I wasn't referring to you.
If you're so concerned about these kids getting raised, or forcing females to have their babies and not abort them, you better accept that they don't want em. Seeing as you forced a random woman to have it where it wasn't your right to, you should adopt and raise that baby.
You said she had to have it, you raise it.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I wasn't referring to you.If you're so concerned about these kids getting raised, or forcing females to have their babies and not abort them, you better accept that they don't want em. Seeing as you forced a random woman to have it where it wasn't your right to, you should adopt and raise that baby.
You said she had to have it, you raise it.
-AC
She made it, she had, now raise it. It's not that hard.
You still didn't answer if you had kids or not.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, proven. It's a zygote at conception. Zygote = Cell, Cell = Not human. Clear? Sweeeeet.
See, but they're still human cells. They contain the entire human genome (which as an aside, also makes them perfect for gasp stem cell research). The real question is who do they belong to. If they are the mother's cells, sure she should have the right to get rid of them, if they are their own - for lack of a better term - being, then she does not.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Prove what makes someone human? I can prove what makes someone NOT human. Being a cell makes someone not human. IE: Zygotes exist at conception and for a while after. Meaning human life does not exist at conception.
Well, someone or something would be nonhuman if and only if it didn't posses the traits that make someone human. The big question is what are those traits? arms? legs? intellect? Human DNA? It's unanswered since the DNA makes all the others possible. Meaning it's possible that human life does exist at conception (actually shortly thereafter as it takes a little time for the DNA to integrate)
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Playing it safe? Is that what we're calling it? You have no grounds for proof so you say "Let's just assume it begins at a time that will aid the pro-life debate"? I call that "Being a hypocritical, desperate coward".
There we go with the name calling again. What's wrong with the assumption. We do it all the time in this culture. "Innocent until proven guilty" springs to mind. What's wrong with alive until proven otherwise?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No it is, hence why you should debate such.
What exactly do you think I'm debating?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fair enough. Apology accepted.
Thanks
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, not at all. If you don't want to read all 300 (nearly) pages, I can more or less understand that, but don't come in and assume that your point of view hasn't been raised and dealt with.
So you're not gonna tell me where I should look for these answers to my arguments? Well, I still love a good debate, even if I am apparently in the dark.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
She made it, she had, now raise it. It's not that hard.You still didn't answer if you had kids or not.
I didn't answer because it's not relevant in any way to this debate, but to be civil I will answer you. I like some kids, I dislike some, overall they're not for me.
To the matter at hand:
Then the truth comes to light. YOU don't care about that baby she's got, all you want is her to suffer consequence. Your view is basically "She should deal with it, she had fun making it, so she should raise it." You're putting the cart before the horse. A female who DOESN'T want to raise her kid, won't raise her kid. It'll end up in a dumpster or adopted.
-AC
Originally posted by docb77
See, but they're still human cells. They contain the entire human genome (which as an aside, also makes them perfect for gasp stem cell research). The real question is who do they belong to. If they are the mother's cells, sure she should have the right to get rid of them, if they are their own - for lack of a better term - being, then she does not.
Cells created by a human. Not cells that are human. It needn't go any further. That's all I'm trying to point out here.
Originally posted by docb77
Well, someone or something would be nonhuman if and only if it didn't posses the traits that make someone human. The big question is what are those traits? arms? legs? intellect? Human DNA? It's unanswered since the DNA makes all the others possible. Meaning it's possible that human life does exist at conception (actually shortly thereafter as it takes a little time for the DNA to integrate)
A cell is factually and undeniably not a human being. A zygote is a cell. A zygote is what exists at, and for a while after, conception. I've said this enough times now.
Originally posted by docb77
There we go with the name calling again. What's wrong with the assumption. We do it all the time in this culture. "Innocent until proven guilty" springs to mind. What's wrong with alive until proven otherwise?
What's wrong with not a life until proven otherwise?
Originally posted by docb77
What exactly do you think I'm debating?
Previously, off topic rubbish. Now? On topic nonsense.
Originally posted by docb77
So you're not gonna tell me where I should look for these answers to my arguments? Well, I still love a good debate, even if I am apparently in the dark.
The past month or so I guess.
-AC
Assuming a fetus is NOT a human being in the making, there are still quite a number of other issues with abortion which no one has logically answered yet.
---***You are still stopping a human's life, no matter if it starts out dead or alive.*** (this is pretty crucial)
---Abortion is becoming to common and misused.
---It is immoral and only adds to the overpower we have over nature. **(Also a big issue)
---What if every doctor who knew how to perform abortions died all at once leaving no one to do them: what would people have to change? would it make the world better?
