Catholic Church Calls for Civil Disobedience.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Makavali wrote:

Then how is sperm not a life? How is an egg not a life?

Technically, a sperm or an egg is only 1/2 of a life.

What about Chimeras? This arithmetic of yours doesn’t pan out in the real world.

EDIT: Or twins?

Chimerism and Twins are both the result of a fertilized egg. I don’t see how you’re trying to make the jump from “a fertilized egg is life” to “an unfertilized egg or sperm is life”. Having only half of the genetic material necessary for life, these cells do not constitute human life until they are combined.

I am pro-choice, but your science is weak.[/quote]

You said a sperm/egg is 1/2 of a life, so it would follow that combining both is 1 life. When an embryo splits in two, does that make a twin half a person? Obviously not, so I’m merely pointing out that it is a very gray area.

62

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
This is how I see it it, the argument on abortion comes down to one question. When do we consider the unborn baby a human (i.e. valuable).

If they say because it is inside the womb, that is a matter of location. That is like saying the people in Darfur are not valuable because of their location, and who ever kills them has the right.

If they say because it is dependent on the mother, that is a matter of level of dependency. You can compare it to a one year old jumping in the swimming pool and you are the last one to leave, that one year old is dependent only on you, 100% on you. So, should you be able to just leave that child die?

If they say because it is not developed, that is a matter of the level of development. That is equivalent to saying a two year old girl, since she has not developed her reproductive organs fully she is not as human as an 15 year old girl. And that two year old girl if her mother choose to do so because she is not as developed should be able to kill her.

If they say because it is small (usually stated it is only a mass of cells), that is matter of size. Again, because something is smaller than you it is okay to kill it? So a man should be able to kill a woman because he is bigger than her? A mother should be able to kill her two year old because the two year old is smaller than her?

And if they say it’s the woman’s choice, I believe in women choosing what to do with their body, but what if they have a nursing baby? Would the law see it justifiable if the woman killed her baby, or just stopped feeding it because it was using her energy? No, well why should they allow it when the woman choose to have sex. She should be responsible for her actions.

I think we can agree a two year old is human. A forming fetus is still in question, whether you like it or not. All you can hope for is better contraception, because the only thing that would remove the need for abortion sure as shit isn’t going to happen unless people stop being horny.

I do hope for better contraception (not the pill), and more responsibility in the world when things are unexpected. I do not think a fetus is in question, I do not even think an embryo is in question. A fetus is a unborn human in the womb, so from 8 weeks to birth? So, what is the difference between the baby a day away from being delivered and a day after becoming a fetus. The development of the fetus. Now, what is the difference between a two year old and 12 year old, development.[/quote]

Brother Chris, you present several well reasoned and well articulated arguments. Before I offer a response, could you clarify your position by responding the questions below:

Do you think those that have or perform abortions are murderers? Do you think they should face the legal punishment for murder?

Do you believe a child at birth is a living human being? How about at 3rd trimester? How about at conception? If you can, give some reasons why.

Do you believe a child born without a brain is a living human being? How about at the 3rd trimester? How about at conception? If you can, give some reasons why.

Hypothetical situation: A fire has broken out at a fertility clinic. 200 fertilized embryos are being kept cryogenically frozen in a computer controlled vat on the premises and are completely safe from the fire; however, in the ensuing chaos, a two year old child has been left behind in the day care center and will surely die if nothing is done. You are the maintenance manager and have the ability to turn on the sprinklers and save the child, but the equipment that maintains the embryos frozen will short and all of them would be lost in the process. Would you turn on the sprinklers or not?

63

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
JLu wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Vegita wrote:
It’s not just religious, it’s moral also. I’m anything but religious, yet I still feel scientifically, life begins ahen the sperm fertilizes the egg and a cell is created with DNA that is unique. I’m not so sure why this is hard to understand, I mean yea, it’s inhabiting the mothers womb, and the mother provides it nutrients to grow, but I’m pretty sure we could grow a human outside of a woman, so it is in fact a separate human life. It’s growing and consuming nutrients and excreting waste. That pretty much makes it a living organism. It has different DNA than the mother so that makes it not part of her body. Killing it is killing a human.

