• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Abortion vs. Contraception

Peralin

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I was recently thinking about the issue of abortion when I realized something that I have never thought of before: What is the difference between killing a fetus that has begun to grow into a human being and using condoms or pills to prevent them from existing at all?

What would have happened if my parents had decided to wait a few more months before trying to have a child? There would be a different combination of sperm and egg. So I wouldn't exist, right?

Or do you believe that our souls simply wait in line until a sperm and egg connect, then magically enter the body? If that were the case, I would have different genes and would be a completely different person. But that would mean that the body I inhabit is simply a random combination of genes. Many personality traits depend on genetics also, so I would have a slightly (if not completely) different personality also.

So how do we come to inhabit these bodies? Are contraception, abortion, and homicide all basically the same thing since they all prevent a human being from living?

PS: Please don't make this an argument over terms (such as pro-life, fetus, murder, soul, etc.). If you don't understand what I mean then just ask me to clarify.
 
From a PL position, I believe the difference is in one instance a life is being killed, in another, there is no life to begin with. From a PC position, I do not believe that there is much of a difference, especially when it comes to 'souls' or 'personhood'. I'm not completely sure of these explanations, but this is how I see it in simple terms.
 
I was recently thinking about the issue of abortion when I realized something that I have never thought of before: What is the difference between killing a fetus that has begun to grow into a human being and using condoms or pills to prevent them from existing at all?

What would have happened if my parents had decided to wait a few more months before trying to have a child? There would be a different combination of sperm and egg. So I wouldn't exist, right?

Or do you believe that our souls simply wait in line until a sperm and egg connect, then magically enter the body? If that were the case, I would have different genes and would be a completely different person. But that would mean that the body I inhabit is simply a random combination of genes. Many personality traits depend on genetics also, so I would have a slightly (if not completely) different personality also.

So how do we come to inhabit these bodies? Are contraception, abortion, and homicide all basically the same thing since they all prevent a human being from living?

PS: Please don't make this an argument over terms (such as pro-life, fetus, murder, soul, etc.). If you don't understand what I mean then just ask me to clarify.

IMHO, life begins at conception. If you prevent conception there is no loss of life. Contraception prevents conception. No life has been created.

Abortion involves ending the life that has been created at conception.
 
IMO birth is a process and there is no arbitrary point in which the cells involved (which are they themselves life) are any more alive than a previous state. In all practical ways our society considers birth the beginning of life. Its when we mark our start, and when we can live independantly from our host.
 
IMO birth is a process and there is no arbitrary point in which the cells involved (which are they themselves life) are any more alive than a previous state. In all practical ways our society considers birth the beginning of life. Its when we mark our start, and when we can live independantly from our host.

"They're terrible people, liberals. They believe--this can really summarize it all--these are people who believe," she said, now raising her voice, "you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and pronounce that a constitutional right has just been exercised. That really says it all. You don't want such people to like you!"

Ms. Right | TIME
 
IMHO, life begins at conception. If you prevent conception there is no loss of life. Contraception prevents conception. No life has been created.

Abortion involves ending the life that has been created at conception.

But what happens to the life that would have been created if no contraception had been used? That person gets no chance to live because he never even exists. If human life begins at conception as you believe, then the only difference between contraception and abortion is that contraception prevents a human being from existing at all, and abortion at least gives the human some life, even if it is only a few months inside of its mother. I know that people like to distinguish between allowing a human being to die and forcing a human being to die, but they are virtually the same thing. I would feel just as much sympathy for the child who never got a chance to live than I would for the child who lived only a few months.

I want to make it clear that I'm not against contraception in any way. Even without contraception, sperm and eggs are going to die and there is nothing we could do about it. If we tried to "save" all these humans that could exist, each mother would end up having hundreds of kids. This would be ridiculous and many of those humans would die anyway because of a lack of resources in the world. Anyway, my point is simply that abortion and contraception (and killing another human being, for that matter) are all basically the same thing. I am not saying that murder is acceptable in any way, I'm just trying to figure things out.
 

Ann Coulter is the most biased and ridiculous person I've ever seen. She loosely uses the term "liberals" to identify her enemies. Some liberals may believe what she said, but definitely not all of them. And I really don't see your point. I'm not talking about what is a constitutional right and what isn't. I want to know what the difference between abortion and contraception is. Because it seems to me that if abortion is immoral as many believe, then contraception is just as bad. Only then we have to worry about all those human lives that never get a chance to exist because of the deaths of sperm and eggs. It seems to me that banning abortion and stem cell research would be saving very few lives because many of them (especially the stem cell victims) would never even exist.
 
