Yes and no. I haven't taken a biology course in like a decade, but there are particular elements in a cell that are required before it is defined as an "organism" that is separate from other organisms. Sperm and ovum cells are like our muscle/skin/bone/brain/blood/etc cells, they are connected to the particular body they inhabit, and do not survive long when disconnected from the circulatory system.
Yeah, it gets a little complicated. Â But cells are living. Â
Same goes for men having absoutely no rights or choice in the matter.Why should a man have a choice in thhe matter? It's not his body. Yeah, he is just going to forced to pay for the kid......for 18 years rather he wanted the kid or even knew she was knocked up or not. What should he have no out, but she does?
]What is the limit for abortion there (not including life threatening circumstances?)
Storm_Marine
there isn't one, one of the few countries where that's the case
Actually, it's birth, and more specifically, when the baby takes it's first breath. The Canadian government has kept it as such because we have just as many religious nutjobs here that want it criminalized and will take any chance to open the debate. And really, it's all arbitrary line-in-the-sand drawing anyways. There is no real objective consensus outside of birth, and if they are going to allow it, that is the most logical position to take.
The choice should be up to the mother and father, and not the government or church. End of story.Â
lostrib
but what if the mother and father disagree?
The way I see it is that the mother should have the final say. The father (assuming they're a couple) wouldn't be in the wrong to dump her over it.Â
It wouldn't be nice for a woman to have an abortion without talking to the father first. But I don't see how anyone can justify the father forcing the woman what to do.Â
]What is the limit for abortion there (not including life threatening circumstances?)
foxhound_fox
there isn't one, one of the few countries where that's the case
Actually, it's birth, and more specifically, when the baby takes it's first breath. The Canadian government has kept it as such because we have just as many religious nutjobs here that want it criminalized and will take any chance to open the debate. And really, it's all arbitrary line-in-the-sand drawing anyways. There is no real objective consensus outside of birth, and if they are going to allow it, that is the most logical position to take. Look at all the arguments against abortion in the thread, none involving religion
The choice should be up to the mother and father, and not the government or church. End of story.Â
toast_burner
but what if the mother and father disagree?
The way I see it is that the mother should have the final say. The father (assuming they're a couple) wouldn't be in the wrong to dump her over it.Â
It wouldn't be nice for a woman to have an abortion without talking to the father first. But I don't see how anyone can justify the father forcing the woman what to do.Â
[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] Same goes for men having absoutely no rights or choice in the matter.TheWalkingGhost
Why should a man have a choice in thhe matter? It's not his body. Yeah, he is just going to forced to pay for the kid......for 18 years rather he wanted the kid or even knew she was knocked up or not. What should he have no out, but she does?Thats a problem regarding child care laws, not abortion.Â
Yeah, it gets a little complicated. Â But cells are living. Â lostrib
Again, no. There are some living cells, that are autonomous organic systems, but bodily cells cannot survive when disconnected from the "human" they make up. An amoeba is a living organism. A sperm is not. The amoeba has systems within it that allow for the creation of energy and reproduction. A sperm does not, it only contains chromosonal data.
Well if they disagree, then who's choice is it really?
Not an easy answer, it would cause problems if the couple were married. Be a shame to bring a child into a loveless broken home. But if not married, most men would say the mother if they had an out.
[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Bullsh!t. The only non-permanent, non-surgical method that is >98% (I think) effective is the steroidal IUD. And not all women can use steroidal birth control. Condoms are like 75% effective. 90% under perfect use.toast_burner
Have you ever used a condom? I'm thinking you have never seen one. Because sperm is not getting through unless it breaks. And even then. A birth control pill is a logical backup plan. Use two or three different forms together and your chances at pregnancy are slim to none. You could even take it a step further and abstain during ovulation as well.and why should it matter? What differencedoes it make if they prevented after conception of before conception? The potential for human life was still there. But once the conception happens, the life is very much there even if you pro-choices see it as a parasite. Look at it from my perspective. Right now, I have a two year old child who I love to death. After his mom found out she was pregnant, her instant reaction was abortion. I had to fight her tooth & nail not to do it. It was so close that she was actually at the clinic and right before it was her turn, she had a change of heart because of my begging, pleading and even crying believe it or not. Now even though it didnt happen, it almost did. And even though I have my son in my life, i still carry the grief of what almost happened with me. Now I'm not 100% pro-life however I am 100% for fathers rights and equality. If there is a baby there growing and the father is there, an abortion shouldn't be as simple as a trip to the store. And think about another side of this. A woman who who wants no part of taking care of a baby is called pro-choice. A man who wants no part of it is a deadbeat. He must fund her quest for so called "Strong Single Motherhood" and if he chooses not to, he is jailed. Now if we must be pro-choice, this really should be a two way street.
