When Does Life Begin?

your asking for a negitive proof. The burden falls on antic-choice advocates to prove they do more than talk.

Having said that, I'll even giveyou a break. I don't believe the anti-choice crowd to be insincere. I'm sure their are people out their helping single mother's raise a child alone. I'm just saying that the degree of effort is disproportionate to the claimed passion to "protect life."

T
K
O

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

Quote:
I see those who continue to advocate for the cell (right to lifers) over the mother as hypocrites of the worst kind. They don't care about the mother or the baby after it's born. They just want to impose their religious belief on a complete stranger who otherwise wouldn't be on their radar screen. They claim every life is precious. Bologne! They haven't done anything for those orphans.

while a majority of prolifers are religious, there are also atheists and agnostics that advocate for life of an unborn baby. it's not just about a religious belief. and i would be interested in some evidence that shows that the majority of prolifers care not for the mother or even the baby after its birth.

I have never seen any evidence that the "majority" of prolifers show concern for the mother and/or the baby after birth. Maybe, you can provide some stats or investigative paper that shows us proof in support of it. As a matter of fact, I would be very interested to see such a credible report - if any existed.

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

No, because I'm talking about a clump of cells, not a foetus.

When does a clump of cells become a fetus?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
If you inherited property, but were unaware of it; and if I stole it, is it of no consequence due to your being unaware?
I never had the property to inherit in the first place so your analogy is false. A seed is not a tree.

The 'seed' analogy is false because humans do not reproduce like trees with 'seeds' that can lie dormant in the open woods for months with no chemical activity.

In humans, life is a continuous , unbroken process.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Mame wrote:
No, because I'm talking about a clump of cells, not a foetus.

When does a clump of cells become a fetus?

Exactly the point. Seldom are pro-aborts willing to define when life begins.

How many cells must one have before his life is valuable?

Whatever answer is given, then I must ask: so, if he has one cell fewer than that, he is not a living human being?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Mame wrote:
No, because I'm talking about a clump of cells, not a foetus.

When does a clump of cells become a fetus?

Exactly the point. Seldom are pro-aborts willing to define when life begins.

How many cells must one have before his life is valuable?

Whatever answer is given, then I must ask: so, if he has one cell fewer than that, he is not a living human being?

I think every pro-choice person in this thread has defined life to begin at conception. Some of us even believe it happens before that point with sperm and an eggs. The problem with the anti-choice camp is that they think that this information is the killing blow, while they lack the ability to back up why. They lack the ability to explain why a government should have the right to make that choice over the mother. They lack the strategie to actualy address the issues involved with unplanned pregnancy. So somebody tell me, what does the the beginning of life have to do with the practical solution?

The seed analogy is sound, you just don't want to hear it. The life cycle for a tree is also continuous. RL, you have lost all credibility in this messege board. Still a donkey with your carrot in the mud.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

. . . So somebody tell me, what does the the beginning of life have to do with the practical solution? . . .

I'm not one to advocate legislation one way or the other. Yet, this statement is frightening.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...The seed analogy is sound, you just don't want to hear it. The life cycle for a tree is also continuous...
K
O

deist (and/or anyone else):

I have admittedly not given the "seed analogy" as much credence as perhaps I should have - given the emphasis by so many pro-choicers. Please do me the favor of explaining in more detail what you mean by the "seed analogy".

Thanks.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
. . . So somebody tell me, what does the the beginning of life have to do with the practical solution? . . .
I'm not one to advocate legislation one way or the other. Yet, this statement is frightening.

Easy neo - you're slipping a foot into that forbidden door!!! :wink:

0 Replies

real life wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Mame wrote:
No, because I'm talking about a clump of cells, not a foetus.

When does a clump of cells become a fetus?

Exactly the point. Seldom are pro-aborts willing to define when life begins.

How many cells must one have before his life is valuable?

Whatever answer is given, then I must ask: so, if he has one cell fewer than that, he is not a living human being?

Not true! According to medical science, a sperm and egg are potential humans. When sperm meets egg, it's a zygote. After nine months, it can become a viable human. However, it has been known that the zygote before delivery can die of natural "causes." Some are aborted by the mother. Where do you "fit" in this picture?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I'm not one to advocate legislation one way or the other.

Given that there WILL be legislation one way or the other, your silence amounts to support for the status quo, whatever it may be at a given moment.

If the status quo changes, you still give it your silent approval.

My take on it is this:

Most people , when asked 'when does life begin?' will honestly answer 'I'm not completely sure'.

Therefore, shouldn't the legal benefit of the doubt be given to life?

0 Replies

The burden is on the pro-choice side to prove that "it" is something other than a human being. If they would accept that then maybe we could have a serious debate on the issue of abortion rights -- a debate that (I think) the pro-choice side has a decent shot at winning.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

The burden is on the pro-choice side to prove that "it" is something other than a human being. If they would accept that then maybe we could have a serious debate on the issue of abortion rights -- a debate that (I think) the pro-choice side has a decent shot at winning.

