American's More Pro-Life

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Sloth wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Because it is a individual human organism. No self awareness? Well yeah, it’s an indiviual human killed before he/she could develop it’s faculties. Death will do that.

Each of your sperm has a potential to produce a child. Why are you depriving that potential child of developing its faculties?

We’re not talking potential living humans. The embryo is one stage in every single individual human’s life cycle. The cycle of the same individual organism. Like a chain. Break a link, you’ve broken the chain. You’ve taken a human life.[/quote]

Dude no, you’ve taken a human life? I mean, it was all good in the 'hood till you went there. Its protein with the potential of becoming a complex organism. It doesn’t not think or feel. It has no history. It has no connections with events, people, etc in the outside world beyond its host. Its nothing.

62

[quote]Sloth wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Because it is a individual human organism. No self awareness? Well yeah, it’s an indiviual human killed before he/she could develop it’s faculties. Death will do that.

Each of your sperm has a potential to produce a child. Why are you depriving that potential child of developing its faculties?

We’re not talking potential living humans. The embryo is one stage in every single individual human’s life cycle. The cycle of the same individual organism. Like a chain. Break a link, you’ve broken the chain. You’ve taken a human life.[/quote]

Are you saying sperm isn’t one stage in every single individual human’s life cycle?

63

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Because it is a individual human organism. No self awareness? Well yeah, it’s an indiviual human killed before he/she could develop it’s faculties. Death will do that.

Each of your sperm has a potential to produce a child. Why are you depriving that potential child of developing its faculties?

We’re not talking potential living humans. The embryo is one stage in every single individual human’s life cycle. The cycle of the same individual organism. Like a chain. Break a link, you’ve broken the chain. You’ve taken a human life.

Are you saying sperm isn’t one stage in every single individual human’s life cycle?[/quote]

Yep. Key in on the INDIVIDUAL, part.

64

[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Because it is a individual human organism. No self awareness? Well yeah, it’s an indiviual human killed before he/she could develop it’s faculties. Death will do that.

Each of your sperm has a potential to produce a child. Why are you depriving that potential child of developing its faculties?

We’re not talking potential living humans. The embryo is one stage in every single individual human’s life cycle. The cycle of the same individual organism. Like a chain. Break a link, you’ve broken the chain. You’ve taken a human life.

Dude no, you’ve taken a human life? I mean, it was all good in the 'hood till you went there. Its protein with the potential of becoming a complex organism. It doesn’t not think or feel. It has no history. It has no connections with events, people, etc in the outside world beyond its host. Its nothing. [/quote]

Was the organism a frog? A cat?

65

[quote]Sloth wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Because it is a individual human organism. No self awareness? Well yeah, it’s an indiviual human killed before he/she could develop it’s faculties. Death will do that.

Each of your sperm has a potential to produce a child. Why are you depriving that potential child of developing its faculties?

We’re not talking potential living humans. The embryo is one stage in every single individual human’s life cycle. The cycle of the same individual organism. Like a chain. Break a link, you’ve broken the chain. You’ve taken a human life.

Are you saying sperm isn’t one stage in every single individual human’s life cycle?

Yep. Key in on the INDIVIDUAL, part. [/quote]

Except the individual sperm that makes up a person is part of it. And each sperm cell could form this cycle again.

66

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Because it is a individual human organism. No self awareness? Well yeah, it’s an indiviual human killed before he/she could develop it’s faculties. Death will do that.

Each of your sperm has a potential to produce a child. Why are you depriving that potential child of developing its faculties?

We’re not talking potential living humans. The embryo is one stage in every single individual human’s life cycle. The cycle of the same individual organism. Like a chain. Break a link, you’ve broken the chain. You’ve taken a human life.

Are you saying sperm isn’t one stage in every single individual human’s life cycle?

Yep. Key in on the INDIVIDUAL, part.

Except the individual sperm that makes up a person is part of it. And each sperm cell could form this cycle again.[/quote]

an individual sperm, is an individual sperm…You don’t think sperm cells just, poof!, become indivual humans (with individual DNA), do you?

