Why abortion is legal - why it is not wrong, murder or genocide.

reply to post by Maslo


Then you are an elitist active eugenics supporter. Congratulation, you are the hated of the World.

The vegetables are not human. You're the one using a strawman fallacy there. You claim it, and yet use it the next sentence. Truly, I have to ask your creditability. Your jedi mind tricks do not work here.

Personhood, as it always has been, is an invention. A farce, invented to say this is human and that is not. Worthless morals and pointless divisions stream from it. Morals have no place in scientific discussions. Nor does this blurry title called "personhood". utter nonsense, based off personal opinion, not scientific fact. You rightly so say it's your opinion. And therefore worthless.

reply to post by MindSpin

Originally posted by MindSpin
Has anyone refuted the fact that biologically, human life begins at conception???


I love all the dancing around, bringing up other issues, and avoidance of the question...it is quite entertaining.

But I would really like for anyone to try to refute this

I would refute that. Human "development" begins at conception. Birth is when the life begins as the newborn now has the ability to survive on its own, biologically and physiologically. You cannot deny that it takes approximately nine months for birth to occur naturally. An embryo or very young fetus cannot survive without medical technology. I know nurses(2) that work in newborn intensive care units, one that has worked in that field for 35 years. Neither of them has witnessed a 24 week or younger child survive without technological assistance. Odd is it not that technology allows premature babies to survive while also granting women the personal choice of abortion.

reply to post by Maslo

That is not true, there are plenty of humans that lack personhood, and I do not think they should be protected just because of their genes.

Holy crap...which humans have you decided "lack personhood"???

I hope I made the cut.

That is a strawman. They obviously are human, nobody is denying that. But they are just human life, not human persons, and that is not enough to be protected by law, IMHO. The notion that we should protect a bunch of human cells without developed brain is as absurd to me as the notion that we should protect the vegetable I have just eaten for breakfast.

Specieism is just another form of racism, and whether we like it or not, true morality does not care about such irrelevant things as the genome of an entity.

Ummm...do you eat humans...or do you only eat certain other SPECIES of living things???

You are a "specieist" just as I am...you just won't admit it.

I fully admit that I give humans more value than all other living things.


P.S. I'm patiently waiting for your reply in my other thread. I know you would just rather debate the religous person...but you have some questions to respond to here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by My_Reality

I would refute that. Human "development" begins at conception. Birth is when the life begins as the newborn now has the ability to survive on its own, biologically and physiologically.

You are creating your own terms and definitions. Substituting "development" for "life" doesn't disprove the biological definition of life. Those terms are pretty much interchangeable...life is a process of development.

That doesn't refute anything...this is BIOLOGICAL FACT....life begins at fertilization.


Here..let me get you some definitions.

www.biology-online.org...

Life cycle
Definition

noun

The whole life history of an organism, usually depicted through a series of developmental stages (e.g. from zygote into a mature form where another zygote can be produced) in which an organism goes through.


Supplement

Life cycle entails the course of development of an organism, i.e. from the time of inception to growth to finally maturity when an organism can viably produce another of its kind.

In certain organisms, life cycle includes the different generations of species. For instance, a life cycle of an angiosperm involves both the sporophyte and gametophyte generations.

Notice it says "LIFE CYCLE"...not "DEVELOPMENT CYCLE".

How about a quote from a National Geographic documentary

Quote from National Geographic Documentary

"The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated."

Now for some text book references ( I don't own these books...but you can find the quotes online and you can see the book on Amazon.


Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 13.
Link To Book On Amazon

"Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother's egg... It is beautifully translucent and fragile and it encompasses the vital links in which life is carried from one generation to the next. Within this tiny sphere great events take place. When one of the father's sperm cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can begin."

Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
Link to Book on Amazon

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."

Clark Edward Corliss, Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.
Link to Book on Amazon

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

And just remember...when you are arguing against life beginning at conception. You aren't arguing against me...you are arguing against the whole scientific field of Biology.

The fetus is a living human being...Biology proves it. Why don't you pro-abortionists just come out and say "I support killing humans"???

reply to post by MindSpin

Holy crap...which humans have you decided "lack personhood"???

Brain dead but biologically alive patients, embryos and early fetuses.

reply to post by MindSpin


Your response makes sense. Yes, I am "creating" my own definitions for the purposes of this debate. I cannot refute any of your sources.

