Christian, read it and weep............

[fide]

Planned Parenthood wouldn't be needed if women...oh, I don't know....kept their legs closed? (I'm a woman so whatever argument you just had fly through your head is invalid).

Want to prevent pregnancy? Keep your legs closed.
Don't want an STD? Keep your legs closed.

Or to rephrase, for men and women: Live the holy chastity that God intends for you. That is a life worthy of human persons.

 

[dgiharris]

Actually, it is all about killing babies.

In my opinion we diverge here. You consider a combined sperm and ova a "person" and I think that is just ridiculous.

2 cells is not a human being. 2000 cells is not a human being 2 million cells is not a human being. Simply having your own particular and unique DNA does not magically transform you into a human being.

The majority of us equate "sentience" with being human. And we draw the line at "being human" when the fetus has all the individual components associated with the potential for sentience. Brain, heart, lungs, etc.

Until then, the mother has the ultimate say in the fetus.

Prove what you think of a baby qualifies as "a baby". While you're at it, look up the definition of murder.

I find this is the crux of the argument and issue.

One day, medical science will reach the point where they can take a miscarried fetus at 2 weeks development, put it into a special chamber and develop it into a full human being. When we reach that point would a couple be morally obligated to take their miscarried fetus at 2 weeks development to a special facility where the couple puts the miscarriage in the special chamber to incubate. And oh, by the way, the cost of this treatment will be 10 years worth of salary of both parents.

Another problem I have with the abortion argument is this notion that the rights of the fetus magically supercede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus.

Do you honestly not know what a human being is? I'm serious. Can you give me an example of a being that one man might call "a human being" whereas you would say "no" that is not a human being?

This argument you are trying to present is one that views human life as sacrosanct-- that human life is such a sacred and precious thing that even a smattering of a dozen cells should be granted the full status of personhood / humanhood.

I reject that argument. People die by the millions every single day. We make decisions every day that result in irreparable harm to our fellow man. When someone is in a car accident and is brain dead with 0% chance of recovery, we as a society feel that that life is over and the vast majority of us see it as our duty to pull the plug.

If what you argued where true, if you honestly believed that human life is sacrosanct to the point of even disregarding the life of another human being (i.e. the mother), then how is it you have any excess money? Why doesn't every thing you own go to charity to help other human beings live?

I'm being serious.

The reality is that we rank order every aspect of everyday life and that human life isn't some super sacred thing. Not to say we don't value human life, sure we do. However, we start at a practical level and that level is more or less sentience.

Yes, a fetus at 2 weeks has the potential to become a fully fledged human being. But it is not. It is a parasite that must feed off of its surrogate for 6 to 9 months.

I will admit, at 6 months I do view the fetus as a baby and abortions that occur at 6 months does feel like murder to me, but even then I still yield to the mother's right because it is her body. THat is definitely that uncomfortable gray area...

That is another problem I have with the abortion argument, the prolife side has this simplistic view, good and evil, right or wrong, as if this is a trivial choice and easy to see. And it is not. Real life is not so simple. And there are "real" considerations that every woman must accept.

Ultimately, I think we are conflating the argument between religious views, moral views, and living in a secular society.

We live in a secular society for good reason, simply read your history text and you will see that living in a non-secular society was not so good for the populace. We also live in a "free" society. Put the two together and you simply can't impose your religious views on the populace no matter how much you might like to.

SO no, no meeting of the minds. Without a brain and internal organs, I just dont' see it as a full human being, and thus, I feel the mother has the right and authority to make any decision she sees fit for whatever reason she may have.

 

[dgiharris]

Planned Parenthood wouldn't be needed if women...oh, I don't know....kept their legs closed? (I'm a woman so whatever argument you just had fly through your head is invalid).

Want to prevent pregnancy? Keep your legs closed.
Don't want an STD? Keep your legs closed.

The urge to reproduce is arguably the strongest urge a species has.
You can't fight biology, or rather I guess you can, but majority of the populace loses that battle everyday in a trillion different ways.

 

[redleghunter]

#1) When is a life a life?
There are many of us who just don't believe life begins at conception. Me personally, unless you have a fully formed brain and internal organs and could theoretically survive outside the womb I just don't consider you a full human being.

We can start with the first point.

