I never said I expected people to adhere to my beliefs! I said "I personally" and meant only what i thought of the situation. I wouldn't want to make that decision for people, it is too big a responsibility, and what right have I? I don't claim to be righteous or anything like that lol.
I do disagree with you about babies being just lumps of cells and flesh. They are alive. My sperm and my wive's egg were cells, but Our Unborn child is alive. Maybe it is because I am going to be a father, but I know what the end result is going to be, so I can't just see my child as a lump of flesh. A baby get's it's heartbeat around 3 weeks, is thta when you consider it a human, or not until it is born into the world at 9months? Not an attack I just am curious to your personal belief is all.
Also as for the counseling, I only meant a rape victim. I didn't mean to imply that every woman needs to seek it before doing so. I do believe all options should be considered before abortion though.
__________________
Last edited by Pezmerga on Mar 18th, 2008 at 09:17 PM
Cells are not human, so it's not a human life, or a human being. It's...cells. Cells are nothing more than cells. They are not equal to a human because they are not actually human. Human CELLS, as in...belonging to the human RACE, but not ACTUALLY a human.
I consider it a human being when it's born. People here disagree, and have said there needs to be limits, I don't care, but if there HAS to be limits, they need to be realistic. Not limits based on "Aww I'm gonna be a daddy.".
THE END RESULT, yes. Not now, not at conception. The end result, when it comes out of the vagina, or whatever. Certainly not conception and certainly not any time soon after.
your concept of "newly created human life" is based on your own religious dogma and NOTHING more. now, im not saying you have no right to believe it to be true based on faith, but you certainly dont have the right to parrot it as if its scientific fact.
__________________
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
Just about everywhere I've encountered you, or anyone else. It's not an accolade I alone possess.
Also, I've proven everything I've ever need to prove, or been asked to prove. I simply cannot make you say "Yes, that's true.". You ignore fact in favour of religion, cos you're a bit of an idiot.
If you believe every stage of an abortion is something that's alive and worth protecting, that's fine by me, but you were pushing those stages as human, and that's scientifically false.
So what? He said "Human OR NOT, it's alive, that's what matters to me.".
Presumably he follows this all the way, and doesn't kill anything that's alive, ever.
No please don't assume anything about me. This is exactly how I see it. You can see it however you wish.
Sperm = Cells that live and die regardless of where it is. If it is in the toilet then it will live out and die as usual.
Eggs = Cycle out every month. Women aren't wrong for not impregnanting every egg or anything like that lol (a preemptive strike against implying I would think that.)
There is a huge difference between a sperm cell and a embryo or fetus.
A sperm cell only has the life of a normal cell. I don't end it's life by ejaculating it into a toilet. It lives out it's normal life span anyway. It's not like not masturbating saves any sperm cells from dying. They come out through urine as well. (although in a much smaller amount) I may end up producing more as result, but the same goes for most other cells our body needs. Like for instance, skin cells.
A Fetus is a stage of human life, so therefore I consider it human. It isn't a fully developed one, but a Child isn't a fully developed adult, so is it okay to kill the child? No. An extreme example and surely killing the child is much worse, but I think the basic principle applies to both.
I will agree to disagree with anyone in regards to someone else actually having an abortion. I will not judge or look down, but I will still hold my belief, and if someone asked me what I think they should do if confronted with the situation I will always advise against an abortion.
I still do respect your belief AC, so I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything, I am just stating why I feel the opposite of what you do.
There's a difference between being ALIVE and having A LIFE. A cell is ALIVE, a tree is ALIVE, sperm is ALIVE. They do not have LIVES, like humans do. So your points are kind of irrelevant.
And a foetus/embryo and a human being. One is a human foetus, the other is a human being. The two are not equal, do not assume that your freedom of personal belief somehow negates science, Pez.
Yes, it's ALIVE though.
That's what you said matters. If anything ALIVE matters, I'd assume you don't masturbate and waste sperm.
Your personal beliefs do not negate science. I am concerned that you feel they do. A foetus is not a human being, it's a human foetus. Cells that will POSSIBLY become a human foetus are..."human" cells, they are not human beings. You cannot give something equal rights to what you feel it could potentially become, science does not work like that.
What the hell are you on about? Children do not have the rights of human adults because they are not human adults. They have the rights of human BEINGS because that's what they are. Human foetuses, contrary to your "I'll ignore science." belief, are not human beings. Cells are not foetuses, they are not human, they are entirely different organisms. You about to become a father, or being a father, has clouded your judgement. You're ignoring science in favour of your personal beliefs. If that's how you feel, then you're being stupid.
You feel the opposite of scientific proof, it's not a matter of opinion.
