Abortion - there is only one question that matters

a reply to: mhc_70

Sigh, you seem to be awestruck at the awesomeness of human reproduction. Does new life also begin when the birds and bees accidentally deliver pollen?

Look, the eggs residing within a woman's ovaries are human and they're alive. Are they partial people? The sperm residing within a male's gonads are human and they're alive too! Are they 1/2 a person?

There is no one moment when life "begins". There are moments of transformation. But mostly, life is a mysterious and constantly moving force that science can identify neither a point of "beginning" nor an "end".

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: tanstaafl

You said I had it completely backward. You're implying that it IS a Christian Nation.

Ok, maybe I could have been a little more clear.

What I meant when I said you had it backwards, was that it is not the Christians trying to change history, it is the NON Christians that are trying to do the rewriting of history to erase all vestiges of the very prominent Christian influence on the creation of our nation.

Also explain how I can have it completely backward yet you agree with me at the same time.

Hopefully I just did.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: mhc_70

Sigh, you seem to be awestruck at the awesomeness of human reproduction. Does new life also begin when the birds and bees accidentally deliver pollen?

Seems to me you're confused. I haven't shared an opinion, rather just what those who have spent their lives studying this topic have concluded. I don't need to spin it to confirm my bias because I have no problem understanding that I may be wrong. Although, as I said, I haven't even given my opinion.

Look, the eggs residing within a woman's ovaries are human and they're alive. Are they partial people? The sperm residing within a male's gonads are human and they're alive too! Are they 1/2 a person?

I do not know the answers to those questions nor do I care. I don't need to rationalize what the professionals have concluded to confirm my bias.

There is no one moment when life "begins". There are moments of transformation. But mostly, life is a mysterious and constantly moving force that science can identify neither a point of "beginning" nor an "end".

That sounds more like reincarnation to me, and not what the consensus is among the professionals that study these things. However, even in reincarnation there is a point the physical life form begins and ends, while the spirit carries on perpetually. And I agree that a consensus is not science, but either we have always been alive and transforming from one life form to another as you imply, or only our creator actually knows when life begins.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: daryllyn
So much this. People tend to assume their assumptions are the end all, be all, objective truth, when that truth is actually subjective.

You cannot impose your will on others, based on subjective truths.

Yet that's what someone getting an abortion is doing; imposing their will on someone else, based on what they want/believe.

Huh?...Imposing their will on someone else?....Look..... I've said this a few times before.....
When THE PARASITE can survive without needing a HOST,......Then you can have a conversation about "what" it really is, and what to do about it...EVEN then, it STILL comes down to the choice of the WOMAN who is bearing the literal weight....HER BODY, HER CHOICE period!

originally posted by: NGC224
When THE PARASITE

Ok, so we know your level of... I was going to say bias, but lets call it what it is... HATE...

can survive without needing a HOST,

So, you're in favor of allowing women to kill their children until they're, what... 8? 9?

You do realize that a 2 year old baby is unable to survive without a 'host' (parent), right?

a reply to: mhc_70

Seems to me you're confused. I haven't shared an opinion, rather just what those who have spent their lives studying this topic have concluded.

Yes you have. Your first post in this thread says that you agree, that "life starts at conception".

I don't need to rationalize what the professionals have concluded to confirm my bias.

What professionals? "Professionals" scientists will tell that life, as we know it, is closed system that neither begins nor ends.

That sounds more like reincarnation to me

No, I'm not talking about reincarnation. I'm talking about biological life. Science can't tell you when or how it started, nor where it ends.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: interupt42


How much responsibility should goverment have on raising somebody's kids?
Poor kids are on Medicaid so they get healthcare.
Parents get wic and other food stamp programs.
They get free lunch and book rental at school.
They get tax breaks from the Feds.
I mean really how much more help can anyone expect?

you need a license to fish but anyone can have a kid

a reply to: tanstaafl

I see. So let's just agree instead then that people from both sides have been trying to rewrite history then. Both Christian and Non Christian. That I think shouldn't be a problem to agree on, plus is probably more accurate anyway.

I've forgot where else we were at in the conversation however. So unless that was our only issue you'll have to remind me where we were at here.

a reply to: windword

I stand corrected, I did say I agree that life starts at conception.

I used the term professionals because there are doctors, biologists, teachers, professors and many other occupations that have studied this topic. But its really not that difficult, since the sperm has to find and enter the egg to complete the DNA chain for human life to begin, is the scientific method really necessary? The vast majority of people educated on this topic dont believe so, even in science some things are just obvious, like gravity.

a reply to: tanstaafl

For me the question has always been when does human life begin. Not the potential, the actual life. You can not legislate potential, only fact. With the potential to succeed also comes the potential to fail. It is only the fact that matters. If interfering with potential is murder then birth control is murder. For that matter, so is masturbation. Those cells had potential, until you wasted them. But according to the law, murder only applies to human beings...

At the moment of conception you have exactly two cells. Two cells is not a human being. Neither is four, or eight. And so on. They are human cells, and they are alive. But they are not a human being. There is a point that these cells can survive outside the host. But that is technology driven. I am relatively certain that technology does not determine when human life begins.

