ABORTION.......

real life wrote:

Hmmmm. Well okay. There's no reference to that in your post, but if that's what you meant.......

Apologies. You are correct, it wasn't clear.

real life wrote:

Do you then have a different standard for babies born vaginally as opposed to those who come into the world thru Caesarean section?

Absolutely not. I was born premature via Caesarean section.

real life wrote:

When are babies considered human beings, in your view? How much medical attention at birth disqualifies the child from deserving human status, in your view?

In my view? I honestly don't know. I offered that scenario up for discussion. Myself, I have no way of knowing at what point a fetus is to be considered a human. I have yet to hear a qualified explanation of what being "human" entails. I do know that noone seems to have a problem removing a uteris, an egg, taking a morning after pill etc. However, for some reason when the egg is successfully fertilized everything becomes taboo.

real life wrote:

Even healthy babies require quite a bit of care and will die soon if not cared for and protected. 'Viability' is a term that has little actual meaning if we expect babies to live on their own without help.

Naturally. Perhaps it would have been better phrased as "standard" medical treatment. Essentially what I was trying to describe is if the fetus is removed and can't live via standard hospital practices (ie: no testtubes, no growing in a chemical bath, nothing other than what any child born premature either by Caesarean section or regular child birth would or has required.) And yes, there are and always will be special cases. I understand that.

real life wrote:

Do they have to be self sufficient? That might delay things until they are say 18 years old or so.

Obviously not.

real life wrote:

Just when do you think it is no longer ok for a mother to kill her child?

The obvious answer to that is never. However, the topic of discussion here is when the zygote/egg/sperm/whatever is really a human, and not a parasite. This is what I'M trying to discern. Thus the offered theory above.

real life wrote:

This all goes back to Runner's question which you were completely unable to handle. How many cells does the unborn have to have before he is a human being with a right to live?

Unable to handle? I guess I don't know which one you're speaking of exactly. I'd be happy to "handle" it if you'd like to point it out to me again.

real life wrote:

You are unable to define a point at which the child is not a human or alive.

This is fact. I've stated this numerous times. I don't KNOW that point. Noone does. If anyone truly did this entire topic would be moot now, wouldn't it?

real life wrote:

Do you know why it is so difficult? Because there is no point at which he is not human or alive until he is put to death in the abortion clinic by chemical poisoning in a saline abortion or sliced and hacked to pieces in a D&C abortion or has the base of his skull pierced as his arms and legs hang outside the womb and has his brain sucked out by a vacuum in a partial birth abortion or......(enter favorite abortion technique here)

No point? This gets back to the crux of what I am attempting to discover. The fertilized egg is a human? Or it is merely an lump of cells that will one day become human? Is that the same thing? Could be, but i'm not convinced it is. How far back will you take that? THIS is the point that you and runner have avoided, or in your words "couldn't handle". Is an egg human? A sperm? All of these things have the potential to be a human. That they aren't is sometimes chance, sometimes design.

This is something I'd like to know. I'm not dead set one way or the other. One argument just seems to make more sense to me, that's all. This is where my scenario comes into play.

So far, the only real arguments i'm hearing from the other side of the fence are tear-jerking bits on how the abortions are performed (and yes, they are ghastly if being performed on a living, sentient being) and metaphors about slaves and other such things. I'm conflicted here. Partial birth abortion makes me want to heave. I can't imagine that being performed on anything. Removing an embryo from the womb? That doesn't produce the same effect. At all.

Simply tell us how many cells you think are required to be considered human. Don't be coy.

If you are truly not sure if an unborn child is a living human being at any given point, then shouldn't the benefit of the doubt go to the unborn child?

Why would you approve a procedure that you think 'may' result in killing an innocent human being?

[
Simply tell us how many cells you think are required to be considered human. Don't be coy.

If you are truly not sure if an unborn child is a living human being...

...at any given point, then shouldn't the benefit of the doubt go to the unborn child?

Why would you approve a procedure that you think 'may' result in killing an innocent human being?

Which innocents do you speak of?

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Which innocents do you speak of?

Surely he's not speaking of murderers who deserve and receive the death penalty ...

In any event, his glib "happens all the time" response hardly answers the question posed, which asked him why he would approve of such a procedure.

Yeah, innocent babies, are not comparable to murderers and rapists.

Now...have I answered all the questions?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Now...have I answered all the questions?

Yes, I believe so.


And you're still wrong.

real life wrote:

Simply tell us how many cells you think are required to be considered human. Don't be coy.

If you are truly not sure if an unborn child is a living human being at any given point, then shouldn't the benefit of the doubt go to the unborn child?

Why would you approve a procedure that you think 'may' result in killing an innocent human being?

Ok. First of all, show me one instance where I have said that I support any procedure? I've made it abundantly clear throughout my posts that I am looking for answers, not making decisions. If you can't get that through your apparently thick head, then please refrain from making comments about what you think I may approve of.

