2
   

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

Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Abortion, Religion, Fetus
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 10:12 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
A voice of desperation.

So is an adult who has never built a fire considered a human being?

What about one who has never produced art or literature? Are they non-human also?


Since you probably didn't read the full post, it's not surprising that you missed the context.

Eorl's contention was exactly that.

Since the fetus has never produced art or literature, it didn't fit his definition (or rather , the way he was twisting the wiki article to make it an exclusive definition. Instead of 'these are things humans can do' Eorl implies , no , he firmly states, 'these are things one MUST do to be human') of who was and wasn't human.
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 10:59 pm
real life wrote:


As you are well aware, the overwhelming majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience, not medical necessity. Even Planned Parenthood has websites documenting this.



And for some women, economic necessity.


..............Poor women, defined as those who earn $14,150 or less for a family of up to three individuals in 2000, showed a 25% increase in the number of abortions per 1,000 women. Those defined as low-income, earning less than $28,300 annually, had a 21% increase; those on Medicaid had a 14% increase during the same 6-year period.



.............While there appears to have been real progress in reaching teens, unintended pregnancy and consequent abortions are still a major problem among economically disadvantaged women. The reason for the rising abortion rate among poor and low-income women is not entirely clear.
AGI's Dr. Jones hypothesized that the welfare reforms of 1996 may be a contributor in that the shift toward a "work-fare" model has reduced the perception of welfare as a safety net, leading more women to opt for terminating an unwanted pregnancy rather than trying to support another child on very limited means. Reduced Medicaid coverage of contraception and failure to increase Title X funding for low-cost family planning services may have reduced poor women's access to contraceptives, thus fueling an increase in unwanted pregnancy.
She added that the general economic growth during the late 1990s might also be a factor in that poor women may have felt that "in a time of increased employment and educational opportunities, having a baby would mean they couldn't take advantage of those opportunities."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_23_37/ai_95514157
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 12:00 am
real, It doesn't matter what you wrote before or after your statements I posted above. They're still garbage/throw away statements.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 01:15 am
real life wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
A voice of desperation.

So is an adult who has never built a fire considered a human being?

What about one who has never produced art or literature? Are they non-human also?


Since you probably didn't read the full post, it's not surprising that you missed the context.

Eorl's contention was exactly that.

Since the fetus has never produced art or literature, it didn't fit his definition (or rather , the way he was twisting the wiki article to make it an exclusive definition. Instead of 'these are things humans can do' Eorl implies , no , he firmly states, 'these are things one MUST do to be human') of who was and wasn't human.


You're quite right , real life. A foetus can't be proven not to have art, literature or fire building abilities. No one has done the required testing.

So, still no answer on who you would save? That's OK. I'll discuss it with you further when you are ready to do so. Until then it's really pointless, because you'll just keep screaming "baby murderer". By refusing to answer, you are insisting that the debate only happens on your terms.

The reason you won't answer is clear. You see the truth. One child is worth more than 100 embryos.

(oh and by the way, as you well know, my contention was that proving a foetus is not a living human being is a ridiculous exercise dependant on the definition of terms. The fact that you find the Wiki definition of "human being" ridiculous proves my point, rather than defeating it. It simply serves your purpose to make me look ridiculous...and presumably Wikipedia, and Miriam Webster who had a similar definition.)
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 02:10 am
Re: Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???
baddog1 wrote:

1) What label should be utilized for the "beings" in these photo's?

2) Are these "beings" alive?

3) Dead?

4) Are these "beings" the property of the pregnant mother?

5) ... of the father?

6) ... of the state/country?

7) Must the person(s) performing surgery on these "beings" be licensed surgeons?

8) Why?

9) Should these "beings" have any rights (basic, human, legal and/or otherwise)?

1) The correct terms are "fetus" for the fetus, and "human beings" for the surgeon and the woman whose womb is shown.
2) They are all alive.
3) No, assuming that the surgery was successful.
4) The fetus is the property of the woman. The surgeon is not. The woman's body is the property of the woman, at least in the US.
5) If the father is married to the woman in a state that gives equal property rights to spouses, yes. Otherwise, no.
6) No.
7) Yes.
8) Because the life and health of the woman is at risk during surgery. Back-alley surgery could maim or kill her.
9) Mother, yes. Surgeon, yes. Fetus, no.

