Explain Your Reasoning.

[Stinger]

You might be surprised to know that I agree with you. The DNA tests as human. But that doesn't make it a being.

being: To exist in actuality; have life or reality

You agreed it was alive, is is reality therefore it is being. You agreed it was human therefore it is a human being.

 

[Stinger]

This has been gone over before in other topics on this forum. Here's an article by Ronald Bailey, the scientific correspondent to Reason Magazine, which disproves the DNA "proof" that fetuses are living. An interesting quote from the article:

No one with any knowledge states that the presence of DNA alone makes anything alive. Your arguement is specious on it's face. A dead body has DNA in it. The DNA does however identify what genus and species that life is/was. So if it is alive and it has human DNA then it is a human being. If it is alive and it has canine DNA then it is a dog.

 

[Kelzie]

First it is not pro-abortion. It is pro-choice. We are for women CHOOSING whether to have an abortion or not. You should be very proud of yourself for "allowing" women to choose what to eat or their hair style. But that is not pro-choice. I don't call pro-lifers anti-choice because it's just using semantics to **** other off and it's dumb.

Second, all cells are alive. Period. Your fingernails are alive. When you scratch, you are killing cells. Cells are not human beings. A being has consciousness, and the ability to live independently from others. A fetus has neither. And before you start with the whole infants-aren't-self-conscious bit, infants are also not dependent on a single individual for life, so if the mother doesn't want them, someone else does, and can take care of them.

So you must be against IUDs, which prevent implantation. Or pills, which can also prevent implantation (they also make an attempt to prevent fertilization, but of all three things the pill does to prevent pregnancies, preventing implantation works best). And you must really be against the morning after pill, which can be taken up to 5 days after sex. Come to think about it, condoms prevent a potential person from being created, so they must also be wrong...where does it stop?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

There is a difference between preventing a pregnancy and terminating one.

The PCP[Post-coital pill] is believed to work principally by preventing your ovaries from releasing an egg, and by affecting the womb lining, so that a fertilised egg couldn’t ‘embed’ itself there.

SOURCE

The morning after pill PREVENTS pregnancy, it does not terminate it. It's most applicable use is for rape victims.

Does anyone else find it odd that it's called PCP? As I recall there is a certain other substance called PCP...

 

[Kelzie]

Most birth control pills do three things.

1. they prevent the ovaries from releasing an egg
2. the make it harder for the sperm to enter the cervix by thickening the mucous surrounding it
3. they change the chemistry of the uterine lining, that makes it impossible for a fertilized egg to implant.

source

source

source

According to a pro-life website, "break-through ovulation" has a 2-10% chance of occuring. That means that every year, there is a good chance that a woman on the pill will ovulate.

So is this wrong? I mean a baby could be conceived if a woman in on the pill. It just couldn't attatch to the lining. So should pills be illegal? And IUDs? And the morning after pill? Like I said before, what about condoms, since they prevent a potential person from being born?

 

[Kelzie]

There is a difference between preventing a pregnancy and terminating one.

The PCP[Post-coital pill] is believed to work principally by preventing your ovaries from releasing an egg, and by affecting the womb lining, so that a fertilised egg couldn’t ‘embed’ itself there.

SOURCE

The morning after pill PREVENTS pregnancy, it does not terminate it. It's most applicable use is for rape victims.

Does anyone else find it odd that it's called PCP? As I recall there is a certain other substance called PCP...

Wait, sorry. I just read your post more carefully. You were talking about the morning after pill. And what, pray tell happens if the egg is already released? Well, I'll tell you. Like the pill, the morning after pill changes the uterine lining, so that the fertilized cell cannot implant.

source

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Wait, sorry. I just read your post more carefully. You were talking about the morning after pill. And what, pray tell happens if the egg is already released? Well, I'll tell you. Like the pill, the morning after pill changes the uterine lining, so that the fertilized cell cannot implant.

I know this. It was included in the source part of my post. This prevents pregnancy, yes?

That is why the morning after pill is considered a contraceptive, and not an abortion pill.

 

[Kelzie]

I know this. It was included in the source part of my post. This prevents pregnancy, yes?

That is why the morning after pill is considered a contraceptive, and not an abortion pill.

But it doesn't prevent conception. That is the difference that I see. Why's detatching a zygote from the uterine wall such a big difference from not letting it attatch in the first place?

Your reasoning (if I don't have it right, than I apologize) is that if we leave a fetus alone, it will form into a human. Well if we leave a zygote alone, it will attatch to the uterine wall and become a fetus, and than a person. So how than, is the pill different from abortion if the pill doesn't always prevent conception?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

But it doesn't prevent conception. That is the difference that I see. Why's detatching a zygote from the uterine wall such a big difference from not letting it attatch in the first place?

Your reasoning (if I don't have it right, than I apologize) is that if we leave a fetus alone, it will form into a human. Well if we leave a zygote alone, it will attatch to the uterine wall and become a fetus, and than a person. So how than, is the pill different from abortion if the pill doesn't always prevent conception?

For one, taking such a pill would prove to be yet another way to be responsible.


Another, It's purpose is to be a contraceptive, but it has the capability of messing with the lining not allowing the zygote to reach implantaion. This process is not unlike the natural dying of the zygote/blastocyst. In which case many women do not even know about it.

Basically, as long as you catch it before the Implantation step, I don't have a problem with it.

Honestly, I just started reading about the morning after pill today :3oops:. I feel uneasy about it, but as of right now I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Kelzie]

For one, taking such a pill would prove to be yet another way to be responsible.


Another, It's purpose is to be a contraceptive, but it has the capability of messing with the lining not allowing the zygote to reach implantaion. This process is not unlike the natural dying of the zygote/blastocyst. In which case many women do not even know about it.

