The Abortion Question

[StLucieBengal]

(10-02-2015, 01:41 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Yes I disagree with your assertion that life begins at conception. At a certain point a embryo does take on a life of it's own. However the cells dividing in the early stages, though living, are no more a "life" than the billions of cells in my body.  They certainly wouldn't supersede the rights of the mother at that point.   Even late term abortions happen to save the mothers life.  Note: this does not mean that I agree with late term abortions, but it is at times necessary to save the mothers life.  This is also why this decision should be between the mother and the doctor and others directly involved such has father and/or husband (if they're involved) or even a parent.  It is not up to me or you whether some random woman has an abortion or not.

So what would you say if just causal abortions were eliminated? Still had access to morning after pill, mothers life abortions. Done in hospitals only.

And if you disagree with the above, what do you think should be the fathers role in any abortion decision? Should a father be able to save his baby? (Pretty sure I know the answer you will give)

The Lack of fathers rights in these matters bother me. And really parents rights for minors as well.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-02-2015, 02:44 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So what would you say if just causal abortions were eliminated?  Still had access to morning after pill, mothers life abortions.   Done in hospitals only.  

And if you disagree with the above, what do you think should be the fathers role in any abortion decision?  Should a father be able to save his baby?  (Pretty sure I know the answer you will give)  

The Lack of fathers rights in these matters bother me.   And really parents rights for minors as well.

We could play the "what if game" all day long.  However, it doesn't change that each circumstance is different.  And that is why I maintain that it is ultimately the decision of the woman carrying and her physician.  Do I think that fathers and/or husbands should have a say? Absolutely, if they are indeed still in the picture.  If it is a minor? Sure the parents should be involved, and possibly the boyfriend.  But still, I do not feel comfortable making that decision for a woman, whom is the one to actually physically carry the baby through the 9 month term and then care for it until adulthood.  Again I should not and you should not be making that decision for someone else.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-02-2015, 12:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks don't argue that; it's a biological fact. 

Folks try to argue that it doesn't. 

It's not a biological fact.  A single celled gamete is alive the same as a single celled zygote, both can potentially develop into a human, but are in different stages of human development. How can life begin at conception when the cells neede to make a zygote are already alive before conception?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-02-2015, 02:44 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So what would you say if just causal abortions were eliminated?  Still had access to morning after pill, mothers life abortions.   Done in hospitals only.  

And if you disagree with the above, what do you think should be the fathers role in any abortion decision?  Should a father be able to save his baby?  (Pretty sure I know the answer you will give)  

The Lack of fathers rights in these matters bother me.   And really parents rights for minors as well.

Tell me the instructions for the morning after pill.

[Brownshoe]

(10-01-2015, 11:02 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Inaccurate. Also irrelevant.

Week 6 The fetus has both brain activity and a beating heart.

[Brownshoe]

(10-02-2015, 12:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't understand any of this.

It's living but not alive?  Please explain.

I meant to say it's living but not an individual. I still think that it's not a part of the mother before it gets brain activity, but at the point that it has brain activity and a heartbeat (6 weeks) it's an "individual".

Once you lose brain activity and your heart stops beating are you not dead? Why wouldn't that be the starting point of "life" too? It makes no sense to me that the point where we can prevent the fetuses death is when it becomes an "individual".

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-02-2015, 02:44 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So what would you say if just causal abortions were eliminated?  Still had access to morning after pill, mothers life abortions.   Done in hospitals only.  

And if you disagree with the above, what do you think should be the fathers role in any abortion decision?  Should a father be able to save his baby?  (Pretty sure I know the answer you will give)  

The Lack of fathers rights in these matters bother me.   And really parents rights for minors as well.

I think the father get's more rights when medicine can transfer the fetus from the mother to the father for gestation and delivery. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-02-2015, 06:31 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I meant to say it's living but not an individual. I still think that it's not a part of the mother before it gets brain activity, but at the point that it has brain activity and a heartbeat (6 weeks) it's an "individual".

Once you lose brain activity and your heart stops beating are you not dead? Why wouldn't that be the starting point of "life" too? It makes no sense to me that the point where we can prevent the fetuses death is when it becomes an "individual".

If it is living wouldn't it be "life"?

And I have explained under certain circumstances, a person can have a heart beat and no brain activity and the person is dead.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-02-2015, 06:12 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Week 6 The fetus has both brain activity and a beating heart.

But that's not what you said. What you said was

(10-01-2015, 10:52 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Because at the time they have a beating heart they have brain activity too.

which is wrong. Fetal heartbeat begins at 3-4 weeks, meaning a gap in time before any "brain activity" begins. Thus the reason I correctly called that statement inaccurate.

