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

CI,

If you have been following my discussion with Terry, it was regarding the slippery slope that Western societies have found themselves on following the devaluing of human life through abortion.

Or if you had just read the one post, it began:

real life wrote:

Since the abolition of abortion laws, Western society has been on a slippery slope of de-valuing life on many fronts, as anyone willing to do a little reading can verify. Here are just a handful of excerpts from literally thousands of articles available on involuntary euthanasia and futile care to name a few.

Apparently you've neither followed the discussion nor even read the post you're commenting on.

So, it's no surprise that you haven't the faintest idea what you, or anyone is talking about.

0 Replies

real, Many of us have been following your "line of thinking" for many months, if not years. That you can switch from the right to life of zygotes to the aged seems inconsistent even for you. Especially, since your emphasis on the zygote over living children speaks more to us than you can ever say about the elderly or handicapped.

You are the one having difficulty understanding the rights of women over "everything else."

0 Replies

CI,

Perhaps you should expend a little effort to understand the issue of abortion, and how it has led to increasing instances and acceptance of infanticide, involuntary euthanasia, and withholding of care from the living.

You obviously don't have an interest in understanding it however. All you contribute to the discussion is political sloganeering and little else.

Your erroneous assumptions about what others do or don't support are simply functions of your need to toss wild accusations about.

You repeat the party line about 'neglecting children' without having a clue as to what you are talking about.

You approach this subject from a strictly political stance. Many of your posts in the abortion threads are screeds regarding Pres Bush, the Iraq war, and other political talking points that you have absorbed from your kindred political sources.

The pro-life issue for me is not about politics.

I'd vote for a pro-life Democrat over a pro-abortion Republican any day.

I'm not married to political machinery as you are.

If you have some thoughtful input on the abortion or pro-life topic, I'd be glad to discuss.

But your ridiculous political rants are simply a broken record.

Let's start Here:

Do you have ANY medical evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

CI,
Perhaps you should expend a little effort to understand the issue of abortion, and how it has led to increasing instances and acceptance of infanticide, involuntary euthanasia, and withholding of care from the living.

If this is all you have; an list of cultural happenings over that period of time since abortion was made legal, then all you have is something cicumstancial.

By your logic, legalized abortion could also be responcible for global warming.

If you're making the case that unless we make abortion illegal the world as we know it wil end; that our society will crumble, you'd better be able to draw a straight line. Right now, at best you've got a single point, and a line that begin's and ends at it.

How many laps do you plan on doing? Tell me so I can time you; record your best times, take an average.

0 Replies

As blatham as indicated about real, he's hopeless.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real life wrote:
CI,

Perhaps you should expend a little effort to understand the issue of abortion, and how it has led to increasing instances and acceptance of infanticide, involuntary euthanasia, and withholding of care from the living.

You obviously don't have an interest in understanding it however. All you contribute to the discussion is political sloganeering and little else.

Your erroneous assumptions about what others do or don't support are simply functions of your need to toss wild accusations about.

You repeat the party line about 'neglecting children' without having a clue as to what you are talking about.

You approach this subject from a strictly political stance. Many of your posts in the abortion threads are screeds regarding Pres Bush, the Iraq war, and other political talking points that you have absorbed from your kindred political sources.

The pro-life issue for me is not about politics.

I'd vote for a pro-life Democrat over a pro-abortion Republican any day.

I'm not married to political machinery as you are.

If you have some thoughtful input on the abortion or pro-life topic, I'd be glad to discuss.

But your ridiculous political rants are simply a broken record.

Let's start Here:

Do you have ANY medical evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being?

As blatham as indicated about real, he's hopeless.

I guess that's a 'No'.

The only one who has attempted to offer medical evidence that the unborn is not a living human being seems to be Terry.

She indicated her position that 'self awareness' was not possible early in gestation, therefore no human being.

However, she so far has failed to establish what degree (if any) of self awareness is required to be a living human being.

So I'd like to continue to open this to others who may yet want to offer medical evidence that the unborn is not a living human being.

