pontius
Active Member
Originally Posted by Phixer
What happens when a fetus is aborted? a life is stopped. Who knows about the hell part. One thing is certain, when an abortion is performed a human being will cease to exist.
the universal definition of "kill" is "to deprive of life". but there is no universal definition of "life". there are only theories of what life actually is and when life begins.
some of these "theories" say that life is what happens at the moment of conception. other "theories" say that life is something that can live and grow independently of any other living thing. so my theory is that since a 2 month old clump of blood and mucus cannot grow and live independently of the mother, it is not life. and therefore, abortion is not "killing".
What happens when a fetus is aborted? a life is stopped. Who knows about the hell part. One thing is certain, when an abortion is performed a human being will cease to exist.
the universal definition of "kill" is "to deprive of life". but there is no universal definition of "life". there are only theories of what life actually is and when life begins.
some of these "theories" say that life is what happens at the moment of conception. other "theories" say that life is something that can live and grow independently of any other living thing. so my theory is that since a 2 month old clump of blood and mucus cannot grow and live independently of the mother, it is not life. and therefore, abortion is not "killing".
ruaround
Active Member
Originally Posted by dcoyle11
life is at conception ....prove me wrong!!! no i think ....if i made that statement prove it wrong
but your statement says "i think its at conception"... that is an opinion... prove it right... i am saying i can not prove your opinion wrong nor am i going to try... just as you arent going to prove my opinion wrong...
life is at conception ....prove me wrong!!! no i think ....if i made that statement prove it wrong
but your statement says "i think its at conception"... that is an opinion... prove it right... i am saying i can not prove your opinion wrong nor am i going to try... just as you arent going to prove my opinion wrong...
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
the universal definition of "kill" is "to deprive of life". but there is no universal definition of "life". there are only theories of what life actually is and when life begins.
some of these "theories" say that life is what happens at the moment of conception. other "theories" say that life is something that can live and grow independently of any other living thing. so my theory is that since a 2 month old clump of blood and mucus cannot grow and live independently of the mother, it is not life. and therefore, abortion is not "killing".
I understand that side of it. However, a 2 month old baby can't live and grow on it's own. They cannot provide for themselves in any way. No one would argue said baby is not alive.
the universal definition of "kill" is "to deprive of life". but there is no universal definition of "life". there are only theories of what life actually is and when life begins.
some of these "theories" say that life is what happens at the moment of conception. other "theories" say that life is something that can live and grow independently of any other living thing. so my theory is that since a 2 month old clump of blood and mucus cannot grow and live independently of the mother, it is not life. and therefore, abortion is not "killing".
I understand that side of it. However, a 2 month old baby can't live and grow on it's own. They cannot provide for themselves in any way. No one would argue said baby is not alive.
pontius
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I understand that side of it. However, a 2 month old baby can't live and grow on it's own. They cannot provide for themselves in any way. No one would argue said baby is not alive.
yes, it can. feeding a 2 month old baby a bottle of formula (which can be done by anyone) is not the same as a 2 month old fetus being 100% dependant on the mother alone. so a 2 month old baby is not the same as a 2 month old fetus. and aside from that, a 2 month old baby learns, responds, etc etc. a 2 month fetus does not.
I understand that side of it. However, a 2 month old baby can't live and grow on it's own. They cannot provide for themselves in any way. No one would argue said baby is not alive.
yes, it can. feeding a 2 month old baby a bottle of formula (which can be done by anyone) is not the same as a 2 month old fetus being 100% dependant on the mother alone. so a 2 month old baby is not the same as a 2 month old fetus. and aside from that, a 2 month old baby learns, responds, etc etc. a 2 month fetus does not.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
but your statement says "i think its at conception"... that is an opinion... prove it right... i am saying i can not prove your opinion wrong nor am i going to try... just as you arent going to prove my opinion wrong...
The argument ruaround has to go from the other direction. I say that because life is at stake.
Let's say someone you love is in an auto accident. The paramedics arrive, look at the victim, say "they are not responding" and pack up to leave. Of course you would say "Wait, they are alive!".
Now, define "alive". Brain activity? Breathing?
I don't have the answer and I'm sure not trying to act like I do. I do believe, however, that for too long this debate has been focused on the real issue.
