Opposition to abortion doesn't necessarily make someone a bigot.

[Stacyrect]

Not really. I'm just opposing the introduction of magical thinking.

We all agree there's a point at which a human being comes into existence. Saying you can't draw that line so you want to draw it at conception is drawing that line, at a relatively indefensible point. It's a refusal to have that discussion, when it's a discussion we have to be able to have. Getting uncomfortable about it and refusing to play ball isn't an argument, it's trying to take the ball and go home and declare victory by default.

And before anyone says they disagree with my claim that "at some point a human being comes into existence", feel free to explain how you justify that all people who will ever exist all exist today, right now, without calling on some religious concept like the human soul. That's not what we're talking about.

Biologically speaking, when the sperm hits the egg, 'conception' is the process in which a human life is started. The pregnancy can fail, a meteor can fall out of the sky and kill a bitch, it could be aborted or miscarried and come back as a botchling. It's irrelevant.

In fairness to balance, 1st trimester abortions are about as close to fair as it's going to get in respect to the moral preservation to life and the rights of the mother and her body etc.

Still, laws need to be made to punish women who use abortion as a form of BC. It's just fucked up

[Adam Jensen]

I think if the GOP was actually interested in reducing abortions they wouldn't be so adamant about shutting down Planned Parenthood, refusing to allow for contraceptives to be available via Obamacare, or teaching abstinence-only sexual education.

I do not believe there's anything special about a blastula, nor do I see the heart as anything more than an over-rated pump. I think there's a line between conception and birth and before that line, abortion is fine. After that line, the fetus is developed into a child and it's become too late. Where should that line be drawn? I don't really know. But I don't see why terminating an early pregnancy is such a big deal.

[Endus]

Biologically speaking, when the sperm hits the egg, 'conception' is the process in which a human life is started.

No, it's the process in which embryonic development is started. Life isn't something that "starts", in that sense. The ovum and sperm were "alive" pre-fertilization, and the ovum continues to be "alive" post-fertilization. They were human before and after fertilization. You're drawing unnecessary lines on pretty arbitrary points.

Still, laws need to be made to punish women who use abortion as a form of BC. It's just fucked up

It is birth control. Why not take the same issue with a condom that prevents a fertilization? Or a birth control pill that prevents implantation? Why not take issue with spontaneous abortions as well?

[Stacyrect]

No he isn't at all. A zygote isn't a human life. It doesn't have a personality or a mind. Just cause he spent 2 paragraphs explaining it, doesn't mean he's wrong.

It is and it does have a personality. It's just unable to express it to your satisfactory level given it's development stage. Personality traits are part of DNA.

[Endus]

It is and it does have a personality. It's just unable to express it to your satisfactory level given it's development stage. Personality traits are part of DNA.

Single-cell organisms don't have a "personality". They don't even have brains.

If you're going to take issue with killing something because it has DNA, then I'm sure you're aghast at the ongoing genocide that is your body's natural cellular replacement cycle, where cells die and are replaced by newly-created ones. Also, a drop of my blood clearly has "personality", right? It's got the same DNA in it that the zygote does.

[Deleted]

It is and it does have a personality. It's just unable to express it to your satisfactory level given it's development stage. Personality traits are part of DNA.

What are you talking about? Personality traits can be influenced by DNA but DNA does not alone decide what your personality is going to be. A zygote is physically incapable of having a personality because it does not have a brain or the capacity to think.

Are you also a vegan? Does it bother you that you murder millions of single-cell organisms every day just by doing daily tasks?

[Healing Rain]

Speaking of, the Democrats go after minorities and are majorly pro-abortion. You have to wonder if there's something intentionally sinister going on there.

[Deathcries]

"Evidence of life, in the form of human tissue".

Not "a person".

Also a lot of questions about why you're flying zygotes to Mars.



See, this is where you leave science completely behind, and start in with irrational and emotional appeals. Nothing you said here is in any way based in science. A zygote at these stages is not a "human life". It isn't a person, like you or I. It's something that may develop into a person, with the right conditions and support, but so are unfertilized ova and sperm, and we certainly don't give those this treatment.

