North Dakota House Gives Fertilized Eggs Human Status

[Kerberoz]

You seem to think that sex and pregnancy are no big deal, and I tend to disagree. It has less to do with killing demi-babies and more to do with social and personal character and responsibility. Things don't have to directly affect people, or have a moral angle, for them to take an interest in them.

You have the right to disagree, but you do not have the right to force others to agree. In the end, it's their own business, and you're a worse person for judging others than they could ever be for choosing what to do with their own (yes, their own, the fetus is a not separate) bodies.

The responsible thing to do is to use contraception, obviously. Sometime it fails. Sometimes people are too stupid to use it correctly. Sometimes people are raped. Keeping an unwanted pregnancy is not responsible. It's stupid and pigheaded. How is forcing a child to grow up on welfare with crooked teeth and no money for college responsible?

[Blarg]

How is forcing a child to grow up on welfare with crooked teeth and no money for college responsible?

Nothing worse than raising a kid british.

[Kuya]

Nothing worse than raising a kid british.

Canadians are British too.

[barber2006]

It isn't society's business, nor is it what you think is such a huge price to pay, that dictate what an individual decides to do with his/her life, or their potential to spawn new lives. You've been spouting forever about taking personal responsibility and yet somehow abortions fall outside of that, like it's some easy decision to reach or something trivial like getting your nails clipped.

This measure by the South Canada government does nothing other than threaten that liberty.

This is where your argument falls apart because it most definitely IS societies business to dictate what an individual decides to do with his/her life IF it adversely affects another life. That is why your argument should focus on refuting life starting at conception because if it does there is no way you can win. Secular does NOT mean 'without any ethic'.

[Correction]

This is where your argument falls apart because it most definitely IS societies business to dictate what an individual decides to do with his/her life IF it adversely affects another life. That is why your argument should focus on refuting life starting at conception because if it does there is no way you can win. Secular does NOT mean 'without any ethic'.

Life doesn't begin at conception.

Therefore it isn't any of society's business what happens after conception is discovered by that fully formed woman with fully qualified American rights your argument likes to conveniently ignore.

Q.E.D.

[Kuya]

Life doesn't begin at conception.

Define life.

[Correction]

Why? To satisfy you?

The woman's life, and therefore rights come first. That's the standard set by the Supreme Court. The only thing granting rights to a cluster of stem cells is going to do is erode that standard, which is pretty fucking dumb.

[Kuya]

You skirted the question. You probably meant personhood doesn't start at conception which is defensible, but arguing that the embryo is not life, considering what the word is assumed to mean is ridiculous.

[Correction]

Unfortunately law has to be pretty harsh when it draws lines, particularly when one is asked to place value beyond the monetary. What makes a person a person is what matters for this discussion of legal rights; so yeah I meant personhood but I phrased my argument to counter barber, not to get into a spiral of semantic 'nuh-UH'ing with you.

[Seraph]

Unfortunately law has to be pretty harsh when it draws lines, particularly when one is asked to place value beyond the monetary. What makes a person a person is what matters for this discussion of legal rights; so yeah I meant personhood but I phrased my argument to counter barber, not to get into a spiral of semantic 'nuh-UH'ing with you.

Then you would agree that life begins at conception, but humanity begins at birth?

[Ruiner]

Then you would agree that life begins at conception, but humanity begins at birth?

I would say that that is accurate. In this case, "life" has no rights. Humanity does.

[Linliel]

Then you would agree that life begins at conception, but humanity begins at birth?

I'm not Correction but I don't think so, I think life begins well after embryonic form, and when the foetus really starts to process things with its brain (production of hormones is at 12 weeks, for e.g.) and think. So really around 12 weeks+, which is when neurological connections start to form.

Perhaps that seems arbitrary to you but I am a philosopher and think that human life is about rationality, so for me, no ability to think means no real life. Same reason why I'm going to ask for euthanasia for me if I ever get Alzheimer's. Of course I don't wish to impose this on anyone else, but I would like it if my personal, rational, reflective wishes were respected.

ETA: I still think, though, that the mother has ultimate rights over an unborn baby. I don't think that unborn babies have rights until they are born.

[Kuya]

You're confusing personhood with life. A plant has life, a dog has life, doesn't mean we value them; you value a human life when it has a personality. You should just say that.

[Linliel]

You're confusing personhood with life. A plant has life, a dog has life, doesn't mean we value them; you value a human life when it has a personality. You should just say that.

Sure, that's absolutely true. I got a little carried away

[Correction]

Then you would agree that life begins at conception, but humanity begins at birth?

I believe that the thing growing inside a pregnant woman is alive.

I don't believe it has rights beyond the mother.

[Rhinox]

ITT: True pro-life advocates are Buddhists.


The rest are moralfag hypocrites that eat meat and support Capital punishment.

[pohibaba]

ETA: I still think, though, that the mother has ultimate rights over an unborn baby. I don't think that unborn babies have rights until they are born.

So, you have no problems with aborting a baby 2 days before it was to be born?

[Linliel]

So, you have no problems with aborting a baby 2 days before it was to be born?

I never said anything like that. I think that that situation would have to be very delicately handled. I can't say anything definitive about the general case, because obviously it would depend on the situation. And ultimately it wouldn't be any of my business, because it would come down to the mother, father, doctor, and other people more closely involved than I am. If it were me, it would have to be a very very good reason. Perhaps if I'd been raped and imprisoned until 2 days before birth, maybe then I might feel like I had to. But maybe I wouldn't. I don't know. Such a situation would be particularly extreme, and thus might require a particularly extreme response.

[Skjie]

If it can survive on it's own, it counts. If it is still a parasite to it's host, it doesn't.

(Joke: aborting 14 year olds)

[Genrye]

If it can survive on it's own, it counts. If it is still a parasite to it's host, it doesn't.

(Joke: aborting 14 year olds)

i lol'd