Apparently, few here have read or considered what Rand wrote back in 1968. Here it is: https://courses.aynrand.org/works/of-...

Any male secretions/lubrications can carry sperm.

So. If one never wishes to risk becoming a parent, they must elect life-long celibacy?

True but in medicine it’s called elective. If you don’t have to do it. A face lift is elective.
Most likely the answer is don’t want to have a baby or not in love with the father or scared, or pressured that’s my guess .

Not True. Men can be fixed.
They can also be sterilized.

And with enough practice, they can learn to orgasm without ejaculation (which I would ONLY combine with a condom). This technique uses a Kegel type exercise, and takes about 6-8 hours of practice. And you have to practice in VARIOUS positions, as the muscle tightening process is different...

But I don't think we have to worry. Society is creating the kind of women that I CANNOT BLAME young men for not being interested in!

I didn’t down vote any of your comments, but I can if you want me to.

As a scientist first... I have a problem with assigning rights at conception. We give rights to individuals. I believe a better measurement would be Brain Birth. The point at which the fetus has a functioning Brain... The opposite of Brain Death, where we tend to agree the person is no longer with us, and is being kept alive by machines.

My challenge runs along these lines: UNTIL EVERY Miscarriage starts with a charge of Manslaughter that must get cleared, or prosecuted... Then even medicine recognizes that "being pregnant" and coming to term with the baby are 2 distinct events. We do NOT see it that way. Miscarriages happen. A lot. Nobody is usually charged for a crime because of them.

So, I believe we have to DEFINE Individual better.

For the record, I am BOTH Pro Choice, and Pro Life!

I am Pro Choice for the baby, and Pro Life for the mother. I think we should let the baby decide.
But ONLY AFTER the baby is an individual, which is when it gets the rights to be heard.

I believe we should get the EMOTION out of the argument. I believe the best approach is to define a STANDARD (brainwaves) [something better?] that promises us that there is an individual... Anyone doing an abortion would be required to confirm the situation. Record it. Put it in the file. If there are unique brain waves... Then they cannot abort.

PS: There is a SICK case in CA, where the girl LOVES getting pregnant. But has NEVER delivered a baby. She, instead, has her boyfriend PUNCH her in the stomach until she miscarriages. In my world, that would be chargeable as manslaughter w/o verifying that there were no brainwaves.

I respect your position, but of course don't agree. I do not see how you get there without religion.

In my mind, my dog has a lot more to live for than a zygote, and would be far sadder to see any reasonable age dog killed than a zygote. It knows others. It is self aware. It fells pain. It can be happy, sad, afraid, sympathetic. A zygote is none of these. Religion closes the gap. But if you feel that way, and we have done this before, fine.

The posting started with a dismissive "why are people worked up". I can only imagine those who are so pleased with this potential outcome similarly endorse the government forcing them to pay for supporting people who can't, and I don't think welfare is part of our philosophy.

Our world in a 3 second clip! Perfect.

The problem with your argument is the definition of "we".

I agree with your assertion. A zygote is not one of me. It is an "it", of less worth than my dog.

Current estimates are that two million couples await the opportunity to adopt. (https://www.americanadoptions.com/pre...) My current best friend has adopted three such. My sister-in-law two - both children of a drug-addicted mother. This doesn't have to be an either-or scenario as many want to paint it, or a hopeless one for the infant.

The rest of your argument is an attempt to excuse the irresponsibility of the participants and for what? 15 minutes of pleasure? So you would argue that allowing one's passions to control one's self is completely justified in abandoning all reason? People who engage in sex know that pregnancy is a possible outcome. Russian Roulette (pardon the pun about shooting blanks): play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The only safe thing is not to play. Is it hard? Yeah. Lots of things in life are hard. Personal discipline is hard, but rewarding, as its the only way you get to long-term goals. You don't invest in the future by hitting Starbucks every day for a Frappuchino...

This is very much like saying semi-automatic weapons were not part of the Second Amendment.

Sanctity of life means there is a human life. Asserting a zygote is a human life, requiring servitude from a woman is 1) religion and 2) inconsistent with Freedom.

Having researched the voter fraud in Broward Florida... I know...
When our PhD in Public Administration Dr. Snipes can tell 2 judges... "I just signed what my employees put in front of me... It's their job, they should know"... And BOTH judges accept this as a reasonable explanation for "oopses" like destroying ballots that were part of an ongoing investigation, and the signer is acknowledging that THIS IS SPECIFICALLY not the case...

I can only imagine. I am looking forward to seeing it. Let's just say that I was expecting to see many ballots were NEVER folded. Violating the concept that they were mailed in.

Yes, we've been through this before and I respect your opinion even though it is different from mine. My main point here was to make it clear a non religious pro life argument can be made even though you keep bringing religion into the subject. It depends on your first premise. You state yours in "A single cell is clearly not a human." mine is the human life cycle begins with the single cell and it clearly is human. No religion required for me.

