Is Abortion The Taking of Innocent Human Life? (1 Viewer)

[GiWill]

I am just curious as to the opinions out there regarding whether or not abortion is taking innocent human life.

My stance on this issue is pro-life. Medical science supports that a unique embryo with its own DNA is created at the point of conception. This is the basis of life, DNA. So regardless of the stage of development or viability of the fetus, life exists in the womb. Based on this definition of life, I can only conclude that abortion is the taking of innocent human life.

 

[Enola/Alone]

I believe that abortion ends the life of a human fetus, but I don't see it as taking a human life in the sense that you or I are human lives. I don't believe that the fetus should be counted as a human being in it's own right til birth.

 

[talloulou]

I believe that abortion ends the life of a human fetus, but I don't see it as taking a human life in the sense that you or I are human lives. I don't believe that the fetus should be counted as a human being in it's own right til birth.

At conception a homosapien organism exists. Human. That human life clearly is killed during an abortion. Everything else is politics and semantics. Its homosapien and human but not a human being till birth? What subjective definition of the term "being" are you using to arrive at this conclusion? You don't think it should be counted? Sounds similar to the old belief that women shouldn't vote to me.

 

[Enola/Alone]

At conception a homosapien organism exists. Human. That human life clearly is killed during an abortion.

A human life, sure. Human being? No. It has no consciousness, no ability to feel pain until a late gestation, no ability to survive without the bodily resources of another.

Everything else is politics and semantics.

And biology.

Its homosapien and human but not a human being till birth? What subjective definition of the term "being" are you using to arrive at this conclusion?

As above. A human being to me can survive independently of another's bodily resources. The fetus can't.

You don't think it should be counted?

Nope.

Sounds similar to the old belief that women shouldn't vote to me.

There's a big difference between supporting abortion and supporting prejudice against born human beings, although I must admit this is a break from the Holokaust comparisons that usually get flung our way.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think it's obviously the killing of human life. There's no other way to define it.

As far as "innocent"-- what the Hell does "innocent" mean? Has it been convicted by a jury of its peers? Obviously not.

The question is, "does it deserve due process in the first place?" and I can think of no reason that it does. It's not an American citizen-- citizenship being conferred by birth-- and has questionable legal standing. It has no outstanding family or legal ties to anyone except the person trying to kill it, and I can't make any sense of the argument that the State has a valid interest in an organism wholly contained within and dependent upon another person's body.

Thus, I can see no reason why fetuses should benefit from any form of legal protection, except for the mother's right to security in her person.

 

[talloulou]

The question is, "does it deserve due process in the first place?" and I can think of no reason that it does. It's not an American citizen-- citizenship being conferred by birth--

Since when do we allow homosapiens to be killed on the basis that they aren't citizens?

It has no outstanding family or legal ties to anyone except the person trying to kill it

What if the biological father feels a bond and wishes to raise the child?

And why should a mother have the right not only to kill a fetus but further the right to donate the body to science? And why should scientists have the right to rob a dead female fetus of the eggs in her ovaries, fertilize those eggs creating embryos, and then later destroying those embryos? At some point shouldn't we at the very least respect life even if we've decided to take it?

 

[jkille]

I believe that abortion ends the life of a human fetus, but I don't see it as taking a human life in the sense that you or I are human lives. I don't believe that the fetus should be counted as a human being in it's own right til birth.

I'd like to ask why you make a distinction between a human life and a human fetus, since, biologically, a human fetus is a human life.

And also, why don't you think the fetus should count? By killing it, aren't you denying it the right to become a human, like you and I?

 

[talloulou]

Should the unborn be made into mothers? Should eggs be taken from fetal females and used as donor eggs for infertile women? Or crazier still should the ovaries be stolen from aborted babies to be placed in women whose ovaries don't create eggs?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A02E0DA1E3EF935A35752C0A962958260

"A 10-week-old female fetus has already made all its eggs, about six million to seven million, he said. If a fetal ovary is implanted into a woman, the ovary grows to adult size over a period that has yet to be determined. After that the eggs mature naturally. The procedure would allow a woman to become pregnant without using eggs donated by another woman, a procedure that involves fertilization in the laboratory and implantation in the uterus.

Egg donors are in short supply in the United States, infertility experts said."

Good thing those aborted homo sapiens aren't human beings and how convenient that their parts can be harvested for human beings. One of the things that has researchers so excited about all this fetal research is that it's just so gosh darn hard to get sentient human females to give up their eggs and embryos for donation. Lucily the female fetus is non-sentient, non humanbeing, who has no rights and thus she makes the perfect silent albeit dead donor mother!

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Since when do we allow homosapiens to be killed on the basis that they aren't citizens?

Since the first time we picked up a rock and used it to bash in the skull of someone from a neighboring tribe.

If you want a more "American" example... Indians. Blacks. British loyalists. Canadians. Everyone we've ever been at war with.

Homo sapiens do not gain legal protection by default. They must be granted legal protection, and they must be granted legal protection for a reason.

