The Abortion Issue

[LadiesMan217]

What if the condom breaks or the spermicide fails? Or some other contraceptive?

Sucks for you.

[SoylentGreen]

[quote=Dagda;502248]

[The child in question lacks awareness of existence, how could it consider itself sacred when the concept has never been formed. /QUOTE] A little thought experiment. A man in a deep coma has no awarness of his existence to any credible degree. You know, in exactly 9 months time he will awake again, fully functunal. In the mean time, you have to pay for the hospital bed and care. Does that give you the right to kill him? Is it not the same with the unborn baby, unaware of its existence, dut will awaken?

Another little thought experiment.
On the other hand if the child in the womb is known to have a degenerative disease or some reason that it's brain will not form enough to function beyond basic motor skills , then it's awareness will never awaken. Ok to abort that as it is only a body a piece of meat?

[SoylentGreen]

Dagda My argument was not particulary against these kind of abortions but against those who use it as a way to get rid of the problem of a child that hampers down there careers.

It still isn't your choice to make for them. Your responsibility is to your own beliefs not to others.
You may consider the sexual liberation of women through the pill to be a Pandora's box, but the box is open and women now have a freedom that has changed history and society.
Your attempts to close that box again are futile, freedom is far to addictive. I would think an American male could relate to that.

[SoylentGreen]

LadiesMan217 True, this is a humane way of killing the zygote, but more often than not the woman finds out she is pregnant long after the morning after. Ideally, use of the morning after pill should outlawed too, and all forms of contraception that kill the egg after it has been fertilized, but I know this is far too much to ask.

If you feel that a bunch of cells dividing constitutes human life because it has the potential to be that. Then why does the potential stop there? Why not while egg and sperm are still separate.
The religious teachings go as far as to say it is sinful for a man to spill his seed. So at one stage that point of separation was considered as sacred as when the egg and seed meet.

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: SoylentGreen If you feel that a bunch of cells dividing constitutes human life because it has the potential to be that. Then why does the potential stop there? Why not while egg and sperm are still separate. The religious teachings go as far as to say it is sinful for a man to spill his seed. So at one stage that point of separation was considered as sacred as when the egg and seed meet.

Again, I have left religion out of the debate and so should you. Especially since you are just nitpicking parts of a religion that you don't even believe in to try and trivialize my argument.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Again, I have left religion out of the debate and so should you. Especially since you are just nitpicking parts of a religion that you don't even believe in to try and trivialize my argument.

Not so. I brought it out as an example of how the sands of opinion can shift.
Putting the religion aside this still shows that historically the opinion of how sacred is life, was different from what you propose Now this question is still pertinent.
"If you feel that a bunch of cells dividing constitutes human life because it has the potential to be that. Then why does the potential stop there? Why not while egg and sperm are still separate?"

I am not trying to trivialise your argument I am attempting to show that any judgement made about life's sacredness is only subjective. There is not enough information to determine where exactly life begins.

[LadiesMan217]

SoylentGreen "If you feel that a bunch of cells dividing constitutes human life because it has the potential to be that. Then why does the potential stop there? Why not while egg and sperm are still separate?"

Egg and sperm separate are just egg and sperm, when they come together then they begin the process of forming a human being. So, I don't care about anything before the egg is fertilized, maybe some wackos do, but I never seen anything in the Bible to support that, have you?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Egg and sperm separate are just egg and sperm, when they come together then they begin the process of forming a human being. So, I don't care about anything before the egg is fertilized, maybe some wackos do, but I never seen anything in the Bible to support that, have you?

Well yes the bible is full of instructions about sex.
Men shall not waste their seed . Women shall only have sex in order to concieve.

Each sperm has the potential to change the DNA sufficiently enough to change the life that it creates both physically and mentally. To waste one is to deny that person the chance at life.
The same as an egg, the potential for a difference in each cell so in fact women really should not even be allowed to have a period but should be kept in constant state of pregnancy.

[LadiesMan217]

SoylentGreen Well yes the bible is full of instructions about sex. Men shall not waste their seed . Women shall only have sex in order to concieve. Each sperm has the potential to change the DNA sufficiently enough to change the life that it creates both physically and mentally. To waste one is to deny that person the chance at life. The same as an egg, the potential for a difference in each cell so in fact women really should not even be allowed to have a period but should be kept in constant state of pregnancy.

Care to cite a verse?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Care to cite a verse?

Not a prob.

Premarital Sex and the Bible

This is just one of a few thousand links on the what the bible has to say about sex.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Egg and sperm separate are just egg and sperm, when they come together then they begin the process of forming a human being. So, I don't care about anything before the egg is fertilized, maybe some wackos do, but I never seen anything in the Bible to support that, have you?

See what you're doing here?

You were asked "why does life begin when cells start to divide? Why not before the egg is even fertilized?"

You answer was essentially "..Because life begins when cells start to divide", or in simpler terms "..Because I said so."

[Eraldo Coil]

In the ferret kingdom we eat our young, so I certainly wouldn't look down at any young woman who decides to have an abortion.

