ABORTION.......

Momma Angel wrote:

My thoughts are that the second there is conception, there is life. .

Why? Why do you deny a sperm or an unfertilized egg the status of being alive? I'm not just interested in what you happen to think, I'm interested in why you think it.

Momma Angel wrote:

As to the quality who can say. But, it is God given life nonetheless and no one has the right to deny it's right to life.

Why should I believe the life was given by God? Was it not given by the sperm and the egg?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Well, I can see you haven't softened in any sense of the word.

I am already "soft" enough. I'm a pussycat.

Quote:

The saddest thing of all is someone that calls a miracle nonsense.

If you want to call someone getting pregnant and having a baby...a miracle...go for it. But keep in mind that I would just as enthusiastically support you if you wanted to call a bowl movement...a miracle.

Getting pregnant...and having a baby is NOT a miracle.

Quote:

And, if it makes it easier for you and others to not consider it a child so you can justify your "championing a woman's rights", have at it.

We will.

But just as you want to call "getting pregnant and having a baby" a "miracle"....you seem insistent to call an embryo, a zygote, or a fetus a "baby."

And you want to call it murder...when by definition it cannot be.

Your problem, MA...is that you do not know how to use language.

Quote:

It doesn't change a thing. Wrong is wrong and right is right.

Killing is wrong.

Yes...killing is wrong. But that is a subject for a different thread.

0 Replies

I don't know how to use language? Or is it possibly you mean I do not know how to twist it to make it mean what I want it to mean? If you call it a fetus, embryo, zygote, billy goat, etc., that makes it ok to kill it. But, if it were called a child by "science" would you still so callously kill it?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

djbt wrote:
Frank, will you answer my questions?

What qualities do you think a being must possess in order to be said to have a 'right' to life? Why are these qualities important? When, in the transition between fertilized egg and baby, does the evidence you have seen suggest these qualities emerge?

I don't know how to say this more clearly than I have on probably a half-dozen different occasions in this thread...

...but until the zygote, embryo, or fetus (as the case may be) is fully and completely born into this world (totally exits its host's body)...

...I see no reason to assume that it has rights that cause its host to lose any of her rights.

Period.

It is not a "person"...or a "living being" in my opinion...until it is fully and completely born into this world....fully exited from its host's body.

I can see no logic in this. It seems entirely arbitrary.

One could say it is not a "person"...or a "living being" until it is 18 years of age, or until it has smoked a cigar, or run the four minute mile, but merely stating it and saying 'Period' doesn't make it an respectable argument.

Why does a child have rights? Why do humans have rights at all? If I hadn't read you elsewhere, I'd think you must believe in some scripture-writing deity who ordained that rights begin at birth. Why else would you believe that rights suddenly appear from nowhere at this moment?

More generally: where do 'rights' come from? In what sense do they exist?

To put my cards on the table, I personally find the idea of natural rights, to borrow a phrase, nonsense on stilts. I find the concept of interests far more useful. I would say that a fetus has a very strong interest in remaining conscious from the moment it is conscious, which evidence would suggest is long before birth. It seems clear to me that an interest in remaining conscious far outweighs an interest in no longer being pregnant.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I don't know how to use language? Or is it possibly you mean I do not know how to twist it to make it mean what I want it to mean?

Oh no.. I think you know exactly how to twist language to mean something that it doesn't.

As a matter of fact, I've called that to your attention several times already.

Quote:

If you call it a fetus, embryo, zygote, billy goat, etc., that makes it ok to kill it.

If the "it" you are talking about is an embryo...why not call it an embryo? If "it" is a fetus...why not call it a fetus?

If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy...it is my opinion that she should be able to do so.

Quote:

But, if it were called a child by "science" would you still so callously kill it?

I've already said what I have to say. Until the fetus exits the host's body...it is not a living human being.

0 Replies

Yes Frank, I know. You think that two seconds before birth the child is a fetus or a parasite.

I guess I just am having a hard time believing anyone could be so seemingly callous about life.

I called the child an "it" just for the purpose of that sentence. I maintain it is a child. It is a human being from conception and a miracle of God. You don't. So what?

