Would liberals trade guns for human lives?

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

Well, maybe. Only if that zygote attaches to a uterine wall and is adequately fed by the mother through the uterus, have that zygote develop into a healthy fetus, have that fetus survive birth, and have the resulting baby develop normally will result in it developing into a self-aware being. And that attachment (and of course everything else that goes with child-bearing) is not guaranteed, and in some women isn't even likely with or without birth control. Even then, it is possible for the mother's body to slough the uterine lining and the zygote with it due to a hormonal imbalance in the mother (or other conditions). Saying life begins at conception is failing to understand that not all conceptions result in live births, even naturally. It's not automatic. All conception is is the combination of two people's DNA into a single cell. Somewhere between that event and around age 1 (post-birth), that entity becomes self-aware.

THANK YOU.

Again, the concept of "life" beginning at fertilization is 100% arbitrary. In biology, Life begins when an organism is able to show forms of instinct and utilize a flight or flight reaction from environmental stimuli. This happens, observed with and limited by current technology, around the beginning of the 3rd month...embryos are seen sucking their thumb for example. Just because something exists as a blastocyst does not mean it is "alive". There are many more steps that must take place as commuter mentions that others willfully leave out as they do not assist in their argument.

Again, based on what we already know to be fact, I am against any termination after the 3rd month.

 

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

The big difference, since we are talking about natural biological process, is that the termination of the process on one hand is biologically induced, vice on the other hand, it is artificially induced.

Humans are a natural, evolved entity with free-will subject to the rules of biology. Sorry, had to...

This, like every other debate with different people with different backgrounds is a never-ending circle.

 

[CommuterBob]

The big difference, since we are talking about natural biological process, is that the termination of the process on one hand is biologically induced, vice on the other hand, it is artificially induced.

Maybe. But we have no way of knowing if the artificial induction would have really prevented a life, or if that it simply accelerated a process that was going to happen anyway.

 

[fabknight]

Maybe. But we have no way of knowing if the artificial induction would have really prevented a life, or if that it simply accelerated a process that was going to happen anyway.

That does not negate the fact that the latter termination was a conscious decision (artificial) and not biologically induced (spontaneous).

 

[CommuterBob]

That does not negate the fact that the latter termination was a conscious decision (artificial) and not biologically induced (spontaneous).

Not arguing that. Only arguing the certainty of that decision. It goes both ways, too. Even when such a conscious decision is made, there are chances that a life could be created.

 

[OmniKnight]

The fact that there is a chance that a zygote will not mature into a baby (lack of attachment, miscarriage, or other natural failure of the pregnancy process) does not negate two irrefutable truths:

1) At the time in which a swimmer has entered a coochie ball, the process of creating life has been kicked off
2) If there is no interference (natural or unnatural), the pregnancy will carry to term

Chances are irrelevant. Certainty is not required. There are no "shades of gray". If someone doesn't terminate a pregnancy, they can reasonably expect the pregnancy to carry to term and for a baby to be born.

 

[CommuterBob]

The fact that there is a chance that a zygote will not mature into a baby (lack of attachment, miscarriage, or other natural failure of the pregnancy process) does not negate two irrefutable truths:

1) At the time in which a swimmer has entered a coochie ball, the process of creating life has been kicked off
2) If there is no interference (natural or unnatural), the pregnancy will carry to term

Chances are irrelevant. Certainty is not required. There are no "shades of gray". If someone doesn't terminate a pregnancy, they can reasonably expect the pregnancy to carry to term and for a baby to be born.

Chances are not irrelevant. For there to be considered murder, certainty is required (hence the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing). There are shades of grey because of those uncertainties surrounding everything about the birth process.

And this is why there's such consternation over this. People who equate birth control to murder cannot get over the fact that there is inherent doubt in the process. There absolutely is a grey area between "conception" and "term" as to where "life" really begins. It's all about interpretation, like most issues really.

Birth control is like a father forbidding his daughter to date the grease monkey down at the gas station. It could happen anyway, which could be natural. It could be interfering with a lifelong romance. Or it could be simply preventing something that wasn't meant to be and for the best anyway.

 

[OmniKnight]

Chances are not irrelevant. For there to be considered murder, certainty is required (hence the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing). There are shades of grey because of those uncertainties surrounding everything about the birth process.

