The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(08-02-2022 01:41 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  You have the right to believe life begins when you believe it does.

The issue is, you and the government don't (or shouldn't) have the right to force that upon other human beings (women) who disagree or have mitigating circumstances (rape, incest, life-threatening issues).

At what point in your life should the government begin protecting your right to life? Birth? Why that point?

(08-02-2022 01:53 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  At what point in your life should the government begin protecting your right to life? Birth? Why that point?

Well the Bible (textbook for most Conservative, Right-Wing, MAGAs) says life begins with "first breath."

I don't pretend to be smart enough to know when life begins or what is morally right about abortion.

The point (again) is the decision should not be forced upon women who are the ones dealing with it regardless of circumstances.

(08-02-2022 01:53 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  At what point in your life should the government begin protecting your right to life? Birth? Why that point?

Which sky fairy do you believe in?

Maybe it should be legal to knock off elderly family members when they become a burden.

(08-02-2022 02:09 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 01:53 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  At what point in your life should the government begin protecting your right to life? Birth? Why that point?

Well the Bible (textbook for most Conservative, Right-Wing, MAGAs) says life begins with "first breath."

I don't pretend to be smart enough to know when life begins or what is morally right about abortion.

The point (again) is the decision should not be forced upon women who are the ones dealing with it regardless of circumstances.

If you aren’t smart enough, why weigh in? You are obviously smart enough, you just don’t want to admit what you believe.

You at least think once the process of birth begins, we can’t kill that obviously human baby, right?

(08-02-2022 06:18 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 01:53 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  At what point in your life should the government begin protecting your right to life? Birth? Why that point?

Which sky fairy do you believe in?

I forgive your flippancy, Charm.

(08-02-2022 07:05 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  Maybe it should be legal to knock off elderly family members when they become a burden.

I’m sure there isn’t a shortage of people who actually believe this. If you are in favor of discarding one side of the life spectrum because of inconvenience, why not the other?

(08-02-2022 10:01 PM)holybovine Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 07:05 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  Maybe it should be legal to knock off elderly family members when they become a burden.

I’m sure there isn’t a shortage of people who actually believe this. If you are in favor of discarding one side of the life spectrum because of inconvenience, why not the other?

Not a sincere argument. Saying you are no longer a fan of WMU (or whatever school you root for) is not the same as saying you will not be a fan of some school that isn't even open or accepting students. Living breathing humans with opinions and beliefs and rights are one thing. Potential life forming inside a woman's womb is another thing. That doesn't mean it doesn't have power, value and should be considered with care, but fetal cells inside a woman's uterus are simply not the same as an independent living human.

In terms of how you start considering life, in many traditions it begins to be considered at "quickening", about halfway into a pregnancy when the fetus begins to move and the woman begins to feel life growing inside of her. Not coincidentally, up to that point many traditions have historically accepted abortion if it was on the mother's terms. In addition, a little after halfway 5 or 6 months into a pregnancy is when a fetus begins to have the possibility of surviving outside the womb, although at this point it still requires a lot of medical intervention and usually health challenges. If it is up to God or a higher power, a fetus after 7 months has a good chance of survival without extensive medical care. God's will, if that exists, seems to suggest this point is the potential start of life. Of course, no one has 7 or 8th month abortions except for medical emergencies.

(08-02-2022 10:38 PM)pono Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 10:01 PM)holybovine Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 07:05 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  Maybe it should be legal to knock off elderly family members when they become a burden.

I’m sure there isn’t a shortage of people who actually believe this. If you are in favor of discarding one side of the life spectrum because of inconvenience, why not the other?

Not a sincere argument. Saying you are no longer a fan of WMU (or whatever school you root for) is not the same as saying you will not be a fan of some school that isn't even open or accepting students. Living breathing humans with opinions and beliefs and rights are one thing. Potential life forming inside a woman's womb is another thing. That doesn't mean it doesn't have power, value and should be considered with care, but fetal cells inside a woman's uterus are simply not the same as an independent living human.

In terms of how you start considering life, in many traditions it begins to be considered at "quickening", about halfway into a pregnancy when the fetus begins to move and the woman begins to feel life growing inside of her. Not coincidentally, up to that point many traditions have historically accepted abortion if it was on the mother's terms. In addition, a little after halfway 5 or 6 months into a pregnancy is when a fetus begins to have the possibility of surviving outside the womb, although at this point it still requires a lot of medical intervention and usually health challenges. If it is up to God or a higher power, a fetus after 7 months has a good chance of survival without extensive medical care. God's will, if that exists, seems to suggest this point is the potential start of life. Of course, no one has 7 or 8th month abortions except for medical emergencies.

Why is it another thing? Do you believe healthy people are more human than the disabled? Or smarter people? Older people?

You suggest we can declare this group of human beings worthy, and discard other human beings. Why not murder everyone over 75? They are a burden, a drain on resources, less capacity than a young adult and often require direct support from another person to survive.

