Who has the right to life?

[Drea]

Obviously the young woman needed counselling.

She obviously did not want to be pregnant as she hid it from everyone and dropped the baby off in the freezing cold.

If she could've spoken to someone about her dilema she could of aborted, kept it, or given it up. Seems she didn't have the wherewithall to do any of these things.

[White Doors]

Obviously the young woman needed counselling.

She obviously did not want to be pregnant as she hid it from everyone and dropped the baby off in the freezing cold.

If she could've spoken to someone about her dilema she could of aborted, kept it, or given it up. Seems she didn't have the wherewithall to do any of these things.

There are lots of resources available to her. You can't make someone take advantage of them.

[Charles Anthony]

Obviously the young woman needed counselling.

Nothing is obvious.

Seems she didn't have the wherewithall to do any of these things.

Chances are that she was confused but it is not wise to make too many assumptions.

From the news accounts, she clearly made an effort to increase the chances of her newborn kid surviving -- compared to being aborted.

Authorities said the unidentified teen, a post-secondary student, was alone in the city and didn't know where to turn for help.

"She was feeling isolation and confusion," said Staff Sgt. Kirby Harmon.

"She was upset. She didn't have the supports in place and it added to her confusion and poor decision-making."

Harmon said the mother hid the pregnancy and delivered the baby on her own at home.

Canoe News

A post-secondary student away from home? What more freedom does she need???

[Wilber]

What about that 1 hour old baby that was found on a doorstep at 29 below? Apparently the 18 yo girl hid her pregnancy under baggy clothes and obviously didn't get any counselling or assistance whatsoever. She gave birth by herself.

I'd be interested to know her parents' reaction to the whole mess. At 18 one is old enough to have sex if they so choose.

Old enough to have sex maybe but not mature or responsible enough. If you are hiding your pregnancy, how is anyone going to know you need help? You will have to ask for it. It would be interesting to know something about this kid's history and how the parents fit in to it.

[AndrewL]

Anybody who can experience physical or mental pain has the right to life.

Who is responsible for that life once it is born?

The state. No other body can grant rights.

Andrew

[Melanie_]

How could you be so dumb as to think that LIFE does not begin at conception? You think that the fetus is dead yet still growing and developing? Do you write for the national enquirer?

Find me ONE scientist that agrees that life does not begin at conception?

Thanks for putting so much 'thought' into this....

The "life begins at conception" argument is silly. The sperm swim single mindedly up the fallopian tube to find the egg - they appear just as "alive" in the moments before conception as the fertilized egg does in the moments after. Somehow people are willing to say those sperm cells are dispensible, disposable, no big deal to eject as many of those as men want, but heaven forbid a woman eject a clump of cells from her body.

[blueblood]

Somehow people are willing to say those sperm cells are dispensible, disposable, no big deal to eject as many of those as men want, but heaven forbid a woman eject a clump of cells from her body.

What in the blue hell are periods for then? The problem with this issue is that NOBODY is right as it's all a matter of opinion. Trying to prove which side of the argument is correct is like trying to prove that Christianity is superior to Judaism (sp).

[White Doors]

How could you be so dumb as to think that LIFE does not begin at conception? You think that the fetus is dead yet still growing and developing? Do you write for the national enquirer?

Find me ONE scientist that agrees that life does not begin at conception?

Thanks for putting so much 'thought' into this....

The "life begins at conception" argument is silly. The sperm swim single mindedly up the fallopian tube to find the egg - they appear just as "alive" in the moments before conception as the fertilized egg does in the moments after. Somehow people are willing to say those sperm cells are dispensible, disposable, no big deal to eject as many of those as men want, but heaven forbid a woman eject a clump of cells from her body.

You are confused. I said it has LIFE. Abortion is not a debate about wether it is alive, merely conscious.

Any moron knows this. Seeing as how you don't, I suggest putting a wee bit of effort in researching it before jumping to conclusions.

[Catchme]

Once men start carrying the fetus then they will have the right to abort or not.

As it stands today, women (ergo, the female gender in 99% of species) carries the offspring. So it remains the female's decision - and, in our wonderful western society, women have dominion over their own bodies. ('cept for in some backward states where abortion has recently become illegal)

But the fetus isn't part of a woman's body. It is only dependant upon it.

It is attached to a woman's uterous, its a part of a woman's body, and it is dependant upon the host. The physical effects of carrying it only impact upon the woman, and if the host dies so does the embryo, developing into a fetus. It again is all about the woman. Her life is tied up for 10 months, not males. Males truly are nothing more than sperm donars until that fetus, becomes alive at birth.