Basically, as long as you catch it before the Implantation step, I don't have a problem with it.

Honestly, I just started reading about the morning after pill today :3oops:. I feel uneasy about it, but as of right now I don't see a problem with it.

So in your mind, a zygote/blastocyst isn't worthy of the status of potential human being for 8-12 days? That's when implantation usually occurs. Why draw the line there? Why say that before that point, it's okay to cause the destruction of the cells, but after that point, BAM, it becomes a human?

 

[jpwright]

ROFL that a fetus is alive, yes how about any high school biology book. But since it was your claim that is in contention please supply any authoritative source that claims all fetuses are dead and not alive.

Alive? Depends on how you really define what life is, what being a human being is. Abortion is not about being "alive" or "dead", it's about being a human life, something that can really be considered a human and has a life that is necessary to protect over the safety of its mother.

No it is not debatable, fetuses are alive or they are dead. There is no inbetween. They aren't dead and then when born suddenly become alive.

I use the term "alive" loosely. You seem to think anything that is alive is suddenly sacred. When I say that whether the fetus is living or not is a subject of debate, I mean whether it is living as a human being. Body cells are living, but they don't have rights. Plants are living, but they don't have rights. That is how I use the term "life" in the context of abortion.

Since I believe this is the first time I have ever responded to you I hardly see how it could be "once again" and since I quoted you entire statement I don't see how it could be out of context. But please elaborate, how were you taken our of context?

Are you kidding, or do you just have amnesia? Try post #17 in this topic. I get the feeling that many pro-life people act as if every word that I type is 100% the pro-choice stance. I simply said the topic of abortion was debatable, not that the pro-choice stance was 100% true, and guess what, we're debating. We don't know what the truth is, therefore, we assume that the blind zone does not exist, and say that a baby is living once it is born. And of course, you responded to this with the following...

Not if it is dead. Some baby's are born dead, it's call stillborn. But if what you are really trying to say is that "we can agree" that a baby is never alive until it is born, then why not agree it is not alive until it has been out of the womb until it is 12 months old? Then we can take their organs out and not be killing them. Just think of the lives we could save by doing so? If we can simple agree to when a baby "becomes alive" then whatever we decide is correct and can never be wrong.

If the baby is born stillborn, well, forget that. It doesn't matter anymore, it's dead, whether or not it was living as a fetus is irrelevant. You can scientifically prove that a baby is a human being, ASSUMING that the baby is not born dead, once it is born. Therefore it has rights. You cannot do the same with a fetus.

Obviously I've changed my words from "alive" to "a human being"... it appears there was some misconception between two phrases which I mistakenly used interchangebly... my apologies.

Well so far nothing you have proposed has anything to do with truth anyway so why should that matter to you?

Hmm. Excellent potshot, but let's try to stick to the topic here...

What if it is born dead?

See above.

No that is not what it all boils down to. What it boils down to is whether a mother should be allowed to kill her baby for convience sake.

And that relies on whether or not the fetus is a human being. Admit it, that is the core of the abortion topic, both the pro-life and pro-choice stances rely on the knowledge one way or another.

Then let's place it 12 months after birth, then she can REALLY decide if she is ready to be a mother.

Funny.

ROFLMAO, this is really hilarious, I say my daughers unltra-sound the otherday, her baby was kicking and yawning and rubbed it's face, I think that was pretty good evidence that he is alive and well.

But is it a human being? Stop nitpicking over words, again, body cells are alive but I can kill them off as well. All that matters in this issue is whether or not it is a full-fledged human being.

sorry you lose

OK. Don't mind if I disacknowledge your opinions, then.

go to the mall tomorrow and every pregnant woman you see go up and ask her if that is her baby in there or just a fetus.

Yes, because mall-shopping pregnant women are the source of ultimate truth concerning touchy moral issues.

Everything I have posted is based solidly in scientific fact, I suggest you post some fact to back up your claim that every fetus growing in the womb is dead.

That wasn't my claim at all.

 

[aquapub]

At conception, the concoction is complete. The person has been compiled of all the components necessary to make a human. Yes, this person is completely dependent, but no more than a 2-week-old. The only difference here is that the left has succeeded to dehumanizing this particular group. They haven't made it to older kids yet.(kidding)

It's DNA proves that it is human, and the last time I checked, rocks, dirt, and other inanimate objects never spontaneously become alive, making fetuses the only thing in existence that aren't alive at their creation but just happen to randomly become alive conveniently right when it serves the purposes of feminists for them to become so-according to the bogus pseudo-science of the irresponsibility lobby. Give me a break. How can the left actually base their positions on such a tranparently fake turd of an argument?

It is killing for convenience. It should be illegal-even if the irrational adolescents of the left intent on violating fathers' rights and the rights of babies to live, just for the sexual unaccountability of women can't level with people honestly.

It is moronic to call this a "my body" issue, because there is another person being murdered here.

 

[Kelzie]

At conception, the concoction is complete. The person has been compiled of all the components necessary to make a human. Yes, this person is completely dependent, but no more than a 2-week-old. The only difference here is that the left has succeeded to dehumanizing this particular group. They haven't made it to older kids yet.(kidding).

Wrong. If a mother doesn't want a two-week old she can give it to another person. It's called adoption. If a mother doesn't want a fetus, she has to carry it for 9 months. A two-week old is dependant on a person, but it doesn't have to be the mother.