I don’t lose sleep over it but if you are going to have laws against killing humans, it should apply to all humans, not just only humans after a certain arbitrary stage in thier growth.

V

Then how is sperm not a life? How is an egg not a life? Should we consider every menstruation murder? Not mention guys doing what guys do. Given advances in genetics in the recent years, every time you scratch your nose, you have just committed a holocaust. It’s a very gray area, and needs more study, away from sensationalist claims by people who aren’t like you (i.e. overly religious).

Personally, abortion makes me uncomfortable. I am not a huge fan. But I’m not going to tell a woman she isn’t allowed to have control over her body.

This is how I see it it, the argument on abortion comes down to one question. When do we consider the unborn baby a human (i.e. valuable).

If they say because it is inside the womb, that is a matter of location. That is like saying the people in Darfur are not valuable because of their location, and who ever kills them has the right.

If they say because it is dependent on the mother, that is a matter of level of dependency. You can compare it to a one year old jumping in the swimming pool and you are the last one to leave, that one year old is dependent only on you, 100% on you. So, should you be able to just leave that child die?

If they say because it is not developed, that is a matter of the level of development. That is equivalent to saying a two year old girl, since she has not developed her reproductive organs fully she is not as human as an 15 year old girl. And that two year old girl if her mother choose to do so because she is not as developed should be able to kill her.

If they say because it is small (usually stated it is only a mass of cells), that is matter of size. Again, because something is smaller than you it is okay to kill it? So a man should be able to kill a woman because he is bigger than her? A mother should be able to kill her two year old because the two year old is smaller than her?

And if they say it’s the woman’s choice, I believe in women choosing what to do with their body, but what if they have a nursing baby? Would the law see it justifiable if the woman killed her baby, or just stopped feeding it because it was using her energy? No, well why should they allow it when the woman choose to have sex. She should be responsible for her actions.

It’s a tricky definition for sure. What about if we define it as level of conciousness? For instance it’s not murder to chop down a tree because even though the tree is “living” it’s not exactly self-aware, conscious, able to feel pain etc. Like for instance if they said before it develops a brain it can’t reasonably be considered human would that be a fair statement?

So the level of brain development is at question? So, if a person has a disease (forgot the name) that makes it so they cannot feel, that makes them not human. Or, if they are knocked out and unconscious are they allowed to be murdered, guilt free? And people driving while talking on the phone could be considered not exactly self-aware, we as rational human beings would not be able to say that murdering those people would be justified.

This is my idea of how tell if something is human:

If it’s growing, is it not alive?
And if it has human parents, is it not human?
And living humans, or human beings like you and me, are valuable, aren’t they?[/quote]

All of my suggestions of self-awareness and brain development are in reference to before the child is born. Nice try with the semantics though.

64

Why do pro-choicers often sound like young earth creationists when discussing the unborn? Do this. Find yourself someone who has ultrasounds of themselves in utero. Maybe the person’s parents passed them on. Anyways, look at the images. Now, look at the person. Do this a few times. Have you? Ok, good.

Now realize that the organism you’re looking at in those images is the exact same organism which shared the images with you. What’s captured in the ultrasound images is not a placeholder organism. Such as a frog that is teleported out and replaced with a human at some point.

It has always been and will always be a human. A human developing in the womb. The zygote, the fetus, are not foreign organisms in a human host that, shazam!, turns into a different (human) organism when the pro-choicer arbitrarily chooses.

65

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why do pro-choicers often sound like young earth creationists when discussing the unborn? Do this. Find yourself someone who has ultrasounds of themselves in utero. Maybe the person’s parents passed them on. Anyways, look at the images. Now, look at the person. Do this a few times. Have you? Ok, good. Now realize that the organism you’re looking at in those images is the exact same organism which shared the images with you. What’s captured in the ultrasound images is not a placeholder organism. Such as a frog that is teleported out and replaced with a human at some point. It has always been and will always be a human. A human developing in the womb. The zygote, the fetus, are not foreign organisms in a human host that, shazam!, turns into a different (human) organism when the pro-choicer arbitrarily chooses. [/quote]

The pro choicers ignore science. 1. the DNA of the fertilized egg is you at 10, 40, or 100. Same person. 2. Studies of twins in the womb via ultrasound show interactions such as playing, teasing and comforting at ages EARLIER than previously thought possible. Human interaction.

