Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

They can't deny the truth so they flame and use euphemism, labels, straw men, fallacies and shoddy logic, but there are some soldiers in here thanks be to God. It is ashame how stubborn we are. Lets make sure we say a prayer for these guys tonight.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Religion has nothing to do with the argument at this point, as we have not invoked God or Religion in our arguments.
However if you want to bring God up then sure yeah I'll bite. Abortion is from the pits of hell.

Thank you, and that's where the disconnect is. You don't have to invoke anything, your position comes from religious indoctrination, no matter how much you try and deny it. Show me one non-religious poster here who is arguing on the anti-choice side...

Oh look...you got someone to bite...your strawman is complete.

And now you use the only rhetoric you have to make yourself feel intelligent.

You have a weak game sir...and it is so easy to see.

Originally posted by 27jd
Well, bedtime. It's been real, and it's been fun. But it hasn't been real fun.

I'll let you religious extremists yell at your screen some more. Abortion is legal. It's an unfortunate thing, and it's terrible when any woman has to make that choice, but it's theirs to make. I don't see that changing anytime soon, since nobody is interested in the Taliban running things anymore. If you feel your god doesnt want you to get an abortion, dont get one.

Keep telling yourself we are all religious extremist.

I noticed you didn't even ATTEMPT to refute my position...just run away.

But it's funny that you lie to yourself as you run away from the argument and pretend that you came out on top.

LOL.

reply to post by Cuervo

Cult or not, I think he's the most "religious" one out of us. I've never heard anybody talk about God as much as this guy in the thread. For some reason, almost all of the religious talk has came from the pro-choice folks interjecting it to just fabricate and dictate to the rest of the people what their religious affiliations are. Awesome.

They do it because they have been presented with logical scientific arguments...and they have not been told how to deal with that.

They have only been told that only religious extremist oppose abortion...so when they aren't presented with that...they are lost and the only thing they can to is try to inject the religous viewpoint into the discussion.

It is a sad and weak tactic.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Religion has nothing to do with the argument at this point, as we have not invoked God or Religion in our arguments.
However if you want to bring God up then sure yeah I'll bite. Abortion is from the pits of hell.

Thank you, and that's where the disconnect is. You don't have to invoke anything, your position comes from religious indoctrination, no matter how much you try and deny it. Show me one non-religious poster here who is arguing on the anti-choice side...

Over here, man. I am not religious. I argue on the side of protecting the civil liberties of our fellow human beings. This has nothing to do with anything some godling has told me. It is a simple argument: you are killing a fellow human when you abort. I try not to place value on it, I only insist the debate is made with that clear and simple understanding. It is a barbaric practice and should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances. I don't equate it to "murder" but it is killing another human. Ask any geneticist and he/she will tell you that a human is a human from embryo to the grave, complete with unique DNA.

I have to agree, whislt the topic was interesting for a moment, it's become a grand trollfest... I know I provided two very large posts towards the statements of the OP and have been, not once, but twice ignored and not replied to, while he takes his time replying to 1 or 3 line posts...

I have to say it just displays the unwillingness to defend the subject. Instead, we are met with repetitive accusations that state we, the people who are able to condone the actions of abortion, are considered extremist, or genocide-supporters, or even murderers ourselves...

It's become an immature game of "no matter what you say or prove to me, i'm going to keep winning by repeating myself" ... Fun while it lasted.... I'm done with this.

*packs bag and heads out the door*

Originally posted by Shikamaru
I have to agree, whislt the topic was interesting for a moment, it's become a grand trollfest... I know I provided two very large posts towards the statements of the OP and have been, not once, but twice ignored and not replied to, while he takes his time replying to 1 or 3 line posts...

I have to say it just displays the unwillingness to defend the subject. Instead, we are met with repetitive accusations that state we, the people who are able to condone the actions of abortion, are considered extremist, or genocide-supporters, or even murderers ourselves...

It's become an immature game of "no matter what you say or prove to me, i'm going to keep winning by repeating myself" ... Fun while it lasted.... I'm done with this.

*packs bag and heads out the door*

I think this work is important.

reply to post by Shikamaru


You never attempted to engage anyone besides the OP.

I wasn't going to get in the middle of your discussion with the OP.


If you want to discuss something with me or someone else....address it to them. I've made my point very clear...if you want to refute it...feel free to do so.

Okay okay, wasn't tired yet, so I'm back for a few...

Originally posted by MindSpin
I make no illusions that I am talking about HUMAN LIFE and am only concerned about protecting our own species. It's purely a survival and evolutionist standpoint...hardly your average "religious extremeist" viewpoint.

Okay, so where have you been during all the recent wars? I haven't seen you around the war threads expressing your view that ALL human life is sacred and the military is full of murderers. I take it there is a time when it's okay in your eyes to kill innocent humans? A necessary evil?