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Assuming a fetus is NOT a human being in the making, there are still quite a number of other issues with abortion which no one has logically answered yet.
---***You are still stopping a human's life, no matter if it starts out dead or alive.*** (this is pretty crucial)
---Abortion is becoming to common and misused.
---It is immoral and only adds to the overpower we have over nature. **(Also a big issue)
---What if every doctor who knew how to perform abortions died all at once leaving no one to do them: what would people have to change? would it make the world better?
1) If it's not a human then you're not stopping a human's life. Just about puts that one to bed. "No matter if it's alive or dead". Stupid.
2) It's none of your business or concern how common or misused it is (this is crucial), but if you choose to be concerned you have to keep your concern out of people's lives that have nothing to do with you.
3) Immoral is subjective. To you it's immoral, so the solution is to never have one. Not everyone is you or believes as you do, you need to wake up.
4) No. Because your inability to accept this notwithstanding: Abortions solve problems.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Cells created by a human. Not cells that are human. It needn't go any further. That's all I'm trying to point out here.
So what's the difference? I would say that a cell created from human DNA is a human cell. A cell created from mouse DNA is a mouse cell. A cell created from tomato DNA is a tomato cell.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A cell is factually and undeniably not a human being. A zygote is a cell. A zygote is what exists at, and for a while after, conception. I've said this enough times now.
Since a fact is something that can be proven right or wrong I suppose that part of what you said is true, but it's definitely not undeniable. Like I said we just don't know. The DNA is there, all the blueprints for what would be a life. zygote is just a name to describe what we see, means nothing to the argument. The question is still whose cells are they.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What's wrong with not a life until proven otherwise?
Which assumption causes the greater loss? An entire life vs a comparatively short period of inconvience.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The past month or so I guess.
Thanks, I'll look back some and let you know if anything changes my opinion.
-AC [/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by docb77
So what's the difference? I would say that a cell created from human DNA is a human cell. A cell created from mouse DNA is a mouse cell. A cell created from tomato DNA is a tomato cell.
Is a cell a human being? No. It's not. What is it with the lack of comprehension there?
Originally posted by docb77
Since a fact is something that can be proven right or wrong I suppose that part of what you said is true, but it's definitely not undeniable. Like I said we just don't know. The DNA is there, all the blueprints for what would be a life. zygote is just a name to describe what we see, means nothing to the argument. The question is still whose cells are they.
Look further back. I posted facts.
Originally posted by docb77
Which assumption causes the greater loss? An entire life vs a comparatively short period of inconvience.
I'd rather cater to the humans already living here than what is essentially a parasite (look up the definition, completely applicable).
Originally posted by docb77
Thanks, I'll look back some and let you know if anything changes my opinion.
No problem.
-AC
"1) If it's not a human then you're not stopping a human's life. Just about puts that one to bed. "No matter if it's alive or dead". Stupid."
---You are stopping it from having a life in the future. You are taking away that person's chance at life before he has even started it.
"2) It's none of your business or concern how common or misused it is (this is crucial), but if you choose to be concerned you have to keep your concern out of people's lives that have nothing to do with you."
----Umm, actually if it were our buissness, neither of us would be here right now, right? I for one do not like to stand and watch as little time-bombs of our morality as a whole start ticking. If we get used to the fact that abortion is perfectly okay and nothing is wrong with it, people are going to start taking their children and throwing them out in the alley at a young age because they cant handle the child rather than take the time to even put them up for adoption. It sounds silly now but at this rate it might not be someday.
--This debate happened before too, when abolitionists argued that black people were humans too, when others said they werent because of their skin color. Somehow this sounds mighty familiar.... like that unborn babies shouldnt have the same rights as born ones. In the constitution, we hear that we get as human beings the rights to "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuits of happiness". In my eyes, as soon as a child is concieved- it is a human- no matter if it is made of five cells or ten trillion- and it deserves the same rights it is being denied.
"3) Immoral is subjective. To you it's immoral, so the solution is to never have one. Not everyone is you or believes as you do, you need to wake up."
----Well maybe its time we all get together and agree to the limits of morality so we can be sure in the future! I understand that obviously not everyone beleives as I do. I mean, there are people out there that blow themselves up for Allah so I can understand all of that. I mean- it is THEIR choice if they do a suicide bombing, right? Why should we interfere with someone else's beleifs?
"4) No. Because your inability to accept this notwithstanding: Abortions solve problems."
---Hmm... did you really mean to say that? 'Abortions solve problems'...