It's DNA proves that it is human, and the last time I checked, rocks, dirt, and other inanimate objects never spontaneously become alive, making fetuses the only thing in existence that aren't alive at their creation but just happen to randomly become alive conveniently right when it serves the purposes of feminists for them to become so-according to the bogus pseudo-science of the irresponsibility lobby. Give me a break. How can the left actually base their positions on such a tranparently fake turd of an argument?).

Your fingernails have human DNA...are they human? Course not. They are alive, just like a fetus is alive, just like all cells are alive. The difference between your fingernails, cells, fetusus (feti? :mrgreen: ), and a living human being is the concept of a being. A being is a conscious, independent thing. A fetus is neither conscious nor independant. And before you start, babies are, arguably, not conscious or independant, but they are not dependant o one person, like I said before. So no, I do not support killing babies.

It is killing for convenience. It should be illegal-even if the irrational adolescents of the left intent on violating fathers' rights and the rights of babies to live, just for the sexual unaccountability of women can't level with people honestly.

It is moronic to call this a "my body" issue, because there is another person being murdered here.

As has been said before, murder is illegal. Abortion is not. Therefore, abortion does not equal murder. And if a guy had to carry a fetus he didn't want around for nine months, I have a feeling abortion would have been legalized much sooner.

 

[Mixed View]

I'm mostly pro-life. I think that when people use abortion as birth control that is lazy, in-moral, and just irresponsible. Is it so freakin hard to wear a dang condom, is it?
I believe the choice was to have sex, and the choice shouldn't be whether or not your baby you created should live or die. Yah it's yours, half of you and half of your partner, just like you are of your parents.I don't see the difference in killing the baby right before it comes out and when it is out, but you pro-choice people apparently do.

 

[Kelzie]

I'm mostly pro-life. I think that when people use abortion as birth control that is lazy, in-moral, and just irresponsible. Is it so freakin hard to wear a dang condom, is it?
I believe the choice was to have sex, and the choice shouldn't be whether or not your baby you created should live or die. Yah it's yours, half of you and half of your partner, just like you are of your parents.I don't see the difference in killing the baby right before it comes out and when it is out, but you pro-choice people apparently do.

I too, think using abortion as birth control is lazy and irresponsible. However, regular birth control doesn't always work. Point in case, I was conceived while my mom was on the pill. And before you start, if my mom had aborted me, I probably wouldn't have cared one way or the other, because I wouldn't have existed.

However, if you don't agree with abortion, you won't agree with many forms of birth control. The pill, IUDs, morning after pill. All these don't stop fertilization (the pill does sometimes), just implantation. And really, why aren't you against condoms? They are preventing a life from being conceived. How is that better than abortion?

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquapub
At conception, the concoction is complete. The person has been compiled of all the components necessary to make a human. Yes, this person is completely dependent, but no more than a 2-week-old. The only difference here is that the left has succeeded to dehumanizing this particular group. They haven't made it to older kids yet.(kidding).

Wrong. If a mother doesn't want a two-week old she can give it to another person. It's called adoption. If a mother doesn't want a fetus, she has to carry it for 9 months.

So if we are going to decide that a baby at 12 weeks in the womb is not "a human being" is "not alive" then why don't we decide that babies at two-weeks out of the womb are not "a human being" and "not alive" then she can just kill it like the mother in your second instance?

A two-week old is dependant on a person, but it doesn't have to be the mother.

So?

Your fingernails have human DNA...are they human?

Yes they are human finger nails.

They are alive,

Actually they are not.

just like a fetus is alive, just like all cells are alive.

Well then just like you are alive then, shall we dispense with you so we can give your heart to someone who needs it?

The difference between your fingernails, cells, fetusus (feti? :mrgreen: ), and a living human being is the concept of a being.

Being: To exist in actuality; have life or reality:
Human, having the DNA of the denus and specius Homo Sapien

Now tell me where a baby in the womb fails to qualify.

A being is a conscious, independent thing.

Not necessarily. Babies, even born babies are not very independent at all and if we are going to start to define life on the basis of how dependent one is you are going to have a lot of problems dealing with the sick and disabled.

A fetus is neither conscious

You don't know that.

nor independant.

Neither was Chris Reeves, niether is a one hour past born baby.

but they are not dependant o one person, like I said before.

So what? Since when did that self-serving statement define life? Can you point me to a recognized biology book that says only things that are totally indepeneted of other things can be defined as life?

So no, I do not support killing babies.

Do you support partial birth abortion? Do you support abortion in the 2nd trimester? If so then you support killing babies.

As has been said before, murder is illegal. Abortion is not.

Only because our particular society has chosen at this point in time to define it that way. But then why don't we choose to grow babies in the labs and kill them so we can get the body parts people desperately need?

And if a guy...................................

Oh please spare us the petty arguments.

 

[Kelzie]

So if we are going to decide that a baby at 12 weeks in the womb is not "a human being" is "not alive" then why don't we decide that babies at two-weeks out of the womb are not "a human being" and "not alive" then she can just kill it like the mother in your second instance?

Because we don't have to. A baby doesn't need it's mother after it is born. Another person can take care of it. THe only reason that abortion is even an issue is that the fetus is dependent on it's mother. If it wasn't, someone else could carry it. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Actually they are not.

Actually, they contain cells, which are alive. Time to brush up on your biology.

Well then just like you are alive then, shall we dispense with you so we can give your heart to someone who needs it?

Do you not see the difference between a human being and a bunch of cells?

Being: To exist in actuality; have life or reality:
Human, having the DNA of the denus and specius Homo Sapien

Now tell me where a baby in the womb fails to qualify.

This definition is kind of dumb. According to it, fingernails are human beings, since they exist in reality and have human DNA. Care to try a better one?

Not necessarily. Babies, even born babies are not very independent at all and if we are going to start to define life on the basis of how dependent one is you are going to have a lot of problems dealing with the sick and disabled.



