Abortion Unfiltered

Ultravid · 18-09-2008 1:42pm

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?

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 1:42pm

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?

Virgil° · 18-09-2008 1:42pm

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!!!

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 1:43pm

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

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 1:46pm

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

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 1:50pm

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 · 18-09-2008 1:50pm

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

Virgil° · 18-09-2008 1:51pm

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.....

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 1:51pm

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

Virgil° · 18-09-2008 1:52pm

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 · 18-09-2008 1:53pm

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

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 1:54pm

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 · 18-09-2008 1:56pm

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

nogac · 18-09-2008 1:59pm

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

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 1:59pm

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 · 18-09-2008 2:02pm

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.

nogac · 18-09-2008 2:03pm

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.

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 2:05pm

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?

nogac · 18-09-2008 2:06pm

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.

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 2:06pm

Zulu wrote: »

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?
Yes. Me for one.
It's very black and white for me.

Really so you think a single cell is a human? Are you against stem cell research?

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 2:10pm

nogac wrote: »

They are against all abortions.

Wow... this is kinda blowing my mind right now... I mean if you don't have religious doctrine... I naturally assumed that all the anti stem cell research and total anti abortion people were just trying to find ways to justify what there religion told them was wrong without thinking about it for themselves.... I mean there is no way a single cell can be a human... I mean its just a cell...

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 2:18pm

Maybe you need a more comprehensive understanding of biology, understand exactly what a cell is?

So Zulu, doctors suggest the mother should abort the fetus for reason X she has an 80% probability of X complications and can die as a result, she has 2 children already, a husband, 2 brothers 3 sisters and both her parents are still alive.... And they would all miss her sorely... what should she do? And should she be put in jail for doing it becuase she had to do it in the back of an alley?

Black and White? - Nothing is every black and white.... It's all different shades of gray...

Ultravid · 18-09-2008 2:19pm

nogac wrote: »

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

It surely is. I challenge any of you to watch that short video, and tell me that that was not a human person featured in the video. I'm off out now, I'll check back later!

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 2:23pm

Ultravid wrote: »

It surely is. I challenge any of you to watch that short video, and tell me that that was not a human person featured in the video. I'm off out now, I'll check back later!

I would not consider all stages featured in that video a human person.

Zulu · 18-09-2008 2:47pm

Clair Robinson wrote: »

What about nature bieng the greatest abortionist of all?

What about it? As you implying that we should follow natures example?

Virgil° wrote: »

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

Ah, but it doesn't have too. I'm just looking to clarify what's a person (as it was brought up).

bluewolf wrote: »

As for what I consider a person, that's always iffy, but I do say it's not a person without a developed brain

Well that's your call. I'd prefer to live in a society that wasn't that elitist.

Clair Robinson wrote: »

Really

Yes, really. Why, whats your persuasion? Let me guess, atheist (sic).

so you think a single cell is a human?

Clearly not, it's a single cell. Perhaps it's a human cell though? You weren't that clear.

Are you against stem cell research?

We are discussing abortion, right? Are you against acts of homosexual necrophilia in duck populations?

Phototoxin · 18-09-2008 2:51pm

In that case - can you please quote where anyone said a fetus was not alive (as opposed to not being a person etc).

it was implied by Claire :

I didn't mean to imply that an embryo isn't alive,

so dont be pedantic

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

me, thats two. Also only people for abortion have raised religon. Why do they do that ? Is it to brand pro-lifers as religous nutters and so then thier consciounces can dismiss it all that much quicker ? They are completely seperate issues.

Really so you think a single cell is a human? Are you against stem cell research?

I am not against stem cell reseach provided the stem cells are not from unborn children. One can obtain stem cells from the umbilical cord and indeed even normal cells can be engineered into stem cells. The BBC had an article (I can look for it if you want) wherein the founder of embryonic stem cell research said that there was no need to use embryos now, as the stem cells can be manufactured without having to go down the route where ethics began to kick in. They can program reguar cells to behave like stem cells. Then again a lot of it is money, stem cells are big bucks.

I would not consider all stages featured in that video a human person.

what bout some of them ? Which ones ? If it's the end ones then surely it comes from the former ones so it must be human ?

Its like saying a baby isnt a person because it crawls. It is just a different stage of development.

Zulu · 18-09-2008 2:52pm

Clair Robinson wrote: »

So Zulu, doctors suggest the mother should abort the fetus for reason X she has an 80% probability of X complications and can die as a result

Doctors currently carry out abortions where the mothers life is in risk.

she has 2 children already, a husband, 2 brothers 3 sisters and both her parents are still alive.... And they would all miss her sorely... what should she do? And should she be put in jail for doing it becuase she had to do it in the back of an alley?