So at one time doctors and scientists thought the fetus was not aware yet, but now they have moved it back earlier. Hummm. Who wants to kill a child? Isn’t it better to err on the side of caution?

66

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Vegita wrote:
It’s not just religious, it’s moral also. I’m anything but religious, yet I still feel scientifically, life begins ahen the sperm fertilizes the egg and a cell is created with DNA that is unique. I’m not so sure why this is hard to understand, I mean yea, it’s inhabiting the mothers womb, and the mother provides it nutrients to grow, but I’m pretty sure we could grow a human outside of a woman, so it is in fact a separate human life. It’s growing and consuming nutrients and excreting waste. That pretty much makes it a living organism. It has different DNA than the mother so that makes it not part of her body. Killing it is killing a human.

I don’t lose sleep over it but if you are going to have laws against killing humans, it should apply to all humans, not just only humans after a certain arbitrary stage in thier growth.

V

Then how is sperm not a life? How is an egg not a life? Should we consider every menstruation murder? Not mention guys doing what guys do. Given advances in genetics in the recent years, every time you scratch your nose, you have just committed a holocaust. It’s a very gray area, and needs more study, away from sensationalist claims by people who aren’t like you (i.e. overly religious).

Personally, abortion makes me uncomfortable. I am not a huge fan. But I’m not going to tell a woman she isn’t allowed to have control over her body.[/quote]

There are plenty of legal precedents where government tells people what to do with their body. Especially when it affects someone else’s body. You can’t sell a kidney, but you can sell sperm, eggs, and plasma.

You can’t sell sexual services, you can’t put certain substances in your body. Some without a prescription, some at all. You can’t expose parts of your body or eliminate wherever you like.

67

A teenage girl is raped and impregnated, are you telling me she shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion?

68

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Makavali wrote:

Then how is sperm not a life? How is an egg not a life?

Technically, a sperm or an egg is only 1/2 of a life.

What about Chimeras? This arithmetic of yours doesn’t pan out in the real world.

EDIT: Or twins?

Chimerism and Twins are both the result of a fertilized egg. I don’t see how you’re trying to make the jump from “a fertilized egg is life” to “an unfertilized egg or sperm is life”. Having only half of the genetic material necessary for life, these cells do not constitute human life until they are combined.

I am pro-choice, but your science is weak.

You said a sperm/egg is 1/2 of a life, so it would follow that combining both is 1 life. When an embryo splits in two, does that make a twin half a person? Obviously not, so I’m merely pointing out that it is a very gray area.[/quote]

Ok, let me break out the big red crayons for you:

Sperm/egg cells: 23 chromosomes
Person: 46 chromosomes
Twins: 46 chromosomes each

Once again, your science is weak.

69

[quote]tom63 wrote:
You can’t sell sexual services[/quote]

Ahaha. Maybe not in the land of the “free”.

70

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Ok, let me break out the big red crayons for you:

Sperm/egg cells: 23 chromosomes
Person: 46 chromosomes
Twins: 46 chromosomes each

Once again, your science is weak.[/quote]

Once again, you’re not getting what I’m saying, and probably not getting how I’m saying it, seeing as you’re not exactly my intended audience.

71

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
This is how I see it it, the argument on abortion comes down to one question. When do we consider the unborn baby a human (i.e. valuable).

If they say because it is inside the womb, that is a matter of location. That is like saying the people in Darfur are not valuable because of their location, and who ever kills them has the right.

If they say because it is dependent on the mother, that is a matter of level of dependency. You can compare it to a one year old jumping in the swimming pool and you are the last one to leave, that one year old is dependent only on you, 100% on you. So, should you be able to just leave that child die?

