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

reply to post by captaintyinknots


In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to GROW, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.

Source

Not the best of sources I know, Now please tell me where life begins or rather the OP. Does it begin when the baby is born in your opinion?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


yeah...ok.

done.

which came first: the poverty levels or the genocidal plans/efforts?

Originally posted by Serizawa
reply to post by byteshertz

 

We as in those who can follow a structured argument - established through fact's i presented that abortion is not wrong - by definition, because nobody can prove where life started and wrong means factually incorrect. You can say it is morally wrong - but that is your view. If you have some facts you would like to add so WE CAN ESTABLISH abortion is wrong then we may get somewhere.

Don't make me laugh, Your opinions are not facts.

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

Source

We as in those who can follow a structured argument - established through fact's i presented that abortion is not wrong - by definition, because nobody can prove where life started and wrong means factually incorrect.

Do you feel stupid now?..........

edit on 24-2-2011 by Serizawa because: (no reason given)

Are you serious? you have not even presented an argument, you have simply quoted people saying that

"This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being"
Yes, the begining of a human being - not the begining of human life (if it is the "begining of a human being" - at what point is it a human being with life is the question. I am not going to argue with someone who can not even understand the difference
"This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development" - Nothing about human life starting at this point.

It is obvious to any critical thinker following this that not only do you not posses the ability to use critical thinking of your own opinions, you do not have the ability to form your own theory based off the evidence, instead you try to use your misinterpretation of someone elses quote to justify your belief.
Do I feel stupid now? no but I am going to stop responding to you incase it's infectious.

reply to post by byteshertz


I thought you told me not to post up my OPINIONS and start posting FACTS! What better to quote then biology books? I'm no expert in the matter, I do not try to act like one.........But I do know for a fact that the authors of the book have greater knowledge on the subject then you or I.

Originally posted by Serizawa
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to GROW, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.

Source

Not the best of sources I know, Now please tell me where life begins or rather the OP. Does it begin when the baby is born in your opinion?

From your same wonderful source:

Biology Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:[14][16]
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

A zygote does not fit into many of those categories.

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

yeah...ok.

done.

which came first: the poverty levels or the genocidal plans/efforts?

When you actually look at the data, then we can talk.

My only point is that these things follow poverty, every time.

Speaking of religion -

Did you know that L.Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, considered children to be 'old souls' and *just as capable* of "evil" as anyone else?

And - when he had his "Sea Org" going he would often make small children scrub out the bilge holds of his ships?

L.Ron didn't seem to subscribe to the prevailing "innocent children" concept.

So what if Scientology is your religion?

What about some Buddhists and/or believers in Chinese Astrology? As example - my Chinese Birth Sign is considered THE WORST sign to be born under and there is WIDESPREAD abortion in the East, every 60 years when this sign comes up - because they do not wish for the spirit to be born under such a bad sign. This is considered doing the spirit a *huge favor*.

What about that? Are they right or wrong? Who is to say?

Brings to mind also - what about people in Asia who abort due to a sex preference?

What about MANDATORY abortion in China?

One of the best arguments I ever heard regarding abortion is: If they mandate birth, it could just as soon go the other way and they mandate abortion. This is why PRO CHOICE is the best choice - laws off our bodies or else you might be FORCED to have an abortion.

Or something else - the more they legislate the body - the closer we get to Grandma becoming Soylent Grandma.

reply to post by Whiffer Nippets

Did you know that L.Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, considered children to be 'old souls' and *just as capable* of "evil" as anyone else?

i actually had a 19 month-old take his very full and extremely shytey diaper off, roll it into a pretty good ball, and throw it into my face.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

When you actually look at the data, then we can talk. My only point is that these things follow poverty, every time.

when you are able to develop and present a coherent argument that does not include pointless and childish non sequiturs, then we can talk.

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

When you actually look at the data, then we can talk. My only point is that these things follow poverty, every time.

when you are able to develop and present a coherent argument that does not include pointless and childish non sequiturs, then we can talk.

You gotta be kidding me.

Much easier to shrug off he facts and attack the poster, huh.
Well played

Originally posted by Serizawa
reply to post by byteshertz

 

I thought you told me not to post up my OPINIONS and start posting FACTS! What better to quote then biology books? I'm no expert in the matter, I do not try to act like one.........But I do know for a fact that the authors of the book have greater knowledge on the subject then you or I.

As you have proven - just because you can quote fact does not mean your understanding of those facts are correct - all your quotes were 100% accurate and then misinterpreted by you which makes your assumption that when they say "they begining of the human being" they mean the begining of the human life - 100% wrong.
If the answer was that easy then there would be no trouble proving in a court of law that abortion is murder - but it is not possible to pinpoint where life begins so it is therefore no murder - because murder means to kill with intention and you can not kill something that does not have life.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


no. im not kidding.

and thank you for the complement.

validation when you are right is a good thing.

I would like an answer to this question, also.