And this is why there's such consternation over this. People who equate birth control to murder cannot get over the fact that there is inherent doubt in the process. There absolutely is a grey area between "conception" and "term" as to where "life" really begins. It's all about interpretation, like most issues really.

Birth control is like a father forbidding his daughter to date the grease monkey down at the gas station. It could happen anyway, which could be natural. It could be interfering with a lifelong romance. Or it could be simply preventing something that wasn't meant to be and for the best anyway.

In the context of murder, and equating abortion to murder... if a woman intentionally terminates a pregnancy, there is "beyond a reasonable doubt" clear evidence of intent to end the life of the pending human being. There is no shade of gray.

People who don't equate abortion to murder through chance rhetoric are simply looking for excuses for their heinous crime.

"Well, at age 75 he might have had a heart attack and died tomorrow, had I not shot him. Yep, I didn't commit murder."

 

[MACHater02]

Murder applies to human beings not pending human being.

 

[UCFBS]

In the context of murder, and equating abortion to murder... if a woman intentionally terminates a pregnancy, there is "beyond a reasonable doubt" clear evidence of intent to end the life of the pending human being. There is no shade of gray.
People who don't equate abortion to murder through chance rhetoric are simply looking for excuses for their heinous crime.
"Well, at age 75 he might have had a heart attack and died tomorrow, had I not shot him. Yep, I didn't commit murder."

Let's not beat around the bush here ...

The US government has no right to hold a gun to a woman's head and tell her

1. "you will take this life to term," and
2. "if you don't find an adoption option, you will raise this child for the next 18 years."

SIDE NOTE: The first is the difference between a "woman's right to choose" and a "man's right to choose." A man actually doesn't have to carry a child term. Although women believing the government can do the second to a man, but not a woman, might actually -- legally -- undo Roe v. Wade, should the right ever reverse on their "Dead Beat Dads" attitude.​

The debate is by, for and of women to have. Men do not understand what it is like to be a woman, and women know better on how to "choose" for each other. I cannot stress this enough, and I finally woke up to it in the middle of a debate when I was 20. I literally was so ignorant of what women deal with, too ignorant to recognize that women really do hold each other accountable in this issue.

Furthermore ...

Planned Parenthood didn't condone abortion until the '60s, especially since Sanger et al. didn't think it was in the interest of women's health until it was perfected. Yes, Planned Parenthood started as, and still is, the unbiased authority on women's health ... especially in the first half of the 20th century when it was ignored by male dominated medicine (and rights).

The Soviets perfected the technique by the '60s, because they had a 3x abortion rate (leading to the whole "Godly state" US argument, versus the "Godless state" in the Cold War), which is only when PP started to support it.

Before then, Sanger et al. was focused on giving women ...

1. Education ... because women didn't learn jack, but had to be responsible for their bodies
2. Options ... because a man could impregnate a woman, but she had to be responsible for it
3. Rape ... a real issue with few prosecutions for women, even husbands could impregnate and not support (The Depression anyone?)

Now many people try to bring Eugenics and Sanger's offering to sterilize African-Americans and other "low income" women who could not afford to support their children, but that's missing the point and the realities of the times (Eugenics before the Nazi's was a different argument).

It's the right-wing throwing the same crap at Planned Parenthood, just like the left throws at the NRA.

It's in total ignorance of how and why Planned Parenthood was founded, and what they spend 97% of what they do.

Just like the left with the NRA, who are the experts on marksmanship and firearms, proof positive in that most laws written by the NRA aren't an issue in the courts, unlike those who are anti-NRA and regularly have their laws thrown out.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Murder applies to human beings not pending human being.

When does a pending human become a human?

 

[OmniKnight]

When does a pending human become a human?

Bob you just /0'ed him

 

[OmniKnight]

BS just stop with the silly victim propaganda, outrageous sensationalism

Those tunes are so old

 

[UCFBS]

BS just stop with the silly victim propaganda, outrageous sensationalism
Those tunes are so old

NRA and Planned Parenthood are just the experts in their respective field, trying to keep the left and right from using arguments in getting civil liberty, limiting laws because they cannot get a supermajority of Americans to change the Supreme Laws/Rulings that protect them.

