Abortion

"PS: You typed it, you didn't actually cough. I can still see my name, you fool."

*cough-cough* What are you talking about? I'm allergic to threads like these... Online allergy season, ye know...

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
This is pathetic. There is no point to this thread because some people are just to stubborn to realise they are wrong. -Not to mention names or anything... *cough* alpha..*centauri* ...sorry about that I get into those coughing fits these days...

Words to live by, never argue with someone even if you win you lose.

Some stat's for people saying adoption isn't a good alternative.

Cost of adoption: http://statistics.adoption.com/information/statistics-on-cost-of-adopting.html

number of adoptions: http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-numbers-trends.html

I couldn't find anything on how many children put up for adoption aren't placed, but this indicates that the number available for adoption is decreasing:
http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-placing-children.html

Looks like adoption is a workable alternative.

Pretty much any baby(in the USA) is placed fairly quickly. The kids who linger in fostercare seem to be older orphans or kids whose parents have lost parental rights.

Originally posted by soleran30
Words to live by, never argue with someone even if you win you lose.

Ah come on now, arguing is fun. Although a face to face debate would be better. Ah how I miss debating. I could debate either side, but I prefer to debate the side I agree with.

How many anti-abortionists here are on the adoption list and would willingly adopt a kid tomorrow?

Bearing in mind that most of you have said you should put the kid's welfare and life first, before yourself.

This should be fun.

-AC

Me, ok I kid I kid but it is a good question AC

Is this thread still going?

Weird

Time for a recap for those who weren't here earlier:

Life is the deciding factor in the argument. When it starts is highly disputable, but according to the general opinion of doctors, it occurs in the third trimester.

Personal sidenote: Pro-life side, point out one distinction for human life. If it's just cells that have distinctly different 46 chromosomes and reproduce, corpses are still alive because of their growing hair follicles.

Potentiality has just been shot out of the water as an argument. Near everyone has a potential for good or bad, so that's done. Potential life is null because if the concept is ridiculous. If it was considered as a proper argument, then anything that reduces the chance of human life i.e. something that either endangers a POTENTIAL parent (zomg, everyone), or endangers the reproductive organs of a POTENTIAL parent, should be outlawed. That is just plain dumb.

Saying that sex should be controlled apparently is not supported by even most of the pro-life side, so that's out of the question (which I find strangely hypocritical considering they wish to dictate what a woman chooses to do with her own money).

If you're pro-life, address all of these arguments and then some if you want to declare yourself on even ground in the argument. Thank you.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is your argument that having an abortion is wrong because it prevents the development of human life

No bud, it is my argument that having an abortion is the same as killing a "human life."

I also believe that at the moment of conception we have "human life" and that before conception we have the "potential for human life."

I don't think that a man or woman who prevent procreation through abstinence are to be put in the same category as those who purposefully "end a life" through abortion.

I mean by your rationale, one could assume that all of the Catholic nuns and priests out there are to be put in the same category as those women who willfully engage in sexual activity and then have abortions. I mean they're all preventing the development of human life..right?

Vous comprenez le lesson mon ami? Le lesson n'est pas difficile.

I am all about people abstaining from sex! That way I can help out their significant other with that task🙂 ✅ 🐰

Originally posted by whobdamandog
No bud, it is my argument that having an abortion is the same as killing a "human life."

I also believe that at the moment of conception we have "human life" and that before conception we have the "potential for human life."

Do you consider a cell to be a human being? Not "It's a human cell". Do you consider a cell to be a human being? The answer should be no, because it's not. It's a cell. Ergo, no human life at conception.

I've already proven this to you beyond any doubt or deniability.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Vous comprenez le lesson mon ami? Le lesson n'est pas difficile.

-AC

Originally posted by crazylozer
Life is the deciding factor in the argument. When it starts is highly disputable, but according to the general opinion of doctors, it occurs in the third trimester.