I want to know what the difference between abortion and contraception is.
abortion disrupts a human life that began at conception when a unique new individual human organism was formed. With barrier contraceptions, that never occurs.

Because it seems to me that if abortion is immoral as many believe, then contraception is just as bad.
Some contraceptions do abort--only barrier contraceptions and sterilization do not.

Only then we have to worry about all those human lives that never get a chance to exist because of the deaths of sperm and eggs.
In abortion a human exists, and then she doesn't. Without the meeting of sperm and egg, no human being existed.

It seems to me that banning abortion and stem cell research would be saving very few lives because many of them (especially the stem cell victims) would never even exist.
This is illogical. The unique individual human organism exists in order to harvest the stem cells from her--that's how they get the human stemcells--they make a human, and then kill him.:confused:
 
abortion disrupts a human life that began at conception when a unique new individual human organism was formed. With barrier contraceptions, that never occurs.

Some contraceptions do abort--only barrier contraceptions and sterilization do not.

Right, I should have been more specific. I meant barrier contraceptions.

In abortion a human exists, and then she doesn't. Without the meeting of sperm and egg, no human being existed.

What's the difference? Is it better to be alive for a few months and then get aborted or to never exist at all? What happens to the human that would have existed if no barrier contraceptions had been used? Where is that life (or possible life)?

You're avoiding the question by stating the obvious physical difference. I want to know what would have happened to me if my parents had chosen to use barrier contraception on the night I was concieved. Obviously, I would not have been concieved. So I would never exist at all, right? Is that any better than being concieved and then aborted a few months later? Except for those few months of life, don't both abortion and barrier contraception do the same thing by preventing me from living?

In fact, if you believe in an afterlife then the aborted child would at least have afterlife too, right? So isn't it better to live a few months, be aborted, and then go to the afterlife than to never exist at all? I think I would prefer some sort of existence over no existence at all, wouldn't you?

This is illogical. The unique individual human organism exists in order to harvest the stem cells from her--that's how they get the human stemcells--they make a human, and then kill him.:confused:

I think you're completely missing my point. Through stem cell research, many human beings are created that normally would never exist (because they are created solely to be stem cell donors). That seems like a good thing to me, because they get life when normally they would have nothing. Of course, they don't have a very long lifespan. If we believe in an afterlife, they get to participate, right? If we don't believe in an afterlife, then they simply cease to exist, which puts them right back where they started.

THEREFORE:

In the case of an afterlife, stem cell research creates life and sends it to the afterlife. This would be good for the victim because it would probably rather exist in the afterlife than not exist at all.
POSITIVE RESULT!

In the case of no afterlife, stem cell research creates life and uses its stem cells for the good of humanity, then destroys the victim. The victim returns to its state of non-existence (exactly where it would have been if the research had not occurred), and there is a possibility that mankind can improve living conditions because of the stem cells.
NEUTRAL RESULT! (some good, some bad)


I am not trying to say that this is right. I have been against embryonic stem cell research from the very beginning and just recently came to the conclusions above. Right now I don't know what to believe. If you can find a flaw in my reasoning, please tell me.
 
Is this supposed to be a reply or a counter argument? Your posts are utterly without purpose or content.

Of course you'd think so, Chili. :hitsfan:
 
What's the difference? Is it better to be alive for a few months and then get aborted or to never exist at all? What happens to the human that would have existed if no barrier contraceptions had been used? Where is that life (or possible life)?
It's all irrelevant. My position on barrier methods does not condemn them because they disrespect the sperm and eggs--they disrespect the marital relationship and in doing so subtly demean the human person....which then leaks into the way we view others and effects society at large. But the "potential lives?" Irrelevant.

You're avoiding the question by stating the obvious physical difference.
I'm not "avoiding"--it is an irrelevant point you are trying to interject. What ifs are only useful if there is an actual possibility--by not having egg meet sperm, no "individual human being" is killed.
I want to know what would have happened to me if my parents had chosen to use barrier contraception on the night I was concieved. Obviously, I would not have been concieved. So I would never exist at all, right?
Right

Is that any better than being concieved and then aborted a few months later?
In terms of the question of creating human life and then killing human life...it makes a HUGE difference. Again--we're back to the flaw in your premise.