I hardly think there are that many out there that believe that two seconds before birth a child is a fetus or a parasite. I really can't imagine you have a huge following on that one.

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
djbt wrote:
Frank, will you answer my questions?

What qualities do you think a being must possess in order to be said to have a 'right' to life? Why are these qualities important? When, in the transition between fertilized egg and baby, does the evidence you have seen suggest these qualities emerge?

I don't know how to say this more clearly than I have on probably a half-dozen different occasions in this thread...

...but until the zygote, embryo, or fetus (as the case may be) is fully and completely born into this world (totally exits its host's body)...

...I see no reason to assume that it has rights that cause its host to lose any of her rights.

Period.

It is not a "person"...or a "living being" in my opinion...until it is fully and completely born into this world....fully exited from its host's body.

I can see no logic in this.

Well open up your eyes....becuase there is plenty in there.

Quote:

It seems entirely arbitrary.

In what respect?

Quote:

One could say it is not a "person"...or a "living being" until it is 18 years of age, or until it has smoked a cigar, or run the four minute mile, but merely stating it and saying 'Period' doesn't make it an respectable argument.

Well why should I accept a definition that has a clump of cells bearly the size of a pin head considered a living being....and have to deal with someone using that absurd definition calling my definition of "until fully born into this world" illogical??????

Quote:

Why does a child have rights? Why do humans have rights at all? If I hadn't read you elsewhere, I'd think you must believe in some scripture-writing deity who ordained that rights begin at birth. Why else would you believe that rights suddenly appear from nowhere at this moment?

I suggest you re-read my comments. You are so far off base...and making so many wild assumptions...it simply does not make sense for me to discuss this in this way.

If you have a specific disagreement with me...put it out here. I will deal with it.

Quote:

More generally: where do 'rights' come from? In what sense do they exist?

"Rights"...as I have often mentioned...are a fiction. They truly do not exist as a set of specifics.

A person is born into this world...when it exits its host's body...and has freedom or the right...to do any damn thing it wants.

Governments are instituted among humans to limit that freedom...those unlimited rights. We outlaw certain conduct...usually for reasons that have to do with allowing society to function.

In a sense...anything that governments do not limit...are an individual's rights.

Quote:

To put my cards on the table, I personally find the idea of natural rights, to borrow a phrase, nonsense on stilts. I find the concept of interests far more useful.

Whatever!

Quote:

I would say that a fetus has a very strong interest in remaining conscious from the moment it is conscious, which evidence would suggest is long before birth. It seems clear to me that an interest in remaining conscious far outweighs an interest in no longer being pregnant.

Well...you are entitled to think that.

I think that is a bunch of horseshyt.

I think it insane to suppose that a fetus...growing in the body of a host....has rights or interests that cause its host to lose rights or interests that teh host has.

And I certainly don't want someone like you deciding which interests take precedence over which others.

0 Replies

djbt. Meet Frank.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Yes Frank, I know. You think that two seconds before birth the child is a fetus or a parasite.

I guess I just am having a hard time believing anyone could be so seemingly callous about life.

I called the child an "it" just for the purpose of that sentence. I maintain it is a child. It is a human being from conception and a miracle of God. You don't. So what?

I hardly think there are that many out there that believe that two seconds before birth a child is a fetus or a parasite. I really can't imagine you have a huge following on that one.

Wow...and you have such an active imagination!!!!

If you want to "maintain" that your "it" is a child...and that there is a God...and that the God gave life to the "child"...and any other horseshyt you want to maintain...

...go ahead and maintain it.

I really don't much give a damn.

I am simply here enjoying watching you...and so many others like you...pretending you are somehow morally or philosophically superior to those of us who see your bullshyt for what it is...and espouse the opposite position.

I am every bit your moral and philosophical equal, MA. I am as decent a person as you will ever be. My guess is (I don't know you all that well) that I am as loving, considerate, and compassionate as you.

AND I AM INALTERABLY OPPOSED TO YOUR POSITION ON ABORTION.

0 Replies

djbt,

I hadn't realized you hadn't really MET Frank yet. Well, there he is in all his glory.

We have tried and tried to discuss this (and other issues) with him, but alas, to no avail. Well, that is unless you agree with him.