Substantiate your claim other than "this is what I believe." Why?

 

[fide]

In my opinion we diverge here. You consider a combined sperm and ova a "person" and I think that is just ridiculous.

2 cells is not a human being. 2000 cells is not a human being 2 million cells is not a human being. Simply having your own particular and unique DNA does not magically transform you into a human being.

The majority of us equate "sentience" with being human. And we draw the line at "being human" when the fetus has all the individual components associated with the potential for sentience. Brain, heart, lungs, etc.

Until then, the mother has the ultimate say in the fetus.



I find this is the crux of the argument and issue.

One day, medical science will reach the point where they can take a miscarried fetus at 2 weeks development, put it into a special chamber and develop it into a full human being. When we reach that point would a couple be morally obligated to take their miscarried fetus at 2 weeks development to a special facility where the couple puts the miscarriage in the special chamber to incubate. And oh, by the way, the cost of this treatment will be 10 years worth of salary of both parents.

Another problem I have with the abortion argument is this notion that the rights of the fetus magically supercede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus.



This argument you are trying to present is one that views human life as sacrosanct-- that human life is such a sacred and precious thing that even a smattering of a dozen cells should be granted the full status of personhood / humanhood.

I reject that argument. People die by the millions every single day. We make decisions every day that result in irreparable harm to our fellow man. When someone is in a car accident and is brain dead with 0% chance of recovery, we as a society feel that that life is over and the vast majority of us see it as our duty to pull the plug.

If what you argued where true, if you honestly believed that human life is sacrosanct to the point of even disregarding the life of another human being (i.e. the mother), then how is it you have any excess money? Why doesn't every thing you own go to charity to help other human beings live?

I'm being serious.

The reality is that we rank order every aspect of everyday life and that human life isn't some super sacred thing. Not to say we don't value human life, sure we do. However, we start at a practical level and that level is more or less sentience.

Yes, a fetus at 2 weeks has the potential to become a fully fledged human being. But it is not. It is a parasite that must feed off of its surrogate for 6 to 9 months.

I will admit, at 6 months I do view the fetus as a baby and abortions that occur at 6 months does feel like murder to me, but even then I still yield to the mother's right because it is her body. THat is definitely that uncomfortable gray area...

That is another problem I have with the abortion argument, the prolife side has this simplistic view, good and evil, right or wrong, as if this is a trivial choice and easy to see. And it is not. Real life is not so simple. And there are "real" considerations that every woman must accept.

Ultimately, I think we are conflating the argument between religious views, moral views, and living in a secular society.

We live in a secular society for good reason, simply read your history text and you will see that living in a non-secular society was not so good for the populace. We also live in a "free" society. Put the two together and you simply can't impose your religious views on the populace no matter how much you might like to.

SO no, no meeting of the minds. Without a brain and internal organs, I just dont' see it as a full human being, and thus, I feel the mother has the right and authority to make any decision she sees fit for whatever reason she may have.

How many cells - and organs - does a person need to still be a person?
You wrote, "The majority of us equate "sentience" with being human."
-- If a person is anesthetized for an operation - unconscious and unfeeling - is he no longer a person? Is it because he will become sentient after a while that you consider him an exception? So will the tiniest baby in the womb - in time, those two cells will grow and develop, and become conscious and feeling. In time!
And before the development into what you are sure is a human person, what exactly is it? A nonhuman person? A human nonperson? It certainly will not become a dog or a cat or a rock or a turnip! It is a human being.
--Is a person in a coma now no longer a human person? Is that how so-called euthanasia is justified? They won't know - Stop the feeling and hydration! They would want to die!

-- How many of your limbs do you need to prove you are human being? Both arms? Both legs? If you lose them, are you a candidate for extinction? Suppose by birth defect, your child has no leg? Kill him? He's not human! Suppose, like Helen Keller, a girl cannot see, hear, or speak intelligibly. Is her life no longer worthy to live?

Can you not see where this leads? The Nazis believed that any "person" was defective if he/she was not of their "perfect" blood-line. Thus, the Jews had no right to life; nor homosexuals; nor Gypsies - nor any who were not "like them" - Aryans - the perfection of humanity.

The dehumanization of any human being, robbing him of his innate dignity as a child of God, made in the image of God, destined to eternal beatitude with God, is a sacrilege and an insult to Christ who died for ALL men, in His holy love for us ALL.

 

[Winken]

Do you honestly not know what a human being is? I'm serious. Can you give me an example of a being that one man might call "a human being" whereas you would say "no" that is not a human being?

• I know that some pro-abortion people (who are sure they themselves are human beings, worthy of full recognition and human rights) deny human rights to the unborn, right up to the moment of birth.
• I know that the Nazis denied the human right to life to Jews, to homosexuals, to Gypsies and others who they said had "life unworthy of life."
• America denied full human rights to slaves, giving their "owners" mastery over them, counting them as three-fifths of a person, allowing their masters life or death rule over them. That same entitlement - ownership and denial of personhood and the right to life - has been extended to the unborn, making them "slaves" owned by their mothers.

Do you know that you are a human being? What makes you human? The laws of Congress, or the very fact that you ARE a human being and not anything else?

Edited to add - I just saw that you are Catholic. Can you tell me please what makes you "Catholic"?
From the Catholic Catechism:

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. [Cf. CDF, Donum vitae I, 1]

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. [Jer 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-11]
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. [Ps 139:15] ​

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish. [Didache 2, 2: SCh 248, 148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19, 5: PG 2, 777; Ad Diognetum 5, 6: PG 2, 1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9: PL 1, 319-320]

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. [GS 51 # 3] ​

Thank You! Blessings!!

 

[Winken]

In my opinion we diverge here. You consider a combined sperm and ova a "person" and I think that is just ridiculous.

2 cells is not a human being. 2000 cells is not a human being 2 million cells is not a human being. Simply having your own particular and unique DNA does not magically transform you into a human being.

The majority of us equate "sentience" with being human. And we draw the line at "being human" when the fetus has all the individual components associated with the potential for sentience. Brain, heart, lungs, etc.

Until then, the mother has the ultimate say in the fetus.



I find this is the crux of the argument and issue.

One day, medical science will reach the point where they can take a miscarried fetus at 2 weeks development, put it into a special chamber and develop it into a full human being. When we reach that point would a couple be morally obligated to take their miscarried fetus at 2 weeks development to a special facility where the couple puts the miscarriage in the special chamber to incubate. And oh, by the way, the cost of this treatment will be 10 years worth of salary of both parents.

Another problem I have with the abortion argument is this notion that the rights of the fetus magically supercede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus.



This argument you are trying to present is one that views human life as sacrosanct-- that human life is such a sacred and precious thing that even a smattering of a dozen cells should be granted the full status of personhood / humanhood.

I reject that argument. People die by the millions every single day. We make decisions every day that result in irreparable harm to our fellow man. When someone is in a car accident and is brain dead with 0% chance of recovery, we as a society feel that that life is over and the vast majority of us see it as our duty to pull the plug.

If what you argued where true, if you honestly believed that human life is sacrosanct to the point of even disregarding the life of another human being (i.e. the mother), then how is it you have any excess money? Why doesn't every thing you own go to charity to help other human beings live?

I'm being serious.

The reality is that we rank order every aspect of everyday life and that human life isn't some super sacred thing. Not to say we don't value human life, sure we do. However, we start at a practical level and that level is more or less sentience.

Yes, a fetus at 2 weeks has the potential to become a fully fledged human being. But it is not. It is a parasite that must feed off of its surrogate for 6 to 9 months.

I will admit, at 6 months I do view the fetus as a baby and abortions that occur at 6 months does feel like murder to me, but even then I still yield to the mother's right because it is her body. THat is definitely that uncomfortable gray area...

That is another problem I have with the abortion argument, the prolife side has this simplistic view, good and evil, right or wrong, as if this is a trivial choice and easy to see. And it is not. Real life is not so simple. And there are "real" considerations that every woman must accept.

Ultimately, I think we are conflating the argument between religious views, moral views, and living in a secular society.

We live in a secular society for good reason, simply read your history text and you will see that living in a non-secular society was not so good for the populace. We also live in a "free" society. Put the two together and you simply can't impose your religious views on the populace no matter how much you might like to.

SO no, no meeting of the minds. Without a brain and internal organs, I just dont' see it as a full human being, and thus, I feel the mother has the right and authority to make any decision she sees fit for whatever reason she may have.

Sperm and Ova instantly begin the process of development. Life is there from that instant beginning. Otherwise, brain and body organs would not be.

 

[Winken]

How many cells - and organs - does a person need to still be a person?
You wrote, "The majority of us equate "sentience" with being human."
-- If a person is anesthetized for an operation - unconscious and unfeeling - is he no longer a person? Is it because he will become sentient after a while that you consider him an exception? So will the tiniest baby in the womb - in time, those two cells will grow and develop, and become conscious and feeling. In time!
And before the development into what you are sure is a human person, what exactly is it? A nonhuman person? A human nonperson? It certainly will not become a dog or a cat or a rock or a turnip! It is a human being.
--Is a person in a coma now no longer a human person? Is that how so-called euthanasia is justified? They won't know - Stop the feeling and hydration! They would want to die!

-- How many of your limbs do you need to prove you are human being? Both arms? Both legs? If you lose them, are you a candidate for extinction? Suppose by birth defect, your child has no leg? Kill him? He's not human! Suppose, like Helen Keller, a girl cannot see, hear, or speak intelligibly. Is her life no longer worthy to live?

Can you not see where this leads? The Nazis believed that any "person" was defective if he/she was not of their "perfect" blood-line. Thus, the Jews had no right to life; nor homosexuals; nor Gypsies - nor any who were not "like them" - Aryans - the perfection of humanity.

The dehumanization of any human being, robbing him of his innate dignity as a child of God, made in the image of God, destined to eternal beatitude with God, is a sacrilege and an insult to Christ who died for ALL men, in His holy love for us ALL.

God bless you, fide! God bless you abundantly!

 

[Winken]

If Planned Parenthood closes on the "Day Without A Woman Strike," 887 babies won't be aborted.

 

[pat34lee]

Prove what you think of a baby qualifies as "a baby". While you're at it, look up the definition of murder.

Murder: Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter.

 

[Blade]

Killing is wrong. But God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. Do not judge or condemn. We shove it in there faces...we put guilt on them. Jesus never did. It is wrong..it is sin. We treat them as if what they do is FAR worse then that lie that lust or going 70 in a 65 speed limit. We put degrees on sin. Ever talk to that did it? I have..

Things I dont understand is.. those babies are with the Father. Not lost..not one of them. Yet for some odd reason.. GOD would rather they live here..with the chance of being tossed away from Him forever by rejecting Christ. They never got the right to choose... this is just me thinking..or typing outloud lol

One thing to show someone the WAY...but if GOD Christ does not judge them nor condemn..just what are you doing? We have people that pass us by on the streets, stores, school you name it..and we share JESUS? FACT...Jesus said.. if you were blind you would have no sin. You say you see..your sin remains. Its the sweet sweet Holy Spirit that convicts the world of sin..not you not me. We have no right to pick and choose what anyone does. We dont condemn anyone. We show them the way OUT!

God can not make anyone choose Him. Nor would He ever think such a thing. God will not force you to tell the truth or think anything. Even in this awful thing.. THEY ARE FREE to do what they want. We try to show them in love the way out. Not by fear judgment condemnation. You do it like..living next door to one. You keep bringing them things like cookies and such. NEVER speaking evil condemning them. You invite them over for dinner.. love talk.. in the end.. THEY GOT SAVED! That RAN the place.

What YOU and I see is NOT what GOD sees. We do what WE think is right..not God.

 

[pat34lee]

But not really. Is it a consistent occurence for you to go to McDonald and not order food?

Sometimes I go to Wendy's just for the Frosty.

 

[pat34lee]

Come up with a working, meaningful and consistent definition of "human being", and lets talk.

A living being having DNA consistent with homo sapiens. Living defined as being anywhere along the natural lifespan of humans, beginning at conception and ending when life processes have stopped and cannot be revived.

 

[pat34lee]

Another problem I have with the abortion argument is this notion that the rights of the fetus magically supercede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus.

The right to live should always supersede the non-existent right to convenience.

 

[david.d]

327,166 abortions and 2197 adoption referrals...

 

[Armoured]

A living being having DNA consistent with homo sapiens. Living defined as being anywhere along the natural lifespan of humans, beginning at conception and ending when life processes have stopped and cannot be revived.

Sounds like an organism. What makes it a " being" as such? Essentially, what about the properties you just listed makes something inherently "special"?

 

[Armoured]

The right to live should always supersede the non-existent right to convenience.

Maybe I'm thinking of someone else, but haven't I seen you make financial savings arguments in favour of the death penalty?

 

[redleghunter]

In my opinion we diverge here. You consider a combined sperm and ova a "person" and I think that is just ridiculous.

2 cells is not a human being. 2000 cells is not a human being 2 million cells is not a human being. Simply having your own particular and unique DNA does not magically transform you into a human being.

The majority of us equate "sentience" with being human. And we draw the line at "being human" when the fetus has all the individual components associated with the potential for sentience. Brain, heart, lungs, etc.

Until then, the mother has the ultimate say in the fetus.



I find this is the crux of the argument and issue.

One day, medical science will reach the point where they can take a miscarried fetus at 2 weeks development, put it into a special chamber and develop it into a full human being. When we reach that point would a couple be morally obligated to take their miscarried fetus at 2 weeks development to a special facility where the couple puts the miscarriage in the special chamber to incubate. And oh, by the way, the cost of this treatment will be 10 years worth of salary of both parents.

Another problem I have with the abortion argument is this notion that the rights of the fetus magically supercede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus.



This argument you are trying to present is one that views human life as sacrosanct-- that human life is such a sacred and precious thing that even a smattering of a dozen cells should be granted the full status of personhood / humanhood.

I reject that argument. People die by the millions every single day. We make decisions every day that result in irreparable harm to our fellow man. When someone is in a car accident and is brain dead with 0% chance of recovery, we as a society feel that that life is over and the vast majority of us see it as our duty to pull the plug.

If what you argued where true, if you honestly believed that human life is sacrosanct to the point of even disregarding the life of another human being (i.e. the mother), then how is it you have any excess money? Why doesn't every thing you own go to charity to help other human beings live?

I'm being serious.

The reality is that we rank order every aspect of everyday life and that human life isn't some super sacred thing. Not to say we don't value human life, sure we do. However, we start at a practical level and that level is more or less sentience.

Yes, a fetus at 2 weeks has the potential to become a fully fledged human being. But it is not. It is a parasite that must feed off of its surrogate for 6 to 9 months.

I will admit, at 6 months I do view the fetus as a baby and abortions that occur at 6 months does feel like murder to me, but even then I still yield to the mother's right because it is her body. THat is definitely that uncomfortable gray area...

That is another problem I have with the abortion argument, the prolife side has this simplistic view, good and evil, right or wrong, as if this is a trivial choice and easy to see. And it is not. Real life is not so simple. And there are "real" considerations that every woman must accept.

Ultimately, I think we are conflating the argument between religious views, moral views, and living in a secular society.

We live in a secular society for good reason, simply read your history text and you will see that living in a non-secular society was not so good for the populace. We also live in a "free" society. Put the two together and you simply can't impose your religious views on the populace no matter how much you might like to.

SO no, no meeting of the minds. Without a brain and internal organs, I just dont' see it as a full human being, and thus, I feel the mother has the right and authority to make any decision she sees fit for whatever reason she may have.

All that 'human beings' determines is species. That of species Homo sapiens. So we don't get to redefine a scientific term to suit our philosophy or relativistic assessment.

If your argument is we are not homo sapiens at conception, then that would be going against established biological fact. Unless you have some alternative science which show we are neither human life nor homo sapiens at conception. DNA is evidence we are and the fact baring a serious defect we have 46 chromosomes.

One would have to be a biology denier to express something already established as settled science.

 

[redleghunter]

Sounds like an organism. What makes it a " being" as such? Essentially, what about the properties you just listed makes something inherently "special"?

Yes it does. It's human biologically from conception. Settled science frankly. You would have to find a philosophical argument to promote this human life is of less value than more developed human life. Not saying that is your argument but those who would accept at least the settled science.

 

[rambot]

Sometimes I go to Wendy's just for the Frosty.

So you purchase food there. As opposed to fill up on your ketchup packets when your container of ketchup at home is all filled up and okay?