As surprising as this may be to some people, there is no debate within the medical community as to when life begins. Life begins at conception. Therefore, every "succesful" abortion ends the life of a living human being.jallman said:First and foremost, I am not distressed at all since my argument still has the backing of the Supreme Court. But let me point something out to you. In the above posts, I accepted the information from my own source. I, in no way rejected that information, as you would believe. And it is not only my opinion that human life does not begin at conception...it has basis in hard science that is quantifiable and qualifiable. This is something you have, thus far, been unable to provide to back your opinion. Show me an undeniable life activity in a zygote that is shared with a late term fetus. This invocation of secular science was, after all, your challenge to start with.
As for my acceptance of my own source...I accept my own source fully. There were how many other views on when human life begins in my source in contrast to your conception argument? And besides, within your own quotation, I bolded further sections which refuted your argument...let me repeat...within your own quote from a source I handed you. I am simply stating, if you have nothing left to offer except drivel and quotations of song lyrics that have nothing to do with anything we are discussing, then the debate has ended with you failing to meet the burden you placed upon your opponent. In effect, you have defeated yourself, so I can't even claim credit. A pity, because I was really boning to win this one on my own merit.
This is the classic "what if".kal-el said:In all reality guys, let me offer you this "hypothetical" scenario: what if a female is raped? Should she conceive? Or does she, as I believe, have the right to abort the child? Let's drop our primitive, dreary, out-dated religious beliefs here. Condemning science (abortion) is a crime against humanity.
kal-el said:In all reality guys, let me offer you this "hypothetical" scenario: what if a female is raped? Should she conceive? Or does she, as I believe, have the right to abort the child? Let's drop our primitive, dreary, out-dated religious beliefs here. Condemning science (abortion) is a crime against humanity.
Fantasea said:This is the classic "what if".
Think about it.
How many rapes occur each day in the US?
Treatment received by victims of rape virtually ensures that no pregnancy will occur. In the event that some few do occur, contrast them to the four thousand abortions which occur every day. Staggering odds, wouldn't you say?
The child is an innocent party. Why kill it? Let it live. Let it be born. Let it be offered for adoption.
Busta said:Huh...lets keep this a level playing field. If I can not observe religion then you can not observe science.
Deal?
I do not condemn abortion as a crime because of science. I condemn it because of faith. If Kasyade had not defied God and given us this knowledge of abortion, there would not be a problem.
Uh, since when does the killing of a human being count as "science?" If a woman is raped, then she has every right to give the child up for adoption, but killing the child through abortion would be equivalent to executing an innocent party for the father's crime.kal-el said:In all reality guys, let me offer you this "hypothetical" scenario: what if a female is raped? Should she conceive? Or does she, as I believe, have the right to abort the child? Let's drop our primitive, dreary, out-dated religious beliefs here. Condemning science (abortion) is a crime against humanity.
To begin with, there is no physical suffering associated with a pregnancy from rape any more than any other pregnancy. Secondly, even if this were the case, one's "suffering" does not justify the killing of an innocent human being.kal-el said:Death is always a bad thing. But suffering is terrible, and everything must be done to prevent this. Now that we know how to prevent suffering, it's a crime not to put an end to it.
A mercy killing, eh? First, there is no way of knowing for sure if the child will get the disease. Beethoven's parents had a hereditary history of tuberculosis and hearing deficiency. Under your line of thinking, they should have aborted Beethoven. Yet, like so many of the 40 million lives lost, it would have been society's loss.kal-el said:Here's another "hypothetical" situation: What if a mother carried a fatal hereditary disease? Should she give birth to a diseased child and by doing so, condemn it to a life of suffering and misery? I think not. I feel she should do the noble thing and abort the child.
kal-el said:Well Busta, whether you like it or not, abortion Is science. These people against abortion are usually the same people against stem cell research, they were against IVF, and other things. These people are Hypocrites, because they use science everday without realizing it.
Originally posted by battleaxe86
Uh, since when does the killing of a human being count as "science?" If a woman is raped, then she has every right to give the child up for adoption, but killing the child through abortion would be equivalent to executing an innocent party for the father's crime.
As for "outdated religion," you strike me as quite the intolerant atheist, but this is the Abortion forum, so I won't debate that here.
To begin with, there is no physical suffering associated with a pregnancy from rape any more than any other pregnancy. Secondly, even if this were the case, one's "suffering" does not justify the killing of an innocent human being.
[A mercy killing, eh? First, there is no way of knowing for sure if the child will get the disease. Beethoven's parents had a hereditary history of tuberculosis and hearing deficiency. Under your line of thinking, they should have aborted Beethoven. Yet, like so many of the 40 million lives lost, it would have been society's loss.
Busta said:W.M.D's are a product of science as well. I oppose their casual use just as I oppose casual abortion. I oppose embryonic steam cell research because it promotes abortion.
If anything what we need is more science and knowledge. This can be accomplished while respecting life at the same time. I can only imagine what the world would be like today if Meccanos continued toward and succeeded in an industrial revolution @ 2000 years ago.
kal-el said:Yes, they are, *1* and why are there "ethic" commities trying to outlaw stem cell research, and abortion? *2* When at the same time, should'nt committies be in place to protect us from Nuclear, bacteriological, and other such weapons?
Busta said:*1* Umm, because abortion is Murder.
*2* You mien like the U.N. weapon inspectors that Saddam refused to comply with for @12 years? Or the U.N. weapon inspectors that N. Korea kicked out so that they could restart nuclear production?
Um, what comparison? :neutral:kal-el said:As for killing , in your little comparison, I fail to see the relevance. Science saves lives, while religion and superstition kill.