You are the one trying to inject this idea into the discussion...because you have nothing else to say...you can't refute my argument...so you try to interject religion to use as your strawman.

I'm not in an argument. I don't know you personally, and couldn't give a squirt about your argument. I am expressing my viewpoint like everybody else. If you don't agree with it, cool. I'm not here to change your mind, you make no decisions, I'm just pointing out the glaring hypocrisy you and your ilk display.

You are a sad little man...with only one argument in your pocket...so when someone isn't spouting off religious views...you try to inject them into the discussion. Sad.

No, I'm happy. It takes more than internet abortion debates to make me sad.

I am not here to discuss why aborting late is a bad thing - I am simply proving there is no magical line where a human life begins - so to therefore we cannot say abortion is murder or genocide or that it is flat out wrong - these arguments are all technically incorrect. You can say it is morally wrong - but that is your opinion and that is all it is. Our law's are designed to be based on factual evidence and the morals of society as a whole - not opinion. I am not trying to prove if abortion should be done earlier or later - just that there is no line on when life begins so we can therefore not know when abortion becomes wrong.

I am going to write this post in such a way as to try to address both spiritual/religious people and non spiritual/religious people views.

Stages of pregnancy
First, let’s all take a quick look at the stages in the beginning of pregnancy - remembering we are not arguing when abortion should take place but if there is a point where life starts and it should not take place because in law taking a life is murder.

Before week 4:
Within four days of fertilization, the sex of the zygote can be determined through microscopic techniques. Soon after one week of fertilization, the zygote contains the beginning of all major body structures. Fetal circulation occurs by three weeks - complete with heart and major blood vessels coursing through its quarter-inch frame.
Week 4 - 1mm (fetus length) looks like a tiny tadpole
The embryonic disk has become thicker and oval in shape, coiled up because the outermost layer, the ectoderm, has developed faster than the endoderm. One end of it has swollen to form the brain, and the other corresponds to the coccyx. Between the two, the neural groove will form the central nervous system.
Week 5: 1.5 - 2.5 mm (fetus length) at five weeks, all basic body systems are developing, including the brain and nervous system enabling the fetus to feel pain.
week 6: 4 - 6 mm (fetus length)
week 8: 8 -11mm (fetus length)
week 10: 27 - 35 mm (fetus length)



A lot of people would argue that the life begins when the sperm fertilises the embryo to form a zygote.
A zygote is synthesized from the union of two gametes.
Human sex cells (sperm and egg) have one complete set of chromosomes from the male or female parent. Sex cells, also called gametes, combine to produce somatic cells. Somatic cells therefore have twice as many chromosomes.
A human somatic cell contains 46 chromosomes: 2 complete haploid sets, which make up 23 homologous chromosome pairs.

So at this point we have a cell that has human DNA but is DNA life?

What are we? Mind, soul, body, DNA?


The DNA argument

Many of us are used to thinking of DNA as this unchanging programming that governs all our body’s responses for the rest of our lives. In essence, certain things about our DNA are unlikely to change, ever. But there are a number of outside things that could result in minor DNA change. Source
With this argument when we created a zygote with 48 chromosomes we say life was created.
But life cannot be defined by our DNA because as shown above our DNA changes - does this mean when it changes we cease to exist?
Or is human life defined by having 46 chromosomes - if that is the case what about the people with fewer or greater chromosomes?
If life is defined as just having chromosomes then the sperm also has a life.

The soul argument:

Assuming we see the soul as a distinct entity separate from the body and considering we have no way of knowing if the soul really exists or if it does- when it actually enters the body.

If God exists then having an abortion may be a waste of the gift of life but it has only killed the body - not the soul- you are not really destroying a life here because God could give that soul a new body - if it is his will.
We have only taken away an opportunity that we also created.
IMO people of religion often demonstrate here that they do not believe in their own faith, if the life we have taken this "life" then what was it beforehand? Did god create the soul when the fertilization took place? Or did it already exist? If god created its soul upon fertilization did he destroy it when the body died - if so is that murder?
If the soul was not there before hand then we may have killed the body but we still have created the soul.

If no God or any form of afterlife exists - then nothing happens when we die, and this fetus (say it with me) is not self aware at before it has a brain (we cannot pinpoint where self awareness starts) - so no harm has been done because this life is meaningless anyway and this 'thing' did not even know what life was to be able to miss it

The living argument:


Some would go as far as saying the sperm itself is the seed of life and should not be "spilled". Masturbation in their eyes is a crime. This actually make about as much sense than the fertilisation argument - because the sperm is just as alive as a zygote, it has no brain or heart but it is comprised of functioning cells, with the exception of the zygote having the combined DNA - which would take us back to the DNA argument. So for those who say abortion is wrong (refer to definition below) - this means you are also guilty of murder if you masturbate if you are use the living argument.