You don't know that.


Neither was Chris Reeves, niether is a one hour past born baby.


So what? Since when did that self-serving statement define life? Can you point me to a recognized biology book that says only things that are totally indepeneted of other things can be defined as life?.

I hate saying the same thing over and over again. For the last time. A baby is not dependent on one person. Anyone can take care of it. A fetus is dependent on one person. Only one person can take care of it. If a baby is unwanted, it can be put up for adoption. If a fetus is unwanted, since only one person can carry it, it is aborted. If another person could carry the fetus, I would have more questions about the necessity of abortion.

Do you support partial birth abortion? Do you support abortion in the 2nd trimester? If so then you support killing babies.?

If a baby can live outside of the womb, I do not support killing it.

Only because our particular society has chosen at this point in time to define it that way. But then why don't we choose to grow babies in the labs and kill them so we can get the body parts people desperately need?

You're right it has. Just like every other industrialized country. See a pattern here? And we can't grow babies in a lab, but thanks for that overly dramatic "what if".

Oh please spare us the petty arguments.

It wasn't petty, or even an argument really, but if you feel like seeing it that way, I don't mind.

 

[aquapub]

"Your fingernails have human DNA...are they human? Course not." Stinger

Do your fingernails have human DNA AND fall off and become adult human beings? no. This isn't rocket science.



"They are alive, just like a fetus is alive, just like all cells are alive. The difference between your fingernails, cells, fetusus (feti? ), and a living human being is the concept of a being. A being is a conscious, independent thing. A fetus is neither conscious nor independant."

If dependency determines who has the right to not be chopped into tiny pieces, then when will we see you advocating euthanasia for retards, vegetables, anyone even temporarily on life support? And you are ASSUMING that fetuses have conscious existence. I see them flinch when they stabbed in the back of the head. That argument is BS. They clearly have a conscious existence. It is moronic to err on the side of recklessness. People are being killed because people like this arrogantly assume things about other people to fit their own arbitrary criteria for calling things alive. Pro-abortionists have gotten where they are by confusing people with an overwhelming blur of flawed excuses like these.


Bottom line: Pro-abortionists, like everyone else, can grasp that what we are talking about is different than fingernails because it has totally unique human DNA. Unique from the mother. And if nothing else, we all know what we are looking at because unlike fingernails, it becomes an adult human being.

Please stop trying to convince people that what they know is the first stages of a human life is ok to destroy on the laughably stupid argument that it looks like tissue, or has features like fingernails. We know what it is. Dehumanize this group of people all you want, all you are telling us is that YOU dont care about them. YOU ARE NOT giving us any actual argument to justify allowing people to kill them.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
ROFL that a fetus is alive, yes how about any high school biology book. But since it was your claim that is in contention please supply any authoritative source that claims all fetuses are dead and not alive.

Alive? Depends on how you really define what life is, what being a human being is.

No you said it is "widely accepted that the fetus is not ALIVE". That is a fallacious statement. A fetus is just as much alive as you are and you were at that particular stage of your life.

Abortion is not about being "alive" or "dead"

That is preciesly what it is about. The baby is alive and well in the womb and a mother decides she doesn't want it so it has to be killed and removed so that it comes out dead.

, it's about being a human life,

It's not a dog life in there.

something that can really be considered a human

It's not a bird.

It is homo sapien.

and has a life that is necessary to protect over the safety of its mother.

What about when saftey is not an issue?

I use the term "alive" loosely.

No you used it incorrectly. You stated: "Of course whether or not a fetus is alive is a subject of heavy debate, and there really is no definite truth to the question. So really, as long as we agree that a baby is alive once it comes out of the womb"

The first part is not a subject of heavy debate, the baby is alive in the womb, it is not dead. The second part as far as I know has never been a point of contention as long as the baby is not still born I think we all agree it is alive.

If you would like to withdraw your claim then feel free to do so.

You seem to think anything that is alive is suddenly sacred.

I have no idea where you get the idea that I think anything that is alive is sacred. I do believe that we as humans have the right to life.

When I say that whether the fetus is living or not is a subject of debate, I mean whether it is living as a human being.

Then you should say what you mean more preciesly.

Body cells are living, but they don't have rights.

They do when they are part of the human they belong to. But then a single blood cell is not and will never be a complete human being at any stage of human exisitence while a fetus is a complete human being at that particular stage of it's life. And with nothing other than nurishment can complete it's existence through all the stages of human life.

Plants are living, but they don't have rights.

I don't know of any plants that are human do you?

That is how I use the term "life" in the context of abortion.

You didn't use the word life you used the word alive.


Quote: Originally Posted by jpwright
Of course, we could argue for hours and neither of us would change our positions considering we're both apparently relying on scientific facts to back up our positions. If you take my words in context, you would see that the only point I was making was that this subject is debatable


me>> No it is not debatable, fetuses are alive or they are dead. There is no inbetween. They aren't dead and then when born suddenly become alive.

I simply said the topic of abortion was debatable, not that the pro-choice stance was 100% true, and guess what, we're debating.

What you have simply done is try to justify the killing of babies in the womb by pronouncing them "not alive" which therefore means they are dead. Sorry that is not debateable so your premise does not hold up to scuritney.

We don't know what the truth is,

We do know what the truth is, a fetus better known as a baby is the womb is alive, it is proceeding with it's life just as every other human life proceeds, it is human it is not some other genus and species.

therefore, we assume that the blind zone does not exist, and say that a baby is living once it is born.

I can certainly see the blindness of your assumptions. So why don't we just say a baby is not a human being until it is out of the womb for two weeks?