[QUOTE="lostrib"]Yeah, it gets a little complicated. Â But cells are living. Â foxhound_fox
Again, no. There are some living cells, that are autonomous organic systems, but bodily cells cannot survive when disconnected from the "human" they make up. An amoeba is a living organism. A sperm is not. The amoeba has systems within it that allow for the creation of energy and reproduction. A sperm does not, it only contains chromosonal data.
oh sperm can't survive for shit. Â I don't know what my statement was in regards to, but i guess it should be that some cells are living organisms. Â And in the correct environment, cells can grow autonomously outside the body
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Why should a man have a choice in thhe matter? It's not his body.
toast_burner
Yeah, he is just going to forced to pay for the kid......for 18 years rather he wanted the kid or even knew she was knocked up or not. What should he have no out, but she does?Thats a problem regarding child care laws, not abortion. Still a problem.
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] Yeah, he is just going to forced to pay for the kid......for 18 years rather he wanted the kid or even knew she was knocked up or not. What should he have no out, but she does?TheWalkingGhost
Thats a problem regarding child care laws, not abortion. Still a problem.
Look at all the arguments against abortion in the thread, none involving religionAdamPA1006
Any of them actually feasible to enforce financially? At least with a religious argument, there is the absolutist morality that comes along with it. With a non-religious argument, the feasibility of their implementation at a state level must be analyzed further with regard for other elements (as I've mentioned).
Uhmmm, I think you mean to say infanticide is illegal...and I don't think anyone here was doubting that.Storm_Marine
I haven't looked it up in about 4 or 5 years, but I'm pretty sure that is the legal definition in Canada. I highly doubt there are many (if any at all) abortions performed *that* close the line however. But the legal precedence remains.
[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]Uhmmm, I think you mean to say infanticide is illegal...and I don't think anyone here was doubting that.foxhound_fox
I haven't looked it up in about 4 or 5 years, but I'm pretty sure that is the legal definition in Canada. I highly doubt there are many (if any at all) abortions performed *that* close the line however. But the legal precedence remains.
Like I said, there are no limits on abortions. You can't abort a baby that's already born.
Though I suppose technically you can with partial birth abortions, which are also legal here I think? But that's not what I'm talking about.
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] Still a problem. TheWalkingGhost
but a different problem
Not really. It affects mens views on abortion, so it plays into it.Then why not fix it at the source? Changing abortion laws will only cause more problems.Â
[QUOTE="famicommander"] It is a person at the moment it becomes a living thing (conception). It is a unique, living entity with unique, human DNA. If it is not a person then what is it? Any other definition is necessarily arbitrary. Before conception it is simply two cells of its parents and therefore not a unique entity; at any point past conception it is its own entity in any of many different stages of development. To say that a fetus is less deserving of its right to live because it is in a less complex stage of development is logically no different than saying it's okay to kill retarded people or babies; both are less developed than a healthy adult.famicommander
just to point out, sperm and eggs are alive too.
I'd say a human is something that has a functioning human brain, which the fetus has at about the 23 week.
A sperm and an egg cell are not living creatures, they are cells. They are parts of other, already living creatures. Cells are considered to be alive. What do you think bacteria is? Dead?
If you're pro-life then don't have an abortion. That's about as far as your say-so extends and should extend.
worlock77
except some people want the government to cover BC and abortion costs. that means that people who are pro-life would be forced to fund what they see as baby murder. that is a legitimate point of contention. i dont like banning things but i dislike forcing people to reject their own morality because you, I, or anyone else says so.
hate and fear is what sells these days, [QUOTE="worlock77"]
If you're pro-life then don't have an abortion. That's about as far as your say-so extends and should extend.
surrealnumber5
except some people want the government to cover BC and abortion costs. that means that people who are pro-life would be forced to fund what they see as baby murder. that is a legitimate point of contention. i dont like banning things but i dislike forcing people to reject their own morality because you, I, or anyone else says so. True but people oppose a lot of things. Should we stop giving hormones to transgender people or AIDS treatment to gays because they're homophobic and think they should suffer for their sinful ways?
On average, one million abortions occur every year in the United States. I think every single pro lifer should be required to pay $500 a month to help pay for food, clothing, toys, shelter, medical care, and education, instead of letting tax payers having to foot the bill.
]Cells are considered to be alive. What do you think bacteria is? Dead?
I think you need to take a biology course.
MakeMeaSammitch
Sperm are not autonomous organisms. They do not carry wholly unique DNA and cannot reproduce. Only half of the chromosomes required to create an actual autonomous organism.
Not really. It affects mens views on abortion, so it plays into it.Then why not fix it at the source? Changing abortion laws will only cause more problems. Are you paying attention? I am not saying change abortion laws, just that men having no out affects their views on them.
