Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 250
  1. #21  
    Senior Member Mythic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator
    Spot on if you ask me. Abortion is sacraficing a fetus's life in order for one to have an easier life. Isn't that the reason for abortion? A person aborts their offspring in order to avoid taking care of it and spending money on it and changing their lifestyle because of it. Abortion is ritualistic in nature. One goes to the priest/shamam (doctor), pledges tribute (pays the medical costs) and then a ceremony is performed that enhances the seekers life by sacrificing their child in a ritual (abortion procedure).
    Good point. The two can be compared. I would say that sacrificing a child is worse than sacrificing a fetus, but both are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur
    It is scientifically demonstrable that almost everything that truly makes us a person, an autonomous being, is our cognition... our brain.
    I will argue for pro life without bringing in relgious beliefs, souls, or even...yes...even vegetables. I hope that knowing this you will be happy. It is also scientifically proven that a fetus is alive at the moment of conception. And the brain is not what makes us a person, our unique DNA is. One's DNA controls how the brain is made, what someone looks like, etc. By removing that fetus, that life, you are destroying a unique bit of human DNA that can never be replicated ever again.
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur
    It is demonstrable that abortion harms nothing, causes no suffering or pain.. unless there are complications for the mother
    Well abortion harms the human life by destroying it, but I can see your main point was that abortion causes the fetus no pain or suffering. So because the fetus does not feel pain, it is ok to kill it? Say that these young children who were being burned in these rituals had been given sleeping gas or some sort of drug that would prevent them from feeling any pain. According to your logic, the killing would then be justified.

    I know you are going to respond by saying that a child is different than a fetus. But then you could also say that a child is different than an adult. An adult is a fully developed human, and a child is a developing human, where a fetus is just the start of the process of human development. A child has no less worth than an adult, and a fetus should have no less worth than a child. Without a fetus you have no child. Even without bringing religion into this, I cannot see how one can justify abortion.
    Last edited by Mythic; 12-23-2008 at 01:51 AM.
    "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
    -Ronald Reagan

    Life is a story; if you stay on the same page forever you will never finish it.
    "There are days you are the pigeon and days you are the statue."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythic View Post
    I will argue for pro life without bringing in relgious beliefs, souls, or even...yes...even vegetables. I hope that knowing this you will be happy. It is also scientifically proven that a fetus is alive at the moment of conception. And the brain is not what makes us a person, our unique DNA is. One's DNA controls how the brain is made, what someone looks like, etc. By removing that fetus, that life, you are destroying a unique bit of human DNA that can never be replicated ever again.
    I do appreciate level headed response.

    Twins really disprove this idea. Identical DNA but unique persons, different people. DNA is the blueprint, but not the person... I don't value you you or my friends or my loved ones because of their exceptional or wonderfully arranged DNA.

    Well abortion harms the human life by destroying it, but I can see your main point was that abortion causes the fetus no pain or suffering. So because the fetus does not feel pain, it is ok to kill it? Say that these young children who were being burned in these rituals had been given sleeping gas or some sort of drug that would prevent them from feeling any pain. According to your logic, the killing would then be justified.
    You have to consider the idea that a baby is now or once was a personality, a will, along with the capacity for pain and suffering. This is why abortion is justifiable, but euthanasia against a comatose patients with a possibility of waking up is not, for example. It violates an already existent will, or personality.

    I know you are going to respond by saying that a child is different than a fetus. But then you could also say that a child is different than an adult. An adult is a fully developed human, and a child is a developing human, where a fetus is just the start of the process of human development. A child has no less worth than an adult, and a fetus should have no less worth than a child. Without a fetus you have no child. Even without bringing religion into this, I cannot see how one can justify abortion.
    This is true... but a fetus is so drastically different from a child, that any and all reasons in our nature that we would consider it morally wrong to harm or kill a child or a person, simply do not apply. Just ask yourself what the practical reasoning is for why you cannot just murder people that annoy you or inconvenience you. None of those reasons apply to a fetus that has never had a functioning brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member Mythic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur
    Twins really disprove this idea. Identical DNA but unique persons, different people. DNA is the blueprint, but not the person... I don't value you you or my friends or my loved ones because of their exceptional or wonderfully arranged DNA.
    Actually, twins do not have identical DNA. It is very similar, but there are differences. So you value your friends because of their brains? DNA is a blueprint for a person. If you destroy that blueprint there is no person. But the fetus is not a blueprint, it is the beginings of the person developing.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur
    You have to consider the idea that a baby is now or once was a personality, a will, along with the capacity for pain and suffering. This is why abortion is justifiable, but euthanasia against a comatose patients with a possibility of waking up is not, for example. It violates an already existent will, or personality.
    So you have moved from brain to personality. Yes, a baby does have a will and a personality. Where does it develop the ability? As the fetus. The very beginings of human life are in the fetus. Even a baby does not have a fully developed personality. Human life is a never ending process of development and then deterioration as we age. A fetus is the very start of life, and slowly it develops into a newborn baby, which will then continue to grow over the years into an adult. I do not believe that a fetus has any less worth than a child or adult. Without the fetus there is no child.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur
    This is true... but a fetus is so drastically different from a child, that any and all reasons in our nature that we would consider it morally wrong to harm or kill a child or a person, simply do not apply. Just ask yourself what the practical reasoning is for why you cannot just murder people that annoy you or inconvenience you. None of those reasons apply to a fetus that has never had a functioning brain.
    Back to the brain. By seven to eight weeks into a pregnancy a brain begins to develop. 60% of abortions occur at 8 weeks or later. If the brain had began to develop at 7 weeks that would add 20% to that number. Only 20% of all abortions occur before 7 weeks. As I have said before the DNA is what makes the brain. But because a fetus does not have a fully developed brain, is it right to kill it? Teenagers do not even have fully developed brains. A fetus is different from a child. It is the very begining, a child cannot appear out of nothing. I cannot murder people that annoy me because they are people. They are living people who have life. A fetus is living. It has a life. What is your reasoning for not killing people? Is it that as long as a person has a brain that person should not be killed? If so then 80% of abortions are not justified.
    Last edited by Mythic; 12-23-2008 at 03:55 PM.
    "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
    -Ronald Reagan