If they say because it is not developed, that is a matter of the level of development. That is equivalent to saying a two year old girl, since she has not developed her reproductive organs fully she is not as human as an 15 year old girl. And that two year old girl if her mother choose to do so because she is not as developed should be able to kill her.

If they say because it is small (usually stated it is only a mass of cells), that is matter of size. Again, because something is smaller than you it is okay to kill it? So a man should be able to kill a woman because he is bigger than her? A mother should be able to kill her two year old because the two year old is smaller than her?

And if they say it’s the woman’s choice, I believe in women choosing what to do with their body, but what if they have a nursing baby? Would the law see it justifiable if the woman killed her baby, or just stopped feeding it because it was using her energy? No, well why should they allow it when the woman choose to have sex. She should be responsible for her actions.

I think we can agree a two year old is human. A forming fetus is still in question, whether you like it or not. All you can hope for is better contraception, because the only thing that would remove the need for abortion sure as shit isn’t going to happen unless people stop being horny.

I do hope for better contraception (not the pill), and more responsibility in the world when things are unexpected. I do not think a fetus is in question, I do not even think an embryo is in question. A fetus is a unborn human in the womb, so from 8 weeks to birth? So, what is the difference between the baby a day away from being delivered and a day after becoming a fetus. The development of the fetus. Now, what is the difference between a two year old and 12 year old, development.

Brother Chris, you present several well reasoned and well articulated arguments. Before I offer a response, could you clarify your position by responding the questions below:

Do you think those that have or perform abortions are murderers? Do you think they should face the legal punishment for murder?[/quote]

Yes, I do think they are murderers, (I have different definitions for killers and murders) same as the mother if she willingly consented to the procedure. Yes, they should be punished for their their acts.

Yes, I do believe a child is a human being at the birth, the third trimester, and as well as at conception. The reasons why, because it has a human genome received from its parents, and it is developing.

I am not aware of children without a brain that are born that live, so as long as it is actually alive then yes it is a living human being, otherwise it is a dead human being. Yes, at all three, because stated above. The child will die without a functioning brain, but it still is a valuable none the less.

Not to bring semantics in, but if that machine shorts because of sprinklers but can withstand a fire, that is one strange machine. But that aside, I’d flip the sprinklers on in a heart beat.

72

[quote]JLu wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
JLu wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Vegita wrote:
It’s not just religious, it’s moral also. I’m anything but religious, yet I still feel scientifically, life begins ahen the sperm fertilizes the egg and a cell is created with DNA that is unique. I’m not so sure why this is hard to understand, I mean yea, it’s inhabiting the mothers womb, and the mother provides it nutrients to grow, but I’m pretty sure we could grow a human outside of a woman, so it is in fact a separate human life. It’s growing and consuming nutrients and excreting waste. That pretty much makes it a living organism. It has different DNA than the mother so that makes it not part of her body. Killing it is killing a human.

I don’t lose sleep over it but if you are going to have laws against killing humans, it should apply to all humans, not just only humans after a certain arbitrary stage in thier growth.

V

Then how is sperm not a life? How is an egg not a life? Should we consider every menstruation murder? Not mention guys doing what guys do. Given advances in genetics in the recent years, every time you scratch your nose, you have just committed a holocaust. It’s a very gray area, and needs more study, away from sensationalist claims by people who aren’t like you (i.e. overly religious).

Personally, abortion makes me uncomfortable. I am not a huge fan. But I’m not going to tell a woman she isn’t allowed to have control over her body.

This is how I see it it, the argument on abortion comes down to one question. When do we consider the unborn baby a human (i.e. valuable).

If they say because it is inside the womb, that is a matter of location. That is like saying the people in Darfur are not valuable because of their location, and who ever kills them has the right.

If they say because it is dependent on the mother, that is a matter of level of dependency. You can compare it to a one year old jumping in the swimming pool and you are the last one to leave, that one year old is dependent only on you, 100% on you. So, should you be able to just leave that child die?

If they say because it is not developed, that is a matter of the level of development. That is equivalent to saying a two year old girl, since she has not developed her reproductive organs fully she is not as human as an 15 year old girl. And that two year old girl if her mother choose to do so because she is not as developed should be able to kill her.