And of course, you responded to this with the following...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Not if it is dead. Some baby's are born dead, it's call stillborn. But if what you are really trying to say is that "we can agree" that a baby is never alive until it is born, then why not agree it is not alive until it has been out of the womb until it is 12 months old? Then we can take their organs out and not be killing them. Just think of the lives we could save by doing so? If we can simple agree to when a baby "becomes alive" then whatever we decide is correct and can never be wrong.



If the baby is born stillborn, well, forget that. It doesn't matter anymore, it's dead, whether or not it was living as a fetus is irrelevant.

Well you said babies become alive when they are born, which of course is not true and some babies are born dead, it's called stillborn, they do not become alive.

You can scientifically prove that a baby is a human being, ASSUMING that the baby is not born dead, once it is born. Therefore it has rights. You cannot do the same with a fetus.

So the baby my daughter is carrying right now might be a dog being? My won't we be surprised!


Obviously I've changed my words from "alive" to "a human being"... it appears there was some misconception between two phrases which I mistakenly used interchangebly... my apologies.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
ROFLMAO, this is really hilarious, I say my daughers unltra-sound the otherday, her baby was kicking and yawning and rubbed it's face, I think that was pretty good evidence that he is alive and well.

But is it a human being?

Well the doctor swears at this point it is human and we watched it being right there on the screen.

Stop nitpicking over words, again, body cells are alive but I can kill them off as well.

They are not full-fledged human beings but a part of a full fledged human being

All that matters in this issue is whether or not it is a full-fledged human being.

Yes and a baby, even when it is a fetus is never ever a "part" of a human being, it is complete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
No that is not what it all boils down to. What it boils down to is whether a mother should be allowed to kill her baby for convience sake.

And that relies on whether or not the fetus is a human being. Admit it, that is the core of the abortion topic, both the pro-life and pro-choice stances rely on the knowledge one way or another.

It is human it is being. That is where you arguements fall apart. You try to rationalize away the simple facts and end up looking like a pretzel. And quite frankly the pro-abortion side doesn't give a hoot whether the baby is "a human being" or is "alive" or is a "life" all the pro-abortions side is concerned with is allowing the mother to kill it if that is her "choice".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Then let's place it 12 months after birth, then she can REALLY decide if she is ready to be a mother.

Funny.

Why not? If we can just decide that babies are not alive until they are born, then why not decide they are not alive until they have been out of the womb for 12 months? Why not? If we can simply decide when life begins then we can never be wrong, whatever we simply decide is correct.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
go to the mall tomorrow and every pregnant woman you see go up and ask her if that is her baby in there or just a fetus.

Yes, because mall-shopping pregnant women are the source of ultimate truth concerning touchy moral issues.

Dodging the issue I see. While you are at it ask her if it is alive. As her if she will agree with you that the baby in her womb is

a. not human
b. not alive
c. not being
d. not worthy of anything

 

[Stinger]

First it is not pro-abortion. It is pro-choice. ?

No it is pro-ABORTION, that is the choice that is supported.

We are for women CHOOSING whether to have an abortion or not.

You are for abortion.

You should be very proud of yourself for "allowing" women to choose what to eat or their hair style.

Why? Are you proud of yourself for "allowing" women to kill thier babies?

But that is not pro-choice.

Just as much as you. If having choice is the issue I support all kinds of choices.

I don't call pro-lifers anti-choice because it's just using semantics to **** other off and it's dumb.

Because choice is not the issue abortion is the issue.

What is so telling is how those who support abortion run from the fact. Why? If you are against abortion then why are you against it? If you are pro-abortion then why do you find it so hard to admit it?

Second, all cells are alive.

No some cells are alive and some are not alive, dead. Some parts of your body are not even cells.

Period. Your fingernails are alive.

Actually they aren't, what we call fingernails and toenails are actually keratin, but since you pose a moot arguement..........

When you scratch, you are killing cells.

OK, am I killing a human being? Am I killing a complete being? No.

Cells are not human beings.

Depends, all the cells in my body are a human being.

A being has consciousness, and the ability to live independently from others.

Not necessarily. A baby who is asleep has no consciousness and cannot live independently from others, even if that were a criteria for being alive.

A fetus has neither. And before you start with the whole infants-aren't-self-conscious bit, infants are also not dependent on a single individual for life, so if the mother doesn't want them, someone else does, and can take care of them.

Funny how your statement perfectly mimics one posted by someone else here to whom I responded SO WHAT? How does that become the criteria for life other than it is convienent for you.

So you must be against IUDs, which prevent implantation. Or pills, which can also prevent implantation (they also make an attempt to prevent fertilization, but of all three things the pill does to prevent pregnancies, preventing implantation works best).

Nope, If a woman elects to keep her uterus from beoming receptive to a new life so be it. She is contolling her body. But once a life has taken hold and is growing then purposefully killing it is another matter.

And you must really be against the morning after pill, which can be taken up to 5 days after sex.

Depends on how it works, if it prevents the implantation like before pills or if it is designed to kill the baby after the fact.

Come to think about it, condoms prevent a potential person from being created, so they must also be wrong...where does it stop?

Do you realize how flawed your premise here is, but it does show the desperation in your attempts to justify abortion especially abortion on demand.

 

[ShamMol]

Someone mentioned the word homo sapien. Sapien thus means wise and rational. I define human beings (not life because there are a lot of things that are alive that are not sentient beings). For me it is not a scientific matter (though that does play into my thought process). It is purely philisophical-a being is a being when it can consciously think. That happens anywhere from as early as 5 months to as late as 6 months into the pregnancy when the fetus can start to think that way. It usually happens around 5.5 months. Now, it is always life, but that doesn't mean it has the same rights and priveledges as a human being.