67

Sometimes I get the impression that pro-choicers believe there’s some other kind of organism present in the womb. Like maybe a shark. Or, a rat. I don’t know.

68

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sometimes I get the impression that pro-choicers believe there’s some other kind of organism present in the womb. Like maybe a shark. Or, a rat. I don’t know.[/quote]

It’s protein with the potential of becoming a human being. It is not yet a human being.

69

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sometimes I get the impression that pro-choicers believe there’s some other kind of organism present in the womb. Like maybe a shark. Or, a rat. I don’t know.[/quote]

haha so it would seem…

but why all this talk about embryos?
the subject is abortion, not embryonic stem cell research right?

one cannot argue with the fact that Human fetuses are pretty much…completely human. I mean come on…how much more human can you get? you have a heart…a brain…lungs…etc…

I honestly am appalled that humans could be so barbaric as to kill their own children, it seems like something an animal would do.

so uncivilized…I would have thought we would be a bit more evolved by now.

70

…america, land of the free: just not for you, you, you and you…

71

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…america, land of the free: just not for you, you, you and you…[/quote]

I laugh at that statement. When this statement was first brandished, thousands were in captivity. Founded in hypocrisy and built via Manifest Destiny.

72

[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:

one cannot argue with the fact that Human fetuses are pretty much…completely human. I mean come on…how much more human can you get? you have a heart…a brain…lungs…etc…
.[/quote]

Oh really?

73

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Each of your sperm has a potential to produce a child. Why are you depriving that potential child of developing its faculties?[/quote]

The Church does frown upon masturbation.

What was your point again?

74

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

the parasite one? maybe, pretty hole filled but it’s better than the first one. My whole point is that it is a separate biological organism from the mom. People can debate rights and personhood and all that, but the basic biological truth can’t be ignored.[/quote]

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

75

[quote]orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

the parasite one? maybe, pretty hole filled but it’s better than the first one. My whole point is that it is a separate biological organism from the mom. People can debate rights and personhood and all that, but the basic biological truth can’t be ignored.

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

[/quote]

Is it acceptable for the mother to kill the baby after a few weeks of breast feeding because she’s decided she doesn’t want to support this “something,” and doesn’t want to be forced to do so?

76

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

the parasite one? maybe, pretty hole filled but it’s better than the first one. My whole point is that it is a separate biological organism from the mom. People can debate rights and personhood and all that, but the basic biological truth can’t be ignored.

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

Is it acceptable for the mother to kill the baby after a few weeks of breast feeding because she’s decided she doesn’t want to support this “something,” and doesn’t want to be forced to do so?
[/quote]

No, but it is acceptable to stop caring for it.

She obviously has the right to give it up for adoption.

That is a strawman though because we do not agree that a fertilized egg is a “child”-

Which is the crux of the whole problem. You think it is, I think it is not and you want to ram your definition down my throat with the use of force if need be.

This is a highly personal question that everybody has to answer for him or herself.

77

[quote]orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

the parasite one? maybe, pretty hole filled but it’s better than the first one. My whole point is that it is a separate biological organism from the mom. People can debate rights and personhood and all that, but the basic biological truth can’t be ignored.

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

Is it acceptable for the mother to kill the baby after a few weeks of breast feeding because she’s decided she doesn’t want to support this “something,” and doesn’t want to be forced to do so?

No, but it is acceptable to stop caring for it.[/quote]

Serious question - I really do want to know what you think. Suppose no one wants to adopt the baby. Is it okay for her to allow the child to die? To leave him/her in a dumpster, for example?

[quote]
That is a strawman though because we do not agree that a fertilized egg is a “child”-

Which is the crux of the whole problem. You think it is, I think it is not and you want to ram your definition down my throat with the use of force if need be.

This is a highly personal question that everybody has to answer for him or herself.[/quote]

I haven’t mentioned anything about a fertilized egg. I do observe, though, that at a certain point you see that this “something” acquires rights - when it has become “a child.” When does this happen?

