|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted April 04, 2013 05:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Some humans are deaf, some blind, paralyzed, ect. Being deaf, blind, immobile, or of below normal intelligence does not make the human "less human" or "not a person."
Yes, and we don't cut them up for their organs. No brain means something else, so all that Nazi stuff is irrelevant. It's amazing how long you can mumble on about off topic stuff.
Quote:
If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature. This is because if the being naturally initiates the change, it must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life. This means that if we are persons with the right to be free from aggression later in life, we are persons even at conception."
Saying this is to personify nature and assume it has a purpose. Totally subjective, it's like saying fish are here to feed us. Also, same absurd way of thinking can be modified to death. If we are surely going to die because of our nature and that is inevitable than is it okay to kill us in any stage of our life? We are, "despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability" going to become a corpse in the end, that's for sure.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 05:19 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 18:23, 04 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
How do you justify the notion that there is such a thing as a human being who is not a person?
There is no such a thing as a human being who is not a person.
Fetus is not a human being. It's a part of a human being. Unborn human can't be physically anything but a part of biological mother's organism which depends on all her aspects of life. Nothing more, nothing less.
Comparing it to Nazi is just plain stupid. Abortion is not a murder. You can't murder yourself. It can be compared only to a suicide, and a suicide is "only" a tragedy - but not a crime.
Besides - Elodin, are you a pregnant woman?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 05:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Besides - Elodin, are you a pregnant woman?
Yes. And he has been for the last seven years.  (I'll just take my penalty in silence... Just one last thing...)
Worth it!
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 06:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
[
The separation of humans into "people" and "not people" is a preposterous and dangerous idea.
All human beings are "persons". A fetus isn't a person and isn't a human being. Instead it's the preliminary stage of it, cycling through the billion year old history of the development of life.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 07:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
[
The separation of humans into "people" and "not people" is a preposterous and dangerous idea.
All human beings are "persons". A fetus isn't a person and isn't a human being. Instead it's the preliminary stage of it, cycling through the billion year old history of the development of life.
Sorry, but the pro-abortionists have lost that battle about whether a fetus is human or not and you'll not see that argument advanced any longer by such vile organizations as Planned Parenthood. The battle now is about whether or not all humans are persons. Such an argument can only be based on vague philosophical musings as there is no scientific basis for such a thing. But we'll see how you fare in your go at it.
The scientific fact is the fetus has human DNA and thus IS human from a science viewpoint.
The fact of the matter is the cells of the fetus are multiplying and so the fetus IS alive from a science viewpoint.
So science has established the fetus to be a living human organism (human being.)
Questions:
1) You say that the living human organism in the womb (that was the product of human conception) is not a human being and is not a person. Justify your stance.
a) How do you explain the human DNA if the organism is not human?
b) Why is the organism with complete human DNA not a person?
2) If the living organism in the womb is not human, even though it has complete human DNA, what species is it?
Quote:
“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.”
– Dr. Robert George
Quote:
“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.”
– Dr. Robert George
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 08:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
How do you justify the notion that there is such a thing as a human being who is not a person?
There is no such a thing as a human being who is not a person.
Fetus is not a human being. It's a part of a human being. Unborn human can't be physically anything but a part of biological mother's organism which depends on all her aspects of life. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry, but science says you are wrong. The human organism in the womb can't rationally be considered part of the mother organism.
1) The organism in the womb has complete human DNA that is different from that of the mother. An organism's body parts all share the same genetic code. Thus the human life in her womb is not part of the mother but is an entirely different organism.
2) Moreover, the human embryo in her womb was not independently generated by the mother, it resulted from the human sperm combining with the human egg during human reproduction to form a new human organism.
3) Further, the fetus can have a different blood type from the mother. One body can't have two blood types.
4) Additionally, the orgainism in her womb may very well be male. The mother is female.
5) A Caucasian zygote implanted into a Chinese woman will remain Caucasian.
6) The organism in the womb can die while the mother remains alive. The mother can die and the baby in the womb survive. Premature babies have been delivered after the death of the mother.
7) Chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body are emitted by the embryo when it implants in the lining of the uterus. Were this organism "part of the woman's body," there would be no need for this to occur.
Quote:
Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.
--Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology")
Quote:
As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.