If they say because it is small (usually stated it is only a mass of cells), that is matter of size. Again, because something is smaller than you it is okay to kill it? So a man should be able to kill a woman because he is bigger than her? A mother should be able to kill her two year old because the two year old is smaller than her?

And if they say it’s the woman’s choice, I believe in women choosing what to do with their body, but what if they have a nursing baby? Would the law see it justifiable if the woman killed her baby, or just stopped feeding it because it was using her energy? No, well why should they allow it when the woman choose to have sex. She should be responsible for her actions.

It’s a tricky definition for sure. What about if we define it as level of conciousness? For instance it’s not murder to chop down a tree because even though the tree is “living” it’s not exactly self-aware, conscious, able to feel pain etc. Like for instance if they said before it develops a brain it can’t reasonably be considered human would that be a fair statement?

So the level of brain development is at question? So, if a person has a disease (forgot the name) that makes it so they cannot feel, that makes them not human. Or, if they are knocked out and unconscious are they allowed to be murdered, guilt free? And people driving while talking on the phone could be considered not exactly self-aware, we as rational human beings would not be able to say that murdering those people would be justified.

This is my idea of how tell if something is human:

If it’s growing, is it not alive?
And if it has human parents, is it not human?
And living humans, or human beings like you and me, are valuable, aren’t they?

All of my suggestions of self-awareness and brain development are in reference to before the child is born. Nice try with the semantics though.[/quote]

Okay, a two year old’s brain is not as developed as yours, he is not as self-aware as you. Good reasons.

73

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
This is how I see it it, the argument on abortion comes down to one question. When do we consider the unborn baby a human (i.e. valuable).

If they say because it is inside the womb, that is a matter of location. That is like saying the people in Darfur are not valuable because of their location, and who ever kills them has the right.

If they say because it is dependent on the mother, that is a matter of level of dependency. You can compare it to a one year old jumping in the swimming pool and you are the last one to leave, that one year old is dependent only on you, 100% on you. So, should you be able to just leave that child die?

If they say because it is not developed, that is a matter of the level of development. That is equivalent to saying a two year old girl, since she has not developed her reproductive organs fully she is not as human as an 15 year old girl. And that two year old girl if her mother choose to do so because she is not as developed should be able to kill her.

If they say because it is small (usually stated it is only a mass of cells), that is matter of size. Again, because something is smaller than you it is okay to kill it? So a man should be able to kill a woman because he is bigger than her? A mother should be able to kill her two year old because the two year old is smaller than her?

And if they say it’s the woman’s choice, I believe in women choosing what to do with their body, but what if they have a nursing baby? Would the law see it justifiable if the woman killed her baby, or just stopped feeding it because it was using her energy? No, well why should they allow it when the woman choose to have sex. She should be responsible for her actions.

I think we can agree a two year old is human. A forming fetus is still in question, whether you like it or not. All you can hope for is better contraception, because the only thing that would remove the need for abortion sure as shit isn’t going to happen unless people stop being horny.

I do hope for better contraception (not the pill), and more responsibility in the world when things are unexpected. I do not think a fetus is in question, I do not even think an embryo is in question. A fetus is a unborn human in the womb, so from 8 weeks to birth? So, what is the difference between the baby a day away from being delivered and a day after becoming a fetus. The development of the fetus. Now, what is the difference between a two year old and 12 year old, development.

Brother Chris, you present several well reasoned and well articulated arguments. Before I offer a response, could you clarify your position by responding the questions below:

Do you think those that have or perform abortions are murderers? Do you think they should face the legal punishment for murder?

Yes, I do think they are murderers, (I have different definitions for killers and murders) same as the mother if she willingly consented to the procedure. Yes, they should be punished for their their acts.[/quote]

Your last sentence is ambiguous. As I understand it, if things were your way, abortion would be outlawed and the women who have had abortions and the doctors who performed them would all be in prison for murder and possibly executed, correct? If a girl was underage when she got an abortion, should she be charged as a minor or as an adult? Would her parents be charged as accomplices for providing consent?

