(10-12-2017 07:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why are people pretending like if they can prove that conception is when life begins, that they've won the game?

Life can absolutely be taken away from someone, morally and legally, in certain circumstances. For example, if a person is sentenced to death for a crime they've committed, their life can be taken from them. That is morally and legally correct.

Likewise, just because an unborn baby has life, does not automatically make it immoral and illegal to take away that life. And that is correct.

The person who was sentenced to death for a crime has committed an act against humanity.

An unborn baby is not guilty of any crime.

Legal does not necessarily = moral.

Agreed that the fertilized egg is not guilty of a crime. The reason I brought that up is that it disproves the broadest claim that human life should never be taken away. I’ve proven it can, and even should in some circumstances.

That said, it can still be morally and legally correct to take away life, in certain circumstances.

Actually, I did not say that a human life should never be taken away. In fact, I am a firm believer in capital punishment.

So, yes, of course it can be both moral and legal to end a human life in certain circumstances.

My contention was that though ending an unborn human life is legal it is not necessarily moral.

I just had a daughter (she's about 6 weeks old) so i'll weigh in, and I have somewhat complicated views on the subject. I'm generally in the self, legal, and rare camp as I find abortion abhorrent but think government involvement will just make things worse. That said, I accept that life begins at conception, but I do not equate a very tiny grouping of cells (embryo) with say a fetus or child. But a fetus starts looking like a baby at around 10 weeks old. It rapidly progresses. I want abortion limited to a greater degree as time progresses. I definitely view late term as murder or a close proximate. I think the parents (seems like the male should have some say) are the ones in the best position to make the decision though rather than the government. It seems monstrous for the government to make someone have a baby that they don't want. I'm hopeful that the legal precedents are the supreme court have struck the right balance, i.e. viability being the cut-off. I think as technology progresses, that time period will get closer and closer to conception.

For a thought experiment, if anyone truly believes the collection of fertilized cells equals a full human being, consider the following: If there was a fire at a labortary and you had the choice of saving 1000 fertilized embryos or one adult human (or child or puppy, etc.) which would you choose? I'd choose the person over the embryos.

(10-12-2017 07:18 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I just had a daughter (she's about 6 weeks old) so i'll weigh in, and I have somewhat complicated views on the subject. I'm generally in the self, legal, and rare camp as I find abortion abhorrent but think government involvement will just make things worse. That said, I accept that life begins at conception, but I do not equate a very grouping of cells (embryo) with say a fetus or child. But a fetus starts looking like a baby at around 10 weeks old. It rapidly progresses. I want abortion limited to a greater degree as time progresses. I definitely view late term as murder or a close proximate. I think the parents (seems like the male should have some say) are the ones in the best position to make the decision though rather than the government. It seems monstrous for the government to make someone have a baby that they don't want. I'm hopeful that the legal precedents are the supreme court have struck the right balance, i.e. viability being the cut-off. I think as technology progresses, that time period will get closer and closer to conception.

Congratulations on the birth of your daughter! Is she your first child?

(10-12-2017 07:20 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 07:18 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I just had a daughter (she's about 6 weeks old) so i'll weigh in, and I have somewhat complicated views on the subject. I'm generally in the self, legal, and rare camp as I find abortion abhorrent but think government involvement will just make things worse. That said, I accept that life begins at conception, but I do not equate a very grouping of cells (embryo) with say a fetus or child. But a fetus starts looking like a baby at around 10 weeks old. It rapidly progresses. I want abortion limited to a greater degree as time progresses. I definitely view late term as murder or a close proximate. I think the parents (seems like the male should have some say) are the ones in the best position to make the decision though rather than the government. It seems monstrous for the government to make someone have a baby that they don't want. I'm hopeful that the legal precedents are the supreme court have struck the right balance, i.e. viability being the cut-off. I think as technology progresses, that time period will get closer and closer to conception.

Congratulations on the birth of your daughter! Is she your first child?

Thanks, she is, and she's changed our lives forever for the better. We're very fortunate to have her and for her to be healthy and well.