Gender: Male Location: Impacting nations and generations
I'm gonna leave my faith out of this debate. It's not necessary to win it.
I said "sperm joining to an egg constituted a newly created life". You are implying then that sperm+egg doesn't = newly created life? (because I'm a Christian, I guess?)
Fertilization-The union of male and female gametes to form a zygote.
Zygote-The cell produced by the union of two gametes, before it undergoes cleavage.
Cell-smallest structural unit of an organism that is capable of independent functioning, consisting of one or more nuclei, cytoplasm, and various organelles, all surrounded by a semipermeable cell membrane.
Organism-An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
I know that I broke that all the way down to the basest level, but my point is simple: an egg and sperm have formed a zygote, AKA a cell, which is an individual form of life. As we aren't talking about cow or duck sperm and eggs, but rather human, it is safe to say that this is constituting a newly formed (but agreed, not fully developed) human life.
Religion has nothing to do with it. Do you agree?
1. Because abortion is not the "wasting of potential human life" like you call contraception (life that has not yet been formed, mind you) but rather is the elimination of life that has been formed and is now it's own separate entity. It is the ending of what has started, not the prevention of what hasn't started. They are categorically different. One is not a human life yet; one is. (though agreed, not fully formed)
1. False. There is a big difference between sperm and egg one second before and one second after fertilization. A whole new organism has been formed.
That analogy works about as well as saying the only difference between the bullet fired at your head one second before it hits and one second after it hits is proximity. It's completely changed the situation BECAUSE of what happens in that one second.
2. I never said it was wrong to "prevent" the development of human life, only to "halt/stop/end" the development of human life, ONCE it has started developing. (if you prevent it, it hasn't been formed in the first place, now has it?)
Again, that's nonsense. The life hasn't even been created/formed yet because the organism only comes from the joining together of egg and sperm. It's not the same as taking that life and ending it if it was never made. Potential for life and an actual life are two different things.
I'm not arguing for the protection of potential life, just life.
No, actually it's more like I was never there to get shot in the first place. Abortion is what's like shooting a person in the head, because it's a living being that is destroyed. I'm not arguing about lives that don't exist yet.
But the main argument in any debate (save for AC who likes to support abortion all the way up until birth.) on abortion always centers around "when does human life begin", right? Because nobody in their right mind would advocate the death of an innocent, young human life.
Lot's of ways to look at this and religion is certainly one, as PVS mentioned. (God made it from conception, it has a soul, etc...) Not going there.
Some are philosophical ways (when it loves, when it has a conscience, etc..) to determine what a TRUE human life is. Not going there either, as we'd be allowing the death of 2 and 3 year olds who may or may not be able to express love and certainly show little to no evidence of a conscience!
So the best way to look at it is through biological facts. Examining the scientific facts of human development.
That way there are no opinions, beliefs, or ideas, just facts.
And I believe that there are only one set of facts; only one embryology book is studied in our country's medical schools. There are no "competing theory's" on this, but rather 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 because this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.
That's not my religion or your philosophy talking, those are just the facts ma'am.
How do you define "human life"?
Is this being alive?
Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead. (and don't go there again with that finger nail nonsense. That is irrelevant and off topic. A fingernail comes from a fully formed human being and is a part of them. It is not comparable to a human life because it is also "not dead." You're quibbling semantics like a teenager trying to stay out late, and not on the issue of whether or not a zygote is a human life)
Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.
Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.
So then we come to "well it's alive but it doesn't have A LIFE" nonsense that I've heard too often before. You're actually getting philosophical without meaning too, because you're getting into defining what "a life" is, like conscience or the ability to love.
But let's try and define what "a person" is. "Person" is defined in the dictionary in 14 different ways. Yellowstone Park is a person. So is General Motors. So are you. But the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1857 ruled that black people were not persons, and in 1973 that unborn people were not persons. I believe them to be wrong and I also believe that you can't judge whether or not a being has the right to live based on if they are a true "person" yet. (Paris Hilton would not be here, in the opinions of some!)
We must revert back to defining human life, and I don't really see anything other than some abstract garbage about fingernails, shooting people John Connor style in the past, or inappropriate comments about my wife and a certain type of necklace, where ANY proof has been offered that a zygote, then embryo, then fetus, then infant is not a human life.
What's the difference between that day old baby and that one day til birth baby?
Nothing. Just age and where they live. You can't say that one is worth protecting and the other isn't. It's still that same human life, and it's just inside a shell.
Gender: Male Location: Impacting nations and generations
Next point: The mothers. It's in a shell, the mother who is carrying it.
What of her? Many argue that because the life is inside of her and dependant on her systems to grow and live, that it has no rights outside of what she chooses for it.