I’m not going to pretend to be outraged regardless of your response. I’m just trying to understand your position so we don’t end talking past each other.

[quote]Do you believe a child at birth is a living human being? How about at 3rd trimester? How about at conception? If you can, give some reasons why.

Yes, I do believe a child is a human being at the birth, the third trimester, and as well as at conception. The reasons why, because it has a human genome received from its parents, and it is developing.

Do you believe a child born without a brain is a living human being? How about at the 3rd trimester? How about at conception? If you can, give some reasons why.

I am not aware of children without a brain that are born that live, so as long as it is actually alive then yes it is a living human being, otherwise it is a dead human being. Yes, at all three, because stated above. The child will die without a functioning brain, but it still is a valuable none the less.[/quote]

I’m not sure I was clear. A child that is born without a brain (I mean skull completely empty or the head never formed) is not a living human being; we can agree on that, right? At conception, according to you for the reasons stated above, it is a living human being. At what point does it cease to be a living human being? Is it the same point that it ceases to be alive, before or after?

[quote]Hypothetical situation: A fire has broken out at a fertility clinic. 200 fertilized embryos are being kept cryogenically frozen in a computer controlled vat on the premises and are completely safe from the fire; however, in the ensuing chaos, a two year old child has been left behind in the day care center and will surely die if nothing is done. You are the maintenance manager and have the ability to turn on the sprinklers and save the child, but the equipment that maintains the embryos frozen will short and all of them would be lost in the process. Would you turn on the sprinklers or not?

Not to bring semantics in, but if that machine shorts because of sprinklers but can withstand a fire, that is one strange machine. But that aside, I’d flip the sprinklers on in a heart beat.[/quote]

The contrivedness of my example aside, why would you turn the sprinklers on? Why would you choose to save one life at the expense of 200 lives?

74

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
This is how I see it it, the argument on abortion comes down to one question. When do we consider the unborn baby a human (i.e. valuable).

If they say because it is inside the womb, that is a matter of location. That is like saying the people in Darfur are not valuable because of their location, and who ever kills them has the right.

If they say because it is dependent on the mother, that is a matter of level of dependency. You can compare it to a one year old jumping in the swimming pool and you are the last one to leave, that one year old is dependent only on you, 100% on you. So, should you be able to just leave that child die?

If they say because it is not developed, that is a matter of the level of development. That is equivalent to saying a two year old girl, since she has not developed her reproductive organs fully she is not as human as an 15 year old girl. And that two year old girl if her mother choose to do so because she is not as developed should be able to kill her.

If they say because it is small (usually stated it is only a mass of cells), that is matter of size. Again, because something is smaller than you it is okay to kill it? So a man should be able to kill a woman because he is bigger than her? A mother should be able to kill her two year old because the two year old is smaller than her?

And if they say it’s the woman’s choice, I believe in women choosing what to do with their body, but what if they have a nursing baby? Would the law see it justifiable if the woman killed her baby, or just stopped feeding it because it was using her energy? No, well why should they allow it when the woman choose to have sex. She should be responsible for her actions.

I think we can agree a two year old is human. A forming fetus is still in question, whether you like it or not. All you can hope for is better contraception, because the only thing that would remove the need for abortion sure as shit isn’t going to happen unless people stop being horny.

I do hope for better contraception (not the pill), and more responsibility in the world when things are unexpected. I do not think a fetus is in question, I do not even think an embryo is in question. A fetus is a unborn human in the womb, so from 8 weeks to birth? So, what is the difference between the baby a day away from being delivered and a day after becoming a fetus. The development of the fetus. Now, what is the difference between a two year old and 12 year old, development.

Brother Chris, you present several well reasoned and well articulated arguments. Before I offer a response, could you clarify your position by responding the questions below:

Do you think those that have or perform abortions are murderers? Do you think they should face the legal punishment for murder?

Yes, I do think they are murderers, (I have different definitions for killers and murders) same as the mother if she willingly consented to the procedure. Yes, they should be punished for their their acts.