The mind argument:

The mind argument is easy to dismiss because in order to have a mind we must have thought and feelings which requires a brain (unless you feel the soul can think then go to the soul argument). The brain of the fetus is in the beginning stages of development in week 5. Brain development in fetus and its associated problems are still being researched. Hence, there are no specific answers to the how's and why's of fetal brain development.
Week 29 to Week 40: The third trimester stage is highlighted with fewer brain developments. The brain continues to grow and increase rapidly in size, all the while establishing connections between nerve cells. The brain along with the lung is the last organ to develop, and is completed close to the end of the third trimester. A newborn's brain is only about one-quarter the size of an adult's.

As you are unable to prove for a fact the time when a human being becomes a human life it cannot be argued that it is wrong.
- Definition: Wrong: "•incorrect: not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth"

As you are unable to prove a life was taken, because we do not know what stage life begins during the beginning of pregnancy - it is not murder
- Definition:Murder: Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)


The genocide argument is not even close to accurate unless meaning a conspiracy exists on a larger scale and that TPTB are the genocide maniac’s as opposed the parents and not worth debating further - we will leave it to a dictionary.

- Definition: Genocide: •systematic killing of a racial or cultural group


Edit to add:
I would also like people to consider these scenario's when deciding if abortion is morally wrong (i know these have been covered before elsewhere but these are what many people would consider a valid reason)

-Rape & Incest victims
(why should they be forced to have a child they do not want, may not be able to look after, a child they may resent. Not many people would want to have the child of someone who raped them.)

- Disabled/deformed children
(Why should someone bring a baby in to the world that may likely die of complications later, may be a vegetable, may not be able to afford the treatment the baby requires. While some people may be in positions to care for someone like this not everyone is)

Why should people bring kids in to the world they cannot afford to look after - there are kid's already all over this world dying of starvation, why should they meet a slow painful demise. This world is already full of unwanted children, why introduce more?





These are not my points of view - this is critical thinking - things we all need to consider. At the end of the day my view is as much as we can think we understand someone’s circumstances. We are not them - we do not understand their whole life experiences, we do not understand everything that effects even people close to us - so who are we to tell them it is murder.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Matthew 7:1-6:

reply to post by byteshertz


I dig that argument. You are right: It is impossible to prove that a person is not a person at any given stage therefore that cannot be a part of the discussion. Therefore, since the burden of proof should be on the life-taker (as it would be in any death sentence of a human), there can be no resolution nor an ethically justified reason to permit it.

I'm against the death penalty on hardened criminals so it's probably pretty obvious where I would stand on a human who hasn't even had an opportunity to commit a crime.

Originally posted by Cuervo
Over here, man. I am not religious.

Well, hello over there not religious guy.

It is a simple argument: you are killing a fellow human when you abort.

I won't deny that, technically. And I trust you're against war as well? And the death penalty?

I try not to place value on it, I only insist the debate is made with that clear and simple understanding. It is a barbaric practice and should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances.

I agree, it should, especially later term abortions, I've already made my view on that clear. Not once have I said, "hey, abortion is awesome, let's all line up for one or two". It's a terrible choice to have to make, and shame on any women who uses it as a form of regular birth control. Although I'm sure there aren't that many.

I don't equate it to "murder" but it is killing another human. Ask any geneticist and he/she will tell you that a human is a human from embryo to the grave, complete with unique DNA.

Then you're not debating from the same position as the extremists using over the top emotion and equating it to "genocide" and "murder". You're being reasonable, and logical, and seeing it for what it is.

reply to post by byteshertz

the life thereof, which is the blood thereof

Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands

the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast

reply to post by Cuervo


I get the feeling you misunderstood the post.

Originally posted by issaiah1332
reply to post by Cuervo

 

I get the feeling you misunderstood the post.

No, I understood it. She argued that you cannot use the mind, life, soul, etc argument in proving somebody is worthy of avoiding getting offed in the womb. I just applied it to the fact you also cannot disprove it according to any of those arguments, as well.

reply to post by MindSpin

So we have a nice little definition here...life begins when cells START dividing...life ends when cells STOP dividing. Everything between those two points...is LIFE. Another human ending that process is MURDER.

You dont understand. The point is which from these deaths is used in medicine as a LEGAL definition of the end of a person (end of its basic human rights, end of human being, from then the body can be used for transplantation, or doesnt have to further receive medical care). That is clearly brain death. So if dissapearance of brain waves marks the end of a person with its rights (but not its body), the first appearance of them marks the begining of a person with its rights. Simple as that. Somatic death (or clinical death) does not mark ANY gaining or dissapearace of legal rights, therefore its absolutely irrelevant for our debate, which is when human rights (legal term) start to apply or cease to apply to human life. Why are you always bringing it out?