Except for those few months of life, don't both abortion and barrier contraception do the same thing by preventing me from living?
No--with an abortion being the cause of your "not living"--you lived as an individual human being for a period of time and then that life was taken away from you by another's purposeful action that caused your DEATH. YOU never existed if "you" weren't conceived--"your death" can't occur because you never "lived."

In fact, if you believe in an afterlife then the aborted child would at least have afterlife too, right? So isn't it better to live a few months, be aborted, and then go to the afterlife than to never exist at all? I think I would prefer some sort of existence over no existence at all, wouldn't you?
God is justice. Perhaps this is another reason why barrier methods are immoral. Personally, potential humans don't get stopped from happening in my family--I don't have sex when I'm fertile. I let God handle my fertility and I act in accord with his design.


I think you're completely missing my point. Through stem cell research, many human beings are created that normally would never exist (because they are created solely to be stem cell donors). That seems like a good thing to me, because they get life when normally they would have nothing. Of course, they don't have a very long lifespan. If we believe in an afterlife, they get to participate, right? If we don't believe in an afterlife, then they simply cease to exist, which puts them right back where they started.
The dignity of the human being is assaulted when they are made for the purpose of being used for others as those others see fit. It is slavery--totally contrary to the dignity of humans.

THEREFORE:

In the case of an afterlife, stem cell research creates life and sends it to the afterlife. This would be good for the victim because it would probably rather exist in the afterlife than not exist at all.
POSITIVE RESULT!
This is a twist of logic. It is not logical to abuse a human in order to create a positive result. I believe that creating the life abuses God's justice, but in His justice, he does not hold the abused human being responsible since the abuse was through no fault of their own. However--since God is just, the act does not go without consequence.


In the case of no afterlife, stem cell research creates life and uses its stem cells for the good of humanity, then destroys the victim. The victim returns to its state of non-existence (exactly where it would have been if the research had not occurred), and there is a possibility that mankind can improve living conditions because of the stem cells.
NEUTRAL RESULT! (some good, some bad)
Note that you repeatedly use the word "victim." I believe that is an appropriate word, and I think it demonstrates the true nature of the act commited against the human being.
 
Embryos are not created for stem cell research, they are going to be destroyed anyway.

Stem cell controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Most stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are slated to be destroyed, or stored indefinitely, long past their viable storage life. In the United States alone, there have been estimates of at least 400,000 such embryos.[2] This has led some opponents of abortion, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, to support human embryonic stem cell research.[3]"
 
Embryos are not created for stem cell research, they are going to be destroyed anyway.


This is total bull$hit. I guess you haven't read much on cloning embryos thus creating more embryos for the sole purpose of research?
 
I'm not "avoiding"--it is an irrelevant point you are trying to interject. What ifs are only useful if there is an actual possibility--by not having egg meet sperm, no "individual human being" is killed.

No, you really haven't answered my question. AL you've said so far is that potential lives are irrelevant. But think about it. What would you be doing right now if your concetion had never happened? You wouldn't even exist! And that would suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather exist than not exist?

Now imagine if you were used for stem cell research and destroyed. You would go on to the afterlife, right? And that would certainly be better than non-existence, wouldn't it?

In terms of the question of creating human life and then killing human life...it makes a HUGE difference. Again--we're back to the flaw in your premise.

What is the flaw in my premise? I don't understand what you're saying. I think my point is very simple: It is better to be killed and go to the afterlife than to not exist at all. Do you disagree with this statement?

It's all irrelevant. My position on barrier methods does not condemn them because they disrespect the sperm and eggs--they disrespect the marital relationship and in doing so subtly demean the human person....which then leaks into the way we view others and effects society at large. But the "potential lives?" Irrelevant.


How can you say that the potential lives are irrelevant? I feel more sympathy toward them than I do toward embryos used forstem cell research because at least stem cell victims have a purpose to their life. But the potential humans never even get a chance to exist. Barrier contraception prevents a life from happening. Stem cell research creates a purposeful life and then destroys it. I'm not seeing the difference between the two because they both prevent life.

I'm not "avoiding"--it is an irrelevant point you are trying to interject. What ifs are only useful if there is an actual possibility--by not having egg meet sperm, no "individual human being" is killed.

No, you really haven't answered my question. AL you've said so far is that potential lives are irrelevant. But think about it. What would you be doing right now if your concetion had never happened? You wouldn't even exist! And that would suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather exist than not exist?

Now imagine if you were used for stem cell research and destroyed. You would go on to the afterlife, right? And that would certainly be better than non-existence, wouldn't it?

