Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

I support the right of the woman to choose.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, You are tiresome and a bore. I support the right of the woman to choose. Nothing fancy about that; it's none of my business how any woman decides what to do. It just so happens that the laws of this country also agrees.

Not for long. The laws regarding abortion are changing in this country.

There are more and more restrictions placed on abortion each year, and you're going to see it continue.

The recent attempt in SD to enact a near total ban on abortion is just the first, not the last.

As people learn more about the medical status of the unborn, they become more and more pro-life. It's inevitable.

Thirty years ago when sonograms were not commonplace, many people accepted unquestioningly the pro-abortion argument that 'it's just a blob of tissue'.

Not any more.

When moms and dads can see the unborn moving around, hear it's heartbeat, etc it becomes impossible to rationalize 'it's just a blob of tissue'.

Abortion supporters are on the wrong side of history, and future generations will look back with shock and horror at what abortion supporters advocated and permitted.

Go ahead and lip synch to your favorite political abortion slogan about supporting a right to choice. Not all choices are valid, and putting your baby to death is one of those.

If you are bored, it is your own fault. You've said nothing interesting on this topic in months.

0 Replies

If that is what makes your life worth living - to control the life of women you don't even know, you're a pitiful human being. You should "work" to feed and house the children already in this world.

0 Replies

Funny how you keep saying how you detest me trying to 'control' others.........

.......... and also how you don't impose your standards on anybody but yourself........

.........and in the next breath get all preachy about what I 'should' do.

Can somebody say 'hypocrisy'?

If I shouldn't tell anyone what they should do, then why should you tell me what I should do?

Can't you practice what you preach, CI?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
real, You are tiresome and a bore. I support the right of the woman to choose. Nothing fancy about that; it's none of my business how any woman decides what to do. It just so happens that the laws of this country also agrees.

Not for long. The laws regarding abortion are changing in this country.

There are more and more restrictions placed on abortion each year, and you're going to see it continue.

The recent attempt in SD to enact a near total ban on abortion is just the first, not the last.

As people learn more about the medical status of the unborn, they become more and more pro-life. It's inevitable.

Thirty years ago when sonograms were not commonplace, many people accepted unquestioningly the pro-abortion argument that 'it's just a blob of tissue'.

Not any more.

When moms and dads can see the unborn moving around, hear it's heartbeat, etc it becomes impossible to rationalize 'it's just a blob of tissue'.

Abortion supporters are on the wrong side of history, and future generations will look back with shock and horror at what abortion supporters advocated and permitted.

Go ahead and lip synch to your favorite political abortion slogan about supporting a right to choice. Not all choices are valid, and putting your baby to death is one of those.

If you are bored, it is your own fault. You've said nothing interesting on this topic in months.

It could take a while for the USA to catch up to the rest of the civilised world.

Good, practical, sensible laws are almost impossible when "Freedom" and "God" are both held in such high esteem, yet so often on opposite sides.

0 Replies

The definite definition of a line between "alive" and "dead" is impossible. It is up to us to decide. It is sort of like defining the line between what is a planet and what isn't. There is no wrong or right answer.

Who knows, maybe it will remain up to us to decide whether abortion is wrong. Maybe the governments of certain countries will put restrictions on. My personal opinion is that if a child is going to be born to teenager parents, ruin their lives, and have a poor up bringing, maybe it is better to abort.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
real, You are tiresome and a bore. I support the right of the woman to choose. Nothing fancy about that; it's none of my business how any woman decides what to do. It just so happens that the laws of this country also agrees.

Not for long. The laws regarding abortion are changing in this country.

There are more and more restrictions placed on abortion each year, and you're going to see it continue.

The recent attempt in SD to enact a near total ban on abortion is just the first, not the last.

As people learn more about the medical status of the unborn, they become more and more pro-life. It's inevitable.

Thirty years ago when sonograms were not commonplace, many people accepted unquestioningly the pro-abortion argument that 'it's just a blob of tissue'.

