FILL IN THE BLANK: It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when ________ (faith, Catholic)
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.
From what I've seen...anyone's personal disagreement aside...the scientific community has determined that "tissue" to be a human being, distinct from her or anyone else...which would then necessarily make it "her child"...developing and maturing inside her.
If you've lived anything but a totally sheltered life...you'll have noticed the agreement that a pregnant woman is commonly referred to as "with child".
If you have scientific evidence otherwise...I'd be sure to look at it with an open mind.
You seem to have a penchant for appeals to popularity.
As for evidence, this thread has given plenty of 'evidence' for both sides of the argument.
I'm not going to re-read it all to save you the effort.
My remark was a wiseguy mimic of her, "Anything not emotional diatribes against women and choice?"...but I'm sure you noticed that.
I asked that only the "science" in the links be addressed.
I saw the sundry bias, but had no problem ignoring it and noticing that it is pretty much concluded that a new, individual, uniquely distinct, life comes to be when fertilization occurs, and thus makes conception the "kick-off" to a new human being. Or so it appears they have figured out. How they did it I don't claim to know about. I just know what the text books and scientific journals I've seen quoted have just about all said.
Well that's a relief. I thought all the progress you'd made...
Quote:
I challenged those that sanction abortion to contest the current nearly universal scientific view that what occurs during an abortion is the killing of a human child...distinct from that mother, the father, or anyone else...that is developing and maturing inside her.
And on what basis can you reasonably justify the killing of a child.
Well to those who argue on the Christianity platform, that God is happy with killing children - provided they aren't unborn. And I'm not even sure of that, however, religion aside (as it should be) it is easy for me to be very unhappy about the matter of abortion.
On the other hand, there comes a time where my emotional (oh yes ) response changes when we are taking of a blob of cells, the existence of which obliges (if the pro - life cabal have their way) the host to go all the way through to birth.
Somewhere around there is where I cannot accept the emotive paras 'killing a child' as I cannot accept that this is really what is happening. What is happening, in that case, is that a woman's right to choose is being abrogated. Others are telling her or at least trying to persuade her that she cannot choose to terminate - at almost any stage after fertilization, it seems.
I would first prefer prevention rather than 'cure' and at least there should be every effort made to see to the business at a regulated early term of growth. But I truly cannot buy the argument against abortion at any time.
Where one is on the wire (1) , the thought comes to mind that no - one is forcing a woman to have an abortion, but others are forcing her NOT to have one.
I don't read agenda driven sites.
Link to the science, not to the agenda, then I would be more inclined to read.
Pro-abortion?
I love the new words you come up with to push your agenda.
Who is FORCING a woman to abort? Hm?
Oh please, a clump of cells does not equal a "child" and they're not executed.
For goodness sake, try a more well reasoned argument that you think it is so.
Don't want an abortion, don't have one.
Pretty simple.
But neither you, nor anyone else, has the right or privilege of telling me what I can do with my body.
Truly, you see the humor of asking others for scientific support.
You do understand that you've been asked repeatedly for it and refuse to provide any.
If you don't want to read the scientific evidence that is, in fact, contained in those sites, because they are "agenda driven"...don't then say I haven't provided any scientific support. You just refused to read it. Your fault...not mine.
Proabortion = Pro (for) abortion.
It's not about "FORCING" a woman to abort...it's about being for (pro) a woman to be able to abort.
See...It's not "simple".
It's not a matter of wanting an abortion or not...and if you don't, "then don't have one".
What I "don't want"...is women to be able to kill another human being that is developing inside them.
Science has determined that it IS a human life...and not just "a clump of cells".
And BTW...if you feel no one has "the right or privilege to tell you what to do with your body"...you must be awfully offended by all the laws that govern you what you can and can't do with your body.
See, once you figure out why we protect humans more than trees or cows...and why they are "so special"...you'll "get" why abortion is wrong.
See you did not actually answer the question. You simply acted like the answer was obvious and never actually gave it. Very telling.
The issue I see is that once you get over the terms "uniqueness" and "alive" you find that they alone are not sufficient to carry your point. You have to actually adumbrate why those terms only fit when talking about humans and not trees or cows.
As soon as you do however you will find that the things you adumbrate do not carry to the zygote and your position falls apart. So I am unsurprised you answered without actually answering.
Go on, try it. What makes humans so special that means a unique piece of Human DNA need be protected but a unique cow or tree need not? Put the actual differences into words, then map those differences onto the Zygote and we will see if they hold.
It is not that I can not think of any arguments that elevate humans over cows and trees, especially in the context of rights. So do not try to paint me as if I am saying otherwise just because I am asking you to give YOUR reasons for this. I am just aware that none of those arguments lead to a position that requires me to think a clump of cells containing human DNA require protection or human rights. I am wondering therefore what your differentiations are that do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
If you don't want to read the scientific evidence that is, in fact, contained in those sites, because they are "agenda driven"...don't then say I haven't provided any scientific support.
They were not science links. One of your links did not even work. The other two were opinion pieces written in a blog on anti abortion websites. This is not science or quoting science. This is just opinions. After nearly 2000 posts on this forum I would have expected you know the different between a scientific paper or a statistical study... and a blog opinion piece?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Do you think humans are "no more special" than trees? That was the issue I was addressing in that particular post.
To clarify again although I already have in this post... I am in no way saying I do not think humans are "more special" than trees in the context of this discussion. I think they are and I have my own arguments and reasons for this. So do not try and make it look like I am saying they are not and that you are correcting me on that.