A 21-week old fetus may reflexively curl its fingers around something it bumps into, but its brain is not sufficiently developed to intentionally reach out and grab a surgeon's finger. Even infants take time to learn to do that. A 2nd trimester fetus has no mental concept of fingers, human beings, or anything else, nor awareness of itself as a human being. A zygote is not a human being by any stretch of the imagination. It is a set of blueprints for a human being.

Sometimes 2 sperm fertilize an egg, resulting in a triploid zygote with 69 chromosomes that is almost invariably miscarried (1 in 50,000 survives birth for a few hours or days). Is a triploid zygote that will die before even developing into an embryo a human being?

An embryo begins as an organized cluster of cells that may develop into a fetus. At least 15% are miscarried due to genetic or other problems. Are embryos with lethal genetic flaws human beings?

So what is YOUR definition of "human being"?
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 02:20 am
real life wrote:
The question when a woman is pregnant is very simple -- is the unborn child she is carrying a living human being or not?

If she wants to keep it, then it is treated as a living human being and anyone intentionally harming or killing the unborn may be charged with murder in many jurisdictions.

How is this possible if the unborn is just 'a parasite', a 'piece of the mother's body', just a 'potential human' and only a 'blob of undifferentiated tissue'?

If she doesn't want to keep it then it can be killed without consequence.

Does the medical status of the unborn differ if it is wanted or if it is not?

No.

It goes through EXACTLY the same path of growth and development either way.

Her embryo/fetus is a woman's personal property, and she has a right to dispose of it without consequence. Of course she may demand retribution from anyone who harms her property without her consent.

Do you consider the millions of women who have chosen to abort an embryo to be murderers? Our society's consistent failure to incarcerate them indicates otherwise. I doubt if they think they have killed a "human being," and I certainly don't condemn them as such.

Please explain to me why should your personal definition of "human being" should be imposed on millions of other people when it could cause them significant emotional and economic harm, and their definition will not affect you in any way at all.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 02:31 am
Pauligirl wrote:
It 's not part of her body? Well good. Then you can have it grafted onto you and you can carry it around for 9 months, whether you want to or not, and then be responsible for its welfare for the next 18 years.

Laughing Good point. I'd like to see how many right-to-lifers (men included) would volunteer to host unwanted embryos.

Anything growing inside of me, absorbing my nutrients and attached to my womb such that it cannot be pulled away without causing hemorrhaging IS part of my body.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 07:25 am
Re: Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???
Terry wrote:
baddog1 wrote:

1) What label should be utilized for the "beings" in these photo's?

2) Are these "beings" alive?

3) Dead?

4) Are these "beings" the property of the pregnant mother?

5) ... of the father?

6) ... of the state/country?

7) Must the person(s) performing surgery on these "beings" be licensed surgeons?

8) Why?

9) Should these "beings" have any rights (basic, human, legal and/or otherwise)?

1) The correct terms are "fetus" for the fetus, and "human beings" for the surgeon and the woman whose womb is shown.
2) They are all alive.
3) No, assuming that the surgery was successful.
4) The fetus is the property of the woman. The surgeon is not. The woman's body is the property of the woman, at least in the US.
5) If the father is married to the woman in a state that gives equal property rights to spouses, yes. Otherwise, no.
6) No.
7) Yes.
8) Because the life and health of the woman is at risk during surgery. Back-alley surgery could maim or kill her.
9) Mother, yes. Surgeon, yes. Fetus, no.

A 21-week old fetus may reflexively curl its fingers around something it bumps into, but its brain is not sufficiently developed to intentionally reach out and grab a surgeon's finger. Even infants take time to learn to do that. A 2nd trimester fetus has no mental concept of fingers, human beings, or anything else, nor awareness of itself as a human being. A zygote is not a human being by any stretch of the imagination. It is a set of blueprints for a human being.

Sometimes 2 sperm fertilize an egg, resulting in a triploid zygote with 69 chromosomes that is almost invariably miscarried (1 in 50,000 survives birth for a few hours or days). Is a triploid zygote that will die before even developing into an embryo a human being?

An embryo begins as an organized cluster of cells that may develop into a fetus. At least 15% are miscarried due to genetic or other problems. Are embryos with lethal genetic flaws human beings?