Well, if she broke the law - yes.

Black and White? - Nothing is every black and white.... It's all different shades of gray...

Break the law - pay the price. Abide by the law and don't.

Black and white to me.

Ultimately, in my opinion, killing is wrong. Therefore abortion is wrong. That's why it's black and white.

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 3:03pm

Zulu wrote: »

What about it? As you implying that we should follow natures example?

No No, God no.

Yes, really. Why, whats your persuasion? Let me guess, atheist (sic).
Clearly not, it's a single cell. Perhaps it's a human cell though? You weren't that clear.
We are discussing abortion, right? Are you against acts of homosexual necrophilia in duck populations?

Okay so a single cell with human DNA is not a person. At what stage is it a person and why? Why do we call it a person. For me it's the same point as Virgil. Why do you believe otherwise?

Well stem cell research is conducted on single cell fertilized humans. I was just curious as to your position on it.

No actually i'm not... the duck is dead right?

Not really an atheist, just not religious. Does that make me an atheist?

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 3:06pm

Zulu wrote: »

Doctors currently carry out abortions where the mothers life is in risk.
Well, if she broke the law - yes.
Break the law - pay the price. Abide by the law and don't.

Black and white to me.

Ultimately, in my opinion, killing is wrong. Therefore abortion is wrong. That's why it's black and white.

I don't think killing is wrong, I think killing higher level consciousness is wrong. Are you a vegetarian Zulu?

And your right if it is against the law your right, luckly it isn't, but where it is it shouldn't be.

So by black and white for you it is more a question of whether a societies laws allow it or not?

Zulu · 18-09-2008 3:13pm

Clair Robinson wrote: »

I don't think killing is wrong, I think killing higher level consciousness is wrong. Are you a vegetarian Zulu?

Absolutely not, but I'm not a cannibal, so I've no moral problems there.

And your right if it is against the law your right, luckly it isn't, but where it is it shouldn't be.

Not quite sure I follow you. It is against the law here.

So by black and white for you it is more a question of whether a societies laws allow it or not?

Well no, but by and large they are the same. In this instance - killing people is wrong.
So abortion is wrong.

It's a very simple equation really.
Do you believe killing people is ok?

Virgil° · 18-09-2008 3:21pm

Zulu wrote: »

Absolutely not, but I'm not a cannibal, so I've no moral problems there.

Ahh but why do you not have a moral dilemma here? IM not saying you should btw. But why is it you classify it ok to kill and eat animals and not humans? What is it that separates them other than the fact that one is human and one is an animal?
Their higher brain functions being the most important difference perhaps?

killing people is wrong.
So abortion is wrong.

It's a very simple equation really.
Do you believe killing people is ok?

I beleive that killing people without ANY higher brain function is ok because for me they arent really a person(important human life) without such. Which is why i deem it ok to abort a foetus without any higher brain function(it doesnt have this at conception).
The other arguement that pro life would have here is that the embryo has the potential to gain higher brain function. But put bluntly that doesnt matter to me. However it does to pro-life and thats where the two sides will NEVER give.

Zulu · 18-09-2008 3:29pm

Virgil° wrote: »

Ahh but why do you not have a moral dilemma here? IM not saying you should btw. But why is it you classify it ok to kill and eat animals and not humans? What is it that separates them other than the fact that one is human and one is an animal?
Their higher brain functions perhaps?

Well, I don't expect people to kill and eat me, and I treat them as I want to be treated.
However, I do expect animals to kill and eat me, and I also acknowledge that it would be very very foolish of me to give them the benefit of the doubt, therefore I don't extend the same expectation to them that I do to people/humans.
So, they're fair game.

I beleive that killing people without ANY higher brain function is ok because for me they arent really a person without such.

I don't. I wouldn't shoot a person with no brain, neither would I eat them. Let me clarify something for you. Where I'm not sure: I give the benefit of the doubt. A person with no brain, is still however a person, so I'd be uncomfortable killing them.

Which is why i deem it ok to abort a foetus without any higher brain function(it doesnt have this at conception).

And which is why I don't.

The other arguement that pro life would have here is that the embryo has the potential to gain higher brain function. But put bluntly that doesnt matter to me. However it does to pro-life and thats where the two sides will NEVER give.

That only really matters if you acknowledge "higher brain function" as proof of person. I don't.

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 3:29pm

Zulu wrote: »

Absolutely not, but I'm not a cannibal, so I've no moral problems there.
Not quite sure I follow you. It is against the law here.
Well no, but by and large they are the same. In this instance - killing people is wrong.
So abortion is wrong.

