+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Rubio: Life begins at conception (/Thread-Rubio-Life-begins-at-conception)
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - StLucieBengal - 08-10-2015
We all know the law allows baby murders. As long as the mother is doing the killing .
But the debate isn't the law. The debate is how can we morally allow a law like this .... How long does it take someone to be ok with mass murdeR?
I know the choice sucks for people but at what point do we just look at ourselves and admit to how much mass murder we have allowed in our lifetime.
A lot of you want to slam A belief in God, and that's fine, but picking and choosing who lives and who dies is playing God yourself.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - BmorePat87 - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 01:57 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We all know the law allows baby murders. As long as the mother is doing the killing .
But the debate isn't the law. The debate is how can we morally allow a law like this .... How long does it take someone to be ok with mass murdeR?
I know the choice sucks for people but at what point do we just look at ourselves and admit to how much mass murder we have allowed in our lifetime.
A lot of you want to slam A belief in God, and that's fine, but picking and choosing who lives and who dies is playing God yourself.
The silliness of calling aborting a fetus "baby murder" aside, what restrictions do you want on abortion?
If you could make the law, when would it legally be ok?
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Brownshoe - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 01:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Until the third trimester a fetus can not survive outside the womb no matter how much it is cared for.
Get it now? "Impossible" is not the same as "possible".
It can not be given individual rights if it is impossible under any circumstances for it to survive as an individual.
So would your opinion change if new advances in medical technology allows the fetus to live at 1 week after conception? Just because it can't live without help does not make it any more or less alive. Any human that is alive should have rights.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Brownshoe - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 02:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The silliness of calling aborting a fetus "baby murder" aside, what restrictions do you want on abortion?
If you could make the law, when would it legally be ok?
Personally I think it should be made illegal after the baby has a beating heart. That's about 8 weeks. Once the fetus has a beating heart it's alive and it deserves the right to continue its life.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - BmorePat87 - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 02:13 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: So would your opinion change if new advances in medical technology allows the fetus to live at 1 week after conception? Just because it can't live without help does not make it any more or less alive. Any human that is alive should have rights.
![[Image: zygote.jpg]](http://www.blindnowic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/zygote.jpg)
So this?
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - BmorePat87 - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 02:15 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Personally I think it should be made illegal after the baby has a beating heart. That's about 8 weeks. Once the fetus has a beating heart it's alive and it deserves the right to continue its life.
I appreciate the answer. Out of curiosity, why a beating heart? Is that not as arbitrary as our opposition at the 3rd trimester?
My point is that all of us seem to oppose abortion once the fetus is at a stage where we consider it to be an actual person. We disagree at when that stage is. Some say the day after sex with the use of drugs, some say fertilization, some say implantation, some say 8 weeks, some say 26 weeks, etc. What is you argument when someone says you support killing babies because you'd allow it up to 8 weeks?
Another curiosity: any rape/incest/health of the mother exceptions allowed after 8 weeks if you made the laws?
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Brownshoe - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 02:22 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:
So this?
How could you say that our technology one day couldn't be able to keep that alive and incubate it like a mother would? Technology improves dramatically constantly.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Brownshoe - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 02:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I appreciate the answer. Out of curiosity, why a beating heart? Is that not as arbitrary as our opposition at the 3rd trimester?
My point is that all of us seem to oppose abortion once the fetus is at a stage where we consider it to be an actual person. We disagree at when that stage is. Some say the day after sex with the use of drugs, some say fertilization, some say implantation, some say 8 weeks, some say 26 weeks, etc. What is you argument when someone says you support killing babies because you'd allow it up to 8 weeks?
Another curiosity: any rape/incest/health of the mother exceptions allowed after 8 weeks if you made the laws?
The point when you're considered dead is when your heart stops beating and you have no brain activity. I feel because that's the case it would only be logical to say that's when life starts. At 8 weeks the fetus has both brain activity and a beating heart.