Not any more.

When moms and dads can see the unborn moving around, hear it's heartbeat, etc it becomes impossible to rationalize 'it's just a blob of tissue'.

Abortion supporters are on the wrong side of history, and future generations will look back with shock and horror at what abortion supporters advocated and permitted.

Go ahead and lip synch to your favorite political abortion slogan about supporting a right to choice. Not all choices are valid, and putting your baby to death is one of those.

If you are bored, it is your own fault. You've said nothing interesting on this topic in months.

It could take a while for the USA to catch up to the rest of the civilised world.

Good, practical, sensible laws are almost impossible when "Freedom" and "God" are both held in such high esteem, yet so often on opposite sides.

Ridiculous.

The Founding Fathers of the USA held both in high esteem and produced the freest and most prosperous system the world has ever seen. The US model has produced more freedom - political, religious and in every other way - in addition to assisting other countries along the path to freedom than any other country -- ever.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

The definite definition of a line between "alive" and "dead" is impossible. It is up to us to decide. It is sort of like defining the line between what is a planet and what isn't. There is no wrong or right answer.

If you came upon an accident victim, and you weren't sure if he was alive or dead......

......would you take action on the basis that he MAY be alive, or would your actions be as if he were already dead?

Would you not give the benefit of the doubt to life, and work to preserve life?

aperson wrote:

Who knows, maybe it will remain up to us to decide whether abortion is wrong. Maybe the governments of certain countries will put restrictions on. My personal opinion is that if a child is going to be born to teenager parents, ruin their lives, and have a poor up bringing, maybe it is better to abort.

So how 'poor' must one be before we kill them to put them out of their misery?

Have you never heard of adoption?

Why is killing the only solution you can think of?

0 Replies

I would definitely give the benefit of the doubt, but only because the person was in danger of becoming more dead, not more alive. The line between dead and alive in a grown person is relatively distinct.

You do have a point there with adoption, however, we don't no whether it is killing or not; that is what we are discussing. Slightly paradoxical isn't it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Ridiculous.

The Founding Fathers of the USA held both in high esteem and produced the freest and most prosperous system the world has ever seen. The US model has produced more freedom - political, religious and in every other way - in addition to assisting other countries along the path to freedom than any other country -- ever.

So God wants you all to have guns?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:

Ridiculous.

The Founding Fathers of the USA held both in high esteem and produced the freest and most prosperous system the world has ever seen. The US model has produced more freedom - political, religious and in every other way - in addition to assisting other countries along the path to freedom than any other country -- ever.

So God wants you all to have guns?

Since you couldn't dispute what I said, so you are disputing what I didn't say?

0 Replies

Do me the courtesy of replying to my post, please.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

I would definitely give the benefit of the doubt, but only because the person was in danger of becoming more dead, not more alive. The line between dead and alive in a grown person is relatively distinct.

You do have a point there with adoption, however, we don't no whether it is killing or not; that is what we are discussing. Slightly paradoxical isn't it?

Either the unborn is living, or it is not. There's no fuzzy gray here. Can you think of a third alternative to 'Living' and 'Not Living' ?

Do you propose that the unborn is NOT alive? What medical evidence do you offer to show that life is not present?

I would also like to hear your reply to my question:

real life wrote:

So how 'poor' must one be before we kill them to put them out of their misery?

The 'poor' in this country are living a rich life compared to many in other countries. With 'poor' being such a relative term, just how 'poor' is 'too poor' to let someone live?

Should we also consider killing off other 'poor' people that have had the misfortune of being born?

Wouldn't it be rather inhuman to let them continue to suffer?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
real life wrote:

Ridiculous.

The Founding Fathers of the USA held both in high esteem and produced the freest and most prosperous system the world has ever seen. The US model has produced more freedom - political, religious and in every other way - in addition to assisting other countries along the path to freedom than any other country -- ever.

So God wants you all to have guns?

Since you couldn't dispute what I said, so you are disputing what I didn't say?

