Anti-abortionists don't believe that life begins at conception.

[Husar]

Yeah, I heard there are no more orphanages any more.

Why is death preferable to an orphanage?

[Fragony]

Yeah, I heard there are no more orphanages any more.

There probably are, but wouldn't you want to balance things out as a human being, there is no need for abortions, there are waiting lists for parents who want to adopt someone. Why kill anything really.

[HoreTore]

Why is death preferable to an orphanage?

Death assumes life.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

“an unborn child to be just disposable” Because there is no such thing as a unborn child. The foetus becomes a child when he/she born.

In terms of denotative meaning, you are of course correct. In terms of connotative use of the term "unborn-child" you are quite well aware of the intent of the writer -- no need to parse the individual words to make a counter point. I will note that the Catholic Church tends to refer to them as "The Unborn" in our prayer intentions, in part to avoid just this sort of "hair-splitting."

“The Pro-life crew” The anti-abortion crew. They are not in favour of life, they are against abortion.

True of some. It is somewhat difficult in moral/ethical terms to be an ardent supporter of the judicial use of the death penalty while avidly opposing abortion -- but there are quite a few who take just that stance.

The Catholic Church opposes both, arguing for life to be respected "from conception to natural death."

“Unless you want to make the case for infanticide, this is an irrelevant argument.” Explain how to have the freedom to choose your life becomes a case for infanticide?

This is a classic differend regarding the issue. If you view the unborn as possessing nothing of the infinite/spiritual, then the termination of an unborn for the health or convenience of the mother is nothing more than another medical decision for her regarding a tissue mass in her body. If you view the unborn as having, from the moment of conception, some spark of the immortal/spiritual, then you start to consider the lives of BOTH persons in the pregnancy to be of innate value and worthy of preservation.

NOTE: With modern medicine, the number of instances where the life of the mother is at stake and the foetus must be terminated to preserve that life is vanishingly small.

“The pro-life argument is that life begins at conception.” Anti-abortion argument is not valid as spermatozoids and eggs are alive as well. If a baby is human when the cells start to separate, I don’t see why it can’t be even before, as they are all “unborn (potential) babies”.

The argument is not, ultimately, based on biology. The vast bulk of those who oppose abortion believe that, humans being sentient creatures, conception is not merely the union of chromosomal packages, but that in that instant some spark of the spiritual -- the divine to believers -- makes that life special and unique. This is, of course, not quantifiable by any know measure (I have not seen enough reliable work on the "weight of the soul" experiments to have faith in them, nor are such measures available for the unborn even if they ARE credible).

If you truly do not believe in the spiritual -- that our existence is nothing more nor less than a high end nervous system and whatever we fabricate therewith -- then your views on life would be vastly different.

[Fragony]

Don't claim objejections, I don't need any religion to be against abortion, I just think it's wrong.

[Beskar]

Only a fool doesn't wrap their tool.

[HoreTore]

NOTE: With modern medicine, the number of instances where the life of the mother is at stake and the foetus must be terminated to preserve that life is vanishingly small.

Perhaps that would explain the extremely rare instances of late term abortions, then?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Perhaps that would explain the extremely rare instances of late term abortions, then?

Depending on the source you trust, saving the life of the mother is the reason for abortion in between 2.8% and .0004% of abortions. Many of these rare cases ARE late term abortions, notably resulting from preeclampsia that is damaging the worman's internal organs. It is fair to note that this reason for an abortion procedure was rare prior to 1980 and has become steadily rarer since with better maternal nutrition and medical procedures for both mother and unborn. Sadly, it does still happen.

[Brenus]

Don't claim objections, I don't need any religion to be against abortion, I just think it's wrong.” So don’t. You are not obliged, but why to want to impose your point of view on others, as you are not the one who will pay for it?

“The argument is not, ultimately, based on biology.” So, why to forbid an activity, a medical act, on religious or philosophical or whatever reason on others who don’t share your system of belief? I don’t see a foetus until a certain age as a potential baby. I don’t care of the sucking thumb and heart beating: it is for the first a montage, and for the second a manipulation as cells have no heart.

Now, to stay in this kind of story, I invite to read and watch the forensic evidences in a Criminal Court when the young 15 years old mother, her lover and his friend torture the small baby girl someone like you obliged her to keep. You will see the state of the baby’s fingers, the blow of the hammer on a skull, and the multiple bruises on her skin, cigarette burns and so on. And perhaps some will find that life is not the ultimate goal, but a decent with loving parents is. And here I speak of a real case heard in the ********* Crown Court, where the ushers and Court staff had to go for counselling after the case.
So give me a break with moral high grounds, we speak of real life, and it not pretty.
Or do you prefer the kid starve to death? Or the girl of 4 raped by her “step-dad” with the full knowledge of the loving mother? Choose.

