Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/10/2002 9:34:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/10/2002 9:58:03 PM EDT
I wish you well on this one but, predict it will go down in flames(pun intended)
Link Posted: 2/10/2002 10:08:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 4:33:14 AM EDT
I'm afraid that for many humans, the 'intelligence' part of your question never arrives, in or out of the womb.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 4:44:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 6:08:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: and caused a moderator to abort the other thread, I decided to restart with a SPECIFIC question. What is the characteristic of the birth process that changes the primary character of the mass in question from a fetus/nonperson before birth, to a baby/person after birth? Exactly where in the [b]process[/b] of birth does this transformation take place? This needs to have a good answer, and not "because I said so!" kind of answers. No flames, and if you feel the need to release profanity at another member, don't. This is a discussion for intelligent people, with opinions that represent intelligence.
View Quote
Oh boy. Well, IIRC the original [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] decision, which I agree with BTW, said that somewhere between the first and third trimesters the fetus achieved the status of "person", with all attendant individual rights. Therefore, prior to the second trimester, the fetus was [i]not[/i] a person, but part of the woman - and HER individual rights were paramount. The decision to carry or abort was hers until the beginning of the second trimester. After that, the only acceptable reason for abortion was a risk to the life or physical health of the woman. There is no "exactly" as to where the switch occurs. IMHO, it has to do with brain size and function. I cannot bring myself to believe that a 12 week-old fetus is capable of reason. Yes, it may exhibit avoidance, but so do amoeba. You may consider me a heartless bastard, but there it is.
Much as we may feel and act as individuals, our race is a single organism, always growing and branching -- which must be pruned regularly to be healthy. This necessity need not be argued; anyone with eyes can see that any organism which grows without limit always dies in it's own poisons. The only rational question is whether pruning is best done before or after birth. Being an incurable sentimentalist I favor the former of these methods -- killing makes me queasy, even when it's a case of "He's dead and I'm alive and that's the way I wanted it to be." But this may be a matter of taste. Some shamans think that it is better to be killed in a war, or to die in childbirth, or to starve in misery, than never to have lived at all. They may be right. But I don't have to like it -- and I don't. R.A. Heinlein [i][u]The Notebooks of Lazarus Long[/i][/u]
View Quote
[i]Roe v. Wade[/i] was followed immediately by another abortion ruling (and I'm not going to take the time to look it up now) that said ANY risk to the woman's health, even if it was mental, or "quality of life" was adequate justification for abortion. That I do NOT agree with.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 6:25:16 AM EDT
Historically, a child has not been considered a person before birth because nothing could be known about him or her until then. Since no one could know (with reasonable certainty) whether a mother's womb contained a boy or a girl, or even a single child or twins, the fetus(es) couldn't be given the most basic element of human identity -- a name. Also, pregnancy, childbirth and infancy have long been so perilous (with high rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, and infant mortality) that societies have been reluctant to make the emotional investment of accepting unborn and newborn children as members.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 7:40:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2002 7:42:13 AM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By Renamed: Historically, a child has not been considered a person before birth..
View Quote
Of course this actually flies in the face of history as there were laws that protected the unborn child from abortion at the time of the Founding Fathers and were English Common Law before that. Since there were no laws that protected livers or spleens the only conclusion that can be drawn is that those who wrote these laws "considered" the unborn a "person before birth". And while it is true that these laws did not protect the child from conception, that is only because they did not know anything about conception when the laws were written. So when the pro-abortionists say "those laws at the time of the Founding Fathers only made abortion illegal towards the end of what we call today the second trimester" it is proper to counter with "the laws protected the unborn from abortion from the time medical science at the time knew there was an unborn child to protect. When, as the years went by and science discovered that a woman was carrying a child far earlier than they had previoiusly believed, other laws were then enacted to protect the unborn."
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 8:10:11 AM EDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted By Renamed: Historically, a child has not been considered a person before birth.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course this actually flies in the face of history as there were laws that protected the unborn child from abortion at the time of the Founding Fathers and were English Common Law before that. Since there were no laws that protected livers or spleens the only conclusion that can be drawn is that those who wrote these laws "considered" the unborn a "person before birth".