Well havent I heard that one before... Sounds a lot like the old "Kill the Jews and it'll solve all our problems" scenaria. If abortions only exists to cheat our way out of the consequences of our actions then it is no more than a buffer for people who always expect someone else to have a solution to their problems. People should start to face the facts and think for themselves- maybe solve thier own problems for once instead of calling the doctor at the first sign of a fever.
Originally posted by docb77
An attempt at a logical statement the Pro-life position:Religious - Assuming the existence of a god, regardless of whether deity is the one professed by christians, muslims, or that of the hindus; The greatest gift endowed upon us by said creator is life. The world of science has been unable to demonstrate when human life starts. It is therefore preferable to err on the side of caution when dealing with this unknown. A human fetus should be considered alive until and unless proven otherwise. (Disclaimer: As with the taking of human lives I believe that there are instances comparable to self defense, etc. underwhich this would not be immoral, ie rape, life of the mother, etc.)
Legal - According to the 9th ammendment (yes the same one the courts have interpreted to bestow the "right of privacy"😉 All powers not granted the federal govt in the body of the constitution are granted to the states or the individual citizens. It should therefore be given to the states to decide whether abortion should be legal in each respective state. The constitution apparently grants the states said powers and then the citiizens. Most would agree that the taking of human life is wrong. The legal word would be homicide. Some homicides are legal, most aren't. Most also abhor infanticide, even though this practice was common in some cultures (and is even practice to some extent in China today). The difference of opinion is only when taking said life is wrong. The blastula that forms within hours of conception is definitely made of human cells, but is also definitely not viable outside the mother. The question then becomes: whose cells are they? The mother's? Or an as yet unformed human being? A common practice in today's civil law is to award to injured parties potential lost income. Drawing a parallel - the unformed child has greater claim to those cells, and the mother has the same sort of responsibility (although at a biological level) that parents have for children that have already been born (said children not being able to survive without outside help, it is illegal to kill them even though they are not "viable" in the outside world.)
Rational - (I've already kind of given this one) A person should be responsible for their actions. The Legal system in this country is founded on that idea. If I commit theft or murder, I am required to bear a consequence in my life - prison, capital punishment, etc. There are natural consequences and manmade consequences. If I am foolish enough to fall off a ladder, I could get hurt - natural consequence. If I rob a store, I could go to prison - manmade consequence. An abortion is a way of averting a natural consequence, but carries with it it's own consequences. The question of should this consequence be avoided can only be answered based on morality, either that of the would-be mother, or of society at large. Our Society places a large value on life. It should therefore come as no shock to see polls indicating that about 3/4 of the nation favor at least a partial ban on abortions. Until uncertainty about when "life" starts can be cleared up, abortion should be restricted to special cases. To quote a common saying, You break it, you buy it.
Off topic, it might surprise you that although I favor restricting abortions, I favor fetal stem cell research.
Religiously- you attempt to define the beliefs of those who argue based on their god as something other than religious. This can not be done. As I pointed out to Sithsabre, seperation of church and state can not occure if the person arguing in favor of the state can not remove themselves from the church. Religion was a privately DECIDED course, last I heard. The world of science has been unable to define the moment that human life begins because of the objections of the HUMAN religious.
Legally- You are trying to remove the independance of the woman involved. Not only do you place the rights of those eleceted to govern above the rights of those they govern, but you disregard teh rights of those they govern to elect new officials. As has been done in this thread far too often, human life is assumed. If you disagree with the context of this thread, then dispute that fact, no other. "Most will agree with the taking of a human life", but ascribing "human" life to a mass of cells that has not delevoped sight, hearing, or self-awareness is premature....much like abortion itself in the mind of others. Only you imply the term "homicide" with your accusations. "Some homicides are legal"....so why support one homicide over another?..given your perspective? Both are an abomination to god's will as well as the will of the person who supports a right to life on all bases. The blastual: Were the "blastual" common to humans only, then your argument of human rights and superiority would be substantiated. However it is not, so it is rightfully dismissed. Assigning a term that decribes a common biologcal occurance to a single species is not valid. Certainly it would be made of human cells...otherwise it's parents would be comprised of human and "animal" cells. "Outside of the mother"? Outside of the mother, no life would exist!
Rational- "A person should be responsible for their actions" So too should their descisions based on those actions be as equally regarded. "Theft or murder" is not impregnation. In a secualar world, there is an alternative to the sole consequinces of those actions. Were "theft and murder" as subjective, then there would be a basis for your argument. If matters of their subjective abitlities be based on morality, then one must allow for the fact that morals are subjective...often based on religion. Religion being a doctrine based on what they have been told v. what they have experienced or learned for themselves. As it is, few of the people taking part in this thread are basing their opinions on their PERSONAL experiences.