If you are religious (which I once was) it says in the old testament (Leviticus) that life is in the blood. So it would be logical to assume that once you start producing blood you are alive.
I feel that you have 8 weeks after the person is raped or was apart of incest to make sure you don't bring life into the world. Once you bring life into the world then it's your responsibility to take care of that life until it can sustain itself. The fetus is a innocent life that should not pay for the crimes of another. If the fetus is threatening the life of the mother I think then it's the mother's decision if she wants to abort it or not.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - StLucieBengal - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 02:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The silliness of calling aborting a fetus "baby murder" aside, what restrictions do you want on abortion?
If you could make the law, when would it legally be ok?
I would like to try no abortions unless health of mother. But make the morning after pill very easy to get and very low cost.
I would like to see how that worked out. It covers anyone who might have had a birth control accident the night before. Covers rapes.
I believe that would be a reasonable compromise.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Belsnickel - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 01:47 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I can't imagine this choice. And with the gravity of the choice I can't imagine anyone choosing abortion. But I know it happens often. Girl I dated had this choice and she choose abortion and she says she has flashbacks all the time. She can't shake it
My first adult relationship was messed up on many regards. The woman was 4 or 5 years older than me and she had some serious issues going on that at the age of 20 I was not prepared to deal with. Anyway, she had an abortion about 3 or 4 years prior because her family did not much approve of the child out of wedlock. Yeah, I see the issues with their logic, don't worry. Especially as her mother's side was Catholic. Anyway, the problem really came to a head because her stepmother had become pregnant about the same time, and she was living down here with her father at the time for grad school. She had to be around this child that was the same age as her's would have been, that she had to end.
On top of all of that, she found out (while her and I were dating) that because of one of her genetic conditions, that was a miracle pregnancy. It was a 1 in a billion shot and was not likely to ever happen again. Needless to say, the downward emotional spiral was huge. She eventually found help by moving to be with her mother and getting some therapy and what not. As far as I know, and this has been almost tn years ago now, she has been doing much better.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - GMDino - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 02:13 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: So would your opinion change if new advances in medical technology allows the fetus to live at 1 week after conception? Just because it can't live without help does not make it any more or less alive. Any human that is alive should have rights.
And who is going to pay for that?
My two children were born premature, 26 + weeks each, and the cost to keep them healthy and alive was enormous. Over half a million dollars each for two months in the hospital and one month is a step down unit. and that was 17 and 13 years ago.
Who do you propose pay for keeping 8 cells alive for nine months?
Taxpayers? They won't raise taxes to teach children but you think they will use that money for this?
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Brownshoe - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 08:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: And who is going to pay for that?
My two children were born premature, 26 + weeks each, and the cost to keep them healthy and alive was enormous. Over half a million dollars each for two months in the hospital and one month is a step down unit. and that was 17 and 13 years ago.
Who do you propose pay for keeping 8 cells alive for nine months?
Taxpayers? They won't raise taxes to teach children but you think they will use that money for this?
That's irrelevant to the point that I'm trying to make. He doesn't want to give the fetus any rights because it can't survive unless it's in the mothers womb. The "cut off" point for him seems to be that it has to be able to survive outside of the womb. I'm saying if it was possible for that to happen then would he change his opinion.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - jakefromstatefarm - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 01:20 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'd wager because it's a "wanted" pregnancy.
Welcome to the fray, btw !
Thanks!
But what if she were on her way to the local planned parenthood?
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - GMDino - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 08:59 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: That's irrelevant to the point that I'm trying to make. He doesn't want to give the fetus any rights because it can't survive unless it's in the mothers womb. The "cut off" point for him seems to be that it has to be able to survive outside of the womb. I'm saying if it was possible for that to happen then would he change his opinion.
No its immensely relevant. None of this happens in a vacuum. Women aren't skipping tot he clinic and singing on the way out and you can't just make up a science fiction answer and not look at the real world aspects of it.