View Quote
If they considered the unborn persons, why didn't they include them in their census counts? The belief that abortion is wrong does not imply the belief that the abortee is a "full person". We have laws against animal cruelty but we (well, at least most of us) don't consider dogs and cats as members of our society.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 8:31:29 AM EDT
As much as some people would love to argue, the unborn isn't distinguishable from the mother until a certain point. As harsh as this sounds, and believe me, I do not mean it to be crass and crude, the unborn is much like a parasite living off of the mother's body and nutrients, etc., etc., etc. A logical point to start in answering the posed question, would be to ask at what point does the unborn become viable outside the mother's womb without the use of mechanical devices that act as a surrogate for the mother.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 8:38:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2002 10:39:36 AM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By Renamed: [b]If they considered the unborn persons, why didn't they include them in their census counts?[/b] You would have to ask them that. [b]The belief that abortion is wrong does not imply the belief that the abortee is a "full person".[/b] Ah yes, I see, perhaps you would like to give them (as they did with slaves) 3/4s person status? Or maybe they are a half-person in your estimation. And yes, the laws that protected the unborn were intended for two purposes, to institute in law that the "abortee" (what the hell kind of barbaric word is that?!) is a person that needs legal protection and to protect the mother since only the worse scum would perfrom abortions back then (as now, only now they better refined the science of slaughter) and often killed both the mother and her unborn child. [/quote]
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 8:49:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2002 10:43:16 AM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By ARlady: [b]As much as some people would love to argue, the unborn isn't distinguishable from the mother until a certain point.[/b] Of course you presupposing that anyone (like you) who does not believe in an inalienable (i.e. absolute) right to life or even to keep and bear arms could in a thousand life times have anything important or even interesting to say. On top of this you are wrong (again) in that the unborn is in fact medically and scientifically "distinguishable" from the moment of conception. [b]As harsh as this sounds, and believe me, I do not mean it to be crass and crude, the unborn is much like a parasite living off of the mother's body and nutrients, etc., etc., etc.[/b] When ARlady sees women nursing she does not think "nice baby", no, she thinks "parasite". And yes, you sound harsh, not to mention stupid. [b]A logical point[/b] "logic"? you? come now. [b]to start in answering the posed question, would be to ask at what point does the unborn become viable outside the mother's womb without the use of mechanical devices that act as a surrogate for the mother.[/b] Because ARlady believes that those preborn children who need "mechanical devices" that "act as surrogate for the mother" are not innocent human children with an "absolute" right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Therefore she thinks that they can be murdered. Like Mickey Mouse, just add this one to her growing list of monstrous views. If you don't believe me look it up on ARladies post on this topic just a few days ago or so. She does NOT believe there is such a thing as "absolute", (her word) i.e. inalienable, rights.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 9:12:48 AM EDT
As much as some people would love to argue, the unborn isn't distinguishable from the mother until a certain point.
View Quote
Isn't the unborn child genetically unique from the moment of conception?
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 9:21:30 AM EDT
Belloc, My original message was simply an attempt to address DoubleFeed's question, namely:
What is the characteristic of the birth process that changes the primary character of the mass in question from a fetus/nonperson before birth, to a baby/person after birth?
View Quote
My point was that birth has been significant more because it has given society the ability to "know" (and name) the child than because of any change in the child himself. If you have a better answer to DoubleFeed's question, please share it with us. Perhaps I should have qualified my message with a disclaimer that my opinions and I do not meet this thread's standards for intelligence. [:E]
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 9:21:33 AM EDT
Belloc blathered
When ARlady sees women nursing she does not think "nice baby", no, she thinks "parasite".
View Quote
no actually she specifically said "unborn". I'd like to see a women nursing an unborn child..no really I would. But then he goes on to say
Of course you presupposing that anyone...could in a thousand life times have anything important or even interesting to say
View Quote
Interesting? sure, but so is trying to figure out what's in a TacoBell meat paste. Important? not really.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 9:39:59 AM EDT
Observer regurgitated:
no actually she specifically said "unborn".