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] Not really. It affects mens views on abortion, so it plays into it.TheWalkingGhost
Then why not fix it at the source? Changing abortion laws will only cause more problems. Are you paying attention? I am not saying change abortion laws, just that men having no out affects their views on them.But the mens views on it are based on other laws.Â
I think in general people should only have abortions if it's medically necessary or in cases of rape. But I think it should be legal for everyone, at least up to a point.
hate and fear is what sells these days, [QUOTE="worlock77"]
If you're pro-life then don't have an abortion. That's about as far as your say-so extends and should extend.
surrealnumber5
except some people want the government to cover BC and abortion costs. that means that people who are pro-life would be forced to fund what they see as baby murder. that is a legitimate point of contention. i dont like banning things but i dislike forcing people to reject their own morality because you, I, or anyone else says so. Doesnt seem to be any different from the federal government spending public tax dollars on spying on its own citizens.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]hate and fear is what sells these days, [QUOTE="worlock77"]
If you're pro-life then don't have an abortion. That's about as far as your say-so extends and should extend.
toast_burner
except some people want the government to cover BC and abortion costs. that means that people who are pro-life would be forced to fund what they see as baby murder. that is a legitimate point of contention. i dont like banning things but i dislike forcing people to reject their own morality because you, I, or anyone else says so. True but people oppose a lot of things. Should we stop giving hormones to transgender people or AIDS treatment to gays because they're homophobic and think they should suffer for their sinful ways? yes, if the government is there to respect and treat us equally (it is not) but if it were it would not force people to support things that they are against. and if i had it my way, it would be hard to think of the last military action my country would have been involved in. my government is all about special interests and not general interests so in the end everyone is forced to support what they would not if they had the choice. when you assume you know better then everyone else and damn their thoughts and opinions, you get the united states government. as violent at home as it is afar. if you support a cause, then support that cause, dont force other people to support your cause, especially when you know they disagree with it.
hate and fear is what sells these days, [QUOTE="worlock77"]
If you're pro-life then don't have an abortion. That's about as far as your say-so extends and should extend.
surrealnumber5
except some people want the government to cover BC and abortion costs. that means that people who are pro-life would be forced to fund what they see as baby murder. that is a legitimate point of contention. i dont like banning things but i dislike forcing people to reject their own morality because you, I, or anyone else says so.
As do I, but I'm forced to fund things I disagree with morally as well.
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Then why not fix it at the source? Changing abortion laws will only cause more problems.Â
toast_burner
Are you paying attention? I am not saying change abortion laws, just that men having no out affects their views on them.But the mens views on it are based on other laws. Still affects their views on them. If you fix the other laws it makes dealing with abortion easier. Meaning, with the other laws fixed men might not care about abortion anymore. So both should be discussed.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]hate and fear is what sells these days, [QUOTE="worlock77"]
If you're pro-life then don't have an abortion. That's about as far as your say-so extends and should extend.
Jd1680a
except some people want the government to cover BC and abortion costs. that means that people who are pro-life would be forced to fund what they see as baby murder. that is a legitimate point of contention. i dont like banning things but i dislike forcing people to reject their own morality because you, I, or anyone else says so. Doesnt seem to be any different from the federal government spending public tax dollars on spying on its own citizens. its not, the government is not there for the general interests of the population, only special interests get their way, and yes there are economic reasons why it is that way. something something about the redistribution scam being exposed the moment everyone pays in 10 dollars and only gets 2 back.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]hate and fear is what sells these days, [QUOTE="worlock77"]
If you're pro-life then don't have an abortion. That's about as far as your say-so extends and should extend.
worlock77
except some people want the government to cover BC and abortion costs. that means that people who are pro-life would be forced to fund what they see as baby murder. that is a legitimate point of contention. i dont like banning things but i dislike forcing people to reject their own morality because you, I, or anyone else says so.
As do I, but I'm forced to fund things I disagree with morally as well.
and that is still wrong, come on, you should know i am p. consistent with these things. if it is wrong for you to point a gun at me to fund your abortion, it is wrong for you to point a gun at me to fund a war.
Â
one evil does not justify another.
and yea, i will pay the person with the gun because i dont want to die.Â
Because they're usually in allegiance with people that believe in small government yet utilize the most invasive government laws in order to have their pro-life ways. Since abortion services can't be prohibited by law, conservative politicians are now doing it by proxy, such as requiring women who are pregnant to receive forced ultrasounds. Or they create laws setting up arbitrary regulations on abortion service providers to such an extent that providers of those services are forced to close. Or they force women who want to consider abortion to undergo religious services about keeping her child, not consulting with a doctor. They pass laws prohibiting doctors from discussing abortion options with their patients. Also, the pro-lifers are also in allegiance with those that want to deny contraceptive coverage to women. They're also the ones that want to destroy the social safety nets to help mothers with their children, things that might actually help women determine if they're capable of raising a child or not. Pro-lifers also want rape victims and victims of incest to have their babies, and they want mothers to give birth to babies even if it's going to be born with no brain other types of severe birth defects.
