Moderator: Community Team
And how is it this zygot qualifies as a human being, rather than a potential human being? Why not the skin cells we shed or, better yet, the matter that comes out monthly, which might well include the above without much notice.daddy1gringo wrote:No, at conception because there undeniably exists something that did not exist before: a "being" with her own DNA, different from anyone else's.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Defining an embryo as a Human Being isn't very scientific or sensible.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
#1. its still called an abortion when the hearbeat is still before the operation.jay_a2j wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Defining an embryo as a Human Being isn't very scientific or sensible.
Yeah, because we all know those embryos become aardvarks.
What MISSISSIPPI is saying is that LIFE at any stage of development should be protected by law.
An embryo has a heart beat at 8 weeks (when most abortions are preformed). An abortion ends this heartbeat. How the hell is that "sensible"?
Then change the name of that procedure!! This debate is about a doctor coming in and killing an unborn child, not one who comes in to remove the remains of an already-dead child. There is a huge difference!!! Get with the f'ing program and quit playing your stupid games of semantics!PLAYER57832 wrote:#1. its still called an abortion when the hearbeat is still before the operation.
You want to redefine the meaning of a term so that it suits your agenda rather than how its actually applied in the real world? By, y'know, medical professionals and all that jazz.Night Strike wrote:Then change the name of that procedure!! This debate is about a doctor coming in and killing an unborn child, not one who comes in to remove the remains of an already-dead child. There is a huge difference!!! Get with the f'ing program and quit playing your stupid games of semantics!PLAYER57832 wrote:#1. its still called an abortion when the hearbeat is still before the operation.
Things like injecting acid or cutting-open skulls are inherently different than removing an already dead child. We are clearly discussing the former, not the latter.Symmetry wrote:You want to redefine the meaning of a term so that it suits your agenda rather than how its actually applied in the real world? By, y'know, medical professionals and all that jazz.Night Strike wrote:Then change the name of that procedure!! This debate is about a doctor coming in and killing an unborn child, not one who comes in to remove the remains of an already-dead child. There is a huge difference!!! Get with the f'ing program and quit playing your stupid games of semantics!PLAYER57832 wrote:#1. its still called an abortion when the hearbeat is still before the operation.
Perhaps you are with player, but then I don't think you posted anything about that until now. Not only do you want to redefine the word, you want to retcon the whole discussion now? Player has a point, you don't like that it is accurate, so you want the definitions changed so that her point becomes innacurate. End of.Night Strike wrote:Things like injecting acid or cutting-open skulls are inherently different than removing an already dead child. We are clearly discussing the former, not the latter.Symmetry wrote:You want to redefine the meaning of a term so that it suits your agenda rather than how its actually applied in the real world? By, y'know, medical professionals and all that jazz.Night Strike wrote:Then change the name of that procedure!! This debate is about a doctor coming in and killing an unborn child, not one who comes in to remove the remains of an already-dead child. There is a huge difference!!! Get with the f'ing program and quit playing your stupid games of semantics!PLAYER57832 wrote:#1. its still called an abortion when the hearbeat is still before the operation.
PLAYER57832 wrote:#1. its still called an abortion when the hearbeat is still before the operation.jay_a2j wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Defining an embryo as a Human Being isn't very scientific or sensible.
Yeah, because we all know those embryos become aardvarks.
What MISSISSIPPI is saying is that LIFE at any stage of development should be protected by law.
An embryo has a heart beat at 8 weeks (when most abortions are preformed). An abortion ends this heartbeat. How the hell is that "sensible"?
#2. Does a beating heart define all that is to be human? How is it sensible to say "medical science can tell you that this child has only a small chance of surviving, will likely threaten your life and/ OR prevent any future children from being born. We have an operation that will end the child without pain, early, before many would say a "soul" is vested in it (note.. I mean many Christians as well as non-Christians), but becuase jay, etc does not like that option, you cannot do that. AND.. Oh, by-the-way, don't ask for health care coverage, either, because that is just being greedy on your part.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Abortions have saved lives, of course. I fail to see how they have not.jay_a2j wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:#1. its still called an abortion when the hearbeat is still before the operation.jay_a2j wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Defining an embryo as a Human Being isn't very scientific or sensible.
Yeah, because we all know those embryos become aardvarks.
What MISSISSIPPI is saying is that LIFE at any stage of development should be protected by law.