So what is YOUR definition of "human being"?


Terry:

Thank you for answering the questions! It took more than 60 replies before someone/anyone would answer the questions and I appreciate it. I also respect your position on the issue. I don't agree with your entire position, nor do you probably agree with mine; and that's fine with me. None the less - it is refreshing that you answered.

Now - to answer your question:

My definition of a human-being is not scientific, complex or note-worthy. It is simply "a person" (alive or dead). I am not playing semantics either.

I consider the "beings" in the photo's to be human-beings. A long time, good friend of mine is father to twin girls who were born (actually induced and delivered by C-section) many weeks earlier than the "beings" shown in those photo's. And despite options and encouragement to abort by some (due to less than 5% chance of the girls living, much less leading a normal life) - Mom & Dad chose to have & love those girls. The twins entered kindergarten this year and are as mischievous and full of life as any kids I've known.

The entire point of this thread was just that - to prove a point. That fetuses, zygotes, et al - are all alive, and growing into human-beings. Their only two alternatives are to continue to grow into "persons" or die. It is very, very simple.

Pro-abortionists (most :wink:) will not admit that the "beings" in the photo's are alive (as proven by this thread) as to do so would go against their emotion-driven position! Most would not even comment on this thread because of the evidential-factor of the photographs. Some got pi$$ed about it, some participated - but attempted to divert my questions, some participated and still would not answer the questions.

Everyone has their personal agenda. (Me included.) The most important question of the 9 - is #2.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 10:41 am
Baddog1:

I don't think that anyone denies that any product of conception (including a non-viable triploid mole) is "alive" and that abortion kills it. Nor do they deny that eggs, sperm and zygotes all have the potential to grow into living human beings, even though 2/3 of fertilized eggs fail to develop into viable fetuses (usualy due to genetic problems). The real question is:

At precisely what point in development does a zygote/embryo/fetus become a human being and/or person, and what rights, if any, should society grant to it?

The "right to life" does not exist anywhere in nature but is a social contract established by modern civilization. No just society would give a brainless embryo rights that supercede those of the fully human woman gestating it. Her rights include (but are not limited to) the right to life, health, liberty, economic freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. Involuntary motherhood is a violation of these rights.

So how do YOU define "person"? At what point in development does the zygote/embryo/fetus become a "person"? Is a triploid zygote a "person"? Is a non-viable embryo a "person" even though it will never develop a functioning human brain?

IMO there is no exact answer, but I cannot believe that personhood exists prior to 24 weeks gestation when the fetal brain develops to the point that rudimentary consciousness might be possible.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 07:49 pm
I wrote this on page one baddog1

Eorl wrote:
baddog1,

A foetus is alive, a foetus is human.


Since then you have accused me of refusing to provide any answers.

You wanted all your questions answered like an exam, did you?
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 10:02 pm
Eorl wrote:
I wrote this on page one baddog1

Eorl wrote:
baddog1,

A foetus is alive, a foetus is human.


Since then you have accused me of refusing to provide any answers.

You wanted all your questions answered like an exam, did you?


My apologies eorl! You are correct. I wrongly focused on your analogy of a hair being a human and assumed that you were being sarcastic.

Quote:
A foetus is alive, a foetus is human.
Pull a hair from your head...see the cells at the base?....alive, and human. Better push that hair back in, or face a murder trial.


I did not figure my questions as an exam however would've appreciated answers to all of the questions.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 10:28 pm
It wasn't sarcasm. Somehow it's assumed that if it is alive and human, then we can jump to the conclusion that we are talking about a person. The hair follicle point illustrates the fault in the logic.

You can potentially take those cells and create a new human being from them. Does it make those cells any more special than any other cells? No. A zygote is a bit more special because given time and lots of ingredients, it will naturally construct those ingredients into a complete human being assuming the mother assists at least until the point of birth.

Declaring the foetus "a living human being" from day one seeks to bypass all of that for the sake of propaganda...it's just oversimplification.