"Every life is not worth infinity to everyone else."

Let us not confuse the issue of prolonging life or inflicting upon society the burdens of the individual with the topic at hand: the morality of abortion.

In response, I note that this is a very dangerous and morally indefensible viewpoint because it relies on the subjective valuation of one human being by another - as your own examples illustrate. Such a viewpoint directly flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence which recognizes that man is of a value not determined by another man, but by Man's Creator, ie an objective Third Party.

The viewpoint that supplants the intrinsic value of humanity with the extrinsic is the viewpoint that says it is okay to experiment with mRNA technology on millions of human beings in order to further medical development. It is under such a moral view that millions have been enslaved throughout history. It is under such a view that torture and depravity and ethnic cleansing are justified. It is under such a view that the Spartans tossed disabled children off a cliff to die. It is under such a view that current Democrats attempt to justify locking up anyone who dares to identify as a Republican.

Either we are human beings with the same claim on human rights as all others, or there is no equality and no such thing as rights at all. It can not be both ways.

Bravo.

It's not about religion, it's about the sanctity of life. As far as trashing the Amendments, that's highly doubtful. Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly, the Press, and the right to bear arms are all specifically written into the Constitution. I doubt you will find "abortion" anywhere in the text.

Don't worry, they are importing illegals to take the place of all the Dem voters they suck down sinks.

it was dropped to step on 2000 mules. Must see. to believe just how corrupt these dems are.

It is sad that most people do not understand Federalism, see the 10th amendment. It was created to keep the power of the federal government in check. It goes to the states, where it should have been all along. I respect and admire the framers of the constitution to envision big government despots like the DNS in power.

What about avoidance of pain (often extreme), discomfort, and possible risk to life itself? Should one act of pleasure potentially sentence a woman to experience all of these, in addition to likely economic hardship? If she chooses, unwillingly, to raise the child, will that child not experience rejection, and isn't the woman, in effect, a slave for 18+ years? Not all infants carried to term are adoptable or adopted, for various reasons. They then become subject to the foster care system (again, ask how I know). Those outcomes are rarely positive. The entire anti-abortion argument seems to be based on the religious concept of Original Sin: exercise choice, taste the apple (sexual pleasure) and woman must forever suffer the consequences. Not so for the man, other than possible financial consequences. Would you, Blarman and others, be willing to risk your life and livelihood, despite having been responsible and used contraception? I think not.

No, you guys could always have supported either of these cases. There are hundreds of such cases. Epoch Times is awash with them, and there are millions of cases where we could have spend millions of dollars and effort extending the lives of children and the elderly. This can not be decided by the government. I am not shamed into a broad definition by anecdotal evidence.

At my prior employer a daughter of an loved executive came down with cancer about age 11. The company rallied around her, and all kinds of charity and sympathy poored out. She beat it into remission,and everyone celebrated. A couple of years later when she was 14, the cancer came back. She declined treatment this time. 6 months later she was gone. That little girl had enough guts to say enough is enough, and let go. If our elderly had one-tenth this strength of character, we could do a lot more for a lot more people. Every life is not worth infinity to everyone else. It can be of infinite value only to that person, and whatever value other individuals freely choose to assign to it. The infinity thought process is subjective, immature, and fails in practice.

One of my best friends from first grade comes to mind. He moved away shortly after that and returned when we were both in high school. His senior year he came down with an exceptionally rare condition (only six known cases at the time) where his brain produced too much cerebro-spinal fluid, resulting in crushing headaches and degrading health. He missed most of the second half of his senior year yet still graduated valedictorian with a 4-year scholarship to a top-tier college. He never spent a day in college, however. Instead, he was constantly in and out of specialty care. The doctors tried three times to install a shunt to siphon off the excess fluid to keep the pressure down. All failed for one reason or another. His health degraded bit by bit until he was left completely blind in one eye, confined to a wheel chair, on a feeding tube, and generally devoid of what anyone might call "quality of life." His mother had to change his diapers because he had no bowel control. And yet the doctors and nurses who worked with him consistently lauded his positive attitude and outlook on life. Even his parents - who had to work and slave every hour of every day to take care of him - wouldn't have traded the experience. His funeral a little more than five years ago was attended by hundreds who talked about the joy he brought to their lives by simply existing and showing a positive attitude.

Under your criteria, my best friend would have been tossed in the trash before he ever made it out of high school. My uncle (still living with Down's Syndrome at 60) would be there with him. I choose to see value in life no matter how seemingly inconsequential. The thought of arbitrarily declaring a human life to have no future value makes me physically and mentally ill. You may choose to view an abortion as nothing more than an arbitrary and meaningless decision. I view it as an opportunity cost of tremendous and incalculable magnitude.

How could there be no reason?

I'm partly ok with excluding people who are on life support. I am VERY ok with taking away anyone's right to vote who is not self-sustaining.

Welfare is fine when freely supplied. The rest of this isn't that hard or interesting. A zygote is not a human being.