|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:12 pm
 |
|
|
 |
zz1000zz Kazydi zz1000zz Kazydi I THINK ABORTION IS WRONG. Is this based upon some biblical understanding or...? I did read the entire post. There just was no point in quoting all of it when my question only dealt with one sentence. Kazydi This isn't based on anything besides the fact that it is wrong to take a human life, whether the life being taken understands it or not. A fetus is not a human.
It sure isn't a frog. What is it that makes it any less human than anyone else? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:58 pm
|
|
|
|
Kazydi zz1000zz Kazydi It sure isn't a frog. What is it that makes it any less human than anyone else? The lack of sentience, sapience, or soul? The "question" may not have a simple answer, but I do not see how anyone could argue a zygote is a human. Using terms like "fetus" and "zygote" do nothing but de-humanize the living being inside a woman's womb. If abortions were no big deal, why would we have to use separate terms to desensitize ourselves to it? Because we know it's wrong.
This is nonsense. Terms like "fetus" and "zygote" are used because that is what is being discussed.
Kazydi Besides, studies show that anyone who's ever supported senseless abortions, has been born. eek "Oh rly?"
"Ya rly."
"No wai!"
Is this supposed to be anything relevant, or is it just trolling? |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:05 pm
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz Kazydi zz1000zz Kazydi It sure isn't a frog. What is it that makes it any less human than anyone else? The lack of sentience, sapience, or soul? The "question" may not have a simple answer, but I do not see how anyone could argue a zygote is a human. Using terms like "fetus" and "zygote" do nothing but de-humanize the living being inside a woman's womb. If abortions were no big deal, why would we have to use separate terms to desensitize ourselves to it? Because we know it's wrong. This is nonsense. Terms like "fetus" and "zygote" are used because that is what is being discussed. Kazydi Besides, studies show that anyone who's ever supported senseless abortions, has been born. eek "Oh rly?"
"Ya rly."
"No wai!" Is this supposed to be anything relevant, or is it just trolling?
What we ARE discussing is potential life than people are throwing away because it doesn't fit what THEY want. I believe that getting an abortion as a form of birth control is a very selfish act. Like I said, there are too many other options to give up a child that you unfortunately don't want.
And no, that wasn't trolling, that was a legitimate fact, and you I both know it's completely relevant. Nice dodge, though.
Now prove it to be wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:27 pm
|
|
|
|
Kazydi What we ARE discussing is potential life than people are throwing away because it doesn't fit what THEY want. I believe that getting an abortion as a form of birth control is a very selfish act. Like I said, there are too many other options to give up a child that you unfortunately don't want.
First, it is important to realize the foster system in most countries sucks. Horribly. If the child is white and in perfect condition, it will be adopted quickly. Otherwise, there is a good chance it will have its life ruined. If I were a black mother deciding between abortion and adoption, I could never choose adoption. I know this is somewhat off topic, but the foster system is obscene, and it bothers me.
On topic, what you call "selfish" would not apply in any number of cases. The example I discussed earlier would be one such.
Kazydi And no, that wasn't trolling, that was a legitimate fact, and you I both know it's completely relevant. Nice dodge, though.
I do not know it is completely relevant. You have not given any explanation as to how it is relevant, and I cannot think of one. Until you offer such an explanation, I disagree. Please do not say what I "know" unless you actually know it.
Kazydi Now prove it to be wrong.
You have the burden of proof; I do not.
As a word of caution, your attitude in this topic has been rude. That accomplishes nothing, so it would be best if you stopped it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:41 pm
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz First, it is important to realize the foster system in most countries sucks.
The foster system sucks. Yeah, I can agree with you on that, but does that mean the next best thing to do is kill the child? No, we need to fix the foster system. We need to start where the problem begins.
zz1000zz I do not know it is completely relevant. You have not given any explanation as to how it is relevant, and I cannot think of one. Until you offer such an explanation, I disagree. Please do not say what I "know" unless you actually know it.
How does that statement have absolutely NO relevance to this debate? We're talking about our different views on abortion here. I was giving people something to think about. I was trying to make the point that all of the people who want it to be ok to deny a child it's chance at life have already been granted theirs. So when did they become the ones who decided who lives and who dies?
zz1000zz As a word of caution, your attitude in this topic has been rude. That accomplishes nothing, so it would be best if you stopped it.
I'm not being rude, I'm being direct. I'm not sugarcoating anything. And for the record, I can prove that my previous statement is true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:38 pm
|
|
|
|
Kazydi zz1000zz First, it is important to realize the foster system in most countries sucks. The foster system sucks. Yeah, I can agree with you on that, but does that mean the next best thing to do is kill the child? No, we need to fix the foster system. We need to start where the problem begins.
Why did you respond to the paragraph I admitted was somewhat off topic while not responding to the one that I specifically said was on topic?