View Quote
ARlady qualified her belief by stating that the properties that make the unborn "like a parasite" are that the unborn child is "living off of the mother's body and nutrients, etc., etc., etc". The newborn child also fits her moronic and fascist description.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 12:39:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARlady: As much as some people would love to argue, the unborn isn't distinguishable from the mother until a certain point. As harsh as this sounds, and believe me, I do not mean it to be crass and crude, the unborn is much like a parasite living off of the mother's body and nutrients, etc., etc., etc. A logical point to start in answering the posed question, would be to ask at what point does the unborn become viable outside the mother's womb without the use of mechanical devices that act as a surrogate for the mother.
View Quote
Couldn't agree with you more ARlady. In fact, I stand by the Roe decision completely. If abortion were illegal, I would have lost a wonderful sister. Do I agree with using it as a means of choosing boy/girl, NO. But, sometimes it is a necessity to save the mother or in cases of rape.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 12:45:42 PM EDT
Actually you can be dead mass at any age, fetus,or adult. Life begins unto eternity upon acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior. Prior to that moment you are only seed.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 12:50:07 PM EDT
All I have to say, is that a woman who is pregnant KNOWS the child inside her is a real human. I have seen women go through miscarriages, including my wife, and they do not cry that they lost their "fetus". They lost their "baby" no matter how far along they were. If you tried to assure her it was simply a fetus that was only a parasite she would have kicked your ass.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 12:52:23 PM EDT
One comment here only - Evolution legitimizes abortion.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 1:00:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: One comment here only - Evolution legitimizes abortion.
View Quote
Why?
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 1:15:11 PM EDT
Belloc, I think you are out of line. You are free to express your opinions, but it doesn't need to be in an abusive way. Let's keep this flame free. I agree with ARlady, I consider it a child when it is capable of surviving outside a woman's body. With that said, I think abortion is a bad thing. While I personally don't like it, I think what a woman does with her body is a very personal decision, not one I should make for her. I feel that rendering abortion illegal would be yet another encroachment of the government into people's personal lives. That is not a place government belongs. One thing that I find humorous is how many pro-life people see no problem with use of birth control pills. They must be ignorant as to how they work.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 1:24:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed:
Originally Posted By garandman: One comment here only - Evolution legitimizes abortion.
View Quote
Why?
View Quote
1. Evolution partly assumes the lack of a soul. Some claim it doens't, but they haven't checked Darwin's writings, are are in denial as to what hard-core evolutionists REALLY beleive re: evolution. Logically next, No soul = animal. And we kill the unwanted animals off all the time, never mind the defective / dangerous ones. 2. Survival of the fittest demands abortion. It is counter productive to let the least fit fetuses live, thereby diluting the gene pool, and lessening the chances of the next evolution of the species. Logically, we should abort them, post haste. Some try to extract evolution out of the realm of right and wrong. They claim you can't apply moral principles to evolution. It just happens that way. But that is a silly argument. If the origin of life and the survival and adaptation of the species exists outside of moral constraints, then so does the rest of life. And I'm QUITE sure no one is ready to take THAT leap of faith. I'm not rally interested in debating these statements. this is my position, has been stated here ad nauseum, has been deabted here macro ad nauseum, and the debate of these points has produced no light, only heat. You asked for clarification, i gave it. Feel free to consider it worth the price you paid for it. [:D]
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 1:32:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2002 1:34:22 PM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By sk8brdnick: Belloc, I think you are out of line. You are free to express your opinions, but it doesn't need to be in an abusive way. Let's keep this flame free.
View Quote
I agree. "C-c-can't we...we...all...g-g-get a-along-g????"
I agree with ARlady, I consider it a child when it is capable of surviving outside a woman's body.
View Quote
Well, consider it a stroke of luck yer mama didn't take the dim view of the unborn that you do. [:D]
With that said, I think abortion is a bad thing.
View Quote
We agree, but I'll go furhter. Not just bad, WRONG.
While I personally don't like it, I think what a woman does with her body is a very personal decision, not one I should make for her.
View Quote
Yup, up until the point where she lay down and spread 'em, and a child resulted. After that, its a whole new ball game.
I feel that rendering abortion illegal would be yet another encroachment of the government into people's personal lives. That is not a place government belongs.
View Quote
I also worry about gov't interference in personal / religious matters. what we need to figger out is IF abortion is really murder. And then we need to decide if the gov't has the right to prohibit murder.
One thing that I find humorous is how many pro-life people see no problem with use of birth control pills. They must be ignorant as to how they work.