An embryo has a heart beat at 8 weeks (when most abortions are preformed). An abortion ends this heartbeat. How the hell is that "sensible"?
#2. Does a beating heart define all that is to be human? How is it sensible to say "medical science can tell you that this child has only a small chance of surviving, will likely threaten your life and/ OR prevent any future children from being born. We have an operation that will end the child without pain, early, before many would say a "soul" is vested in it (note.. I mean many Christians as well as non-Christians), but becuase jay, etc does not like that option, you cannot do that. AND.. Oh, by-the-way, don't ask for health care coverage, either, because that is just being greedy on your part.
#1 Who the hell cares????? Has an abortion ever SAVED A LIFE? Ever STARTED a stopped heart? Are Doctors not required to take an oath to SAVE lives? Not end them!
#2 I don't care when "many" (by the way it's those who wish the keep the power to kill) deem it has a soul. If it is a life when it's born, its a life an hour before its born, a day before its born, a month before its born and UP TO and including the MOMENT it is conceived!
Spin it any way you like. YOU condone MURDER! YOU will answer for it as well as all you other pro-deathers!
Woah, someone needs to put a muzzle on this dog. It looks kinda rabid.jay_a2j wrote:YOU condone MURDER! YOU will answer for it as well as all you other pro-deathers!
BigBallinStalin wrote:The fetus is a human being!
The acorn is an oak tree!!
YARRGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Symmetry wrote: Abortions have saved lives, of course. I fail to see how they have not.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Weird, isn't it? I actually though I had a bit of ground gained with a poster earlier, in that he admitted that abortion wasn't murder, just something he disagreed with. He was upset that I suggested that there was a middle ground and a few posts later was genuinely comparing abortion to the holocaust.keiths31 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:The fetus is a human being!
The acorn is an oak tree!!
YARRGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And this topic has been covered a number of times with all the regulars digging their feet in and not budging on their stance regardless of what evidence or links either side posts. No one is going to sway the other. This topic no longer produces "lively debate" but only who can type the loudest...
[image of earth on fire]
(I'm at work...no time for an image search)
jay_a2j wrote:#1 Who the hell cares????? Has an abortion ever SAVED A LIFE? Ever STARTED a stopped heart? Are Doctors not required to take an oath to SAVE lives? Not end them!
It's pretty much impossible, given your experience on these threads, and even within this thread, to see your reply as anything other than trolling. Even a basic awareness of the other side would have acquainted you with the arguments in favour of abortions when it would save a woman's life, and reading through the thread, you might well have gained some nuance and realised that abortions are not always of living fetuses.jay_a2j wrote:Symmetry wrote: Abortions have saved lives, of course. I fail to see how they have not.
Abortion takes a life EACH and EVERY time it's performed. Do you FAIL TO SEE IT NOW???????????
How about you support the ending of abortions and I will support sex education?natty_dread wrote:That's just how Night Strike rolls. He doesn't like the terms of the debate, he comes in and tries to twist it to suit his agenda. Note how every post he posts talks about "killing unborn children" and such, without establishing how it is we should consider a clump of cells a "child".
And yet, no anti-abortionist has answered my question: why aren't they campaigning for better sex education instead, since it's been clearly shown that banning/limiting abortions will not reduce the amount of abortions, but better sex education will?
Night Strike claimed this hasn't been shown, I posted a link that shows this, and no one has yet refuted it either.
How about nobody supports the ending of abortions, and we have a reasonable and realistic debate. Of course, that might mean dealing less morally righteous and more practical in efforts to help people, but perhaps you're willing to take that step.Night Strike wrote:How about you support the ending of abortions and I will support sex education?natty_dread wrote:That's just how Night Strike rolls. He doesn't like the terms of the debate, he comes in and tries to twist it to suit his agenda. Note how every post he posts talks about "killing unborn children" and such, without establishing how it is we should consider a clump of cells a "child".
And yet, no anti-abortionist has answered my question: why aren't they campaigning for better sex education instead, since it's been clearly shown that banning/limiting abortions will not reduce the amount of abortions, but better sex education will?
Night Strike claimed this hasn't been shown, I posted a link that shows this, and no one has yet refuted it either.
And I don't support sex education because it's not the school's job to talk about sex with children. That's the job of parents/guardians, not a school official.