This is where you introduce an argument that, if not religious, is at the least based on nothing but emotion. That you resort to trying to imply that pro-choice people are pro-genocide just makes it clear how deeply emotional and irrational your argument here is.


There are no science-based arguments against the availability of abortion procedures. Worse, even if you could find some way to rationalize a single-cell zygote as being equivalent to a living human being, that wouldn't really change anything. At best, you'd be calling for non-destructive abortion techniques to be used, expelling the zygote/fetus otherwise unharmed, to live or die on its own. Because the right to control the use of one's own body is paramount. The same right is why you can't be forced to donate a kidney to save a life. Same argument, except there the target is indisputably a living human being whose life is forfeit unless you allow the use of your body in that way.

Plus, if you're claiming a zygote's a human being from conception, and that abortion is equivalent to "murder" (since the practice of abortion is, according to you, "genocide"), then explain to my what your opinion is on the widespread negligent homicide that is miscarriages caused by the mother's behaviour, whether she knew she was pregnant or not? Because if you're being consistent in this emotional position, those miscarriages are negligent manslaughter just as much as abortions are murder. Whether she knew she was pregnant or not; ignorance isn't a defense, under the law. Lack of intent is what downgrades the homicide from murder to manslaughter. Sure, in many cases, they may not be found culpable (many miscarriages aren't caused by anything the pregnant woman did). But some of them won't be. So why not campaign to have women who miscarry investigated to determine if they're guilty of manslaughter? That's how you can be consistent in your position.

Emotional? Sounds like you're just trying to think of a rational thought on saying that a living cell isn't alive. If a single cell is alive, and you kill it, then it is what it is. Killing it. Just because you do not consider it a human being even though it's going to be, doesn't make what you're saying any less viable to not killing a living being. Joseph Stalin made excuses too.

As for your straw man argument about miscarrying, human beings die all the time of freak accidents, etc, nobody made the decision to kill another human being. However when you complicity kill another human being then that's called murder.

I'm wondering if you know or understand the difference. Then again I am talking to someone who thinks UN laws trump other countries laws.

[Stacyrect]

No, it's the process in which embryonic development is started. Life isn't something that "starts", in that sense. The ovum and sperm were "alive" pre-fertilization, and the ovum continues to be "alive" post-fertilization. They were human before and after fertilization. You're drawing unnecessary lines on pretty arbitrary points.



It is birth control. Why not take the same issue with a condom that prevents a fertilization? Or a birth control pill that prevents implantation? Why not take issue with spontaneous abortions as well?

I'm drawing unnecessary lines on 'a' arbitrary point? Egg hits sperm-9 months---> Baby. Done. You are over complicating the process.

I call a spade a spade. Having an abortion is no different then actively making a decision to end a life. That is what an abortion is designed to do. You can call it or say whatever you want, an abortion is the process to 'terminate' an active reproductive cycle.

Why don't you take the same issue with coat hangers?

[GrinningMan]

Speaking of, the Democrats go after minorities and are majorly pro-abortion. You have to wonder if there's something intentionally sinister going on there.

Merely coincidence...

[Bapestar]

Biologically speaking, when the sperm hits the egg, 'conception' is the process in which a human life is started. The pregnancy can fail, a meteor can fall out of the sky and kill a bitch, it could be aborted or miscarried and come back as a botchling. It's irrelevant.

In fairness to balance, 1st trimester abortions are about as close to fair as it's going to get in respect to the moral preservation to life and the rights of the mother and her body etc.

Still, laws need to be made to punish women who use abortion as a form of BC. It's just fucked up

Agreed. Abortion should be the last resort.

[Stacyrect]

Single-cell organisms don't have a "personality". They don't even have brains.

If you're going to take issue with killing something because it has DNA, then I'm sure you're aghast at the ongoing genocide that is your body's natural cellular replacement cycle, where cells die and are replaced by newly-created ones. Also, a drop of my blood clearly has "personality", right? It's got the same DNA in it that the zygote does.

