Abortion Discussion

[PapaZoom]

No, your initial statement, "a sperm is a life," has a different meaning than your second statement, "there is life in a sperm." Again, who is being unintelligent?

that would be you

 

[Archivist]

that would be you

You just cannot bring yourself to admit when you are wrong, can you?

Again, saying "a sperm is a life" has a different meaning than saying "there is life in a sperm."

 

[AirPo]

Abortion is a "woman's right", just as long as it doesn't stop a heartbeat that isn't hers.
If it does, then someone has been killed.

No it doesn't.

 

[PapaZoom]

If scientists found a one celled entity on some distant planet, they'd claim they found LIFE on another planet.

some like to quibble when they have no argument

 

[PapaZoom]

You just cannot bring yourself to admit when you are wrong, can you?

Again, saying "a sperm is a life" has a different meaning than saying "there is life in a sperm."

because I'm not wrong...

 

[PapaZoom]

microbial life

You just cannot bring yourself to admit when you are wrong, can you?

Again, saying "a sperm is a life" has a different meaning than saying "there is life in a sperm."

If a single sperm was found on another planet the scientists would be all over finding "life" on another planet. You think a sperm is nonlife? Stop splitting what few hairs you have left.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

because I'm not wrong...

Well... if you're saying that the two statements are equivalent, then I'd agree you're wrong. I suppose you can say you're correct, but by doing so you're creating a use of language that other people don't agree with. Personally, I think the point of conversation is to... communicate. Of course, some people think the point of conversation is just to hear themselves talk...

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You just cannot bring yourself to admit when you are wrong, can you?

Again, saying "a sperm is a life" has a different meaning than saying "there is life in a sperm."

True, and I would say both statements are true.
There certainly is life in an alive sperm - what alive means. And there is "a sperm life" - wouldn't it be fairly accurate to say that? What the sperm is is a sperm life.
Thing is that sometimes "it is a life" is used to mean "a human being life," and certainly a sperm is not a human being, though it is alive and probably it is correct to say "it is a life."

THE MOUSE RUNNING IN THE GRASS IS A LIFE. I think that is undoubtedly true. So to say, "It is a life" of a fetus, or of a sperm, though also probably true of the sperm, and definitely not true of the fetus, is not anything of value to indicate it should not be killed.

What "it is a life" means is that it is an alive being, animal being, (or plant being), the MEMBER OF A SPECIES, and perhaps a sperm is not that. Anyway, the question is not about what a sperm is.

 

[PapaZoom]

The spawn of a criminal!!! She should have been killed!!!!

http://liveactionnews.org/think-woman-dead-amnesty-international/

 

[DeepWater]

No it doesn't.

At some point, you decide if the baby's heartbeat is being stopped by the abortionists deed using a "surgical" procedure.
From there, you can determine if you want to continue to accept the false belief that stopping a heartbeat only counts outside the womb.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The spawn of a criminal!!! She should have been killed!!!!

http://liveactionnews.org/think-woman-dead-amnesty-international/

Emotional rhetoric. Heaps of it. Nothing of substance to see here...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

At some point, you decide if the baby's heartbeat is being stopped by the abortionists deed using a "surgical" procedure.
From there, you can determine if you want to continue to accept the false belief that stopping a heartbeat only counts outside the womb.

Of course you realize that a large number of abortions occur with no heartbeat at all, and without any surgical procedure.

So I'm guessing you ok with those?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

At some point, you decide if the baby's heartbeat is being stopped by the abortionists deed using a "surgical" procedure.
From there, you can determine if you want to continue to accept the false belief that stopping a heartbeat only counts outside the womb.

You think that there's a heartbeat is an argument in your favor? A RAT HAS A HEARTBEAT, that does not make it a human being!
BTW, it is a big lie to always call the fetus "a baby," what is precisely at issue. It is undoubtedly a fetus, but you want to win the argument the only way you can, by constantly calling it what it isn't. And some people are fooled.

 

[jayem]

Would you please define legal persons. I oft see that term misused. I believe you misapplied it in your post.

