Results 21 to 30 of 250
|
-
12-23-2008, 02:45 AM
Originally Posted by FlaGator
Originally Posted by wilbur
Originally Posted by wilbur
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 02:51 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."
-
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Posts
- 3,852
12-23-2008, 09:18 AM
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.
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.
-
12-23-2008, 04:40 PM
Originally Posted by wilbur
Originally Posted by wilbur
Originally Posted by wilbur
Last edited by Mythic; 12-23-2008 at 04:55 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."
-
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- NE Indiana
- Posts
- 332
12-23-2008, 06:43 PM
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?
-
12-23-2008, 06:52 PM
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.
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.
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.Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
-
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Posts
- 755
12-23-2008, 09:01 PM
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.
-
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Posts
- 3,852
12-23-2008, 10:09 PM
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 10:20 PM.
-
12-23-2008, 10:22 PM
Originally Posted by wilbur
Originally Posted by wilbur
Originally Posted by wilbur
Last edited by Mythic; 12-23-2008 at 10:27 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."
-
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Posts
- 3,852
12-23-2008, 10:38 PM
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.
-
12-23-2008, 10:42 PM
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."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."
« Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
Penn State says wilderness is too...
Yesterday, 10:17 PM in Mindless Moonbat Gibberish