 

[jpwright]

No you said it is "widely accepted that the fetus is not ALIVE". That is a fallacious statement. A fetus is just as much alive as you are and you were at that particular stage of your life.

That is preciesly what it is about. The baby is alive and well in the womb and a mother decides she doesn't want it so it has to be killed and removed so that it comes out dead.

That still doesn't prove why it's immoral to terminate the pregnancy. Life doesn't prove being. The fetus that became me was hardly the same as I am now or even right at birth. I am a full-fledged human being, a fetus is a group of cells working to become a full-fledged human being. That is why fetuses are born, they are now full-fledged human beings and no longer rely on the mother's womb for life support.

It's not a dog life in there. It's not a bird. It is homo sapien.

No, the fetus will turn into a Homo sapien, until then it is a fetus of a Homo sapien. Big difference.

What about when saftey is not an issue?

That shouldn't matter. Why retract the woman's right to not bear a child simply because it would not kill her to do so?

No you used it incorrectly. You stated: "Of course whether or not a fetus is alive is a subject of heavy debate, and there really is no definite truth to the question. So really, as long as we agree that a baby is alive once it comes out of the womb"

The first part is not a subject of heavy debate, the baby is alive in the womb, it is not dead. The second part as far as I know has never been a point of contention as long as the baby is not still born I think we all agree it is alive.

If you would like to withdraw your claim then feel free to do so.

Since I appear to have misworded my claim... allow me to rephrase it. Although there are only two definitive states to organisms, alive and dead, the question of whether a fetus' life represents a human life that we give so many rights to is debatable. And it is. You do not have definitive proof to show that a fetus' life is the same as a human life, and neither does anyone trying to prove otherwise. It is your opinion.

I have no idea where you get the idea that I think anything that is alive is sacred. I do believe that we as humans have the right to life.

Funny how you feel the fetus should have rights simply because it is not dead, then.

Then you should say what you mean more preciesly.

Again, my apologies.

They do when they are part of the human they belong to. But then a single blood cell is not and will never be a complete human being at any stage of human exisitence while a fetus is a complete human being at that particular stage of it's life. And with nothing other than nurishment can complete it's existence through all the stages of human life.

Complete human being? Why does a fetus rely on its mother for life support and nutrients then? If a fetus was a complete human being from day 1, the gestation period would be about 3 seconds. It's not. That's the whole point of the 9-month gestation period.

I don't know of any plants that are human do you?

I mean, honestly, the plants are trampled on by humans every day and we don't give them rights simply because they're not human! Stupid pro-choice-to-stomp-on-plants bigots! *end sarcasm*

You didn't use the word life you used the word alive.

Same root.

No it is not debatable, fetuses are alive or they are dead. There is no inbetween. They aren't dead and then when born suddenly become alive.

See above. Life doesn't prove inherent worth, being does.

What you have simply done is try to justify the killing of babies in the womb by pronouncing them "not alive" which therefore means they are dead. Sorry that is not debateable so your premise does not hold up to scuritney.

So-called "scuritney" doesn't prove anything. I don't claim that the fetuses are not alive, I claimed that whether their life has inherent worth is debatable.

We do know what the truth is, a fetus better known as a baby is the womb is alive, it is proceeding with it's life just as every other human life proceeds, it is human it is not some other genus and species.

No. See above, fetuses rely on their mothers for nutrients, without their mother's support they would die. That gives the mother the right to choice, the fetus is not independently "proceeding with it's life".

I can certainly see the blindness of your assumptions. So why don't we just say a baby is not a human being until it is out of the womb for two weeks?

That's totally unrelated to what I said before. The "blind zone" is the gestation period, where science cannot prove the fetus is human. The fetus is proveably human when it is born because it was able to be born, it was able to live outsides its mother's womb.

Well you said babies become alive when they are born, which of course is not true and some babies are born dead, it's called stillborn, they do not become alive.

See above.

Well the doctor swears at this point it is human and we watched it being right there on the screen.

They are not full-fledged human beings but a part of a full fledged human being

Again, life doesn't prove inherent worth. You admit that the fetus is part of the mother, therefore, why does the mother not have the right to terminate it from growing?

Yes and a baby, even when it is a fetus is never ever a "part" of a human being, it is complete.

Way to contradict yourself.

It is human it is being. That is where you arguements fall apart. You try to rationalize away the simple facts and end up looking like a pretzel. And quite frankly the pro-abortion side doesn't give a hoot whether the baby is "a human being" or is "alive" or is a "life" all the pro-abortions side is concerned with is allowing the mother to kill it if that is her "choice".

"It is human it is being"? Great logic. Nobody who advocates pro-choice would advocate the choice to kill a child that has already been born. That proves that the pro-choice side does care about inherent worth, not just convienence, otherwise pro-choice mothers would just kill off their kids if they didn't feel like raising them anymore. That is precisely why the abortion issue boils down to the state of the fetus.

Why not? If we can just decide that babies are not alive until they are born, then why not decide they are not alive until they have been out of the womb for 12 months? Why not? If we can simply decide when life begins then we can never be wrong, whatever we simply decide is correct.

I thought you were kidding, but apparently you didn't read my statement before... a child that is born can be proven to be a human life through science instead of biased opinions.

Dodging the issue I see. While you are at it ask her if it is alive. As her if she will agree with you that the baby in her womb is

a. not human
b. not alive
c. not being
d. not worthy of anything

How is that dodging the issue? You don't seem to think the opinions of thousands of pro-choice mothers who advocate the right to have an abortion matter, so why should I listen to the opinions of random pregnant mothers in the mall?