No--with an abortion being the cause of your "not living"--you lived as an individual human being for a period of time and then that life was taken away from you by another's purposeful action that caused your DEATH. YOU never existed if "you" weren't conceived--"your death" can't occur because you never "lived."

EXACTLY!!!! I would prefer number 1 over number 2! I would rather live and die (even if only for a short time) than not exist at all.

It's all irrelevant. My position on barrier methods does not condemn them because they disrespect the sperm and eggs--they disrespect the marital relationship and in doing so subtly demean the human person....which then leaks into the way we view others and effects society at large. But the "potential lives?" Irrelevant.


How can you say that the potential lives are irrelevant? I feel more sympathy toward them than I do toward embryos used forstem cell research because at least stem cell victims have a purpose to their life. But the potential humans never even get a chance to exist. Barrier contraception prevents a life from happening. Stem cell research creates a purposeful life and then destroys it. I'm not seeing the difference between the two because they both prevent life.

I'm not "avoiding"--it is an irrelevant point you are trying to interject. What ifs are only useful if there is an actual possibility--by not having egg meet sperm, no "individual human being" is killed.

No, you really haven't answered my question. AL you've said so far is that potential lives are irrelevant. But think about it. What would you be doing right now if your concetion had never happened? You wouldn't even exist! And that would suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather exist than not exist?

Now imagine if you were used for stem cell research and destroyed. You would go on to the afterlife, right? And that would certainly be better than non-existence, wouldn't it?

God is justice. Perhaps this is another reason why barrier methods are immoral. Personally, potential humans don't get stopped from happening in my family--I don't have sex when I'm fertile. I let God handle my fertility and I act in accord with his design.


Actually, potential humans do get stopped in your family. Every time you have sex (or your partner masturbates) there are sperm that are killed. These all represent human beings that could have existed had there been an egg there to be fertilized. Every time sperm dies, potential lives lose their possibility for existence.

It's all irrelevant. My position on barrier methods does not condemn them because they disrespect the sperm and eggs--they disrespect the marital relationship and in doing so subtly demean the human person....which then leaks into the way we view others and effects society at large. But the "potential lives?" Irrelevant.


How can you say that the potential lives are irrelevant? I feel more sympathy toward them than I do toward embryos used forstem cell research because at least stem cell victims have a purpose to their life. But the potential humans never even get a chance to exist. Barrier contraception prevents a life from happening. Stem cell research creates a purposeful life and then destroys it. I'm not seeing the difference between the two because they both prevent life.

I'm not "avoiding"--it is an irrelevant point you are trying to interject. What ifs are only useful if there is an actual possibility--by not having egg meet sperm, no "individual human being" is killed.

No, you really haven't answered my question. AL you've said so far is that potential lives are irrelevant. But think about it. What would you be doing right now if your concetion had never happened? You wouldn't even exist! And that would suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather exist than not exist?

Now imagine if you were used for stem cell research and destroyed. You would go on to the afterlife, right? And that would certainly be better than non-existence, wouldn't it?

The dignity of the human being is assaulted when they are made for the purpose of being used for others as those others see fit. It is slavery--totally contrary to the dignity of humans.

That's one way to look at it. But if they are given the gift of existence for the sole purpose of being used as stem cells, then they are at least given a life (and maybe an afterlife) that they nrmally would never have had. God may have created life. But we have to be honest with ourselves. WE HAVE THE POWER TO CHOOSE WHICH HUMAN BEINGS ARE BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE AND WHICH ARE NOT.

It's all irrelevant. My position on barrier methods does not condemn them because they disrespect the sperm and eggs--they disrespect the marital relationship and in doing so subtly demean the human person....which then leaks into the way we view others and effects society at large. But the "potential lives?" Irrelevant.


How can you say that the potential lives are irrelevant? I feel more sympathy toward them than I do toward embryos used for stem cell research because at least stem cell victims have a purpose to their life. But the potential humans never even get a chance to exist. Barrier contraception prevents a life from happening. Stem cell research creates a purposeful life and then destroys it. I'm not seeing the difference between the two because they both prevent life.
 
Last edited:
I'm not "avoiding"--it is an irrelevant point you are trying to interject. What ifs are only useful if there is an actual possibility--by not having egg meet sperm, no "individual human being" is killed.

No, you really haven't answered my question. AL you've said so far is that potential lives are irrelevant. But think about it. What would you be doing right now if your concetion had never happened? You wouldn't even exist! And that would suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather exist than not exist?

