Yes, google is great for finding facts.

Dont nobody know the blm stance on this then?

I'm surprised.

we don't know what the topic is :conf:

What the **** is this thread?

Does the life of a black child in the womb matter to the blm movements supporters and backers.

They don't need a stance on this entirely different debate

does anyone know their stance on fruit scones?

What point did I make about terminating full term pregnancies? You have clearly misread/misunderstood my post. You were saying life doesn’t start til birth and so you are pro choice, I was saying well then if life doesn’t start til birth surely it’s okay to abort at 38 weeks by that logic then? clearly it’s not acceptable and so clearly life does not begin at birth and so I was just Calling out the hypocrisy of your statement and questioning

Now now, let's not start :idc:.

I'm aware that most abortions are before 10 weeks but you didn't say "most abortions that are carried out are just a bundle of cells" - you said that "For pretty much the entirety of the period when someone can choose to have an abortion, the fetus is just an bunch of cells". You can't revise that now to be more right, because your old post is still there. Darn you, internet :fist:.

I didn't misunderstand what you were saying. If you were unclear in what you were saying, that's on you, and if you're now revising what you're saying, that's fine too and I agree with the above. However, again, what you said was not "a fetus before X weeks", it was "a fetus until it's ready to be born or delivered, cannot support it's own existence outside of the womb". Ready to be born or delivered is 38 weeks gestation

You're obviously free to your opinion but this is not even in the realms of scientific fact. It is pure opinion. Your claim is that any parasitic entity that would die without a host body isn't alive, which in my opinion is clearly not a logical statement. It's a white lie. I'm not "calling you a liar" - a bit dramatic - I'm saying that in my opinion the ideology that "the point where life begins is birth" is rhetoric mostly used to make abortion less traumatic and more palatable. I'm pro-choice, like I said if we had gotten pregnant for a third time it's very likely we would have taken that option, but I don't see the point in not being honest with ourselves about what it is? Killing a fetus. I'm not hand-wringing or calling it murder either, it just is what it is... I love a fillet steak, nom nom, but I'm not going to pretend that someone didn't cut a cow's throat for it, or that the cow wasn't alive.

Your entire argument was based on the "bundle of cells" premise, which is demonstrably false. You've amended that to "viability of living independently" - and that's fine, certainly debatable, I still disagree but it's not INcorrect just a matter of opinion.

...there is no definitive agreement as to where the point of life beginning is, surely...hence abortion always being such an emotive subject because there are things considered ..this is quite a good site for the varying views more simplistically...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion.../alive_1.shtml

Unfortunately there's no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life.

That isn't surprising, because the idea that there is a precise moment when a foetus gets the right to live, which it didn't have a few moments earlier, feels very strange.

And when you look closely at each of the suggested dates, they do seem either arbitrary or not precise enough to decide whether the unborn should have the right to live.

Nonetheless, as a matter of practicality many abortion laws lay down a stage of pregnancy after which abortion is unlawful (because the foetus has a right to life), and the dates chosen are usually based on viability.


...this is also quite interesting when a pregnant female is murdered...is it a single murder of a pregnant woman or a double murder to include the killing of her unborn child...(...obviously there are some cases when an unborn child has been saved..)...and I don’t think there is any definitive answer to that either...it depends on the laws of the country/state etc...

https://theconversation.com/when-unb...ability-104222

Well exactly. I think there are (loosely) four schools of thought on when life begins

1) As soon as cell division begins (the moment of conception)

2) The beginning of conscious thought/sensory experience in some form

3) Viable unassisted survivability

4) Full term birth

"Life" in the biological sense begins as soon as cell division begins, in the same way that a plant or bacteria is alive. As for when "meaningful human life" begins, none of these is "wrong", it's a philosophical question so purely opinion based. As far as my thoughts on abortion go, I'm fully on board with it all the way up to point 3 but think that wherever possible we should ensure it's before point 2 - that means it being free and quickly/easily available. Women asking for an abortion at 10 weeks and not getting it until 14 weeks - which sometimes happens - is a disgraceful situation.

I'm also pro termination if there's a risk to the mother's life or health, at any point during pregnancy. That's a bit more morally "grey" as I do believe that in late stage pregnancy it's the choice between two lives - but the life of an "established" (for want of a better word?) human with thoughts, memories, experiences and connections has to always take precedence.


Of course what we do know to be biological fact is that a 2nd trimester fetus is not just a bundle of cells :think:. Well. I guess it IS just a bundle of cells, in the sense that any living thing is just a bundle of cells :umm2:.

Where it all gets complicated I guess is when you start introducing supernatural hocus-pocus like the concept of the "soul". When does the fetus/baby "have a soul". That's not a debate I can really enter into because my answer obviously is "never because the concept is nonsensical" :joker:.

Blackcurrant lives matter?

