The Abortion Paradox

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


I've got to change my profile pic...that's the second time someone on this board has mistaken me to be a guy....

I should never have distorted it in the first place


Great genetics post by the way.




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TasteTheMagick
 


I wasn't even basing it off the pic, didn't really pay attention. Just use "he" as a general term.

My fault.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by racegunz
 


Can't blame anyone for disease, famine, etc. That's life. The bright side is, maybe they do help create life by creating new experiences.

All I know, and I'll state this again, is that there are literally thousands of people alive in the U.S. today who wouldn't be if abortion wasn't legal. They are probably friends of yours, maybe siblings, cousins, nephews, and co-workers.

Take out of that what you will. I don't care.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


You also missed the point. I am saying that abortions bring about the opportunity for new life. There are many who would not be alive today if it was not for abortion.

Abortion takes lives, but it also makes lives.

[edit on 1/15/2009 by Irish M1ck]


How does it make lives? As in a person might end up having more children in the future if they didn't have one so early?

I don't think you are making any sense here with your point for you are trying to justify taking a life. On one hand you have an actual life and on the other you have the possibilities for a life which one is more important?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I think you're missing the point here. Mick's saying that there are a lot of people who wouldn't be alive today if abortions hadn't been done in the past. I think we've both outlined how this can happen.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
You don't believe in genetics?


I'd be quite the silly biochemist if I didn't.


Originally posted by Irish M1ck
How can you possibly believe that she or I would be alive?


The same way you could possibly assume she or you wouldn't.


Originally posted by Irish M1ck
...If you believe in God, then you have to believe that genetics are a fingerprint of who we are, "our soul".


No I don't ^_^. I believe genetics are the program by which our physical body is composed. The soul can either be an integral or separate part of it.


Originally posted by Irish M1ck
If that is the case, then it has to be fate that we are born when we are, and the ones who aren't... well, aren't.


If that were the case, that our soul is only our DNA then I agree.


Originally posted by Irish M1ck
Our DNA ("souls") and our experiences make up who we are, if you change any of those factors, then we are not the same person.


Science hasn't validated a soul. It has validated DNA.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

This is an interesting part of the law I did not know about. So then, the unborn child also has the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?



Yes, it is the hypocritical aspects to abortions just as at what point is a human, human? Some psychologist suggest that even a child six months old fits in the mold of what is considered a fetus than what is a person, and so we could abort up to six months out of the womb.

I for one am not so bold as to be able to say when is the right point a person can stop a life from growing other than preventing a sperm from entering the egg, which is very definitive in when the life cycle starts.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


I don't really see that as a paradox. It's a reach to try to win the argument. You're arguing babies that exist vs babies that do not.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


But it wouldn't be you. If your mother had an abortion before you were born, had she chosen differently, you wouldn't exist. She could have more kids, but that kid would NEVER be you.

reply to post by saint4God
 


Okay, well as a biochemist you are certainly more adept at understanding it than I. You do agree that genetics plays a role in who we are and why we act the way we do then right? If yes, then if you put a soul in a different body wouldn't they be a different person?

And if souls can be injected into different bodies, why wouldn't the "aborted soul" also share the same fate?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
So abortion is robbing a child of life.
What is so great about life?
It seems that religious folks live with anticipation of a greater life after death. They believe that the flesh is sinful etc.

I can't understand how you think you can kill a "soul". In alll schools of thought this "soul" thing is always imortal. Only the flesh dies.
So this "soul" is denied this chance to be born into flesh.
Do You think that it will quit there, or will it just have to wait for another opportunity.
So nothing is really lost.

Irish, how do you know that the next kid would never be "you".
Do you know something that the rest of us do not?

[edit on 15-1-2009 by OhZone]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


I think you're over complicating the situation. The only question you need to ask is- is a Fetus a human being? If not, what is it? Viability should have nothing to do with what the ramifications of aborting are. If it is human life, it deserves respect and protection just like any other human life. The mother's convenience should be way down on the list of priorities and concerns. The only mitigating factor should be whether or not the health of the mother is in danger.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I think you're missing the point here. Mick's saying that there are a lot of people who wouldn't be alive today if abortions hadn't been done in the past. I think we've both outlined how this can happen.