(10-12-2017 07:21 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 07:20 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 07:18 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I just had a daughter (she's about 6 weeks old) so i'll weigh in, and I have somewhat complicated views on the subject. I'm generally in the self, legal, and rare camp as I find abortion abhorrent but think government involvement will just make things worse. That said, I accept that life begins at conception, but I do not equate a very grouping of cells (embryo) with say a fetus or child. But a fetus starts looking like a baby at around 10 weeks old. It rapidly progresses. I want abortion limited to a greater degree as time progresses. I definitely view late term as murder or a close proximate. I think the parents (seems like the male should have some say) are the ones in the best position to make the decision though rather than the government. It seems monstrous for the government to make someone have a baby that they don't want. I'm hopeful that the legal precedents are the supreme court have struck the right balance, i.e. viability being the cut-off. I think as technology progresses, that time period will get closer and closer to conception.

Congratulations on the birth of your daughter! Is she your first child?

Thanks, she is, and she's changed our lives forever for the better. We're very fortunate to have her and for her to be healthy and well.

My daughter will soon be 18. She's been a blessing and we can't imagine life without her.

Our son, though...

:D j/k


He's given us three grandchildren: two boys 13 & 9 and a precious little girl who's 20 months.

I say son. He's my stepson.

When my wife was 17 she found herself in let's say a compromising condition.

Her mother encouraged her to get an abortion but she refused.

I admire and respect the strength she mustered to do what she knew was right. And it wasn't easy. Life was hard. She wasn't able to go to college. Instead she had to go to work to care and provide for her son.

And I can't help but think the difference if a 17-year-old girl had caved to the pressure. We would never have had the pleasure of knowing our grandchildren.

(10-12-2017 03:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 02:28 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 02:13 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Only dishonest liars don't acknowledge this.

Okay, I'll bite.

Let's start on the same playing field, though, because I detest slippery definitions which are so common when discussing this.

First: What is a human life? When do you say it begins? When, precisely defined and with what criteria used, is it acceptable for a third party to end a human life?

Anybody else who is pro-life from conception and thinks there is no possible alternative view feel free to step right and play along.

Assuming a 5yo child is a "person" whose life is protected under the law and running the clock backward, at what point should that protection be removed and by what reasoning? It's hard to draw a line in the continuum of development from conception to childhood before which legal protection should suddenly vanish.

(10-12-2017 06:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Life clearly begins at conception. I believe all unborn children should have the right to life.

At the same time, I also know that 1/3 of first pregnancies spontaneously abort (so you never tell anyone during the first trimester). That is a lot of unborn children that never make it. That is a complication to the religious based arguments.

Not really a contradiction or complication.

A religious person would look at a spontaneous abortion as an act of God. A religious person submits to God's Will.

Abortion is a calculated act of man defying God's will.

(10-12-2017 05:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Assuming a 5yo child is a "person" whose life is protected under the law and running the clock backward, at what point should that protection be removed and by what reasoning? It's hard to draw a line in the continuum of development from conception to childhood before which legal protection should suddenly vanish.

As umbluegray touched upon earlier, for me the delineation is cognition. I think therefore I am. You see this reinforced in a subtle yet tangible way in the west. We frown upon eating intelligent things. Other primates. Dogs. Cats. Dolphins. About the only clever animal we eat in volume is pigs. The smarter the animal is the more likely we are to try to domesticate and incorporate it into our lives.

Now as a practical standpoint this has advantages too. By the time the nervous system and brain are starting to develop nearly everyone should have long ago stopped getting a monthly visitor and started turning positive on a pregnancy test. 12-14 weeks into pregnancy is when you can do invasive genetic profiling ... 16 weeks for less invasive procedures. Now the window here is pretty narrow. At 10 weeks it's just an inch long ... but now it'll start rapidly maturing. By 19 weeks it has more than quadrupled that size and has a heart beat and primitive movement and might even be able to sense light and sound. I don't have the answers as to what that exact cutoff is, but beyond 20 weeks is a very tough sell to me. But BEFORE 15 weeks is ALSO a very tough sell to me ... you can't really do good genetic testing until week 15/16 without being invasive.

(10-12-2017 05:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It is no more acceptable for a third party to end a human life in the womb than it is to murder a 3 year old child.

Your definition is potentially incomplete. Please expand it if so, or explicitly state that the following is also never ok to terminate a "life" as you have defined it:
- War
- Brain dead
- Capital punishment
- Self-defense
- Abortion from rape
- Abortion from incest
- Abortion from mortality risk to the mother
- "Mercy" abortion for genetic incompatibility with life (some genetic disorders are terminal but will take years before they kill off the person, some genetic disorders are fatal shortly after birth or even during gestation, etc etc).

In the spirit of fairness, to answer my own question, as to whether it is OK to terminate a third party life in certain cirumstances:
- War: Yes, for reasons already discussed in this thread
- Brain dead: Yes, every time for a living well, with some minimal standards in all other cases
- Capital punishment: Yes, but only if there is irrefutable evidence
- Self-defense: Yes, for reasons already discussed in this thread
- Abortion for rape/incest/mortality risk: Yes, with some time constraints related to my post immediately above this one
- Abortion for genetic incompatibility with life: Yes, at any time. But I would have aggressive fines / jail time for gross negligence and unnecessary suffering beyond a certain point.

(10-12-2017 07:13 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 07:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why are people pretending like if they can prove that conception is when life begins, that they've won the game?

Life can absolutely be taken away from someone, morally and legally, in certain circumstances. For example, if a person is sentenced to death for a crime they've committed, their life can be taken from them. That is morally and legally correct.

Likewise, just because an unborn baby has life, does not automatically make it immoral and illegal to take away that life. And that is correct.

The person who was sentenced to death for a crime has committed an act against humanity.

An unborn baby is not guilty of any crime.

Legal does not necessarily = moral.

Agreed that the fertilized egg is not guilty of a crime. The reason I brought that up is that it disproves the broadest claim that human life should never be taken away. I’ve proven it can, and even should in some circumstances.

That said, it can still be morally and legally correct to take away life, in certain circumstances.

Actually, I did not say that a human life should never be taken away. In fact, I am a firm believer in capital punishment.

So, yes, of course it can be both moral and legal to end a human life in certain circumstances.

My contention was that though ending an unborn human life is legal it is not necessarily moral.

Taking away human life, in general, can be moral and legal.

You want to add an extra term and call it “unborn human life”, like that changes the equation somehow. An unborn human life can be taken, morally and legally. It depends on the circumstances, of course.

(10-12-2017 08:27 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 05:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It is no more acceptable for a third party to end a human life in the womb than it is to murder a 3 year old child.

Your definition is potentially incomplete. Please expand it if so, or explicitly state that the following is also never ok to terminate a "life" as you have defined it:
- War
- Brain dead
- Capital punishment
- Self-defense
- Abortion from rape
- Abortion from incest
- Abortion from mortality risk to the mother
- "Mercy" abortion for genetic incompatibility with life (some genetic disorders are terminal but will take years before they kill off the person, some genetic disorders are fatal shortly after birth or even during gestation, etc etc).

In the spirit of fairness, to answer my own question, as to whether it is OK to terminate a third party life in certain cirumstances:
- War: Yes, for reasons already discussed in this thread
- Brain dead: Yes, every time for a living well, with some minimal standards in all other cases
- Capital punishment: Yes, but only if there is irrefutable evidence
- Self-defense: Yes, for reasons already discussed in this thread
- Abortion for rape/incest/mortality risk: Yes, with some time constraints related to my post immediately above this one
- Abortion for genetic incompatibility with life: Yes, at any time. But I would have aggressive fines / jail time for gross negligence and unnecessary suffering beyond a certain point.

I see war as kind of a good thing. Good in the sense that it stops a bad thing.

Yes, war is hell and we don't want war. But in some cases the alternative isn't good.

Take Nazi Germany. Before war was declared they took over Austria and later attacked Poland. That wasn't war. It was unchecked, violent aggression.

War is when another country says "no more."

(10-12-2017 09:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 07:13 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 07:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why are people pretending like if they can prove that conception is when life begins, that they've won the game?

Life can absolutely be taken away from someone, morally and legally, in certain circumstances. For example, if a person is sentenced to death for a crime they've committed, their life can be taken from them. That is morally and legally correct.

Likewise, just because an unborn baby has life, does not automatically make it immoral and illegal to take away that life. And that is correct.

The person who was sentenced to death for a crime has committed an act against humanity.

An unborn baby is not guilty of any crime.

Legal does not necessarily = moral.

Agreed that the fertilized egg is not guilty of a crime. The reason I brought that up is that it disproves the broadest claim that human life should never be taken away. I’ve proven it can, and even should in some circumstances.

That said, it can still be morally and legally correct to take away life, in certain circumstances.

