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.
I'm not sure of what you are saying. It is common in the animal kingdom to kill your offspring by humans are the only animals who have no problem murdering their own young?
It's not a good thing. Humans are the only animal that will kill their own. Lions etc will kill the young of other lions.
Look at a picture of a baby at 10 weeks and tell me that it is a clump of cells...
Of course it is a clump of cells, by definition. But more importantly, it is a clump of cells that has NOT developed to the point that it has any consciousness or awareness whatsoever. Under Roe v Wade, the government already starts restricting abortion at the stage of fetal development approaching that threshold of "becoming human" by developing consciousness, but the government should never be allowed to dictate that women bear unwanted children. Few Americans would support installing a theocracy where the leaders of one religion get to make incredibly impactful personal decisions for citizens of all religions (and no religion).
It is a fact that at two-and-a-half weeks, human embryos are indistinguishable to the untrained eye from other mammal embryos (The Left rejects science, logic, and morality to stake out an absolutist position on abortion - Bookworm Room). So your argument that the clump of cells must be a full human being, because it "looks like" a human being at 10 weeks, seems more an arbitrary choice of what week in fetal development a fetus looks like it will probably end up as a human.
And BTW, chimpanzee fetuses are so much like human fetuses--for pretty much the entire gestation--that you wouldn't be able to see a difference until the body hair forms (HAR Embryo Images).
Rigidly fundamentalist Christians loudly claim that sex is strictly for procreation. Not even radical Muslims nor even Hasidic Jews make such a claim. The most God-fearing Catholic Cardinals don’t say this either (another popular myth) and for good reason:
The Song of Solomon, the Song of Songs: often theologically interpreted as an allegorical representation, it is also an eloquently GRAPHIC exchange between a man and a woman. Go ahead and draw out the visuals the song describes, line by line, on a piece of paper. Not so much as one word about procreation. And the Cardinals attending the Muratorian Canon (where the Holy Bible was put together) and Council of Laodicea in 363A.D. agreed. Sex was also pleasurable. and one could cultivate a virtuous and spiritual existence by recognizing it. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also both affirmed these findings and left the Song of Songs in the Bible.
All major religions and philosophies in the world since the written word have acknowledged that sex is pleasurable and when exercised within certain perimeters, is healthy for the moral and spiritual being of a person even when not for procreation.
It's not a good thing. Humans are the only animal that will kill their own. Lions etc will kill the young of other lions.
Not true, cats will eat their young if they are weak. My good friend saw it happen once. He had to give the mother cat away because it freaked him out so much.
Yeah, it is difficult to understand how we have "as a society" come to believe that killing our progeny is a good thing.
Rigidly fundamentalist Christians loudly claim that sex is strictly for procreation. Not even radical Muslims nor even Hasidic Jews make such a claim. The most God-fearing Catholic Cardinals don’t say this either (another popular myth) and for good reason:
The Song of Solomon, the Song of Songs: often theologically interpreted as an allegorical representation, it is also an eloquently GRAPHIC exchange between a man and a woman. Go ahead and draw out the visuals the song describes, line by line, on a piece of paper. Not so much as one word about procreation. And the Cardinals attending the Muratorian Canon (where the Holy Bible was put together) and Council of Laodicea in 363A.D. agreed. Sex was also pleasurable. and one could cultivate a virtuous and spiritual existence by recognizing it. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also both affirmed these findings and left the Song of Songs in the Bible.
All major religions and philosophies in the world since the written word have acknowledged that sex is pleasurable and when exercised within certain perimeters, is healthy for the moral and spiritual being of a person even when not for procreation.
I never stated that sex is strictly for procreation, but the biological reality cannot be denied just because sex is fun and sex feels good. That does not negate the purpose of sexual intercourse nor should it be the basis to terminate human life.
Of course it is a clump of cells, by definition. But more importantly, it is a clump of cells that has NOT developed to the point that it has any consciousness or awareness whatsoever. Under Roe v Wade, the government already starts restricting abortion at the stage of fetal development approaching that threshold of "becoming human" by developing consciousness, but the government should never be allowed to dictate that women bear unwanted children. Few Americans would support installing a theocracy where the leaders of one religion get to make incredibly impactful personal decisions for citizens of all religions (and no religion).
It is a fact that at two-and-a-half weeks, human embryos are indistinguishable to the untrained eye from other mammal embryos (The Left rejects science, logic, and morality to stake out an absolutist position on abortion - Bookworm Room). So your argument that the clump of cells must be a full human being, because it "looks like" a human being at 10 weeks, seems more an arbitrary choice of what week in fetal development a fetus looks like it will probably end up as a human.
And BTW, chimpanzee fetuses are so much like human fetuses--for pretty much the entire gestation--that you wouldn't be able to see a difference until the body hair forms (HAR Embryo Images).
I am pro-life with regard to chimpanzees as well. The issue is not whether a fetus looks human, the biology proves that a zygote is indeed human and therefore its life has value to our society if not its parents.
They want to shame women into giving birth because they know people won't stop having sex.
It's about control. They don't give a damn about children.
How do you "shame a woman into giving birth?" Bringing a child into this world in not a shameful act. It should be celebrated and there are thousands of infertile women who view another's pregnancy with envy and longing.
You want it to be about control, so you don't have to deal with the reality that abortion is the act of ending a human life. That's on you.
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.
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.
