Jump to content

Home

Abortion debate (older thread)


VanLingo
 Share

Recommended Posts

The whole point Feanro ,kipperthefrog and I are trying to make to you guys is that ,first of all ,the ibola virus cant develop into a human , your appendix cant develop into a human and nothing else except a zygote can develop into a human . A developing human is a human ,and who are we to say we have dominion over their right to live their life from THEIR conception until THEIR death ,emphasis on their . Its helpful to know my parents didnt think of me while I was in the womb as some object that they had dominion over ,I was a life and so were we all . You know whats funny is that we wouldnt be having this conversation had our parents aborted us all in the womb ,because like you guys say they have dominion over our life when its not even theirs they are dealing with . Although I disagree with this totally .

 

God Bless,

Reelguy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 414
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So I guess your all for killing viruses....?

What gives you the right to be objective and decide which is a higher lifeform?

Just because a zygote can grow into a human, you assume it should survive.

Why isn't the survival of a virus just as important; after all, it is alive and arguably more valuable than some humans, no names (ie.Bush).

 

If you're pro-life or a religious warrior, then you should campaign for all life, not just the life that you somehow (pehaps divinely) determine to be valuable.

 

If you're pro life, you should realise that not everyone holds the same views, nor should they.

Great, your pro life. A zygote is a living entity with the same rights as a fully grown person...but thats your opinion.

 

Other people's opinions state that a zygote does not have rights as a person as it is the mere formation of a life. It is not a sentitent human being. It is a microscopic clump of cells, similar to a bacteria. What it will grow into is ultimately irrelevant as at this basic stage, as at this very premature stage it is no different than a bacteria or what you described as a 'lower' form of life.

This argument is as equally as valid, but should not be forced onto people who don't want to believe such a thing (for whatever reason(s)).

 

 

If the law was to create a kind of halfway banning. A point at which a zygote becomes a feutus and qualifies as a living, breathing human entity (such as week 16) and therefore bans any termination after such a stage, that would give people of both dispositions the freedom to do as they please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by reelguy227

A developing human is a human ,and who are we to say we have dominion over their right to live their life from THEIR conception until THEIR death ,emphasis on their .

who are you to say humans are a higher lifeform and more worthy of life than a puppy, kitten, or another animal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious what the other pro-lifers have to say about this quote of mine

How do you feel about artificial incemination? In those cases they take multiple eggs and fertilize them with multiple sperm, and then they only implant ONE of those fertilized eggs, and either freeze or dispose of the rest. THOSE fertilized eggs are NO DIFFERENT than the fertilized eggs in a mothers body that are going to get aborted, so should they not be thrown away? Should it be required that ALL of them are implanted and brought to term?

 

Not Reelguy, beacuse your stance on In-vitro fertilization seems pretty unfair AND extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys still didnt answer my question ,you just answered it with another question .

 

Originally posted by iamtrip

 

If you're pro-life or a religious warrior, then you should campaign for all life, not just the life that you somehow (pehaps divinely) determine to be valuable.

 

 

I might just do that .

 

God Bless,

Reelguy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well technically if it's still developing it has yet to be an actual human. If it's at an early stage all someone has to do is tamper with the structuring of the DNA similiar to natural process, and you'd end up with a non-human organism. So it's not really human until a fully developed stage. So before three months or so it can't even be classified as a human, just a blank canvas that could become a human, or not. Perhaps someone can describe this better, I'm not exactly active in all this stuff anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we don't have to answer that, because we don't agree that a developing human is a human at the early stages of pregnancy. What we're saying is that we DO have control over a small group of cells inside of our bodies that, without mutation or manipulation will become a human being. EVENTUALLY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That only works if you apply it to all life, including bacteria that may kill you. Otherwise, who are you to decide who is worthy to live?

 

And I would imagine the mother has a right to decide to abort as this unsentient zygote (physically no different to a bacteria at this early stage) can grow inside of her.

 

 

 

well technically if it's still developing it has yet to be an actual human. If it's at an early stage all someone has to do is tamper with the structuring of the DNA similiar to natural process, and you'd end up with a non-human organism. So it's not really human until a fully developed stage. So before three months or so it can't even be classified as a human, just a blank canvas that could become a human, or not. Perhaps someone can describe this better, I'm not exactly active in all this stuff anymore.

