A baby has DNA combined between the two, so each is 1/2 of a potential baby.
A baby has DNA combined between the two, so each is 1/2 of a potential baby.
Yes potential being the key word there. So no, using a condem or going through a menstrual cycle is not murder. Neither is a miscarriage, because it happens naturally without malice or intent, and in most cases, desire to kill.
As for having a hair cut or clipping your toenails, no that's not murder because, well you see, YOUR STILL ALIVE AFTER THOSE THINGS!!!! Good grief.
To compare killing every cell in a child a few days or weeks old, to removing/killing a minute amount cells in a haircut of a fully grown person is disingenuous.
To compare removing a minute amount of cells to killing a full-grown baby is equally disingenuous. This conversation is kind of pointless, because its so rare that someone changes their opinion on abortion.
Right, and I consider a small collection of cells to be a potential human, not a human. What traditionally defines a human? A brain, a heart, a circulatory system, these sorts of things, none of which a zygote has.
cjhowe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,407
Here's another topic where being unapologetic on a viewpoint helps. Nobody really wants to stand by the morals of their convictions. Conception is one of the worst defining points in determining life, if for no other reason that one does not know when a child has been conceived. Has a fetus been conceived the morning after? This is the benefit of the morning after pill. You don't know if you're destroying a fetus or destroying a nothing.
Biblically, there are only two points that can claim that life begins. Seed and breath. Taking the position of breath would allow for all abortions including partial birth. Taking the position of seed would equate male masturbation as murder. Good luck with that.
Scientifically, you have eight points to argue when an individual life begins.
Metabolic - Egg and sperm are life
Genetic - fertilization
Embryological - gastrulation, no more potential for twins
Neurological - brain activity
Ecological - can survive on its own
Technological - can survive on its own with the aid of technology
Birth - birth
Self-Consciosness - allow for infanticide
Biblically, there are only two points that can claim that life begins. Seed and breath. Taking the position of breath would allow for all abortions including partial birth. Taking the position of seed would equate male masturbation as murder. Good luck with that.
Scientifically, you have eight points to argue when an individual life begins.
Metabolic - Egg and sperm are life
Genetic - fertilization
Embryological - gastrulation, no more potential for twins
Neurological - brain activity
Ecological - can survive on its own
Technological - can survive on its own with the aid of technology
Birth - birth
Self-Consciosness - allow for infanticide
Man from La Mancha
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 4,007
Absolutely no comparison. If that egg or sperm is put in a environment to grow like another womb or if possible an artificial womb they won't grow into a baby period. When a sperm and an egg is combined it is a completely different organism a future baby which ejected won't grow to human. Why can't people just prevent it ahead of time is that so hard to do or are people just stupid about how babies are made??
.
A "future baby" is not a baby.
Man from La Mancha
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 4,007
Right, but if it isn't currently a human baby, killing it is not murder of a human being.
Michael Varin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2007
- Messages
- 16
Abortion is such a sticky issue. It tends to be controversial and divisive and the current discussion doesn't seem to be getting us closer to where we need to be. I just don't see it as a make or break issue.
Personally, I am anti-abortion (being pro-abortion is like being pro-war, but I'm sure they're out there), but I also don't think the gov't should be involved in this area of life, so I could be labeled pro-choice.
Having said that, I am totally comfortable with Roe v. Wade being overturned. This is not the domain of the federal (national?) gov't.
I do see where those who believe a legitimate action of gov't is to protect life are coming from. To them the fetus is an individual that has a right to life and therefore should be protected by gov't.
From there, the discussion usually proceeds to the when does life begin question.
Murray Rothbard addressed this issue in a way that is more productive.
There are so many effective methods of birth control that we should be able to eliminate 95% of abortions.
Personally, I am anti-abortion (being pro-abortion is like being pro-war, but I'm sure they're out there), but I also don't think the gov't should be involved in this area of life, so I could be labeled pro-choice.
Having said that, I am totally comfortable with Roe v. Wade being overturned. This is not the domain of the federal (national?) gov't.
I do see where those who believe a legitimate action of gov't is to protect life are coming from. To them the fetus is an individual that has a right to life and therefore should be protected by gov't.
From there, the discussion usually proceeds to the when does life begin question.
Murray Rothbard addressed this issue in a way that is more productive.
There are so many effective methods of birth control that we should be able to eliminate 95% of abortions.
I guess I'm a rare case then, cause I used to be pro-choice. Funny things happen to your opinions when you realize what vile worm you are compared to holiness of God's law and how desperately you need a savior.
No my argument is not disingenuous, although I admit it may have been unclear. I was on my way to work. You asked if clipping hair was murder. I answered no because clipping your hair isn't harmful, much less fatal. On the other hand, no matter how small the baby is, an abortion kills every cell in a body and is fatal to that body. See the difference?