And Frank, get real What's the difference between a full term child (still inside the mother yet) and the fertilized egg?! I did read that right, didn't I? Surely, you cannot equate the two as equal?

0 Replies

Frank,

If you don't really give a damn, as you say, why do you argue so violently? Indifference to something is what determines you really don't care.

Frank Apsia Wrote:

Quote:

I am simply here enjoying watching you...and so many others like you...pretending you are somehow morally or philosophically superior to those of us who see your bullshyt for what it is...and espouse the opposite position.

I don't recall anyone saying they are or are pretending to be morally or philosophically superior to you or anyone else. Seems to me, you are the one that keeps bringing in that statement and trying to convince us all of what a good guy you are.

And I kind of have to disagree on that ...I am as loving, considerate, and compassionate as you, line. I don't call you names. I don't call your views names. I don't call your God names. I try to be a bit more considerate than that. Call that superior if you will, I just call it respectful.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

And Frank, get real What's the difference between a full term child (still inside the mother yet) and the fertilized egg?! I did read that right, didn't I? Surely, you cannot equate the two as equal?

fair question

0 Replies

Quote:

So, let's say you are married and two seconds before giving birth your wife decides she wants to abort the child. What would you do?

I would do my damnedest to stop her. I think that there is enough of a time frame where a woman is able to have an abortion. I think that carrying a child almost to the point of birth, and then deciding to abort is irresponsible. But that is my personal opinion. I would not presume to tell another woman what to do.

I am in favor of partial birth abortions in rare cases, where the life and/or health of the mother is at stake.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

djbt,

I hadn't realized you hadn't really MET Frank yet. Well, there he is in all his glory.

We have tried and tried to discuss this (and other issues) with him, but alas, to no avail. Well, that is unless you agree with him.

And Frank, get real What's the difference between a full term child (still inside the mother yet) and the fertilized egg?! I did read that right, didn't I? Surely, you cannot equate the two as equal?

I say: Until it is born...it is not a living being.

You say: From the moment the egg is fertilized...it is a living being.

You are right. You cannot "equate the two as equals."

Your position is absurd compared with mine.

0 Replies

Phoenix,

Well, I am so glad to hear you say you would try to stop her. It's the ones that believe it's a woman's right to abort right up until birth that I have the problem with. Lines do have to be drawn somewhere.

I do appreciate you answering my question as fully as you did.

I think there may be a bit of misperception here. I am, as I have said, against abortion. However, if the law states that it is legal for a woman to have an abortion, then by man's law it is legal and she suffers no legal consequences. But, I do believe that abortion is against God's laws and that is the law that I am championing (as Frank calls it). The decision is up to the woman, just as any choice in life is. What I am the most against is that the law's change according to man's wants and needs. God does not change His laws. Man does. Now, I realize that those that do not believe in God do not believe in His laws.

Just understand that I believe we all have free will and our ultimate choice is between each of us and God. But, changing man's laws does not make something right that was at one time wrong (according to man).

I believe that our responsibility is to lobby for the laws we believe to be right and go through the system. I do not believe in bombing abortion clinics or killing abortion doctors. That is definitely not the answer.

So, I make no judgments on women who choose abortion. I would never try to convince them it is the right thing to do. I would merely point out my beliefs and views and listen to hers and let the decision be between her and God. It doesn't mean that I would hate her. I have had friends that have had abortions. I never agreed with them doing it but neither did I abandon them as my friends.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

If you don't really give a damn, as you say, why do you argue so violently?

I really don't give a damn what you maintain. Do you really suppose because I don't...I should not speak out on the issue????

Quote:

Indifference to something is what determines you really don't care.

Stop trying to be logical. You don't have the knack for it.

Quote:

Frank Apsia Wrote:

Quote:
I am simply here enjoying watching you...and so many others like you...pretending you are somehow morally or philosophically superior to those of us who see your bullshyt for what it is...and espouse the opposite position.

I don't recall anyone saying they are or are pretending to be morally or philosophically superior to you or anyone else.

Well you are asserting that our position abets murder...and the murder of infants, at that.

