Do you find these billboards offensive?

Zulu

28064212 wrote: »

So if a fertilised egg is "aborted" before it could potentially have become two lives, is that the ending of one life or two? If I can point back to my conception and say "yep, that's the official point at which I became a person", what do twins do?

apologies, I've been drinkin', but so what? I'm trying to avoid the loss of life - 1,2, or 10. Frankly if 1 life becomes 500 after conception I'm ok with that. My problem is with killing of that one life (of that 500 lives (??)).

Everyone deserves the right to life. Irregardless of their physical maturity.

robman60

28064212 wrote: »

So if a fertilised egg is "aborted" before it could potentially have become two lives, is that the ending of one life or two? If I can point back to my conception and say "yep, that's the official point at which I became a person", what do twins do?

One life, in my opinion. I think the second twin would look to division as the point at which he or she came into existence.

Every fertilised egg could potentially become two lives, but I think it's non-sensical to treat every fertilised egg as "potential twins".

The reasoning people say both twins lives start at conception is because the division is ultimately the result of conception, but as a firmly pro-life person I don't take this view.

philologos

28064212 wrote: »

So if a fertilised egg is "aborted" before it could potentially have become two lives, is that the ending of one life or two? If I can point back to my conception and say "yep, that's the official point at which I became a person", what do twins do?

It is a life. That life becomes two lives.

It is silly to suggest that it is not alive despite exhibiting growth and development.

The problem I have with the pro-choice side of this argument is that they continually lie about the state of the embryo. If they were willing to accept, yes it is a human life, but under circumstances we think killing that life is acceptable, it would move the discussion on considerably.

fasttalkerchat

philologos wrote: »

You're denying its a human life here.

Yes...



My finger is human and is alive. It isn't a human life.

Piste

philologos wrote: »

It is a life. That life becomes two lives.

It is silly to suggest that it is not alive despite exhibiting growth and development.

The problem I have with the pro-choice side of this argument is that they continually lie about the state of the embryo. If they were willing to accept, yes it is a human life, but under circumstances we think killing that life is acceptable, it would move the discussion on considerably.

I think there is a considerable bulk of pro-choice people who believe the embryo is alive, but believe that the life is less valuable than that of an independent human, and that the rights of a woman to bodily autonomy outweigh the right of the embryo/fetus to continued life. Of course there are those as well who believe that a fetus/embryo isn't alive.

jupiterjack

no not a bit offensive, why was this thread started OP?

Millicent

jupiterjack wrote: »

no not a bit offensive, why was this thread started OP?

Just a guess, but because the OP finds them offensive?

sbsquarepants

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness can someone give me a defintion of human?

I'd say zulu is your go to guy for that one:D

robman60 wrote: »

One life, in my opinion. I think the second twin would look to division as the point at which he or she came into existence.

Every fertilised egg could potentially become two lives, but I think it's non-sensical to treat every fertilised egg as "potential twins".

The reasoning people say both twins lives start at conception is because the division is ultimately the result of conception, but as a firmly pro-life person I don't take this view.

Which twin was granted life first, and which was the after thought?

There is a very good ted talk, by a guy called Martin Hanczyc, for anybody interested in the line between what's actually alive and what's not. It's not specifically about humans beings or when a bundle of cells becomes a person or anything - just life and non life in general. I for one found it fascinating. It appears that the line is not as clear cut as seems intuitive to us (fancy that, human intuition not being spot on!).
You can find it here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life.html

Shenshen

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'd say zulu is your go to guy for that one:D

Which twin was granted life first, and which was the after thought?

There is a very good ted talk, by a guy called Martin Hanczyc, for anybody interested in the line between what's actually alive and what's not. It's not specifically about humans beings or when a bundle of cells becomes a person or anything - just life and non life in general. I for one found it fascinating. It appears that the line is not as clear cut as seems intuitive to us (fancy that, human intuition not being spot on!).
You can find it here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life.html

I always think that since we declare a person dead once their brain activity stops, surely it only makes sense to consider them alive only once they do have brain activity (around the 3rd month of the pregnancy, if I'm not mistaken).