Stem cell research is an arbitrary notion, based on choosing those aspects of yor religion.....again, hypocritical.
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
You can only clap for baby Jesus it you're Christian.--Which I aint.
Then address the point of the non Jesus perspective....which you never do. You only post a raised eyebrow smilie on the baby Jesus comments and then high tail it out of the thread. So, tell us, where do you stand?
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Then address the point of the non Jesus perspective....which you never do. You only post a raised eyebrow smilie on the baby Jesus comments and then high tail it out of the thread. So, tell us, where do you stand?
Kumu'kea--the native Hawaiian religion.
When it comes to "controversial" issues, such as abortion and cloning--I prefer discussing them from a secular standpoint. Religion tends to cloud people's better judgement *cough*sithsaber408*cough*.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
You are stopping it from having a life in the future. You are taking away that person's chance at life before he has even started it.
You're contradicting yourself multiple times. You can't be stopping a PERSON from becoming a PERSON if they're already one can you? You're preventing cells from becoming a human.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Umm, actually if it were our buissness, neither of us would be here right now, right?
I joined KMC to have discussions about subjects. I don't intend to go involving myself. You clearly do, it's none of your business.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
I for one do not like to stand and watch as little time-bombs of our morality as a whole start ticking.
Then don't. Either stop concerning yourself with it, or stop b*tching about it. Nobody is forcing you to pay attention.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
If we get used to the fact that abortion is perfectly okay and nothing is wrong with it, people are going to start taking their children and throwing them out in the alley at a young age because they cant handle the child rather than take the time to even put them up for adoption. It sounds silly now but at this rate it might not be someday.
You're right, it does sound silly. Probably because that is one of the most unrealistic, farfetched examples I've seen on this forum.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
This debate happened before too, when abolitionists argued that black people were humans too, when others said they werent because of their skin color. Somehow this sounds mighty familiar....
Wait. Stop.
Do you expect to be taken seriously when you say shit like that? Honest question, not an attempt at poking fun. I'm seriously curious.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
like that unborn babies shouldnt have the same rights as born ones.
They shouldn't.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
In the constitution, we hear that we get as human beings the rights to "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuits of happiness". In my eyes, as soon as a child is concieved- it is a human- no matter if it is made of five cells or ten trillion- and it deserves the same rights it is being denied.
Basically you're ignoring complete and factual information in favour of saying "I believe it has the same rights, because I believe it's the same thing"? You believe it's a human being at conception despite this being factually and scientifically untrue? Idiot then.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Well maybe its time we all get together and agree to the limits of morality so we can be sure in the future! I understand that obviously not everyone beleives as I do. I mean, there are people out there that blow themselves up for Allah so I can understand all of that. I mean- it is THEIR choice if they do a suicide bombing, right? Why should we interfere with someone else's beleifs?
Anybody is free to BELIEVE whatever they want. There's a fat, glow-in-the-dark line separating speaking about/thinking of beliefs and acting upon them. Morality is entirely subjective, so for you to ban something because it's immoral to you is dumb.
Some of the music I listen to is considered immoral by many people I'll bet. They don't have to listen to it, but they protest under the stupid premise of "We know it exists". Just like you and abortion. You don't have to involve or concern yourself with abortion, but you do so off the back of "I know it happens".
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Hmm... did you really mean to say that? 'Abortions solve problems'...
Well havent I heard that one before... Sounds a lot like the old "Kill the Jews and it'll solve all our problems" scenaria. If abortions only exists to cheat our way out of the consequences of our actions then it is no more than a buffer for people who always expect someone else to have a solution to their problems. People should start to face the facts and think for themselves- maybe solve thier own problems for once instead of calling the doctor at the first sign of a fever.
Abortions do solve problems. A problem being a troublesome situation that could lead to worse things.
IE: If you get pregnant and you didn't mean or want for it to happen (whatever those circumstances are)- this is a problem. So if your solution is abortion, it has solved your problem. This is the case of all responsible and irresponsible abortion users.
Irresponsible abortions will happen, but so will irresponsible drivers and such. If you're going to ban things because they might be dangerous or misused in the hands of idiots, then that freedom you long for so rabidly is now worth shit.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wait. Stop.Do you expect to be taken seriously when you say shit like that? Honest question, not an attempt at poking fun. I'm seriously curious.
He has a point--blacks were not considered fully human, just like you don't consider unborn babies to be fully human.
Great analogy, Ghost!