It's a very simple equation really.
Do you believe killing people is ok?

Like Virgil said why do you have no quams with eating and killing for other reasons (say clothing) other animals but you can't seem to let go a collection of cells with human DNA without considering it murder?

Why do you consider a baltocyst or a zygote as a fully fledged person? Why do you think a single cell with human DNA should be avowed the same status as a fully grown human with memories, feelings, emotions, hopes, fears etc... You get the jist....

In Australia you can abort up to 24 week (which i think is to far...) and even up to the full term if given an okay by two medical professionals. Or did that not pass the senate (or not yet). Either way you can still get one up to a certain stage in the pregnancy.

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 3:33pm

Zulu wrote: »

Well, I don't expect people to kill and eat me, and I treat them as I want to be treated.
However, I do expect animals to kill and eat me, and I also acknowledge that it would be very very foolish of me to give them the benefit of the doubt, therefore I don't extend the same expectation to them that I do to people/humans.
So, they're fair game.

What about plants and herbivorous?

Virgil° · 18-09-2008 3:47pm

Zulu wrote: »

Well, I don't expect people to kill and eat me, and I treat them as I want to be treated.
However, I do expect animals to kill and eat me, and I also acknowledge that it would be very very foolish of me to give them the benefit of the doubt, therefore I don't extend the same expectation to them that I do to people/humans.

We eat cows, sheep, pigs all the time. They arent inherently carnivorous, so they wouldnt eat people. Have you at all times afforded them these rights?

Zulu wrote: »

I don't. I wouldn't shoot a person with no brain, neither would I eat them. Let me clarify something for you. Where I'm not sure: I give the benefit of the doubt. A person with no brain, is still however a person, so I'd be uncomfortable killing them.

I cant see your logic here. The brain DOES form our consciousness.THis i am sure of and by that our sense of self, memories etc......All the things that make a human a person. A braindead human or a human life without a brain is still human life but not "someone". The someone part is to me, the important bit.

Zulu wrote: »

That only really matters if you acknowledge "higher brain function" as proof of person.

Well what else could it be then? Theres not much other organ in our bodies that can be held responsible for personhood(our consciousness). And that to me is the important bit. Otherwise we're just looking at a lump of cells be they fully grown or in embryotic form. Human life yes, but not someone.

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 3:48pm

Zulu wrote: »

That only really matters if you acknowledge "higher brain function" as proof of person. I don't.

If it's not higher brain function then what is proof of a person? It can't be a cell or collection of cells with human genetic make up within the parameters of genetic mutation to classify it as human, that can or cannot divide (depending on sufficient energy to complete the G1 stage of mitosis and enter anaphase 1) through the process of mitosis to form into a human.

Because if that is the case then a whole bunch of cells in your body could be classified as a person.

Clair Robinson · 18-09-2008 3:54pm

Virgil - excellent, since your saying everything I'm wanting to say, after and before I say it and often better.... I wish you good luck and look forward to reading it all in the morning... Really interested to see how Zulu can justify a collection of cells being considered a person...

Night everyone

Zulu · 18-09-2008 4:04pm

Clair Robinson wrote: »

If it's not higher brain function then what is proof of a person?

Well, I'm not clear on that, so I err on the side of caution and don't kill. And until someone can provide clear concise proof, I wouldn't be comfortable with killing.
Which is another thing I find amazing - how can you justify killing when there isn't clear evidence? Seems a little careless to me.

It can't be a cell or collection of cells with human genetic make up...

But isn't that all a brain is? Unless you believe in a soul?

Because if that is the case then a whole bunch of cells in your body could be classified as a person.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but all I am is a "bunch of cells". Are you now implying I've as soul/something more than cells??

Virgil° wrote: »

We eat cows, sheep, pigs all the time. They arent inherently carnivorous, so they wouldnt eat people. Have you at all times afforded them these rights?

Nope. The cows are free to punish me according to their society and laws.

I cant see your logic here. The brain DOES form our consciousness.THis i am sure of and by that our sense of self, memories etc......All the things that make a human a person.

Well, yes, along with a heart, liver, digestive system, etc..

A braindead human or a human life without a brain is still human life but not "someone". The someone part is to me, the important bit.

Suggest that to parents of a child born with no brain and see how they react to you.

Clair Robinson wrote: »

What about plants and herbivorous?

What about them? We're not trying to abort them.

Clair Robinson wrote: »

Like Virgil said why do you have no quams with eating and killing for other reasons (say clothing) other animals but you can't seem to let go a collection of cells with human DNA without considering it murder?