If you don't think a reasonable inference of moral and philosophical superiority on your part can be made...then you are, as I have suggested on several occasions...in over your intellect here.

Quote:

Seems to me, you are the one that keeps bringing in that statement...

No, I'm the one putting it into real words...not that underhanded, pretend to be nice horseshyt you deal out.

Quote:

.... and trying to convince us all of what a good guy you are.[/quote}

No need to do that. Everyone who knows me loves me.

[quote]And I kind of have to disagree on that ...I am as loving, considerate, and compassionate as you, line. I don't call you names.

No...you are sneaky about your insults. I've got the balls to put them out there for real.

Quote:

I don't call your views names.

Yeah you do...but as I mentioned, you are sneaky about it. You've got no guts.

Quote:

I don't call your God names. I try to be a bit more considerate than that. Call that superior if you will, I just call it respectful.

I have no god. You pretend that you are considerate. You pretend that you are respectful.

0 Replies

"Until it is born, it is not a living being."

So, to the list of delusional, close-minded and ill-mannered, I can add just plain old stupid.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

"Until it is born, it is not a living being."

So, to the list of delusional, close-minded and ill-mannered, I can add just plain old stupid.

F**k off, boy.

0 Replies

Ok, fine. I have no guts because I won't get nasty with you. Works for me.

I don't have the knack for being logical? Ok. Works for you.

And no, I did not say murder. I said killing, remember? Murder is the illegal act, as you have stated.

A reasonable inference of moral philosophical superiority could probably be garnered from a statement like, "I am going to heaven and you are going to hell." Me trying to use common courtesy is just that, common courtesy. And, to put it straight out there, I don't think you know what common courtesy is, unless, of course, one agrees with you.

Underhanded, pretend to be nice...? I won't even try to dignify that remark with an answer. (Oops, guess I just did! Laughing

)

And I am not sneaky about my insults. I have told you before that I thought you were a very rude and arrogant man. What's so sneaky about that?

I don't call your views names because I have no right to do so. You have the same rights as I do and just because you trample on mine does not mean I can trample on yours.

I pretend that I am considerate and I pretend that I am respectful? I can tell you one thing Frank. You don't know me at all. I pretend nothing. I don't need to pretend. I am real. What you see is what you get.

I just don't think you have to be rude to people to get your point across, as you obviously think you have to be. Now, that is as nasty as I care to get with you or anyone else.

Frank Apisa Wrote:

Quote:

I say: Until it is born...it is not a living being.

You say: From the moment the egg is fertilized...it is a living being.

You are right. You cannot "equate the two as equals."

Your position is absurd compared with mine.

Just what kind of answer is that? I didn't ask you to compare my position to yours. I asked you how can you equate a full term child to being the same as one just conceived.

In other words, is a full term child not out of the womb yet the same thing as a newly conceived "fetus, zygote, etc." as you call it (and child as I call it)? (In your opinion, that is.)

0 Replies

The answer as to when human life begins could be answered in three different ways. Religious, Philosphical or Biological.

As we know, the religious theory is open to much debate as there are those who do not prescribe to religion in any form. Philosophic theory is also left open to much debate. There is finally another theory which can answer the question of when does life begin. It is the biological theory. Biological human life is defined by studying the scientific facts of human development. This field of study has no disagreements and no controversy. Bottom line is that there is truly only one set of facts. The more knowledge that has been learned about human development, the more science confirms that life, biologically speaking, begins at conception. This means that at conception there is a human who is very much alive, human, complete and growing.

When something has the potential to become human, it is human. A non human does not grow and develop and become a human.

To say that a fetus is not a person until it can survive outside of the womb is still an arbitrary concept. Why not when a heartbeat begins (at about 3 weeks) or when brainwaves can be detected (at about 6 weeks). Also, as I have said before...even when a baby is born, it is many years before the child can survive without the aid of other people. If they have nobody to care for them, why not "abort" them too.

This is not only a legal situation, but is also a moral situation. Of course, laws vary and so do morals. We can discuss this forever (some prefer to call it debate). How do you debate something that does not have a clear and sound definition? It seems that the definition is what is being debated. At least, that is what I think.

0 Replies

ABORTION.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know