I love what Dr. A Lively, the first person to do a fetal blood transfusion in inside the womb in 1971 wrote:
"...seven days after fertilization, the young individual, in command of his environment and destiny with a tenacious purpose, implants in the spongy lining and with a display of physiological power, suppresses his mother’s menstrual period. This is his home for the next 270 days and to make it habitable, the embryo develops a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He also solves, single-handed, the homograft problem, that dazzling feat by which fetus and mother, although immunological foreigners who could not exchange skin grafts nor safely receive blood from each other, never the less tolerate each other in parabiosis for nine months."
Seems as though there is a balance between them being completely dependant on the mothers ("just an extension of her really, her choice" as many might say), and the new life existing and developing and acting independently of her.
It's a new, separate, living human being that is growing. And it's the only one that (for now) is not covered under our constitutions promise to it of a right for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's right to life is somehow considered less than important than the mothers right to do what she wants.
And don't even get me started on "what about rape?" because I've posted the stats before where only 2 in 1000 rapes actually ends in a pregnancy. That's a red herring, it's really less than 0.01% of women raped who get pregnant.
And I support abortion in extreme cases: Rape, incest, life of the mother.
But for the most part, it's just people who are caught unprepared, unexpected, and not ready for what happened from a sexual encounter.
Often times it's the male's fault, as he's not ready or mature enough to be a father and pushes a female into an abortion she later regrets. (I won't even go into the physical harm that comes from many abortions, including cancer, nor the emotional stress and depression that you all know frequently follows. You can look the data up.)
So what to do, oh what to do in the case that you weren't prepared for that pregnancy? Keep it or adopt it out. That's the answer.
As far as I'm concerned, I've yet to see proof that an abortion isn't killing a human life.
As far as you're concerned, abortion IS killing a human life, so there's not much more that can be said. You've already based your entire argument around a thought that is factually incorrect.
So, in light of the fact that science disproves you, what more can anyone do? People provide you with fact, and a blind love of religious dogma and rabid, generalising hatred of pre-marital sex ends up throwing you off balance. Science does beat that, I'm afraid.
As for your ridiculous point of "It's right to life is somehow considered less than important than the mothers right to do what she wants.".
Well...yeah. That's how it should always be, and I hope it stays this way. Of course, you are all too stupid to look into the simple hypocritical flaw that ends your argument each time;
You fight for the right to life of a foetus, but if that foetus is born as a girl who grows up in this alleged land of the free because you forced her into the world, and wants an abortion of her own, you're pretty sharp at ticking her off the "right to freedom of life" list aren't you? You only give a shit when they honestly don't matter, because you do not care about life, or right to it. You care about what you believe and making as many women adhere to that as possible, cos you're utterly mental.
a rabid hatred of premarital sex which he has the luxury of condemning now that he's already had premarital sex and decided it was wrong. Hindsight is often 20/20, even if it's hypocritical.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
Gender: Male Location: Impacting nations and generations
Generally debates work where you refute people's points, not take the cowards way out by saying "He's religious, he doesn't understand."
I didn't use religion in there once, so countering those points should be easy for a smart boy like yourself. Oh, I don't hate it. I just feel that it's best to wait.
And yeah, you got me Cap. I'm first to admit that I'm not perfect and have screwed plenty of times in my life.
I respect alot of your opinions and have come to value your input on things. What's your response to some of my thoughts on the biological end of the issue? (I trust I won't get a John Connor/pearl necklace response from you.)
"You fight for the right to life of a foetus, but if that foetus is born as a girl who grows up in this alleged land of the free because you forced her into the world, and wants an abortion of her own, you're pretty sharp at ticking her off the "right to freedom of life" list aren't you? You only give a shit when they honestly don't matter, because you do not care about life, or right to it. You care about what you believe and making as many women adhere to that as possible, cos you're utterly mental".
That pretty much sums you up, but I'll ask, for a laugh:
What if you force a woman to give birth, not have the abortion she wanted, and the girl you fought for, the girl who's FREEDOM you fought for, grows up and wants an abortion? Would you oppress her? Answer bearing in mind the following:
You fight for foetuses because they can't choose, and you want them to have the right to life, so answering "Yes." would essentially mean you don't believe in what you say.
Answering no...well that puts you in the crapper as well.
I really don't have time to wade through all of the pages...can you just logically, but briefly, recap? You don't have to respond to anyone who criticizes your posts...it would be more like putting it out there.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 18th, 2008 09:09 PM
It's completely changed the situation BECAUSE of what happens in that one second.
Oh, I don't hate it. I just feel that it's best to wait. 