    Life is a story; if you stay on the same page forever you will never finish it.
    "There are days you are the pigeon and days you are the statue."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NE Indiana
    Posts
    332
    I'm very surprised that we've reached page 3 in this thread without anybody mentioning "Godless" by Ann Coulter. Whatever you may think of Ann, it's a very good book.

    What doesn't surprise me are the cicumlocutions our boy Wlbur and his ilk go through to try to prove (mostly to themselves IMHO) that a fetus is not a baby, therefore it doesn't matter if you kill it. Of course it's not a baby, you nitiwt, it's a fetus, but that doesn't make it any less alive. When you destroy something that's alive, what do YOU call it, Willie?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,301
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    It might help to think about a fetus on its own terms, not in the terms of vegetables (but hey thats tempting!). This is simply one area where the pro-life side has relied upon forceful, emotive verbiage to do the talking for them... it hides a pittance of an argument that really loses is zeal once you start talking about things honestly and plainly.. after removing the window dressing of terms like 'murderer','slaughter'... and of course.. the article simply is the new reigning champ with its comparison to ritual child sacrifice. When you have to enter the realm of rational discourse armed with 'well they have a soul and stuff'.. its clear why the over the top verbiage must be used.
    It's pretty clear that the clump of cells wiill develop in to a human being if left to its on devices and nature chooses it to exist. Nothing you point out changes this fact. Whether you remove that child at embryonic stage of post natal, you are interfering with nature and the course that nature chooses. Isn't the one of the liberal complaints of global warming? That we are interfering with the course of nature? I'm not comparing the two in any other way than to point out that both interfere with the course of nature and apparently one not acceptable and the other is.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    It is scientifically demonstrable that almost everything that truly makes us a person, an autonomous being, is our cognition... our brain. It is demonstrable that abortion harms nothing, causes no suffering or pain.. unless there are complications for the mother. It is factually demonstrable that abortion violates no ones autonomy/free will. These things are demonstrable with objective scientific facts, not whimsical fancies of some elusive soul entering fetus during conception (where in the nucleus does it hide?). There simply is no use in bothering ourselves over 'beings' that never had an iota of consciousness.
    Let's not get in to dueling research because I can produce recent reports that do demonstrate that the fetus fells pain. Besides, it's moot. Pain is not the line of demarcation between sentient and non-sentient. There are living breathing people who have no sensation of pain. It is ok to kill them because it won't hurt?

    You and your pro-abortion brethren go to extremes to justify your choices. It's ok to terminate a potential human because it feels no pain or it has no conscience or (the most disgusting in my opinion) it is a parasite on a woman’s body. I know of no other parasite that is made up of 50 percent of the mothers DNA.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    The nation nearly unanimously agrees that late-term babies, are actually babies and that late-term abortions are bad, so we can ignore those circumstances.

    Its a mistake to equate 'sexual misconduct' with modern secular sexual ethics.. adultery and irresponsible behaviour is not really part of responsible and safe sex agendas.

    Lets see... extreme social shame... no abortions... no morning after pill... discourages contraception... what could possibly go wrong? All those teens you imagine being nice and ashamed and accepting of their consequences for their indiscretions will actually be visiting the shady doctor in the back alley with a coat-hanger instead telling mom and visiting the confessional.

    I think you are mistaken if you think so. Contraception reduces the number of abortions necessary. Illegality simply compounds the problems. Abortion rates are declining because of more effective contraception.
    No abortion is necessary when used a belated contraception. There are stats that show abortion rates are increasing so whoses statistics are right?At any rate, I don’t feel you’ve you’re your case that abortion isn’t the first cousin of child sacrifice. We could take a poll and find out.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    755
    It's like you're taking away a human's chance to exist, a very disturbing concept to me at least.

    People who argue for or against abortion over more grounds than "it's a womans choice" or "I'm a christian" get my respect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Milly View Post
    I'm very surprised that we've reached page 3 in this thread without anybody mentioning "Godless" by Ann Coulter. Whatever you may think of Ann, it's a very good book.