Now that's funny echi! Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
If you inherited property, but were unaware of it; and if I stole it, is it of no consequence due to your being unaware?
I never had the property to inherit in the first place so your analogy is false. A seed is not a tree.

The 'seed' analogy is false because humans do not reproduce like trees with 'seeds' that can lie dormant in the open woods for months with no chemical activity.

In humans, life is a continuous , unbroken process.

False, in humans, life is not a continuous, unbroken process any more than tree's lives are.

False, seeds do indeed have chemical activity.

A seed is not a tree, but if you believe a seed is a tree, build a house of seeds.

Take a fertilized egg out for breakfast if you think it's a person, maybe it will even pay the bill.

Take a clump of cells, put it in a baby carriage and go for a stroll in the park, I'm sure your baby will be much admired.

0 Replies

Quote:

I have never seen any evidence that the "majority" of prolifers show concern for the mother and/or the baby after birth. Maybe, you can provide some stats or investigative paper that shows us proof in support of it. As a matter of fact, I would be very interested to see such a credible report - if any existed

i guess this is your "subtle" way of saying you don't have anything to back up your outrageous blanket accusation against millions of people. I don't have to do anything, you made the accusation that all prolifers are hypocrites that care naught for the mother and child. But i guess if we are digressing from intelligent debate to mudslinging, i will say this....all pro-choice people are murderers that hate children.....ok now if we are done slandering people we don't agree with, lets continue the debate.
and by the way, oh about 50 or so pages back(maybe more) i gave info on what is called "grandfather houses" supported thru Liberty univ(christian school) they are houses for young unwed pregnant girls. they offer financial help, and work. Most christian orgs that help pregnant girls are non profit and done usually through local churches and associations. One that my denomination has is called "christian women's job corp" it helps women of all ages that need financial assistance mainly bc of children, they also get training to make it in the work force and help getting their GED (if needed). They are given clothes for their children, food and are placed in good jobs. Most churches have local food pantries that distribute food and clothes to people in need. If you want to find out more on what christians do for those in need ...children, young mothers, adults...go to your local SBC associational office and ask. I guarantee they help.

0 Replies

kate, Those christian orgs that provide "housing and support" for pregnant women provide no choice for the mother; they try to brainwash them with scare tactics and about "killing a baby" if they are seeking abortion.

All women should have the support of a doctor - not religious zealots.

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

...i will say this....all pro-choice people are murderers that hate children.....ok now if we are done slandering people we don't agree with, lets continue the debate.

Kate, I get your point here about generalizations, but your sarcastic comment in truth was the first stone thrown in this long time debate. Pro-choice people have been fighting off this absurd characterization for as long as people have been arguing about this.

As for the resources your church provides, I'll admit I'm impressed. But forgive my reservations about many other groups. I do have a question directly for you. Given, the alternative availible to them that your church provides, isn't it more meaningful that a mother is able to choose to keep her child than having the goverment telling her what the choice is?

I see your examples as the defining evidence that the path to fewer abortions is not through legislative measures. wouldn't it be better to create more programs such as the ones you listed?

Think about it.
K
O

0 Replies

Thanks to the Colbert bump Gov. Mike Huckabee will be the next President of the United States. Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution nor in a woman's right to choose.

Looks like Canadian science and medicine is going to get an automatic leg up on our backward southern neighbors!

0 Replies

Gov. Mike Huckabee only has a prayer, and god doesn't answer prayers.

0 Replies

Quote:

Kate, I get your point here about generalizations, but your sarcastic comment in truth was the first stone thrown in this long time debate.

what sarcastic comment?

Quote:

Pro-choice people have been fighting off this absurd characterization for as long as people have been arguing about this

exactly. but i do find it ironic you are quick to point out the unfairness of this generalization against prochoicers yet you didn't say anything in defense of the generalization made by CI about prolifers. and didn't even acknowledge it until i pointed it out. that is what i call hypocritical.

Quote:

As for the resources your church provides, I'll admit I'm impressed. But forgive my reservations about many other groups.

its not just my church. its the whole southern baptist convention. millions of people that believe abortion is wrong but also want to help a young mother so she doesnt have to abort. there are groups within about ever denomination that does things like this. all a person has to do is look it up or go to a local church and ask.

Quote:

I do have a question directly for you. Given, the alternative availible to them that your church provides, isn't it more meaningful that a mother is able to choose to keep her child than having the goverment telling her what the choice is?

as i have stated before i view abortion as murder. i don't care about what seems meaningful as much as what i view is morally right. since i view abortion as murder, i believe the govt should be involved (as they are with any thing deemed a crime)

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know