We need to determine when life begins and what life is. Unfortunately too many people want to bury their heads in the sand and chant "choice, choice, choice,..."
At stake is human life. Has our society actually reached a point where we are afraid to explore what that means? Are we so afraid of what we'll find that we refuse to look at it?
What is technology allows doctors to start saving fetuses at 2 months development. Is anyone comfortable with not calling a 2 month fetus "alive" at that point?
but your statement says "i think its at conception"... that is an opinion... prove it right... i am saying i can not prove your opinion wrong nor am i going to try... just as you arent going to prove my opinion wrong...
The argument ruaround has to go from the other direction. I say that because life is at stake.
Let's say someone you love is in an auto accident. The paramedics arrive, look at the victim, say "they are not responding" and pack up to leave. Of course you would say "Wait, they are alive!".
Now, define "alive". Brain activity? Breathing?
I don't have the answer and I'm sure not trying to act like I do. I do believe, however, that for too long this debate has been focused on the real issue.
We need to determine when life begins and what life is. Unfortunately too many people want to bury their heads in the sand and chant "choice, choice, choice,..."
At stake is human life. Has our society actually reached a point where we are afraid to explore what that means? Are we so afraid of what we'll find that we refuse to look at it?
What is technology allows doctors to start saving fetuses at 2 months development. Is anyone comfortable with not calling a 2 month fetus "alive" at that point?
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
yes, it can. feeding a 2 month old baby a bottle of formula (which can be done by anyone) is not the same as a 2 month old fetus being 100% dependant on the mother alone. so a 2 month old baby is not the same as a 2 month old fetus. and aside from that, a 2 month old baby learns, responds, etc etc. a 2 month fetus does not.
Actually fetuses begin responding to stimuli at very early stages.
I respect your opinion. Like I said, I don't have the answer. Is it your belief that "life" begins at birth?
yes, it can. feeding a 2 month old baby a bottle of formula (which can be done by anyone) is not the same as a 2 month old fetus being 100% dependant on the mother alone. so a 2 month old baby is not the same as a 2 month old fetus. and aside from that, a 2 month old baby learns, responds, etc etc. a 2 month fetus does not.
Actually fetuses begin responding to stimuli at very early stages.
I respect your opinion. Like I said, I don't have the answer. Is it your belief that "life" begins at birth?
ruaround
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The argument ruaround has to go from the other direction. I say that because life is at stake.
Let's say someone you love is in an auto accident. The paramedics arrive, look at the victim, say "they are not responding" and pack up to leave. Of course you would say "Wait, they are alive!".
Now, define "alive". Brain activity? Breathing?
I don't have the answer and I'm sure not trying to act like I do. I do believe, however, that for too long this debate has been focused on the real issue.
We need to determine when life begins and what life is. Unfortunately too many people want to bury their heads in the sand and chant "choice, choice, choice,..."
At stake is human life. Has our society actually reached a point where we are afraid to explore what that means? Are we so afraid of what we'll find that we refuse to look at it?
What is technology allows doctors to start saving fetuses at 2 months development. Is anyone comfortable with not calling a 2 month fetus "alive" at that point?
this would be true but i personally had to be involved i a life decision (my fathers)... wether or not to pull the plug... and had a very close friend have a horrible accident that put him on life support... the plug was pulled on him as well... when a person has lived i look at the quality of life they would have being on life support for years to wake up and have the mind of a 1 year old...
The argument ruaround has to go from the other direction. I say that because life is at stake.
Let's say someone you love is in an auto accident. The paramedics arrive, look at the victim, say "they are not responding" and pack up to leave. Of course you would say "Wait, they are alive!".
Now, define "alive". Brain activity? Breathing?
I don't have the answer and I'm sure not trying to act like I do. I do believe, however, that for too long this debate has been focused on the real issue.
We need to determine when life begins and what life is. Unfortunately too many people want to bury their heads in the sand and chant "choice, choice, choice,..."
At stake is human life. Has our society actually reached a point where we are afraid to explore what that means? Are we so afraid of what we'll find that we refuse to look at it?
