ShadowTemplar Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by -s/<itzo- Therefore, if you know you DON'T want a baby, don't take the risk that you may get pregnant. Today's society has made it far to easy for people to not have to be responsible for their actions. You could say LITTERALLY the same thing about antibiotics. Or refrigerators. Or, for that matter, any technology at all. Because technology is there to make life easier. So I would ask you to think through the logical conclusions that follow your statement, before ever stating it again... Just sound advice, someone may recognise you. Fail once: Get a reminder. Fail twice: Look like a fool. Originally posted by -s/<itzo- A developing baby is most definately a living person, with a heartbeat. Have you failed to read any of GonkHater's posts on the subject. They are pretty hard to overlook... Originally posted by -s/<itzo- There are always millions of people waiting for a baby to adopt. *points up to the passage about third-world babies* Originally posted by -s/<itzo- But in normal circumstances, a woman (and men) should take precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Especially in this day and age!! With all the sexually transmitted diseases that you could get, casual encounters should be a thing of the past. Condoms are a good thing, yes. Use them. But if people like "casual encounters", then by all means, let them have their fun. That lust usually goes away with time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by GonkH8er It stops an unwanted child being brought into the world. It's all there..... even the unwanted child part.... sure, theres millions of families who want to adopt.... but adoption is hard on both the biological parents and the child. Giving up your own child, possibly to never see it again isnt a nice thought. Just wondering but how, if giving up a child you have seen at birth is hard, how is it any less hard than knowing that that child could have been the greatest person to know? You could of just cancelled the birth of a "great leader", "superstar" "nobel prize winner". How is, knowing that you could have done that and will olny be able to see the "child" as a fetus, any less hard than letting it go after birth. If your saying it's easy to have an abortion I strongly disagree. To sum it all up... If you have an "unwanted" pregnancy but you go through with letting the baby be born, have a family ready to take the baby in less than 2 weeks after birth, all the legalities are set and the baby is gone. Are you saying that the person who has had the baby, has seen him/her for a very short period of time and has just let him/her go that they're going to take it hard? I agree they will take it hard BUT... how is it any different from seeing a fetus on a sonogram for 10 minutes and knowing that that will be your child but then having an abortion and knowing that you will never see that "child" that you saw on the sonogram, in the flesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Reborn: Point is, you could say the same about any sperm and egg cell wasted: they had the potential to grow into something meaningful. But they didn't. It's just like the blueprint analogy presented by GonkH8er - You can only feel sorry for destroying something after it's been built. I think it's pretty hard just to dismiss your child after carrying it around for 9 months. It must be hell. What's not very hard is seeing the fetus as what it really is - a lump of non-conscious cells. Dead in the human sense of it. It cannot live besides being a parasite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 If a fetus is a parasite because it can't survive without help... then how is it any different from an infant who has to survive off his/her mother... is it a parasite also? Just wondering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-s/<itzo- Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar You could say LITTERALLY the same thing about antibiotics. Or refrigerators. Or, for that matter, any technology at all. Because technology is there to make life easier. So I would ask you to think through the logical conclusions that follow your statement, before ever stating it again... Just sound advice, someone may recognise you. Fail once: Get a reminder. Fail twice: Look like a fool. that's just absurd. how can you compare antibiotics, technology, etc... with abortion. just because it makes life easier it doesn't mean it has the same concept. in the process of abortion we are removing a fetus not a disease. and when did i say i totaly disaprove abortion. i just have combining taughts about it. i clearly mention that in my previous posts. to me some women, they look for abortion as a way out. without thinking about consiquences, they make foolish decisions. Have you failed to read any of GonkHater's posts on the subject. They are pretty hard to overlook... how do you know for sure? you can't always go by what others said simply because they're not professionals in the field. therefore the information may not be 100% reliable. but if you can be more specific on that matter, then i'll reconsider. but till then you don't have the real facts to back that up so your opinion can't be held accountable. *points up to the passage about third-world babies* exactly third world. simply because they can't afford it. if you think about it most likely rich, upper class parents from other countries will adopt a baby from a third world country. Condoms are a good thing, yes. Use them. But if people like "casual encounters", then by all means, let them have their fun. That lust usually goes away with time. i'm just saying think more clearly before what you're getting yourself into. think about the consiquences and take responsiblity especially if you're young. if you do get an unwanted pregnancy, you can't blame anybody else but yourself. its like the old saying: "If you can't do the time... don't do the crime." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast If a fetus is a parasite because it can't survive without help... then how is it any different from an infant who has to survive off his/her mother... is it a parasite also? Just wondering... The baby can theoretically still survive without it's biological mother. A fetus cannot. But that's beside the point, your argument is that it's just as easy to give your child away for adoption as seeing it as a lump of emotionally, spiritually, humanly and consciously dead cells. It is not human. It is a blueprint - to be discarded at the will of the mother, since she's the one who's going to "build" it. Look at cancer cells. They're normal cells who are mutated to multiply at a dangerously fast rate. Once the lump of cancer cells have multiplied sizably, it's called a cancer tumor(sp?). Now this tumor is also a parasite. It feeds off the other cells, without them it would die. It is human in a twisted way; it bears much the same genetic code. Would you kill such an entity? Getting off on a tangent here. - C'jais Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 With few exceptions, those who oppose abortion rights are Christians, Jews & Muslims. (don't freak, i said there were exceptions). Opposition to abortion rights is directly related to how zealous you are about your beliefs. I think the problem is, zealous orthodoxy does not allow any exceptions to their rules. This is foolish and destructive. There are always exceptions and variables to every rule or law humans have ever percieved. Life is not precious, especially human life. We are 1 of the most abundant lifeforms alive today. In a world of limited resources and billions of people, perhaps we should place our energies into quality of life instead of quanity of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-s/<itzo- Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 you know what really bugs me, are those pro-life advocates who disaprove abortion so much that they'll go to the measures of threats, murder, bombing, etc... to me it seems so hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by -s/<itzo- you know what really bugs me, are those pro-life advocates who disaprove abortion so much that they'll go to the measures of threats, murder, bombing, etc... to me it seems so hypocritical. YES, I think that's what they call "Not being able to see the forest because all those trees are in the way." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonces Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 What I find hypocritical are those who are Pro-Abortion being against the Death Penalty, or those who are Pro-Life being for the Death Penalty. The taking of a human life is murder any way you slant it. Rationalise it anyway you like, but I beleive life IS a precious thing I'm not a Religious person, I'm a Moral person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Yes Toonces, life is precious. But so precious as to take away freedom from the mother? What bugs me the most is that the pro-lifers can't seem to get that plants and cows are life too. Don't kill them either. Is scientists artifically created a human DNA nucleus, would you advocate that it should live as well? If it was encased in a cell membrane? If it was able to multiply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt-- Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I'm too lazy to use s, so bear with me. -- Not human until birth. Parasite up to that point. Heartbeat does not make living. -- Ability to live outside the mother makes it legally alive. -- Life does NOT begin at conception. You are wrong. DON'T SAY THAT SOMETHING IS PROVEN BY SCIENCE UNLESS YOU HAVE AT THE VERY LEAST HAD THE COURTESY OF CHECKING. I am a little touchy about that last part. The sperm is alive. The egg is certainly alive. Thus life begins not at conception, but some 4 billion years ago. -- Sperm and egg cells, nor the beings that produce them are alive 4 billion years. "Life" here obviously refers to the genetically unique cell that is a result of the union of sperm and egg. -- False. On all counts. If people wish to adopt then they could adopt a child from a third world country where barbaric laws forbid abortion. Then they would truely save a child, as this child would most likely be gotten rid off in another way. Unless they don't like the colour black. -- (from my experience) there are a lot more adoptions involving children outside the country than there are where both the child and adoptive family. -- You could say LITTERALLY the same thing about antibiotics. Or refrigerators. Or, for that matter, any technology at all. Because technology is there to make life easier. So I would ask you to think through the logical conclusions that follow your statement, before ever stating it again... Just sound advice, someone may recognise you. Fail once: Get a reminder. Fail twice: Look like a fool. -- No, you couldn't. There are viable alternatives to abortion. What is the alternative to antibiotics? leeches? What is a non-technological alternative to the refrigerator? There isn't one. About the millions of people waiting to adopt...you're wrong...in NJ at least that is...unless they are all adopting outside the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais The baby can theoretically still survive without it's biological mother. A fetus cannot. But that's beside the point, your argument is that it's just as easy to give your child away for adoption as seeing it as a lump of emotionally, spiritually, humanly and consciously dead cells. It is not human. It is a blueprint - to be discarded at the will of the mother, since she's the one who's going to "build" it.