What if the biological father feels a bond and wishes to raise the child?

I've already covered why his claim is unsupportable. Until the child is born, he is not capable of raising or supporting it. His "claim" is nothing more than demanding the use of another person's body for his own purposes-- a practice which our country rightfully abandoned more than a century ago.

And why should a mother have the right not only to kill a fetus but further the right to donate the body to science?

If she has the right to kill it, why shouldn't she also have the right to dispose of it as she sees fit? It's not like fetuses are toxic or non-biodegradable.

At some point shouldn't we at the very least respect life even if we've decided to take it?

You'll have to define what you mean by "respect life" before I can answer that. Remember, when scientists are fertilizing those eggs and creating embryos, they are usually looking for the means to produce new medicines and treatments that prolong our lives, protect us from illness, and generally allow us to live better.

Besides, have you ever been to a factory farm? Care to explain how force-feeding chickens through a tube and recycling their waste products-- to produce plumper birds-- is "respecting life"?

 

[talloulou]

Besides, have you ever been to a factory farm? Care to explain how force-feeding chickens through a tube and recycling their waste products-- to produce plumper birds-- is "respecting life"?

Yes well that's why I rarely eat meat and when I do I buy organic. Either way I certainly will agree that animals are treated very unethically though out of concern for their own health many humans are coming around and realizing it is to their own benefit to treat even that which they are going to eat with respect. Not sure what any of that has to do with abortion or making the unborn mothers.

 

[FallingPianos]

At conception a homosapien organism exists.

i've been trying to figure this out, but I think I got it now. "a homosapien" does not exist, ever. you are not "a homosapien". H. sapiens is not an object, its a classification. you are classified as h. sapiens, but you are not a homosapien. every single cell in your body is classified as h. sapiens.

i'm not saying that your statement is completely wrong. at conception an organism classified as h. sapiens with unique DNA from its parents does indeed exist.

I just think there has been some confusion about what "homo sapiens" means.

I hope someone doesnt yell at me and tell me I got it all wrong. :rofl

 

[talloulou]

i've been trying to figure this out, but I think I got it now. "a homosapien" does not exist, ever. you are not "a homosapien". H. sapiens is not an object, its a classification. you are classified as h. sapiens, but you are not a homosapien. every single cell in your body is classified as h. sapiens.

i'm not saying that your statement is completely wrong. at conception an organism classified as h. sapiens with unique DNA from its parents does indeed exist.

I just think there has been some confusion about what "homo sapiens" means.

I hope someone doesnt yell at me and tell me I got it all wrong. :rofl

Well I'm in complete disagreement with you. Taxonomy is the classification of all living organisms. The scientific name for every living organism known to science. Humans are homo sapiens. It is how we are classed because it is what we are. Since the embryo is a living homo sapien organism it would be classed the same as you or I by science. We definitely ARE homo sapiens and we are classed as such. To say a homo sapien does not exist ever.....is total BS and completely ignornant. Homo sapien is in fact the only thing prochoicers can not perverse or spin the way they do with human.....oh well my hair is human.....or being.....oh well being implies yadda yadda yadda.

And yet off we go with someone even trying to spin homo sapien. Good luck with that but it won't float.

And no every single cell in your body is not classified as homo sapien. Homo sapien implies a complete human organism. Not a part or a piece of but a whole organism.

Homo sa·pi·ens Audio pronunciation of "Homo sapiens" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sp-nz, -nz)
n.

The modern species of humans, the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Homo sapiens

 

[FallingPianos]

Well I'm in complete disagreement with you. Taxonomy is the classification of all living organisms. The scientific name for every living organism known to science. Humans are homo sapiens. It is how we are classed because it is what we are. Since the embryo is a living homo sapien organism it would be classed the same as you or I by science. We definitely ARE homo sapiens and we are classed as such. To say a homo sapien does not exist ever.....is total BS and completely ignornant. Homo sapien is in fact the only thing prochoicers can not perverse or spin the way they do with human.....oh well my hair is human.....or being.....oh well being implies yadda yadda yadda.

And yet off we go with someone even trying to spin homo sapien. Good luck with that but it won't float.

And no every single cell in your body is not classified as homo sapien. Homo sapien implies a complete human organism. Not a part or a piece of but a whole organism.

Homo sa·pi·ens Audio pronunciation of "Homo sapiens" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sp-nz, -nz)
n.

The modern species of humans, the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Homo sapiens

perhaps I was unclear. what I mean is that H. sapiens is a classification, not a tangable object. you are classified as H. sapiens, but you are not "a homo sapien"

 

[talloulou]

perhaps I was unclear. what I mean is that H. sapiens is a classification, not a tangable object. you are classified as H. sapiens, but you are not "a homo sapien"

That's ridiculous. I'm a homo sapien and despite your ignorance so are you. I'm not used to weak "spin" arguments coming from you Star....what's up?