However, my two major points have been that life in the womb is not self-sufficient(I will discard the term biologically, for you). My second major point has been that personal choice is ultimately the will of the mother.

Both of these points reject scientific, moral, or ethical stances on abortion. I will concede that life may begin at fertilization. However, development inside the womb is vastly different than development outside the womb. You seem to be an intelligent person and should recognize these differences. These developments, while similar in biology, are different for a developing embryo/fetus compared to a newborn human. The "life" inside the womb is mainly concerned with the development of the unconscious systems that regulate the properties of existence. The "life" after birth is mainly concerned with physical and sexual development with, of course, brain development over the years. While it can be argued that these developments are similar, there is a marked difference.

Regarding morals or ethics; I have stated many times that the ultimate choice regarding abortion is the province of the mother. In the majority of your replies, you seem to evade this issue and consider it invalid. I can't do that. The decision of a woman with the ability to procreate will always supersede the "decision" of a developing "life" inside that woman, as that "life" cannot communicate with the world outside the womb and that communication inside the womb is debatable.

This is where you and I fundamentally disagree and I don't believe any amount of debate will convince either of us to change our beliefs.

I have not seen one post in your many responses that supports a woman's fundamental right to terminate. I see that you have opposed it vehemently. You have stated and supported your moral/ethical stand on this issue. However, you have not put yourself into the situation of a woman considering or deciding to abort. There are many reason why a woman would do so and they usually have nothing to do with morality or ethics. It is very easy to be self righteous in regards to situations that do not directly involve you, personally nor professionally.

No matter what I will not dictate to a woman what she can or can't do with her body. Including "anything" that happens to be "developing" inside this person.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Why don't you pro-abortionists just come out and say "I support killing humans"???

So naturally you will go on record stating you are against:

- All war?
- The Death Penalty?

A simple YES will do, thanks.

Originally posted by Gorman91
My religion calls me to preach about Christ....

Just remember then: "You are required to believe, to preach, and to teach what the Bible says is true, not what you want the Bible to say is true." — R.C. Sproul "Chosen by God", p. 12

What a controversial and puzzling creature you are. Mixing logic and religion as if juggling chain saws. I applaud you for your convictions but detest you for your rudeness to others. As if logic entitles one to smugness. If you sneezed I'm not sure if I'd say "Bless you" or "Gesundheit"

This whole argument is rather moot. Whether abortion is right or wrong, it is legal. And we are a nation of laws.

reply to post by My_Reality

However, my two major points have been that life in the womb is not self-sufficient(I will discard the term biologically, for you).

Neither is a newborn baby.

My second major point has been that personal choice is ultimately the will of the mother.

However, it isn't "personal choice" when it involves another living human being.

Both of these points reject scientific, moral, or ethical stances on abortion. I will concede that life may begin at fertilization. However, development inside the womb is vastly different than development outside the womb. You seem to be an intelligent person and should recognize these differences. These developments, while similar in biology, are different for a developing embryo/fetus compared to a newborn human. The "life" inside the womb is mainly concerned with the development of the unconscious systems that regulate the properties of existence. The "life" after birth is mainly concerned with physical and sexual development with, of course, brain development over the years. While it can be argued that these developments are similar, there is a marked difference.

And why is one stage of development worthy of protection and the other is not?

Regarding morals or ethics; I have stated many times that the ultimate choice regarding abortion is the province of the mother. In the majority of your replies, you seem to evade this issue and consider it invalid. I can't do that. The decision of a woman with the ability to procreate will always supersede the "decision" of a developing "life" inside that woman, as that "life" cannot communicate with the world outside the womb and that communication inside the womb is debatable.

And what of the man's choice to procreate?

Do you admit that you support a situation of equality where the man has no say if he wishes to procreate or not? He can not say that he doesn't wish to and terminate the pregnancy...he can't say he wishes to and have any say in her not getting an abortion.

Please don't give me the line that he had that choice when he had sex....because so did she.

And don't give me the rape line...because that is less than 1% of abortions, unless you want to concede that abortions should only be allowed in cases of forceable sex (which can be medically determined)???

This is where you and I fundamentally disagree and I don't believe any amount of debate will convince either of us to change our beliefs.

I don't care to change your beliefs...as long as you realize you are coming from an illogical point of view that can not be defended.

My main issue while discussing abortion is that pro-abortion people dance around the fact that they are supporting the killing of a defenseless human life.