Is thata joke or are you being serious. You just compared us to animals, which we are not. We can make our decisions based on morality and love. Is it morally right ot kill an unborn baby. Of course not. Think about all the great people the world would be full of now if abortion didn't happen when the baby was perfectly fine (aswell as the mother). We would probably have a cure for cancer, and there may be peace in the world. Abortion truly is a distgusting act.

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 See what you're doing here? You were asked "why does life begin when cells start to divide? Why not before the egg is even fertilized?" You answer was essentially "..Because life begins when cells start to divide", or in simpler terms "..Because I said so."

I see what you are doing here, or feebly trying to do and this really is not a valid question. Life does not simply begin at fertilization because I said so. It would make no sense to say that life begins before fertilization because an egg by itself or a sperm by itself, no matter how much you want it to, it will never become a living breathing human being. So maybe now that you know about the birds and the bees you can see how ridiculous your argument was.

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: Eraldo Coil Is thata joke or are you being serious. You just compared us to animals, which we are not. We can make our decisions based on morality and love. Is it morally right ot kill an unborn baby. Of course not. Think about all the great people the world would be full of now if abortion didn't happen when the baby was perfectly fine (aswell as the mother). We would probably have a cure for cancer, and there may be peace in the world. Abortion truly is a distgusting act.

Although I agree with your disgust of abortion, your argument is flawed because someone can just throw it back in your face and say that a million would-be Hitlers were killed through abortion so the world may be better off.

[LadiesMan217]

Also, unrelated question. Did you get your name from the show DeathNote?

[Jack]

Quote by: Eraldo Coil Is thata joke or are you being serious.

It's hard to tell with Boris sometimes. You'd understand if you'd ever owned a ferret.

You just compared us to animals, which we are not.

Then to which other kingdom would you assign humans? Vegetable or mineral?

We can make our decisions based on morality and love. Is it morally right ot kill an unborn baby. Of course not.

"Of course" isn't appropriate. There wouldn't be a national debate on abortion if your opinion were the only acceptable one to hold.

Think about all the great people the world would be full of now if abortion didn't happen when the baby was perfectly fine (aswell as the mother). We would probably have a cure for cancer, and there may be peace in the world. Abortion truly is a distgusting act.

Then again we could have had another Hitler or a planet so crowded with people mass murder would be a blessing. Speculation is worth as much as we pay for it, nothing.

[Barnicals]

Quote by: Jack Then again we could have had another Hitler or a planet so crowded with people mass murder would be a blessing. Speculation is worth as much as we pay for it, nothing.

I'm inclined to agree with this. I don't consider murder morally right; I'm sure Jack doesn't either. That said, the day that abortion is universally recognized as illegal will be a sad day indeed. By taking the right to have an abortion, you also take the right to choose. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you live in a democracy? I'm sure a lot of people would be very unhappy you, particularly staunch democrats, for hearing that.

I'm sure there are plenty of population growth charts out there that show the difference between the current world population (which is already hugely exceeding the worlds limit) and the difference having no abortions would make.

So in all, a resounding YES to abortions.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Nope. You're wrong. It's not your decision to make, nor is it a "child". Sperm and egg aren't a child. You're just doing what the fundies do: arbitrarily picking a point in the process and calling it the "beginning" because it fits with your opinion.

And what would you suggest as the "beginning," Zhavric, and why?

That the OP makes an "arbitrary" distinction between valuable life and non-valuable life is non-unique if everyone does it.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 I see what you are doing here, or feebly trying to do and this really is not a valid question. Life does not simply begin at fertilization because I said so. It would make no sense to say that life begins before fertilization because an egg by itself or a sperm by itself, no matter how much you want it to, it will never become a living breathing human being. So maybe now that you know about the birds and the bees you can see how ridiculous your argument was.

You still haven't explained yourself.

Sperm and eggs have all of the characteristics of life. Two compatible haploid cells have the same potential for life as a single diploid cell. Explain to me why we should treat it as a human just after fertilization when 1) it can not feel pain (no nerves), 2) it has no brain, 3) it can not digest its food, or any number of reasons I could list ad nauseum.

Going further, if your only criteria for 'human life' is that it will become a 'living, breathing human being', then you should have no quarrels with abortion because aborted babies don't have lungs and can't breath.

In summation, you need to stop repeating yourself. Explain in your next post addressing me why stopping a would-be pregnancy with a condom is any different from aborting a zygote with no brain function or capacity to feel or understand pain or emotion.

[LadiesMan217]

In summation, you need to stop repeating yourself. Explain in your next post addressing me why stopping a would-be pregnancy with a condom is any different from aborting a zygote with no brain function or capacity to feel or understand pain or emotion.

I only repeat myself because I do not know how I can be any clearer. The difference is one is developing into a human life and one is not, the latter of which I do not care about. Why don't you explain to me why people who kill pregnant women are convicted of double-homicide such as Scott Petersen and a doctor who performs an abortion is not convicted of any crime.