I also called it irrelevant, because the "brain activity" at 6 weeks is primitive, unorganized nonsense. The nervous system of a shrimp is literally more coherent than a fetus at 6 weeks.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-02-2015, 03:16 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: We could play the "what if game" all day long.  However, it doesn't change that each circumstance is different.  And that is why I maintain that it is ultimately the decision of the woman carrying and her physician.  Do I think that fathers and/or husbands should have a say? Absolutely, if they are indeed still in the picture.  If it is a minor? Sure the parents should be involved, and possibly the boyfriend.  But still, I do not feel comfortable making that decision for a woman, whom is the one to actually physically carry the baby through the 9 month term and then care for it until adulthood.  Again I should not and you should not be making that decision for someone else.

Agreed. But wouldn't the morning after pill sort those people out who just don't want to deal with children?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-02-2015, 11:14 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Agreed.   But wouldn't the morning after pill sort those people out who just don't want to deal with children?

No.

If you would tell me the instructions for the morning after pill you might begin to understand.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-02-2015, 11:14 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Agreed.   But wouldn't the morning after pill sort those people out who just don't want to deal with children?

No, not everyone realizes they're pregnant the day after.  It was a solid month before my ex realized she was pregnant with my son.

[BmorePat87]

(10-02-2015, 12:53 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: You would know...

As I have asked someone else.

Who am I an Alt for?

I can assure you that I am not an alt account.  Just because I don't post a lot, doesn't mean I am an alt.

I just know from the previous board, how futile it is to argue with you and others on here, due to your egos.

It was based on your troll like posts. I now see that you are Cincy's Best, so I wasn't too far off. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-02-2015, 03:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It was based on your troll like posts. I now see that you are Cincy's Best, so I wasn't too far off. 

Oh boy. Has he admitted this yet or is it just apparent because he's been defending CB for no reason? If the latter, I'll continue my policy of ignoring him.

[Brownshoe]

(10-02-2015, 11:12 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: But that's not what you said. What you said was




which is wrong. Fetal heartbeat begins at 3-4 weeks, meaning a gap in time before any "brain activity" begins. Thus the reason I correctly called that statement inaccurate.

I also called it irrelevant, because the "brain activity" at 6 weeks is primitive, unorganized nonsense. The nervous system of a shrimp is literally more coherent than a fetus at 6 weeks.

The heart doesn't start pumping blood until 6 weeks

It doesn't matter if the brain is primitive at that point. Its still a human and it has brain activity. Unless you are saying the quality of the brain determines if someone is a human. Then I have to ask are people with learning disabilities less human because the quality of their brain isn't as good?

[Brownshoe]

(10-02-2015, 10:59 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If it is living wouldn't it be "life"?

And I have explained under certain circumstances, a person can have a heart beat and no brain activity and the person is dead.

At 6 weeks it has both brain activity and a heartbeat. I don't see your point.

[*bfine32*]

(10-02-2015, 03:46 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's not a biological fact.  A single celled gamete is alive the same as a single celled zygote, both can potentially develop into a human, but are in different stages of human development. How can life begin at conception when the cells neede to make a zygote are already alive before conception?

You can continue to argue that human life doesn't begin at conception all you want; just don't expect anyone outside of a few select liberals on this message board to take you seriously. Even the majority of liberals on this board and Nationwide will concede human life begins at conception; they will just go with the "it doesn't matter" or it isn't a "viable life"slant.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-02-2015, 10:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You can continue to argue that human life doesn't begin at conception all you want; just don't expect anyone outside of a few select liberals on this message board to take you seriously. Even the majority of liberals on this board and Nationwide will concede human life begins at conception; they will just go with the "it doesn't matter" or it isn't a "viable life"slant.  

I'm not arguing anything. I'm just explaining "simple" biology.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-02-2015, 06:00 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: At 6 weeks it has both brain activity and a heartbeat. I don't see your point.

You argued death occurs when there isn't a pulse and brain activity so individualism should begin when a pulse and brain activity occur.

I see two problems with your argument:

1. When someone dies they are still an individual. So why should we use the opposite criteria for death to establish individualism?  

2. I have explained the criteria you are using for death isn't always true.

[Brownshoe]

(10-02-2015, 11:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You argued death occurs when there isn't a pulse and brain activity so individualism should begin when a pulse and brain activity occur.

I see two problems with your argument:

1. When someone dies they are still an individual. So why should we use the opposite criteria for death to establish individualism?  

2. I have explained the criteria you are using for death isn't always true.

1. You never stop being an individual, so you use the opposite criteria for death to establish individualism, because at that point it meets all the qualifications to becoming an individual living human. Why would you say something is an individual at the point we can prevent it's death? We know it's alive, and we know that it's not a part of the mother, because after conception it attaches to the mother. So that obviously shows that it's a separate entity.

2. When is someone alive, but doesn't have a heartbeat and brain activity?