As for the other questions, Terry did a great job and I'll take hers as mine.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 11:09 pm
I didn't read what Terry wrote, but I know enough about her to support whatever she says.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 06:28 am
Quote:
Baddog1:

I don't think that anyone denies that any product of conception (including a non-viable triploid mole) is "alive" and that abortion kills it. Nor do they deny that eggs, sperm and zygotes all have the potential to grow into living human beings, even though 2/3 of fertilized eggs fail to develop into viable fetuses (usualy due to genetic problems). The real question is:

At precisely what point in development does a zygote/embryo/fetus become a human being and/or person, and what rights, if any, should society grant to it?


I do not know the answer to this question.

Quote:
The "right to life" does not exist anywhere in nature but is a social contract established by modern civilization.


I do not want to confuse "right to life" with "right to live". There's a big difference IMHO.

Quote:
No just society would give a brainless embryo rights that supercede those of the fully human woman gestating it.


Agreed - in the literal sense. (Key word - "supercedes").

Quote:
Her rights include (but are not limited to) the right to life, health, liberty, economic freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. Involuntary motherhood is a violation of these rights.


Agreed - again in the literal sense.

Quote:
So how do YOU define "person"? At what point in development does the zygote/embryo/fetus become a "person"? Is a triploid zygote a "person"? Is a non-viable embryo a "person" even though it will never develop a functioning human brain?


I will directly answer your questions however I want to be sure that my focus is understood - therefore first I will explain my position, then answer your questions.

I have a big problem with anyone who makes the choice to have unprotected sex and is not prepared to care for the child that may be conceived by this choice. (Note: "Caring for" includes adoption or aligning their life/lifestyle choices so as to properly care for the child!)

IMHO - a woman/couple should never be allowed to choose abortion for reason(s) of convenience! The only reasons that should be open to the possibility of having an abortion include: rape, catastrophic health issue to Mom, and/or catastrophic health issue with the fetus. [Note that I did not say "must" have an abortion"!] "Convenience" should NEVER be a reason to abort a fetus/zygote/etc. NEVER!!!

My definition of "person" would be whatever is shown in a generally accepted dictionary as it should be. No, a "triploid zygote is not a person. However - it will only become a person - or die. Same with a non-viable embryo. (See my answer above as it relates to this question.)


Quote:
IMO there is no exact answer, but I cannot believe that personhood exists prior to 24 weeks gestation when the fetal brain develops to the point that rudimentary consciousness might be possible.


I cannot effectively answer on the 24 week gestation period because I have not studied it enough; however I trust that your answer is probably accurate.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 07:46 pm
baddog1 wrote:


I have a big problem with anyone who makes the choice to have unprotected sex and is not prepared to care for the child that may be conceived by this choice. (Note: "Caring for" includes adoption or aligning their life/lifestyle choices so as to properly care for the child!)

IMHO - a woman/couple should never be allowed to choose abortion for reason(s) of convenience! The only reasons that should be open to the possibility of having an abortion include: rape, catastrophic health issue to Mom, and/or catastrophic health issue with the fetus. [Note that I did not say "must" have an abortion"!] "Convenience" should NEVER be a reason to abort a fetus/zygote/etc. NEVER!!!


You see the "IMHO" there? That's the important bit.

A major problem with allowing some abortions and not others, is how you are going to manage that. Does the rape need to be proven before the abortion can happen? How long will that take? 10 months? Does being underage (statutory rape) automatically qualify you for abortion? If the rape victim refuses to identify her rapist due to fear, do you, in your mercy, tell her she must carry the rapists child?

I see a lot of "should"s in this post, most of which I totally agree with. It's "must"s that I have a problem with.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 06:45 am
baddog1 wrote:
I have a big problem with anyone who makes the choice to have unprotected sex and is not prepared to care for the child that may be conceived by this choice. (Note: "Caring for" includes adoption or aligning their life/lifestyle choices so as to properly care for the child!)

IMHO - a woman/couple should never be allowed to choose abortion for reason(s) of convenience! The only reasons that should be open to the possibility of having an abortion include: rape, catastrophic health issue to Mom, and/or catastrophic health issue with the fetus. [Note that I did not say "must" have an abortion"!] "Convenience" should NEVER be a reason to abort a fetus/zygote/etc. NEVER!!!

I have a big problem with anyone who is clueless enough to think that pregnancy only happens when someone "chooses" to have unprotected sex.

