Abortion Unfiltered

Virgil° wrote: »

If it isnt bloody there then how could it possibly be working?
Your edit makes no sense,is a human "fully human" without a brain?
Im kinda half considering stepping out of this thread till either Zulu or Vimes come into it.
So far weve had people stating that they knew their children were humans in their wombs from no other source of information than their own conviction it seems.And i dont feel like picking holes in that sort of emotional twaddle.

No problem.:cool:

No isn't it called something else like a zygote or a blatocyst or some other word?

Clair Robinson wrote: »

Should I have said working at full capacity? In terms of feelings, pain, memory, emotions.

By the sixth week the brain stem is fully functional thus being able to feel pain. But I question the feeling pain point. I have a cousin who was in a horrible car accident a few years back and can no longer feel pain. Other than that and also not having the sense of smell she is perfectly fine. So this pain thing should be thrown out.

Virgil° wrote: »

Of course it did. Thats what we call emotion. Not logic im afraid.

What? You are saying that even if they look human they are not human? So please tell me what was she?

Clair Robinson wrote: »

No isn't it called something else like a zygote or a blatocyst or some other word?

Makes sense to me.That way we wont go confusing embryos with the humans we see walking about their daily lives every day wont we? Most of us anyway.

Ultravid wrote: »

Is that a fact? It reads like one... Source please?

Hmm I thought I read it in my bio text book... It doesn't cover human life cycle... Sorry I'm in botany so all this is really a don't really need to know subject for me...

Clair Robinson wrote: »

No isn't it called something else like a zygote or a blatocyst or some other word?

There are different names for all kinds of stages of life they are there for us to classify and understand those stages. Zygote, fetus, infant, toddler, youth, pre-teen, teenager, young adult, adult, middle age, elderly.

nogac wrote: »

What? You are saying that even if they look human they are not human? So please tell me what was she?

Yes something that looks human is not inherently human. Thats kinda common sense.
When it was an "embryo" without a brain it was human cells but not a person. I dont agree with abortion once the brain has formed or is in the process of forming.

Virgil° wrote: »

Makes sense to me.That way we wont go confusing embryos with the humans we see walking about their daily lives every day wont we? Most of us anyway.

Yea totaly, that does annoy me about science. autosome and sex chromosome... really did we really have to go there couldn't we just have said chromosomes and sex cromosomes... no.... do you know what an autosome is A CHROMOSOME THAT IS NOT A SEX CHROMOSOME..... =.=

But i still love science, and i understand why we need all the names, so we are not confused...

Phototoxin

So now we're killing humans but not people ?

Abortions still occur when there is a brain.

Also if a person is brain dead in a coma then according to you they are dead. So how come they aren't ?

Virgil° wrote: »

Yes something that looks human is not inherently human. Thats kinda common sense.
When it was an "embryo" without a brain it was human cells but not a person. I dont agree with abortion once the brain has formed or is in the process of forming.

You do understand that there are people who are born without a brain and they are still called people.

Ultravid

bluewolf wrote: »

Because we don't believe it is a person.

Ah. So you don't believe it's a person, therefore you can kill it. I see where you are coming from but it disturbs me.

If I was to say I believe that rape is fine, would you be ok with that?

Virgil° wrote: »

Yes something that looks human is not inherently human. Thats kinda common sense.
When it was an "embryo" without a brain it was human cells but not a person. I dont agree with abortion once the brain has formed or is in the process of forming.

Yes but if the mothers life is in grave danger shouldn't it be okay? Shouldn't we weigh up the intrinsic values of the two?

Phototoxin wrote: »

So now we're killing humans but not people ?

Abortions still occur when there is a brain.

Also if a person is brain dead in a coma then according to you they are dead. So how come they aren't ?

Human life. I dont agree with abortions after the brain forms.Ive said that from the start.
Go have a conversation with a brain dead person, and get back to me as to how it goes.
And a brain dead person wont survive for long without life support so make it quick!!!

Phototoxin wrote: »

So now we're killing humans but not people ?

Abortions still occur when there is a brain.

Also if a person is brain dead in a coma then according to you they are dead. So how come they aren't ?

Because they may come out of a coma

Virgil - at what point do you think abortion should be deemed illeagle and are there other paramters that overide that for you?

You know I'm really just waiting for the anti abortion people to bring up thier version of god, becuase thats where this always ends up. And considering the major opposition, I'm going to guess a form of Chritianity, lets go with the major ones Catholic of Prodestant?

Are there any completely anti abortion (from moment of conception) people that aren't relegious? Becuase for everyone else this question is very grey and is very difficult to figure out as it is not so black and white.

Zulu

bluewolf wrote: »

Human dna, not a person. Nobody is questioning the human aspect of things, rather the personhood, although the two get muddled here and there

So you acknowledge that the unborn child is human, just not a person.

What do you consider a "person" then? Because the dictionary defines the word as: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. So you'll need to forgive anyone else for being confused

Source

Clair Robinson wrote: »

Virgil - at what point do you think abortion should be deemed illeagle and are there other paramters that overide that for you?

I think abortion should be illegal at the point where the brain begins to develop the parts of it required for higher brain function and ergo the formation of consciousness. Aferwards i would err on the side of life in most cases.
Barring perhaps rape and the mothers life being endangered.....

