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.
How is stating that an unborn baby is a human life a religious dogma? That is scientific fact.
Equally so with the polyps that are removed during a colonoscopy. 'Human' and 'life' are not by themselves elevating standards. Any woman who has her cuticles trimmed at the nail salon is leaving 'human life' behind when she walks out the door...
At what point did I say anthing about "my God?"
How do you even know that I am a person of faith? Don't make assumptions as my belief in the santictity of human life has nothing to do with any God.
No offense intended. Antichoice atheists are a rarity, though.
Quote:
Moreover, there is a HUGE difference between a woman's body naturally miscarrying a pregnancy and a woman forcibly yanking her unborn baby out with a vacuum.
Please elaborate on what the HUGE difference is. I'd wager that the net effect is the same in either case.
Let's see how well a 1 day old baby does without any help outside the womb. Or a 1 month old. Or even a 1 year old.
We're not saying "without any help" - we're talking about naturally occuring functions that we take for granted. At 8-weeks of age, if we remove a fetus from the mother, it would immediately die because the lungs have not functioned fully.
At a day old, a baby only needs you to feed it, bathe it, and change those diapers. That's not the same as requiring you to breathe for it. That's not the same as your body filtering toxins for it, processing food for it, etc.
You have to feed a baby, you have to digest the food for the fetus. Big difference.
In the first stages of pregnancy the fetus is little more than a clump of cells and has no nervous system.
Okay, if the fetus has everything it needs, but the unfortunate location than once it has been removed let's see how well it does outside the womb.
I can agree with restricting abortion at the point where a fetus could survive outside the womb without medical assistance (obviously I'm not against a baby receiving medical assistance if it has been born prematurely). But up until that point it can only survive on its mother's body.
Why is ones degree of dependency relevant? Why is ones location relevant? Why does one's appearance matter? A human being is a human being no matter where he/she is located, or how dependent he/she is on another or no matter how he/she appears.
As far as when the nervous system develops, it begins developing by the end of the third week. The first neural response occurs at 8 weeks, but ultimately none of that really matters b/c a human being does not become more or less human as it changes or develops. Once a human being, always a human being no matter one's shape, size, location, degree of dependency, etc.............
The prolife position is quite simple:
It's wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being, therefore abortion is wrong.
Equally so with the polyps that are removed during a colonoscopy. 'Human' and 'life' are not by themselves elevating standards. Any woman who has her cuticles trimmed at the nail salon is leaving 'human life' behind when she walks out the door...
What the heck does this have to do with intentionally terminating a baby? Cuticles and polyps aren't human beings and will never have a human form. Unborn babies are human. Unborn babies are biologically growing and so therefore are alive, thus we cannot deny that an unborn baby constitutes a "human life." When a women has an abortion, she is ending a human life and no one can deny that.
We're not saying "without any help" - we're talking about naturally occuring functions that we take for granted. At 8-weeks of age, if we remove a fetus from the mother, it would immediately die because the lungs have not functioned fully.
At a day old, a baby only needs you to feed it, bathe it, and change those diapers. That's not the same as requiring you to breathe for it. That's not the same as your body filtering toxins for it, processing food for it, etc.
You have to feed a baby, you have to digest the food for the fetus. Big difference.
lol, "at a day old it only needs you to feed it/change it/bathe it"???....ok, whatever, I love viewing the abortion threads, the males always seem to have all the answers to what a female should do....got news for ya, at a day old the issue aint the kid, its the MOM, shes kinda TIRED, dude!!!
We're not saying "without any help" - we're talking about naturally occuring functions that we take for granted. At 8-weeks of age, if we remove a fetus from the mother, it would immediately die because the lungs have not functioned fully.
At a day old, a baby only needs you to feed it, bathe it, and change those diapers. That's not the same as requiring you to breathe for it. That's not the same as your body filtering toxins for it, processing food for it, etc.
You have to feed a baby, you have to digest the food for the fetus. Big difference.
Oh, so the more defenseless and pathetic a baby is, the more right you have to exterminate it? One's degree of dependency doesn't change their humanity or worth. A human is a human is a human and no matter how you label or define an unborn baby and it's abilities and/or capabilities, it is a human being and to not protect her is repulsive. It's our job as compassionate human beings to care for the most vulnerable in our society, not eliminate them!
Oh, so the more defenseless and pathetic a baby is, the more right you have to exterminate it? One's degree of dependency doesn't change their humanity or worth. A human is a human is a human and no matter how you label or define an unborn baby and it's abilities and/or capabilities, it is a human being and to not protect her is repulsive. It's our job as compassionate human beings to care for the most vulnerable in our society, not eliminate them!
yeah, but get a grip on reality... the truth is, these unwanted kids are MORE UNWANTED by the moms that are fixing to shed them...get it???...so let abortions happen and butt outta the decision process... I get more repulsed at the teen parents who drop them in dumpsters than a responsible person who goes and ends a lfe or fetal growth because they know they cant handle it...its not murder then, its the best damn thing that can happen, and it is nobody in the church or the govt who should be involved, Id rather have a dead fetus than a dead kid who had been beaten or buried alive, wouldnt you???
yeah, but get a grip on reality... the truth is, these unwanted kids are MORE UNWANTED by the moms that are fixing to shed them...get it???...so let abortions happen and butt outta the decision process... I get more repulsed at the teen parents who drop them in dumpsters than a responsible person who goes and ends a lfe or fetal growth because they know they cant handle it...its not murder then, its the best damn thing that can happen, and it is nobody in the church or the govt who should be involved, Id rather have a dead fetus than a dead kid who had been beaten or buried alive, wouldnt you???
What the heck is the difference if a teenager beats to death a 3 second old newborn or dismembering it prior to birth? Either way, there's a dead baby!
More importantly, what kind of schizophrenic message are we sending these teens when we prosecute them for throwing their baby in a dumpster rather than letting an abortion clinic throw it in a dumpster?
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.