How can someone be charged with murder of an unborn child? If under our current laws a "fetus' is not a human being with rights, how is this justified:

charged with murder of unborn baby

man charged with baby murder

I only provided two links, the last one shows how many states have a statute or law against murder of unborn humans. The google search returned 35, 000 results for "man charged with murder of unborn baby."

How do you justify the law deciding that these were humans with their own rights and still claim that an unborn child can be ripped to pieces and vaccumed out of the womb?

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

no. im not kidding.

and thank you for the complement.

validation when you are right is a good thing.

ok kiddo....as I said before, research the subject, then we will talk. you obviously caught wind of this story as it has been good media fodder lately and havent bothered to look any further.

reply to post by byteshertz


When ever you terminate a living being whether in the womb or alive it is murder.

They are a person even at conception, no ifs ands or buts.

But hay all the people for abortion are alive.

A beached whale has a greater chance of survival than an unborn child.

reply to post by MMPI2


LRH WAS RIGHT!

We have PROOF now! Gonna go order "Dianetics" RIGHT NOW!!!

LOL I'm being sarcastic

Originally posted by jennybee35
I would like an answer to this question, also.

How can someone be charged with murder of an unborn child? If under our current laws a "fetus' is not a human being with rights, how is this justified:

charged with murder of unborn baby

man charged with baby murder

I only provided two links, the last one states how many states have a stute or law against murder of unborn humans. The google search returned 35, 000 results for "man charged with murder of unborn baby."

How do you justify the law deciding that these were humans with their own rights and still claim that an unborn child can be ripped to pieces and vaccumed out of the womb?

Finally, someone who is disputing my post that can provide fact with a solid argument!! (was a poster earlier too)
I believe court cases like this would come down to convincing a jury the man has taken a life - easy to do towards the end of pregnancy but hard to do during the first few months.

On Election Day 2008, Colorado voters were asked to decide a question that theologians, ethicists, philosophers and parents from time immemorial have struggled with: when does life begin? A ballot initiative asked voters to expand the definition of “personhood” in the Colorado constitution to include any fertilized egg, zygote, embryo or fetus. If they decided that a fertilized egg is a person, then every fertilized egg would have inalienable rights, just like you—the reader.

But deciding “when life begins” is so much more complicated than a re-definition. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court refused to rule on the matter, saying that it was in no position to decide a question about which there was such great division: “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the court again rejected arguments that a fetus was a person, with Justice Blackmun writing: an abortion is not “the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection. Accordingly, a State’s interest in protecting fetal life is not grounded in the Constitution. Nor, consistent with our Establishment Clause, can it be a theological or sectarian interest.”

...


Science and Our Interpretations


Scientific and medical opinion regarding the status of embryonic life has not shifted in the last three decades, according to Christian ethicist Paul D. Simmons. New technologies enable viewing the fetus during various stages of development but there are no instruments to measure the presence of personhood. While there is agreement about the gestational facts (that there are four stages of gestational development: zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus) and that each person began with conception and implantation, that does not mean that every step along the continuum has the same value. Science provides the data of biological development; religion and personal values provide our sense of morality and the worth we attach to various entities. Functional physiological and neurological developments are required for one to become a person, but there are stages during gestation in which there is inadequate development to constitute an entity that should be accorded full legal or even religious status as a person. A person is a complex creature that has moved from genetic individuality (DNA) through functional, behavioral, physical and social dimensions. A genetic formula is not the equivalent of a person, nor is it “a person with potential.”

Source

Originally posted by jennybee35
I would like an answer to this question, also.

How can someone be charged with murder of an unborn child? If under our current laws a "fetus' is not a human being with rights, how is this justified:

charged with murder of unborn baby

man charged with baby murder

I only provided two links, the last one states how many states have a stute or law against murder of unborn humans. The google search returned 35, 000 results for "man charged with murder of unborn baby."

How do you justify the law deciding that these were humans with their own rights and still claim that an unborn child can be ripped to pieces and vaccumed out of the womb?

1)Someone else does not have the right to terminate a fetus against the mothers wishes.
2)In most cases, the fetus is well beyond the point of viability, and well beyond the limitations on abortion.
3)Nice attempt at eliciting an emotional response with you wording.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by byteshertz

 

When ever you terminate a living being whether in the womb or alive it is murder.

They are a person even at conception, no ifs ands or buts.

But hay all the people for abortion are alive.

A beached whale has a greater chance of survival than an unborn child.

If there are no ifs and or buts about it, why is there even a debate?


Oh, right, because that is an opinion, not a fact, and one that is not backed up with any.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

no. im not kidding.

and thank you for the complement.

validation when you are right is a good thing.

ok kiddo....as I said before, research the subject, then we will talk. you obviously caught wind of this story as it has been good media fodder lately and havent bothered to look any further.

alright sport...ill do that. and when you are ready to contribute more than 7th grade logic errors, let me know.