View Quote
No, apparently YOU don't understand the process. Birht control prevents conception - i.e. no fetus. Abortion kills a living fetus. BIG difference. Looks like your high school sex ed course was a bust. [:D] Now see what ya did?? You made me violate my "one comment" rule. Oh well - given I beleive in personal responsibility both for chicks who spread 'em AND for myself, I ALONE am to blame for this post. [:D]
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 1:32:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By Renamed:
Originally Posted By garandman: One comment here only - Evolution legitimizes abortion.
View Quote
Why?
View Quote
1. Evolution partly assumes the lack of a soul. Some claim it doens't, but they haven't checked Darwin's writings, are are in denial as to what hard-core evolutionists REALLY beleive re: evolution. Logically next, No soul = animal. And we kill the unwanted animals off all the time, never mind the defective / dangerous ones. 2. Survival of the fittest demands abortion. It is counter productive to let the least fit fetuses live, thereby diluting the gene pool, and lessening the chances of the next evolution of the species. Logically, we should abort them, post haste. Some try to extract evolution out of the realm of right and wrong. They claim you can't apply moral principles to evolution. It just happens that way. But that is a silly argument. If the origin of life and the survival and adaptation of the species exists outside of moral constraints, then so does the rest of life. And I'm QUITE sure no one is ready to take THAT leap of faith. I'm not rally interested in debating these statements. this is my position, has been stated here ad nauseum, has been deabted here macro ad nauseum, and the debate of these points has produced no light, only heat. You asked for clarification, i gave it. Feel free to consider it worth the price you paid for it. [:D]
View Quote
Huh?
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 1:48:45 PM EDT
Ummm, Garandman, I think you sex ed class failed. It's better to know what you are talking about before you flame someone. Here is a link that will explain birth control pills and how they work... http://www.epigee.org/guide/hormonal.html#box
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 1:57:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sk8brdnick: Ummm, Garandman, I think you sex ed class failed.
View Quote
Heh heh heh hehhehehehBWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! LOL A grammarian, sir you are not.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 2:02:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2002 2:04:27 PM EDT by garandman]
Skate board nick - (do you wear a helmet?? [:D] ) From your link - [i]Think "oral contraceptives" prevent conception? Think again. Hormonal methods suppress ovulation much of the time, but scientists recognize that in many cases ovulation continues to occur.[1] Some women who use hormonal methods ovulate every single cycle.[/i][b] So how do hormonal methods prevent conception? That depends on how you define "conception." Although most people think of conception as the joining of egg and sperm to form new life, in some circles the word "conception" has an alternate meaning--the implantation of the embryo into the uterus[/b] Dude - If you re-define enuf words, you can ALWAYS be right in anything you say. The whole civilized world knows that conception = the joining of egg and sperm to form a fetus - 'cept for you and THESE guys. Just cuz you found it on a website DON'T make it true. I REALLY gotta avoid these discussions. REALLY.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 2:04:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: One comment here only - Evolution legitimizes abortion.
View Quote
I am reminded of a cadence we had in the Army... "Here we go again... Same old shit again..."
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 2:06:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By garandman: One comment here only - Evolution legitimizes abortion.
View Quote
I am reminded of a cadence we had in the Army... "Here we go again... Same old shit again..."
View Quote
You are SOOOOOO right. Why do I let myself get sucked into these things.??? I open my big mouth, someone asks for clarification, and off we go. I'll shush now.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 2:12:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2002 2:14:24 PM EDT by RikWriter]
Originally Posted By garandman: 1. Evolution partly assumes the lack of a soul. Some claim it doens't, but they haven't checked Darwin's writings, are are in denial as to what hard-core evolutionists REALLY beleive re: evolution. Logically next, No soul = animal. And we kill the unwanted animals off all the time, never mind the defective / dangerous ones.
View Quote
No. You make the same mistake you ALWAYS make (and since you've been corrected so many times, I have to assume you're simply being willfully ignorant) that evolution=atheism. It does not. Most atheists accept evolution as fact, but then again, so do most Christians. If you want to try to find a place for the soul, all you have to do is say that whenever God decided to do it, he gave one of the proto-human species of hominids a soul. Your problem seems to be that your God isn't big enough. He HAS to pop things into existence like some sort of cheap stage magician. Thankfully, most Christians envision a more complex and thoughtful God than that.