--Christopher Hitchens
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 08:27 PM |
|
|
I've explained my position a couple of times now, and your absurd claims about what CONSTITUATES a human being have nothing to do with it. Nothing AT ALL.
You say
Quote:
The scientific fact is the fetus has human DNA and thus IS human from a science viewpoint.
The fact of the matter is the cells of the fetus are multiplying and so the fetus IS alive from a science viewpoint.
The scientific fact is that the same thing is true for cancer cells. You want to grant person status to them as well? If that's your "scientific facts" you can start a campaign against cancer operations, because they are on the same level than abortions in THAT regard.
Another scientific fact is that the nervous system needs 7 months to develop so far that it can control bodily functions.
The fact of the matter is, that a human being takes DEVELOPMENT TIME.
That's recoginzed, by the way. If you have a miscarriage of a 2 month old fetus - are the pro-lifers taking it out of the toilet instead flushing it down and give it a burial? "Here lies what should have become our Jack or Jaqueline. Never born, died age minus 7 months."
Where are those graves?
The fact of the matter is, that the pro-lifers don't believe their own propaganda, because if they would, there would be a lot more burials.
And if we are at it asking questions, you and your pro-life friends can certainly answer some.
For example, what's so great in giving forced birth to children, just to see them starve to death right after birth or one or two years later? Just look to Africa where the victims go into the millions. Hmm?
What is so great in forcing a rape victim to give birth to a child and then have to decide whether to forsake a being that has been growing in her womb for 9 months or whether to keep it and be reminded for the rest of her life of that rape, his face and his stinking breath on her? Can you answer that?
Do we really need to FORCE women to get UNWANTED children to have even more starving, abused, mistreated, unloved children no one gives a damn about?
Because, let's face it, NO ONE gives a damn about these children. You are yours want to force women to give birth to them - so that their support can be "institutionalized". And so you can chalk up another "saved human life".
That said, you continue to ignore that your "scientific facts" are worth squat here ANYWAY, because they are all irrelevant with a view on the big picture.
I have explained the big picture a couple of times.
The relationship between mother and child is something very special. Humans have no fertility periods AND free will. They can choose NOT to get pregnant. If a woman DOES get pregnant, but doesn't accept that, it makes no sense to force everyone into either becoming a criminal or end up unhappy for life. NO woman I've ever known would abort light-heartedly. NONE. There may be some - but that's something THEY must live with.
I repeat, it's none of your bloody business, and absolutely no pregnant woman is interested in your opinion about what she should or should not do, nor should she be forced to hear some nonsensical sermon about what her duty is bla bla bla.
AS ALWAYS, TALK IS CHEAP, and the talk of you and your pro-lifers is especially so.
This whole thing is disgusting.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 08:53 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 21:02, 04 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Sorry, but science says you are wrong. The human organism in the womb can't rationally be considered part of the mother organism.
Can we transfer a fetus between two women? Or maybe take it to some kind of "life chamber"?
If yes - I apologise, a fetus is an independent organism and an abortion is a murder.
If no - "Sorry, but science says you are wrong".
Also, you didn't answer me if you were a pregnant woman.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2013 10:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
all humans have inalienable rights but limitations can be placed on the exercise of those rights
Care to explain how this isn't Orwellian doublespeak?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 05, 2013 01:46 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:52, 05 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
I've explained my position a couple of times now, and your absurd claims about what CONSTITUATES a human being have nothing to do with it. Nothing AT ALL.
Your claim that a fetus is not human in spite of having human DNA is laughable and not scientific. A fetus has complete human DNA and can be nothing but a member of the human species.
I've been saying what embryologist say about it. An embryo is a unique human organism. The human the embryo is in the womb is the same human that is born nine months later and the human that will go to school, the same human who will get married, the same human who will grow old and cure cancer unless he is murdered in the womb.
Quote:
Quote:
The scientific fact is the fetus has human DNA and thus IS human from a science viewpoint.
The fact of the matter is the cells of the fetus are multiplying and so the fetus IS alive from a science viewpoint.
The scientific fact is that the same thing is true for cancer cells. You want to grant person status to them as well? If that's your "scientific facts" you can start a campaign against cancer operations, because they are on the same level than abortions in THAT regard.