If life commences at conception then, which is does not, then what about frozen embryos sittting there in freezers for decades? Are you saying that those embryos are life that is alive? Of course not, tis sillyto think so, they do not become alive until a certain point in the implantation into a host just as all other embryos do.

There are no abortions laws in Canada, as abortion laws were refused by the Supreme Court as they acknowledged, that anything along that line would interfer with women's rights in the area of self-determination, conscience and privacy. There fore it was a NO go. And they were/are quite correct.

[Melanie_]

You are confused. I said it has LIFE. Abortion is not a debate about wether it is alive, merely conscious.

Any moron knows this. Seeing as how you don't, I suggest putting a wee bit of effort in researching it before jumping to conclusions.

Why does life begin at conception? As I said, those sperm seem just as alive to me, and possibly more conscious as they have a pretty clear idea of where they are going and what they are doing, and do so independently. Why aren't you agitating to protect them?

[Wilber]

There are no abortions laws in Canada, as abortion laws were refused by the Supreme Court as they acknowledged, that anything along that line would interfer with women's rights in the area of self-determination, conscience and privacy. There fore it was a NO go. And they were/are quite correct.

This is so however they did not rule on when life begins or the morality of abortion. To infer that their refusal to condemn is the same thing as granting approval is dishonest. That is and always will be open to debate.

The problem with this issue is that NOBODY is right as it's all a matter of opinion. Trying to prove which side of the argument is correct is like trying to prove that Christianity is superior to Judaism (sp).

I think blueblood has the nub of it.

[guyser]

You are confused. I said it has LIFE. .

Any moron knows this. .

You sure about this?

Perhaps what you meant is it has the "building blocks of life" ?

Cuz , me being a moron and all thinks that perhaps a fresh sperm and egg all snuggily looking for a place to hang for the next 9 months might not survive if taken outside the host body.

[White Doors]

You are confused. I said it has LIFE. Abortion is not a debate about wether it is alive, merely conscious.

Any moron knows this. Seeing as how you don't, I suggest putting a wee bit of effort in researching it before jumping to conclusions.

Why does life begin at conception? As I said, those sperm seem just as alive to me, and possibly more conscious as they have a pretty clear idea of where they are going and what they are doing, and do so independently. Why aren't you agitating to protect them?

Find me a biologist who says in a journal that LIFE does NOT begin at conception. If it doesn't then when does it? Your unwillingness to admit this biological fact shows your ideaology on the issue.

[White Doors]

You are confused. I said it has LIFE. .

Any moron knows this. .

You sure about this?

Perhaps what you meant is it has the "building blocks of life" ?

Cuz , me being a moron and all thinks that perhaps a fresh sperm and egg all snuggily looking for a place to hang for the next 9 months might not survive if taken outside the host body.

Irrelevant. It is LIFE. It is ALIVE. If it's not alive then how does it grow?

Biologists everywhere are waiting with baited breath.

Sperm and Eggs are the building blocks of life I suppose. Once the egg is fertilized by the sperm and cell division begins it is alive.

I can see extraterrestrials coming here and saying of us: "Well they need oxygen to breathe and cannot live on their own in space. Are they really alive then?"

[Catchme]

Canadian laws states that life begins at first breath, they are very clear on this, how wilbur you can suggest otherwise, is beyond me. There is no room for discussion either about when life commences, or about woman's rights to self determine.

Pro-choice is working, the focus upon choice and increased access to birth control and counselling is not only lowering abortion stats, but teenage pregnacy stats as well.

Moreover, the increased occurance of STD's is increasing amongst the portions of society that discount the use of protected sex.

[Riverwind]

Irrelevant. It is LIFE. It is ALIVE. If it's not alive then how does it grow?

The mold on a piece a bread left outside grows by itself. Does that mean it has a right to life? The 'right to life' only applies to things we call human. The problem comes down to the definition of human. Myself and most other people define human as a something which has been born and is capable of living outside the mother's body. Until that time the fetus is nothing but another piece of the mother's body.

[Melanie_]

Find me a biologist who says in a journal that LIFE does NOT begin at conception. If it doesn't then when does it? Your unwillingness to admit this biological fact shows your ideaology on the issue.

Absolutely you can see my ideology in my posts. Your ideology is showing, too. In fact, there is ideology running rampant on these boards!

My point here, which you seem not to be getting, is that you are trying to dictate to me, and all other women, how to use our reproductive equipment. I was trying, with little success, to show what it is like when the shoe is on the other foot.