Ms.M

I don't think they're offensive. I think it's good to present the strongest argument for and against abortion because at least people get to consider them and come to their own conclusions. In the haze that is an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy you're not going to be able to think straight. Better to consider the extremes then than in a couple of years down the line when you might think "I wish I'd waited" or "I wish I hadn't had an abortion."
A lot of people who find themselves in this position are young and probably never developed strong opinions on abortion. No point hiding peoples views on it I say!

Zulu

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Which twin was granted life first, and which was the after thought?

Isn't that a red herring though? Those the oppose abortion do so because they are trying to protect life. How many lives develop in the womb won't change their outlook on protecting that life/lives.

I for one found it fascinating.

I'll check it out later - thanks.

It appears that the line is not as clear cut as seems intuitive to us

Sounds like it the very reason I'd be against abortion.

28064212

Zulu wrote: »

Isn't that a red herring though? Those the oppose abortion do so because they are trying to protect life. How many lives develop in the womb won't change their outlook on protecting that life/lives.

It's because they've chosen this exact point as the moment someone "exists", with all the rights that implies. But it doesn't work like that if you take twins into consideration. There's no "exists/doesn't exist" switch. There's no single point that every person on the planet can claim to have existed from. Conception is as arbitrary a point as implantation, or the start of brain activity.

Zulu

28064212 wrote: »

It's because they've chosen this exact point as the moment someone "exists", with all the rights that implies.

The salient point is that they are trying to protect that life. So whether or not there are 1, 2, or 10 lives, the lives aren't destroyed.

The logic that: well they are wrong with their checkpoint, in the event of identical twins, so they're wrong elsewhere doesn't really hold up.

I object to abortion because no one can clarify exactly when the "human being" becomes a "human being". We know "roughly" when, but not exactly. So I err on the side of caution. I don't believe killing another person is a reasonable outcome unless your very existence is under real threat.

WolfgangWeisen

The only thing that offends me about them is that they're a reminder that our modern, progressive society still has a portion of oxygen thieves who accept scientific/medical discoveries and knowledge when it suits their agenda and reject it when it doesn't.

sbsquarepants

Shenshen wrote: »

I always think that since we declare a person dead once their brain activity stops, surely it only makes sense to consider them alive only once they do have brain activity (around the 3rd month of the pregnancy, if I'm not mistaken).

There are people out there who don't accept brain death as actual death (like in the case of Terri Schiavo). I'm certainly not one of them, but they do exist. I don't neccesarilly agree with your point, but i only really differ in semantics - they are alive i think since conception, in fact possibly even before (eggs are alive, sperm are alive), but they certainly aren't people. Beginning of brain activity seems like a good possible point where we change from just a potential into an actual human being?

Zulu wrote: »

Isn't that a red herring though? Those the oppose abortion do so because they are trying to protect life. How many lives develop in the womb won't change their outlook on protecting that life/lives.
I'll check it out later - thanks.
Sounds like it the very reason I'd be against abortion.

It's not really a red herring. Were do you draw the line for protecting "life" and what exactly is that "life". It's a fairly arbitrary line, the embryo is alive but it certainly is not a human being. Just like a seperate sperm or egg is alive - but masturbation is not murder! Or is it? Some people would probably say it is.

Ps - the vid is well worth a watch!

old hippy

philologos wrote: »

Get as offended as you like. If you're that easily offended surely it is an inevitability that someone will offend you at some point.

The facts of the matter is that there is a human life in the womb from conception. As a result of that, I cannot justifiably offer a reason for killing that human life as a matter of a mere choice.

If it was just a woman, and just her body, then I'd be all for abortion. Since it involves the killing of a human life, I can't justify it.

It's not that complicated.

Your "facts". To others it's a non sentient zygote.

