If a girl is raped and pregnant, should she keep the baby?

Post Reply New Topic

You're getting mighty desperate in your attacks against me. You're a Christian, and not even a Biologist. Yet, you're using Biology to attack me.

Christian? Biologist? The above individual appealed to Talmudic/biblical definitions of life based upon drawing breathe to support abortion, funny since the bible explicitly bans the prevention of pregnancy. Biologist? SO are only PhDs worthy of speaking on a matter of Biology and do you know my academic credentials anyway? Attack the argument not the person.

Likewise, if a medical book of some sort defines something is that the only authority that is accepted? Have you read all medical texts to know that there are not differing definitions in different regions? Cultures? 100 years ago? What about a legal definition, is that valid or ONLY a MDs? Definitions are not reality; they are an attempt to describe reality. The word, as in definition, does not create reality friend. Speaking of magic, can you provide any other example where something is transmogrified from just a tissue, a rock or some other inanimate object into a living creature? Do toads turn into fish? Amazing that "a lump of tissue" is magically transformed into a child by breathing. Would it still be ok to suck their brains out if they are born but you cover the mouth so that they don't get that first breathe, hence no magical transformation?

If you support abortion or infanticide knowing that you are killing a human being then I support your logic in doing so. Denying the humanity of the killed is just a convenient way to make the issue seem like something it is not. Be consistent and logical.

The dictionary, for starters.

I don't need to make your argument seem based on religion. Because it is based on non-sense. When I use words like magic, it is because you don't bother explaining any mechanism (other than expecting us to assume that it is magic) by which human DNA suddenly gives rights to things.


Strawman. I am talking mainly about fertilized egg versus fetus.

A late fetus could in theory just be born and then put to life support.

I'll tell you, maybe, maybe it is not all right to abort a late fetus, but that's not what most abortion proponents ask for. Most of us are fine with only allowed early abortions. Just make sure not to confuse or misinform pregnant women that may want to abort about their current pregnancy weeks.

I'll tell you, a fertilized egg, an embryo , or a something without a brain is not human and does not deserve to have rights that triumph those of a women's own rights over her body.


You forget a sperm is potentially a zygote, which is potentially an embryo, which is potentially a fetus, which is potentially a baby, which is potentially George Washington.

It is also arguable that an infant is more sentient and aware of their surroundings than you are. Considering they have more brain cells than an adult human, that's why children can learn things faster than many adults and have a much easier time learning multiple languages.



Well considering a child at 48 days after conception has EEG readings at all, indicates that they have a brain.



I'm not going to play political games over a child's life.

But you're perfectly comfortable with doing so over a woman's or young girl's life.

Yep. Never mind us actual thinking, feeling women, it's all about the fetus. Doesn't matter how horrific it is for us, all that matters is that little lump of gelatine.

Generally, pregnency does not result in the death of the mother. Abortion usually ends up killing or permanently maiming the child. So damn right I'm going to support the child's right to live over your conveinence.

You implied that our definitions and word use were arbitrary; I gave you two non-arbitrary sources that contradicted you. Also, where does the bible prohibit contraception? It's quite a stretch to go from 'don't cast your seed on the ground' to 'don't have sex unless you want a kid.'


We were, Honey. Inuyasha attempts to use biology when he patently knows nothing about biology. You don't need credentials; you do need to know enough to not be talking out of your ass.


Who gives a f**k about what they thought 100 years ago? You claimed that our word choice was arbitrary and politically motivated; I demonstrated that it is, in fact, medically accurate. Sorry you have a problem with that, but don't pretend that WE are the ones trying to make a point with bad word usage.


Honey, zefs do not come from inanimate tissue. They come from living ova and sperm, which come from living parents. Just like all life, including the parents, they maintain their life chemically, in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics.


A fetus turns into a child by breathing, according to the bible. If you don't like that definition (but give credence to the bible anyway), take it up with the author. Don't attempt to stick your arbitrary laws or your arbitrary reading on the rest of the country.

Also, let's please drop the 'abortion just before (or just after) birth strawman, ok? Less than 1% of abortions are late-term, and there's generally a very good reason for those abortions. Women don't generally go through 7 months of pregnancy on a lark and then change their minds 'to fit into a dress,' as I have heard one forced-pregnancy person claim.

So, in your opinion, are there circumstances in which a woman's interest is more than convenience? If so, how would you define those circumstances?

It is not arguable by anyone with any knowledge of human development. A child, probably yes. An infant, no. Just for starters, they can't see very well (if at all) for several days after birth. Wrt. brains, as has already been stated in this thread, they have lots of neurons but very few connections. It's the connections that enable us to think. The formation of connections is learning.



Darling, we have been over this (and over and over and over). They have electrical impulses. EEGs pick up electrical impulses, not just normal brain waves. Zefs, especially very young ones, also have long periods of total flatlining.


Neither am I.

Donating a kidney doesn't generally result in death of the donor, either. Do you support some recipient's life over your convenience? Have you gone in for HLA testing yet?
For that matter, have you signed up to adopt any of the tens of thousands of children waiting for parents in your home state?

Selfish bastard, why not?

The fact is:

Humans WILL allow or cause other humans to die. It is vicious stupidity to define a person or a group as inhuman so as to blink the fact.

It comes down to WHICH humans will you choose to cause or allow to die, and WHY.

Factors include:

attachment [Otto will kill his enemy before his friend, his friend before his son]

probability of survival [the joys of triage]

probablility or positive or negative societal impact [The Party will save the genius DNA baby of the braindead woman, and eliminate the incorrigible criminal and dissident.]

Unsafe abortions can and do result in the death of the mother. Going back to the days of coat hangers solves nothing and puts the lives of women at risk.

No matter what the laws say, there will always be women and girls who choose abortion and making it illegal does not reduce abortions.

From Fox news (this way you won't stick your hands over your ears):


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301370,00.html

Pro-life advocates work under the false assumption that making abortion illegal will reduce abortions. This has been proven to be untrue, globally. The only proven outcome of illegal abortions is an increase in maternal death due to unsafe procedures. It's hard to understand how anyone would advocate this knowing the facts.

no the real question is why we give special rights to humans,
my answer is conscoiusness.
what is yours?

I just love your choice of language. Pregnancy is a huge deal for the mother's body, can cause all sorts of conditions, and you are actually referring to it as a mere inconvenience.

And again...we are not talking a child. 3 layers of cells is not a child. An early embryo is not a child.

And even if it were. It has no more right to use my body than you or anyone else.

I still think my real question is the real real question, but yours is another real question that some might think relevant here. For convenience I will avoid points connected to theism, though that is like defining triangles without mentioning dimension.

Humans, then, give special privileges [humans do not GIVE rights, you must let me say that much] and accord special status to humans NOT because of consciousness - because for many of us the privilege extends to the sleeping, the comatose, and the braindead.

To the extent that we do give these special privileges [ignoring those who extend the same privileges to other animals], we do so because we recognize them as belonging to our own species. We will NOT treat a brain damaged human the same way as a fully functioning orang utan.

Most of us, anyway.