Aborted Humans Destination

Originally posted by Epic Wolf
It's simple really. The skin cells on your arm are from a human, but are not a fully formed human. A fetus is a combination of 2 gamete cells, which multiply. From 2 humans, but not human yet.

I'm afraid that's simply wrong. Alas there's no argument here, you'll just have to accept biological fact and deny ignorance here. Fertilisation is the fusion of two gametes producing a distinct organism of the species. The skin cells on your arm have the same genetic fingerprint as you, the skin cells on your partner's arm have the same genetic fingerprint as her. The cell, the zygote, produced in the process of fertilization has a genetic fingerprint distinct from that of both partners - its how the whole evolution deal works. It is a unique and distinct "human life."

We don't reject "belief", we reject religions and the notion of the supernatural.

Pro-choice advocates depend on the "supernatural" constantly in their discussion of "human" as you manifest here. It is clear what "human" means on a biological, scientific level however people persist in adding supernatural concepts such as "personhood" to justify the termination of human lives.

Abortion is the termination of human lives, human beings. Now, the problem is how do abortion advocates justify that when they accept that fact?

reply to post by Supercertari


Alright, I do feel I have to weigh in here. First off, yes, a zygote is genetically a combination of two persons DNA, but it is not yet a viable human being. It cannot survive outside of the mother, and cannot develop further without her as well. That is the behaviour of a parasite, not a great ape.

Next, your "truth" is still debatable, legally, ethically and medically. You have faith, I applaud you for that, I wish I did, but I do not want to hold the blinders to my eyes that accepting one must bring. To truly "deny ignorance" one must allow their mind to be open to debate and new ideas, yours obviously is not.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by Supercertari

 

Alright, I do feel I have to weigh in here. First off, yes, a zygote is genetically a combination of two persons DNA, but it is not yet a viable human being. It cannot survive outside of the mother, and cannot develop further without her as well. That is the behaviour of a parasite, not a great ape.

Next, your "truth" is still debatable, legally, ethically and medically. You have faith, I applaud you for that, I wish I did, but I do not want to hold the blinders to my eyes that accepting one must bring. To truly "deny ignorance" one must allow their mind to be open to debate and new ideas, yours obviously is not.

I'm open to debate, hence my presence here, however what the call to "openness" usually infers is willing to change your mind. There are however certain truths about which there is no room to change one's mind. I'm sure you will appreciate that from examples in your own life. For example, its true if you put your hand in a fire it will burn - you may debate that if you wish but the fundamental truth cannot be changed. Where abortion is concerned it is similarly a fact that it is the termination of a human life ~ only reference to numinous qualities can suggest otherwise.

As for the parasitic nature of the zygote, the same holds true for the infant on the other side of the birth canal and essentially holds true for every human being because, by nature, we depend on others throughout life. A child feeding at the breast may be called parasitic as might an adult at the drive through window at McDonald's.

Again it does need to be pointed out that while the zygote is the result of a combination of genetic information, by the process of conception when two gametes fuse to form the single cell, it is genetically distinct from both. It is distinct, alive and human.

It is as viable a human life as you or I are in the environmental circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment. In its proper environment the zygote, embryo, fetus manifests its viability by progressing through those stages as much as when it continues to proceed through the stages of life which follow birth. It is not a "potential human-being" in that it might become something else, it is a human life with potential.

Originally posted by Zenagain
It could be just me, perhaps, but I'm pretty sure a ball of cells is not a Human, otherwise, the last time I scraped my arm a BUNCH of Humans died...... "Oh! The Humanity!"

As always, those cells can't do crap. They have been ordered what to do and will die doing it. Not all cells are the same. This is basic science, really.

Originally posted by Zenagain
It could be just me, perhaps, but I'm pretty sure a ball of cells is not a Human, otherwise, the last time I scraped my arm a BUNCH of Humans died...... "Oh! The Humanity!"

Just wondering...when does that "ball of cells" become human/alive?

The One says that if the "ball of cells' lives through an abortion, it should be left to die or in your terms, the ball of cells should be ignored until it's no longer viable.

I hate all forms of religion, but this is the only life we get and taking a life without it's consent is murder (except for executions, of course)

Originally posted by Supercertari

I'm afraid that's simply wrong. Alas there's no argument here, you'll just have to accept biological fact and deny ignorance here.

I am. I'm accepting the biological facts that I have been talking about, and I am denying your ignorance.

Fertilisation is the fusion of two gametes producing a distinct organism of the species. The skin cells on your arm have the same genetic fingerprint as you, the skin cells on your partner's arm have the same genetic fingerprint as her. The cell, the zygote, produced in the process of fertilization has a genetic fingerprint distinct from that of both partners - its how the whole evolution deal works. It is a unique and distinct "human life."

This is why I made the argument about the scraping off the skin cells of another persons arm. It's not your DNA, and it's a living cell. I already mentioned how the 2 gamete haploid cells fuse and multiply. It is "human life". So are any of the other cells in your body.

Pro-choice advocates depend on the "supernatural" constantly in their discussion of "human" as you manifest here. It is clear what "human" means on a biological, scientific level however people persist in adding supernatural concepts such as "personhood" to justify the termination of human lives.

I'm denying ignorance with your statement here. Perhaps you're being sarcastic? How does the supernatural have anything to do with pro-choice? It's anti-choice advocates that usually believe that humans have "souls", which is a supernatural concept. People add in the concept of "person hood" to justify taking away the choice of women to control their own bodies. You have it backwards.

Abortion is the termination of human lives, human beings. Now, the problem is how do abortion advocates justify that when they accept that fact?

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removing the developing zygote or fetus from the womb. What you claimed in this statement is not a fact, so don't tout it as one. There's no need to justify that incorrect statement.

that ball of cells will actually continue growing outside the womb until it can no longer live without food intake. The cells crapped off will simply die. they are not the same kind of cell.

Originally posted by Epic Wolf

Originally posted by Cds4344

Originally posted by Epic Wolf

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by Epic Wolf

 

In your bold statement there, you were forced to take the humanity away from the pregnant woman by calling her simply "a host". Ya know, men used to think like that back in the day............

That was not my intention, and you completely missed the point.

Furthermore, by definition, she is a host to the growing fetus. That doesn't make her any less human. When a tick bites you, you are the host. Are you not human anymore? Your strawman is not a valid argument, if that's what your reply was trying to be.

Wow that was probably the worst rationality I've seen yet. Comparing a tick to a human life? So in a sense you're saying that since it's ok to kill off the tick, ie a living organism, it should be ok to kill the human fetus as well? Since you know, we human's are "host" in your terms.

Since you missed the discussion I had on this yesterday, I'll explain it to you, too.

It's not "killing" off an organism anymore than scratching your arm getting a haircut. Are you saying if a tick bites you, you're just going to let it stay there, sucking your blood and giving you diseases?

It should not be "okay" in the sense you're looking for. It should be a last resort should birth control fail. It should still be an available option since you're not murdering any human being. You're aborting a clump of human cells. However, once in the third trimester, the fetus is too unmistakeably formed into human it would be too late to do an abortion. A third trimester fetus is much different than a zygote or developing fetus.

Lastly, you're the one calling all humans hosts. If you want to look at it this way, we are host to the bacteria in our intestines that help us digest food. Please reread my posts.

No I read your post just fine, and the tick/human host and fetus/human host comparison is laughable. Let me get this straight epic wolf, those "little cells" are just in there right? Do they not naturally grow into a human being? These so called "cells" are a growing "HUMAN", you know, you are taking a HUMAN life from the womb. If it was just a bunch of cells, then you could just "scrape" your arm and it would be the same difference as aborting a fetus. gg

Originally posted by Dr Conspire
Just where do these miniature humans ripped from their hosts wombs go?

I always assumed they were incinerated along with other medical waste. I believe there are laws that keep them from being generally used for research, and most other forms of disposal would be a bio-hazard.

Originally posted by Cds4344
No I read your post just fine, and the tick/human host and fetus/human host comparison is laughable.

No, it still seems you don't understand.

Let me get this straight epic wolf, those "little cells" are just in there right?

Just in there? I guess, sure.

Do they not naturally grow into a human being?

They do. Still good.

These so called "cells" are a growing "HUMAN", you know, you are taking a HUMAN life from the womb.

Here's where you lose it. The cells (No quotations needed, they are cells) are a growing human, and you are killing living cells but it is not a human yet. It has not developed to maturity.

If it was just a bunch of cells, then you could just "scrape" your arm and it would be the same difference as aborting a fetus. gg

It is the same, you are killing cells. Same as if you cut your hair, bite your lip, lick a wound, and so on. The difference with the fetus is that it is many cells, and is a fusion of 2 gamete cells, but it is not a human yet. It is a human fetus, which will grow into one eventually.

Originally posted by Epic Wolf

It is the same, you are killing cells. Same as if you cut your hair, bite your lip, lick a wound, and so on. The difference with the fetus is that it is many cells, and is a fusion of 2 gamete cells, but it is not a human yet. It is a human fetus, which will grow into one eventually.

If you look for human development with whatever image search engine you prefer you can see what people look like in the womb over over different periods of time, like day 1, day 2, day 3, all the way up to two months. I'm not going to post the picture directly because I know some might feel uncomfortable about seeing it, but below is a link.

The Stages of Human Development, First Two Months

I'm not an embryologist or anything, but you should probably reexamine your group of cells argument. It's a really hard issue and we should approach it honestly. Keep in mind that abortions are legal up into the first trimester, or first three months. I agree with an earlier poster who said that there is a gray area. We should keep that in mind before everyone gets all up on their high horses, because whenever anyone tries to take the moral high point it just makes them think they can disregard everyone else's views, and plus it makes them dishonest in their own opinions.

I came across this thread tonight & have read with interest. I personally have had 2 abortions. I am not a religious person and my decision was based totally on what I wanted in life or rather didnt want. I was taking precautions but unfortunately got caught out.

It never crossed my mind as to what harm I was causing or where a soul would go to and (I know some people will hate me for saying this) but felt no remorse or guilt.

It is interesting that some people feel that the woman should proceed with the pregnancy regardless instead of taking the babies rights away and not allowing it to experience life. But I personally felt that I wasn't going to allow another dictate what my life path was. I am in no way trying to get into any debate about the rights of abortion, as to be honest - I really don't care and just let people get on with it.

As one person mentioned earlier about the way we treat animals. This is something I feel strongly about & my thoughts always have been & always will be... why would I want to bring yet another human into this world, the state its in? With regards the treatment of animals, I was able to have 2 abortions myself but when I heard of a neighbours cats kittens being aborted I was so angry and thought this was completely wrong, I suppose to a degree I am not a great fan of humans so for me to easily have 2 abortions was never an issue.

And in answer to the initial question, the first abortion was using the vacuum so not sure where the fetus ended up, the second I was given a tablet sent to a hotel and passed the fetus into the toilet which, I have to agree is not a nice thought at all.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by skindolin]

reply to post by Supercertari

You call it "fact", I say it's not. You're not willing to change your mind on it; I've heard your argument and disagree. We're at an impasse so I'm out on this one. No point in trying to debate when there is no hope of change.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by ProjectJimmy]

reply to post by aorAki



The easy route is killing an unborn child for the betterment of your life. It's selfish and denying what it is is worse.

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by aorAki

 

The easy route is killing an unborn child for the betterment of your life. It's selfish and denying what it is is worse.

That is such an ignorant statement that I was at first loath to even dignify it with a response.

My choice was not easy, it was not he easy route AT ALL. There was a very very real possibility (in the high percentages) that my partner would not have survived a full term pregnancy.

You make the choice!

...no, you make your choice, and I will make my choice. I will not condone someone who is ignorant of all the facts telling me that I have made a selfish choice, especially when I suspect they have a religious agenda behind their words.

You, sirrah, have no idea what you are talking about with respect to my situation so I suggest you go back to your cave and rebury your head in that handy hole.


[edit on 16-5-2009 by aorAki]

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by aorAki

 

The easy route is killing an unborn child for the betterment of your life. It's selfish and denying what it is is worse.

Hmmm. I'm personally pro-choice... and yeah, what you said is kind of ridiculous. Say a girl is raped... does she have the right to have an abortion? Say a homeless 14 year old girl has sex and gets pregnant, what about her? Or a young girl who has no means of taking care of the child, so it gets lost in adoption agencies, or ends up on the streets like oh-so-many children these days. Do you know how many homeless children there are in USA? Sometimes the choice is to benefit both the unborn as well as the parent in the long run.

reply to post by heyo

Well, with your logic, wearing condoms is just as selfish, if not more.
Why not have babies all the time? It's not the "easy" route, but it's not selfish.

reply to post by Albastion

Yeah, there IS a big difference between a fetus in the first trimester and a fetus in the third trimester.
(In previous posts, I was referring to first-trimester fetuses. Sorry for the confusion/ignorance)

Originally posted by skindolin
It never crossed my mind as to what harm I was causing or where a soul would go to and (I know some people will hate me for saying this) but felt no remorse or guilt.

It is interesting that some people feel that the woman should proceed with the pregnancy regardless instead of taking the babies rights away and not allowing it to experience life. But I personally felt that I wasn't going to allow another dictate what my life path was. I am in no way trying to get into any debate about the rights of abortion, as to be honest - I really don't care and just let people get on with it.

As one person mentioned earlier about the way we treat animals. This is something I feel strongly about & my thoughts always have been & always will be... why would I want to bring yet another human into this world, the state its in? With regards the treatment of animals, I was able to have 2 abortions myself but when I heard of a neighbours cats kittens being aborted I was so angry and thought this was completely wrong, I suppose to a degree I am not a great fan of humans so for me to easily have 2 abortions was never an issue.

Very well stated. You are a brave woman. You are like a mirror image of my thoughts, I had an abortion and it really didn't bother me at all either. It isn't fun, but it certainly isn't a huge traumatic event for all women. And likewise, I am not that fond of humans but I am a big animal lover and yes, I would have a much bigger problem aborting an animals pregnancy (unless it was via drugs very early on, like within 48 hours).

The question regarding "where does the soul go" is ridiculous. If one is Catholic and believes the unbaptised go to Limbo it may apply (but even then it doesn't apply because there is NO question of that is what you believe). Otherwise death comes to everything that is born. Whether it is illness, violence, old age, whatever, the method of death does not change the afterlife (or lack of afterlife depending on ones personal beliefs).

Though I do have a problem with those that say "abortion should only be allowed if it was rape". That is hypocracy. If one believes it is taking a life, fine, if you don't believe that, fine too. But to say "the value of the life really depends on the moral behavior of the mother, and if she was raped then it isn't murder and she can abort, but if she willing HAD sex WILLINGLY then it is wrong for her to abort" is laughable.


[edit on 17-5-2009 by Sonya610]

Originally posted by Sonya610
Very well stated. You are a brave woman. You are like a mirror image of my thoughts, I had an abortion and it really didn't bother me at all either. It isn't fun, but it certainly isn't a huge traumatic event for all women. And likewise, I am not that fond of humans but I am a big animal lover and yes, I would have a much bigger problem aborting an animals pregnancy (unless it was via drugs very early on, like within 48 hours).

Brave indeed, it must have taken a lot of courage to climb up on the table, receive the medication and let another man violate your femininity. I'm so glad neither of you were cowardly enough to carry the fetus for nine months, raise and nourish it through childhood and let it experience a life with all it's joy's and sorrows. Even more cowardly would have been had you carried it for nine months and then given it to a couple who are desperate for children to do all the messy raising and loving buisness.

I can see how such bravery inspires you to worry about kittens - rather a human life be extinguished by saline burning, dismembered and removed from the womb than any poor animal have to have its "parasite" removed after three days. They can be so fluffy and lovely not demanding little degenerates like children who are such a burden on one's life path.