2. Survival of the fittest demands abortion. It is counter productive to let the least fit fetuses live, thereby diluting the gene pool, and lessening the chances of the next evolution of the species. Logically, we should abort them, post haste.
View Quote
And again you repeat your former error. Survival of the fittest isn't a PRESCRIPTION, it's a DESCRIPTION. Just because life works that way in the realm of nature, red in tooth and claw, doesn't mean we have to live our lives that way. We already don't. In fact, one could say that ALL social organizations, from the most primitive animals to humans, are a fight AGAINST survival of the fittest. Evolution is the harsh code of the wild, something we fight against not something we embrace as the ultimate morality. You make the mistake here of equating Social Darwinism (looonnng discredited) with scientific theory.
Some try to extract evolution out of the realm of right and wrong. They claim you can't apply moral principles to evolution. It just happens that way. But that is a silly argument.
View Quote
No, it is your "argument" against it that is not only silly but downright thoughtless.
If the origin of life and the survival and adaptation of the species exists outside of moral constraints, then so does the rest of life.
View Quote
Really? So we should live our life according to nature? You DO know that when a new lion takes over a pride, the first thing he does is kill the offspring of his predecessor, right? Wanna make that part of nature our moral code?
I'm not rally interested in debating these statements.
View Quote
Probably because they are indefensible.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 2:17:38 PM EDT
Whatever Rik. I had thought you were giving me advice to not bother going here (with your SOS post) , but them you throw this barrage at me. Which I'm NOT gonna respond specifically to, like I said. Both our postions are well defined. Why bother re-defining them???
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 2:23:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: I had thought you were giving me advice to not bother going here (with your SOS post) , but them you throw this barrage at me.
View Quote
No, I was not giving you advice, I was merely commenting "here we go again." As I said in my next post, you keep repeating the same wrong statements. It isn't whether you accept evolution or not, but you also simply repeat misstatements about it.
Both our postions are well defined. Why bother re-defining them???
View Quote
It isn't our positions, it's your misstatements of the facts. And I don't mean the scientific facts about evolutionary theory, I mean such things as saying that accepting evolution=atheism when it most CLEARLY does not.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 2:33:05 PM EDT
I feel slighted. Apparently my original post didn't offend [i]anybody[/i]. [}:(]
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 3:14:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2002 3:19:33 PM EDT by sk8brdnick]
Hmmm, a proofreader I am not. I don't wear a helmet, but that hasn't hurt me so far. Soon I will be Dr. sk8brdnick. Garandman, what that web page gives are facts. It is true that birth control pills don't stop conception. I just figured I'd throw in a link because you wouldn't take my word for it. Take your head out of the sand and educate yourself. I really don't understand what you are talking about in your post. That web page indicates that most people define conception as when an egg meets sperm. When a woman takes birth control pills conception still occurs. The birth control pills prevent the fertilized egg (which you have called a fetus) from lodging in the womb. The fertilized egg continues to divide and grow, but it is passed out of the womb during menstrual flow. I'll explain it more simply... If you consider a fertilized egg (or the resulting cluster of cells) to be an unborn child then birth control pills = abortion. I find it funny that you flame my typo, when your posts are so riddled with them...
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 3:27:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sk8brdnick: That web page indicates that most people define conception as when an egg meets sperm. When a woman takes birth control pills conception still occurs. The birth control pills prevent the fertilized egg (which you have called a fetus) from lodging in the womb. The fertilized egg continues to divide and grow, but it is passed out of the womb during menstrual flow.
View Quote
I don't consider a union of sperm cells and eggs prior to lodging in the uterus a child anymore than i consider separated sperm cells and eggs a child. Until they lodge in the wall of the uterus, they are individual cells. to my knowledge, the individual cells REMIAN individual cells UNTIL they lodge in the wall of the uterus. THEN the miracle of life begins. A clump of sperm and egg prior to uterine implantation differs from separate sperm and eggs swimming around ONLY in proximity.
I'll explain it more simply... If you consider a fertilized egg (or the resulting cluster of cells) to be an unborn child then birth control pills = abortion.