I started this thread because I felt some conflict between two strong values I hold. I support the right of a woman to choose to continue a pregnany or not. However, I also see people with disabilities as equal in value to anyone else, and this move by the OB/GYNs smacks of elimination of a segment of society. I can accept that it provides more information to base a choice on, as long as that choice can be freely made by the individual, without undue pressure from either side.

[Wilber]

Canadian laws states that life begins at first breath, they are very clear on this, how wilbur you can suggest otherwise, is beyond me. There is no room for discussion either about when life commences, or about woman's rights to self determine.

Pro-choice is working, the focus upon choice and increased access to birth control and counselling is not only lowering abortion stats, but teenage pregnacy stats as well.

Moreover, the increased occurance of STD's is increasing amongst the portions of society that discount the use of protected sex.

The law has to pick a time for legal purposes but that does not make it a biological fact.

Don't get me wrong, I am pro choice but that position is tested when I hear women saying, I don't give a shit, I have my rights, I can do anything I want. Recognizing that there are responsibilities dosen't seem to be a part of the equation for some. As I said before, the courts refusing to condem is not the same thing as expressing approval for any type of behavior that results in an abortion. Lets face it, when you get down to the nitty gritty, it is a last resort, the worst form of birth control.

The Supreme Court could also say that they will strike down any law that forbids the use of heroin. A person might have the right to take heroin. A woman may have the right to take heroin, use other drugs and drink like a fish while pregnant. Just because I recognise a right would not stop me regarding a person knowingly doing this, regardless of the consequences to others, including an unborn child, as a scumbag.

[jdobbin]

The state. No other body can grant rights.

The State has been increasingly not taken responsibility for a child that is physically and mentally handicapped. The right wing want to ensure the pregnancy goes to term and then not have the state responsible for the care of that child afterwards.

[Riverwind]

However, I also see people with disabilities as equal in value to anyone else, and this move by the OB/GYNs smacks of elimination of a segment of society.

What would you think if scientists came up with an inutero cure for down syndrome? The effect would be the same - people with down syndrome would be eliminated from society. Would you say that is a bad thing? Are you saying that people should refuse medical treatment that prevents a child from become disabled because they would be taking something away from that child by forcing them to be 'normally abled'?

I can understand why people want to show compassion towards people with down syndrome and do not believe that they are any less human because they are disabled. However, it is absurd to pretend that down syndrome is a desirable trait that we would like to preserve. I suspect that most parents who love their down syndrome child would not hesitate to have their child treated if there was a 'cure' available.

[White Doors]

Canadian laws states that life begins at first breath, they are very clear on this, how wilbur you can suggest otherwise, is beyond me. There is no room for discussion either about when life commences, or about woman's rights to self determine.

Pro-choice is working, the focus upon choice and increased access to birth control and counselling is not only lowering abortion stats, but teenage pregnacy stats as well.

Moreover, the increased occurance of STD's is increasing amongst the portions of society that discount the use of protected sex.

No, Birth makes you a citizen and all the priveledges and responsibilities that come with that. It does NOT determine when biological life begins.

[White Doors]

Irrelevant. It is LIFE. It is ALIVE. If it's not alive then how does it grow?

The mold on a piece a bread left outside grows by itself. Does that mean it has a right to life? The 'right to life' only applies to things we call human. The problem comes down to the definition of human. Myself and most other people define human as a something which has been born and is capable of living outside the mother's body. Until that time the fetus is nothing but another piece of the mother's body.

You are confusing Biological LIFE and legal status. They are different. I also find it strange that you would compare mould with human life. Not a very apt depiction Riverwind. You can do better than that.

[Riverwind]

No, Birth makes you a citizen and all the priveledges and responsibilities that come with that. It does NOT determine when biological life begins.

The mold on a piece of bread is biologically alive - does it have a right to life?

[White Doors]

My point here, which you seem not to be getting, is that you are trying to dictate to me, and all other women, how to use our reproductive equipment. I was trying, with little success, to show what it is like when the shoe is on the other foot.

Then you are putting words in my mouth for I have not stated what I would like to 'dictate' or not. That is purely speculation on your part.

This is THE hardest issue there is in my opinion and it is not black and white. I was simply stating that LIFE does indeed begin at conception. Of that there is no doubt. It is a FACT.

So you must now ask yourself who's point of view is really being mis-understood here.

I find it shocking that people will forego biological facts to further their ideology.

THAT was my point.

[White Doors]

No, Birth makes you a citizen and all the priveledges and responsibilities that come with that. It does NOT determine when biological life begins.

The mold on a piece of bread is biologically alive - does it have a right to life?

Strawman of the very worst sort Riverwind and you know it. Where did I say ANYTHING about the 'right' to life?

waiting..

btw, nice post Wilber.