How absurd. Cancer cells are defective human cells. Cancer cells do not comprise a human organism. Embryology says a human embryo is a human organism. That is science.
Quote:
Another scientific fact is that the nervous system needs 7 months to develop so far that it can control bodily functions.
The fact of the matter is, that a human being takes DEVELOPMENT TIME.
The fact of the matter is that human organisms are developing and changing throughout their entire life, as embryologists I quoted pointed out, from womb to tomb.
Quote:
If you have a miscarriage of a 2 month old fetus - are the pro-lifers taking it out of the toilet instead flushing it down and give it a burial? "Here lies what should have become our Jack or Jaqueline. Never born, died age minus 7 months."
Where are those graves?
Some people do bury human organisms that die in the womb, JJ. Human organisms die at differnt times. Some in the womb, some in elementary school, some at age 114.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is, that the pro-lifers don't believe their own propaganda, because if they would, there would be a lot more burials.
The fact of the matter is you are making false statements. You saying pro-lifers don't believe what they are fighting for is completely ludicrous.
Quote:
And if we are at it asking questions, you and your pro-life friends can certainly answer some.
For example, what's so great in giving forced birth to children, just to see them starve to death right after birth or one or two years later? Just look to Africa where the victims go into the millions. Hmm?
Murder of human organisms is not the solution to any human problem, be it starvation, overpopulation, or bad breath.
Quote:
What is so great in forcing a rape victim to give birth to a child and then have to decide whether to forsake a being that has been growing in her womb for 9 months or whether to keep it and be reminded for the rest of her life of that rape, his face and his stinking breath on her? Can you answer that?
So, if a woman keeps the baby instead of murdering it in the womb you claim she has a right to murder the baby 5 years later because it reminds her of the rapist?
Murdering the child for the actions of the father seems not be just.
But if murdering the child because the woman was raped were allowed 99%+ of all abortions still would not qualify.
Quote:
Do we really need to FORCE women to get UNWANTED children to have even more starving, abused, mistreated, unloved children no one gives a damn about?
Because, let's face it, NO ONE gives a damn about these children. You are yours want to force women to give birth to them - so that their support can be "institutionalized". And so you can chalk up another "saved human life".
Oh, murdering the child in the womb is supposd to be a statement that you "give a ****" about the child? Please. Murder is the ultimate abuse. You take away everything the person has and take away everything he would have had.
Quote:
That said, you continue to ignore that your "scientific facts" are worth squat here ANYWAY, because they are all irrelevant with a view on the big picture.
Well, I don't how anyone is to discuss anything with you when all you do is say over and over that religion does not matter and science does not matter. Evidently the only thing that matter is your personal opinion that is not based on any fact.
Quote:
I repeat, it's none of your bloody business, and absolutely no pregnant woman is interested in your opinion about what she should or should not do, nor should she be forced to hear some nonsensical sermon about what her duty is bla bla bla.
AS ALWAYS, TALK IS CHEAP, and the talk of you and your pro-lifers is especially so.
This whole thing is disgusting.
You are the one sermonizing. I've been talking about embryology.
I think preservation of the innocent human life of the baby is important. You don't. We have differnt values. My opinions are based on science. Your opinions seem to have no basis other than a pre-determined position that killing babies in the womb is just fine and dandy.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 05, 2013 02:13 AM |
|
|
Elodin quoting Christopher Hitchens, now if that's not a sign of the apocalypse, I don't know what is!
Quote:
The scientific fact is the fetus has human DNA and thus IS human from a science viewpoint.
You've played that and got four -different- objections immediately telling you why that is bad reasoning. You now say it's human cause mother's DNA is different. Well, it's a little better but still not enough. The magical word is still YET. The fetus is not a human being yet. It has no brain, the real scientific fact is we, ourselves are in the brain. Thus your "thus" is wrong, human DNA does not equal human individual.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2013 04:35 AM |
|
|
Regarding children in Africa - is it really better for a child to live for a few years then die of disease or starvation (and live an unpleasant life of suffering in general) than to not be born in the first place?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 05, 2013 04:52 AM |
|
|
OSM feedback quote from Elodin:
Quote:
Actually, I'm the one person in the discussion who has been referencing science and quoting embryologists and embryology texts.