View Quote
By this defintion, every sexual encounter that does not result (given my above discussion) in a fetus is an abortion.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 4:08:26 PM EDT
"Fertilization occurs in the uterine tube. How long the zygote remains in the tube is unknown, but it probably reaches the uterine cavity about 72 hours after fertilization. It is nourished during its passage by the secretions from the mucous membrane lining the tube. By the time it reaches the uterus, it has become a mulberry-like solid mass called a morula. A morula is composed of 60 or more cells. As the number of cells in a morula increases, the zygote forms a hollow bubblelike structure, the blastocyst. The blastocyst, nurtured by the uterine secretions, floats free in the uterine cavity for a short time and then is implanted in the uterine lining. Normally, the implantation of the blastocyst occurs in the upper portion of the uterine lining." Translation, the egg is fertilized in the fallopian tube by the time it reaches the uterus in implants, it has already begun the process of becoming a child. I don't know about you guys, but I don't mind my girlfriends using BC pills despite these facts.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 4:30:09 PM EDT
Kbaker, if it will make you feel better, I did find the Heinlein quote a little offensive (and I [i]like[/i] Heinlein):
Much as we may feel and act as individuals, our race is a single organism, always growing and branching -- which must be pruned regularly to be healthy. This necessity need not be argued; anyone with eyes can see that any organism which grows without limit always dies in it's own poisons. The only rational question is whether pruning is best done before or after birth. Being an incurable sentimentalist I favor the former of these methods -- killing makes me queasy, even when it's a case of "He's dead and I'm alive and that's the way I wanted it to be." But this may be a matter of taste. Some shamans think that it is better to be killed in a war, or to die in childbirth, or to starve in misery, than never to have lived at all. They may be right. But I don't have to like it -- and I don't.
View Quote
First of all, the idea that the human race is a "single organism" suggests that individual humans have no real identities and hence no individual rights. Second, the idea of "pruning" begs the question of who will be the pruner and who will be the prunee. Can any person or group of people be trusted to run a eugenics program? Third, abortion (a.k.a. "pruning" before birth) is not the only means of birth control. Contraception and abstinence work, too.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 4:34:42 PM EDT
By this defintion, every sexual encounter that does not result (given my above discussion) in a fetus is an abortion.
View Quote
No, because every sexual encounter does not result in the union of an egg with sperm.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 4:36:05 PM EDT
Rik(accurately)Writes
I am reminded of a cadence we had in the Army... "Here we go again... Same old shit again..."
View Quote
to that I'll add...round up the usual suspects.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 4:39:31 PM EDT
Fine, you pro abortion folks want to play? I will post exactly the way you do. Given: You are my next door neighbor, once per hour you shout. You tell me that no matter what you will shout outside my window for the next 9 months, getting louder each day. The shouting bothers me. No one, no police, no lawyer or judge can stop you. The only way to stop you is to kill you, or I can wait out the nine months and ask you to move and you will. Without reference to any law of man whatsoever, any law of God, including the bible, any code of physican ethics from any era, and any constitution or other basic rights document, convince me not to kill you. That, in a nutshell, is every single one of your pro-abortion arguments.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 4:44:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2002 4:53:18 PM EDT by TheHappyBlaster]
Originally Posted By Renamed:
As much as some people would love to argue, the unborn isn't distinguishable from the mother until a certain point.
View Quote
Isn't the unborn child genetically unique from the moment of conception?
View Quote
Amen. Do a DNA test on a pregnant woman, & one on the"nonviable tissue mass"(they make it sound like a tumor or something, on purpose) and you will get two different results. So much for the"it's MY body, I can do what I want with it" argument. edited cause if I don't fix my spelling, Garandman will abort me[:)]
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 5:06:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Happyshooter: Fine, you pro abortion folks want to play? I will post exactly the way you do. Given: You are my next door neighbor, once per hour you shout. You tell me that no matter what you will shout outside my window for the next 9 months, getting louder each day. The shouting bothers me. No one, no police, no lawyer or judge can stop you. The only way to stop you is to kill you, or I can wait out the nine months and ask you to move and you will. Without reference to any law of man whatsoever, any law of God, including the bible, any code of physican ethics from any era, and any constitution or other basic rights document, convince me not to kill you. That, in a nutshell, is every single one of your pro-abortion arguments.