My mother got pregnant on her honeymoon and had 5 children in seven years. She says she used a different birth control method for each of us. :wink: The plan was for her to work to put my dad through college, then for her to go. So much for that plan.

My husband's sister is referred to as "the immaculate conception" by my mother-in-law.

My husband and I slipped up ONCE on our 5th anniversary cruise (I blame the rum swizzles) and came back with an unexpected souvenir. His reaction to the news was to walk out of the house without a word. When he got back, I offered to have an abortion (which was legal) but we decided we could afford a brief interruption in my career. I got laid off right after coming back from maternity leave, decided to be a stay-at-home mom, and had a second (planned) child. Do I have regrets about giving up my career? Yes, even though I love my kids.

What about pregnancy resulting from a teen-aged girl seduced (not raped) by her boyfriend, hormones overriding common sense, a one-night stand with a guy she met in a bar while celebrating her 21st birthday, trading sex for drugs (do we really need any more crack babies?), a condom breaking or a pill forgotten or rendered ineffective by antibiotics? Average failure rate for condoms is 15% per year, but all birth control methods can fail even if used correctly and consistently (which they often aren't).

I have a problem with a system that ensures that the least responsible women bear the most children, and that I have to pay to support, educate (and often incarcerate) them with my tax dollars.

I have a problem with people who think that the pain, suffering, and economic loss of childbirth are seen as just punishment for women who have the audacity to enjoy sex with someone they don't want as the father of their eventual children.

I have a much bigger problem with anyone who thinks he/she can or should make the decision for anyone else about the conditions under which she should or should not bear a child. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to demand - or even suggest - that I bear an unwanted child and tell me to simply "give it up for adoption" if I cannot care for it. It isn't YOUR body that is going to be mutilated and YOUR life that is going to be disrupted by pregnancy and childbirth.

Your personal belief that mindless embryos are sacrosanct (unless if they are the result of rape, etc) is not justified by science or logic. Why do you think that it is OK for women to choose against motherhood prior to conception, but not afterwards?

What is the moral and social difference between using the pill to prevent ovulation, using a barrier method to prevent conception, using an IUD or the "morning-after pill" to prevent implantation, using RU-486 to dislodge the embryo, or using surgery to remove the embryo in the first trimester or fetus in the second? In each case, a genetically-unique potential human being is preventing from existing BEFORE it has a sufficiently developed brain to be considered a person.

Either early abortion is moral or it isn't, regardless of how or why the pregnancy happened.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 08:47 am
Quote:
I have a big problem with anyone who is clueless enough to think that pregnancy only happens when someone "chooses" to have unprotected sex.


I have no idea who you're talking about here. If your claiming that my message inferred that 'anyone who is clueless enough to think that pregnancy only happens when someone "chooses" to have unprotected sex' - you need to go back and re-read my post; because nowhere did I say - or infer the message in your statement above. Please do not add to, delete, and/or twist my words to try and prove a point. Frankly - I'm surprised you resorted to that tactic! Confused

Quote:
My mother got pregnant on her honeymoon and had 5 children in seven years. She says she used a different birth control method for each of us. :wink: The plan was for her to work to put my dad through college, then for her to go. So much for that plan.

My husband's sister is referred to as "the immaculate conception" by my mother-in-law.


Quote:
My husband and I slipped up ONCE on our 5th anniversary cruise (I blame the rum swizzles) and came back with an unexpected souvenir. His reaction to the news was to walk out of the house without a word. When he got back, I offered to have an abortion (which was legal) but we decided we could afford a brief interruption in my career. I got laid off right after coming back from maternity leave, decided to be a stay-at-home mom, and had a second (planned) child. Do I have regrets about giving up my career? Yes, even though I love my kids.


And if you had aborted; you would never have the joys (whatever they may be) of the "surprise-child" that you gave birth to. How do you think you would've felt for the rest of your days had you aborted?

And life is full of surprises from one slip-up. As you know - once is often enough. If it weren't - why use birth-control at all?

Quote:
What about pregnancy resulting from a teen-aged girl seduced (not raped) by her boyfriend, hormones overriding common sense, a one-night stand with a guy she met in a bar while celebrating her 21st birthday, trading sex for drugs (do we really need any more crack babies?), a condom breaking or a pill forgotten or rendered ineffective by antibiotics? Average failure rate for condoms is 15% per year, but all birth control methods can fail even if used correctly and consistently (which they often aren't).