"Why is death preferable to an orphanage?" Why torture is better? Of course, a pack of cells are dead, but they were not really alive. The babies I spoke about had a very short, miserable, horrible and painful life because "good" people with "good" intention made all their possible to prevent abortion, And, congratulation, they succeeded.

[Husar]

Death assumes life.

"Why is death preferable to an orphanage?" Why torture is better? Of course, a pack of cells are dead, but they were not really alive. The babies I spoke about had a very short, miserable, horrible and painful life because "good" people with "good" intention made all their possible to prevent abortion, And, congratulation, they succeeded.

Depending on how far the pregnancy is, I would say there is a life. That children get treated badly in orphanages is a different problem.

But if you want to make the argument that such a life is not worth living, I might as well argue that all the lives of the Christians killed by ISIS were not really worth living, because what kind of life could they really have expected in an islamic theocracy? You see, in that case you would probably argue that the islamic state should not exist, which is also true for orphanages that make life hell. Of course that argument is only valid for fetuses you can consider to be alive. If it requires passing the vagina to become alive, then I guess c-section babies are zombies.

Don't claim objections, I don't need any religion to be against abortion, I just think it's wrong.” So don’t. You are not obliged, but why to want to impose your point of view on others, as you are not the one who will pay for it?

What's wrong about his view if he believes the baby is paying for it in case of an abortion and cannot defend itself?

“The argument is not, ultimately, based on biology.” So, why to forbid an activity, a medical act, on religious or philosophical or whatever reason on others who don’t share your system of belief? I don’t see a foetus until a certain age as a potential baby. I don’t care of the sucking thumb and heart beating: it is for the first a montage, and for the second a manipulation as cells have no heart.

As Montmorency already noted so eloquently, that argument can also be applied to grownups, I might as well claim that a homeless man is not really alive even though his heart is beating and he can suckle his thumbs, he is just vegetating along, might as well dispose of him. I won't claim to know at which point a fetus can be considered alive, but it's certainly bfore it leaves the womb. And if we agree that this is the case and that such fetuses should not be aborted, then there is not really a point in arguing much longer except if you want to settle at which point they become alive.

[HoreTore]

Depending on how far the pregnancy is, I would say there is a life.

I have already posted about how the fetus increases in value as time passes, Husar. You butted in to a direct reply to Fragony's usual black and white view on life, where he apparently thinks that any pregnancy is considered just as valuable, and that an abortion after 4 weeks is unacceptable.

The thing on orphanages was a response to the ol' "all women should give birth because there's a bajillion people ready to adopt", which only applies to the world inside frags head. There isn't a ton of people ready to adopt, in fact there are way more kids than adoptive parents already. Telling a woman that she should carry the child "cause adoption" at all times during pregnancy makes no sense at all. Abort it quickly and be done with it. Nothing is lost.

[Brenus]

“But if you want to make the argument that such a life is not worth living” Nope, I was answering to the “force them to hear a baby Heart & sucking his thumb” thing. You want no abortion, face babies mistreated and tortured and take responsibilities in their ordeals…

“What's wrong about his view if he believes the baby is paying for it in case of an abortion and cannot defend itself?” The all sentence? There is no baby when abortion, so there is nothing to defend. You can decide (or have an opinion) that a spot on your skin is alive, so can’t remove, but there are no reasons at all to stop me to use cream to get the nuisance out.

“I might as well claim that a homeless man is not really alive” You might but there is a law you tell you can’t kill a homeless. As it is, abortion is legal; so claiming that it is murder is false.
Now, you might be a Nazi and see the Jews as not-human but we made a war to prove them wrong. It was based on a belief, not on biology, as the belief that cells are babies… Again, nothing wrong if you don’t want to abort, but don’t impose your belief on others. At least, you can’t kill Jews or homeless. Or face the Crown Court.

[Husar]

I have already posted about how the fetus increases in value as time passes, Husar. You butted in to a direct reply to Fragony's usual black and white view on life, where he apparently thinks that any pregnancy is considered just as valuable, and that an abortion after 4 weeks is unacceptable.

I assumed that when he mentioned a beating heart etc., he meant a relatively advanced pregnancy, but maybe I was wrong there.
I'm not an expert on the subject and have never been pregnant myself.

[HoreTore]

I assumed that when he mentioned a beating heart etc., he meant a relatively advanced pregnancy, but maybe I was wrong there.

My impression from Frags post, while acknowledging the fact that Fragolese is a very ambiguous language, was that he is against all abortions where the reason given is 'unwanted pregnancy', with the only exceptions being rape and such. I may be wrong.

I'm not an expert on the subject and have never been pregnant myself.

Oh Husar, it will happen to you one day too... Don't worry

[a completely inoffensive name]

Every abortion thread:

"I consider life begins at conception."

"I don't."

/end thread.

You can all stop embarrassing yourselves now with your pathetic attempts at discrediting each other.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Look at it scientifically.
Human life begins at conception.
Human functions grow as the fetus grows. There are a number of steps which bring you to adulthood.
At what stage does a human feel pain?