 

This is completely incorrect.

A zygote is definately not a blank slate as you put it.

A zygote contains all of the chromosomes as a fully formed, grown adult. It can easily be argued that a zygote is a human (Although I don't agrre with it).

 

Yes the DNA can be changed. But the DNA of a fully grown adult can be changed effectively changing a Human into a non-human.

The fact that it would be far easier to accomplish this with a zygote (only 1 or a few cells exist, therefore only these few cells need to be altered) compared to a fully grown human (all of the billions of cellss would need to be altered) is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by InsaneSith

if you read, I never said a zygote was a blank slate. I was talking about early stages of life, this could be during conception itself.

 

No thats false too I'm afraid.

The moment the egg is fertilised, it contains all of the chromosomes to develop into a full adult. No 'extra' ones are made during pregnancy. There's nothing blank about it; the cell just multiplies and certain cells are adapted for function.

Hence why it could be argued that from the earliest stages of pregnancy (ie. from the moment of fertilisation) a human is created.

 

 

 

As for abortion after 12 weeks...I think its the mother's perogative. After all it is her body.

However, she has had 3 motnhs to decide, although cases of abortion after 12 weeks are in the minority (12%) and the majority of this figure is for emergencies (Such as risks to the mother's life).

The feutus isn't formed as such until 16 weeks, which is when I believe the living baby should be recognised by law.

Before that period, I think the non-sentent mass of cells should have no more rights than a bacteria or other single/low cell animal/lifeform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, all the ethics and religious nonsense aside, let's take a moment to look at the reality of the situation: We have a population problem at the moment. If abortions were completely forbidden, it would hardly help matters. As it stands currently, we may be looking at enforced limitations on family size, sterilisations and fines for excessive fertility soon enough. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what we were talking about ET, I meant after 12 weeks ,:dozey: but the zygote still is a living body .

 

As for spiderals proposition ,here is a link that says that the worlds population is declining and that it will hurt economic growth ,this isnt a religious or repubican site if that helps any ,its straight from Msn money .

 

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/P92820.asp?GT1=5100

 

God Bless,

Reelguy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, all the ethics and religious nonsense aside, let's take a moment to look at the reality of the situation: We have a population problem at the moment. If abortions were completely forbidden, it would hardly help matters. As it stands currently, we may be looking at enforced limitations on family size, sterilisations and fines for excessive fertility soon enough.

Well as it stands every American family has to have 1.5 children to keep the U.S. population at a healthy growth as well as keeping the work force strong. But this is an entirely different discussion. Abortion should not be a way to keep population in check. Responsibility is the only way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spider AL

Okay, all the ethics and religious nonsense aside, let's take a moment to look at the reality of the situation: We have a population problem at the moment. If abortions were completely forbidden, it would hardly help matters. As it stands currently, we may be looking at enforced limitations on family size, sterilisations and fines for excessive fertility soon enough. :D

 

OMFG, I think you and I agree on something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ET Warrior

You can hardly call it a body, that would be akin to me scraping some cells off of my arm into a petri dish and calling those a body. They aren't.

 

Except the crap off your arms isn't going to grow up in 20 years and drink beer and smoke weed with you if you don't scrape it off. Not that I so much mind abortion. That's just not a good example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 weeks the baby isn't even fully formed.

After 16 weeks the baby is formed and merely needs to grow.

Abortions at this stage are rare and are on the most part only carried out due to a high risk to the mother. In my view, the mother has the right to decide; save herself or her child.

 

Personally I don't see any reason for aborting after 12-16 weeks for any other reason than for health...after all you've had 3 motnhs to decide to keep the child, whilst it was no more than a clump of cells, physically no different to a bacteria or a microscopic organism.

 

The arguement that the moment the father's gametes and mother's gametes combine creates a life seems stupid (Although there is everything in this single cell needed to eventually grow into a life).

Its not like killing a human. Its like killing bacteria; of which you kill millions each day unknowingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...