It's more practical to kill off the old people who are living in hospitals and taking away tons of health care resources, yet we don't actually debate that (yet). It's automatically believed that life is valued and should not be arbitrarily taken. Yet that's exactly what happens with the unborn. They are seen as non-humans and can have their lives taken on a whim. This debate isn't about practicality; it's about doing what's correct to protect the right to life.Symmetry wrote:How about nobody supports the ending of abortions, and we have a reasonable and realistic debate. Of course, that might mean dealing less morally righteous and more practical in efforts to help people, but perhaps you're willing to take that step.Night Strike wrote:How about you support the ending of abortions and I will support sex education?natty_dread wrote:That's just how Night Strike rolls. He doesn't like the terms of the debate, he comes in and tries to twist it to suit his agenda. Note how every post he posts talks about "killing unborn children" and such, without establishing how it is we should consider a clump of cells a "child".
And yet, no anti-abortionist has answered my question: why aren't they campaigning for better sex education instead, since it's been clearly shown that banning/limiting abortions will not reduce the amount of abortions, but better sex education will?
Night Strike claimed this hasn't been shown, I posted a link that shows this, and no one has yet refuted it either.
And I don't support sex education because it's not the school's job to talk about sex with children. That's the job of parents/guardians, not a school official.
Yeah, see, I don't care. In an ideal world, sure, every parent would raise their children perfectly. But the reality is different.Night Strike wrote:How about you support the ending of abortions and I will support sex education?natty_dread wrote:That's just how Night Strike rolls. He doesn't like the terms of the debate, he comes in and tries to twist it to suit his agenda. Note how every post he posts talks about "killing unborn children" and such, without establishing how it is we should consider a clump of cells a "child".
And yet, no anti-abortionist has answered my question: why aren't they campaigning for better sex education instead, since it's been clearly shown that banning/limiting abortions will not reduce the amount of abortions, but better sex education will?
Night Strike claimed this hasn't been shown, I posted a link that shows this, and no one has yet refuted it either.
And I don't support sex education because it's not the school's job to talk about sex with children. That's the job of parents/guardians, not a school official.
Yes, you are obligated to have and raise that child. Killing someone else because that person is an inconvenience to your life should never be tolerated.Metsfanmax wrote:Still waiting for an answer to my question. I practice safe sex with my girlfriend. I am 22 years old and I make about $18,000 per year on my graduate student salary. If my girlfriend gets pregnant, Night Strike, am I obligated to have that child and raise it when I preferred to wait several years until I have a better salary and am more able to support a child? I need to radically alter the course of my life because I am one of the very small percentage of cases where the contraception failed?
But every time contraception is used, I am denying the potential of thousands of embryo possibilities. Is that not wrong?Night Strike wrote:Yes, you are obligated to have and raise that child. Killing someone else because that person is an inconvenience to your life should never be tolerated.Metsfanmax wrote:Still waiting for an answer to my question. I practice safe sex with my girlfriend. I am 22 years old and I make about $18,000 per year on my graduate student salary. If my girlfriend gets pregnant, Night Strike, am I obligated to have that child and raise it when I preferred to wait several years until I have a better salary and am more able to support a child? I need to radically alter the course of my life because I am one of the very small percentage of cases where the contraception failed?
No.Metsfanmax wrote:But every time contraception is used, I am denying the potential of thousands of embryo possibilities. Is that not wrong?Night Strike wrote:Yes, you are obligated to have and raise that child. Killing someone else because that person is an inconvenience to your life should never be tolerated.Metsfanmax wrote:Still waiting for an answer to my question. I practice safe sex with my girlfriend. I am 22 years old and I make about $18,000 per year on my graduate student salary. If my girlfriend gets pregnant, Night Strike, am I obligated to have that child and raise it when I preferred to wait several years until I have a better salary and am more able to support a child? I need to radically alter the course of my life because I am one of the very small percentage of cases where the contraception failed?
You are supposed to yes, "alter the course of your life" if you are not fully prepared for the consequences. That holds true for ALL choices. Besides that, in that particular case, adoption would likely be at least one alternative to abortion. (assuming no significant medical issues).Metsfanmax wrote:Still waiting for an answer to my question. I practice safe sex with my girlfriend. I am 22 years old and I make about $18,000 per year on my graduate student salary. If my girlfriend gets pregnant, Night Strike, am I obligated to have that child and raise it when I preferred to wait several years until I have a better salary and am more able to support a child? I need to radically alter the course of my life because I am one of the very small percentage of cases where the contraception failed?
