Fappin regulations

[nando]

Another point is that the government already doesn't pay for abortions.

The only thing this is really about is control. And a bunch of dudes talking about what women should or shouldn't be able to do.

[gwb72tii]

embryos do become a living thing at some point.

life begins at conception. if the embryo is left unmolested it will grow into a human being.
the only argument about abortion is at what age is it ok to kill a human being.

[mbonder]

Again, it's all how you define things. What exactly does the term life mean?

-The second a sperm fertilizes an egg
-The second the small bunch of cells differentiate into tissues, organs, organ systems
-The second a fetus could live outside of the mother
-The second the child is born naturally

All of these could be considered the first stage of life and what would be considered a human being.

I don't think you can make this statement however: "if the embryo is left unmolested it will grow into a human being". Miscarriages occur and would be an example of nature selecting against life. You could also say that humans have found ways to select for life. Premature births have a much greater success rate and can occur much earlier in the pregnancy than what was once possible. This is an example of "molesting" the embryo that actually saves life. So there isn't really the possibility of making a blanket statement that all conception leads directly to a viable human life.

I'm going to argue that human life doesn't begin at conception. At that point the embryo cannot exist on its own and is only alive because it is attached to another living being. Remove the mother and you no longer have an organism that can exist on its own. It's my belief that once the fetus is developed to the point that it could exist on its own outside of the mother, then it is a human being.

Obviously, that's my interpretation or view, as stated above there are several ways to assign "life" in this instance.

[MR E30 325is]

Again, it's all how you define things. What exactly does the term life mean?

-The second a sperm fertilizes an egg
-The second the small bunch of cells differentiate into tissues, organs, organ systems
-The second a fetus could live outside of the mother
-The second the child is born naturally

All of these could be considered the first stage of life and what would be considered a human being.

I don't think you can make this statement however: "if the embryo is left unmolested it will grow into a human being". Miscarriages occur and would be an example of nature selecting against life. You could also say that humans have found ways to select for life. Premature births have a much greater success rate and can occur much earlier in the pregnancy than what was once possible. This is an example of "molesting" the embryo that actually saves life. So there isn't really the possibility of making a blanket statement that all conception leads directly to a viable human life.

I'm going to argue that human life doesn't begin at conception. At that point the embryo cannot exist on its own and is only alive because it is attached to another living being. Remove the mother and you no longer have an organism that can exist on its own. It's my belief that once the fetus is developed to the point that it could exist on its own outside of the mother, then it is a human being.

Obviously, that's my interpretation or view, as stated above there are several ways to assign "life" in this instance.

*golfclap*

[LBJefferies]

I guess I'm going to go ahead and disagree with a couple points here. The first is that all women who seek abortions are doing so out of recklessness and irresponsibility. You're painting all women with a very broad brush and I don't think that the label actually fits. Are there women out there that have made poor choices and could (and should) be categorized with your labeling, absolutely, but there are many more who simply should not.

Second point is that regardless of whether you think someone is a scumbag or not, they still have the right to an opinion. If they're an American citizen they have just as much of a right to speak their mind as you do. The woman who proposed the bill wanted her voice (and I'm assuming the voice of other women) to be heard, so she spoke up in a way that she knew would get headlines and create a national discussion. I'd say that's smart marketing, like it or not.

And lastly, liberals do not think that abortion is another form of birth control. I haven't met a girl yet that takes the abortion issue lightly. Not that I've interviewed every woman on earth, but I've never come across a woman who has ever said, don't wear a condom, I'll just get an abortion. It's never happened and likely will never happen. Liberals, conservatives, moderates, women of all walks take abortion very seriously.

I think the point here is that the large majority of women who ever step into a doctor's office with the intent to get an abortion have already spent countless hours debating the decision with themselves, their families, and their friends. Some of the measures required by law like the 24 hour waiting period and the trans-vaginal ultrasound are emotionally excruciating to a person that has already suffered tremendous guilt and pain over a decision they hoped they'd never have to make.

If it was just a matter of using birth control properly as to avoid the situation I think they would have done that in most cases (there are always exceptions so I'm not going to say all cases). The reality is that abortion is the unfortunate last option, not the first.

I did not say that all women are reckless. A woman is reckless though if she cannot afford birth control and relies on government provided birth control, also cannot afford an abortion and relies on planned parenthood provided abortions and all because she cannot afford a child to begin with or the responsibility that comes with it. This shows a succession of bad and irresponsible choices which could have prevented the abortion. Not just one bad choice but many. The responsible women that you are talking about probably didn't even make it to the point of needing a tax payer funded abortion. And if Planned Parenthood provides abortions and receives tax payer money then yes they are tax payer funded abortions regardless of the legalese.

Also, even if they are entitled to an opinion on the matter, that does not mean they are entitled to another persons money to pay for their opinion.

[LBJefferies]

Another point is that the government already doesn't pay for abortions.

The only thing this is really about is control. And a bunch of dudes talking about what women should or shouldn't be able to do.

The government gives planned parenthood money and planned parenthood provides abortions. Just because planned parenthood can show on the books that the government money paid the electric bill does not mean that government funds did not help provide abortions.

Regardless of your stance on abortion, it's a perfectly valid stance to not want your tax payer dollars paying for abortions.

[nando]

well, I don't want my tax money supporting religious institutions, but that doesn't seem to matter does it?

[Stephen]

well, I don't want my tax money supporting religious institutions, but that doesn't seem to matter does it?

Religious institutions, large walls, various corporate subsidies...


Have that baby dammit, so we can drag you for costing us welfare money instead of abortion costs!!!

[LBJefferies]

well, I don't want my tax money supporting religious institutions, but that doesn't seem to matter does it?

I am 100% in agreement but what religious institutions do your tax dollars support?

[mrsleeve]

^
Holmes and I agree on something....... This is strange, I feel funny all the sudden.

[LBJefferies]

life begins at conception. if the embryo is left unmolested it will grow into a human being.
the only argument about abortion is at what age is it ok to kill a human being.

You're stating an opinion here, not a fact.

[nando]

I am 100% in agreement but what religious institutions do your tax dollars support?

I don't have a specific example but it wouldn't be hard to find one.

[E30 Wagen]

A man would face a $100 penalty for each emission made outside of a vagina or medical facility. Such an emission would be considered "an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life," according to the legislation.

By this same logic, a woman taking the pill or using birth control is also committing acts against the "sanctity of life." Since the bill only allows vaginal "emissions," didn't the lady who wrote the bill see that it would control the sexual behavior of women as much as it would men? If a woman doesn't allow her partner to ejaculate in her vagina then he has the grounds to report her to health officials. Or you can imagine a case where a man discovers that his partner was secretly using birth control and takes her to court over all the potential children she prevented him from siring. What a stupid bill.

[decay]

life begins at conception.

no it doesn't.

if the embryo is left unmolested it will grow into a human being.

not true. lots of fertilized zygotes spontaneously abort.

[nando]

By this same logic, a woman taking the pill or using birth control is also committing acts against the "sanctity of life." Since the bill only allows vaginal "emissions," didn't the lady who wrote the bill see that it would control the sexual behavior of women as much as it would men? If a woman doesn't allow her partner to ejaculate in her vagina then he has the grounds to report her to health officials. Or you can imagine a case where a man discovers that his partner was secretly using birth control and takes her to court over all the potential children she prevented him from siring. What a stupid bill.

Yes, it is absolutely stupid - but I think you completely missed the point.