To begin with, the most serious consequence of Down's syndrome is a learning disability, so don't try to tell me that we should kill children because of it. As for cancer and AIDS, there's no way to tell if they have either of those things in the womb. However, if you find killing them preferrable to allowing them to live with a disease, why not kill everyone who has Down's syndrome, AIDS, or cancer? By your logic, they should die in order to relieve themselves of their "suffering." :roll:kal-el said:Ohh, I see now, I'm so glad you are not calling the shots, bro. I guess you'd rather have a child with down syndrome, cancer, or even AIDS, suffer for its entire life.
Wrong. Abortion and infanticide were widely practiced by the Romans, around 1,500 years before Beethoven's time. You know, you really ought to have better knowledge of a subject before trying to argue a position on it.kal-el said:First of all, abortion was'nt even invented in Beethoven's time. So don't give me that.
No, that person's life will mean more than that. At least the person will have the chance to experience the world, all the tastes and sounds and sights. The person will have a chance to love and experience love. Also, you're failing to account for the possibility that the child will not get the disease, much like Beethoven.kal-el said:Secondly, let's say the child gets the disease, do you hospitalize it and try to treat it its entire life? It will suffer endless poking and prodding by unfamiliar doctors all it's life.
Busta said:Notice how vergiss has to resort to attempted personal insults because she is unable to compeat intellectually....
Fantasea said:If human life was not present prior to the twelfth day, then nothing could happen at that point, could it?
The fact that two lives may result simply underscores the presence of life from the very beginning, doesn't it?
kal-el said:I agree. That's why death should be prevented whenever possible.Death is always a bad thing.Suffering may be terrible, but it can and should be aleviated. We don't kill cancer patients, do we?But suffering is terrible, and everything must be done to prevent this.I take it that you are attempting to rationalize the nearly fifty million human children who have died as a result of 'legal' abortions which have occurred since Roe v. Wade.Now that we know how to prevent suffering, it's a crime not to put an end to it.
Your attempt has failed.
Who are you to judge who should be put out of their misery as if you were extending mercy to a severely injured animal?I can only respond that any person who can label the killing of any child, for any reason, as a noble act, has a truly twisted understanding of both terms.Here's another "hypothetical" situation: What if a mother carried a fatal hereditary disease? Should she give birth to a diseased child and by doing so, condemn it to a life of suffering and misery? I think not. I feel she should do the noble thing and abort the child.
The next time you come across a disabled person, ask him whether he would prefer to be dead.
Your posts never add anything of substance to the discussions. Perhaps this is because your knowledge of the subject is sparse.vergiss said:Uh huh. Then you explain to me how one life can become two.
You are clearly on the right track.PhotonicLaceration said:Well, okay, you have a fertilized egg, and it splits into two, and then two again, and so on and so forth until you have this huge collection of shapeless cells gathered up.... By this point, I think an abortion is viable and the cells could easily be used to further stem cell research... Then, when it is still embryo, and doesn't have define-able figures, I agree, you could still have an abortion. Then, a fetus betins to form, there is a rough shape of human, but lacks eyes fingers, toes, noses etc. The baby is still inactive, doesn't move or have any sensual input. By this point, I don't still don't give a crap. Then, it starts to form into a moving, kicking, sleeping and breathing animal inside your stomach. Its ears activate and it begins recieving input from this sense.(Somewhere between week 12 and 16) Here, I think it's already getting too late or close to to late to allow an abortion. It's already more advanced than insects and nearing as advanced as rodents. Motion is detected, and it is activated and turned on. By week 20 and 21, where the figures are fully formed and some babies can exist as preemies. At this point, how can you deny that having an abortion is to litterally KILL a living creature? Sure you can go on and on about how it's not human yet or doesn't think mature thoughts... I just don't care. I don't care if the baby is like a rabbit at this point. It's still not right to kill it. Late term (and near "late" term) abortions are "oppressive" to the child which you allowed to exist. If you think that babies are only alive after they are completely born and crying in its fathers hands, than you are stuck in a 18th century mentality.
If there was a rabbit in your yard (not a pest rabbit, more of a pet rabbit), that you kept feeding every day, and then you shot it when you decided that it was going to be too expensive and time consuming to continue feeding it, that seems a cruel and sadistic action. Unless, well, you wanted rabbit for dinner, but that's a different story.
That's what separates the rabbit from child who is still "rabbit-intelligence."
The rabbit isn't going to get any smarter than a rabbit, the child will.
I'm not against the will of women, and not for the suffering of children who will be brought into a cruel and hard world. I'm of the mentality though, that I'd rather live in a cruel and hard world, than be dead right now. It's not that life is so short, it's that death is so long. Where do you draw the line between when something is alive or no more alive than a rock? I say that when it can recieve sensory input and can think, it is alive. (You don't need to understand a language to think, just look at animals and babies who don't yet know a language.)
I don't base my opinion off of religion, nor do I believe in any religion.
Though I disagree with you about the, let me call it...personhood, of the unborn child at the very early stages of development, since you do not practice a religion nor posses faith in God (I think), it would be completely pointless for me to argue my counter point since my objection to abortion is based in theology and philosophy.
I like the way you think, however. You are articulate and reasonable...that's probably why you kicked so much liberal @$$ in the gun controle thread.
Good post!
Fantasea said:You are clearly on the right track.
Increase your knowledge of secular biology and you will find that human life is present earlier than you think. One's beliefs adjust as one's knowledge and understanding increase.
PhotonicLaceration said:Thanks Busta! If you have philosophies based upon science, it's still open game as far as I'm concerned. The Greeks learned a great deal about the Earth from philosophy and discussion. Though they were wrong about a lot of the specifics, they got a lot right too. Especially with mathematics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?