Now imagine if you were used for stem cell research and destroyed. You would go on to the afterlife, right? And that would certainly be better than non-existence, wouldn't it?

This is a twist of logic. It is not logical to abuse a human in order to create a positive result. I believe that creating the life abuses God's justice, but in His justice, he does not hold the abused human being responsible since the abuse was through no fault of their own. However--since God is just, the act does not go without consequence.

But don't you see? God doesn't chse what humans exist. WE DO! By our choices of when to have sex and when to allow fertilization to occur, we narrow down the possibilities of whcih human beings will be our children. Maybe the rest is left up to God, but we definitely narrow down his choices.

It's all irrelevant. My position on barrier methods does not condemn them because they disrespect the sperm and eggs--they disrespect the marital relationship and in doing so subtly demean the human person....which then leaks into the way we view others and effects society at large. But the "potential lives?" Irrelevant.


How can you say that the potential lives are irrelevant? I feel more sympathy toward them than I do toward embryos used forstem cell research because at least stem cell victims have a purpose to their life. But the potential humans never even get a chance to exist. Barrier contraception prevents a life from happening. Stem cell research creates a purposeful life and then destroys it. I'm not seeing the difference between the two because they both prevent life.

I'm not "avoiding"--it is an irrelevant point you are trying to interject. What ifs are only useful if there is an actual possibility--by not having egg meet sperm, no "individual human being" is killed.

No, you really haven't answered my question. AL you've said so far is that potential lives are irrelevant. But think about it. What would you be doing right now if your concetion had never happened? You wouldn't even exist! And that would suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather exist than not exist?

Now imagine if you were used for stem cell research and destroyed. You would go on to the afterlife, right? And that would certainly be better than non-existence, wouldn't it?

Note that you repeatedly use the word "victim." I believe that is an appropriate word, and I think it demonstrates the true nature of the act commited against the human being.

Yes, they are victims. And I sympathize with them because of their short life span. BUT I think that even these victims are lucky to have life (and maybe afterlife) at all. Many potential human beings never even get a chance to exist, whcih sucks even worse than the short life of stem cell victims.
 
No, you really haven't answered my question. AL you've said so far is that potential lives are irrelevant. But think about it. What would you be doing right now if your concetion had never happened? You wouldn't even exist! And that would suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather exist than not exist?

Now imagine if you were used for stem cell research and destroyed. You would go on to the afterlife, right? And that would certainly be better than non-existence, wouldn't it?



But don't you see? God doesn't chse what humans exist. WE DO! By our choices of when to have sex and when to allow fertilization to occur, we narrow down the possibilities of whcih human beings will be our children. Maybe the rest is left up to God, but we definitely narrow down his choices.




How can you say that the potential lives are irrelevant? I feel more sympathy toward them than I do toward embryos used forstem cell research because at least stem cell victims have a purpose to their life. But the potential humans never even get a chance to exist. Barrier contraception prevents a life from happening. Stem cell research creates a purposeful life and then destroys it. I'm not seeing the difference between the two because they both prevent life.



No, you really haven't answered my question. AL you've said so far is that potential lives are irrelevant. But think about it. What would you be doing right now if your concetion had never happened? You wouldn't even exist! And that would suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather exist than not exist?

Now imagine if you were used for stem cell research and destroyed. You would go on to the afterlife, right? And that would certainly be better than non-existence, wouldn't it?



Yes, they are victims. And I sympathize with them because of their short life span. BUT I think that even these victims are lucky to have life (and maybe afterlife) at all. Many potential human beings never even get a chance to exist, whcih sucks even worse than the short life of stem cell victims.

This is by far one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen in a long time. There is a big difference between killing an actual human vs. potential ones. A child molester could potentially molest innumerous amounts of children but the only ones he really harms and may be held accountable for are the ones he actually molests. A serial killer could have the potential to rape and kill 100's of women. But the only ones he actually harms are the ones he actually rapes and kills.

The unborn are living human organisms. They are NOT potential humans. They are actual humans. They maybe only potential persons but that is a social construct only and changes with the prevailing attitudes of the populace at any given time. When you abort an unborn you are killing an actual human and that can not be compared to killing potential humans in an intellectually honest way.
 
This is by far one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen in a long time.

Hmm...I thought it made sense.

There is a big difference between killing an actual human vs. potential ones.

The actions both do the exact same thing: prevent a human from living. The difference is that actual humans have begun their lives, whereas potential humans never get a chance to start their lives.