Because they are not people. I'm not comfortable killing people.

Why do you consider a....

I think it's my moral responsibility to protect those people that can protect themselves.

In Australia you can abort up to 24 week

which I think is wrong.

Ultravid · 18-09-2008 4:52pm

Clair Robinson wrote: »

I would not consider all stages featured in that video a human person.

You wouldn't. Many would. How do you decide? Should you decide? Is it your place to determine?

Clair Robinson wrote: »

I don't think killing is wrong, I think killing higher level consciousness is wrong. Are you a vegetarian Zulu?

And your right if it is against the law your right, luckly it isn't, but where it is it shouldn't be.

So by black and white for you it is more a question of whether a societies laws allow it or not?

Your opinion again.
Laws of the land can be good or bad. Laws of the land should be based on natural law.

Clair Robinson wrote: »

Like Virgil said why do you have no quams with eating and killing for other reasons (say clothing) other animals but you can't seem to let go a collection of cells with human DNA without considering it murder?

Why do you consider a baltocyst or a zygote as a fully fledged person? Why do you think a single cell with human DNA should be avowed the same status as a fully grown human with memories, feelings, emotions, hopes, fears etc... You get the jist....

In Australia you can abort up to 24 week (which i think is to far...) and even up to the full term if given an okay by two medical professionals. Or did that not pass the senate (or not yet). Either way you can still get one up to a certain stage in the pregnancy.

So my value as a person depends on my experience? My experience of life determines whether or not you would be so gracious as to grant me personhood - is that it?

Virgil° wrote: »

Well what else could it be then? Theres not much other organ in our bodies that can be held responsible for personhood(our consciousness). And that to me is the important bit. Otherwise we're just looking at a lump of cells be they fully grown or in embryotic form. Human life yes, but not someone.

Can you define personhood for me? I'm a little unsure what you mean by that term.

Nerin · 18-09-2008 5:25pm

How is it your place more than hers?

Nerin · 18-09-2008 5:29pm

nogac wrote: »

What does religion have to do with anything? I said I have had five children. I miscarried three of them. My first I held she was only 9 weeks old and she sure did look human, she had ten fingers and ten toes and she was perfect. Now that is a fact. And I suppose I could have gone just about anywhere to abort them because the right to choose crowd has lied to the great majority of us that these little ones are a bunch of cells and thus not human/persons. It took me having to hold my little one to actually see for myself that they are.

can you hold a group of cells? You are taking what is said and twisting it trying to make it cute. You held your baby when it was born. Not when it was inside you

Ultravid · 18-09-2008 5:38pm

Nerin wrote: »

How is it your place more than hers?

I never said it was my place.

I'm waiting for Virgil and Claire to get back to me. Claire may not be back 'til tomorrow, so anyone is welcome to answer her point if they like.

can you hold a group of cells? You are taking what is said and twisting it trying to make it cute. You held your baby when it was born. Not when it was inside you

The baby was held inside the mother's body, and then the mother was able to hold the very same baby and see the marvelous creation of life that was inside her, growing in secret and silence.

Nerin · 18-09-2008 5:41pm

Ultravid wrote: »

I never said it was my place.

I'm waiting for Virgil and Claire to get back to me. Claire may not be back 'til tomorrow, so anyone is welcome to answer her point if they like.

whats the point,its going around in circles. Like nearly all the same threads. "many would hold a different view/disagree" so what?! A bunch of you feel one way,another bunch disagree.

Ultravid · 18-09-2008 5:44pm

Nerin wrote: »

whats the point,its going around in circles. Like nearly all the same threads. "many would hold a different view/disagree" so what?! A bunch of you feel one way,another bunch disagree.

So long as everyone is polite and respectful of each other it's good. Which they have been on this thread I am pleased to say. Many of us have not had these debates/discussions before so it's a good experience to take part in.

Phototoxin · 18-09-2008 5:56pm

can you hold a group of cells? You are taking what is said and twisting it trying to make it cute. You held your baby when it was born. Not when it was inside you

what's the difference of the time it was inside than if it was outside ? It was/is still the same thing only for a time it is supposed to be protected and sheltered, not killed

Nerin · 18-09-2008 5:58pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

what's the difference of the time it was inside than if it was outside ? It was/is still the same thing only for a time it is supposed to be protected and sheltered, not killed

in the words of ultravid-many would disagree with that view.

Ultravid · 18-09-2008 6:07pm

Nerin wrote: »

in the words of ultravid-many would disagree with that view.

That is not a view, it's a fact.

The baby was inside the womb. The baby was outside the womb. It's the same baby.