View Quote
Let's change that just a little bit, and say you're the landlord. Now what?
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 5:09:01 PM EDT
Happyshooter and Happyblaster, I think you are missing the point of this discussion entirely. No one is arguing that killing a human is wrong, but what is being argued is when a lump of tissue becomes a human. This is not a simple question to answer. The instant an egg and sperm unite there is all the information needed to make a human. At the same time a flake of dandruff also contains all the info needed to make a human being. A fetus has the ability to grow into a person, yet for a period of time the fetus has gills and is hermaphrodytic. This is not a question that can easily be answered unless you hide behind some fundamentalist bullsh*t response. Genetic differentiation from the mother does not equal humanity, by this argument cancerous tumors deserve to be preserved. Also, genetic differentiation occurs before conception. The eggs in a woman ovaries and the sperm between your legs only contains a portion of your DNA. Each one is different.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 5:16:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Happyshooter: That, in a nutshell, is every single one of your pro-abortion arguments.
View Quote
Sorry Happy, that is not every single argument. Many people, me included, have personal ties to the subject. Fact is you can not just make a blanket statement like you did because your wrong.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 5:18:36 PM EDT
Let's change that just a little bit, and say you're the landlord. Now what?
View Quote
Fine, and it will take nine months for an evection order, and the neighbor won't leave at all while still alive before that, no matter what.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 5:24:15 PM EDT
Ohhh...and I just want to make sure we all know what we are arguing about. Any baby put up for adoption without a crack problem is going to be snatched up by a loving family in seconds. Therefore, we (America) are killing babies in order to spare women: 1: Having a sick tummy once per morning for a month. 2: Putting on weight for 3-4 months, ending up perhaps 30 pounds heavier than they were. 3: Having rude people be able to guess for 2-3 months that they don't know how the pill or a condom works. 4: Having to take a pain killer and push for an hour or two, or undergo rather simple surgery. 5: Having their primary sexual organ be loose for a month or two. We are killing babies for those reasons, and those reasons alone.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 5:26:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: What is the characteristic of the birth process that changes the primary character of the mass in question from a fetus/nonperson before birth, to a baby/person after birth? Exactly where in the [b]process[/b] of birth does this transformation take place?
View Quote
Dear Mr. Mass in Question: Your question relies on the premise that there IS some point BEYOND than the fact of conception, where there is a "transformation" to personhood. In other words, you're "begging the question" with the preumption that conception does not itself mark the creation of a person. I reject your premise. Therefore the question is moot.
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 6:04:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 6:12:55 PM EDT
Let's then presume that this increasingly loud and obnoxious person is living in a room in your house. And let's say they don't bathe regularly, refuse to get a job to support themselves, have annoying friends with no visible means of support, and eat you out of house and home at every opportunity. You suspect illicit drug use, and the music they listen to is enough to make you grind the enamel off your teeth. I'd say "kill 'em and bury them in the backyard." Or at least, send them to college in a town far away. Teenagers! Ha! How do any of us ever survive adolescence? [:D]
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 6:17:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sk8brdnick: Happyshooter and Happyblaster, I think you are missing the point of this discussion entirely. No one is arguing that killing a human is wrong, but what is being argued is when a lump of tissue becomes a human. This is not a simple question to answer. The instant an egg and sperm unite there is all the information needed to make a human. At the same time a flake of dandruff also contains all the info needed to make a human being. A fetus has the ability to grow into a person, yet for a period of time the fetus has gills and is hermaphrodytic. This is not a question that can easily be answered unless you hide behind some fundamentalist bullsh*t response. Genetic differentiation from the mother does not equal humanity, by this argument cancerous tumors deserve to be preserved. Also, genetic differentiation occurs before conception. The eggs in a woman ovaries and the sperm between your legs only contains a portion of your DNA. Each one is different.
View Quote
As for genetic differentiation- Your talking to a guy who knows from experience what stage 3 metastasis is all about. None of my tumors had their own heartbeat or measurable brain wave activity. Also, the genetic code present in sperm or ovum may be incomplete, but after fertilization, a 100% complete, unique, individual, never happened before in the history of the world human genetic blueprint is present. The burning question is, as always, "when does it become a person". The debate rages on.....
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top