Pretty much. Laughing

My point was, there are "better" democracies with a little less freedom (such as the freedom to fill my house with high powered guns) and a lot less god.

Democracy is a terrible system anyway. (add Churchill to taste)

0 Replies

real life,
We must define "alive" before we can continure.

And I did reply to your post by saying that I thought you had a point with adoption and so though that there was no need to answer your question.

0 Replies

alive:

1. having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless

I think we all know what dead or lifeless is, therefore a foetus moving around must be alive.

Going on that assumption, you're suggesting that it may be better for this soon-to-be-born-person to be aborted rather than having a 'poor upbringing'? What constitutes a 'poor upbringing', anyway? And what makes you think the teenaged parents' lives would be 'ruined' by having this baby?

You might want to think this through a bit more.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
Eorl wrote:
real life wrote:

Ridiculous.

The Founding Fathers of the USA held both in high esteem and produced the freest and most prosperous system the world has ever seen. The US model has produced more freedom - political, religious and in every other way - in addition to assisting other countries along the path to freedom than any other country -- ever.

So God wants you all to have guns?

Since you couldn't dispute what I said, so you are disputing what I didn't say?

Pretty much.

My point was, there are "better" democracies with a little less freedom (such as the freedom to fill my house with high powered guns) and a lot less god.

Democracy is a terrible system anyway. (add Churchill to taste)

There is no country that has produced more freedom for more people than the USA. Period.

The USA has not only maintained a free society for itself but has saved the bacon of other countries time and again so that they could remain free societies.

Having folks who grew up comfortable with using a gun was instrumental in the success of US operations in both WWI and WWII, for instance.

Europe would have had a long reign of despotism had not the USA been willing to spill blood in behalf of freedom.

So , if you think 'gunless' societies can protect freedom as well as the US has, maybe you'd better research it and find an example that even comes close.

Hint: You won't find one.

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

alive:

1. having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless

I think we all know what dead or lifeless is, therefore a foetus moving around must be alive.

Going on that assumption, you're suggesting that it may be better for this soon-to-be-born-person to be aborted rather than having a 'poor upbringing'? What constitutes a 'poor upbringing', anyway? And what makes you think the teenaged parents' lives would be 'ruined' by having this baby?

You might want to think this through a bit more.

Yeah what Mame said.

Rule of thumb: If you think it MIGHT BE a living person, but you aren't sure, don't take action to kill it. Give the benefit of the doubt to life.

Scenario:

A fireman arrives at a burning building. Is there a living person inside?

No one knows.

What does he do? He proceeds on the assumption that there MAY BE a living person, and risks his own life to save one that may be endangered.

That is exactly what we would expect him to do, isn't it?

What if he were to proceed as if there WASN'T a living person in the building because no one was ABSOLUTELY SURE there was?

His recklessness would be deserving of severe condemnation by all, wouldn't it?

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

alive:

1. having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless

I think we all know what dead or lifeless is, therefore a foetus moving around must be alive.

Going on that assumption, you're suggesting that it may be better for this soon-to-be-born-person to be aborted rather than having a 'poor upbringing'? What constitutes a 'poor upbringing', anyway? And what makes you think the teenaged parents' lives would be 'ruined' by having this baby?

You might want to think this through a bit more.

Listen, it's a bit more disputed than that.

There are countless definitions of life and as we all know, dictionary definitions are not always the best.

I suggest we take one at a time, starting with the scientific definition, which I have used before in other threads, then moving on through ethical, legal etc.

MRSGREN

12 stars whoever can tell me what it stands for.

0 Replies

Besides, this definition that you have bought up is not great.

"Having life" and living" don't help much. "Existing" well my computer exists so it must be alive. "Not dead or lifeless" in dictionary.com dead was described as "no longer living" and lifeless as "having no life". Sure, you can say that we all know what "dead" and "lifeless" mean but continuing the trend of dictionary definitions we can see that the two explain eachother.

So, back on the topic.

MRSGREN

0 Replies

Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know