[/i] No, GonkH8er stated in one of his posts... (which I quoted) that it is very hard to give your baby to another family for adoption... I said, why isn't it just as hard to know that you destroyed a (quoting you) "blueprint" (end quote) or living thing that had a lifetime of opportunities ahead of him/her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast No, GonkH8er stated in one of his posts... (which I quoted) that it is very hard to give your baby to another family for adoption... I said, why isn't it just as hard to know that you destroyed a (quoting you) "blueprint" (end quote) or living thing that had a lifetime of opportunities ahead of him/her? The difference is, an adopted child you had the burden of carrying around for 9 months, with it feeding off you. Not something you wish to do every year. An aborted blueprint has no meaning. You can't refer to "it" much the same as you can't refer to a lump of salt as "it". Look at the cancer cell. It's a seperate entity as a fetus is. It is alive. It can grow. It has a DNA code sligthly different from your own. Would you remove it? Scientists can already create small artificial pieces of our DNA code (for genetic engineering). What if they were able to create the entire DNA code? This is essentially a living thing. But it's artificially created[/i]. There's no way to distinguish it from a normal cell, if you put put it into a cell membrane. Would you be able to kill it? It's human, after all. You speak of you being unable to "kill" a fetus because it had a lifetime of oppurtunities ahead of it. Well, the very same can be said about people who use sexual prevention. They're also preventing a fetus from having it's lifetime of oppurtunities. And what about the people who never have sex? They're brutally "killing" unborn fetuses too. Think about this: If a sperm cell was altered so the DNA no longer a human's, and inserted into an egg cell - would it be human offspring? What if the egg cell was likewise altered? Would you have any right to end íts life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Well your comparing cancer cells to a fetus? I don't see any type of comparison there except for people getting rid of both of them sometimes. Yes, I see what your saying about people using sexual prevention and people that stay away from sex but there is a difference between a fetus that IS there in a woman and a woman not holding a fetus at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast Well your comparing cancer cells to a fetus? I don't see any type of comparison there except for people getting rid of both of them sometimes. Tell me the difference between a fetus growing in a womb, and a group of cancer cells. Here's the deal: A fetus is a blueprint. You don't have sentimental feelings from scrapping a blueprint because you found out you weren't up to the task of actually following the blueprint. You can't relate a blueprint and the finished construction to each other - they have physically, mentally and spiritually nothing to do with each other. Example: I have a blueprint of the car I wish to design. I realize I can't build the car after all, so I throw the blueprint in the bin. Now, do I start crying over all the mileage that car would never run? Do I weep for it because it didn't get the chance to drive on the alps? No. It is just a template, without any emotional value at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Read this site: go to http://www.abortionfacts.com then look over at the left of the page at the list of links and click on "Abortion Arguements". Go to the "Medical" section and click on both links and read. THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE SECTION UNDER "MEDICAL" CALLED "WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?" Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing. If you read these... you will see that the fetus is NOT a blueprint because That fact right there is part of a field where there is no controversy and no disagreement between scientists. A humans individual life begind at conception. It states it right there. Once you finish reading that go to the bottom of all their links and read tha page called "Our Mission." The link is http://www.abortionfacts.com/x_administration/our_mission.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Reborn: Don't get me wrong, the fetus is alive. I'm aware of that. But it is not human life in the sense you and I understand. It is as much human life as the cancer cell and the artificially created DNA string. Nothing more. You cannot call the fetus an individual, nor conscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 But thats what I've been trying to say. I said that LIFE begins at conception and that if you destroy a fetus you are destroying an individuals LIFE. (Read my latest post and the website and you will see that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 But what's an individual? At this point in it's development, it has no brain functions to speak of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{BK}SupremePain Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 i would never have a abortion if i got a girl pregnant but if a guy just left the girl he got pregnant i dont think its wrong of her to have an abortion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast if you destroy a fetus you are destroying an individuals LIFE. You destroy life, yes. But not an individual's life. The fetus cannot be referred to as an individual at that stage, no more than a cancer cell or a DNA string can be referred to as "an individual human." If you're so panicked about destroying life, know that you do it every day. And not just killing other lifeforms, hundreds of your cells die every day. They're life as well, you know. But an individual human each? Of course not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-s/<itzo- Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 basically Cjais is trying to say that the fetus is only a potential human being until it is able to survive outside the womb. until this time the fetus has no legal rights—the rights belong to the woman carrying the fetus, who can decide whether or not to bring the pregnancy to full term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais And not just killing other lifeforms, hundreds of your cells die every day. They're life as well, you know. But an individual human each? Of course not. I do not voluntarily kill my cells. They do it on their own but a woman makes the decision to kill the fetus. And Cjais did you read the quote I posted from http://www.abortionfacts.com? Here is part of it... The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." Now here is a part before that... Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 That's muttling the point. We go thru a complete cell replacement over a period of 7 years or so. Does that mean I'm not the same person that existed 7 years ago? A bunch of cells do not equal a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.