A child molester could potentially molest innumerous amounts of children but the only ones he really harms and may be held accountable for are the ones he actually molests. A serial killer could have the potential to rape and kill 100's of women. But the only ones he actually harms are the ones he actually rapes and kills.

Good idea for an analogy, but there's a major flaw: nobody wants to be molested, and nobody wants to be raped or killed. On the contrary, almost everyone wants to exist. And if you think about how many possible humans there have been, we are extremely lucky to be alive right now.

The unborn are living human organisms. They are NOT potential humans. They are actual humans. They maybe only potential persons but that is a social construct only and changes with the prevailing attitudes of the populace at any given time. When you abort an unborn you are killing an actual human and that can not be compared to killing potential humans in an intellectually honest way.

Please don't insult my intelligence. I think I have a very valid point. So let me ask you the questions that nobody's answering:

Where (or what) would you be right now if your parents hadn't been in the mood on the night of your conception?

Would you rather live a few months of your life, get destroyed, then spend eternity in the afterlife or never exist at all?

Or, if you don't believe in any afterlife: Wuld you rather live a few months of your life, get destroyed, and then cease to exist or never exist at all?


I know this is a complicated matter, but it is very important to the questions of abortion and stem cell research. Just remember, one pill or condom could have prevented your entire life from happening. Lucky for you, things worked out and you get to live your life.
 
Good idea for an analogy, but there's a major flaw: nobody wants to be molested, and nobody wants to be raped or killed. On the contrary, almost everyone wants to exist. And if you think about how many possible humans there have been, we are extremely lucky to be alive right now.
.

I could potentially win the Lotto...same diff.:roll:
 
Hmm...I thought it made sense.
Did you really think about it????

The actions both do the exact same thing: prevent a human from living. The difference is that actual humans have begun their lives, whereas potential humans never get a chance to start their lives.
The actions are not the same. In one scenario you are talking about killing an actual living human organism. In order to carry this out you have to have one human identify the existence of another human and then choose to kill that human in an assualt like and violent manner. There is an actual human organism that is destroyed.

When talking about potential humans and their potential for existing you are not actually harming anyone. There is not yet anyone to be harmed. If you were never you because your mother never conceived you then harming YOU would be impossible because there is no you. However had you been conceived and aborted then there was unquestionably a YOU and YOU were violently destroyed.



Good idea for an analogy, but there's a major flaw: nobody wants to be molested, and nobody wants to be raped or killed.
Right and no one wants to be aborted.

On the contrary, almost everyone wants to exist. And if you think about how many possible humans there have been, we are extremely lucky to be alive right now.
Everyone may very well want to exist. If they do exist and you wipe them out then you are responsible for the death and destruction. However when talking about organisms that don't currently exist you can't realistically claim they were harmed. There is no "them" to harm. You can not assault imaginary or non-existent organisms. You can assault living organisms.



Please don't insult my intelligence. I think I have a very valid point. So let me ask you the questions that nobody's answering:

Where (or what) would you be right now if your parents hadn't been in the mood on the night of your conception?
I wouldn't be. I would never have been. There would be no me to speak of. However had I been aborted I would have been me and I would have been killed.

Would you rather live a few months of your life, get destroyed, then spend eternity in the afterlife or never exist at all?
There can be no intellectually honest talk of eternity or souls as we don't have all the info. So without getting into souls and eternity you can't really claim that there is a someone who wants to exist in this world but that someone was stopped from exisiting. You are assuming that we all exist elsewhere which can't be proven. So with the info we have we can't compare non-living potential humans to living real humans.

Or, if you don't believe in any afterlife: Wuld you rather live a few months of your life, get destroyed, and then cease to exist or never exist at all?
Since the aborted are struck down in the earliest stages of life it's hard to say what they would rather. It's like asking a newborn if they'd rather live or die. The newborn can't answer so it's best to assume they want to live.


I know this is a complicated matter, but it is very important to the questions of abortion and stem cell research. Just remember, one pill or condom could have prevented your entire life from happening. Lucky for you, things worked out and you get to live your life.

In order to "get to live your life" you have to have a life to begin with. The unborn are LIVING in their mothers womb. Their reality is tangible. If they were never conceived there would be no "them" to speak of.
 
I could potentially win the Lotto...same diff.:roll:

So would you rather win the lotto, have the money for a few months, and then lose it or never win it at all?

Again, it doesn't work because we're talking about life and death, not a boatload of money.
 
Did you really think about it????

Yes, I did.