 

[OmniKnight]

NRA and Planned Parenthood are just the experts in their respective field, trying to keep the left and right from using arguments in getting civil liberty, limiting laws because they cannot get a supermajority of Americans to change the Supreme Laws/Rulings that protect them.

You're still victiming BS. Can you not see the fallacy on your own

 

[CommuterBob]

In the context of murder, and equating abortion to murder... if a woman intentionally terminates a pregnancy, there is "beyond a reasonable doubt" clear evidence of intent to end the life of the pending human being. There is no shade of gray.

People who don't equate abortion to murder through chance rhetoric are simply looking for excuses for their heinous crime.

"Well, at age 75 he might have had a heart attack and died tomorrow, had I not shot him. Yep, I didn't commit murder."

The argument you made was about plan B, which is nothing more than oral contraception, not abortion, which is a surgical procedure. Physically slicing up a fetus is not the same thing.

Euthanasia is an entirely different subject. Stop the straw men.

 

[fabknight]

Chances are not irrelevant. For there to be considered murder, certainty is required (hence the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing). There are shades of grey because of those uncertainties surrounding everything about the birth process.

And this is why there's such consternation over this. People who equate birth control to murder cannot get over the fact that there is inherent doubt in the process. There absolutely is a grey area between "conception" and "term" as to where "life" really begins. It's all about interpretation, like most issues really.

Birth control is like a father forbidding his daughter to date the grease monkey down at the gas station. It could happen anyway, which could be natural. It could be interfering with a lifelong romance. Or it could be simply preventing something that wasn't meant to be and for the best anyway.

No. Murder in this context involves premeditation and terminating a pregnancy or potential pregnancy involves a conscious decision and is NOT an act of passion.

 

[CommuterBob]

No. Murder in this context involves premeditation and terminating a pregnancy or potential pregnancy involves a conscious decision and is NOT an act of passion.

Well, that's one way to look at it. One could also equate birth control to taking Airborne before getting on a plane to avoid getting sick.

 

[fabknight]

Well, that's one way to look at it. One could also equate birth control to taking Airborne before getting on a plane to avoid getting sick.

Your callousness is astounding. Birth control in the context of preventing the formation of a zygote is different.

 

[MACHater02]

When does a pending human become a human?

Months after conception.

 

[CommuterBob]

When does a pending human become a human?

That's a huge rhetorical question.

Is masturbation to ejaculation murder? There are millions of sperm destined to fertilize an egg that go to waste.
Are periods murder? Shouldn't that bloody lass try to save that ovum to incubate for a later pregnancy?

The issue is at a cellular level. And there are so many ways to interpret it.

 

[CommuterBob]

Your callousness is astounding. Birth control in the context of preventing the formation of a zygote is different.

Preventing illness is callous? Wow. Who knew?

 

[fabknight]

Preventing illness is callous? Wow. Who knew?

Stop it, Bob. You know I was referring to the comparison of birth control (since abortion and Plan B are birth control, right?) and getting ill.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Months after conception.

When is conception? How many months are months? 2 or 180?

That's a huge rhetorical question.

Is masturbation to ejaculation murder? There are millions of sperm destined to fertilize an egg that go to waste.
Are periods murder? Shouldn't that bloody lass try to save that ovum to incubate for a later pregnancy?

The issue is at a cellular level. And there are so many ways to interpret it.

I personally don't have an issue with the morning after pill. Condoms break, accidents happen. It shouldn't be used as primary birth control though.

 

[CommuterBob]

Stop it, Bob. You know I was referring to the comparison of birth control (since abortion and Plan B are birth control, right?) and getting ill.

Plan B is oral contraception. I never said abortion was.

 

[fabknight]

The argument you made was about plan B, which is nothing more than oral contraception, not abortion, which is a surgical procedure. Physically slicing up a fetus is not the same thing.

Euthanasia is an entirely different subject. Stop the straw men.

Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. No means is specified. I can kill someone with a knife or poison.

 

[fabknight]

Plan B is oral contraception. I never said abortion was.

Plan B is the termination of a pregnancy. Being pregnant is defined as "having a child or young developing in the uterus" and this starts with the zygote. A zygote is the very first stage of a DEVELOPING child.

