Hello Mr. president, Abortion Is Murder! Life Begins At Fertilization! That's A Fact [snip]!

page: 31
25
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


A sperm cell has no such capability. A sperm cell is killed to give up its genetic code.

It's theory, but logical, that the first case of sexual reproduction was actually a case of cannibalism or something.

www.scientificamerican.com...



The line is very easy to draw. Action and none action. If you're trying to kill something, you're committing murder. If natural selection targets something, you can't charge nature with a crime. If you chop down a tree trying to kill someone, that's not the same as a tree randomly falling to kill someone.

Humans are more important because you don't want to be killed. It is the social contract.

Problem with this generation is forgetting what the social contract is.




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Osiris1953
 


No because they cannot do anything.

Every cell has a function. Unless its going to become an adult, it is not murder.

Would you charge someone who punched you as attempted manslaughter? Or a brain damage case if he punched you in the gut?
edit on 30-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


But a sperm cell, could be seen as something that is going, or has the capability to become an adult. Not by itself of course, but where do we draw the line?.


The above was kind of my point, not sure how Gorman got lost...



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


You have the pill an a condom, if you get pregnant on both, you might as well call him Jesus.


So I'm Jesus then?
But I'm a woman... Doesn't that contradict what the bible tells us?
Why can't I walk on water, then? (trust me, I've tried, and failed miserably
)

My parents used both a condom and the pill, yet here I am typing this message.
edit on 30/1/2012 by Believer101 because: Smiley fail.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
have you heard the ads that super pac is running about romney and abortion ?

yikes



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


Then you are a statistical miracle.

Congratulations.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


No miracle here. Just a normal person that wasn't planned, however my parents were in a stable place that made it possible for me to keep on living, and live with them.

Now, why are you ignoring Maslo's points on how you contradict yourself with aborting a rape fetus? Isn't that a person, too, according to your standards? What makes a rape fetus different than others? If abortion is wrong in all other cases because it's 'murdering a person', is a rape fetus not a person?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 



I would like it banned. Because it is wrong. It is murder.

But I cannot force someone whom had their rights violated to do something. I can force accepting one's responsibilities, because that's called civilization.

That's the social contract.



Plus this idea that the state can define what is "able to support" or keep is stupid. People without money still make something of their lives all the time. You don't get to commit murder just because you're poor.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


So your trolling for an emotional reaction? That makes you a ( well you use it to conceive a child) ... Orphanages are not The Community. But your for the out right (shooting to death) of a woman who discards her un-wanted child...Yea that makes tons of sense. Your a man. You have no say. Pushing yourself, on a womans issue is a control thing. Or a vagina envy thing, maybe both.... Either way. You have your opinion, I have mine.

People need to mind their own business. That's the major problem with this issue and a whole host of others.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by openyourmind1262
 


I'm not trolling. I simply get amused at emotional overreaction. If I was lying then I'd be trolling. You basically attempted to censor me an apologize for my words. Such emotion... It amuses me.

I have no pity for those whom have no respect for life, an their loss is no tragedy. If you throw a born baby in the garbage, you are garbage, and you can go die in my opinion. You then become a true murderer, and a disgusting sub human.


I am a man, and I can say on the topic. I don't give a damn about what goes in or out on your bottom. don't give a damn if I can't have a kid. It's irrelevant; not important anymore, never was. Shall barren women be barred from voting on abortion? What you say is like telling my I'm racist if I hate Obama. That's retarded.

I say again, I know plenty of women who feel the same, and contact with them is the primary source of my own words. They are the motivators in my life that make me feel this way.
edit on 30-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Obama doesn't care. He is serving the Khazar / illuminati agenda. He wants to poison us, send us to wars to die, kill each other, make us poor and slave like. make us dumb, obedient. how is killing babies not in line with this plan.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Osiris1953
 


I replied to that too. You may want to read it, considering the whole point is pretty silly. Unless you actively have sex or do something with it, sperm isn't going to become a human. Hell there's a greater statistical possibility an egg would do that than sperm. Ironically, eggs are more protected for just that event. Funny how nature is logical like that.
edit on 30-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Well let's make sure to outlaw In virtro and freezing embryos as well....because when the embryos are created in a lab and not used that is "murder" as well.

If one takes away a woman's right to choose an abortion, then one should also take away the right to create life artificially as well. Including the use of fertility drugs.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


All I was saying is that if we are going to protect a zygote as an individual life as opposed to a group of cells that though have a high probability of becoming a human.....they are just a group of cells, no more independently alive than any other cell in your body. There is a line pretty early on in a pregnancy that I feel would be inappropriate to abort a fetus, but I don't feel that it is my, or the governments call to make, and it certainly isn't the decision, of a god, that if he exists, takes very little interest in its day to day operation.

So, although my comment was silly, it really was meant to illustrate a point. Because if we are now protecting zygotes how is my sperm any different. It is fallacious thinking, it's illogical, and although it is little more than semantics, the type of mentality that produces a statement "Life Begins at Fertilization!" is the type of mentality that doesn't necessarily deserve a serious response.