Now you say that there is no difference between a baby small in size and early in development, and a newborn. I ask you, what exactly, is the difference? Oh sure, perhaps one has a better chance of survival outside the womb, but are you really going to tell me that the baby small in size and early in development isn't alive? If it's not alive, how does it grow, how does it eat, why does it produce waste, why does it use energy? If it is not human, then at what point does it become not human and turn human? And if it is indeed alive and human, and clearly has done nothing to deserve death, why is it not murder when we end it's life?
This just plain made me sick. To compare a baby to a parasite is so unbelievably immoral it just makes me sick. Babies are the only innocent party in the whole issue. Either the woman was irresponsible and got herself pregnant and didn't want to be, or she was raped by an evil man who needs to be locked up for a long time.
Either way the baby did nothing. It sure didn't choose to be thrust into that situation and it sure doesn't choose to be a parasite. They are helpless, and birth involves them living inside a person for a few months. That's just the way it is. They are decidedly innocent in the matter.
Also, to put a persons convenience above another persons life is so backwards and immoral that it begs a revolution simply to correct the matter. It's a symptom of the sad state the false intellectualism of post-modernism brings us.
May God forgive our wicked culture.
You changed your position when you found religion, so your position is based on your faith, not your faculty of reason. As such, no rational discussion is possible, because you will always defer back to your Ultimate Authority. Why is it so? Because God says so. I wouldn't deign to challenge such a powerful being.
And instead of engaging me in a rational discussion, you've decided to mock me instead. So be it I suppose, I can't force you to think.
I am however getting tired of people saying that just because someone is a religious person that it automatically indicates that they have no rational basis for their thoughts and simply believe everything they are told in a book or church because they are a mind numbed robot.
My position is that the only logical conclusion a person can reach, when studying the pre-born child objectively, is that the pre-born child is undeniably alive, undeniably human and therefore undeniably a person. Therefore he/she deserves the same protections and dignities of any person. If you care to think differently and would like to discuss the matter, please feel free to post a rational response. Otherwise, I don't need your mocking.
I once opposed abortion for religious reasons, as I'm sure most people who oppose it do. I have one comment for them though: If you believe abortion is a sin, then let the woman face judgment for it when she goes before God. Whether or not something is allowed by law is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a sin. There are many great sins out there, but we do not need the law to prevent us from committing them. A person must hold accountability for themselves, and do what is right, not because the law says so, but because it is so.
JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
Why do you care about what strangers do with their fetuses?
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,006
This is just crazy. A 14 year old can't even get a life saving operation without parental consent. But we've somehow come to the bizarre conclusion that this same 14 year old can get an elective procedure without parental consent? And for all of the talk of the "risks" of "back alley" abortions, people don't want to talk about the risks of abortion in an approved facility. Every time someone goes under anesthesia there are risks. Why is it ok for a parent to block a child from getting a blood transfusion because of their religious beliefs, but we think that parental involvement in an issue like abortion is a bad thing?
Regards,
John M. Drake
RoyalTenenbaum
Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 51
It's worth noting that the debate going on on this thread is exactly what Roe v Wade took away. It froze the debate based on the 1973-era understanding of nine men. Now, the states are not free to decide how they want to deal with the issue of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps the folks in state A would greatly limit access to abortion, but they would pour a lot of support into the institutions that help people avoid these pregnancies (because 99% of all abortions result from consentual sexual contact - less than 1% from rape), and into the institutions that could care for children whose parents could not bring them up. Instead, Roe encourages the atrophy of those insitutions and it is considered responsible to abort children that one seemingly cannot care for. (But, oddly, not considered irresponsible to engage in the conduct from which babies result)
Also, Nike's characterization of Roe's holding is flat out wrong. Roe said the states have almost no interest in protecting human life pre-viability, and a minimal interest post viability. I say minimal interest because although their holding sounds broad, right up until the day of birth, the state cannot interfere where the "health" of the mother is at stake, and health can mean anything.
As an aside, "viability" [the ability to live outside the womb on one's own] was an incredibly stupid mark to use because anyone who has children will tell you that even once a baby is born, it has no ability to live outside the womb on its own. It takes a great amount of care and sacrifice from others for children to live and flourish for a long time.
Also, Nike's characterization of Roe's holding is flat out wrong. Roe said the states have almost no interest in protecting human life pre-viability, and a minimal interest post viability. I say minimal interest because although their holding sounds broad, right up until the day of birth, the state cannot interfere where the "health" of the mother is at stake, and health can mean anything.
As an aside, "viability" [the ability to live outside the womb on one's own] was an incredibly stupid mark to use because anyone who has children will tell you that even once a baby is born, it has no ability to live outside the womb on its own. It takes a great amount of care and sacrifice from others for children to live and flourish for a long time.
literatim
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,854
^ What he said.
Then do you believe that get your rights from the government?
Do we not need laws to punish a murderer?
Killing an unborn child is violating its right to life. The same exact right to life that you have.
Similar threads