No, what I am saying is that I am aware of no argument for elevating humans above trees that ALSO serves as an argument for being against abortion or for affording a zygote or fetus human rights. Totally different point. So far all you have offered is "uniqueness" and as I pointed out there are a lot of other "unique" things in the world that you do not protect. So clearly "uniqueness" is not what you are actually operating on. So what is?
If you don't want to read the scientific evidence that is, in fact, contained in those sites, because they are "agenda driven"...don't then say I haven't provided any scientific support. You just refused to read it. Your fault...not mine.
Proabortion = Pro (for) abortion.
It's not about "FORCING" a woman to abort...it's about being for (pro) a woman to be able to abort.
See...It's not "simple".
It's not a matter of wanting an abortion or not...and if you don't, "then don't have one".
What I "don't want"...is women to be able to kill another human being that is developing inside them.
Science has determined that it IS a human life...and not just "a clump of cells".
And BTW...if you feel no one has "the right or privilege to tell you what to do with your body"...you must be awfully offended by all the laws that govern you what you can and can't do with your body.
Indeed I am offended by laws that govern what I can and cannot do with my body, but I'm not aware of any off-hand, except for the right to abort through viability. And I'm pleased that a woman has the right to an abortion by the laws of our land.
Show me the science, I'm not going to tip toe through anti-choice/anti-woman sites for anything.
I'm really not interested in your emotionalism; I do prefer facts to emotional outrage.
What I find interesting is that recent anti-abortion posters have nit-picked some posts in the thread and virtually left the content of the first 15 pages untouched, which are more to the point and deal with the objections to anti-abortion laws.
I have read all the posts and have yet to be convinced that abortion should be illegal after 20 weeks, the middle of the second trimester. Why that particular number? I think any arguments about this issue before eight weeks are silly. It's an embryo until the 8th week, when it becomes a fetus.
Another question, raised in the earlier pages by someone else but ignored by later posters, is: do those of you anti-abortion advocates suggest that all pregnancies be brought to term regardless of circumstance? Or is it conditional?
Which means we have failed in the area of sex education. We have also failed miserably in teaching male responsibility.
I agree that number of potential children to unmarried women would place a tremendous financial burden on the rest of the population if they were to have been born. But is abortion the best solution for preventing unwanted children?
This is an age old problem that has existed for as long as people have known that the act of initiating procreation is more enjoyable than watching reruns of Mayberry RFD.
The question: "Is abortion the best solution?" Would it not be safer and more effective to find means to reduce unwanted pregnancies? We all know pregnancy can be prevented, the question is why don't people take the initiative to do so?
Perhaps, we have failed to teach our male population they have a responsibility to not impregnate anyone to satisfy primordial desires. Society has long placed the burden of pregnancy upon the female and praising the culprit for his prowess at seducing women. It is time we put the brakes on irresponsible men. Perhaps it is time to place heavy fines and/or jail time upon men who "accidentally" impregnate women they have no desire or ability to support in the care of children. Let the woman have their abortions but punish the men who endangered their health and/or placed an unneeded burden upon society. Just a suggestion, most likely not feasible. But, the point being we need to focus more on preventing unwanted pregnancies.
We should have zero tolerance for unwanted pregnancies and stress the need to prevent such, not have to worry about them after they occur.
Abortion should be seen as a means to safeguard a woman's health when something has gone wrong with the pregnancy, not as retroactive birth control except in cases where the woman was impregnated against her will. Even then it should be the woman's choice if she desires to allow the pregnancy to continue.
So, well put, Woodrow!
It always goes back to family, where we all learn most of what influences what we think, feel & do. For a while, the family has been degraded in various ways - especially through media. Standards are getting lower & lower, especially in regard to sexual morality.
Yet, I think many are becoming more aware in some ways. My grandma's generation there was a quote often used when even teens became pregnant, "You made your bed - now lay in it." They neglected to consider what would be best for the child - to be raised by a teenage mom unprepared for parenting, or to be given the gift of adoption for one of the many ready couples on waiting lists to adopt.
We all screw up at times... have regrets. But we can make the most of the situation & make it right - by taking responsibility for what mistake we made, trying to make it right (which may be giving the baby up for adoption in unwanted pregnancy) & learning - & teaching others to prevent similar difficulties.
...I challenged those that sanction abortion to contest the current nearly universal scientific view that what occurs during an abortion is the killing of a human child...distinct from that mother, the father, or anyone else...that is developing and maturing inside her. And on what basis can you reasonably justify the killing of a child.
So, you think it's "fine" to kill a human being like this?
Not sure what your point is. What does how it LOOKS have to do with anything I am saying? A mannequin looks even more human than what is in that picture and you are not worried about that. An entirely and irredeemably brain dead human lying on a hospital bed is just a human shaped empty vessel. So is what you just showed in your picture.
Remember some areas of the US allow it up until week 24. So my position is hardly controversial. In fact if I were given the pen to write the law tomorrow I would be inclined to set it to 16 weeks for various reasons I gave before, but 20 is also fine with me.
You, and people like you who show photos and even abortion photos are just attempting an "Appeal to emotion" argument. You have no arguments to make so you attempt instead to appeal to the emotions of the other side. Well I am sorry, pictures of a fetus or an aborted fetus are not going to change a position I reached rationally and carefully after reading 100s of studies, many books and talking to many medical professionals.
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.
) response changes when we are taking of a blob of cells, the existence of which obliges (if the pro - life cabal have their way) the host to go all the way through to birth. 