We CAN'T use technology to save a fetus beyond a certain point. And if we could someone has to pay for it and someone has to take care of it when it reaches full term.
Without answering those two questions your idea just creates two more problems.
I hate abortion. I also understand that its not my decision and that very, very few women who get one do so with no regard for the fetus she is getting rid of.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - jakefromstatefarm - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 01:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Until the third trimester a fetus can not survive outside the womb no matter how much it is cared for.
Get it now? "Impossible" is not the same as "possible".
It can not be given individual rights if it is impossible under any circumstances for it to survive as an individual.
(08-10-2015, 01:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Because only the mother has the right to make decisions about her own body.
It is the same legal reason you can not be charged with vandalism for destroying your own property. The mother has the right to make the decision if the fetus is allowed to grow into an individual, but no one else can.
She's not making a decision solely about her own body. There is another life involved, regardless of whether you believe that it deserves no rights or equal protection under the law.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - Brownshoe - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 09:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: No its immensely relevant. None of this happens in a vacuum. Women aren't skipping tot he clinic and singing on the way out and you can't just make up a science fiction answer and not look at the real world aspects of it.
We CAN'T use technology to save a fetus beyond a certain point. And if we could someone has to pay for it and someone has to take care of it when it reaches full term.
Without answering those two questions your idea just creates two more problems.
I hate abortion. I also understand that its not my decision and that very, very few women who get one do so with no regard for the fetus she is getting rid of.
It's not relevant what the costs are when he says
(08-10-2015, 01:35 AM)fredtoas Wrote: It can not be given individual rights if it is impossible under any circumstances for it to survive as an individual.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - BmorePat87 - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 04:12 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would like to try no abortions unless health of mother. But make the morning after pill very easy to get and very low cost.
I would like to see how that worked out. It covers anyone who might have had a birth control accident the night before. Covers rapes.
I believe that would be a reasonable compromise.
Ok. At what point in the pregnancy do you see it as murder?
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - GMDino - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 09:15 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: She's not making a decision solely about her own body. There is another life involved, regardless of whether you believe that it deserves no rights or equal protection under the law.
Yeah, sorry, but she can. Legally.
Don't get me wrong, I hate that it can happen, but you are losing the argument with a woman can't make that decision. She's the only one who can.
(08-10-2015, 09:23 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: It's not relevant what the costs are when he says
Because that is what the ruling said. At this point a fetus is not a human being with the rights granted to such. Fetal rights bills have been enacted and overturned repeatedly.
But the costs are just an additional wrench in the works.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - BmorePat87 - 08-10-2015
(08-10-2015, 03:04 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: The point when you're considered dead is when your heart stops beating and you have no brain activity. I feel because that's the case it would only be logical to say that's when life starts. At 8 weeks the fetus has both brain activity and a beating heart.
If you are religious (which I once was) it says in the old testament (Leviticus) that life is in the blood. So it would be logical to assume that once you start producing blood you are alive.
I feel that you have 8 weeks after the person is raped or was apart of incest to make sure you don't bring life into the world. Once you bring life into the world then it's your responsibility to take care of that life until it can sustain itself. The fetus is a innocent life that should not pay for the crimes of another. If the fetus is threatening the life of the mother I think then it's the mother's decision if she wants to abort it or not.
To play Devil's advocate: but the embryo is developing red blood cells at 7 weeks. How is that less of a human than the embryo at 8 weeks?
I hope you get my point here.
RE: Rubio: Life begins at conception - jakefromstatefarm - 08-10-2015
I'm not speaking of what's legal, of course. I don't base my opinions of morality solely by what is legal or not.
I believe that life is the most precious gift that we have, and the right to live is the most sacred right.
I just don't get how anyone can advocate for this. The very first and most important role that the government has is to protect the people, and people are turning their backs onto the innocent who cannot protect themselves, and do so largely for political reasons.
Sad.