(08-02-2022 11:16 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 10:38 PM)pono Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 10:01 PM)holybovine Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 07:05 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  Maybe it should be legal to knock off elderly family members when they become a burden.

I’m sure there isn’t a shortage of people who actually believe this. If you are in favor of discarding one side of the life spectrum because of inconvenience, why not the other?

Not a sincere argument. Saying you are no longer a fan of WMU (or whatever school you root for) is not the same as saying you will not be a fan of some school that isn't even open or accepting students. Living breathing humans with opinions and beliefs and rights are one thing. Potential life forming inside a woman's womb is another thing. That doesn't mean it doesn't have power, value and should be considered with care, but fetal cells inside a woman's uterus are simply not the same as an independent living human.

In terms of how you start considering life, in many traditions it begins to be considered at "quickening", about halfway into a pregnancy when the fetus begins to move and the woman begins to feel life growing inside of her. Not coincidentally, up to that point many traditions have historically accepted abortion if it was on the mother's terms. In addition, a little after halfway 5 or 6 months into a pregnancy is when a fetus begins to have the possibility of surviving outside the womb, although at this point it still requires a lot of medical intervention and usually health challenges. If it is up to God or a higher power, a fetus after 7 months has a good chance of survival without extensive medical care. God's will, if that exists, seems to suggest this point is the potential start of life. Of course, no one has 7 or 8th month abortions except for medical emergencies.

Why is it another thing? Do you believe healthy people are more human than the disabled? Or smarter people? Older people?

You suggest we can declare this group of human beings worthy, and discard other human beings. Why not murder everyone over 75? They are a burden, a drain on resources, less capacity than a young adult and often require direct support from another person to survive.

bro, you're really fixated on murdering old people.

and your argument is a deflection. this has nothing to do with the humanity of the disabled or the smarter people, whoever they are.

to the question of: is cardiac activity in fetal cells the same as grandma?i believe my argument is succinct. living humans are living humans. fetal cells in a woman's uterus are her business. if we want to start considering fetal cells as living beings for purpose of legislating abortion access and reproductive health care that argument starts at around 25 weeks and I've yet to hear a good one.

(08-03-2022 03:53 AM)pono Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 11:16 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 10:38 PM)pono Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 10:01 PM)holybovine Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 07:05 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  Maybe it should be legal to knock off elderly family members when they become a burden.

I’m sure there isn’t a shortage of people who actually believe this. If you are in favor of discarding one side of the life spectrum because of inconvenience, why not the other?

Not a sincere argument. Saying you are no longer a fan of WMU (or whatever school you root for) is not the same as saying you will not be a fan of some school that isn't even open or accepting students. Living breathing humans with opinions and beliefs and rights are one thing. Potential life forming inside a woman's womb is another thing. That doesn't mean it doesn't have power, value and should be considered with care, but fetal cells inside a woman's uterus are simply not the same as an independent living human.

In terms of how you start considering life, in many traditions it begins to be considered at "quickening", about halfway into a pregnancy when the fetus begins to move and the woman begins to feel life growing inside of her. Not coincidentally, up to that point many traditions have historically accepted abortion if it was on the mother's terms. In addition, a little after halfway 5 or 6 months into a pregnancy is when a fetus begins to have the possibility of surviving outside the womb, although at this point it still requires a lot of medical intervention and usually health challenges. If it is up to God or a higher power, a fetus after 7 months has a good chance of survival without extensive medical care. God's will, if that exists, seems to suggest this point is the potential start of life. Of course, no one has 7 or 8th month abortions except for medical emergencies.

Why is it another thing? Do you believe healthy people are more human than the disabled? Or smarter people? Older people?

You suggest we can declare this group of human beings worthy, and discard other human beings. Why not murder everyone over 75? They are a burden, a drain on resources, less capacity than a young adult and often require direct support from another person to survive.

bro, you're really fixated on murdering old people.

and your argument is a deflection. this has nothing to do with the humanity of the disabled or the smarter people, whoever they are.

to the question of: is cardiac activity in fetal cells the same as grandma?i believe my argument is succinct. living humans are living humans. fetal cells in a woman's uterus are her business. if we want to start considering fetal cells as living beings for purpose of legislating abortion access and reproductive health care that argument starts at around 25 weeks and I've yet to hear a good one.

About 8 weeks in, the child’s heart looks anatomically indistinguishable from grandma’s heart. Your views are born of willful ignorance.

(08-03-2022 07:02 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:53 AM)pono Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 11:16 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 10:38 PM)pono Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 10:01 PM)holybovine Wrote:  I’m sure there isn’t a shortage of people who actually believe this. If you are in favor of discarding one side of the life spectrum because of inconvenience, why not the other?

Not a sincere argument. Saying you are no longer a fan of WMU (or whatever school you root for) is not the same as saying you will not be a fan of some school that isn't even open or accepting students. Living breathing humans with opinions and beliefs and rights are one thing. Potential life forming inside a woman's womb is another thing. That doesn't mean it doesn't have power, value and should be considered with care, but fetal cells inside a woman's uterus are simply not the same as an independent living human.

