[Panacea]

I don't know what you mean when you mention abandoned zygotes, but since zero are being helped now, I'd say that any number above that is a plus.

Overpopulation is what I mean.

I think abortion serves a purpose in society, whether that idea is friendly or not.
I don't think it's even remotely feasible to assume abortion can be replaced by medical science. I think, if a woman wanted to bring a child in the world for another woman to raise, she'd be a voluntary surrogate or she would just have the child and give it up for adoption.

Frankly I find the idea appalling as it sits in my head immediately. I'm certainly open to reconsidering.

Abortion is more than "I don't want to be pregnant" for a lot of women. I'm not exactly sure what type of demographic would be lined up for this idea.

 

[Accountable]

Abortion is more than "I don't want to be pregnant" for a lot of women.

When the decision is no longer whether to carry the baby to term, then it becomes whether or not to allow him/her to live. Much more cold and callous when the option is available to both let the baby live and to be free of him/her.

 

[Panacea]

When the decision is no longer whether to carry the baby to term, then it becomes whether or not to allow him/her to live. Much more cold and callous when the option is available to both let the baby live and to be free of him/her.

I think that assumes knowing you have a child in the world that you never wanted to exist has any freedom in it. I think it's honest to say sometimes people have abortions to erase unfortunate events. But I have a different philosophy than many.

 

[The Man]

Are you being disingenuous? Partial birth abortion is a tiny subset of abortions and my understanding is only carried out when the mother's life is in danger.

Not at all...its also how they kill the baby at full term.
Where is the danger to the mother if you leave the head in then kill the baby verses letting the head come out?
There is none

The other method is dismemberment while it is alive and take it out a piece at a time..perhaps even more evil than going in the base of the brain and turning the little guys brain into jelly with "cepts"

Come to think of it its pretty cruel as the people that on on death row that are being executed are not tortured while being killed

 

[Minor Axis]

He/she is absolutely and undeniably a living human being, and as such deserves every protection we give every other citizen of our country.

You are undeniably mistaken, they have the potential to be a human being, but they are not at conception, nor should they have rights until they reach a threshold of development and the only right they would have (at that point) is not to be aborted. If you think a cell cluster is the same as a developed baby, maybe we can get a doctor to harvest a cell cluster for you so you can bounce it on your knee.

 

[Minor Axis]

Not at all...its also how they kill the baby at full term.
Where is the danger to the mother if you leave the head in then kill the baby verses letting the head come out?
There is none

The other method is dismemberment while it is alive and take it out a piece at a time..perhaps even more evil than going in the base of the brain and turning the little guys brain into jelly with "cepts"

Come to think of it its pretty cruel as the people that on on death row that are being executed are not tortured while being killed

I don't believe you'll win this argument implying that abortion = partial birth abortions and I'm not going to engage...

 

[savvy]

I don't believe you'll win this argument implying that abortion = partial birth abortions and I'm not going to engage...

If you are so sure of yourself then why not "engage".

 

[Accountable]

You are undeniably mistaken, they have the potential to be a human being, but they are not at conception, nor should they have rights until they reach a threshold of development and the only right they would have (at that point) is not to be aborted. If you think a cell cluster is the same as a developed baby, maybe we can get a doctor to harvest a cell cluster for you so you can bounce it on your knee.

Then we'll let it be president and run the country. Your analogy is dumb, and inappropriate as a joke.

 

[The Man]

I don't believe you'll win this argument implying that abortion = partial birth abortions and I'm not going to engage...

No one has stated that all abortions are partial birth abortions...it is the easiest example however to use as a life however..as the baby is alive outside..but the head is kept inside with just enough sticking out so they can push the "cept" in through the the hollow area at the base of the skull then expand the "cepts"..turning brain into jelly..then suck out the brain..its quite the job as the baby is kicking and the head wants to popout...if the head pops out you have to abort the procedure..Many have escaped the murder as their head has popped out.

The other method is to take the large tool and rip apart the baby{ and pull it out a piece at a time.}
I would like to also state..that the baby is never put to sleep nor give any pain meds prior to the act.

Both end the same however as they both cease life.
The question should be if we want abortion..which method is less horrific?

 

[Dana]

People will never agree.

 

[The Man]

The thing about the religious right and crazy assholes like Santorum is, they'd like to lead you to believe it's common to use abortion the first line of birth control, and that partial birth abortions are common, and that it's common for men to cry in their beers because their women go off killing their sons as they plead to be a father.

These are emotional, inflated arguments- they are not reality. That's really the only problem I have with the anti-choice movement. The false information. If one is informed about what actually happens in the real world regarding abortion, and they oppose, that's their opinion and I have nothing to say.

The thing about the religious right and crazy assholes like Santorum is, they'd like to lead you to believe it's common to use abortion the first line of birth control, and that partial birth abortions are common

The frequency of the act doesnt change the fact that it is taking a life.

for men to cry in their beers because their women go off killing their sons as they plead to be a father.

Irrelevant as to the act of abortion

These are emotional, inflated arguments- they are not reality.

They are very much a reality...abortions are the killing of a baby.
Your argument is that "people dont care"..when it stated that people do care.
Some people obviously care..to further its not an issue of right or left but an issue of child protection itself.

That's really the only problem I have with the anti-choice movement.

Your argument is they are all liars and dont care?..........If they didnt care then why are they soliciting to enforce childs rights?

If one is informed about what actually happens in the real world regarding abortion, and they oppose,

Not much to be informed about..woman get pregnant and wants to kill baby..either one is in approval or they arent.

that's their opinion and I have nothing to say.

What kind of argument is that?:eek