U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-30-2009, 09:38 PM
 
1,330 posts, read 1,043,080 times
Reputation: 202

Advertisements

[quote=*Danielle*;8594970]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH View Post
Fair enough, but you still have not addressed the issue at hand. That issue being if life must be able to immediately sustain itself, wouldn't we cease to exist completely. Also, you may see it as simply my opinion. But the right to live seems to be a pretty important thing to all of us don't you think. I don't know about you but I sure am glad no one took away my chance to exist. My question is, why do we feel we should be able to control life itself. There should be no question as to the embryos right to live. The question should be do we have the right to interfere with the natural process which nature has provided us so that we could survive and reproduce as a species.[/quote]



When it is happening in my body, it is my right. If my body is hosting a parasitic embryo (speaking in the true definition of the word parasite) it is my right to choose what I want or need to do with my body. That embryo is not sustaining life at this point. It is sharing mine. Viable fetus...different story IMO.

Back to the OP.

and I qoute...

A human embryo from the moment of conception is exactly the same genetically as the adult human being it will become (barring premature death) except in stage of development. There is no other difference. Period.

My point There is a difference...an embryo can not sustain life at all with out the mother hosting it in her womb. An adult can. A 2 day old can...a premie can...
Yawn. The difference is covered in my 'stage of development' clause. Do y'all look at the words, but just not comprehend? Is that it?

Existence in the womb is one of many milestones. All are important. We may not pick and choose.

My definition is so good and so ironclad, maybe it will become the legal basis for outlawing all abortions so day. That would be really cool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2009, 09:40 PM
 
1,117 posts, read 1,747,660 times
Reputation: 966
[quote=Eeeee22895;8595154]
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Danielle* View Post

Yawn. The difference is covered in my 'stage of development' clause. Do y'all look at the words, but just not comprehend? Is that it?

Existence in the womb is one of many milestones. All are important. We may not pick and choose.

My definition is so good and so ironclad, maybe it will become the legal basis for outlawing all abortions so day. That would be really cool.
Sigh...I don't care about the the stage a developing human within the uterus is in. I don't argue for abortion because of some arbitrary stage it's in.

I argue for abortion the same way you argue for killing in wartime. Sometimes human life has to be taken, period.

Your "proof" that embryos are human is of zero significance to me because it makes no difference whether they're human or not. I still support abortion.

But what makes you a hypcrite is that you are against abortion, but you support killing in war (even if those killed are innocent children). And I agree with TheLiberalVoice that you probably don't care as much about non-Christian embryos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2009, 09:40 PM
 
9,912 posts, read 12,187,896 times
Reputation: 7257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH View Post
Fair enough, but you still have not addressed the issue at hand. That issue being if life must be able to immediately sustain itself, wouldn't we cease to exist completely. Also, you may see it as simply my opinion. But the right to live seems to be a pretty important thing to all of us don't you think. I don't know about you but I sure am glad no one took away my chance to exist. My question is, why do we feel we should be able to control life itself. There should be no question as to the embryos right to live. The question should be do we have the right to interfere with the natural process which nature has provided us so that we could survive and reproduce as a species.
If we can "interfere" with the natural process in order to extend life I see no reason why the reverse isn't also applicable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2009, 09:45 PM
 
1,330 posts, read 1,043,080 times
Reputation: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerCaliforniaGirl View Post
No, I cannot enlighten you (because I'm beginning to wonder if that's even possible).

But why don't you enlighten ME? Tell me why killing innocent children in Iraq was more justifiable than aborting fetuses? Can you prove that these children would have grown up to be terrorists? No, of course you can't. Yet you seem to feel that the "collateral damage" of so many innocent children dying in Iraq is justifiable because it protects Americans from terrorism.

So, if I have this right, you are okay with killing, even the innocent, if the end result is we get the bad guys. Right?

Well there are many people who feel that aborting fetuses is justifiable, for a multitude of reasons. And as long as abortion is legal, some women will seek abortions because they are protecting themselves and their futures. And, even more important (although I don't think you can grasp this concept), many women don't want to bring unwanted children into the world who have no hope of any quality of life.
In actuality, very few children were killed in Iraq other than those used as human shields by the terrorists and those openly killed by the terrorists and blamed on the U.S. We were extremely scrupulous in that detail. If we weren't, the Iraqi conflict would have been completely over 45 minutes after it started like Hiroshima was.

So you still can't explain to me how the slaughter of a million innocent babies last year saved lives? And please. Whining that "well, they would have turned out to be hardened criminals had they been born" just doesn't wash. There isn't a shred of plausibility in that kooky claim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2009, 09:48 PM
 
13,496 posts, read 13,981,177 times
Reputation: 11120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeeee22895 View Post
It's because this proof is so profound, I felt it needed a thread of its own.
no, not profound in the least!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2009, 09:55 PM
 
1,330 posts, read 1,043,080 times
Reputation: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
no, not profound in the least!
It's as profound as Einstein's Law of Special Relativity. Scientists then didn't even understand what they had when they first read it.

My definition puts an end to all the arbitary developmental milestone capriciousness the left has tried to foist on us all these years. It may well be the basis of law that illegalizes abortion. That would be a great honor. On that accomplishment alone, my life would have been a tremendous success.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2009, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,590,043 times
Reputation: 35874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeeee22895 View Post
Neither can a 2-day-old child. Your point?
Yes it can. It can breathe on its own, without being attached to any other organism. It does not need to be permanently attached to an external life-support system to get oxygen. Breathing occurs spontaneously. If there is a food supply present, it possesses the coordination and refex action to be able to feed itself, without being permanently attached to a source of nutrition. It can recognize and locate sources of food. It can be left alone for long periods of time without depending continuously on the presence of a host. Did you ever see a baby?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2009, 10:04 PM
 
1,330 posts, read 1,043,080 times
Reputation: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Yes it can. It can breathe on its own, without being attached to any other organism. It does not need to be permanently attached to an external life-support system. If there is a food supply present, it possesses the coordination and refex action to be able to feed itself, without being permanently attached to a source of nutrition.
Pssst. Refer to the OP. You're listing stages of development. Nothing more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2009, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,590,043 times
Reputation: 35874
I'm listing the stage of development at which it first attans a right to life, without being a parasite on another (sometimes) unwilling host. That is where "right to life" begins.

My answer is so profound, it deserves a new thread, but I am more considerate of the forum.

I do not have a right to attach tentacles to you and extract my life sustenance from you. If I cannot live without attaching myself to you and drawing sustenance from you, you have a right to deny me a right to life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2009, 10:12 PM
 
13,496 posts, read 13,981,177 times
Reputation: 11120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeeee22895 View Post
It's as profound as Einstein's Law of Special Relativity. Scientists then didn't even understand what they had when they first read it.

My definition puts an end to all the arbitary developmental milestone capriciousness the left has tried to foist on us all these years. It may well be the basis of law that illegalizes abortion. That would be a great honor. On that accomplishment alone, my life would have been a tremendous success.
no, it does not put an end to the "arbitary milestone capriciousness" it is just one other thought, no more important than all the other in an arguement. period. it is not the be all end all nor the lightning bolt that will make abortions illegal.

to find it an honor to turn the clock back so women die from self inflicted abortions or from back alley abortions, to make 13 year olds have a baby that was a product of insest, is nothing I would be proud of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top