The Problem with Legalized Abortion

Truth be told, the government should be out of the debate, in the same way that the Supreme Court should never have decided its verdict for the entirety of a nation. The Supreme Courts sole function is to interpret existing laws, not pass new ones.In my opinion of what is Constitutional in this regard is that the decision either needs to be made through a national vote, or it needs to be a States decision. Get the Federal Government out of it.Now, as for why I view it as an illegal act is because, in my opinion, it is tantamount to infanticide. That it I even have to explain why, irrespective of some theological perspective, seems ridiculous to me. It seems to be something completely axiomatic. For whatever reason, there is not a consensus.I suppose I find it most ironic that those who approve of abortion often disapprove of capital punishment. That makes no sense to me. And conversely, those who disapprove of abortion often approve of capital punishment.That position at least makes sense to me -- completely innocent (fetus) versus guilty of heinous crime. Though it makes some sense to me, I am still against capital punishment.I think there is a real sense of life being viewed rather flippantly. Eugenics programs, abortion, assisted suicide, etc, are just degrading the value of life more and more, to the point where Russian gulags and Nazi concentration camps don't seem so far off. I think we sort of scoff at the notion that things like that can happen again... But they can, and do!Now, you mentioned a backlash over taking away its legal status. Maybe there would be. There is also the sentiment that making it illegal will produce similar effects in the drug trade. Making it illegal only makes for racketeering. Maybe this is so, and maybe this is just hype.But I know this much. The world my grandmother lived in was far purer than the world I live in now -- a purity I may never know. And until we stop peddling death and sex as if its supposed to be comical, the more we will become like Rome, and essentially rot from the inside out until there is no remnant.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Because that's what young humans are -- children. Why isn't a zygote a child?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

You are trying to appeal to the ignorant folk out there by making a reductionists argument. Yes, what you say is true. Alas, that isn't all that it is anymore than you are just a mass of cells.Are you just a mass of cells? What precisely makes you more human than they, especially when they are genetically no different than you?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

If I'm going to answer your questions, please have the common courtesy to answer mine. No, because an ovum is only half of the genetic material. It requires an ovum and a spermatozoa. But that is if we are only to view the argument through science.The human mind is not satisfied with something so asinine, as it reaches for something more laudable to express the grandeur. If the mind does not reach for it, then you have to come to the stark realization that you are genetically no different from a zygote.If that is the case, and clearly it is, then you have even less justification for dehumanizing the human.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

I've answered all your questions. You have, twice now, avoided mine.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

quote:

---

I've answered all your questions. You have, (three times) now, avoided mine.

---

All you have to do is answer my questions and we can continue.This wouldn't be the only thread where you avoid large swaths of a post. You can't expect everyone to jump through your hoops while remaining unwilling to jump through anyone else's.I also may not have, to your satisfaction, answered your question, but I have indeed answered your question. You probably just don't like the fact that I'm not so stupid to realize what you are trying to do. You forget that your reductionist argument only works if your a reductionist -- i.e. you.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

No it wasn't. I asked you whether or not you could so vapidly be reduced to a collocation of cells. Is that what makes you, you? If not, then what exactly makes it any different in the zygote? LOL!THIS coming from someone who plays dodgeball everyday, all day???I've noticed something about MB. You don't answer half the questions I ask you. So I have resolved not to respond to you until you can stop being disingenuous.You can pretend like you're turning it around on me, but its all documented MB. Any objective observer can see who is dodging what.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Don't most of these arguments essentially end in stalemates since either side often won't give up an inch of ground? Nothing will be immediately accomplished. You have to whittle people down, argument, after argument, after argument. Thanks.Well, call me a romantic, but for some strange reason I see humans as being more than clumps of cells. I'm so unorthodox like that. Yeah, but don't tell her that since, unbeknownst to her, she's making making my argument for me.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

If you are the sum of your genetic parts, and a fetus has all of the same DNA as you, then why doesn't a fetus have any rights? Why is a fetus not a person just like you, entitled to the same rights as you? Absolutely. Thanks for answering me.I really see your argument as being inconsequential since a somatic cell line is essentially no different than gametes. I for one am against cloning, which is basically the what the rage about SCNT comprises.Its the same as test tube babies. That is still a baby, just because it was not the product of natural conception, and therefore, should be entitled the same rights.So whether a somatic cell was infused in to an ovum is inconsequential. Your DNA is still your DNA, whether it is a gamete or somatic cell, the only difference being that in the wild, you need two gametes, a spermatozoa and an ovum, to begin the fertilization process.More than that, I am not the one that believes that we are only cells. That's far too narrow to call human beings. Since you do ascribe to this philosophy, this presents a conundrum for you. If we are just a mass of cells, then what is the difference between you and a blastocyst, zygote, or a fetus?We can extrapolate further to say that all organic beings are collocation of cells. What then makes us any different than barley, a nematode, or a chicken? You might say that the configuration is different, and the order of the genome is what makes organic material what it is.But that makes it all the more bizarre to make heads or tails of your position, being that a human fetus is almost identical to you. Why aren't they human beings?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

No, since a spontaneous abortion is not the same thing as an abortion. Plus there is that whole Roe v Wade thing that says you can. But then, this is all hypothetical I suppose. No. A simple papsmear, something a woman would get regardless after a miscarriage or an abortion, could yield clues. What? Who says that she would be forced to fertilize eggs? I'm all about pro-choice. If you don't want to be pregnant, then don't get pregnant. No, since sperm or eggs cannot make babies without one or the other. Yes... People would live. The end.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