 

[CommuterBob]

Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. No means is specified. I can kill someone with a knife or poison.

But Plan B is not the termination of a pregnancy. It's an avoidance maneuver, just like oral contraception and condoms.

 

[fabknight]

But Plan B is not the termination of a pregnancy. It's an avoidance maneuver, just like oral contraception and condoms.

Lets try this again...

Plan B is the termination of a pregnancy. Being pregnant is defined as "having a child or young developing in the uterus" and this starts with the zygote. A zygote is the very first stage of a DEVELOPING child.

 

[CommuterBob]

Plan B is the termination of a pregnancy. Being pregnant is defined as "having a child or young developing in the uterus" and this starts with the zygote. A zygote is the very first stage of a DEVELOPING child.

No. It's not. Plan B, just like oral contraception (because it's the same thing -a dose of progesterone), prevents a zygote from attaching and developing in the uterus, therefore avoiding pregnancy.

 

[CommuterBob]

Lets try this again...

Plan B is the termination of a pregnancy. Being pregnant is defined as "having a child or young developing in the uterus" and this starts with the zygote. A zygote is the very first stage of a DEVELOPING child.

Plan B does not poison a zygote. Plan B is emergency contraception and is quite literally a double dose of progesterone oral contraception. Equating Plan B to abortion is to equate all contraception to abortion. An IUD, Nuvaring, injected contraception, and the pill all do the exact same thing as Plan B.

 

[OmniKnight]

Plan B does not poison a zygote. Plan B is emergency contraception and is quite literally a double dose of progesterone oral contraception. Equating Plan B to abortion is to equate all contraception to abortion. An IUD, Nuvaring, injected contraception, and the pill all do the exact same thing as Plan B.

You're trying to use false qualifiers to circumvent the fact that a fertilized egg is fertilized, which is achieved through a deliberate act. 'Birth control' post-facto is abortion, regardless of the drug or method.

 

[CommuterBob]

You're trying to use false qualifiers to circumvent the fact that a fertilized egg is fertilized, which is achieved through a deliberate act. 'Birth control' post-facto is abortion, regardless of the drug or method.

No. I think you misunderstand what Plan B is. It's not an abortion pill (like RU-486), but rather contraception designed to be used when not already on another form of contraception or a condom fails. It's really only effective within 72 hours (and most effective within 24) of having a contraception failure. It is the same as being on the pill in terms of what it does.

So in essence, if you believe Plan B to be an abortion, then you should also believe any form of contraception to be an abortion as well. After all, they are designed to prevent either a fertilization or prevent a fertilized zygote from attaching and therefore preventing life from being born.

As I said, learn biology. Plan B is no more an abortion than being on the pill, having an IUD, using injected birth control, or Nuvaring. They all do the same thing - disallow a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Those others are just done prior to having sex, rather than after. Physiologically, they all accomplish the same thing.

 

[fabknight]

No. I think you misunderstand what Plan B is. It's not an abortion pill (like RU-486), but rather contraception designed to be used when not already on another form of contraception or a condom fails. It's really only effective within 72 hours (and most effective within 24) of having a contraception failure. It is the same as being on the pill in terms of what it does.

So in essence, if you believe Plan B to be an abortion, then you should also believe any form of contraception to be an abortion as well. After all, they are designed to prevent either a fertilization or prevent a fertilized zygote from attaching and therefore preventing life from being born.

As I said, learn biology. Plan B is no more an abortion than being on the pill, having an IUD, using injected birth control, or Nuvaring. They all do the same thing - disallow a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Those others are just done prior to having sex, rather than after. Physiologically, they all accomplish the same thing.

So in essence, if you believe Plan B to be an abortion, then you should also believe any form of contraception to be an abortion as well. After all, they are designed to prevent either a fertilization or prevent a fertilized zygote from attaching and therefore preventing life from being born.

Geez. Learn biology? Learn what contraception is Bob. They all don't work the same way since there are several forms that hit different stages in the process, some stop pregnancy from occurring and some kill a fertilized egg by preventing the implantation. Do they both intentionally prevent a potential process from completing? Yes. But they occur at different stages.

The major forms of artificial contraception are barrier methods, of which the most common is the condom; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones that prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization.

