90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
581

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You cannot compare humanity to fruit, or even if you were to use that example, killing fetuses to eating apples. Fruit never has the potential to think, to feel pain and joy, to have faith, to love. You are grasping at straws if you’ve stooped to comparing human life with inanimate fruit.

[quote]orion wrote:
No, but I waste no time crying over apples that are devoured while being very much alive.

Alive, in and of itself is meaningless. [/quote]
[/quote]

So I would have to be dedicated to the idea that potential is important?

What about the potential of sperm?

It seems to me that Youporn has wasted more potential human life in the first two weeks of its existence than all the abortions in mankind’s history combined.

582

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You cannot compare humanity to fruit, or even if you were to use that example, killing fetuses to eating apples. Fruit never has the potential to think, to feel pain and joy, to have faith, to love. You are grasping at straws if you’ve stooped to comparing human life with inanimate fruit.

[quote]orion wrote:
No, but I waste no time crying over apples that are devoured while being very much alive.

Alive, in and of itself is meaningless. [/quote]
[/quote]

He’s playing your game here. If you don’t want to be drawn into semantics games, don’t play them.[/quote]

Shush…

Also, he was not drawn in, he started it. In fact he is unable to think outside of it which is why for him the whole world is backed into a corner.

583

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You cannot compare humanity to fruit, or even if you were to use that example, killing fetuses to eating apples. Fruit never has the potential to think, to feel pain and joy, to have faith, to love. You are grasping at straws if you’ve stooped to comparing human life with inanimate fruit.

[quote]orion wrote:
No, but I waste no time crying over apples that are devoured while being very much alive.

Alive, in and of itself is meaningless. [/quote]
[/quote]

“inanimate fruit”? If you put that apple into the ground it has the potential to become an apple tree.

What if a farmer terminates a pregnancy of a cow?

Cows can think, feel pain and joy, have faith, love.

Granted, on a somewhat reduced level, but still.

edit: even if cows could not feel any of those emotions above, they must feel something, they have a nervous system and a mammal brain, amygdala, hyppocampus and all.

584

By themselves sperm will NEVER result in a life.

[quote]orion wrote:
So I would have to be dedicated to the idea that potential is important?

What about the potential of sperm?

It seems to me that Youporn has wasted more potential human life in the first two weeks of its existence than all the abortions in mankind’s history combined. [/quote]

585

Apples are nothing when comparing the traits of an self sustaining life.

Cows are mammals, no debate there. Other than that please provide science to prove your claim of “Cows can think, feel pain and joy, have faith, love.” By the way I can understand pain because that is a simple calcium pump in the brain stem.

I can use science to prove the case of life - “Science has long since proven when a human being’s life begins. One can argue ambiguously when they “believe” life begins, but it doesn’t matter one iota. Human beings merit human rights, the most fundamental of which is the right to LIFE. Pro-choicers can make any excuse to dehumanize the unborn as they want. It doesn’t change the facts.”

http://liveaction.org/

[quote]orion wrote:
“inanimate fruit”? If you put that apple into the ground it has the potential to become an apple tree.

What if a farmer terminates a pregnancy of a cow?

Cows can think, feel pain and joy, have faith, love.

Granted, on a somewhat reduced level, but still.

edit: even if cows could not feel any of those emotions above, they must feel something, they have a nervous system and a mammal brain, amygdala, hyppocampus and all. [/quote]

586

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
By themselves sperm will NEVER result in a life.

[quote]orion wrote:
So I would have to be dedicated to the idea that potential is important?

What about the potential of sperm?

It seems to me that Youporn has wasted more potential human life in the first two weeks of its existence than all the abortions in mankind’s history combined. [/quote]
[/quote]

Sperm are alive.

587

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Apples are nothing when comparing the traits of an self sustaining life.

Cows are mammals, no debate there. Other than that please provide science to prove your claim of “Cows can think, feel pain and joy, have faith, love.” By the way I can understand pain because that is a simple calcium pump in the brain stem.

I can use science to prove the case of life - “Science has long since proven when a human being’s life begins. One can argue ambiguously when they “believe” life begins, but it doesn’t matter one iota. Human beings merit human rights, the most fundamental of which is the right to LIFE. Pro-choicers can make any excuse to dehumanize the unborn as they want. It doesn’t change the facts.”