I know. But so what? I know. So what? DNA is DNA is DNA is DNA. How does that effect the argument? First of all, its you that thinks a human being is the sum of their parts, not me. You simply asked when a new human being, full of rights and all is formed. I said at conception. Whether Dr. Frankensetin genetically engineers a chimera or not is inconcsequential.I mean, you are acting as if I can't think of it as being human. If that's the case, then why am I against cloning too? I OBVIOUSLY believe that whether it came through natural conception or by the hand of Dr. Moreau, it is still a human being.Remember, this whole argument stems for your inability to come up with a coherent demarcation for what is human and what is not. It is you that continually brings up reductionist arguments as if its supposed to mean something. No, its no problem for me. The problem is for you to come up with something coherent. Now you are saying that the difference is between undifferntiated cells versus differentiated ones. That would include fetuses after the 12th week. All the cells in their body at that point have been assigned to its proper function. Then you would think that a fetus after its 12th week of gestation is a human being... Yet, you don't. The more you try to explain yourself, the more you end up an entangled mess. What? Absolutely not! When a new human begins, i.e., a child, is through the process of fertilization. A sperm is not a child. An ovum is not child. A somatic cell is not a child. Any undifferentiated cell in the body is not a child. When the process of fertilization begins, that is the nano-second that a new life begins. Its really, really very simple.For the sake of your own posterity, I want you to tell me when someone is allowed to be called a human, fitted with all the inalienable rights vested to a human. They are already doing this with specific pluripotent cells from animals, and grafting them in to humans. I don't see how this presents a problem. You are acting as if they are mating goats with humans. That isn't close to what they are doing. That's funny because when Dr. Moreau isn't tinkering with DNA, the natural pathways naturally form a human being -- never, ever, ever, a chimera, or anything else that you want to use in order to dehumanize a human.If then "appropriate" (interesting choice of words) biochemical pathways would include all stages of human development.So, when and how are we humans?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

That absolutely is NOT my argument. My argument is only what is ACTUAL, not potential. Sperm and ovum have the potential to create new life. I have never said they are tantamount to new life, unless they converge and begin the fertilization process. Either is completely useless without the other. In fact, I've been consistently saying that it isn't so. I have also said that DNA does not encapsulate who we are. I've said that consistently. I have said that you are making a reductionist argument, stating that you are "the sum of [our] genetic parts." Yet, you completely overlook the fact that a fetus has the exact same sum of parts as you, yet you don't classify them as human.There is no cogency in your argument. You reduce life to cells, but then slither your way out of it when it comes to a fetus, zygote, or blastocyst.We'll try this the easy way: When are we bestowed rights as a human? A fact that I don't deny. You seem to think this presents a problem for me. I have never even implied that POTENTIAL means a thing. I am only concerned with what is actual. You are the one that believes we are the sum of our genetic parts, not me. Yes you are! Then what does the sum of our genetic parts mean to you?

quote:

---

For the sake of your own posterity, I want you to tell me when someone is allowed to be called a human, fitted with all the inalienable rights vested to a human.

---

What? So then aborting them would constitute murder, right? What in the world has that got to do with anything I said? Your reliance on biology is what is condemning you. Try not to forget that the most technologically advanced nation in the world during the time of World War II, Nazi Germany, perpetuated one of the most horrific crimes against humanity ever known.Interestingly, they made similar reductionist arguments as you are. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

quote:

---

When are we bestowed rights as a human?

---

You should be serious when answering this question. There are so many variables left to chance when it comes to this question. There needs to be a defining moment if you say conception is no good. That's the silliest thing I've ever heard... But then, you know that already so there is no need for me to be redundant. If they aren't then they sure seem to spend a lot of time on things they don't care about. One has to wonder what other interest I have that I don't really care about. I guess I'll just ask you.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Ringo, first you need to stop the process of killing babies! You can't very well get a certificate of conception without first changing the law. You can claim no one really cares about either the woman or the fetus to detract from the real argument if you'd like, but it just shows the weakness of yours.There are countless people protesting the law. The reality is, though, is that it is legal to have an abortion. All anti-abortionists have to find a way to subvert that horrid pro-abortion law, lawfully, not unlawfully. To be honest, what I wanted to say was that it was the stupidest thing I'd ever heard. But I didn't want to upset your sensibilities. To add to what you are now touting, the honest answer is that what you're asserting is preposterous.First the law has to change, otherwise, there is no point in a conception certificate. Remember, I can't make you give a crap about your own child. You have to come to that decision all on your own. What I can do is attempt, through legislation, to amend this law and to overturn it.Since there are a myriad of different ways of handling the problem that don't include death of a new life, there is literally no reason why it has to be this way. Its just pure, unadulterated selfishness -- plain and simple. It would be well with you to finally figure that out.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Ringo, lets pretend for a minute that no one would resist this in the same way. What difference does it make trying to ask for "conception certificates" as opposed to just not killing the baby? Either way, the broader argument is about what does or does not constitute a human being with unalienable rights?In either case, it is a threat to abortion, right? So the pro-abortionists would lobby against it in the same way. Why not fight for the acknowledgment of a human being, versus amorphous blob of cells?Lets not forget your initial claim. You claimed that anti-abortionists don't really care about the fetus. Then what do they care about that they would spend their efforts on it? What do they gain from it if they don't actually care? That is what we're doing! Where have you been? First, the acknowledgment that we are dealing with humans will secure their citizenship. Gotta first be a person before someone can recognize citizenship. There's nothing illegal about pushing for the acknowledgment of what we all know in our hearts to be true either. Well, Joseph Goebbels seems a strange choice given the horrendous experiments he conducted. Wouldn't that come automatically? When a baby is born, no one asks whether its human, and no one asks what the citizenship is. The citizenship goes to where you were born. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman