North Dakota -- Gettin' Tough on Abortion!

[Belk]

I tend to let God worry about the souls. Given that, it's not up to me to decide when unborn babies actually get souls. Personally, I believe it's at conception. I have no indication to believe otherwise. God tells us in the bible that we were sinful from the moment we were conceived. He sent Jesus to save us sinners - that seems to mean he sent Jesus to save babies who had just been conceived. That would mean that they have a soul.

Apparently not since you have that since you believe that others should be held to your belief that it is at conception.

 

[ActionJ]

Your earlier reasoning was not predicated on chromosomes, but the fact that the zygote were, "stepping stones," and that, "You were a zygote at one point. You could not be who you are today had you not experienced that stage in your overall development."

The exact same is true of the gamete.

A contradiction you've slithered out of by, pulling out of thin air, your personal definition for being human.


All of which is irrelevant, because we still haven't established what properties make human beings deserving of rights or protections in the first place.

Jesus, save me from your followers.

23 Chromosomes from Mom + 23 Chromosomes from Dad = Human Baby. The genetic code doesn't lie. I'm sure you've heard of DNA -- right? DNA extracted from a Human Zygote will reveal that it is Human rather than Tiger, Bear, or Zebra.

 

[Dave Ellis]

23 Chromosomes from Mom + 23 Chromosomes from Dad = Human Baby. The genetic code doesn't lie. I'm sure you've heard of DNA -- right? DNA extracted from a Human Zygote will reveal that it is Human rather than Tiger, Bear, or Zebra.

So what's your point?

 

[Lethe]

I guess what he's saying, is that Down's syndrome babies aren't human.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I guess what he's saying, is that Down's syndrome babies aren't human.

I suppose now is the time to bring up selective abortions lol

 

[ActionJ]

So what's your point?

LOL.

1) The DNA from a human zygote proves a) that it's human and b) that it has 46 chromosomes (23 from mom and 23 from dad). That means that it's human and nothing else (not just a growth or a bunch of cells or an animal or a leach).

2) Since it is growing and developing we can conclude that it is alive rather than dead. Therefore, it is a living being.

3) Since it is a living human being abortion can be considered nothing less than murder.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

23 Chromosomes from Mom + 23 Chromosomes from Dad = Human Baby.

Ah, so those with Down's Syndrome aren't human! They have an extra chromosome,

The genetic code doesn't lie. I'm sure you've heard of DNA -- right? DNA extracted from a Human Zygote will reveal that it is Human rather than Tiger, Bear, or Zebra.

It will also reveal that a human sperm is a human sperm and not a rhino sperm. My ear lobe is also genetically human, and it has 46 chromosomes. It must be alive, right!

Ah, but obviously it's not. So simply having human genetics is insufficient to confer human rights. Hmm...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

LOL.

1) The DNA from a human zygote proves a) that it's human and b) that it has 46 chromosomes (23 from mom and 23 from dad). That means that it's human and nothing else (not just a growth or a bunch of cells or an animal or a leach).

2) Since it is growing and developing we can conclude that it is alive rather than dead. Therefore, it is a living being.

3) Since it is a living human being abortion can be considered nothing less than murder.

Please justify (3).

 

[Dave Ellis]

LOL.

1) The DNA from a human zygote proves a) that it's human and b) that it has 46 chromosomes (23 from mom and 23 from dad). That means that it's human and nothing else (not just a growth or a bunch of cells or an animal or a leach).

2) Since it is growing and developing we can conclude that it is alive rather than dead. Therefore, it is a living being.

3) Since it is a living human being abortion can be considered nothing less than murder.

The DNA from my skin cells will give you the exact same data.

So does that mean we should charge anyone who uses an exfoliant as a serial killer?

 

[mpok1519]

Why is it okay to force a woman to undergo unnecessary and unwanted medical procedures in order for her to exercise her rights?

What the heck does that have to do with abortion?

Are you really saying that because something is done by doctors it's okay?


My point still stands. This abortion argument really isn't about when personhood starts. It's about whether the unborn child is wanted or not. It all boils down to that, plain and simple. Do you have a counter argument to that? If so, I'd love to hear it.

And here's something to consider while you're at it...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/jun/10062109

Oh noez. He ended up blind. The HORRORZ. That was the disability they wanted this mother to abort over.

My honest opinion is that abortion is stupid, it's murderous and it's a convenient way for women to unburden themselves of the responsibility that comes with having sex. Spare me the pity stories of rape victims and women who have medical problems. I WAS that woman, I made that choice.

I certainly don't believe in making abortions illegal, because all women would do is go to selfish back alley doctors to pay much more money to kill their offspring. But I certainly do believe in maker them harder to get. I believe that any women considering an abortion should be forced (yes, I said forced) to view the ultrasound and to hold an actual baby. I think they should be shown pictures of what an aborted fetus looks like. Some call it emotional blackmail, but it's really just being truthful with these women. We say it's their body, their choice, but then they don't get all the information necessary to make that choice.

Choose life. Every time.

 

[dies-l]

What the heck does that have to do with abortion?

Are you really saying that because something is done by doctors it's okay?


My point still stands. This abortion argument really isn't about when personhood starts. It's about whether the unborn child is wanted or not. It all boils down to that, plain and simple. Do you have a counter argument to that? If so, I'd love to hear it.

And here's something to consider while you're at it...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/jun/10062109

Oh noez. He ended up blind. The HORRORZ. That was the disability they wanted this mother to abort over.