The problem is your interpretation of it. Nobody contradicts you by saying that human embryo has chicken DNA, so to present the argument as if they are -over and over again- is rather pointless. Then it turns into a war of attrition as JJ puts it.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 05, 2013 04:59 AM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 05:20, 05 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Your claim that a fetus is not human in spite of having human DNA is laughable and not scientific. A fetus has complete human DNA and can be nothing but a member of the human species.
DNA does not make out a human being. For me, its a fully functioning brain that does.
That is why mentally disabled people can never be true or equal members in a society and so on.
Quote:
I've been saying what embryologist say about it. An embryo is a unique human organism.
Human? Its made out of DNA but it is not human.
Quote:
The human the embryo is in the womb is the same human that is born nine months later
No. The embryo is just an unfertilized cell. A clump of cells with mixed DNA is not human.
Quote:
and the human that will go to school, the same human who will get married, the same human who will grow old and cure cancer unless he is murdered in the womb.
Sure...
Quote:
How absurd. Cancer cells are defective human cells.
But they are still human acording to your logic and disposing of them would be a bad thing.
Quote:
Cancer cells do not comprise a human organism.
They do according to your logic because they have Human DNA.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that human organisms are developing and changing throughout their entire life, as embryologists I quoted pointed out, from womb to tomb.
Firstly, they are not human. They become human when they have a brain and can feel pain and are selfaware. Not XOR or OR but AND. All three conditions must be true.
When you become brain dead, you are dead. Otherwise, terminating coma patients would be equal to murder in sleep.
Quote:
Some people do bury human organisms that die in the womb, JJ. Human organisms die at differnt times. Some in the womb, some in elementary school, some at age 114.
Irrelevant
Quote:
The fact of the matter is you are making false statements. You saying pro-lifers don't believe what they are fighting for is completely ludicrous.
Firstly, you dont even know what comprises a human being.
If you had two reasoning brain cells, you would understand that for a fetus to be considered a human being, it MUST HAVE A BRAIN.
Secondly, if the mother wants to a abort a baby, she should. That child, without the mothers support, is going to die or end up in the streets. A fate worse than death.
Is that morally right? No. Is it rational, yes. Sometimes, death is better than living in pain. Same goes for patients suffering from incurable diseases.
Someone like you would not understand the fact that the world is not a perfect place and only the few get the chance to make something out of their lives.
Quote:
Murder of human organisms is not the solution to any human problem,
be it starvation, overpopulation, or bad breath.
How ironic. Arent you the guy with 5 shotguns and 43 assault rifles that would kill for self "Defense"?
And when you come back to reply, dont ignore this part.
Removing an undeveloped fetus is not murder.
You really need to go and watch the traumas of rape victims(I have seen such people) and tell them "NO YOU CANT ABORT YOUR CHILD".
I am pretty sure you would get shotgunned to your face.
Quote:
Murdering the child for the actions of the father seems not be just.
Now really, this is inane and insulting to all those who suffered from rape.
You can talk about justice all you want, that kidd would be concieved in a rape. Her mother would be unable to support it.
That would be kid would end up in an orphanage or in an adoptive family. Would be funny if the kid than found out that mom does not want him/her and that his/her dad was a rapist.
I am pretty sure that would end up in a suicide...or come to your house to kill your dog.
Hell, awesome way to promote suicide.
Quote:
But if murdering the child because the woman was raped were allowed 99%+ of all abortions still would not qualify.
Really? How about you provide some statistics for that.
Quote:
Oh, murdering the child in the womb
Not the child because there are no children in wombs.
Quote:
I think preservation of the innocent human life of the baby is important.
You can talk about fairytale justice all you want. If you are living on this planet,you would know that that is impossible.
Without true or supporting parents, that to be-child is snowed.
You reasoning is amazing, It is truly interesting. Some of us write English very good here, others try. Which part of
"A fetus is not a human being because it has no brain, is completely dependent(Organically) on the mother and basically is a huge burden for a mother" dont you understand?
Elodin, go watch some police videos and victim reports from rape.
Maybe, who knows, you would understand why abortion must be allowed.
Humans are not infaillable and raising a child ist no joke.
If you want to see a world where evevyone has a chance, you should play video games or go read your bible.