Grossly incorrect. Most doctors and scientists would agree that a form of "life" is present before conception. A human embryo for example, is a much more complex form of life than a single celled organism such as an Amoeba. According to the "law", however, embryonic life in many cultures is not recognized as being a "human" until the latter portion of the third trimester.

Originally posted by crazylozer

Personal sidenote: Pro-life side, point out one distinction for human life. If it's just cells that have distinctly different 46 chromosomes and reproduce, corpses are still alive because of their growing hair follicles.

Potentiality has just been shot out of the water as an argument.

How so? "Potential human life" exists within the body of a Catholic Priest, is he to be put in the same category as a woman who has an abortion? Again this whole "potential" argument brought up by those on the "pro-choice" side is rather ridiculous. I could kill a 20 year old fertile young man with no kids, does that mean that I've killed 100 people as well, after all..he had the potential to get a 100 women pregnant..right?

Conception my friend. Again..that's where the pro-life argument starts.
It doesn't start from sperm floating around in a Catholic Priest's nutsack..or the unfertilized ovum of a nun.

Sperm + ovum = human life..vous comprenez?

Originally posted by crazylozer
Saying that sex should be controlled apparently is not supported by even most of the pro-life side, so that's out of the question (which I find strangely hypocritical considering they wish to dictate what a woman chooses to do with her own money).

You lost me here bud. I don't know of too many pro-lifer's within this thread who have insinuated that condoms should not be used to prevent "conception."

I don't think anyone gives a damn about what a person does with their money or their body for that matter. All that's being stated is that if a person chooses to f*ck, then they should understand that unless they've been completely sterilized, the possibility of creating a life exists. If one can't understand this simple concept, then they shouldn't be having sex to begin with.

Fin

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you consider a cell to be a human being? Not "It's a human cell". Do you consider a cell to be a human being? The answer should be no, because it's not. It's a cell. Ergo, no human life at conception.

I've already proven this to you beyond any doubt or deniability.
-AC

😆

For f*ck's sake..what the hell don't you all understand about the process of "conception"..here let me define it once more for you...

def

Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.

Sperm + Ovum that's what is being debated as human life...

not sperm + hand..

not dead skin cells + hand..

not hair follicles on a dead guy..

None of the bottom three combinations are the result of any type of "reproductive" process.

P.S. Alpha did you get that Bio Book yet? 😉

Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
😆

For f*ck's sake..what the hell don't you all understand about the process of "conception"..here let me define it once more for you...

Sperm + Ovum that's what is being debated as human life...

not sperm + hand..

not dead skin cells + hand..

not hair follicles on a dead guy..

None of the bottom three combinations are the result of any type of "reproductive" process.

P.S. Alpha did you get that Bio Book yet? 😉

Fin

If you stop playing Neo and dodging every single post in which I crack and bruise your entire stupid argument, you'll answer my question won't you?

Here: Do you consider a cell (which is what a zygote is) to be a human being?

I'm not debating if it's viable, I'm proving (as I have done to you before) that it's not a human being.

-AC

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Grossly incorrect. Most doctors and scientists would agree that a form of "life" is present before conception. A human embryo for example, is a much more complex form of life than a single celled organism such as an Amoeba. According to the "law", however, embryonic life in many cultures is not recognized as being a "human" until the latter portion of the third trimester.

How so? "Potential human life" exists within the body of a Catholic Priest, is he to be put in the same category as a woman who has an abortion? Again this whole "potential" argument brought up by those on the "pro-choice" side is rather ridiculous. I could kill a 20 year old fertile young man with no kids, does that mean that I've killed 100 people as well, after all..he had the potential to get a 100 women pregnant..right?

Conception my friend. Again..that's where the pro-life argument starts.
It doesn't start from sperm floating around in a Catholic Priest's nutsack..or the unfertilized ovum of a nun.

Sperm + ovum = human life..vous comprenez?

You lost me here bud. I don't know of too many pro-lifer's within this thread who have insinuated that condoms should not be used to prevent "conception."