Just as my dog is in the kitchen, I put it in the kennel, it's the same dog. Isn't it?

carlybabe1 · 18-09-2008 7:14pm

Zaph wrote: »

Personally I'd say that millions of children dying every year for want of safe drinking water was the greatest injustice. Or maybe that millions of unwanted children are born every year because of the lack a proper co-ordinated family planning programme in many underdeveloped countries. Or that there are millions of people displced from their homes by war. Or the fact that even in this day and age people die of hunger every second of every day. Or that people are routinely detained, tortured or killed for their political or religious beliefs in countries all around the world. Or that the richest countries in the world have stood idly by and done little or nothing to resolve any of these situations.

But sure if hyperbole is what floats your boat then don't let me stop you. However some facts and opinions of your own rather than a link to the site of some "ministry" who seem to be as intent on selling web design packages as they are their message would strengthen your argument immensely.

Damn Zaph :cool: :cool: :cool::cool:, I want to be you

carlybabe1 · 18-09-2008 7:25pm

Ultravid wrote: »

Ok so I said I would post my own reply, so here it is.

I say that abortion is the greatest injustice in the world today, because it snuffs (read kills) out the life of an unborn human person. It is the killing of an innocent human life and I will demonstrate how so in this post.

This injustice exceeds all others that one could name, since the right to life is a basic, fundamental human right. The right to live. The right to life. To be deprived this right is a primary and supreme injustice.

It may surprise many people to learn that the scientific community are in absolutely no doubt as to when human life begins: they unanimously agree that life begins at conception - this is just one quote, but there follows a link to many others. To say that science does not know when human life begins is dishonest, since there is no debate - emphasis mine:

Much more here from multiple scientific authorities:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html

It is also interesting to note what the pro-abortion people have said about it in the past:

Again this individual does not stand alone, there are many more interesting statements:

More statements here, and the sources for those I've posted to follow up:
http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony

The fact is, abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. It is not the life of a goat, or a monkey, but only that of a human being.

In the meantime, I would recommend the website www.abort73.com, as it contains all the information you need to be informed of the truth about abortion. It will shock you. It will disturb you. But it is the truth.

Everyone has an opinion on abortion and whether they believe its right or wrong, being a doctor/lawyer /indian chief doesn't automatically assume that you would be pro-choice.. there are plenty of dcotors against abortion, and its based on thier beliefs, not science..as for "quotes" as we've seen on much more than one occassion on this topic, "quotes" can be deliberately taken out of context, twisted and misquoted deliberatly to bolster ones own argument...Everyones entitled to thier beliefs, without question,...but that does not mean that one side has the right to preach disturbing " facts" to another, or shove opinions down a persons neck. Everyone is entitled to thier thoughts and beliefs, and to try take that away is a human rights violation, the same way everyone has the right to bodily integrity

Virgil° · 18-09-2008 7:27pm

Ultravid wrote: »

Can you define personhood for me? I'm a little unsure what you mean by that term.

Its a word that encompasses you.Your consciousness.Your personality, your experiences, memories, feelings,intelligence. All those things you are capable of in far greater quantity than any other type of creature on this planet due in no small part to a certain organ you posses.And what makes you inherently more valueable to other humans. Can you guess which organ it is?

zulu wrote:

Nope. The cows are free to punish me according to their society and laws.

You said that you eat these creatures because given the chance theyd probably eat you. In light of that,this statement makes no sense.
Cows arent capable of creating soceities and laws comparable to ours either, and its not because their hearts or lungs or stomachs arent advanced enough. I wonder which part of them is lacking?

zulu wrote:

Suggest that to parents of a child born with no brain and see how they react to you.

The fact that parents, who have just lost their child, might take offence to my saying that to them, has no relevance tbh. I simply wouldnt say it because it would be a harsh thing to say to a couple who recently lost a child.
The fact remains though that since little Timmy is braindead, the part that would make little Timmy into,well little Timmy, is gone and theres no hope. Regardless of whether or not the rest of him is being sustained.
Equally would you tell that couple that they should try sustain the child without a brain indefinately? What would that accomplish?In a way you just admitted that a braindead child is little different than a dead child.

ultravid wrote:

The baby was inside the womb. The baby was outside the womb. It's the same baby.

Just as my dog is in the kitchen, I put it in the kennel, it's the same dog. Isn't it?

While this might be true at a certain stage prior to birth it CERTAINLY isnt true for a good few weeks after conception. Try and take a 6 week old foetus out of a womb and see how it does. Similarly would you consider a sperm to be a baby? It is the same sperm that went to create said child after all no?It just has to be sheltered and given the right conditions yeah?

Abortion Unfiltered

Comments