The actions are not the same. In one scenario you are talking about killing an actual living human organism. In order to carry this out you have to have one human identify the existence of another human and then choose to kill that human in an assualt like and violent manner. There is an actual human organism that is destroyed.

I admit. The actions are different. One kills a human, one prevents a human from ever existing. And the results might be different, depending on whether we believe in an afterlife or not. But if the human is created solely for the purpose of being used for stem cell research, we would assume that the child is happy to have life. Being destroyed simply fixes the unnatural act that was done in the first place. Since under normal conditions the child would never have had life, taking away his life doesn't hurt anybody. It was natural for him to be non-existent anyway!

When talking about potential humans and their potential for existing you are not actually harming anyone. There is not yet anyone to be harmed. If you were never you because your mother never conceived you then harming YOU would be impossible because there is no you. However had you been conceived and aborted then there was unquestionably a YOU and YOU were violently destroyed.

But the only result of your violent destruction is non-existence, which is exactly the way it would have been had no embryo been created in the first place! So all that's really happening is that scientists are creating people who would normally be non-existent, using them for the good of mankind, and then killing them, making them non-existent. The person's non-existence is the result of both stem-cell research and no stem cell research. So what's the problem?

Everyone may very well want to exist. If they do exist and you wipe them out then you are responsible for the death and destruction. However when talking about organisms that don't currently exist you can't realistically claim they were harmed. There is no "them" to harm. You can not assault imaginary or non-existent organisms. You can assault living organisms.

and yet, the result is the exact same. So who cares whether an assault takes place or not? Non-existence is the result either way!

I wouldn't be. I would never have been. There would be no me to speak of. However had I been aborted I would have been me and I would have been killed.

Yep, same result. At least you had some life before you were aborted, right? It's better than not existing at all!

There can be no intellectually honest talk of eternity or souls as we don't have all the info. So without getting into souls and eternity you can't really claim that there is a someone who wants to exist in this world but that someone was stopped from exisiting. You are assuming that we all exist elsewhere which can't be proven. So with the info we have we can't compare non-living potential humans to living real humans.

All my evidence is coming from my own logic. First of all, I realize that I wouldn't exist today if my parents hadn't concieved me. My conclusion: I sure as hell am glad that my parents concieved me.

That's all. I'm not assuming that we exist somewhere else. All I'm assuming is that everyone else in the world feels the same way that I do: that it's a good thing that we were concieved.

Since the aborted are struck down in the earliest stages of life it's hard to say what they would rather. It's like asking a newborn if they'd rather live or die. The newborn can't answer so it's best to assume they want to live.

Then it's best to assume that humans created simply for the purpose of stem-cell research would want to live also, even if it means only for a few months.

In order to "get to live your life" you have to have a life to begin with. The unborn are LIVING in their mothers womb. Their reality is tangible. If they were never conceived there would be no "them" to speak of.

Ok, new questions now: Are you happy that you were concieved?

IF YOU WERE CREATED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STEM-CELL RESEARCH AND KNEW THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE DESTROYED IN A FEW MONTHS, WOULD YOU BE HAPPY THAT YOU WERE CONCIEVED?

There we go, I guess that's the question at the core of the argument.
 
Yes, I did.



I admit. The actions are different. One kills a human, one prevents a human from ever existing. And the results might be different, depending on whether we believe in an afterlife or not. But if the human is created solely for the purpose of being used for stem cell research, we would assume that the child is happy to have life. Being destroyed simply fixes the unnatural act that was done in the first place. Since under normal conditions the child would never have had life, taking away his life doesn't hurt anybody. It was natural for him to be non-existent anyway!



But the only result of your violent destruction is non-existence, which is exactly the way it would have been had no embryo been created in the first place! So all that's really happening is that scientists are creating people who would normally be non-existent, using them for the good of mankind, and then killing them, making them non-existent. The person's non-existence is the result of both stem-cell research and no stem cell research. So what's the problem?



and yet, the result is the exact same. So who cares whether an assault takes place or not? Non-existence is the result either way!



Yep, same result. At least you had some life before you were aborted, right? It's better than not existing at all!



All my evidence is coming from my own logic. First of all, I realize that I wouldn't exist today if my parents hadn't concieved me. My conclusion: I sure as hell am glad that my parents concieved me.

That's all. I'm not assuming that we exist somewhere else. All I'm assuming is that everyone else in the world feels the same way that I do: that it's a good thing that we were concieved.



Then it's best to assume that humans created simply for the purpose of stem-cell research would want to live also, even if it means only for a few months.