I don't think anyone gives a damn about what a person does with their money or their body for that matter. All that's being stated is that if a person chooses to f*ck, then they should understand that unless they've been completely sterilized, the possibility of creating a life exists. If one can't understand this simple concept, then they shouldn't be having sex to begin with.

Fin

Form of life =/= human life. Your skin cells are alive, are they in themselves human? No, human is the term that refers to us as the sum of our parts.

So following that, if an embryo is not human, then your argument is that (and I've read it directly from other pro-lifers) you shouldn't destroy the embryo because it could become human. I simply extended the logic further.

You should probably be able to deduce what I'm going to say, but I'll say it just to be on the safe side. Usage of condoms is one example of my extension of your logic.

P.S. Your French is not very good. C'est "vous comprendez" et "la leçon".

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Is this thread still going?

Weird

Originally posted by crazylozer
Form of life =/= human life. Your skin cells are alive, are they in themselves human? No, human is the term that refers to us as the sum of our parts.

Skin cells do not possess the ability to evolve into fully functional independent "human lives." They are not "reproductive." If I take a piece of my skin and put some sperm on it will not "fertilize" the skin cell so that it becomes a fully functional human being. If I have dandruff and I scratch a few skin cells off of my head, they're not going to mystically evolve into higher forms of life, nor do they carry the potential to evolve into higher forms of life. (note: although oddly enough, "modern evolutionary theory" would suggest that they could.)

Sperm and ova can not independently evolve into a fully functional human life. If the law recognized sperm, ova, and skin cells as being potentially independent human life forms, then each time an individual committed murder, they would be guilty of "potentially" killing millions of people.

Truly this whole "potential" argument is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read. Again my friend, conception is where the pro-life argument begins.

Originally posted by crazylozer
So following that, if an embryo is not human, then your argument is that (and I've read it directly from other pro-lifers) you shouldn't destroy the embryo because it could become human. I simply extended the logic further.

As it has been stated multiple times throughout this thread, my belief is that upon conception a zygote is indeed "human" despite how undeveloped it may be.

Originally posted by crazylozer
You should probably be able to deduce what I'm going to say, but I'll say it just to be on the safe side. Usage of condoms is one example of my extension of your logic.

No it's not. Your logic is that various forms of "life" that are in a non-conceptive state, are as viable and carry as much potential to "evolve" into higher life forms as those that are in a conceptive state.

Originally posted by crazylozer
P.S. Your French is not very good. C'est "vous comprendez" et "la leçon".

Vous etes correct, mon francais n'est pas tres bien, parce que je ne parle pas francais courrament.(sp?)

Mais vous etes mauvais..le classe singulair/pluriel pour le verbe "comprendre" est "comprenez" ou "comprends." Le phrase "Vous comprendez" est la classe singulair/pluriel pour la langue "d'Espanol"!!! duhhh.....

Je ne pense pas mon amie crazylover parle francais tres bien, et Quel buffon ridicule moi quand je parle francais mauvais..😆 😆

Finis

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Skin cells do not possess the ability to evolve into fully functional independent "human lives." They are not "reproductive." If I take a piece of my skin and put some sperm on it will not "fertilize" the skin cell so that it becomes a fully functional human being. If I have dandruff and I scratch a few skin cells off of my head, they're not going to mystically evolve into higher forms of life, nor do they carry the potential to evolve into higher forms of life. (note: although oddly enough, "modern evolutionary theory" would suggest that they could.)

Someone doesn't realize what it takes to make a clone. Or even what evolution actually is.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Someone doesn't realize what it takes to make a clone. Or even what evolution actually is.

Good point, but he's talking about reproduction--not genetic duplication (cloning).

Originally posted by whobdamandog
As it has been stated multiple times throughout this thread, my belief is that upon conception a zygote is indeed "human" despite how undeveloped it may be.

Maybe that's why everyone is laughing off every argument you put forth, maybe.

Claiming the belief that a cell is a human being is possibly the most idiotic thing I've seen you do.

"I will believe what I want." "Isn't a human though, it's a cell." "So? Will believe what I want, even if it's wrong."

-AC