[quote]orion wrote:
“inanimate fruit”? If you put that apple into the ground it has the potential to become an apple tree.

What if a farmer terminates a pregnancy of a cow?

Cows can think, feel pain and joy, have faith, love.

Granted, on a somewhat reduced level, but still.

edit: even if cows could not feel any of those emotions above, they must feel something, they have a nervous system and a mammal brain, amygdala, hyppocampus and all. [/quote]
[/quote]

As far as cows go, they have the apparatus in place to feel things, they must feel something.

Not only do you seem to place a premium on human life, you also seem to think that science can determnine something that is necessarily a matter of your definition.

The definition of “dead” has changed in recent times, as has the definition of “pregnant”, but “alive” has been determined one and for all?

588

Lets try this the other way around:

We do not know what life exactly is, the definition is necessarily a little fuzzy, but we know what “dead” is, scientifically determined and such, since that seems to be important:

The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.” This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981.

So, at the very least we can deduct from this that to be “alive” you need a circulatory, a respiratory system and a brain including a brain stem and they better be working.

The problem we have here is obviously this, a fertilized egg has nothing of this sort.

I find it hard to accept that something is a living human being that lacks all the characteristics of one.

Scientifically speaking.

589

Sperm may move a direction, but they never alive.

[quote]orion wrote:
Sperm are alive. [/quote]

590

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Sperm may move a direction, but they never alive.

[quote]orion wrote:
Sperm are alive. [/quote]
[/quote]

According to whom?

I am sure that I can find a definition of “alive” that fits.

edit: and I would be very careful with that, because if you answer that sperm cannot survive on their own you leave a gap open I could drive a truck through, with room to spare.

591

“They must feel something.” We agree that cows can feel physical stimuli.

All life should be respected. I have never said otherwise. The destruction of life, any life, is NOT respecting life. Especially a human life.

According to you, what is the definition of “alive?”

[quote]orion wrote:
As far as cows go, they have the apparatus in place to feel things, they must feel something.

Not only do you seem to place a premium on human life, you also seem to think that science can determnine something that is necessarily a matter of your definition.

The definition of “dead” has changed in recent times, as has the definition of “pregnant”, but “alive” has been determined one and for all?
[/quote]

592

A zygote is already an individual life. Being that a human zygote, and embryo, are already moving through an individual human life cycle (fact) it is an individual human life. It is innocent, endowed with the capability to develop it’s features and faculties, barring disease or premeditated murder, and in the vast majority of time, naturally present in the womb due to the actions of others.

Abortion = Takes an innocent, properly existing in place, individual human life. Knock off the cowardice, own it, and argue it for what it is.

593

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
“They must feel something.” We agree that cows can feel physical stimuli.

All life should be respected. I have never said otherwise. The destruction of life, any life, is NOT respecting life. Especially a human life.

According to you, what is the definition of “alive?”

[quote]orion wrote:
As far as cows go, they have the apparatus in place to feel things, they must feel something.

Not only do you seem to place a premium on human life, you also seem to think that science can determnine something that is necessarily a matter of your definition.

The definition of “dead” has changed in recent times, as has the definition of “pregnant”, but “alive” has been determined one and for all?
[/quote]
[/quote]

I dont know.

Gradual processes are notoriously difficult to put into neat little boxes, the best you can do is be aware that your definitions are more of an heuristic nature.

594

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A zygote is already an individual life. Being that a human zygote, and embryo, are already moving through an individual human life cycle (fact) it is an individual human life. It is innocent, endowed with the capability to develop it’s features and faculties, barring disease or premeditated murder, and in the vast majority of time, naturally present in the womb due to the actions of others.

Abortion = Takes an innocent, properly existing in place, individual human life. Knock off the cowardice, own it, and argue it for what it is.[/quote]

Do human beings have souls?

595

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A zygote is already an individual life. Being that a human zygote, and embryo, are already moving through an individual human life cycle (fact) it is an individual human life. It is innocent, endowed with the capability to develop it’s features and faculties, barring disease or premeditated murder, and in the vast majority of time, naturally present in the womb due to the actions of others.