All consequences of choices. Just like all of life!

Quote:
I have a problem with a system that ensures that the least responsible women bear the most children, and that I have to pay to support, educate (and often incarcerate) them with my tax dollars.


So do I!

Quote:
I have a problem with people who think that the pain, suffering, and economic loss of childbirth are seen as just punishment for women who have the audacity to enjoy sex with someone they don't want as the father of their eventual children.


I do not view it as punishment!

Quote:
I have a much bigger problem with anyone who thinks he/she can or should make the decision for anyone else about the conditions under which she should or should not bear a child. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to demand - or even suggest - that I bear an unwanted child and tell me to simply "give it up for adoption" if I cannot care for it. It isn't YOUR body that is going to be mutilated and YOUR life that is going to be disrupted by pregnancy and childbirth.


I am not demanding anything. I do suggest (and have the right to!) that you (and all who are emotionally and mentally capable) should be responsible for your actions. [In the example of your cruise: I assume that you and your husband were capable enough to know that having unprotected sex - even once - could result in pregnancy. You and your husband chose to take the chance. You became pregnant - which then created more choices to be made. You made those choices. I am sorry that you have regrets about giving up your career (while giving birth to and raising this child.)

And you're right - it isn't my body that would be mutilated. In the case of every abortion though - a life is mutilated! So if you choose to mutilate this life so that your body, life, etc. goes as you please - by all means do it. Your mind will never be changed about this.

Quote:
Your personal belief that mindless embryos are sacrosanct (unless if they are the result of rape, etc) is not justified by science or logic. Why do you think that it is OK for women to choose against motherhood prior to conception, but not afterwards?


Are you serious? What life did she help to create prior to conception?

Quote:
What is the moral and social difference between using the pill to prevent ovulation, using a barrier method to prevent conception, using an IUD or the "morning-after pill" to prevent implantation, using RU-486 to dislodge the embryo, or using surgery to remove the embryo in the first trimester or fetus in the second? In each case, a genetically-unique potential human being is preventing from existing BEFORE it has a sufficiently developed brain to be considered a person.


No life is created by two individuals in any of the methods you're suggesting.

Quote:
Either early abortion is moral or it isn't, regardless of how or why the pregnancy happened.


That is certainly your right to believe, suggest, etc. and I am not attacking you for this belief. However - it is not your right to demand a certain way - am I correct? :wink:
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 09:28 am
Abortion isn't about morality but about legality.

One person's morals should not be legislated on others. One person's religion should not be legislated unto others.

"How do you think you would feel if you had done something else" is the argument of a desperate person. It has no logic to it. It is nothing but an emotional appeal. Some people regret their abortions. Some regret not getting an abortion. One regret is no more valid than another.


Quote:
So if you choose to mutilate this life so that your body, life, etc. goes as you please - by all means do it. Your mind will never be changed about this.
Since one's mind will never be changed why are we discussing this? Unless you do mean to demand by law that we follow your morals?
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 11:09 am
Quote:
Abortion isn't about morality but about legality.


It's actually about both. In areas where abortion is legal - it then becomes a moral issue for the woman/couple.

Quote:
One person's morals should not be legislated on others. One person's religion should not be legislated unto others.


Agreed.

Quote:
"How do you think you would feel if you had done something else" is the argument of a desperate person. It has no logic to it. It is nothing but an emotional appeal. Some people regret their abortions. Some regret not getting an abortion. One regret is no more valid than another.


Disagree. Presenting the question of how one may feel given a circumstance has nothing to do with desperation. It may present a condition that had never been considered prior to; therefore can be useful. Logic has little to do with it.

Quote:
Since one's mind will never be changed why are we discussing this? Unless you do mean to demand by law that we follow your morals


I said that "Terry" will never change her mind - not everyone. There are those who've had abortion(s) and been regretful for that decision their entire lives. I personally do not feel the laws will change concerning abortion (although I feel they should) - and do not campaign for such. It's clearly a moral issue - lawful or not.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 11:15 am
Since it is a moral issue where people hold differing opinions we can all agree there should be no laws.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 01:34:24
▲ ▼