78

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

the parasite one? maybe, pretty hole filled but it’s better than the first one. My whole point is that it is a separate biological organism from the mom. People can debate rights and personhood and all that, but the basic biological truth can’t be ignored.

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

Is it acceptable for the mother to kill the baby after a few weeks of breast feeding because she’s decided she doesn’t want to support this “something,” and doesn’t want to be forced to do so?

No, but it is acceptable to stop caring for it.

Serious question - I really do want to know what you think. Suppose no one wants to adopt the baby. Is it okay for her to allow the child to die? To leave him/her in a dumpster, for example?

That is a strawman though because we do not agree that a fertilized egg is a “child”-

Which is the crux of the whole problem. You think it is, I think it is not and you want to ram your definition down my throat with the use of force if need be.

This is a highly personal question that everybody has to answer for him or herself.

I haven’t mentioned anything about a fertilized egg. I do observe, though, that at a certain point you see that this “something” acquires rights - when it has become “a child.” When does this happen?
[/quote]

I do not know, for it is a matter of how you define things. I will not force someone else to do something just because my cut off point is slightly different from his.

79

[quote]orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

the parasite one? maybe, pretty hole filled but it’s better than the first one. My whole point is that it is a separate biological organism from the mom. People can debate rights and personhood and all that, but the basic biological truth can’t be ignored.

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

Is it acceptable for the mother to kill the baby after a few weeks of breast feeding because she’s decided she doesn’t want to support this “something,” and doesn’t want to be forced to do so?

No, but it is acceptable to stop caring for it.

Serious question - I really do want to know what you think. Suppose no one wants to adopt the baby. Is it okay for her to allow the child to die? To leave him/her in a dumpster, for example?

That is a strawman though because we do not agree that a fertilized egg is a “child”-

Which is the crux of the whole problem. You think it is, I think it is not and you want to ram your definition down my throat with the use of force if need be.

This is a highly personal question that everybody has to answer for him or herself.

I haven’t mentioned anything about a fertilized egg. I do observe, though, that at a certain point you see that this “something” acquires rights - when it has become “a child.” When does this happen?

I do not know, for it is a matter of how you define things. I will not force someone else to do something just because my cut off point is slightly different from his.

[/quote]

But I’m asking for your viewpoint. Not that you have to share it :wink:

80

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?

Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.

I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).

Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.

I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.

the parasite one? maybe, pretty hole filled but it’s better than the first one. My whole point is that it is a separate biological organism from the mom. People can debate rights and personhood and all that, but the basic biological truth can’t be ignored.

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

Is it acceptable for the mother to kill the baby after a few weeks of breast feeding because she’s decided she doesn’t want to support this “something,” and doesn’t want to be forced to do so?

No, but it is acceptable to stop caring for it.

Serious question - I really do want to know what you think. Suppose no one wants to adopt the baby. Is it okay for her to allow the child to die? To leave him/her in a dumpster, for example?

That is a strawman though because we do not agree that a fertilized egg is a “child”-

Which is the crux of the whole problem. You think it is, I think it is not and you want to ram your definition down my throat with the use of force if need be.

This is a highly personal question that everybody has to answer for him or herself.

I haven’t mentioned anything about a fertilized egg. I do observe, though, that at a certain point you see that this “something” acquires rights - when it has become “a child.” When does this happen?

I do not know, for it is a matter of how you define things. I will not force someone else to do something just because my cut off point is slightly different from his.

But I’m asking for your viewpoint. Not that you have to share it ;)[/quote]

Personally I would not agree to an abortion but I can hardly force a woman to carry out a child.

I have enough money though.

That would change if the embryo should show any signs of genetic defects.

In that case I could not force a woman to abort that embryo either, I would just highly recommend it.

Anyway, as a libertarian I have mastered an awesome trick, I keep my private and public opinion separate.

What I would do and what I would force other people to do via government are highly unrelated subjects.

Well, I guess the same is true for most politicians but you get my drift.