Abortion = Takes an innocent, properly existing in place, individual human life. Knock off the cowardice, own it, and argue it for what it is.[/quote]

Depending on your definition practically all the cells in my body are alive.

What if we find totipotent cells in the adult human body?

Some cells seem to come awfully close.

596

First, a fertilized egg does not fit your definition of dead. If it’s not dead, what is it?

Second, if you trace your own origin back, you were once a fertilized egg. If your mother had chosen to abort you, you would not be alive right now. Your life, would be done, terminated. That is, there would be one less life. Yes, that egg did not yet have a fully capable, working human system that you now have, but only because it had yet to develop, not because it didn’t have the ability. Your life stemmed from that fertilized egg. The fertilized egg is alive.

[quote]orion wrote:
Lets try this the other way around:

We do not know what life exactly is, the definition is necessarily a little fuzzy, but we know what “dead” is, scientifically determined and such, since that seems to be important:

The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.” This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981.

So, at the very least we can deduct from this that to be “alive” you need a circulatory, a respiratory system and a brain including a brain stem and they better be working.

The problem we have here is obviously this, a fertilized egg has nothing of this sort.

I find it hard to accept that something is a living human being that lacks all the characteristics of one.

Scientifically speaking.[/quote]

597

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First, a fertilized egg does not fit your definition of dead. If it’s not dead, what is it?

Second, if you trace your own origin back, you were once a fertilized egg. If your mother had chosen to abort you, you would not be alive right now. Your life, would be done, terminated. That is, there would be one less life. Yes, that egg did not yet have a fully capable, working human system that you now have, but only because it had yet to develop, not because it didn’t have the ability. Your life stemmed from that fertilized egg. The fertilized egg is alive.

[quote]orion wrote:
Lets try this the other way around:

We do not know what life exactly is, the definition is necessarily a little fuzzy, but we know what “dead” is, scientifically determined and such, since that seems to be important:

The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.” This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981.

So, at the very least we can deduct from this that to be “alive” you need a circulatory, a respiratory system and a brain including a brain stem and they better be working.

The problem we have here is obviously this, a fertilized egg has nothing of this sort.

I find it hard to accept that something is a living human being that lacks all the characteristics of one.

Scientifically speaking.[/quote]
[/quote]

I am not disputing that a zygote is human life, what I am disputing that it comes even close to what we would call a living human being, it lacks all the basic components of being one.

It might develop them, given time, though in most cases it does not and simply dies.

598

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A zygote is already an individual life. Being that a human zygote, and embryo, are already moving through an individual human life cycle (fact) it is an individual human life. It is innocent, endowed with the capability to develop it’s features and faculties, barring disease or premeditated murder, and in the vast majority of time, naturally present in the womb due to the actions of others.

Abortion = Takes an innocent, properly existing in place, individual human life. Knock off the cowardice, own it, and argue it for what it is.[/quote]

Do human beings have souls?[/quote]

Huh? I’m keeping this secular for a wider audience.

599

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A zygote is already an individual life. Being that a human zygote, and embryo, are already moving through an individual human life cycle (fact) it is an individual human life. It is innocent, endowed with the capability to develop it’s features and faculties, barring disease or premeditated murder, and in the vast majority of time, naturally present in the womb due to the actions of others.

Abortion = Takes an innocent, properly existing in place, individual human life. Knock off the cowardice, own it, and argue it for what it is.[/quote]

Depending on your definition practically all the cells in my body are alive.

What if we find totipotent cells in the adult human body?

Some cells seem to come awfully close.[/quote]

I’m sorry Orion, but the science is settled. Has been settled. The zygote is an INDIVIDUAL ORGANISM already in it’s OWN life cycle. With humans, it’s a human life cycle. It’s not your somatic cell, like a hepatocyte or an erythrocyte. It’s an individual organism. The same organism, start to finish.

600

Science proves life starts at the moment of conception.

There is no little boxes, in that regard.

[quote]orion wrote:
I dont know.

Gradual processes are notoriously difficult to put into neat little boxes, the best you can do is be aware that your definitions are more of an heuristic nature. [/quote]