My honest opinion is that abortion is stupid, it's murderous and it's a convenient way for women to unburden themselves of the responsibility that comes with having sex. Spare me the pity stories of rape victims and women who have medical problems. I WAS that woman, I made that choice.

I certainly don't believe in making abortions illegal, because all women would do is go to selfish back alley doctors to pay much more money to kill their offspring. But I certainly do believe in maker them harder to get. I believe that any women considering an abortion should be forced (yes, I said forced) to view the ultrasound and to hold an actual baby. I think they should be shown pictures of what an aborted fetus looks like. Some call it emotional blackmail, but it's really just being truthful with these women. We say it's their body, their choice, but then they don't get all the information necessary to make that choice.

Choose life. Every time.

I agree with most of this. But, I'm not sure how we go about making pregnant women hold a baby. I certainly wouldn't volunteer my baby up for the job. Personally, though it puts me at odds with my political party, I'd be fine if we just offered no public funding for abortion, except in cases of bona fide medical necessity.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I agree with most of this. But, I'm not sure how we go about making pregnant women hold a baby. I certainly wouldn't volunteer my baby up for the job. Personally, though it puts me at odds with my political party, I'd be fine if we just offered no public funding for abortion, except in cases of bona fide medical necessity.

I'm personally against it in cases of medical necessity, but I'm not opposed to the global idea. Abortion will never fully go away - but it sure would be nice to have people stop talking about it like it's a war against choice. I'd rather see people doing things to decrease the need for abortion, on both sides of the coin. It would be a good compromise if the only abortions done were because of medical necessity.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Why is it okay to force a woman to undergo unnecessary and unwanted medical procedures in order for her to exercise her rights?

I simply don't believe that we have any right whatsoever to kill a unborn baby.

I love the emotionally loaded words like "force" and "unnecessary" when we describe childbirth.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm personally against it in cases of medical necessity, but I'm not opposed to the global idea. Abortion will never fully go away - but it sure would be nice to have people stop talking about it like it's a war against choice. I'd rather see people doing things to decrease the need for abortion, on both sides of the coin. It would be a good compromise if the only abortions done were because of medical necessity.

Abortion in cases of medical necessity should be the absolute bare minimum.

I simply don't believe that we have any right whatsoever to kill a unborn baby.

I love the emotionally loaded words like "force" and "unnecessary" when we describe childbirth.

Whereas emotionally charged terminology like 'murdering babies' and 'war on the unborn' is perfectly fine.

If you're going to lament hyperbole, at least be intellectually honest enough to criticise everyone who does it, not just those you disagree with.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Abortion in cases of medical necessity should be the absolute bare minimum.

Then there's no compromise.

Whereas emotionally charged terminology like 'murdering babies' and 'war on the unborn' is perfectly fine.

If you're going to lament hyperbole, at least be intellectually honest enough to criticise everyone who does it, not just those you disagree with.

You've complained enough about them for the both of us, so why should I bother?

I'll criticize who I want, actually, thank you. Childbirth is a natural process for the most part. Abortion is not. If playing the emotional card gets a woman to see the error of getting an abortion, then yay for me.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then there's no compromise.

Nevertheless, disallowing abortion even when it would kill mother and child belies any claim to being 'pro-life'.

You've complained enough about them for the both of us, so why should I bother?

I'd love to see a source for this, because I've not once mentioned emotionally charged terminology till just now.

I'll criticize who I want, actually, thank you.

I never said you couldn't. My point was that your criticism cuts both ways.

Childbirth is a natural process for the most part. Abortion is not. If playing the emotional card gets a woman to see the error of getting an abortion, then yay for me.

So irrational arguments are allowed when they work for you, but not when they don't?

Someone more cynical than me might comment on this unabashed rejection of rational thought by the right-wing.

 

[Skaloop]

Then there's no compromise.

Actually, allowing abortions only when the mother's life is in danger would be a compromise.

You've complained enough about them for the both of us, so why should I bother?

I'll criticize who I want, actually, thank you. Childbirth is a natural process for the most part. Abortion is not. If playing the emotional card gets a woman to see the error of getting an abortion, then yay for me.[/quote]

 

[Dave Ellis]

Then there's no compromise.

Why should there be a compromise? While compromises are often a good thing, it's not good to compromise in every situation.

Just out of curiosity why are you against medically necessary abortions? They're usually done when the life or health of the mother is in clear risk. Not performing the abortion may well lead to the death of both the mother and the fetus.

You've complained enough about them for the both of us, so why should I bother?

I'll criticize who I want, actually, thank you. Childbirth is a natural process for the most part. Abortion is not. If playing the emotional card gets a woman to see the error of getting an abortion, then yay for me.

Actually, a natural abortion is known as a miscarriage. They happen all the time.

And guilting someone into doing anything is immoral. If you have good reasons, present your good reasons. If you have to rely on emotional appeals, I'd say you have a poor argument.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Actually, allowing abortions only when the mother's life is in danger would be a compromise.

That was MY point. WiccanChild said it should be the bare minimum.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That was MY point. WiccanChild said it should be the bare minimum.

Whereas myself and I assume WiccanChild would view that as the common sense starting ground. If the pregnancy is presenting an imminent and unavoidable risk to the life of the mother, I don't think there's much question you need to preserve her life first.

The alternative is let her die, which will also result in the end of the pregnancy. I think we can all agree that at the very least ensuring the mother lives is the ideal situation.