Defund Ribena :fist:

...I don’t believe the concept of a soul is nonsensical when there is so much we just don’t know or understand...but I’ll fight you another time/day on that one..:laugh:..‘the point of life’ though, is something which will remain endless in terms of opinion because it varies so much, even in terms of from state to state in a country...it is the law that is determining that point, which is why I found the ‘murder’ one interesting...because in some areas of Australia for instance...?...the law follows the ‘born alive rule’... “This is a common law rule that states that a homicide can only be committed on a legally recognised person, and that a person is not legally recognised until they are “fully born in a living state”...And yet in other areas, killing an unborn child can carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment...

I think I'd be somewhere between 2 and 3 in TS's points of "life"

Replying to this second point. I have already said I’m pro choice to a certain point. However yes I am against late terminations where the baby is killed when it is able to survive outside the womb and also when the baby has formed a well developed sensory system and is feeling pain at 18-20 weeks. So once it has reached 20 weeks you are already 5 months pregnant and I think terminating the child should only be for extreme circumstances (mothers life at risk etc), I do not believe financial burden to be a reason to be able to terminate between 18-24 weeks old, it’s incredibly selfish in my opinion when that baby is very developed and able to feel it’s pain of being killed

Yeah I agree with all that actually, 18-24 weeks is too late except in extreme circumstances

Yep agree 24 weeks is very late and should be for extreme circumstances only

The debate really is endless because it's all so relative, even beyond birth. Like the vast majority of modern societies would place a baby's life (a born, breathing, crying one) as being more precious than an adult life. Most adults, and certainly parents, would at the very least put themselves at extreme risk to save a baby. But that's not always been the case, at plenty of points in human history infant mortality has been very high and infant deaths even expected/normal. In ye olde cave man times the death of an infant would have been "sad but expected" but the death of an adult provider would have been a tragedy/potential disaster so adult lives would have been considered more important than infant lives even AFTER birth :umm2:. It's very much the case in a lot of the animal kingdom, even in mammals, where babies are sometimes killed (even eaten) if it benefits the parent.

Don't worry though, when the apocalypse comes I won't be firing up the barbeque... probably... :hee:.

You started by calling me a liar and don't backpedal now, you did say I was lying to further my own agenda. Choose your words better if you don't want to be called out on it.

Life begins when a life can support the basic act of living. A first trimester fetus cannot support itself, by your own admission, a fetus can survive at 22 weeks BUT I looked it up last night, the chances of survival are low and without immediate medical attention, it's non-existent. Can you really say life begins then when most of the time, it'll result in the likely immediate death of the fetus? I consider life to begin when a baby can live outside of the womb without dying and for me. A baby can survive before that point, yes, but it's not common enough to make out that a 22 week fetus is the same as a full term baby.

Stating 'that's your opinion' is redundant, everything in this topic is an opinion but my opinion, like yours, is backed up by the same method of googling as you and it's just as valid as yours. You are splitting hairs again and it won't work.

But that's a ridiculous point to make. A full term baby can survive outside the womb but a 22 week old fetus is likely not to survive. To compare the two and say they are the same is just silly. They aren't.

Good thing the vast majority of abortions happen at 10 weeks or under then. The whole focus on late term abortions is more of a pro-life dog whistle than anything. Most people aren't getting abortions at 5 months unless it's medically advised.

I said that calling a 2nd trimester fetus "a bundle of cells" is a pretty (or white) lie used to make abortion easier/more palateable. That's what it is. I'm not backpedaling - I still think the same - I think some people are worried that these opinions will be used by pro-lifers to discourage abortion, which they might be, but I don't and never will agree with manipulating the narrative to suit the outcome.

Taking this and making it into "How dare you call me a liar!!" is just utterly bizarre... and I'm not sure how you can ever engage in an open debate if you think that everyone who thinks your opinion is incorrect is "calling you a liar". You've gotten emotional and aggressive here with really little if any reason, I personally have absolutely ZERO time for it right now, I'm not here for nor have I ever been part of any "TiBB wars" so keep that where it belongs please Dezzy. If you can't keep the debate civilized I have no idea why you're doing it at all, it seems exhausting.

So to ask a question... is a parasitic organism (let's say a tapeworm) alive? By your definition it is not alive - it cannot support itself without a host body to feed off of. But that seems to me to be an odd suggestion, I don't know many people who would argue that parasites are not alive. I suppose that's also down to opinion though. I strongly disagree?

I actually have a relatively wide knowledge of issues surrounding pregnancy and gestation that I didn't "google last night", but I have little reason nor desire to share those, because it's not really relevant. I'm not trying to "win" or "make anything work". I'm just debating, I'm not accusing you of anything, calling you a liar, or expecting anything other than for people to share their own opinions... as is the purpose of debate. I'm not interested whatsoever in this paranoid victim-narrative nonsense, kindly keep it away. Or I can just not engage at all, I suppose. Probably the better option?

Or I guess, we can play if you want, but not 'til the kids are back at school, I just don't have the time or energy :laugh:.

why stop at life during pregnancy, why bother having hospitals at all, because the people would be dead without treatment ..... so no need to bother

I despair .....

Errrrr...what?

i'm referring to the ridiculous argument that a abortion is fine on a premature baby because it wouldn't survive without medical attention ... the same applies to many living/born animals that don't receive specialised care