This is pasted from Section IX, of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade:

"All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

At least in the context of abortion, the unborn are not persons with 14th Amendment Constitutional rights. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this precludes a state from considering a fetus as a person in other situations. Like if a pregnant woman is assaulted, and suffers a miscarriage as a result, a state can bring a homicide (I think feticide might be a better term) charge against the perp. But a properly done abortion, to which she gives consent, is not a crime. I can understand how this may seem contradictory, but nothing says that every law in all jurisdictions must be perfectly consistent.

 

[jayem]

What is the incidence of severe mental depression? Is it one in a thousand, one in a million, one in ten million?

50-75% of women after delivery experience some degree of sadness (the "baby blues.") 10-13% will have postpartum depression. (Which is 1 to 1.3 in 10.) Postpartum psychosis, the really serious mental illness, is fortunately much less common, and according to this reference, the prevalence is 0.1 to 0.2%. (1 to 2 in 1000.) As the article says, it's a psychiatric emergency because of the potential for suicide or infanticide.

BTW: The risk of postpartum psychosis increases to 20-30% in women who have bipolar disorder. Which is not at all uncommon. And if PP has occurred in a previous pregnancy, the risk is 50% in a subsequent pregnancy.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/special-reports/postpartum-psychosis-updates-and-clinical-issues

 

[Flashlight]

God aborts something like 65-80% of pregnancies. Calling abortion wrong is calling God a sinner. If that is the case then Christianity makes no sense. We are called to be holy as He is holy so the question isn't is abortion wrong, it can't be because God does it, but what percentage of pregnancies should a woman abort to meet God's standard of holiness. One cannot be a Christian and be against abortion.

 

[redleghunter]

Life begins with the first breath. A fetus has not yet taken a breath. It is human, it has human DNA, but it is not yet a life. I'm not the one being unintelligent here.

Where did you derive your definition of life?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

God aborts something like 65-80% of pregnancies. Calling abortion wrong is calling God a sinner. If that is the case then Christianity makes no sense. We are called to be holy as He is holy so the question isn't is abortion wrong, it can't be because God does it, but what percentage of pregnancies should a woman abort to meet God's standard of holiness. One cannot be a Christian and be against abortion.

Wow, one simple point to end all the discussion!

Unfortunately, God's ways are not our ways, although we are to TRY to be as holy as God.
How nature and God are related is not a simple matter - is every mosquito that bites you a personal emissary of God?

It may be that God "has the power of life and death," whereas we are not to presume to take on that role our selves. "Playing God" it is sometimes called.

"It can't be wrong because God does it"? Even if it is true that God aborts, rather than "nature" (would it be a pantheism that says they are one and the same?), it is still somewhat over-pretentious to think we have the same powers as God. Presumably on the view expressed above, GOD KILLS EVERYBODY, so any one of us who is to be "holy as He is holy" must go forth and kill everybody.

Unfortunately the point of "Flashlight" does not make ultimate sense. We cannot claim powers of God - when one can in fact effect natural miscarriage in the manner God (presumably) does (WITHOUT HUMAN INTERVENTION - you see the contradiction of mortals thinking they can be God), then maybe that could conform to some idea of holiness?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Archivist said: ↑
Life begins with the first breath. A fetus has not yet taken a breath. It is human, it has human DNA, but it is not yet a life. I'm not the one being unintelligent here.

Where did you derive your definition of life?

Archivist equivocates between "life" and "a life." They are not the same thing.
Sperm has life but not even the DNA of a fetus.
Sperm has life and also the egg it unites with is alive (what "has life" or "there is life" means). That life (of the zygote) continues on in the womb. In other words, THERE IS LIFE EVEN BEFORE CONCEPTION, the same life that continues in the womb.
"It is human, it has human DNA, but it is not yet a life." That is correct if it is understood to be, is instead written (for clarity) as "is not yet a living being, a human being life."
But "Life begins with the first breath" is definitely bad wording, definitely INCORRECT. There is life way before then - the fetus is alive, believe it or not. (That is why it must be killed, one must be proactive to abort.)

 

[redleghunter]

You need to show that this is a full "human being" if you want to stop others from killing it. Again, the burden of proof is upon those that are telling others what they have to do with their body.

What is your definition of "fully human."