Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:And no this isnt what we were talking about, you said that all abortions are murder. ALL. Which is crap.
Yup, all. Barbaric murder.
It doesn't matter that I am not popular in my belief. It is my belief.
So out of curiosity where do you draw the line?
I ask because I don't see how anyone can have a completely staunch viewpoint on the matter and simply justify it with "that's what I believe, deal with it." There are simply too many things to consider. Logically you have to draw the line somewhere be it a matter of days, weeks or at conception or even ejaculation and be prepared to back this up with a logical argument.
For instance I consider myself as someone who supports a woman's right to seek an abortion. But that being said no-one who shares my view can deny that a foetus is a potential human life. I have argued in the past that a foetus is little more than a growth of cells utterly dependant on its host and is, for a large period of time, no more self-aware or alive than a kidney. Still true to a certain extent but what's lost in that assessment is that a kidney doesn't grow into a person. So I have a line where an unborn child becomes something that's more than a cluster of cells, I don't draw my line at "it's not a person until it is born".
So be honest, you don't consider a foetus an actual
human life and nor does anyone else in the pro-life camp. If they did they may be more supportive of things like pre-natal care which generally they are not. Or, Hell, contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place which also a lot of them are not. Or post-natal support and care given the rates of infant mortality - also something pro-lifers generally aren't too fond of. Or as George Carlin said they would call for the unborn to be included in the Census. Or counting one's age from the date of conception. Or holding funerals for miscarriages. Little things.
So I think we can agree on the potential life thing. Which is important I think because it draws the distinction that a foetus is not a human life
. Does that mean it shouldn't be afforded protections? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it should be afforded the same protections. Abortion isn't the only way a potential life fails to become a human life after all. A fertilised egg is not even a potential
potential human life given that a significant amount of the time they fail to attach and are expelled as per usual. But we don't call that a miscarriage. That being the case I certainly don't see how the line can be drawn at conception in any way and why I can't understand those who argue against things like the morning after pill.
So again, out of curiosity, where's your line where an aborted pregnancy becomes "Barbaric murder"?
First off, let me say thank you for actually presenting an intelligent, and well thought out post. I gave up on getting one.
I draw the line at conception. I believe that once the egg is fertilized, it stops being an egg. I believe at that point it becomes a part of two different human beings, and starts a process of becoming more. I understand your reasoning for saying you believe it is just cells up until a certain point. I can also argue against myself. Afterall, would I call a tree fire? No? Why not, it has the potential to become firewood... But I would argue back that it hasn't started that process. The day someone says "I am cutting down that tree to use as firewood" and then cuts the tree down, then I would stop calling it a tree, and start calling it firewood. It isn't technically set on fire yet, but that is now its purpose. Once an egg becomes fertilized, it is no longer an egg. The egg changes its electrical characteristics to prevent more sperm from entering it. There is a change. I believe the correct term for it at this point is zygote.
There are four criteria that science uses to determine if something is alive. They are growth, reproduction, reaction to stimulus, and metabolism. A zygote meets those criteria. Therefore it is alive. Now, you still have a very valid argument that it is no more alive than a kidney. And again, this point comes down to personal belief. I believe that at the moment of conception, this system of cells has taken the steps to become its own life. It shares DNA from two different people. It has started the process of becoming a baby, and should not be held at fault for this process taking time, and not being instantaneous.
So yes, at this point I believe it to be a life. Maybe a parasitic version of a life, but yes, a life, exactly as defined by science. I would also like to refer back to a previous statement I made. If scientists today found evidence of a zygote existing on Mars, not a single one would proclaim "Alien cells found." Everyone would loudly and excitedly scream "ALIEN LIFE FOUND!" I believe this to be alive. I believe this to be life. If someone were to come along and stomp it death, then I doubt anyone would be arguing "Well, it hadn't developed into whatever yet, so its cool."
I am found of pre/post-natal care. I believe it is everyone's responsibility to take care of those that CAN NOT take care of themselves. I word it that way because I am against taking care of people who are just too lazy to take care of themselves. A lot of people talk big about being against these things, but I think that stems from feeling taken advantage of. Afterall, if you were walking through the woods and found a little baby laying there, would you just walk of and leave it as not your responsibility? Or would you try to help it by making sure it is taken care of? I think basic human nature points us to an obvious answer there.
I am a supporter of contraception. I think sex education is a very important topic. I think anything that prevents an egg from being fertilized is fair game. If you can't take care of a baby, you should prevent the conception to begin with. Not just be stupid with the knowledge of "Oh hey, if something happens, I can just get an abortion later. No big deal." I think this non consequence way of thinking has caused a number of problems in our society. Another great and similar example is marriage. I know too many people who got married with the knowledge of "Oh hey, if it doesn't work out, I can just get a divorce." I think this is a horrible mindset to have. We have worked really hard to remove all consequences of our actions. Then we are surprised when someone doesn't understand the consequences of their actions.
But I digress, yes, I support contraception. Assuming, of course, you take that word literally. Contra, meaning against. Ception, meaning conception. I do not believe in, I don't even know what the word would be, extractception... I believe in the knowledge to properly use contraception.
In many countries, babies are considered 1 year old when they are born, because they consider the gestation period to be rounded to about a year. I don't think that is necessary, especially considering the wide range of pregnancy times... How would this count for preemies? In a weird twist on what you say though, if you go in to get an ultrasound done, the take measurements of the baby, and they tell you "This baby is XX weeks old." They don't give you a negative number. They measure against the time of conception. As long as the method of counting age is consistent, it really doesn't matter which system you use, in my opinion.
My wife had a miscarriage. We did hold a small funeral. It isn't something I would care to talk about any further.
The Census is another of the things that I don't think really matter as long as it is consistent. Would it really hurt anything to count pregnancies? No. Would it really change anything? Probably not... Although it could potentially allow some planning for growth.
And I agree, a number of fertilized eggs don't attach. This process happens within about 10 days. But pro-choice people aren't limiting their option down to a 10 day window. I even agree that the majority of fertilized eggs don't survive this part. However, I don't think this is really a factor of human intervention I believe this is part of the natural process. And in this process, using scientific terms, something that was alive, dies. This process is more of an example of Darwin's survival of the fittest. These are unknowns. That is just a fact of life. No, at that stage, I don't think we should be having funerals or counting Census on these unknowns. That is a natural part of the human reproductive process.
Stabbing an unborn baby in the head with a vacuum hose and sucking its brains out is not a natural part of the process.