    What doesn't surprise me are the cicumlocutions our boy Wlbur and his ilk go through to try to prove (mostly to themselves IMHO) that a fetus is not a baby, therefore it doesn't matter if you kill it. Of course it's not a baby, you nitiwt, it's a fetus, but that doesn't make it any less alive. When you destroy something that's alive, what do YOU call it, Willie?
    Believe me when I say, it amazes me that one can honestly equivocate the destruction of an newly formed or early term embryo, with the act of a grown person murdering another. It just... doesn't... compute; at all. I've witnessed births, I've watched nieces and nephews grow up, I've seen the horrible propaganda pictures, read the pleas and the explanations... if there is anything that would cause me to abandon the guidance of my reason and intuition on this issue.. and make me to change my mind, I have not found it. My natural instinct is to call the equivocation outrageous, asinine and even destructive (towards people, science, etc)... and everything I have learned and experienced to date has backed up this initial instinct. I can't imagine the work and rationalization it takes to actually believe that cold blooded intentional murder is the moral equivalent of destroying an embryo. The inmates have seriously taken over the asylum on this one and should they get their way... will do immense harm.

    I can say that the farther into development one gets, the issue becomes less clear... there one must think a little harder about what it means to be human, when do rights kick in, what is the potential costs to our well being, what kind of suffering will be the result.. and the answers come much less easily. But in the end, I cannot bring myself to believe that until there is at least a smidgeon of initial consciousness, there is no harm done. That conclusion was reached after much long and sober thought, but not at all did it come unnaturally or forced against better judgement. All concerns, sympathies, and considerations should be for the ones who are living and breathing. Stepping on a pinecone is not chopping down a tree. Until there is a person, there is no murder.

    As far as 'what I would call it'.... It can be called whatever we want... kill, abort, terminate, etc. But the term we use doesnt really help us determine where the act stands on the continuum of right or wrong. I can scrape some skin cells off my arm... killing them. I kill mosquito's on a routine basis.
    Last edited by wilbur; 12-23-2008 at 09:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member Mythic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur
    Stepping on a pinecone is not chopping down a tree. Until there is a person, there is no murder.
    I thought you didnt want to bring plants into this? A single tree has tons of pinecones all at once, the reproduction of a tree is not at all similar to a human.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur
    I can say that the farther into development one gets, the issue becomes less clear... there one must think a little harder about what it means to be human, when do rights kick in,
    Then do you believe a newborn baby has less worth (because new born babies are less developed) than a full grown adult? You are saying a fetus is not human? If so what is it? A mosquito? I say that a human being has rights from the moment it is alive. Thats how it should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur
    But the term we use doesnt really help us determine where the act stands on the continuum of right or wrong. I can scrape some skin cells off my arm... killing them. I kill mosquito's on a routine basis.
    But a skin cell will not grow into another person with a unique DNA and personality. Come on. You are starting to pull stuff out of the air because you have no arguments left. A skin cell is not the same as a fetus. So you think that human life is no better than a mosquito? I think I can value human life more than any animal. If you think that mosquitos and humans all have equal value then I don't know what to say other than you are crazy. Mosquitos don't think. I don't know of any mosquitos that have unique personalities.
    Last edited by Mythic; 12-23-2008 at 09:27 PM.
    "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
    -Ronald Reagan

    Life is a story; if you stay on the same page forever you will never finish it.
    "There are days you are the pigeon and days you are the statue."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythic View Post
    I thought you didnt want to bring plants into this? A single tree has tons of pinecones all at once, the reproduction of a tree is not at all similar to a human.

    But a skin cell will not grow into another person with a unique DNA and personality. Come on. You are starting to pull stuff out of the air because you have no arguments left. A skin cell is not the same as a fetus. So you think that human life is no better than a mosquito?

    I think I can value human life more than any animal. If you think that mosquitos and humans all have equal value then I don't know what to say other than you are crazy. Mosquitos don't think. I don't know of any mosquitos that have unique personalities.
    Nope. Nothing I wrote should indicate that to you. That was actually the point wasn't it? Killing a mosquito is different than killing a human. An act of 'killing' doesn't automatically describe a moral wrong, only sometimes. So to try and emotively charge the act of abortion by terming it 'killing a fetus' is really pointless. The description is accurate, but it doesn't follow that because its killed it is automatically evil or immoral or that harm was done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member Mythic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    352
    Nope. Nothing I wrote should indicate that to you. That was actually the point wasn't it? Killing a mosquito is different than killing a human. An act of 'killing' doesn't automatically describe a moral wrong, only sometimes. So to try and emotively charge the act of abortion by terming it 'killing a fetus' is really pointless. The description is accurate, but it doesn't follow that because its killed it is automatically evil or immoral or that harm was done.
    And killing a fetus is different than killing a human how? A fetus is a human just in early stages of development.An act of killing a human is always wrong. You are trying to go off track by talking about killing bugs. Well they aren't humans. A fetus is a human.
    "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
    -Ronald Reagan

    Life is a story; if you stay on the same page forever you will never finish it.
    "There are days you are the pigeon and days you are the statue."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •