^^ I agree with this as a broad philosophy. However, it should be the driving idea attached to most issues.


It's no good to say "they don't have the right or power to decide what is/isn't morally reprehensible" for this issue,, but "they do have the right or power to decide what is/isn't morally reprehensible" for another issue, like what people can do with their private businesses. It can't go both ways.


I'm not saying the poster is doing that btw. Just an observation of the way many people believe.


P.s. - I'm mixed on abortion. I personally find it terrible and wouldn't do it. However, someone very close to me had it many years ago. No matter how terrible I think abortion is,, it was necessary for that person, and the correct thing to do (without sharing any of the details of that situation; trust me, it was a dreadful sitaution which was not caused by fault of the person).


I guess my stance would be:

Against abortion except in extreme cases such as rape, incest, medical necessity of the woman.

Even within those exceptions the child is being treated as a life to be considered in the calculus of law and morality.

---

There is mourning over the loss of a potential son or daughter, but it's not the same as the mourning over a person.

Tell that to a friend of mine who went into early labor at 23 weeks (what most, including me would consider a miscarriage), had a c-section and the baby lived 13 days. She was a tiny thing, her head was smaller than a tennis ball and she was 11 inches long, her diaper the size of a 4x4 gauze pad and it looked huge on her. Before she made a turn for the worse she was suckling on a tiny pacifier under her own power. Her funeral was last Friday.

 

And they mourned. 

---

Even within those exceptions the child is being treated as a life to be considered in the calculus of law and morality.

Have you ever been raped or sexually molested by a family member? If not then you can't possibly understand the deep psychological damage that does to a person. Damage that can lessen over time but never goes away. Now, tell a girl that the most traumatic thing she's ever had happen to her must continue, must be lived daily, adding to the already horrific circumstances because she MUST HAVE THAT BABY BECAUSE YOU DON'T APPROVE OF ABORTION NO MATTER WHAT. Yeah, because she hasn't suffered enough. 

 

Thankfully there are women who had horrific things happen to them, think Jaycee Duggard, and they were able to get past it all and love their child(ren) born of those circumstances and I applaud them, but not everyone is capable of that. 

---

The baby has a gender at the moment of conception. So, to say otherwise is a false statement. You can try to rationalize it by using the technical terms, but that peanut you're fine with discarding has all of their genetic markers at conception. That's science and not opinion. Just because the parents don't know the gender right away doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


At conception, it is a human being regardless of viability. Life does indeed begin at conception, otherwise what is it? If it's not predetermined that it is a human being and not a tree, or a fish, or any other living entity.


You've never really answered the question about the laws on the books in nearly forty states regarding personhood other than to say the wording was poorly structured. That's a cop out response by someone trying to avoid the reality. You even tried to make it sound like some republican conspiracy, which it isn't based on the states involved. States have drawn arbitrary lines to get the legislation passed, but the bottom line is that they grant personhood to an unborn child. Tough to tap dance around that.

The zygote (in normal circumstances) is either xx or xy upon conception. Good point. And conceded. However, it could be argued that the ability of those genes to express gender may not necessarily define life...


In regards to the murder law-- I started by giving a few musings of before I answered the question. I don't the my answer (and therefore my opinion) was a cop out. I think I've properly identified why there is such contention on this topic between the two sides, with out breaking the coc.


I think the major issue which excludes you, and people that agree with your position, is that it is your honest and sincere opinion that life begins at conception.


However, this is not absolute. The definition of life, for one can be vague--- a fertilized egg is life to you, sure. But many people and scientists would, while agreeing that the beginning of the life cycle begins at meiosis, would argue there are other stages in the development of a fertilized egg that would better resemble life than just an egg that has just split into a 2 cell gamete. Additionally, many metaphysical books which include philosophical discusses as well as religious texts would disagree with the idea that a fertilized egg is the beginning of life.


Next, if we were to agree that life begins at conception, our world just became extremely complicated. First of all the birth control pill, would then be a device of murder.


Gotta head out. There's more to this, but I'm in a hurry. I'll try to pick up on this thought later...

---

Have you ever been raped or sexually molested by a family member? If not then you can't possibly understand the deep psychological damage that does to a person. Damage that can lessen over time but never goes away. Now, tell a girl that the most traumatic thing she's ever had happen to her must continue, must be lived daily, adding to the already horrific circumstances because she MUST HAVE THAT BABY BECAUSE YOU DON'T APPROVE OF ABORTION NO MATTER WHAT. Yeah, because she hasn't suffered enough.


Thankfully there are women who had horrific things happen to them, think Jaycee Duggard, and they were able to get past it all and love their child(ren) born of those circumstances and I applaud them, but not everyone is capable of that.

1.) my wife was sexually assaulted


2.)you misunderstood me. I meant that the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother that they DO still consider the unborn as a life in the calculus of morality and law and that's why I SUPPORT them as part of my staunchly PRO LIFE position.

---

1.) my wife was sexually assaulted


2.)you misunderstood me. I meant that the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother that they DO still consider the unborn as a life in the calculus of morality and law and that's why I SUPPORT them as part of my staunchly PRO LIFE position.

Thanks for the clarification. This is a sore subject for me for many reasons and one I probably should stay away from. 

---

No worries

---

The zygote (in normal circumstances) is either xx or xy upon conception. Good point. And conceded. However, it could be argued that the ability of those genes to express gender may not necessarily define life...


In regards to the murder law-- I started by giving a few musings of before I answered the question. I don't the my answer (and therefore my opinion) was a cop out. I think I've properly identified why there is such contention on this topic between the two sides, with out breaking the coc.


I think the major issue which excludes you, and people that agree with your position, is that it is your honest and sincere opinion that life begins at conception.


However, this is not absolute. The definition of life, for one can be vague--- a fertilized egg is life to you, sure. But many people and scientists would, while agreeing that the beginning of the life cycle begins at meiosis, would argue there are other stages in the development of a fertilized egg that would better resemble life than just an egg that has just split into a 2 cell gamete. Additionally, many metaphysical books which include philosophical discusses as well as religious texts would disagree with the idea that a fertilized egg is the beginning of life.


Next, if we were to agree that life begins at conception, our world just became extremely complicated. First of all the birth control pill, would then be a device of murder.


Gotta head out. There's more to this, but I'm in a hurry. I'll try to pick up on this thought later...

 

OK, so back to it...

 

So birth control becomes a major deal with we think that humanity begins at conception.  Now..  Again, as our climate change denying friends have mentioned science describes the beginning of the life cycle as that moment when the egg is germinated by the sperm.  But the beginning of the lifecyle as science describes it still has many steps to go before it is even viable.  One of those being attaching to the uterin wall and continuing to develop.

 

But if we are going to take the hard line that a germinated egg is  a  human, then there are murders daily.  The birth control pill works in 2 ways.  First it tries to stop the female body from releasing an egg and second it hardens the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg cannot attach to the wall.  How many murders has the birth control pill performed, if we take a conception approach?  Is every woman that is on birth control a murderer?  And why have pro-lifers focused on that?  Same with the IUD.  These types of birth control pills must murder thousands of "babies" a day!

 

No, obviously this is ridiculous, right? Or, if you are a staunch supporter of the conception point as the beginning of humanity, why are we not picketing outside every doctors office that is prescribing birth control?  Why do we not have protesters outside of Walgreens and CVS trying to stop women from buying death by little white pill?

 

It's clear that most reasonable people realize that life, and specifically when a human becomes human is more complicated than just when the egg is fertilized.  As you mentioned before, the moment of fertilization the child's sex has been determined.  But that doesn't mean that the fertilized egg IS a boy or a girl.  Those genes have not been expressed yet.  That egg now has the potential to become a human, but it is not a human yet.  That's my thought on it.  And if a woman, or a couple, want to stop that process from becoming complete, I think they still have a couple months or so to figure that out and do something about it.

---

http://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/fed...ortion-law

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

If the intention of an act is to prevent conception and target gamete cells then it is fundamentally different than targeting a gestating human being.

---

If the intention of an act is to prevent conception and target gamete cells then it is fundamentally different than targeting a gestating human being.

So man slaughter versus murder?


Why not just use all of science to understand that a fertilized egg -while having all the generic code to form a human given enough time to develop - is not a human yet?


That, in my opinion, makes more sense and lines up with most philosophical, scientific, and religious teachings.

---

You missed it. Gamete cells are the product of cellular meosis in sexually reproducing organisms (sperm/egg). Targeting these cells through seminal retention (condoms vasectomy etc.) or through denyinf ovulation is a wholly separate moral act than intentionally targeting q third organism (gestating embryo).

---

You missed it. Gamete cells are the product of cellular meosis in sexually reproducing organisms (sperm/egg). Targeting these cells through seminal retention (condoms vasectomy etc.) or through denyinf ovulation is a wholly separate moral act than intentionally targeting q third organism (gestating embryo).

No, I think I understood your point. I may have been too short with my response.


To re-word it, the birth control pill works in two ways. As you mentioned, one way is to stop ovulation all together. The other way is to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.


It's a two prong method of preventive pregnancy, one of those prongs - if you believe humanity begins at conception - is murder.


In essence, the pill doesn't stop all eggs from being released. Every woman that is on the pill will have had eggs released that invariably have been fertilized. But because the pill also makes the uterine wall inaccessible to the fertilized egg, the pregnancy is prevented.


So basically every woman on the pill has killed at least one baby, if you believe humanity begins at conception.


Now, I'm no expert in the pill, but this is my understanding of how the pill works based on webmd and other medical websites.

---

The hormonal changes used to mitigate ovulation also mitigate the swelling of the uterine wall that usually coincides with the ovulatory portion of the menstrual cycle. There is debate as to whether bcp acts as an abortifacent (causing abortions of zygotes) but I would make the moral and legal argument that the bcp is specifically targeting a block of ovulation through hormonal adjustment not the intentional targeting of an organism we know to exist as is the case with general abortion.

---

The hormonal changes used to mitigate ovulation also mitigate the swelling of the uterine wall that usually coincides with the ovulatory portion of the menstrual cycle. There is debate as to whether bcp acts as an abortifacent (causing abortions of zygotes) but I would make the moral and legal argument that the bcp is specifically targeting a block of ovulation through hormonal adjustment not the intentional targeting of an organism we know to exist as is the case with general abortion.

Exactly, and I would understand your argument and respect it.


However, I would counter with my argument that, if one believes humanity is created at conception, whether the pill's intention was to block conception directly, and the secondary method of blocking the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall is the difference between a premeditated murder and unintended manslaughter.


The intention of the pill means nothing, if you believe that humanity begins the moment the egg and the sperm unite. The end result is the death of a person, if you are insisting that life begins at conception. There's no way to get around that fact, would be my argument. The intention does not change the end result.

---

Intention means everything when dealing with humans. In the case of hormone based contraception the worst potential side affect is sex hormone bonding hemoglobin, but that's a whole other thread.


In the 1920s if a doctor used either before surgery and u didn't recover that wasn't murder, that was using the best anesthesia available at the time. Hormone based contraceptive is the same thing.


Also, its reasonable to believe that if u have a failure to prevent ovulation you would also fail to prevent the swelling of the uterine lining and the uterine lining may make it more difficult, but not impossible for implanting.


I think the landing spot for a pro life policy in general has to do with what's a reasonable expectation. Non implanted zygotes occur and are an unavoidable part of menstration in a sexually active relationship. Its not reasonable to expect a woman or a state to micro manage that.


When it comes to arbitrary abortion on demand, intentionally killing a growing human life's a wholly separate issue.

---

And, uh, certain undiscussable groups do, in fact, oppose the pill.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Actually there are 2 different hormones in the pill, one that works to prevent ovulation, the other to make implantation into the uterus difficult for the fertilized egg.


Ok, so now you are saying that life isn't at conception? Is that your position now? That a fertilized egg isn't when life begins, but when that egg attaches to the uterine wall is the actual start?


I'm trying to understand your position, because a few days ago I could have sworn you were saying that science (and yourself) states that life begins once meiosis starts.


So, which is it?

---

"During the development stage that happens in pregnancy, up until the 10th week or so, the embryo doesn't have a sex, doesn't have arms or fingers that have developed,"



So you would be okay with aborting a 25 year old amputee that identifies as neither man nor woman?  :whistling:

---

Actually there are 2 different hormones in the pill, one that works to prevent ovulation, the other to make implantation into the uterus difficult for the fertilized egg.


Ok, so now you are saying that life isn't at conception? Is that your position now? That a fertilized egg isn't when life begins, but when that egg attaches to the uterine wall is the actual start?


I'm trying to understand your position, because a few days ago I could have sworn you were saying that science (and yourself) states that life begins once meiosis starts.


So, which is it?

 

Mitosis, not meosis.  Meosis I the process by which the gametes (sperm and egg) are formed.  Mitosis is the functional reproduction of a fully functioning cell of an independent organism. 

 

In this case the basic function of hormonal contraception is to disrupt the natural cycle that results in the release of an Egg (Ovulation).  In the process, that also cuts out the natural thickening and preparation of the uterine lining.  So again, the target is the prevention of ovulation not the intentional destruction of an independently identified organism as in abortion. 

 

Also, you talk about combined BC methods, women only have an option of progesterone (affects the lining) or full on combination (still affects the lining) so its not like you have women walking up to a counter and making a conscious decision to deny an egg that isn't supposed to drop into the uterus the bed it needs to be implanted. 

 

That doesn't change the fact that human life begins at conception (scientific fact).  That doesn't mean that all human life isn't worthy of protection, especially when it is at its most innocent and most vulnerable.  It's a basic acknowledgement of the inefficiency of the current systems of hormonal birth control and not blaming women for something that they have no control over.

---