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
So if we are going to decide that a baby at 12 weeks in the womb is not "a human being" is "not alive" then why don't we decide that babies at two-weeks out of the womb are not "a human being" and "not alive" then she can just kill it like the mother in your second instance?

Because we don't have to.

We don't have to decide any which way but the arguement has been put forth that we decide that a baby is not a human being until it is born. We don't have to decide it that way but that is what my opposition wants to do, so why no decide the baby is not a human life until it is two-weeks out of the womb?

A baby doesn't need it's mother after it is born.

It needs a mother or someone to take care of it, so what?

Another person can take care of it.

So what does that have to do whether it is a human being or not? What folly.

THe only reason that abortion is even an issue is that the fetus is dependent on it's mother.

No the only reason abortion is an issue is because many people believe killing unborn babies is not something our society should allow.

If it wasn't, someone else could carry it. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

People use suragates to carry their children quite a bit these days.

Actually, they contain cells, which are alive. Time to brush up on your biology.

Actually what we call the fingernails and we trim off are keratin. Biology was my major. But just in case you still have doubts

Nail Plate
The nail plate is the actual fingernail, made of translucent keratin. The pink appearance of the nail comes from the blood vessels underneath the nail. The underneath surface of the nail plate has grooves along the length of the nail that help anchor it to the nail bed.
http://dermatology.about.com/cs/nailanatomy/a/nailanatomy.htm

Do you not see the difference between a human being and a bunch of cells?

Depends on if the "bunch of cells" is an organized human being or just a part of a human being or another type of being altogether. What is the distinction you make between "a bunch of cells" and human being and the similarity you are trying to make between "a bunch of cells" and a baby in the womb. The "bunch of cells" I keep seeing in my daughters sonagram sure looks like a human being to me.

This definition is kind of dumb. According to it, fingernails are human beings, since they exist in reality and have human DNA. Care to try a better one?

No fingernails are clearly, rather transulently keratin and keratin is not a human being. A human being is a complete being, at various stages throughout it's life. Made up of different cells doing different jobs but all the same person.

Me>> So what? Since when did that self-serving statement define life? Can you point me to a recognized biology book that says only things that are totally independent of other things can be defined as life?.

I hate saying the same thing over and over again. For the last time. A baby is not dependent on one person.

So what. I asked before show me a biology textbook that says only things that are independent are life. A baby can't walk either, so what. Can't chew a steak, so what?

Have you ever even seen a sonagram of a baby in the womb?

Anyone can take care of it.

Not anybody.

A fetus is dependent on one person.

So what?

Only one person can take care of it. If a baby is unwanted, it can be put up for adoption. If a fetus is unwanted, since only one person can carry it, it is aborted. If another person could carry the fetus, I would have more questions about the necessity of abortion.

So explain how that justifies killing a human life? If I am stranded on a desert island with a baby and I don't want it and don't want to take care of it is it OK for me to kill it? Hey it ain't dependant on anybody, it should fend for itself.

If a baby can live outside of the womb, I do not support killing it.

Why not? It is just as much alive in the womb as outside.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Only because our particular society has chosen at this point in time to define it that way. But then why don't we choose to grow babies in the labs and kill them so we can get the body parts people desperately need?

You're right it has. Just like every other industrialized country. See a pattern here? And we can't grow babies in a lab, but thanks for that overly dramatic "what if".

Cloning has started if you think it not possible to eventually get to that better think again. All my kids have been premies and the point at which premies survive gets earlier and earlier every year. It's one reason RvW needs to be reviewed because babies are surviving outside the womb much earlier than the third trimester that was the cut off back then. So when life can be created outside the womb, and grown fully outside the womb, will you then oppose all abortion since your premise that it's OK to kill that life if it can't be sustained outside the womb has gone out the window?

But that being said what pattern? The pattern in China is to kill off baby girls through abortion, that the kind of pattern you are talking about?

 

[Kelzie]

Cloning has started if you think it not possible to eventually get to that better think again. All my kids have been premies and the point at which premies survive gets earlier and earlier every year. It's one reason RvW needs to be reviewed because babies are surviving outside the womb much earlier than the third trimester that was the cut off back then. So when life can be created outside the womb, and grown fully outside the womb, will you then oppose all abortion since your premise that it's OK to kill that life if it can't be sustained outside the womb has gone out the window?

So I'm not going to answer the rest because it's been answered numerous times, and at this point, it's your opinion that a fetus is a human and it's my opinion that it's not.

However, since you asked an original question... if life could be created fully independent of a women, I would not support abortion. However it can't. And until that time, I will support women choosing what happens in their body.

Just curious, are there any women here who are pro-life? Cause I have a feeling most (but maybe not all) the pro-lifers here are men.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
jpwright>> A valid point. Of course whether or not a fetus is alive is a subject of heavy debate, and there really is no definite truth to the question.

Originally Posted by Stinger
And that is absolute garbage. It is alive, there is no denying that the fetus is a living thing. It is not dead it is alive and functioning just as every other human life has function during that particular stage of it's own unique life. That is biological fact. Nothing to do with religion or morality, simply biological fact.

That's an excessively oversimplistic way to view things, which is good for your side of the argument, because if you look into the argument with all of its actual complexities, your argument holds quite a bit less water.

It is your side that is left with having to jump through irrational hoops to explain their position making thier arguements quite complicated. And it is one of the foundations of reason that the simplier arguement is usually the correct arguement. The fact is it is quite simply and the statement that jpwright posted is fallicious.

All sperms function, just like we all did when we were sperms

Sorry but I was never a sperm.

, does that make sperms human life?

