Yes, so the child won't go through the process of death. Nine months of (at the most) discomfort for the mother, in exchange for decades of somebody else's life? Yes please.

cool. Make sure you tell you all the kids you know who were born prematurely that you would have been happy to kill them for another 2 months if a medical fluke hadn't cause them to pop out early. See how that goes.


Yes. Dealing with consequences instead of shuffling them off onto someone else is how people learn.



So what you're saying here is that unlike most abortion advocates, your argument isn't based around some belief that women have a right to kill anything growing in their womb, but rather you feel that they should have a reasonable way to avoid the social stigma of teen motherhood, and that should some other method become available, you would be ok with banning abortion?

No, not at all. Do to the nature of your posts, I was under the impression that we were discussing abortion as a form of birth control. Talking about the civil liberty aspect of it is an entirely different issue. What I said was that given the current birth control options, it's unreasonable to consider banning abortion. The constitutionality of abortion shouldn't even be addressed until we find an answer to our birth control problem.

And by the way, maybe people referring to women's liberties as "some belief" is the reason no girls hang out here in the first place. :p

The constitutionality of a child's right to life is of first importance, regardless of what other troubles it may engender. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (yes, I know the famous version says happiness) are ideals our country was founded on. At least 2 of those I agree with, and those are the 2 most obviously at stake here.




If "women's liberties" is the euphemism you choose to refer to a woman's choice to kill her unborn infant because she doesn't want it, then can we also use "father's liberties" to mean a father's choice to kill some other kid's father because he doesn't like how the hockey game went?



....




No, but really. I full believe that women should have all the same rights as men. This just doesn't include a right to infanticide.

Okay, so throughout this thread, I'm the only one who answered this. Where do you see life as starting?

Conception.

Okay, so you don't see a difference between Plan B and IDX?

I know I said I was avoiding this topic, but this is one point that I'm interested in. If life starts at conception, when does death occur? Because your body is still quite alive when we consider the person dead (even for several days if not weeks after they're buried). Thus, if the cells of the body does not equate to the life of the person when discussing death, then logically life is also decoupled from the cells of the body when discussing the creation of a life. Thus, a person would *not* be alive at conception.

I'm not a fan of any "emergency" contraception such as Plan B, but I also have to say that Kllrnohj is probably right about whether or not conception is the *actual* point at which human life begins, as pointed to by the existence of mosaicism and monozygotic twins in humans. Assuming that humans are, in fact, spiritual beings, it seems absurd to me to suggest that a human spirit somehow "twins" itself or mosaicizes itself with another spirit.

That being said, I typically choose to side with the "life-begins-at-conception" crowd anyway, to avoid the risk of giving *my* approval for taking the life of one of God's image-bearers because we just don't have a set mark at which we can say "this is alive"

Plan B doesn't terminate an existing pregnancy, rather it prevents pregnancy from forming in the first place. That being said, if we can't be sure exactly when life begins, should we not air on the side of caution? At the very least, can we not agree that human life is present when there are brain waves and a heartbeat?

Emergency contraception can be used to prevent post-fertilization implantation.

And no. Until it is born, I see it as a part of the mother's body.

And yet, it has its own unique DNA.

Useless info.

And yet, it is still inside of and physically attached to the mother.

If I shove my fist up your a, am I not inside and physically attached to you?

Inside, partially. Attached, no.

what if I grab the inside of your large intestine and go bowling with your a?

I think that's not quite the meaning of attached that foamy had in mind

I would say to err on the side of caution by saying that life begins when there is brain activity. A heartbeat isn't important.



So do tapeworms.

Did not need that mental image