Well,thats it. Im out here.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 05, 2013 07:34 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 07:42, 05 Apr 2013.
|
Btw, I got curious and downloaded the Hitchens book Elodin quoted. Not to my surprise, it has been deliberately taken out of context (probably not by Elodin himself but the pro-life internet site he used as a source). I think it's ironic how people who claim religion makes an honest man out of you, keep spreading disinformation and misguiding "quotes" as an everyday strategy. Here is the whole text of what Hitchens actually says:
As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an
embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really
did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used
to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems
to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another
is the survival of “premature” babies of featherlike weight, who have
achieved “viability” outside the womb. This is yet another way in
which science can make common cause with humanism. Just as no
human being of average moral capacity could be indifferent to the
sight of a woman being kicked in the stomach, so nobody could fail to
be far more outraged if the woman in question were pregnant. Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when
used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.
However, this only opens the argument rather than closes it. There
may be many circumstances in which it is not desirable to carry a fetus to full term. Either nature or god appears to appreciate this, since a very large number of pregnancies are “aborted,” so to speak, because of malformations, and are politely known as “miscarriages.” Sad though this is, it is probably less miserable an outcome than the vast number of deformed or idiot children who would otherwise have been born, or stillborn, or whose brief lives would have been a torment to themselves and others. As with evolution in general, therefore, in utero we see a microcosm of nature and evolution itself. In the first place we begin as tiny forms that are amphibian, before gradually developing lungs and brains (and growing and shedding that now useless coat of fur) and then struggling out and breathing fresh air after a somewhat difficult transition. Likewise, the system is fairly pitiless in eliminating those who never had
a very good chance of surviving in the first place: our ancestors on the savannah were not going to survive in their turn if they had a clutch of sickly and lolling infants to protect against predators. Here the analogy of evolution might not be to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” (a term that I have always distrusted) so much as to Joseph Schumpeter’s model of “creative destruction,” whereby we accustom ourselves to a certain amount of natural failure, taking into account the pitilessness of nature and extending back to the remote prototypes of our species.
Thus, not all conceptions are, or ever were, going to lead to births.
And ever since the mere struggle for existence began to abate, it has
been an ambition of the human intelligence to gain control over the
rate of reproduction. Families who are at the mercy of mere nature,
with its inevitable demand for profusion, will be tied to a cycle that
is not much better than animal. The best way of achieving a measure
of control is by prophylaxis, which has been restlessly sought since
records were kept and which has in our own time become relatively
foolproof and painless. The second-best fallback solution, which may
sometimes be desirable for other reasons, is termination of pregnancy:
an expedient which is regretted by many even when it has been undertaken in dire need. All thinking people recognize a painful conflict of rights and interests in this question, and strive to achieve a balance. The only proposition that is completely useless, either morally or practically, is the wild statement that sperms and eggs are all potential lives which must not be prevented from fusing and that, when united however briefly, have souls and must be protected by law. On this basis, an intrauterine device that prevents the attachment of the egg to the wall of the uterus is a murder weapon, and an ectopic pregnancy (the disastrous accident that causes the egg to begin growing inside the Fallopian tube) is a human life instead of an already doomed egg that is also an urgent threat to the life of the mother. Every single step toward the clarification of this argument has been opposed root and branch by the clergy. The attempt even to educate people in the possibility of “family planning” was anathematized from the first, and its early advocates and teachers were arrested (like John Stuart Mill) or put in jail or thrown out of their jobs. Only a few years ago, Mother Teresa denounced contraception as the moral equivalent of abortion, which “logically” meant (since she regarded abortion as murder) that a sheath or a pill was a murder weapon also. She was a little more fanatical even than her church, but here again we can see that the strenuous and dogmatic is the moral enemy of the good. It demands that we believe the impossible, and practice the unfeasible. The whole case for extending protection to the unborn, and to expressing a bias in favor of life, has been wrecked by those who use unborn children, as well as born ones, as mere manipulable objects of their doctrine.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2013 11:00 AM |
|
|
Yes, very good article, and more or less what I'm thinking about the matter as well.