I'm not being coy in the least. I'm asking questions. Either provide answers or leave it alone.

Questioner wrote:

real life wrote:

Simply tell us how many cells you think are required to be considered human. Don't be coy.

If you are truly not sure if an unborn child is a living human being at any given point, then shouldn't the benefit of the doubt go to the unborn child?

Why would you approve a procedure that you think 'may' result in killing an innocent human being?

Ok. First of all, show me one instance where I have said that I support any procedure? I've made it abundantly clear throughout my posts that I am looking for answers, not making decisions. If you can't get that through your apparently thick head, then please refrain from making comments about what you think I may approve of.

I'm not being coy in the least. I'm asking questions. Either provide answers or leave it alone.

Hi ?er,

I don't think I said you supported anything. I asked a hypothetical question.

If you are looking for answers, are you not going to use those answers to make a decision? Seems like a rather artificial distinction.

The answers I have provided previously you didn't like. The questions I've asked you've dodged. You are rather hard to please.

But, I'll try again:

Answer: From the moment of conception, a human life has begun. This living being has a distinct DNA pattern that distinguishes it from his mother i.e. he is NOT 'part of the mother's body'. He will develop a heartbeat before his 4th week is done and brain waves have been recorded by the 6th week.

He needs nourishment, protection and time to be born into the world. He has a right to live and this right should be protected by law, common sense and morality, etc. But currently it isn't in many countries.

Question (in case you didn't like that answer): If you are not sure that the unborn is a living human when he is small and composed of relatively few cells, how many cells does he need before you consider him a living human?

Question : Some may argue that we may NEVER know EXACTLY when human life begins. If you are still uncertain that the unborn is indeed a living human being { and believe me, I can understand why you could be } , shouldn't the benefit of the doubt be in favor of life, instead of death?

We have laws that tell us to drive cautiously, erect safety barriers, etc so that IF a person MAY HAPPEN to be in the vicinity of what we are doing, we will not be acting in a manner that will endanger their lives. Isn't it common sense to exercise caution and avoid endangerment of an innocent life in any situation, when possible?

I don't think I said you supported anything. I asked a hypothetical question.

Why would you approve a procedure that you think 'may' result in killing an innocent human being?

If you are looking for answers, are you not going to use those answers to make a decision? Seems like a rather artificial distinction.

The answers I have provided previously you didn't like. The questions I've asked you've dodged. You are rather hard to please.

But, I'll try again:

Answer: From the moment of conception, a human life has begun. This living being has a distinct DNA pattern that distinguishes it from his mother i.e. he is NOT 'part of the mother's body'. He will develop a heartbeat before his 4th week is done and brain waves have been recorded by the 6th week.

Question (in case you didn't like that answer): If you are not sure that the unborn is a living human when he is small and composed of relatively few cells, how many cells does he need before you consider him a living human?

Question : Some may argue that we may NEVER know EXACTLY when human life begins. If you are still uncertain that the unborn is indeed a living human being { and believe me, I can understand why you could be } , shouldn't the benefit of the doubt be in favor of life, instead of death?

We have laws that tell us to drive cautiously, erect safety barriers, etc so that IF a person MAY HAPPEN to be in the vicinity of what we are doing, we will not be acting in a manner that will endanger their lives. Isn't it common sense to exercise caution and avoid endangerment of an innocent life in any situation, when possible?

First there is the mother's rights. Like it or not, by design it is still the woman's body. By getting pregnant, she then loses the ability to decide what's to be done with her own body?

real life wrote:

Question : Some may argue that we may NEVER know EXACTLY when human life begins. If you are still uncertain that the unborn is indeed a living human being { and believe me, I can understand why you could be } , shouldn't the benefit of the doubt be in favor of life, instead of death?

Perhaps you should. But in that assumption, there is a bit more at stake than is generally argued. First there is the mother's rights. Like it or not, by design it is still the woman's body. By getting pregnant, she then loses the ability to decide what's to be done with her own body?

And at the risk of being accused of "dodging" something you feel I've missed, allow me to ask another question of you. Would you frown upon the IVF treatment? The reason I ask is, the IVF treatment takes fertilized eggs, incubates them until they are ready for use. During this incubation/replacement cycle there is a decent chance that the large majority of the eggs won't survive. Would you consider this akin to abortion? Or does "intent" play a large roll in your reservations?

real life wrote:

We have laws that tell us to drive cautiously, erect safety barriers, etc so that IF a person MAY HAPPEN to be in the vicinity of what we are doing, we will not be acting in a manner that will endanger their lives. Isn't it common sense to exercise caution and avoid endangerment of an innocent life in any situation, when possible?

We also have laws protecting our freedom and rights, to which you are saying a pregnant woman has less of than one that's not.

Experimenting with human lives and discarding them is cruel and inhumane, to say the very least.