In terms of how you start considering life, in many traditions it begins to be considered at "quickening", about halfway into a pregnancy when the fetus begins to move and the woman begins to feel life growing inside of her. Not coincidentally, up to that point many traditions have historically accepted abortion if it was on the mother's terms. In addition, a little after halfway 5 or 6 months into a pregnancy is when a fetus begins to have the possibility of surviving outside the womb, although at this point it still requires a lot of medical intervention and usually health challenges. If it is up to God or a higher power, a fetus after 7 months has a good chance of survival without extensive medical care. God's will, if that exists, seems to suggest this point is the potential start of life. Of course, no one has 7 or 8th month abortions except for medical emergencies.

Why is it another thing? Do you believe healthy people are more human than the disabled? Or smarter people? Older people?

You suggest we can declare this group of human beings worthy, and discard other human beings. Why not murder everyone over 75? They are a burden, a drain on resources, less capacity than a young adult and often require direct support from another person to survive.

bro, you're really fixated on murdering old people.

and your argument is a deflection. this has nothing to do with the humanity of the disabled or the smarter people, whoever they are.

to the question of: is cardiac activity in fetal cells the same as grandma?i believe my argument is succinct. living humans are living humans. fetal cells in a woman's uterus are her business. if we want to start considering fetal cells as living beings for purpose of legislating abortion access and reproductive health care that argument starts at around 25 weeks and I've yet to hear a good one.

About 8 weeks in, the child’s heart looks anatomically indistinguishable from grandma’s heart. Your views are born of willful ignorance.

an 8 week old fetus has a tail, webbed finger-hand things and is the size of a dried bean. The heart will be fully formed by the end of the 1st trimester, but the fetus will not be viable outside the womb for another 3 months and only then with significant medical care. it is not a child. that said. up to each person how they want to consider the beginning of life. just don't legislate your opinions on everyone else and the medical system. and as far as ignorance, I did work for 6 years in infant-child development so not talking out my butt.

A child at 8 weeks has a prominent tailbone, 10 obvious fingers, two ventricles, two atria…

Your humanity is not based on how large your butt is, how long your fingers are, how large your heart is, and how independent you are. If humanity is just about your set of qualities and looks, you have no basis for complaining about someone deciding things matter like skin color, or intelligence, or abilities.

Those who draw a line through humanity and say these count but these don’t really don’t deserve to be behind the line themselves… and might not be someday.

(08-03-2022 04:46 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  A child at 8 weeks has a prominent tailbone, 10 obvious fingers, two ventricles, two atria…

Your humanity is not based on how large your butt is, how long your fingers are, how large your heart is, and how independent you are. If humanity is just about your set of qualities and looks, you have no basis for complaining about someone deciding things matter like skin color, or intelligence, or abilities.

Those who draw a line through humanity and say these count but these don’t really don’t deserve to be behind the line themselves… and might not be someday.

I give up. You win. I’m not able to follow this type of logic. It’s like playing on a court where the sidelines and basket keep moving and It makes me fear for women’s capacity to make their own reproductive health decisions.

Life begins at conception. Period.
If you kill, and don't repent, you spend eternity in Hell. Period.
NEXT...............[/b]

(08-04-2022 08:45 AM)Bronco88Oxford Wrote:  Life begins at conception. Period.
If you kill, and don't repent, you spend eternity in Hell. Period.
NEXT...............[/b]

None of us knows that for absolute certain.

Or has the right to force those beliefs on other human beings.

(08-04-2022 08:45 AM)Bronco88Oxford Wrote:  Life begins at conception. Period.
If you kill, and don't repent, you spend eternity in Hell. Period.
NEXT...............[/b]

I respect your conviction, but I find it a little hard to abide by.

The majority of people that say "abortion is murder" draw this belief from their faith. However, the morality of abortion is not mentioned in the Bible. Almost every single moral choice is somehow referenced in the Bible, but not abortion specifically. Most arguments against abortion are then drawn by inference to thou shalt not kill...that works well with life beginning at conception. However, not even the majority of Christians take this position relative to life...and that is just Christianity. Even the book of Exodus (like, the harsh Bible stuff) doesn't value the fetus on equal footing as the mother. In fact, the fetus is "valued" as property. Read up on the Covenant Code. Pretty interesting application of "law".

The majority of the worlds population believes in some for of higher power/God (or their version of it), yet the minority of those believe that life begins prior to first breath. I imagine that I fall personally somewhere in the middle but fire and brimstoning seems to miss the mark.

Very few absolutes are absolute. Not even the ten on the two tablets.

The right to an abortion was established law for decades. Then the Supreme Court gets packed with Catholics. Almost immediately the law is no longer. That is not a coincidence. It was obviously a religious decision disguised as a legal decision.

If Republicans were actually concerned about life, they would treat the lives of those who are already born better.