 

[alphamale]

Noboby knows the answer to this, because "Justice" Brennan short-circuited a policy decision which should have been in the purview of state legislatures. The wide-ranging national debate covering the medical, philosophical, legal, and moral aspects of this was never held. The pro-abortionists never had to engage in a real debate because Brennan gave them what they wanted out of hand. It was as if two teams were going to play a basketball game, and one second into the game, the ref suddenly declared one side the winner and walked away. Now that Roe may be overturned and the issue returned to the states, the abortionists at long last will have to substitute real argument for their feminist slogans.

 

[FallingPianos]

That's ridiculous. I'm a homo sapien and despite your ignorance so are you. I'm not used to weak "spin" arguments coming from you Star....what's up?

for example, color is a classification.

my pencil is red, but its not a red. its a pencil.

likewise, you are H. sapiens, but you are not a H. sapiens. you are an organism.

 

[talloulou]

for example, color is a classification.

my pencil is red, but its not a red. its a pencil.

likewise, you are H. sapiens, but you are not a H. sapiens. you are an organism.

No it's more like Mexicans are Mexicans and the Irish are Irish and Asians are Asians but they all are homo sapiens. All organisms belong to a certain species. They are members of that species.

This argument is so pathetic.....

 

[talloulou]

likewise, you are H. sapiens, but you are not a H. sapiens. you are an organism.

Can you find any scientist or dr. that agrees with you on this weak weak weak argument????????????????

 

[FallingPianos]

No it's more like Mexicans are Mexicans and the Irish are Irish and Asians are Asians but they all are homo sapiens. All organisms belong to a certain species. They are members of that species.

I agree completely. no where in that statement did you contradict mine.

 

[talloulou]

I agree completely. no where in that statement did you contradict mine.

They are all homo sapiens. You seemed to have been arguing that they are not homo sapiens. A red pencil is not a red, it's a pencil. Well a mexican homo sapien is a homo sapien.

 

[FallingPianos]

They are all homo sapiens. You seemed to have been arguing that they are not homo sapiens. A red pencil is not a red, it's a pencil. Well a mexican homo sapien is a homo sapien.

"homo sapien" isnt a term. thats the problem. "homo sapiens" is not the plural of "homo sapien"

"homo sapiens" is a discription, not a tangable object. it has no plural. just like the color red.

 

[talloulou]

"homo sapien" isnt a term.

Really?? I find that claim ridiculous. How do you back that up?

"homo sapiens" is not the plural of "homo sapien"

Why not and says who?

"homo sapiens" is a discription, not a tangable object. it has no plural. just like the color red.

Agains says who? There are tons of science and educational articles that use the supposed non-existent term homo sapien as well as homo sapiens.

 

[talloulou]

Homo sa·pi·ens Audio pronunciation of "Homo sapiens" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sp-nz, -nz)
n.

The modern species of humans, the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Homo sapiens

Homo sapiens
One entry found for Homo sapiens.
Main Entry: Ho·mo sa·pi·ens
Pronunciation: "hO-(")mO-'sA-pE-"enz, -&nz, esp British -'sa-pE-&nz
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, species name, from Homo, genus name + sapiens, specific epithet, from Latin, wise, intelligent -- more at HOMO, SAPIENT
: HUMANKIND

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homo sapiens

Your claims are illogical and unless you provide something other than your ridiculous say so to back them up there really is no debate.

 

[FallingPianos]

Really?? I find that claim ridiculous. How do you back that up?



Why not and says who?



Agains says who? There are tons of science and educational articles that use the supposed non-existent term homo sapien as well as homo sapiens.

i cannot find the term "homo sapien" in any dictionary. I looked in a wikipedia article, as well as some other random websites that I cannot remember.

also, dictionaries never list plural's of words as their own word. its always listed under the singular term. but the term "homo sapiens" has been listed under every dictionary I've checked as its own term.

 

[talloulou]

i cannot find the term "homo sapien" in any dictionary. I looked in a wikipedia article, as well as some other random websites that I cannot remember.

also, dictionaries never list plural's of words as their own word. its always listed under the singular term. but the term "homo sapiens" has been listed under every dictionary I've checked as its own term.

I'm sorry Star....I wasn't understanding what you were getting at. But you are absolutely correct and I was wrong. Though the term homo sapien can be found in many places it is incorrect. Homo sapiens is correct. For singular use I suppose one should say a hominid.

hom·i·nid Audio pronunciation of "hominids" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-nd)
n.

A primate of the family Hominidae, of which Homo sapiens is the only extant species.

Sorry I apologize for jumping the gun and thinking you were arguing crazy. I was wrong and you weren't spinning anything and I actually learned that the term homosapien is incorrect as the term always has an s. However what does get confusing is that a species can be both singular and plural. Therefore whether you are talking about one member of a species or a group of that species the species name would be the same. So a homo sapiens is a homo sapiens I guess but it sounds.....off.

"Homo sapiens is Latin for thinking man and is in fact singular according to strict grammar rules (plural would be homines sapientes,) but many incorrectly take homo sapiens to be plural, and homo sapien to be singular."

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/back-formation