How 'aware' must one be to qualify as a living human being?

Do people in a coma have the requisite amount of awareness?

Mentally retarded people?

Catatonic?

Do people under anesthethic ?

People using illegal narcotics?

A brain-injured person?

People who are knocked 'unconscious'?

People who are asleep?

In a drunken stupor?

What exactly[/u] in the brain must be measured, and what standard must it meet for one to be 'self aware' enough to be a living human being?

0 Replies

Is it true that a change occurs to the feotus when it is 40 days old?

0 Replies

An unborn child is constantly growing and changing.

What change are you referring to?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

An unborn child is constantly growing and changing.

What change are you referring to?

I was going to refer to a Hadith, but I guess I'm just going to get flamed for it.

0 Replies

Not by me.

0 Replies

real life, what is the exact moment you delare a person to begin exist? What makes that point any less arbitrary than any other?

0 Replies

Well, Eorl, I think I've indicated my answer to this quite often.

You'll not be surprised to hear that my position is simply this:

A living human being comes into existence at the moment of fertilization.

Now if anyone can demonstrate that the unborn is NOT alive at this point by providing evidence when these dead chemicals DO come alive , then that would be one way of falsifying this position.

Or if anyone can demonstrate that the unborn is NOT human at this point by providing evidence to show it is of some other species, then that also would be a way of falsifying this position.

Can I be certain of this? Relatively so, yes. As certain as one can be about anything, I suppose.

Could I be wrong? Yes. Someone, someday may be able to prove that the unborn is NOT living or is not human. But I rather doubt it.

But even if 100% certainty is not possible, the benefit of the doubt must go to life, not to recklessly destroying the unborn while pretending 100% certainty that it is NOT a living human being.

0 Replies

Why not before that time? Are sperm and egg not human and alive?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Why not before that time? Are sperm and egg not human and alive?

Sperm and egg do not have the required number of chromosomes to be a human being.

They each have 23. When they join, there are 46 just like you and me. It is then a human being, not before.

Haven't we covered this numerous times?

0 Replies

I can't believe you are still arguing over this.

Doesn't anyone know that this "discussion" will never end?

0 Replies

Bella Dea, Real thinks a zygote is a human baby even though it doesn't have a brain, but says the sperm and egg doesn't fit the "chromosome" requirement for a human. He's so confused and dangerous, because he wants to control women's bodies even though he has no responsibility other than to give the zygote legal rights over all the women he doesn't even know. Over and beyond all this, he does nothing for the children already alive and starving.

All we can do is show how ignorant and dangerous he is to society at- large, but especially over women's rights.

0 Replies

ci,
He doesn't need anyone to show us anything. He does just fine on his own.

I just stopped arguing because no matter what logic is used, he manages to twist your point and try to make his fit...and then acts smugly about it afterwards like he's accomplished something great.

0 Replies

Was just thinking:

I started this post over 4-months ago, there have been 56+ pages so far and by my estimation; RL has not wavered in his position on this matter.

As to RL's continuous position on when he feels that human life begins - I have not read compelling evidence (scientific or otherwise) by anyone showing his theory to be untrue.

[Before you flame - I realize this does not mean RL's position is absolutely correct, but you must give credit to the fact that RL's position has not been proven as untrue by any method other than emotional.]

I suggest that if your desire is to prove RL wrong - stop the emotional brow-beating and set out to provide fact-based information that proves his primary position is incorrect. Once you've done that - then RL will have to decide how to proceed. Until then - RL's position remains strong - and rightly so. :wink:

0 Replies

baddog, What makes you think your opinion has any value? A zygote does not have a brain, feelings, or thinking ability. It's not a human by any stretch of the imagination. Only ignorant people "assume" it's human. There is no legal or ethical standards of a zygote except for people who wish to push their religious' beliefs on the rest of society. Blind faith is more like it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

baddog, What makes you think your opinion has any value?

A great quote showing the double standard of a moral relativist. Laughing

CI's opinion (and therefore his view of morality) is valid because, well......because it's CI's.

But anybody else's is not.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know