I just can't find any merits to this argument though. Yes I agree there are different people born, I can't say more, but how does that play into a positive side of abortions? You can’t argue that a baby born is preventing future births, or that an abortion creates future births. You are just arguing that a person may have more children in the future since their economic status allows them to afford more since they aborted one at a young age that may have prevented them from reaching that economic status.

This is a very weak argument to say the least since there are infinite directions one can go with it. As I said, in one hand you have an actual life and in the other you have infinite possibilities that could lead to more or less lives.


[edit on 15-1-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
You can’t argue that a baby born is preventing future births, or that an abortion creates future births.


No one argued that. The argument was that the SAME people wouldn't be here. Like in my personal example: My mother had an abortion when she was 15. This decision lined up the circumstances in which she met my father and my brother and I now exist because of that.

The argument is that lives ARE gained in the sacrifice of others. As in the cases of Mick and I. One life sacrificed for the creation of two.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   


if she chooses abortion, then she will follow an entirely different path
the second child is completely different from the first, and would not exist if she did have the original child


...k.

But if you're going to equate that to murder, I may as well suggest that my neighbor is committing murder by not having sex with me and giving birth to a hypothetical child.

Every decision every one of us make every day has "butterfly effect" implications. Every time you meet a stranger and don't instantly drop your pants, that's a baby that isn't being born nine months later.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


But it wouldn't be you. If your mother had an abortion before you were born, had she chosen differently, you wouldn't exist. She could have more kids, but that kid would NEVER be you.


The possibilities are infinite as to whether she has more or less children after an abortion. You cannot argue that a person would not be alive today if their mother made a different decision. The future, every second, spins off into infinite directions, so by even not crossing the street you changed your future. By going 60 miles per hour in your car instead of 59 you put infinite changes to your future. If your mom changed the most minuet event during her whole life you would not have been born.




Okay, well as a biochemist you are certainly more adept at understanding it than I. You do agree that genetics plays a role in who we are and why we act the way we do then right? If yes, then if you put a soul in a different body wouldn't they be a different person?


Nope I'm not talking souls here for we can start a whole different discussion. I’m talking about the value of life and what reduces that value to zero. Do you value your life or the life of others? If so, why not a unborn child in the same way?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


If we're not talking about souls, then broken down, the human body is worth about $4.50

Technically speaking of course. As for the rest of your post, you're absolutely right, every choice has a butterfly effect hence the argument of some not being alive today due to a decision to not have an abortion.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I for one am not so bold as to be able to say when is the right point a person can stop a life from growing other than preventing a sperm from entering the egg, which is very definitive in when the life cycle starts.


Agreed, according to the scienific definition, once that zygote divides, the requirements for what life is are met:



"Today we might think of life as a process. A process that involves cellular systems in a series of activities. By cellular systems we mean ones which have a definable inside, separated somehow, from an equally definable, outside. Generally we define the life giving activities of these systems as 1)a tendency to trap energy (either directly as radient energy or indirectly as matter, or both) within the system. This results in a build up of greater complexity inside the cells. 2) A further tendency to convert the materials brought into the system into new forms which are more useful to the system and to excrete unwanted products, both those brought into the system and those resulting from internal activity. 3) Finally, and most importantly in some ways, to reproduce themselves."

- www.earthlife.net...


[edit on 15-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick

The argument was that the SAME people wouldn't be here. Like in my personal example: My mother had an abortion when she was 15. This decision lined up the circumstances in which she met my father and my brother and I now exist because of that.


But this makes no sense, for if your mother did anything different in her life, like sleeping 1 minute longer you would not be here. As I said every action constantly spins the future off into infinite directions.

As example, the one sperm of the millions that joined with your mom's egg would not have been the same sperm at that exact point in time if your mom’s life was different by even a millionth of a second prior to that point.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


You are dancing around the subject in an attempt to say that abortion is wrong. This was not the point of the thread.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket


But if you're going to equate that to murder, I may as well suggest that my neighbor is committing murder by not having sex with me and giving birth to a hypothetical child.


Well no you can't. You are arguing that preventing life is the same as stopping life from living is the same, and it is not. A sperm is not life nor is an egg even though they are the chemical makeup needed to make life. Once an sperm and egg joins the spark of life starts as the human cells start to divide and the DNA has become whole to do this.

Well unless you also want to argue that a bucket of water and some chemicals are human too since that is what we are made of.





new topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join