Zulu

old hippy wrote: »

To others it's a non sentient zygote.

...which isn't human life?

I'm struggling here, you can't be claiming its alien life?

old hippy

Zulu wrote: »

...which isn't human life?

I'm struggling here, you can't be claiming its alien life?

It's life, Jim but not as we know it

blacklilly

Zulu wrote: »

old hippy wrote: »

To others it's a non sentient zygote.

...which isn't human life?

I'm struggling here, you can't be claiming its alien life?

No one can argue that this isn't human life however the pro choice side deem it to be life that isn't worth protecting. They continue to use phrases such as " bunch of cells." In order to dehumanise the embryo/fetu. If human life does not begin a conception then please tell me when it does. Also when is this bunch of cells worth protecting?
A new born is not able to survive by itself and is totally dependable on others, does that mean its life is not worth protecting.

There are some pro choice persons who believe infanticide is acceptable, as it has been pointed out that it takes a number of weeks for a new born to become self conscious and moves from being a potential person to a person, I find this argument not only utterly stupid but devoid of any level of basic human rights

old hippy

There are some pro life persons who believe bombing clinics and murdering doctors is acceptable, there ya go

Life, life is so precious :rolleyes::rolleyes:

blacklilly

old hippy wrote: »

There are some pro life persons who believe bombing clinics and murdering doctors is acceptable, there ya go

Life, life is so precious :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well if you believe the unborn life is not worth protecting as it is dependable on the mother surely a the next logical step in your argument is that a new norms life is also not worth protecting?

blacklilly

old hippy wrote: »

There are some pro life persons who believe bombing clinics and murdering doctors is acceptable, there ya go

Life, life is so precious :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well if you believe the unborn life is not worth protecting as it is dependable on the mother surely a the next logical step in your argument is that a new borns life is also not worth protecting?

Zulu

Perhaps it'll be more productive if we don't try to put words into each others mouths?

old hippy

Zulu wrote: »

Perhaps it'll be more productive if we don't try to put words into each others mouths?

That's why I passionately believe in taking precautions

Zulu

What?

philologos

old hippy wrote: »

There are some pro life persons who believe bombing clinics and murdering doctors is acceptable, there ya go

Life, life is so precious :rolleyes::rolleyes:

And that represents my position how?

Posts like these can't be considered much more than trolling. It is because I'm pro-life that I reject bombing abortion clinics or murdering abortionists funnily enough.

Now to my previous post - Yes, it is biologically true that the embryo is a human life. The sentinence argument is an argument based on development. Essentially because life X is younger and less developed than Y therefore Y has the right to kill it.

It's an arbitrary pointer. I could equally say that someone doesn't become truly alive until they can juggle 1024 bananas, whilst riding a unicycle up Mt Snowdon and playing Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik on a violin in the height of winter.

Thankfully, we do have biological fact to back up that the embryo is alive so we don't need to get into arbitrary standards such as these.

28064212

philologos wrote: »

And that represents my position how?

It was obviously a parody reply to this genuine ridiculous post

blacklilly wrote: »

There are some pro choice persons who believe infanticide is acceptable

laoch na mona

im anti abortion and even i don't like these ads

robman60

28064212 wrote: »

It was obviously a parody reply to this genuine ridiculous post

The poster is actually correct that some pro-choice people believe in infanticide, except these people prefer the term "after birth abortion".

See here: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

28064212

robman60 wrote: »

The poster is actually correct that some pro-choice people believe in infanticide, except these people prefer the term "after birth abortion".

See here: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

You couldn't have missed the point any more if you tried.

Yes, I'm sure some pro-choice people believe in infanticide. I'm also sure some of them are actual murderers, and I'm sure some of them don't wash their hands after going to the bathroom. I'm equally sure that some on the pro-life side have bombed clinics, beaten pregnant teens and, on occasion, gone over the speed limit.

None of that has any bearing on the discussion