Ultravid - You didn't adress my previous post about 4 pages back - What about nature bieng the greatest abortionist of all?

Zulu wrote: »

So you acknowledge that the unborn child is human, just not a person.

What do you consider a "person" then? Because the dictionary defines the word as: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. So you'll need to forgive anyone else for being confused

Source

Oh thank christ youre here!!!!!!!!.
The dictionary also doesnt define abortion as murder though.

Phototoxin

Yes but only minutely different DNA. And some people do infact eat other people, it's called canabalism. But in civilised socities we do not canabalise. And in the future I'm sure we will all be vegaterians, it's just the way of future civilisations to be more empathetic....

Its still different, my point is valid, als re: cannibalism, i was referring to our society. Its not considered acceptableto eat people.

Hmm I thought I read it in my bio text book... It doesn't cover human life cycle... Sorry I'm in botany so all this is really a don't really need to know subject for me...

plants are alive surely.. they repoduce, respond to stimuli & move, react to their environment, they respire and excrete waste. So who is to say that an embryo isnt alive as it does these things too.

Could you please quote where anybody said a fetus before brain development was dead.

Well if they aren't alive because they have no brain then they must be dead.

Because they may come out of a coma

and the child may be born, yet how come it is more permissible to kill them ?

Originally Posted by Ultravid View Post
Ah. So you don't believe it's a person, therefore you can kill it. I see where you are coming from.

If I was to say I believe that rape is fine, would you be ok with that?
Do you want to demonstrate to me how there's any link between the two.

[please don't tell me you think 'x is not a person' is an arbitrary assumption and therefore any crime can be commited based on this,

but people who believe it is ok to abort babies think it is ok and there is nothing wrong. Similarly some rapists think that what they do is ok therefore there is nothing wrong with it. It is an arbitary assumption as the definition of a person is still being debated on the thread

Virgil° wrote: »

I think abortion should be illegal at the point where the brain begins to develop the parts of it required for higher brain function and ergo the formation of consciousness. Aferwards i would err on the side of life in most cases.
Barring perhaps rape and the mothers life being endangered.....

And i completely agree with you. How many weeks roughly is this point in time?

Phototoxin

Technically the brain is coded to develop upon fertilisation so all of it is progressing towards developing a human complete with brain. By interupting it befre the brain is regonisable is still stopping the brain as the other parts must be in place before hand

Clair Robinson wrote: »

You know I'm really just waiting for the anti abortion people to bring up thier version of god, becuase thats where this always ends up. And considering the major opposition, I'm going to guess a form of Chritianity, lets go with the major ones Catholic of Prodestant?

Are there any completely anti abortion (from moment of conception) people that aren't relegious? Becuase for everyone else this question is very grey and is very difficult to figure out as it is not so black and white.

There are lots here is a website for one.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Phototoxin wrote: »

Its still different, my point is valid, als re: cannibalism, i was referring to our society. Its not considered acceptableto eat people.

plants are alive surely.. they repoduce, respond to stimuli & move, react to their environment, they respire and excrete waste. So who is to say that an embryo isnt alive as it does these things too.

and the child may be born, yet how come it is more permissible to kill them ?

I didn't mean to imply that an embryo isn't alive, a single cell is alive, even virus' are "alive". But we kill and eat all those other things. Like i said a few pages ago, Does it think, have a conciousness and does it feel pain? You are comparing an embryo to a plant... perfect... then you should realise why it is plausable for us to abort one....

Does the child have memories and dependents? Does the child have alot already invested in it?

Zulu

Clair Robinson wrote: »

You know I'm really just waiting for the anti abortion people to bring up thier version of god, becuase thats where this always ends up.

Funny how it's always "pro choice" that bring religion into it. :rolleyes:
So what if someone is religious - that is their right. Why do you seek to ridicule them? Where's all your "live & let live" now?

Are there any completely anti abortion (from moment of conception) people that aren't relegious?

Yes. Me for one.

Becuase for everyone else this question is very grey and is very difficult to figure out as it is not so black and white.

It's very black and white for me.

Clair Robinson wrote: »

I didn't mean to imply that an embryo isn't alive, a single cell is alive, even virus' are "alive". But we kill and eat all those other things. Like i said a few pages ago, Does it think, have a conciousness and does it feel pain? You are comparing an embryo to a plant... perfect... then you should realise why it is plausable for us to abort one....

Does the child have memories and dependents? Does the child have alot already invested in it?

Here is a video that shows exactly what a fetus does during its short stay in the womb. It is rather amazing.

nogac wrote: »

There are lots here is a website for one.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Wow who ever thought.... Are they against all abortions (can't seem to locate an exact position just "pro-life", hell i'm pro life who isnt?, for or against abortion and specifically what is what I want to know). Even that of single cells and blatocysts, against stem cell research?

Clair Robinson wrote: »

Wow who ever thought.... Are they against all abortions (can't seem to locate an exact position just "pro-life", hell i'm pro life who isnt?, for or against abortion and specifically what is what I want to know). Even that of single cells and blatocysts, against stem cell research?

They are against all abortions.