Beyond that, we deal with the metaphysical
What is "being"?
When does human life have value?
Whose rights trump whose, and at what stage? In what situations? Should ones rights "trump" another's, or should they each be weighed and considered?
What is a person?
Are a person's rights judged on their location; within or without the womb of another?
Are our laws adequately balanced between the rights of all living humans?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Every abortion thread:

"I consider life begins at conception."

"I don't."

/end thread.

You can all stop embarrassing yourselves now with your pathetic attempts at discrediting each other.

This is not a bad point. That is the core difference between views.

I didn't think I was being pissy and attempting to discredit though -- I do try for reasoned response.

[Fragony]

"So don’t. You are not obliged, but why to want to impose your point of view on others, as you are not the one who will pay for it"

Can I have an opinion on it please? I am not setting anything on fire with it. You disagreeing with me is not the same thing as me imposing my views.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I didn't think I was being pissy and attempting to discredit though -- I do try for reasoned response.

I wasn't actually talking about anyone in particular. I wanted to save this thread from turning into one long series of people half remembering a badly researched news report about a scientific paper which indicated with no statistical significance that a fetus may feel pain approximately X number of weeks in. Because God knows with that kind of knowledge, people love to draw a line in the sand and call it for whatever side they are on.

[Brenus]

“Can I have an opinion on it please?” You have made your opinion clear so stop play victim. You are the one who came up with “force them up watch and hear”.
We are in a forum, and none of us will impose whatsoever on others.

"I consider life begins at conception." "I don't." /end thread. You can all stop embarrassing yourselves now with your pathetic attempts at discrediting each other.”
Nope. Too easy... Is abortion legal? Yes. Should it become illegal? No. Who want to impose on others their view? Continuation of the thread.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Every abortion thread:

"I consider life begins at conception."

"I don't."

/end thread.

You can all stop embarrassing yourselves now with your pathetic attempts at discrediting each other.

To be fair HoreTore has adopted a more nuanced position and we were able to have a decent dialogue with each other I think.

But I would say that there are many irrelevant arguments being banded about because they don't get to the core of the matter, which as you said, is about when life begins.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Every argument is a useless revision, until one comes along that shifts sentiment. Peoples minds change on this all the time.

My goal is to convince religious conservatives that birth control arguments need to be separated from abortion arguments.

My goal is to convince Americans that our abortion laws here don't adequately consider the biological and philosophical realities of the stages of life of a child. Even if we were to adopt European abortion standards, we would be better off.

My goal is to convince those who are having sex to use protection or abstain. Then, if they decide to have unprotected sex or they've become pregnant - the choice to become a parent has already been made. Execution of your child in utero, while legally permissible is as ethical as throwing your newborn into the trash.

[Fragony]

“Can I have an opinion on it please?” You have made your opinion clear so stop play victim. You are the one who came up with “force them up watch and hear”.
We are in a forum, and none of us will impose whatsoever on others

You aren't really fair on me, I never impose my views, I just have an opinion on things.

[Husar]

But I would say that there are many irrelevant arguments being banded about because they don't get to the core of the matter, which as you said, is about when life begins.

Yeah, so now that everybody agrees with me, let me start:

Life begins when the baby passes the magical gate we call the vagina.

-> Every man who has passed this gate knows this.
-> All abortions are fine and not murder.
-> Cesarian section babies are zombies and cannot be counted as being alive.

Any arguments or can we all agree on that? Please also state how you were born so we naturally born alive people can rate the validity of your arguments.

[Beskar]

Or not being very considerate, of course it cruel. But imho the stance on abortion is very old-fashioned, times have changd, more than enough foster-parents. It's a relic out of the sixties.

Sorry Fragony, there is a desperate need of Foster-parents here, and the ratio is at an all-time low.

[Fragony]

Sorry Fragony, there is a desperate need of Foster-parents here, and the ratio is at an all-time low.

Could be, I don't how it's in England, here is a waiting list.

[Husar]

With more EU-integration, maybe the English children could get Dutch parents, but then again the English do not want that.

[HoreTore]

Could be, I don't how it's in England, here is a waiting list.

The situation is mostly the same in every country: there is both a waiting list and a desperate need for foster/adoptive parents.

I'll leave you to figure out how and why.

[Fragony]

The situation is mostly the same in every country: there is both a waiting list and a desperate need for foster/adoptive parents.

I'll leave you to figure out how and why.

There are too many ugly foster parents?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah, so now that everybody agrees with me, let me start:

Life begins when the baby passes the magical gate we call the vagina.

-> Every man who has passed this gate knows this.
-> All abortions are fine and not murder.
-> Cesarian section babies are zombies and cannot be counted as being alive.

Any arguments or can we all agree on that? Please also state how you were born so we naturally born alive people can rate the validity of your arguments.

I was born by C-section.