Are they all the same in terms of what their intent is? Yes - hence the term contraception. But when you say all contraception is the same, this is totally false. Some contraception kill a zygote via aborting the process which prevents the continuation of life for a DEVELOPING child and the other prevents this process from ever even starting.

 

[CommuterBob]

The pill does not prevent ovulation. It keeps the uterine lining from forming, just like an IUD, Nuvaring, or injected contraception.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

 

[fabknight]

The pill does not prevent ovulation. It keeps the uterine lining from forming, just like an IUD, Nuvaring, or injected contraception.

You're a stubborn SOB. The primary mechanism for the hormone based contraception is preventing ovulation. The secondary method and only in some cases it may change the uterine lining.

Let me help you, Bob.

From WebMD:
Hormonal contraceptives (the pill, the patch, and the vaginal ring) all contain a small amount of man-made estrogen and progestin hormones. These hormones work to inhibit the body's natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from ovulating. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to go through the cervix and find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by changing the lining of the womb so it's unlikely the fertilized egg will be implanted.

From your beloved Planned Parenthood website:
The hormones in the pill work by Keeping eggs from leaving the ovaries. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. Making cervical mucus thicker. This keeps sperm from getting to the eggs.


Nice deflection btw.

 

[CommuterBob]

You're a stubborn SOB. The primary mechanism for the hormone based contraception is preventing ovulation. The secondary method and only in some cases it may change the uterine lining.

Let me help you, Bob.

From WebMD:
Hormonal contraceptives (the pill, the patch, and the vaginal ring) all contain a small amount of man-made estrogen and progestin hormones. These hormones work to inhibit the body's natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from ovulating. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to go through the cervix and find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by changing the lining of the womb so it's unlikely the fertilized egg will be implanted.

From your beloved Planned Parenthood website:
The hormones in the pill work by Keeping eggs from leaving the ovaries. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. Making cervical mucus thicker. This keeps sperm from getting to the eggs.


Nice deflection btw.

Whatever. You forgot to highlight the sentence that proves my point, so I underlined it.

Any way, back to the point. The argument you seem to be making is that any form of contraception is equivalent to abortion, which belies your stance that abortion is wrong. The viewpoint you are spouting seems to be that any sexual congress should only be for the purposes of procreation, which is such a backwards view IMHO. The debate in abortion is at what point it goes from being illness prevention to being murder. Your view is that any interference of the reproduction process is murder, which is such a simplistic view of the process and shows little understanding of how the world works. I'm not saying I have the definitive answer - none of us do - but merely that yours is wrong. Sex is and should be a healthy form of recreation and not just a procreative activity. Taking steps to avoid a medical condition is simply smart living, and the signs of an advanced society. Go back to the dark ages and the days of the Inquisition if you want to manage the womb in such a manner to suggest that contraception is murder.

 

[fabknight]

Whatever. You forgot to highlight the sentence that proves my point, so I underlined it.

Any way, back to the point. The argument you seem to be making is that any form of contraception is equivalent to abortion, which belies your stance that abortion is wrong. The viewpoint you are spouting seems to be that any sexual congress should only be for the purposes of procreation, which is such a backwards view IMHO. The debate in abortion is at what point it goes from being illness prevention to being murder. Your view is that any interference of the reproduction process is murder, which is such a simplistic view of the process and shows little understanding of how the world works. I'm not saying I have the definitive answer - none of us do - but merely that yours is wrong. Sex is and should be a healthy form of recreation and not just a procreative activity. Taking steps to avoid a medical condition is simply smart living, and the signs of an advanced society. Go back to the dark ages and the days of the Inquisition if you want to manage the womb in such a manner to suggest that contraception is murder.

In this particular thread, you're worse than KL. Other than you totally ignoring the facts I presented to you and totally misrepresenting what I wrote, we will obviously agree to disagree. I guess to be able to fool yourself and keep your conscious clean by rationalizing murder is a wonderful thing.

 

[CommuterBob]

In this particular thread, you're worse than KL. Other than you totally ignoring the facts I presented to you and totally misrepresenting what I wrote, we will obviously agree to disagree. I guess to be able to fool yourself and keep your conscious clean by rationalizing murder is a wonderful thing.

It's as much murder as removing a tumor.