Abortion

[RealityCheck]

What really gets me annoyed on the matter of abortion is that people try to trivialize unwanted human life by calling it a fetus. If it has a beating human heart, a functioning human brain, a human nervous system, a human head, human eyes, human skeletal structure, why is it not called a human? It is a human, to anyone that can look at the facts objectively. The only thing is that it is not a fully developed human, and if you want to cite that then I'll cite that the human brain isn't fully developed until after the age of 25.

It is a human. It is a fetal human. Just as there are fetal cats, fetal pandas, fetal elephants, etc. The question is whether or not terminating a fetus is murder.

 

[TheBellman]

It's a human baby, and people refuse to call it that because they don't want to or refuse to recognize that it is human. To be a parasite the subject in question must be living in and/or feeding off of another being and be of a different species, and a human child is the same species as a human mother.

You can call it a baby if you like - that term is usually, in my experience, used for a person AFTER birth. But it doesn't make any difference to me. Calling it a baby or a person or whatever doesn'/t change anything about the debate. It's STILL a fetus, and a parasite (despite what you say above - different species is usual, but not required).

 

[KKLL4ever]

Why is it that we discuss in a Christian forum using mostly non-Christ answer. If I say something, it can be argued, because I'm just another person. But can we argue against God's word. Romans 2:23 states "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Is their anyone that will say in response, "Not me. I never sin." Yeah you may say it to be a nuisance, but God word is final and the discussion is over except how we are to perform God's will for our lives. Genesis states whoever sheds man blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Do you really think God made that statement the exception being, a baby in the mothers womb? Far to many today argue our intellect instead of seeking to find what God has to say? So what if each of in us prayer ask God. What do you think He would say? Would God just drop a post, "Hi, I'm God and I'm Pro-Choice...

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

You got a problem with non-Christians being here bub, go complain to staff. *rolls eyes*

Do you personally know what God would say? NO YOU DO NOT.

Neither you or anyone else has the right to tell anyone else what to do with their bodies and their lives. Now please get that through your heads once and for all.

 

[JGG]

Why is it that we discuss in a Christian forum using mostly non-Christ answer. If I say something, it can be argued, because I'm just another person. But can we argue against God's word.

Well for one, as someone who doesn't believe in God, such an argument doesn't carry much weight, and kind of kills any further argument you could make. If you want to convince me of something, you'll get farther doing so on my terms.

 

[RonPaulJr]

Well for one, as someone who doesn't believe in God, such an argument doesn't carry much weight, and kind of kills any further argument you could make. If you want to convince me of something, you'll get farther doing so on my terms.

But that would be logical

 

[JGG]

But that would be logical

Oh, are we avoiding that again?

 

[RonPaulJr]

Oh, are we avoiding that again?

I never will avoid that, others will however.

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Oh, are we avoiding that again?

In some people's minds apparently so..

You just made my husband nearly shoot diet pepsi out his nose...I hope you're happy

 

[RonPaulJr]

You just made my husband nearly shoot diet pepsi out his nose...I hope you're happy

That really burns I advise against said activity.

 

[JGG]

In some people's minds apparently so..

You just made my husband nearly shoot diet pepsi out his nose...I hope you're happy

Ah...such a waste of Diet Pepsi!

 

[mothcorrupteth]

no one should be arguing if its human or not, it matters but, so is cancer and we kill that.

We also amputate legs when it becomes clear it benefits the whole body, but the cancer analogy is particularly nicely constructed because a malignant growth does have a genetic identity distinct from the body that supports it (it having mutated). But it still fails because legs and tumors don't develop into whole human beings, whereas zygotes, etc. do.

 

[JGG]

But it still fails because legs and tumors don't develop into whole human beings, whereas zygotes, etc. do.

So? I admit, I don't see the relevance.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

You can call it a baby if you like - that term is usually, in my experience, used for a person AFTER birth. But it doesn't make any difference to me. Calling it a baby or a person or whatever doesn'/t change anything about the debate. It's STILL a fetus, and a parasite (despite what you say above - different species is usual, but not required).

So what you are saying is that HUMAN LIFE begins when the baby leaves the womb... If that's the case, the end of life must be when child goes back into the womb...

As you can see, what you're saying falls apart very quickly. I've never been able to get a real pro-choice advocate to find a measurement of life that is consistent, where the beginning of life is measured by the same thing by which the end of life is.

Do you personally know what God would say? NO YOU DO NOT.

Quoting God's Word, I think, is fairly safe in that respect.

Neither you or anyone else has the right to tell anyone else what to do with their bodies and their lives. Now please get that through your heads once and for all.

You only have as much right to terminate a life because of your mistake as I have to terminate yours (in case you get confused, that means you have no right to), get that through your head once and for all.

It's so pathetic how you argue as if an unborn baby is just a parasite, nothing remotely human even though it has it's own human brain, human heart, human nervous system, human skeletal system, human skin... And you refuse to even back up your assertment that it isn't human. This shows more than just a hint of weakness in your argument because it doesn't stand unless what you say is fact, quite simply because you said it. There is no logic behind it beyond that, so please back up your assertions on the matter.

 

[RealityCheck]

So what you are saying is that HUMAN LIFE begins when the baby leaves the womb... If that's the case, the end of life must be when child goes back into the womb...

No, that's weak. If you argue that human life begins when we are sperm and egg, then the end of life is going back to sperm and egg. That never happens so... we'd be immortal?

As you can see, what you're saying falls apart very quickly.

Check a mirror.

I've never been able to get a real pro-choice advocate to find a measurement of life that is consistent, where the beginning of life is measured by the same thing by which the end of life is.

Why should they be the same? Where is it written that the beginning of life must be the same as the end of life? That's not even in the Bible.

Quoting God's Word, I think, is fairly safe in that respect.

Only if you can prove it is God's word.

You only have as much right to terminate a life because of your mistake as I have to terminate yours (in case you get confused, that means you have no right to), get that through your head once and for all.

Are you narrowly defining life to only mean humans? What about plants and other animals? Fungi? Single-cell bacteria? You participate in the death of those life forms regularly.

 

[katautumn]

Fetus is the technical, medical and scientific term for the unborn after the embryonic stage in gestational development. No one ever said a fetus is not human. Genetically it cannot be anything but human, if it is within a homosapien female womb. It isn't a lightbulb or a house plant or a pony.

The problem many pro-lifers have with the term "fetus" is that it doesn't strike the same emotional chord as "baby". While baby is a commonly used term, it is not a proper scientific term. When engaging in a debate about an issue as serious as human reproduction, it is important to not use overly emotive semantics and stick with the basic medical and scientific facts. The term fetus is not used to dehumanize the unborn. It is used within the proper context in abortion debates.

 

[katautumn]

I've never been able to get a real pro-choice advocate to find a measurement of life that is consistent, where the beginning of life is measured by the same thing by which the end of life is.

If life is measured as being the same at the beginning as it is at the end, that is impossible. If life begins at the moment sperm and egg join, then for the sake of being consistent we must return to that state before we die, which is impossible.