Actually, I did not say that a human life should never be taken away. In fact, I am a firm believer in capital punishment.

So, yes, of course it can be both moral and legal to end a human life in certain circumstances.

My contention was that though ending an unborn human life is legal it is not necessarily moral.

Taking away human life, in general, can be moral and legal.

You want to add an extra term and call it “unborn human life”, like that changes the equation somehow. An unborn human life can be taken, morally and legally. It depends on the circumstances, of course.

The only reason I can think of is an etopic pregnancy.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(10-13-2017 05:34 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 09:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 07:13 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 07:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 04:58 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  The person who was sentenced to death for a crime has committed an act against humanity.

An unborn baby is not guilty of any crime.

Legal does not necessarily = moral.

Agreed that the fertilized egg is not guilty of a crime. The reason I brought that up is that it disproves the broadest claim that human life should never be taken away. I’ve proven it can, and even should in some circumstances.

That said, it can still be morally and legally correct to take away life, in certain circumstances.

Actually, I did not say that a human life should never be taken away. In fact, I am a firm believer in capital punishment.

So, yes, of course it can be both moral and legal to end a human life in certain circumstances.

My contention was that though ending an unborn human life is legal it is not necessarily moral.

Taking away human life, in general, can be moral and legal.

You want to add an extra term and call it “unborn human life”, like that changes the equation somehow. An unborn human life can be taken, morally and legally. It depends on the circumstances, of course.

The only reason I can think of is an etopic pregnancy.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You have to remember Bison's proclivity to redefine words to fit her narrative and to create absolutes that must be held above all else in order to make her assertions true. There is little fact or logic in anything she posts.

(10-12-2017 03:50 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 02:13 PM)Paul M Wrote:  It starts at conception. Only dishonest liars don't acknowledge this.

Paul, you do realize that you cannot predict the exact date of conception don't you? It's only an estimate...and it can be off by as much as a month in some cases.

Conception dates are estimates, but you are estimating a past event. Therefore it doesn't matter if the exact day is off a little bit, there is a life present that began when it was conceived. Not knowing whether that was 24 or 34 days ago doesn't change the fact that it exists.

This ^ Pro-abortionists need a specific benchmark so they can feel comfortable with committing murder by not acknowledging a life is involved.

(10-12-2017 04:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why are people pretending like if they can prove that conception is when life begins, that they've won the game?

Life can absolutely be taken away from someone, morally and legally, in certain circumstances. For example, if a person is sentenced to death for a crime they've committed, their life can be taken from them. That is morally and legally correct.

Likewise, just because an unborn baby has life, does not automatically make it immoral and illegal to take away that life. And that is correct.

Wow. What a monstrous statement that is.

(10-12-2017 07:53 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 06:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Life clearly begins at conception. I believe all unborn children should have the right to life.

At the same time, I also know that 1/3 of first pregnancies spontaneously abort (so you never tell anyone during the first trimester). That is a lot of unborn children that never make it. That is a complication to the religious based arguments.

Not really a contradiction or complication.

A religious person would look at a spontaneous abortion as an act of God. A religious person submits to God's Will.

Abortion is a calculated act of man defying God's will.

Well from a religious viewpoint if you view each as a "soul" with the possibility of eternal life, it is complicated, when up to 1/3 of them aren't viable human beings. Its peripheral to this discussion, but related.
Abortion is, ultimately, a moral question weighing the rights of the unborn to life vs. the decision making rights of the parents.

(10-13-2017 08:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 07:53 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 06:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Life clearly begins at conception. I believe all unborn children should have the right to life.

At the same time, I also know that 1/3 of first pregnancies spontaneously abort (so you never tell anyone during the first trimester). That is a lot of unborn children that never make it. That is a complication to the religious based arguments.

Not really a contradiction or complication.

A religious person would look at a spontaneous abortion as an act of God. A religious person submits to God's Will.

Abortion is a calculated act of man defying God's will.

Well from a religious viewpoint if you view each as a "soul" with the possibility of eternal life, it is complicated, when up to 1/3 of them aren't viable human beings. Its peripheral to this discussion, but related.
Abortion is, ultimately, a moral question weighing the rights of the unborn to life vs. the decision making rights of the parents.

By engaging in action that can lead to conception, the parents have already decided. After that point they (specifically the woman in the first 9-10 months) are responsible for that new life.