lol, this argument isn't going anywhere if people don't agree on what being alive or dead is.

Looking at definitions is not that useful either.

alive
adjective: 1.(of a person, animal, or plant) Living, not dead.

dead
adjective: 1. No longer alive.


The problem is that people look at it as a discrete system with two states, alive and dead, as if there is nothing in between. However, this is wrong (specially with natural deaths) because you do not instantly go from alive to dead; something happens in between.

Something interesting to read, I recommend reading the whole thing:
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/18/the_..._of_deat h/?1
One of their points is that even doctors have a hard time deciding when someone is actually "dead."


So if there is a process to go from alive to dead, isn't it fair to assume there is a process to go from dead to alive? isn't it reasonable to assume that this process happens before birth?

One way to look at it is that an embryo is neither alive nor dead; but rather it's the process of changing.

If you're going to tell me that this is wrong and that an embryo is indeed alive, then answer the following:

under what basis can you make such argument?
how is an embryo any more alive than reproductive cells, which you probably waste many times in your life?

Go to the 2:40 mark, Tori explains the whole abortion debate perfectly. We seem to forgot all of the unwanted children that are already on this planet. It really does boil down to men wanting control over a woman's body/sexuality.

Originally Posted by jamescw1234

It really does boil down to men wanting control over a woman's body/sexuality.

There are women that are anti-abortion and men that pro-abortion, so maybe it's more like society trying to control a woman's body?

Originally Posted by jamescw1234

We seem to forgot all of the unwanted children that are already on this planet.

I agree with this. It's very hypocritical when people say "don't have an abortion, give it up for adoption when it's born" and then that same people never consider adopting kids themselves.

Originally Posted by hitek168

What's wrong with that? What is the intent of this statement?

Someone asked if anyone had seen any anti-abortion protests in Hamilton. The intent of the statement was to answer this question.

Originally Posted by hitek168

You're saying people can simply choose whether or not to get an abortion based on their belief of whether or not life begins at conception. How can that be? There is obviously an answer to that question - a truth that is not contingent on your beliefs. Either life begins at conception or begins at a later time. This fact doesn't change whether you believe in it or not.

So what is it? Is it a life or not a life? That is the question we should be trying to answer. What is the truth? Can we prove it? If not, what implications does that uncertainty have?

If we can't say for certain, can we just let people do as they will? For example, simply because I feel stealing or cheating isn't wrong, should I be able to do as I wish? Clearly not. There is an objective truth that tells us stealing is wrong. Should there not be an objective truth underlying this as well? It is not adequate to simply say people can do according to what they believe.

There is no such thing as an objective truth. Truth is relative; if you believe something wholeheartedly, it is true to you. Even if you're the only one on the planet that believes in something, and everyone else is against you, it is still true to that one person. Things aren't black and white.
Example: Honour killings. To the majority of the western world, this is a horrible thing to do, etc etc. However, to the people who carry out honour killings (as well as the societies that condone them), this is 100% the right thing to do, and that's their truth. We can imprison them over here all we want, but it's doubtful we will change their truth.

everyone needs to mind their own business!! It's up to the mother whether she wants to have the child or not. end of discussion.

^ This guy knows whats up

Originally Posted by hitek168

You're saying people can simply choose whether or not to get an abortion based on their belief of whether or not life begins at conception.

That's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe that abortion is killing a baby, then don't have one. Other people don't, so they can choose to terminate or continue with their pregnancy.

If you've taken any ethics course, there's no objective right or wrong to any case because people have different viewpoints. Trying to make legislation to limit other people's reproductive decisions based on your view is absurd.

So what if they're before 12 weeks? How is what you're saying relevant to the issue at hand if you have yet to verify whether or not the embryo is a life? Or are you now imposing your logic on on other people?

The status of whether a fetus is alive is subjective, so the only person's opinion who matters is the pregnant woman - not anyone else.

I was pointing out the fact that the argument posted was essentially crap and based on emotions rather than any evidence. "Oh my fetus at 16 weeks looks like a baby!" ... Well no shit, they're in the processing of developing into babies, obviously at one point or another they will resemble one. But a fetus < 12 weeks looks a lot less like a baby than a 16 week old, so these types of anecdotal shaming that some anti-choicers use is irrelevant.

What's wrong with that? What is the intent of this statement?

The OP asked if people picketed clinics, I was answering the question.

Originally Posted by jamescw1234

Go to the 2:40 mark, Tori explains the whole abortion debate perfectly. We seem to forgot all of the unwanted children that are already on this planet. It really does boil down to men wanting control over a woman's body/sexuality.

Reminds me of this:

"In each and every dark pit of desperation, I have never seen a pro-lifer. I ain’t never seen them babysitting, scrubbing floors, bringing over goods, handing mom $50 bucks a month or driving her to the pediatrician. I ain’t never seen them sitting up for hours with an autistic child who screams and rages so his mother can get some sleep while she rests up from working 14-hour days. I don’t see them fixing leaks in rundown houses or playing with a kid while the police prepare to interview her about her sexual abuse. They’re not paying for the funerals of babies and children who died after birth, when they truly do become independent organisms. And the crazy thing is they think they’ve already done their job, because the child was born!"

From here.