Your last sentence is ambiguous. As I understand it, if things were your way, abortion would be outlawed and the women who have had abortions and the doctors who performed them would all be in prison for murder and possibly executed, correct? If a girl was underage when she got an abortion, should she be charged as a minor or as an adult? Would her parents be charged as accomplices for providing consent?[/quote]

Yes, you are correct in your understanding of my position. Yes, if a girl is underage she would be charged just as any other murder case for an underage person (I am not positive how that is exactly determined). Yes, you are correct on your third question.

As I see it abortion is no different than any mother going to her doctor and murdering her child for any reason. I see no difference between unborn and born human being besides arbitrary reasons of location, development, size, and dependency.

[quote]I’m not going to pretend to be outraged regardless of your response. I’m just trying to understand your position so we don’t end talking past each other.

I’m not sure I was clear. A child that is born without a brain (I mean skull completely empty or the head never formed) is not a living human being; we can agree on that, right? At conception, according to you for the reasons stated above, it is a living human being. At what point does it cease to be a living human being? Is it the same point that it ceases to be alive, before or after? [/quote]

Yes, we agree that if the baby is not born without a brain then it is not a living human being, it is a still born.

Human beings stop being human beings when they no longer metabolize or react to stimulus. It is probably more complex than that, but from my humble understanding that is how I could tell.

Why would I choose the two year old over the two hundred cryogenic frozen fertilized eggs? Because I have a conscious and I could not let a two year old burn in a fire. The eggs, they are not living, they do not respond to stimulus, they are not developing, they are frozen.

This is like the question I get once and awhile about when a woman is going to die if she goes to term with a baby. That is a burden that I think no person should have to take, and it would not be ethical to make someone take that burden either. Yet, abortion is not the solution in this case, you can perform a c-section and try to save the baby while putting the mother at relatively no risk from the surgery. People say there is no different, but one you do not give a chance for the baby to survive, the other one there is possibly little chance for the baby to live, but you are still trying.

75

Consciousness is the only thing that matters. DNA does not. Your skin cells have human DNA. You can grow skin cells in a petri dish forever.

Potential doesn’t matter either, otherwise your logic would dictate that you should be procreating as much as possible so that as many of your sperm/eggs develop into adults as possible. It does not matter than an embryo will develop into an adult human; it has not developed a consciousness yet (at least what we think of as a “human consciousness”). Unless you are vegetarian, don’t fucking talk about how the embryo might have some consciousness at X number of weeks into pregnancy. Like I said, it does not matter that it would develop the human consciousness in time. It hasn’t yet. It loses nothing. There is no more potential lost than is lost everytime a woman menstruates.

Anyone who thinks an embryo deserves equal status with an adult human is an open or secret believer in souls. Anyone who believes in souls doesn’t deserve an opinion on this subject. You certainly cannot feebly put forth bad scientific arguments with any sort of credibility.

76

[quote]tme wrote:
Cool. So this means I can withhold my taxes to protest having them dumped into a couple of worthless holes in Middle East deserts?

I think it’s time for the IRS to re-evaluate the tax exempt status of some of these so called religious organizations.

[/quote]

Exactly.

Hell, I don’t want to pay taxes at all if a Republican wins the election. That’s cool, right? I’m protesting. It’s legal.

77

[quote]JLu wrote:
A teenage girl is raped and impregnated, are you telling me she shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion?[/quote]

Why should the child be killed? 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

78

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
tme wrote:
Cool. So this means I can withhold my taxes to protest having them dumped into a couple of worthless holes in Middle East deserts?

I think it’s time for the IRS to re-evaluate the tax exempt status of some of these so called religious organizations.

Exactly.

Hell, I don’t want to pay taxes at all if a Republican wins the election. That’s cool, right? I’m protesting. It’s legal.[/quote]

Seriously, you as a liberal think that these ideas are absurd because if we simply stopped to obey and finance the state your ideas could never be implemented. So, if people actually adopted the believes you make fun of your ideology would be done, because interestingly enough some people care just about enough about an issue to spend other peoples money but not their own.

So please, make fun of the idea that we do not wish to finance things that go against our core believes because sooner or later people will ask themselves:

What the fuck about that is so fucking funny?