While a quote-by-quote answer long lost any sense, I noticed one thing in Elodin's last post that seems to illustrate one main problem. Let's see this quote:
JJ:Quote:
What is so great in forcing a rape victim to give birth to a child and then have to decide whether to forsake a being that has been growing in her womb for 9 months or whether to keep it and be reminded for the rest of her life of that rape, his face and his stinking breath on her? Can you answer that?
Elodin: Quote:
So, if a woman keeps the baby instead of murdering it in the womb you claim she has a right to murder the baby 5 years later because it reminds her of the rapist?
How is that wild leap explainable? I mean, I'm asking what is so great in forcing a rape victim to actually give birth to a child (no abortion allowed), just to be confronted with 2 possibilities: a) to give the child into adoption, which may not be easy to do, since she has felt it grow in her for a long time and the child is 50% hers (which means giving up this part); or b) to keep it and be reminded of the rape for the rest of her life by the other 50% of the child.
Nowhere is there are option to murder the child 5 years later because of that, and I fail to understand, how that option can be constructed out of what I said.
Anyway. Just seemed worth to mention that wild leaps in reasoning that seem to come out of thin air don't help either...
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 05, 2013 09:48 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 21:49, 05 Apr 2013.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 07, 2013 04:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, very good article, and more or less what I'm thinking about the matter as well.
While a quote-by-quote answer long lost any sense, I noticed one thing in Elodin's last post that seems to illustrate one main problem. Let's see this quote:
JJ:Quote:
What is so great in forcing a rape victim to give birth to a child and then have to decide whether to forsake a being that has been growing in her womb for 9 months or whether to keep it and be reminded for the rest of her life of that rape, his face and his stinking breath on her? Can you answer that?
Elodin: Quote:
So, if a woman keeps the baby instead of murdering it in the womb you claim she has a right to murder the baby 5 years later because it reminds her of the rapist?
How is that wild leap explainable?
Your justification for murdering the child was that the child would remind the mother of being raped. The child will remind the mother of being raped when the five year old child looks like his dad. Hence your justification for murdering the baby in the womb would also allow the murder of the five year old.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 07, 2013 04:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
DNA does not make out a human being. For me, its a fully functioning brain that does.
That is why mentally disabled people can never be true or equal members in a society and so on.
So mentally disable people are not fully human?
An organism that has complete human DNA is human. That is science. You are free to your own personal definition of what it means to be human, but I'm talking science.
Embryologists say a human embryo is a human organism. Deal with it. The evidence is so overwhelming the pro-abortion groups don't even argue that point any more and instead try to say not all humans are people. Quite a moronic argument.
Quote:
No. The embryo is just an unfertilized cell. A clump of cells with mixed DNA is not human.
Learn about reproduction please. An embryo comes into being when the egg is fertilized.
Embryology texts call the human embryo a human embryo. A unique human life.
Quote:
Quote:
How absurd. Cancer cells are defective human cells.
But they are still human acording to your logic and disposing of them would be a bad thing.
NO, a cancer cells are not an organism, they are defective cells in a human organism. Disposing of the harmful defective cells is a good thing.
Quote:
Quote:
Cancer cells do not comprise a human organism.
They do according to your logic because they have Human DNA.
Please learn what an organism is.
Quote:
Secondly, if the mother wants to a abort a baby, she should. That child, without the mothers support, is going to die or end up in the streets. A fate worse than death.
Is that morally right? No. Is it rational, yes. Sometimes, death is better than living in pain. Same goes for patients suffering from incurable diseases.
Someone like you would not understand the fact that the world is not a perfect place and only the few get the chance to make something out of their lives.
Immoral actions are never rational.
Get a grip. I was born in deep poverty.
Quote:
Quote:
I think preservation of the innocent human life of the baby is important.
You can talk about fairytale justice all you want. If you are living on this planet,you would know that that is impossible.
I believe in preservation of innocent human life. You say preserving the innocent is just a fairy tale. We have very different standards of morality.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2013 04:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The evidence is so overwhelming the pro-abortion groups don't even argue that point any more and instead try to say not all humans are people.
A lie. Let me repeat one of my posts that you just ignored:
Quote:
Can we transfer a fetus between two women? Or maybe take it to some kind of "life chamber"?
If yes - I apologise, a fetus is an independent organism and an abortion is a murder.
If no - "Sorry, but science says you are wrong".
Also, you didn't answer me if you were a pregnant woman.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