How could it sperms don't become human life. Go study your biology. A sperm will never become a human life. Now when a sperm pierces the wall of the egg and and the DNA in the sperm gets injected into that egg, the rest or the sperms then falls away and is discarded, and the miracle of life happens THEN and only then is there a life.

Is jerking off genocide, because millions of sperm die every time you pull your pork. That's biological fact too, it doesn't prove anything.

Do you really want to go on record asking such sophmoric questions? Once again, the little sperm you seem to get on your hands are not little people, there is no life there if you don't clean up after yourself when you come back there will not be little people waiting for you. There is a lot more to conception than that.

I don't get your point. Fine, it exists, so do lots of things.

And are they of the genus and species as we humans?

So by this logic, if it's alive and is a being, then it is immoral to kill it.

If it is human.

Eat much meat?

Not human.

That was actually alive and functioning outside of a womb, and it was killed and eaten, I know I eat it with reckless abandon.

Human?

Are cow is more intelligent than a fetus,

I don't know that to be a fact but so what?

and it's surviving out of the womb, so why is it moral to eat beef,

Why would it be immoral?

yet immoral to abort a pregnancy,

Of a human.

which can't function outside of the womb, and doesn't even have the ability to eat on its own.

So what?

Fine, get me a fetus to speak on its behalf. How about it doesn't even have to speak, it just needs to survive outside its mother's womb, outside of the amniotic sack,

Show me the scientific rational that says only then are you a living being. What is the premise of that conclusion? Babies are surving ourside the womb at earlier and earlier stages, someday it may be possible to survive having never been in a womb. Will you oppose all abortions then?

and show me that it deserves these rights.

We are endowed with those rights unless you want to change a fundimental principle of our nation.

Alright, it's called pro-choice, I really don't see what part of that you don't understand.

Because there is not a part I don't understand. What I really understand is that you can't bring yourself to state the truth. It is abortion you support not "choice". Everyone supports people having choices, all kinds of choices. Your side which supports abortion simply wants to hide behind that phrase. Very telling.

We support freedom, the freedom to decide what your own personal belief is on things that are not scientific fact, and to act on your own decision.

So do I when another's rights are not denied. Like the right to life.

I personally have no problem with abortion, some people do.

Then you should have no problem saying that your pro and not anti abortion.

I believe they should have the right to decide not to have an abortion, just as my girlfriend and I should have the right to decide to have an abortion.

What if she decides to have one and you decide not to? Or what is she decides not to have one and you decide to have one?

You see, regardless of what you say, it is not a fact that a fetus is a human being, a human life, it is a belief.

No it is no other life form other than human. And it is being. But if you can show that it is some other form of life then please do so. You on the other hand don't want to accept that fact and would rather believe it is something else, but there is no scientific basis for that belief.

Due to the fact that it is not scientific fact, we believe that people are fallible, and thus there is an opportunity that we may be wrong,

If you don't know then how can you belief the way you do? We give people the benifit of the doubt in the legal system, the facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet on the most specious reasoning you condemn the unborn. If we have to err shouldn't that error be on the side of life?

Your belief is that you know that you're right, which comes from EXTREME arrogance,

No it comes from education in the subject.

and we are all wrong,

You haven't proven you are right only that you don't know therefore it is OK to kill unborn babies.

and that for some reason you are more justified in holding your opinion than I am in holding mine,

Convince me otherswise.

and thus your opinion should be forced upon me, which could be interpretted as a facist belief.

How can I possible force my opinion on you? I'm not even in your presence so how do you conclude I can force my opinion on you?

So how do you know you're right,

You have proven me otherwise.

I favor the ability to have an abortion,

See there you go again trying to wiggle your way out of being pro-abortion. OK if you oppose abortion why? If you don't oppose abortion then you are pro not anti. I favor the ability of a woman to choose, to choose to have her termor removed, I am pro-cancer surgry. I favor the ability of a woman to choose, to choose to have a triple bypass, I am very pro-heart surgery. It is a wonderful thing.

I favor a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body

I do too, and I favor you being able to do with your body, as long as it doesn't hurt someone elses body.

, and I view that fetus as part of her body,

Once again showing a total lack of scientific fact to your beliefs, once again showing it is YOU who puts their entier belief to faith. A fetus is never a part of the mothers body.

and you believe that she should have NO say in what goes on within her body.

She had that say so when she allowed the man to impregnate her. Now there is another life involved.

That makes ME pro-choice, and you anti-choice.

No I like choices when they don't hurt someone else. But the fact is it is the abortion that you favor, that is the only choice you are talking about.

Morality has a place, moral superiority has none,

Blah blah blah blah blah. See what I mean about it is YOU who has to complicate things with such nonsense in order to try and justify the unjustifiable.

because you have no way to justify that you are somehow more moral than I

Since I haven't your point is moot.

We are all sinners, don't forget it.

Sorry but I don't belief in sin but since you do then how do you dare support abortion, the killing of one of your God's children

Alright, not NECCISARILY pro-abortion, we are pro-abortion RIGHTS.

The right to abort, see what I mean about having to be so wishy washy about your own position.

We believe in freedom, and apparently you don't, I think it's as simple as that

What is simple is that you have to engage in such rhetoric because you can't justify your own position.

(I know it's not actually that simple, but that is a major aspect, that we believe that people should be free to make their own decisions, and you believe that you should, for some reason, make those decisions for them)

If your neighbor came and told you he was tired of his kids so he had decided to kill them would you object? Well since I believe that the life in the womb is just as alive as his kids can you see why I would object? So your petty arguements as above are specious. If you come from my side of the arguement that it is life in the womb then I am protecting that life from someone else decission to kill it just as surely as you would stop your neighbor.