79

[quote]John S. wrote:
JLu wrote:
A teenage girl is raped and impregnated, are you telling me she shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion?

Why should the child be killed? 2 wrongs don’t make a right. [/quote]

Why should she be forced to incubate a lump of cells until it becomes a child?

Remember, two wrongs do not make a right.

80

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
JLu wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
JLu wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Vegita wrote:
It’s not just religious, it’s moral also. I’m anything but religious, yet I still feel scientifically, life begins ahen the sperm fertilizes the egg and a cell is created with DNA that is unique. I’m not so sure why this is hard to understand, I mean yea, it’s inhabiting the mothers womb, and the mother provides it nutrients to grow, but I’m pretty sure we could grow a human outside of a woman, so it is in fact a separate human life. It’s growing and consuming nutrients and excreting waste. That pretty much makes it a living organism. It has different DNA than the mother so that makes it not part of her body. Killing it is killing a human.

I don’t lose sleep over it but if you are going to have laws against killing humans, it should apply to all humans, not just only humans after a certain arbitrary stage in thier growth.

V

Then how is sperm not a life? How is an egg not a life? Should we consider every menstruation murder? Not mention guys doing what guys do. Given advances in genetics in the recent years, every time you scratch your nose, you have just committed a holocaust. It’s a very gray area, and needs more study, away from sensationalist claims by people who aren’t like you (i.e. overly religious).

Personally, abortion makes me uncomfortable. I am not a huge fan. But I’m not going to tell a woman she isn’t allowed to have control over her body.

This is how I see it it, the argument on abortion comes down to one question. When do we consider the unborn baby a human (i.e. valuable).

If they say because it is inside the womb, that is a matter of location. That is like saying the people in Darfur are not valuable because of their location, and who ever kills them has the right.

If they say because it is dependent on the mother, that is a matter of level of dependency. You can compare it to a one year old jumping in the swimming pool and you are the last one to leave, that one year old is dependent only on you, 100% on you. So, should you be able to just leave that child die?

If they say because it is not developed, that is a matter of the level of development. That is equivalent to saying a two year old girl, since she has not developed her reproductive organs fully she is not as human as an 15 year old girl. And that two year old girl if her mother choose to do so because she is not as developed should be able to kill her.

If they say because it is small (usually stated it is only a mass of cells), that is matter of size. Again, because something is smaller than you it is okay to kill it? So a man should be able to kill a woman because he is bigger than her? A mother should be able to kill her two year old because the two year old is smaller than her?

And if they say it’s the woman’s choice, I believe in women choosing what to do with their body, but what if they have a nursing baby? Would the law see it justifiable if the woman killed her baby, or just stopped feeding it because it was using her energy? No, well why should they allow it when the woman choose to have sex. She should be responsible for her actions.

It’s a tricky definition for sure. What about if we define it as level of conciousness? For instance it’s not murder to chop down a tree because even though the tree is “living” it’s not exactly self-aware, conscious, able to feel pain etc. Like for instance if they said before it develops a brain it can’t reasonably be considered human would that be a fair statement?

So the level of brain development is at question? So, if a person has a disease (forgot the name) that makes it so they cannot feel, that makes them not human. Or, if they are knocked out and unconscious are they allowed to be murdered, guilt free? And people driving while talking on the phone could be considered not exactly self-aware, we as rational human beings would not be able to say that murdering those people would be justified.

This is my idea of how tell if something is human:

If it’s growing, is it not alive?
And if it has human parents, is it not human?
And living humans, or human beings like you and me, are valuable, aren’t they?

All of my suggestions of self-awareness and brain development are in reference to before the child is born. Nice try with the semantics though.

Okay, a two year old’s brain is not as developed as yours, he is not as self-aware as you. Good reasons.[/quote]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my explanation. I’m only speaking in terms of before and after a brain/conciousness/awareness has developed, not degrees of which each has developed (ie. I’m not talking about a spectrum of awareness or brain development). Let me break it down for you since you seem to be having such a hard time understanding.

Does a brain and therefore awareness exist? Yes → Human
No → Not human