Kazydi zz1000zz I do not know it is completely relevant. You have not given any explanation as to how it is relevant, and I cannot think of one. Until you offer such an explanation, I disagree. Please do not say what I "know" unless you actually know it. How does that statement have absolutely NO relevance to this debate? We're talking about our different views on abortion here. I was giving people something to think about. I was trying to make the point that all of the people who want it to be ok to deny a child it's chance at life have already been granted theirs. So when did they become the ones who decided who lives and who dies?
Their parents got the chance to make the same decision. That someone's parents made one choice in no way means he or she is obligated to make the same choice. Indeed, the two have no bearing on each other.
As for when they got to make that decision, I would say as soon as they conceived the fetus they became the ones who get to decide whether or not to terminate the fetus.
Kazydi I'm not being rude, I'm being direct. I'm not sugarcoating anything.
It is quite possible to be both direct and rude. However, posts like:
Kazydi Besides, studies show that anyone who's ever supported senseless abortions, has been born. eek "Oh rly?"
"Ya rly."
"No wai!"
And:
Kazydi Thanks for reading the entire post.
And:
Kazydi Nice dodge, though. Now prove it to be wrong.
Are just rude. They are not even direct. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:26 pm
|
|
|
|
I'm going to have to agree with zz about your comments thus far: they are rude. Please try to reel in the sarcasm.
As for the topic: no, abortion should not be used in the face of other, better options. Like you've already said though, there are extreme circumstances where it would be pointless to try to save the baby, especially if saving the baby would only result in not only the mother's death, but also its own death later on.
As for nomenclature: fetus and zygote and other such terms are just names for stages of human development, no different than infant, toddler, child, adolescent (teenager), young adult, middle adult, and older adult. Terms like that exist because more specificity is required when discussing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:34 pm
|
|
|
|
The argument below is not mine but one that I believe to articulately and logically state why abortion is wrong.
A logical argument against abortion
Many people will refuse to accept God's word as a standard by which they should live and make decisions. That is their right to reject it. Nevertheless, I offer the following as reasons for not having abortions.
1. What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.
1. Even one-celled creatures are alive.
2. What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature.
2. The nature of the life in the woman is human.
1. It is the product of human DNA; therefore, its nature, its essence, is undeniably human.
2. Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby.
3. Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities.
4.
1. A person born without arms and legs is still human.
2. A person who cannot speak is still human.
3. A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person.
5. What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, bird, or fish. It has human nature.
1. If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it?
2. If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human?
1. If so, then from where did it get this different nature, since the only sources of its nature are human egg and and human sperm?
6. Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it's okay to kill it. So, it doesn't make any difference with a fetus.
1. Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is -- not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But the fertilized egg of a human is, by nature, that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of muscle or skin cells because these do not grow into humans. Therefore, a human cell and a human egg are not the same thing.
A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell.
3. To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.
4. Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature.
1. Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her?
A question for those who believe in abortion, and that the life in the womb is not human. Is it okay to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog?
* If you say no, then why? If it is not human then it doesn't matter, right?
* If you say no because it will become a human, then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it.
* If you say it is alright, why is it okay?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:09 pm
|
|
|
|
Marek James The argument below is not mine but one that I believe to articulately and logically state why abortion is wrong.A logical argument against abortion Many people will refuse to accept God's word as a standard by which they should live and make decisions. That is their right to reject it. Nevertheless, I offer the following as reasons for not having abortions.
The formatting for this post got ruined when copied, so it is somewhat confusing. I am going to change the labeling to help make it more clear.
Marek James 1. What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive. A. Even one-celled creatures are alive. B. What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature.
I suppose I would question point B in this as a fetus starts as a single cell, but overall I agree.
Marek James 2. The nature of the life in the woman is human. A. It is the product of human DNA; therefore, its nature, its essence, is undeniably human. B. Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby. C. Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities. D. i. A person born without arms and legs is still human. ii. A person who cannot speak is still human. iii. A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person. E. What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, bird, or fish. It has human nature. i. If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it? ii. If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human? a. If so, then from where did it get this different nature, since the only sources of its nature are human egg and and human sperm? F. Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it's okay to kill it. So, it doesn't make any difference with a fetus. i. Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is -- not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But the fertilized egg of a human is, by nature, that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of muscle or skin cells because these do not grow into humans. Therefore, a human cell and a human egg are not the same thing. A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell.
The argument here is far too convoluted. In essence, all it says is, "A fetus will become a human, so it is human." This is no different than any other argument proffered in this topic already. There is nothing new in it.
Marek James A question for those who believe in abortion, and that the life in the womb is not human. Is it okay to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog? * If you say no, then why? If it is not human then it doesn't matter, right? * If you say no because it will become a human, then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it. * If you say it is alright, why is it okay?
I would say it is "wrong" because a human embryo cannot develop inside a dog. All doing this would accomplish is killing the embryo, and possibly harming the dog. Other than that, I have no issue so long as the normal rules and regulations are followed (I disapprove of illegal scientific experiments). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:37 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