People after brain death and before somatic death (end of all cell division) do not have legal rights. Thus embryos with the same qualities (cell division, but not brain waves yet) also do not have rights. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by byteshertz

 

I dig that argument. You are right: It is impossible to prove that a person is not a person at any given stage therefore that cannot be a part of the discussion. Therefore, since the burden of proof should be on the life-taker (as it would be in any death sentence of a human), there can be no resolution nor an ethically justified reason to permit it.

I'm against the death penalty on hardened criminals so it's probably pretty obvious where I would stand on a human who hasn't even had an opportunity to commit a crime.

Very good my friend - you are almost there - but not quite.
You said "Therefore, since the burden of proof should be on the life-taker " - in order for there to be a life taker - there must first be life, and we can not prove the exact time when that life comes about. In order for something to be illegal it also must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I never really understood these anti-abortionists. You say there's no justifiable excuse for a woman to get an abortion unless it endangers her life or if she's raped and things of that nature.

Well if she doesn't play the role of the 'murderer' and decides to the bare the child and leave it on your doorstep will you take it? Most likely you won't for your own reasons. We always play on the idea of an individuals rights. So if a woman wants to abort a fetus/baby than I believe it's her right to do so and she should not be judged for it. You may call her whore or whatever, but l doubt any of you are walking around with a halo over your head and wings on your back.

People just need to mind their own business when it's time for them to mind they're own business and start thinking about something more trivial. Like the children already out in the world starving and homeless with no place to go.

reply to post by 27jd

Okay, so where have you been during all the recent wars? I haven't seen you around the war threads expressing your view that ALL human life is sacred and the military is full of murderers. I take it there is a time when it's okay in your eyes to kill innocent humans? A necessary evil?

You keep using this word "sacred"...still trying to inject some religion into this discussion huh??? I don't blame you...it's all you know.

I'm so sorry I haven't been in the threads enough for your approval

I don't agree with the current wars we are in. I believe in war as an act of self-defense. Actually...I only believe in killing another human being when it is self-defense...period. I'm against the death penalty and I am against assisted suicide. If someone wants to end their own life...then that is one situation where I agree that it is none of my business.

I'm not in an argument. I don't know you personally, and couldn't give a squirt about your argument. I am expressing my viewpoint like everybody else. If you don't agree with it, cool. I'm not here to change your mind, you make no decisions, I'm just pointing out the glaring hypocrisy you and your ilk display.

"me and my ilk"....there you go again...is it possible for you to not attempt to paint me as a religious extremeist???


And what exactly is that hypocrisy??? My position has changed. Here, I'll lay it out for you in nice little bullet points.

- I believe human life is a purely biological process that starts when cells begin to divide and ends when cells stop dividing. (short version...for long version...read previous reply)

- I believe any person who ends another persons life is murder

- I believe murder is always wrong, but acceptable in defense of yourself or others (mostly loved ones)

- I'm concerned with protecting human life, not all life.


I think that about covers it. Where is my hypocrisy???



And I'm just wondering...are you going to answer ANY of the questions I have asked you...or are you just going to ignore them???

No, I'm happy. It takes more than internet abortion debates to make me sad.

Oh...sorry...I wasn't commenting on your state of mind...but on the veracity of your logic. Is it more clear if I say "weak"...or just flat out pathetic???

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MindSpin

 

So we have a nice little definition here...life begins when cells START dividing...life ends when cells STOP dividing. Everything between those two points...is LIFE. Another human ending that process is MURDER.

You dont understand. The point is which from these deaths is used in medicine as a LEGAL definition of the end of a person (end of its basic human rights, end of human being, from then the body can be used for transplantation, or doesnt have to further receive medical care). That is clearly brain death. So if dissapearance of brain waves marks the end of a person with its rights (but not its body), the first appearance of them marks the begining of a person with its rights. Simple as that. Somatic death (or clinical death) does not mark ANY gaining or dissapearace of legal rights, therefore its absolutely irrelevant for our debate, which is when human rights (legal term) start to apply or cease to apply to human life. Why are you always bringing it out?

People after brain death and before somatic death (end of all cell division) do not have legal rights. Thus embryos with the same qualities (cell division, but not brain waves yet) also do not have rights. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

I agree with your overall point of view but I am a little confused how you got there.
Could you please provide a source regarding the brain waves appearence marking the begining of "the person"- it sounds interesting... but from my understanding of law a person is defined as a corporation - and that corporation is created upon the birth certificate or 'bond' being signed, usually on behalf of a larger corporation such as the country it's self.