It's a shame that I have to go this far into it.... it was a pretty simple statement, and designed as such for a reason.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Osiris1953
 


Sperm die, embryos divide.

It's honestly that simple.

Sorry, but I've taken a lot of biology courses. The line is pretty well defined. One becomes a human adult without any action willed. The other becomes a corpse without any action willed.
edit on 30-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by tk2dsky
 


One is an act to create life. The other is an act to destroy life.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by tk2dsky
 


One is an act to create life. The other is an act to destroy life.



So then if your intent to create a life, it is OK to destroy that life later on when you've had the baby and the other embryos are not needed?

Seems like the same thing to me.

Guess you can spin anything to suit your own moral ideologies.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tk2dsky
 


Never said I agree with it.

But to call it the same is not true.


Personally I do not agree with it. Stick them in one by one, nature selects. But that's me taking about something I don't fully understand.
edit on 30-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
But it is the same. If you say that life begins at fertilization...then every lab created embryo is a life. Destroying those embryos, because you have no need for them anymore is exactly the same as choosing an abortion.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I am educated in basic biology, which is why stand by my opinion.

It really isn't that simple.

At the earliest stages what "could" become a baby is nothing more than a cluster of cells. Nothing more, it doesn't feel, eat, sleep, have features, have organs, feel pain or anything for that matter and if you actually go by the established tenants of what is considered independent "life" it doesn't fit any of them. That is fact.

With that part of your argument negated... which it is, I can only assume your opinion is based more upon your belief in a soul and that a soul inhabits the newly formed cluster, making it morally wrong to destroy that "life."

If that is the case, then science can in no way be your argument.

So you're argument is then based upon religion, and the metaphysical, which is fine, but don't pretend you are as motivated by science as religion.

BTW, my wife could give birth to my son any day now. Though he is now a baby, a human, my boy, he was once nothing more than a cluster of cells, that in all actuality could have turned out to be a blastoderm or some other anomaly. He was not a person. He was not a living being, he was a group of cells growing in my wife... end of story.

I will not argue this further, in my mind, there is no point, and I regret getting to any type of discussion concerning abortion.... they are never productive, and I will be on my way now.

Have a nice evening all.



edit on 30-1-2012 by Osiris1953 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Osiris1953
 





At the earliest stages what "could" become a baby is nothing more than a cluster of cells. Nothing more, it doesn't feel, eat, sleep, have features, have organs, feel pain or anything for that matter and if you actually go by the established tenants of what is considered independent "life" it doesn't fit any of them. That is fact.


Only up to a point.

It does feel eat and sleep. Just at a much different scale. Some cells wait, others eat, others feel what needs to be built next. It's simply not done with a nervous system. But I don't see why that matters.




With that part of your argument negated... which it is, I can only assume your opinion is based more upon your belief in a soul and that a soul inhabits the newly formed cluster, making it morally wrong to destroy that "life."


If it were a religious argument yes. But this is a scientific one.




BTW, my wife could give birth to my son any day now. Though he is now a baby, a human, my boy, he was once nothing more than a cluster of cells, that in all actuality could have turned out to be a blastoderm or some other anomaly. He was not a person. He was not a living being, he was a group of cells growing in my wife... end of story.


Your son is a parasitic dependent chunk of cells that's just slightly more sophisticated than what it was a few months ago. The only difference is that some of these cells can now take in inputs. But that doesn't make them in any way a person nor a human being. A comatose patient can take in inputs. A brain dead person can too, to a much limited degree.

Being human means doing something with those inputs. Adding a certain sublime to them. This ability does not come about until long after your parasitic decedent comes out of its flesh-cave. Even out of its flesh cave it's still dependent on you. In fact it's more dependent now. It becomes less than what it was for a few months.

around age 4 your parasite will begin to take care of itself. Will begin to understand complex things. It will become a he...or hell, even a she in his own mind. It will become itself. However even then it is still a parasite. It's just a little less parasitic.

Around a decade or more from now, your now self aware parasite will begin becoming independent. Doing things without your permission, and making his or her mark in the world. yes I say her, because he may decide he's not a he. At this point your self aware parasite can finally be called somewhat human. But even then, he has another decade to go before he can fully supply his own mouth and income. He has another decade before he understands art, religion, music, lack of these things, or even hatred for them. THEN he becomes a "person".


So excuse me for saying it, but your son, in a few days, will just be a parasite that can giggle, cry, poop, and eat. Rather than pooping and pissing in the same goo it's been growing in, will merely just be something that now requires you to manually do everything for it. It's just you, as a human person, whom makes it any thing more than this. The brain of your son is not capable of anything remarkable, other than mimicking what you do. Because it is still a parasite, clueless of the world.
edit on 30-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: Le Spelling
edit on 30-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
25
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join