Once this question can be answered the rest is moot. Until then, this will be a matter of conscience and personal beliefs, which is why I think people should be able to decide for themselves.

a reply to: mhc_70

But its really not that difficult, since the sperm has to find and enter the egg to complete the DNA chain for human life to begin, is the scientific method really necessary?

You are not alone in regarding the moment of conception as being something sacred, but from a scientific point of view, it's merely a point in the eternal cycle of biological life. To them, the mystery of egg and sperm are just as awesome, to some of them our symbiotic relationship with viruses and bacteria is even more awesome!

Here a Yale open biology course, "The History of Abortion", that answer the scientific question of "when does life begin" is given within the first couple of minutes. If you can take the time, it's worth a listen.

originally posted by: JD163
You could practice witchcraft for all i care,...and I'll respond to whatever I want, feel free to ignore,

Will do from this point forward.

...yes, I'm a big asshole, and proud of it, and it so happen to be legal too lolzz

Yeah, ok, you convinced me, you are a really good walking argument in favor of post term abortions.

PLONK

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: tanstaafl

I see. So let's just agree instead then that people from both sides have been trying to rewrite history then. Both Christian and Non Christian. That I think shouldn't be a problem to agree on, plus is probably more accurate anyway.

I agree that there are a lot of people trying to rewrite our early history, christian and non-christian, yes. But with regards to this specific question, as I said, before, there are far more non christians trying to erase all references to our christian roots, that christians trying to make more of it than it was.

I've forgot where else we were at in the conversation however. So unless that was our only issue you'll have to remind me where we were at here.

This is the post you responded to, and you totally ignored everything after reading the first few words once you wrongly got it in your head that I was claiming we were founded as 'a Christian Nation'.

So, by all means, go have a read and come back if you like...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
There is a point that these cells can survive outside the host.

But 'ability to survive outside the host' is not a valid premise to answer this question, because the fact is, a baby can only survive, what hours, a day or two at most (depending the environment) without substantial care and maintenance.

I'd say it is a rare child that can learn to survive on its own before at least 6 or 7 years of age.

That said, I do acknowledge the difficulty of the question, but I think I stand by my original gut feeling that it is when the heart starts beating on its own.

There is only one queation you need to ask when it comea to abortion.

That is: is it any of your business?

The answer is no.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
There is only one queation you need to ask when it comea to abortion.

That is: is it any of your business?

The answer is no.

Ah, I see, so when your wife is murdered during a home invasion, it is none of your or anyone else's business.

Thank you for your participation.

TP, sorry...

DP, sorry...

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Claiming that someone else should be responsible for a child created is just another way of passing off responsibility. The woman who chooses to have sex, and becomes pregnant, is the one responsible, along with the father. That's what personal responsibility means.

Agreed,

But the minute that you make the decision for them and force them to NOT have an early abortion , than you are no more moral nor more of a responsible adult by not concerning yourself with the well being of that child once its born and as it gets older.

The system can't handle what it has already.

You assume that any child not aborted would become an automatic ward of the state. Again, that presumes that the woman who bears the child would have no personal responsibility for that child. I state, plainly, the parents are responsible. You don't get to decide to kill your kids to avoid paying child support, so why would this be any different??

Killing your kid who is already born is murder, an abortion is legal and not considered homicide under the law,...big difference.

The ONLY difference is that abortion is legal. The end result is identical. Only the age/development of the child killed are changed. Both kill a human being. If we all agree the one is wrong, why not the other?

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You assume that any child not aborted would become an automatic ward of the state.

Never said that , however statistic indicate that they don't fair to well.

Show said statistics. I hear this claim frequently, but where is the study showing that women not allowed to abort abandon their kids, or otherwise neglect them? Where would they find subjects for such a study, since abortion on demand is legal?

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
that presumes that the woman who bears the child would have no personal responsibility for that child.

Never said that, actually I said the opposite that they do have a personal responsibility for that child/fetus.

What I said was that if they chose to abort within a reasonable time frame and you tell them that they can't , then you should also bear the responsibility of the consequence, since you are dictating what they can and can't do. Responsibility works both ways.

Otherwise you are no moral or responsible as they are because you overlook the consequences of your decision and impact on that child after they are born.

Again, not true. It is illegal to murder one's born child. If you prevent someone from committing the murder of their child, you are not suddenly responsible for the life of that child. The parent is responsible. If they attempt, now, chances are they would be jailed. However, that doesn't mean that any who would speak out against that murder are suddenly responsible for that child. Society does dictate that people not kill their born children, and no one claims that those who agree with said laws should be responsible for raising all of the kids.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
You don't get to decide to kill your kids to avoid paying child support, so why would this be any different??

What? that is the least likely scenario ever.

However , if you are deciding for them and making that decision for them, you should also have to take responsibility for your actions and consequences and not just walk away.

Like I said both parties should bare the consequences for their actions.

Actually, that's a pretty accurate look at the most common scenario for abortion. Someone doesn't want to raise a child, pay for their support, etc, so they kill that child. It's exactly the same.