I agree with TC. to disagree with pro-lifers is one thing, but to treat them as though they are terrible people because they feel the rights of an unborn baby come before the rights of the women, who in most cases made the choice to have unprotected sex, is baffling to me, but hey, that's how people are.
[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]]Cells are considered to be alive. What do you think bacteria is? Dead?
I think you need to take a biology course.
foxhound_fox
Sperm are not autonomous organisms. They do not carry wholly unique DNA and cannot reproduce. Only half of the chromosomes required to create an actual autonomous organism.I loled at the irony a bit.
A fetus is not autonomous, it is dependent on the mother, it cannot reproduce. Sperm and eggs dohave unique dna.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]]Cells are considered to be alive. What do you think bacteria is? Dead?
I think you need to take a biology course.
MakeMeaSammitch
Sperm are not autonomous organisms. They do not carry wholly unique DNA and cannot reproduce. Only half of the chromosomes required to create an actual autonomous organism.I loled at the irony a bit.
A fetus is not autonomous, it is dependent on the mother, it cannot reproduce. Sperm and eggs dohave unique dna.
This whole argument is pointless because it's not about what it is, it's about what it will become.
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Then why not fix it at the source? Changing abortion laws will only cause more problems.Â
toast_burner
Are you paying attention? I am not saying change abortion laws, just that men having no out affects their views on them.But the mens views on it are based on other laws. Men have no in's either though. Like I said before. If a man wants his baby and the woman does not, he should have a legal right to stop the abortion and agree to be that child's sole provider. Just because a man can't get pregnant doesnt mean it should be any less his.
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] Are you paying attention? I am not saying change abortion laws, just that men having no out affects their views on them.Murderstyle75
But the mens views on it are based on other laws. Men have no in's either though. Like I said before. If a man wants his baby and the woman does not, he should have a legal right to stop the abortion and agree to be that child's sole provider. Just because a man can't get pregnant doesnt mean it should be any less his. patriarchy! you evil women oppresionists just want samiches, sex and, sexy slaves. men are worthless, and disposable, you just need to understand!
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] except some people want the government to cover BC and abortion costs. that means that people who are pro-life would be forced to fund what they see as baby murder. that is a legitimate point of contention. i dont like banning things but i dislike forcing people to reject their own morality because you, I, or anyone else says so.surrealnumber5
As do I, but I'm forced to fund things I disagree with morally as well.
and that is still wrong, come on, you should know i am p. consistent with these things. if it is wrong for you to point a gun at me to fund your abortion, it is wrong for you to point a gun at me to fund a war.
Â
one evil does not justify another.
and yea, i will pay the person with the gun because i dont want to die.Â
For what it's worth I do not advocate public funding of abortions. I am simply saying that it's not a strong argument as we all have to fund things we disagree with.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Sperm are not autonomous organisms. They do not carry wholly unique DNA and cannot reproduce. Only half of the chromosomes required to create an actual autonomous organism.PernicioEnigma
I loled at the irony a bit.
A fetus is not autonomous, it is dependent on the mother, it cannot reproduce. Sperm and eggs dohave unique dna.
This whole argument is pointless because it's not about what it is, it's about what it will become.I don't care what it will become, I care about what is.
As do I, but I'm forced to fund things I disagree with morally as well.
worlock77
and that is still wrong, come on, you should know i am p. consistent with these things. if it is wrong for you to point a gun at me to fund your abortion, it is wrong for you to point a gun at me to fund a war.
Â
one evil does not justify another.
and yea, i will pay the person with the gun because i dont want to die.Â
For what it's worth I do not advocate public funding of abortions. I am simply saying that it's not a strong argument as we all have to fund things we disagree with.
unless i am being obviously dumb, i am giving my honest view of what i think would be best, that rarely is what is, but if i kept my arguments in the realm of what is, i would only be able to argue the letter of the laws i often find wrong headed in purpose and evil in effect. drugs are illegal and because drugs are illegal only criminals do drugs. when i argue against the drug war i am not arguing for criminals, i am arguing against what i see as unjust laws. i doubt i personally will have any impact in reducing any of the injustices i see, even though you only need about 25-30% of the population to win elections and get what you want, it does not matter, there is only one of me.
Because they're often massive hypocrites that don't give a f*ck about the child after it's born. It's the same group of people that call for major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, or any other type of program that helps children out. Not to mention that many people in this group are against abortion in all cases, even when the fetus is non-viable, or could even kill the mother. The major movement is pro-birth, not pro-life, which is morally abhorrent (coming from the supposedly "moral" Christian right)
Log in to comment