If you want to come out and outright say that you support the killing of innocent, defenseless humans....then I will leave you to your opinion.

I have not seen one post in your many responses that supports a woman's fundamental right to terminate. I see that you have opposed it vehemently. You have stated and supported your moral/ethical stand on this issue. However, you have not put yourself into the situation of a woman considering or deciding to abort. There are many reason why a woman would do so and they usually have nothing to do with morality or ethics. It is very easy to be self righteous in regards to situations that do not directly involve you, personally nor professionally.

I don't support the killing of another human a solution to any hard life situation.

There are many reasons why a woman may decide to murder her husband...many reasons we may all think are valid...but it doesn't make it right nor legal.

My opinion is the same about abortion...I am vehemently (to borrow a word) against killing of other humans in any situation outside of self defense (self preservation).

No matter what I will not dictate to a woman what she can or can't do with her body. Including "anything" that happens to be "developing" inside this person.

Even if it was your child "developing" in there? Even if that development had lasted 7 months, you have felt it kick and heard it's heart beat? If she decides to end it...you would support it?

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by MindSpin
Why don't you pro-abortionists just come out and say "I support killing humans"???

So naturally you will go on record stating you are against:

- All war?
- The Death Penalty?

A simple YES will do, thanks.

-All war?
I am against all wars except for in defense of invasion. I support a mother's right to choose abortion when her life is threatened (not a potential risk...but a medically diagnosed threat). Both cases are situations of self preservation...I have no problem with humans trying to protect their own life.

- The Death Penalty?

Yes, in all cases.




Are you saying that since you are pro-choice....you support all wars and the death penalty? A simple YES will do. Thanks

reply to post by MindSpin


I'll reserve the same right to elaborate as you.

I am Pro Choice.
I am Pro Death Penalty.
I am Anti War. (we agree on our stance regarding defense)

Well 1 out of 3 isn't all bad as far as common ground. But I'll acknowledge your honesty despite your inference and false assumptions.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Laws change, and the rate of decreasing support means it likely will be no more in a decade or two.

I do not mix logic and belief. I keep one to govern me, the other to govern all.

I can be smug. And I will do that a lot. It's not a positive. But I admit to it.

And yes, I am a contradiction. All people of intelligence inevitably end up being because one's personal beliefs will inevitably conflict with knowledge gained.

reply to post by kinda kurious


I believe we have more common ground than opposed views...judging from seeing you in other threads.

I am fairly confident that abortion is one of the very few topics you will see me arguing on the opposite side of you.

reply to post by MindSpin

However, my two major points have been that life in the womb is not self-sufficient(I will discard the term biologically, for you).



Neither is a newborn baby.

You either ignored or dismissed the paragraph that I wrote after the above sentence. I am not going to repeat it. Why do you insist on making out of context remarks? Your statement above is nonsense because I specifically explained what I consider self sufficient. Try again.

My second major point has been that personal choice is ultimately the will of the mother.



However, it isn't "personal choice" when it involves another living human being.

Again, I have explained my viewpoint on the matter and you ignore it and insert your belief. That's fine but this accomplishes nothing. We have both essentially posted the same thing many times now.

Both of these points reject scientific, moral, or ethical stances on abortion. I will concede that life may begin at fertilization. However, development inside the womb is vastly different than development outside the womb. You seem to be an intelligent person and should recognize these differences. These developments, while similar in biology, are different for a developing embryo/fetus compared to a newborn human. The "life" inside the womb is mainly concerned with the development of the unconscious systems that regulate the properties of existence. The "life" after birth is mainly concerned with physical and sexual development with, of course, brain development over the years. While it can be argued that these developments are similar, there is a marked difference.



And why is one stage of development worthy of protection and the other is not?

One stage of development takes place inside the mothers body while the other does not. Women can do what they like with their bodies.

And what of the man's choice to procreate?

Do you admit that you support a situation of equality where the man has no say if he wishes to procreate or not? He can not say that he doesn't wish to and terminate the pregnancy...he can't say he wishes to and have any say in her not getting an abortion.

Please don't give me the line that he had that choice when he had sex....because so did she.

And don't give me the rape line...because that is less than 1% of abortions, unless you want to concede that abortions should only be allowed in cases of forceable sex (which can be medically determined)???

I support rights for fathers to have a say in abortion situations. Please elaborate your other points because it sounds like you are rambling.

