Gladiator

The Anti-Coice advocates suggest that the starting point of Motherhood is irrelevant because Mother hood is optional, as a baby or fetus can be handed off, or given up for adoption.

The Anti-Choice people suggest that the decision for motherhood which is made when a woman has had too much to drink, or fallen into a deep sleep, in circmstances where males might take advantage of a woman, and risk pregnancy by intercourse, without knowledge, or without full consent.

The Pro-Choice position is that Motherhood is a decison that is the repsonibility of the woman, and a pregnancy may be accidental, to some extent or another. But the start of Motherhood is a sequence of decisons, which can be reversed. The difficulty and risk of ending a pregnacy by some form of abortion, increases as a not fully planned pregnancy progresses.

The Anti-Choice position is that Motherhood is not a responsiblity, but the only respnsibility is for a woman to incubate any zygot, embryo or fetus that comes along, and then it is the world's responsibility to feed and educate any baby that results.

I think the Anti-Choice position is immoral because the natural love of Motherhood is ignored. A woman can wait till another pregancy, that arrives at time when the woman feels ready to give the love of a mother.

The Anti-Choice position is that the readiness of a woman to provide motherly Love is irrelvalent. If a woman is unable to keep celebate, or have only perfectly safe sex, then timing of motherhood is prohibited.



..

__________________
_______________________________
How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

hrdman2luv

Life begins at conception. period.

__________________
"A vote for a Democrat or a Republican in 2008, is a wasted vote"

Gladiator

Why should motherhood begin if the inception was unintentional for the woman?

DarkWizard12

motherhood is an optional issue. Sure, we would LIKE for a mother to love her kid but, that would require that love is defined, and that would be very difficult for the law to do. If the mother can't, or doesn't want to, then the only responisible thing is to put the baby in an orphanage.

Now, mind you, I'm not for "the world to take care of and educate", no, the mother should do her duty as a mother but, something like "motherhood", is impossible to make a law on, impossible. the "anti-choice" position isn't immoral, its just impossible to define something like "motherly love". What you can define however, is when life begins.

Lachean

Really? The cells involved were alive before conception. And after conception a ZEF can split and become twins, or two can join to become a chimera.

If it were really that simple, then are you saying that one life can become two, or that two become one? How does this soul math work exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------
Motherhood begins a birth, and so does one's life. That is the practical standard by which we gauge age, and the point at which a pregnant woman and her significant other look to when they say "we're going to be parents!"

__________________
"Truth, in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." - Oscar Wilde

talloulou

We don't justify the killing of another living human being based on whether or not their parents love them. Your life is legally protected even if your mother despises you. Why should it be different based on your geographical location? There are lots of parents who've been hauled into court for neglect. A parent's lack of desire to raise a child well doesn't suggest they can kill or neglect a child. There are means of safely passing the responsibility of rearing a child on to someone else, until such time as that can be done though you have a duty to protect that child and provide for that child.

The timing of fatherhood is currently prohibited (hindered would be a better word) just as much as the timing of motherhood would be without abortion. Fathers are forced to accept responsibility for any child they create or they risk jail time, having their wages garnered, ect. They cannot relinquish their parental duties unless the mother and the courts allow them to do so which frequently they do not. I don't understand why women should be given special or extra rights when it comes to escaping parental duties.

talloulou

Why should fatherhood begin whilst the man is kicking and screaming and adamantly against the very idea of handing over his wallet and time?

talloulou

Once you are dealing with an implanted embryo you are dealing with a living human organism. After implantation the cells do not split and become twins.

Prior to conception there is no living organism. Just living cells. gametes.

Gladiator

Dear Lachean,

A Chimera is a combination of two non-identical twins. The D and A for different body parts are different, within the individual Chimera. The non-identical twins have merged, and some organs are from one non-identical twin, and some organs are from the other Twin.

http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html

This must be the mechanism by which a newborn can have the genitals for both sexes.

If a Chimera becomes pregnant, does the whole individual Chimera become a Mother, or just certain parts of the Chimera?



..

prometeus

How right you are. We never ask if people who die as collateral damage were loved by their parents, or of the Iranians killed when the US armed Saddam were loved by their parents, or the myriad of people killed by any number of dictators the US supported, if they were loved by their parents, or the British soldiers who had to die for the independence of the US, if they were loved by their parents, or the people who die because their HMO denies coverage for treatment, or the children who die of starvation, of the still born if they would have been loved by their parents if they lived, had the US not been 23 in the world in infant mortality rate, right behind Cuba. You are right we never took their parental love into consideration, just how much can we profit from their death or how much can we save by letting them die. Hypocritical, isn't it?