Ok, new questions now: Are you happy that you were concieved?

IF YOU WERE CREATED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STEM-CELL RESEARCH AND KNEW THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE DESTROYED IN A FEW MONTHS, WOULD YOU BE HAPPY THAT YOU WERE CONCIEVED?

There we go, I guess that's the question at the core of the argument.


Hollywood has handled this form of logic in movies. Haven't you seen them?

How 'bout the Island where the clones exist for use as spare parts. They don't know they were created for the sole purpose of having spare parts and surely if asked they'd rather exist than never have existed but does that mean it is okay to use those clones for spare parts?

Does the fact that they were created to be used as spare parts along with the fact that they'd never have been created at all if there weren't a need for spare parts somehow mean their creators did them a warped favor and they should just be thankful for that and not fight as their life is taken when the parts are needed?

If you found out tomorrow your entire life was a huge deception and really you're a clone of another human and you were created for the sole purpose of extra parts how thankful are you going to be? Are you going to climb up on the operating table, praising them for creating you at all, whilst they prepare to remove your heart?

Do unto others....
 
How 'bout the Island where the clones exist for use as spare parts. They don't know they were created for the sole purpose of having spare parts and surely if asked they'd rather exist than never have existed but does that mean it is okay to use those clones for spare parts?

I actually haven't seen The Island, but it sounds like a good analogy. And I would answer that question with a yes. It is okay to use them for spare parts because it gives them a life when normally they would have none.

Does the fact that they were created to be used as spare parts along with the fact that they'd never have been created at all if there weren't a need for spare parts somehow mean their creators did them a warped favor and they should just be thankful for that and not fight as their life is taken when the parts are needed?

Well yes, they should be thankful for the life that they were given. But I would understand why they would fight against death. Nobody wants to die. But it is better to live and die than to never live at all.

If you found out tomorrow your entire life was a huge deception and really you're a clone of another human and you were created for the sole purpose of extra parts how thankful are you going to be?

First of all, I would be upset to learn that my entire purpose was to donate parts. But I would be extremely grateful that the company (or whatever it is) was in business when I was concieved because without it, none of my life would have occurred.

Are you going to climb up on the operating table, praising them for creating you at all, whilst they prepare to remove your heart?

No, I'd fight for my life. But I would sure be glad that they gave me the life that I am fighting so desperately to save. Everyone wants to live longer, and I'm no exception. Again, I would feel lucky that the company was there to give me life in the first place and I would do everything in my power to preserve that life.

These are really good questions. How would you answer them?

Does the fact that they were created to be used as spare parts along with the fact that they'd never have been created at all if there weren't a need for spare parts somehow mean their creators did them a warped favor and they should just be thankful for that and not fight as their life is taken when the parts are needed?

If you found out tomorrow your entire life was a huge deception and really you're a clone of another human and you were created for the sole purpose of extra parts how thankful are you going to be? Are you going to climb up on the operating table, praising them for creating you at all, whilst they prepare to remove your heart?

I'd also like to know how Felicity would respond to these questions.
 
I was recently thinking about the issue of abortion when I realized something that I have never thought of before: What is the difference between killing a fetus that has begun to grow into a human being and using condoms or pills to prevent them from existing at all?


1. Abortion kills life, contraception prevents life from occurring.

2. While a fetus may or may not know they exist, a life form that could have existed doesn't exist. Your genetics make up your appearance, they have nothing to do with who you are.

3. From the afterlife perspective, an aborted fetus doesn't necessarily go to heaven. If there is an afterlife, the manager of it would know where to send who no matter how long, or short, a life exists.

4. Finally, if you were to be prevented, you would not exist. A soul would not wait for every conceived fetus. If there are souls, the manager of them would have it all planned out. The manager would have made a soul and planned to give it to the ball of genetics that you turned out to be, and the manager would know when to give it.

SUMMARY: A non-existent life form does not exist. It does not miss out on anything or miss it's chance for life. It is not there, it was never there, and it will never be there. There is no soul waiting for it. It was never there, and it will never be there. You are here, your soul was there, and it will be here forever. A life that is taken is a life that was supposed to be here, that is why most consider it bad. A non-existent life form cannot be taken, because it cannot and will not ever be made, which is why most don't even consider it. In other words, you cannot prevent a non-existent life form. You exist because you were not prevented, but you didn't exist before you did.

Hopefully this answers your question in a simple enough way.
 
Back
Top Bottom