Over complicated endus over complicating. In looking at one point of the timeline and saying at point G, it is not a human life you are ignoring that given time, at point Y, it will have those things and it will be a human life. It hasn't reached it's final form yet

[GrinningMan]

Agreed. Abortion should be the last resort.

If you stepped on a grey kangaroo fetus, it would be animal cruelty.

If you pay to have a chemical pumped into your system to terminate, it's just business.

[Blur4stuff]

I believe the unborn have value and it's wrong to kill them. But, when it's illegal the result is more death and injury.

I think the better way to spend resources is to prevent women from reaching that point instead of outlawing it. If anti-abortion forces spent 100% of their effort and money this way the net result would be fewer deaths.

[Deleted]

I'm drawing unnecessary lines on 'a' arbitrary point? Egg hits sperm-9 months---> Baby. Done. You are over complicating the process.

I call a spade a spade. Having an abortion is no different then actively making a decision to end a life. That is what an abortion is designed to do. You can call it or say whatever you want, an abortion is the process to 'terminate' an active reproductive cycle.

Why don't you take the same issue with coat hangers?

Your argument is beyond asinine.

Whether you like it or not, a fertilised egg does not magically transform into a ready-for-birth human baby after a waiting period of 9 months. Over those 9 months, important developments are made. A zygote is not a blastocyst, a blastocyst is not a foetus, a foetus is not a baby. The decision on when abortion needs to be prevented should be (and currently is) made solely on the period at which a developing human is considered an actual human life form, instead of a potential one.

Just because you are deliberately ignorant to the scientific process of birth, it doesn't mean you need to drag everyone else down to your level.

[Masark]

As for your straw man argument about miscarrying, human beings die all the time of freak accidents, etc, nobody made the decision to kill another human being. However when you complicity kill another human being then that's called murder.

And what is it if that "freak accident" had a human cause?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm drawing unnecessary lines on 'a' arbitrary point? Egg hits sperm-9 months---> Baby. Done.

Except for the very large number of cases where that doesn't happen.

[Stacyrect]

Your argument is beyond asinine.

Whether you like it or not, a fertilised egg does not magically transform into a ready-for-birth human baby after a waiting period of 9 months. Over those 9 months, important developments are made. A zygote is not a blastocyst, a blastocyst is not a foetus, a foetus is not a baby. The decision on when abortion needs to be prevented should be (and currently is) made solely on the period at which a developing human is considered an actual human life form, instead of a potential one.

Just because you are deliberately ignorant to the scientific process of birth, it doesn't mean you need to drag everyone else down to your level.

My argument is asinine? I'm not the one job plotting the human reproductive cycle into various stages and cycles. The only ignorance here is pinpointing one point in a timeline and ignoring the process itself.

[dubious_doomhammer]

Your argument is beyond asinine.

Whether you like it or not, a fertilised egg does not magically transform into a ready-for-birth human baby after a waiting period of 9 months. Over those 9 months, important developments are made. A zygote is not a blastocyst, a blastocyst is not a foetus, a foetus is not a baby. The decision on when abortion needs to be prevented should be (and currently is) made solely on the period at which a developing human is considered an actual human life form, instead of a potential one.

Just because you are deliberately ignorant to the scientific process of birth, it doesn't mean you need to drag everyone else down to your level.

^ Human embryo is totally a person and not just a bunch of cells!



^ Zygote comparison, indistinguishable from a chicken



^ Which Zygote is human?

I don't think people care to understand things before they make baseless arguments.

[Bapestar]

If you stepped on a grey kangaroo fetus, it would be animal cruelty.

If you pay to have a chemical pumped into your system to terminate, it's just business.

I didn't say abortion shouldn't be allowed, I said it should never be the first choice. Unless it is a special circumstance.

[Stacyrect]

And what is it if that "freak accident" had a human cause?

- - - Updated - - -



Except for the very large number of cases where that doesn't happen.

Their is supposed to be a large number of cases, part of the process