Simple abortion question

Dec 2006
87,494
65,490
In the Witness Protection Program
#42
Those that support the murder of babies haven't even reached the first rung of morality.

This is once again another slippery slope put forth by the left. Remember when the left told us that they just wanted what they called "responsible abortion?" Now they are pushing to do it no matter the trimester or even killing the baby, if the abortion was botched and the baby was born alive.
Bullshit
 
Likes: The Man
Jun 2013
17,704
15,278
Here
#45
As far as I am concerned...

It's just not MY issue, it's that simple. I am a man. Everything related to birthing or aborting birth is not something I will ever experience and not something I need to fill my head with.

In the culture I was raised in, in Russia, frankly, most of the "birthing houses" (natal clinics) are spaces entirely free of men, they have no male staff, at all, just the women patients being assisted by women doctors and nurses


Dads are not allowed inside either; her this fella works in a construction company or something, so he was able to bring over a bloody crane to lift himself up to his wife's window, to see his new baby

:D

That's the way it is there.

And that, me growing up over there, forms my own outlook on this "issue", which is - it's not for us, men, to discuss. Let the women deal with it, period.
Men are one half of the equation, but women are the only gender that can become pregnant and have their bodies affected by pregnancy and the man has no physical consequence to his body. as do women, thus, until birth, as it always has been since the dawn of humanity (birth defining the beginning of a life), women should not be forced into a physical consequence, just as men are not, if any woman so chooses to not be pregnant for any reason she chooses, but most especially in the case of rape and incest.

States that have gone so far as to ban abortion before some women even know they are pregnant and provide no exceptions for rape or incest are presenting an undue burden to women and forcing them to go out of state (one of the reasons for Roe v. Wade in the first place (undue burden)) to abort their pregnancy. It still does not save lives and actually puts even more lives at risk.

In general, forced pregnancy seems quite cruel, especially when such decisions may be made by men, who never have and never will, experience not just being pregnant, but the risks vulnerabilities of becoming pregnant.

A man can be as promiscuous as can be and if discreet about his fooling around or monogamous sex for purposes OTHER than procreation. A woman, if she does the same, in most cases, cannot hide the physical and visible changes to her body, if she becomes pregnant. What bothers me very much about this issue, are the assumptions that it was the woman who was promiscuous and/or not careful or not being responsible, when it takes two to tango and the men are very often, not even a part of the conversation when it comes to promiscuity, being careful and responsibility and as always, there is no physical change or affect to the male, when a pregnancy occurs as result of sexual intercourse.

In addition, birth being the demarcation point for the beginning of a separate life, means there is little to argue, debate or question that a separate life has indeed, begun. In the case of conjoined twins, there are a variety of factors that may or may not allow separation and in some cases, there may be factors that present "separate" lives, that cannot physically, be separated.
 
Jun 2013
17,704
15,278
Here
#46
I suggest you look up the scientific definition of life. A fetus along with bacteria and red blood cells easily satisfies this definition, rather than being non-life.
I believe you all may be agreeing, but talking about the variances in terminology. I believe the words or terms, "living", "life" and "having a life" or "living a life" can mean a variety of things. The definitions between the words "born" and "unborn" seem pretty clear.

Cells are alive, living and separate from other cells, but can all cells survive separately without certain conditions or factors about their composition that would make it possible. Does someone who is essentially brain dead and needs machines to keep their body alive, really have "a life"? What is a life and why do humans call keeping animals in pain and suffering, alive, cruel?

What is behind this need and where did the need come from, with regard to attempts to redefine birth as something that happens before physical birth? What is behind forcing a woman to remain pregnant, once she becomes so, especially when their male counterparts bear no physical or other consequence for the outcome of the event they equally participated in?
 
Jan 2018
802
810
The greatest place in America, California
#47
I suggest you look up the scientific definition of life. A fetus along with bacteria and red blood cells easily satisfies this definition, rather than being non-life.
So the spermatozoa from masturbation are life and the man should killed for his actions?! To be a living organism means to be able to support yourself free from any host.
 
Mar 2019
203
128
Portland, OR
#48
So the spermatozoa from masturbation are life and the man should killed for his actions?! To be a living organism means to be able to support yourself free from any host.
Yes, the spermatozoa are life just like viruses, and single-celled bacteria. Being able to independently support yourself from any host is completely absent from the scientific definition of life, and in fact there is a whole group of life called parasites that require hosts to survive.
 
Mar 2019
203
128
Portland, OR
#49
I believe you all may be agreeing, but talking about the variances in terminology. I believe the words or terms, "living", "life" and "having a life" or "living a life" can mean a variety of things. The definitions between the words "born" and "unborn" seem pretty clear.

Cells are alive, living and separate from other cells, but can all cells survive separately without certain conditions or factors about their composition that would make it possible. Does someone who is essentially brain dead and needs machines to keep their body alive, really have "a life"? What is a life and why do humans call keeping animals in pain and suffering, alive, cruel?

What is behind this need and where did the need come from, with regard to attempts to redefine birth as something that happens before physical birth? What is behind forcing a woman to remain pregnant, once she becomes so, especially when their male counterparts bear no physical or other consequence for the outcome of the event they equally participated in?
I think there are several levels to life. The first is life that is conscious and self aware. These are living things with some kind of personhood, sometimes very rudimentary. But there are many organisms that are life that aren't self-aware like bacteria or plants. They have DNA, can reproduce, and are individuals of species but are basically biological machines. The lowest level are parts of life that aren't individuals themselves like sperm, red blood cells, your hand, etc. They are made of living tissue and alive but not individuals of a species.

The cell at conception is life like all cells are, and they are individuals of a species like bacteria, but they don't have sentience or personhood. This personhood begins with the development of the brain and slowly increases throughout pregnancy.