I don't care to change your beliefs...as long as you realize you are coming from an illogical point of view that can not be defended.

My main issue while discussing abortion is that pro-abortion people dance around the fact that they are supporting the killing of a defenseless human life.

If you want to come out and outright say that you support the killing of innocent, defenseless humans....then I will leave you to your opinion.

1st sentence - I disagree. I find my point of view logical and have explained in detail why.

2nd sentence - Once again, you state to me that it is killing defenseless human life. I have stated my reasons for not believing as you do in my previous posts and will not rehash them here.

3rd sentence - Looking at the situation from your point of view I believe I have stated that quite clearly. I will say outright that I support the choice of a woman to have the option of abortion(in fact I have many times). What was the point of that sentence?

I don't support the killing of another human a solution to any hard life situation.

There are many reasons why a woman may decide to murder her husband...many reasons we may all think are valid...but it doesn't make it right nor legal.

My opinion is the same about abortion...I am vehemently (to borrow a word) against killing of other humans in any situation outside of self defense (self preservation).

It is always about you isn't it? What you think is right or wrong. I have asked you to view the situation from the point of view of a woman that considers abortion and consider the reasons why a woman might do so. The only answer I get from you is that "you" believe it to be wrong. You see, I try my best to observe the situation from a view that is not my own. That is why I support abortion. There are situations where abortion is the best course of action(not including self-preservation). You don't seem to have any care for the difficulties that could be imposed on a woman or couples life.

Even if it was your child "developing" in there? Even if that development had lasted 7 months, you have felt it kick and heard it's heart beat? If she decides to end it...you would support it?

Yes.

To all of the anti-abortionists out there: I hope you don't eat eggs or any product that contains them. It would be quite hypocritical of you to defend unborn life while digesting a southwestern omelet. Life is life after all.

reply to post by My_Reality

To all of the anti-abortionists out there: I hope you don't eat eggs or any product that contains them. It would be quite hypocritical of you to defend unborn life while digesting a southwestern omelet. Life is life after all.

Unborn HUMAN life. You left out human. And last I checked, people aren't using human eggs for their morning omelet. Also, the chicken egg people are eating, isn't fertilized. Ever cracked open an egg and seen a partially formed chicken spill out into the pan?

reply to post by Under Water

Unborn HUMAN life. You left out human. And last I checked, people aren't using human eggs for their morning omelet. Also, the chicken egg people are eating, isn't fertilized. Ever cracked open an egg and seen a partially formed chicken spill out into the pan?

I knew someone would take that stance. It certainly shows the arrogance of some people; Claiming human life more valuable or important than other life forms.

Also, I was not referring to only chicken eggs. While chicken eggs are the most common form of eggs for consumption, there are a host of other types of eggs that humans use for food.

Its a simple example of human rights. If ever i was faced with a situation in which i could not care for a child i would abort it. Its a shame that such accidents do happen, but thats just a fact of life. Why bring a child into the world that you cant take care of? I dont trust anyone else to give my child a good home, nor is it their duty. It is the pregnant persons decision alone.

Infaticide has been around for thousands of years, and will continue, regardless of politics.

Clearly a few individuals are finding it very hard to control themselves...If we can get animal rights, Gay rights etc then why the hell don't fetuses get rights as well?

Should we support the death penalty? I say yes if there's sufficient evidence. At the end of the day you did not get pregnant through a miraculous event i.e The holy spirit etc...It does take two to tango and the women is willing in most cases. Control is the key to prevention, We can't just f""" around and ask for a cure for aids? Prevention is the best solution. I smoke and if the Dr told me I had cancer I wouldn't be surprised.....I know it's coming, You f""" around and your gonna get pregnant sooner or later. If it was rape/Incest bla bla bla...if you have read my older posts in this thread I would support abortion in such situations.

YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW. PLAY WITH FIRE AND EVENTUALLY YOU'RE GOING TO GET BURNT.

For the poster with the bible versus, Here's a little one for you:

GALATIANS 6: 7-9 (KJV)
7: Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Mr.J Medeiros - "Planting seeds and yet they can't sow them", "Your looking at the flower, Brother check the seed. You're shook by the power of a reckless greed"

reply to post by My_Reality

Claiming human life more valuable or important than other life forms.

So, given the choice between saving a human child or a chicken from a car careening out of control, you would choose the chicken? Really? Because it's life is just as important as a human's, right?