What is technology allows doctors to start saving fetuses at 2 months development. Is anyone comfortable with not calling a 2 month fetus "alive" at that point?
this would be true but i personally had to be involved i a life decision (my fathers)... wether or not to pull the plug... and had a very close friend have a horrible accident that put him on life support... the plug was pulled on him as well... when a person has lived i look at the quality of life they would have being on life support for years to wake up and have the mind of a 1 year old...
molamola
Member
so my theory is that since a 2 month old clump of blood and mucus cannot grow and live independently of the mother, it is not life. and therefore, abortion is not "killing".
I have a hard time believing that a perfectly healthy newborn baby would be able to grow and live independently of its mother, or a guardian of some type. A newborn baby is just as helpless as a baby/child/fetus within the womb. They still require someone else to feed them and keep them safe.
At the moment of conception, the mother is living and breathing for a second life. The food she eats, the water she drinks, the hours she sleeps, all support that life. Regardless of the mother's awareness, of her wanting the child, or not wanting it, her body is working overtime to ensure that the child/fetus/baby/cells get exactly what they need.
When you see your child sucking his thumb on the ultrasound monitor, when he's only 20 weeks along (still not considered by doctors to be viable), there's no doubting that you are witnessing life. If an amoeba can be considered a lifeform with it's one little cell, then I would think a fertilized egg that increases its own weight by 6 billion times over the course of 40 weeks, should be regarded as something much more significant.
Sorry if I've offended anyone, or come across as rude. I'm by no means trying to tell anyone they're wrong. I'm a lurker with an occasional opinion
who's 5 weeks away from having a kiddo of her own and is a bit hormonal :scared:
:jumping:
I have a hard time believing that a perfectly healthy newborn baby would be able to grow and live independently of its mother, or a guardian of some type. A newborn baby is just as helpless as a baby/child/fetus within the womb. They still require someone else to feed them and keep them safe.
At the moment of conception, the mother is living and breathing for a second life. The food she eats, the water she drinks, the hours she sleeps, all support that life. Regardless of the mother's awareness, of her wanting the child, or not wanting it, her body is working overtime to ensure that the child/fetus/baby/cells get exactly what they need.
When you see your child sucking his thumb on the ultrasound monitor, when he's only 20 weeks along (still not considered by doctors to be viable), there's no doubting that you are witnessing life. If an amoeba can be considered a lifeform with it's one little cell, then I would think a fertilized egg that increases its own weight by 6 billion times over the course of 40 weeks, should be regarded as something much more significant.
Sorry if I've offended anyone, or come across as rude. I'm by no means trying to tell anyone they're wrong. I'm a lurker with an occasional opinion
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
this would be true but i personally had to be involved i a life decision (my fathers)... wether or not to pull the plug... and had a very close friend have a horrible accident that put him on life support... the plug was pulled on him as well... when a person has lived i look at the quality of life they would have being on life support for years to wake up and have the mind of a 1 year old...
Sorry for your loss. I also know that feeling.
The difference in our experiences and abortion, however, is that in a fetus we're talking about a potentially healthy baby.
The life support issue is another tragic, difficult debate.
this would be true but i personally had to be involved i a life decision (my fathers)... wether or not to pull the plug... and had a very close friend have a horrible accident that put him on life support... the plug was pulled on him as well... when a person has lived i look at the quality of life they would have being on life support for years to wake up and have the mind of a 1 year old...
Sorry for your loss. I also know that feeling.
The difference in our experiences and abortion, however, is that in a fetus we're talking about a potentially healthy baby.
The life support issue is another tragic, difficult debate.
dogstar
Active Member
Im pro-life and pro-choice....can you dig it....
I dont like knowing that many feel that they have to make this decision.....for what ever reasons they make the decision....I wish that this world could be a place were no one would feel that they would want an abortion....that every pregnacy could be result in a healthy, happy child....
Of course thats not the reality of this world and I dont want to or believe that I should be given any power to make the choice for someone other than myself ( if I was a women ).....
I have personally had to discuss this option with a freind and understood the reasons that were involved.....It was a hard thing to talk about but I supported her decision even though I did not agree with it....
and I sure dont want the Government or any body selecting passages from the Bible or any other religion in order to justify makeing laws to goveren me ( if I was a women ) or my family or anyone for that matter, in such private matters....
I dont like knowing that many feel that they have to make this decision.....for what ever reasons they make the decision....I wish that this world could be a place were no one would feel that they would want an abortion....that every pregnacy could be result in a healthy, happy child....
Of course thats not the reality of this world and I dont want to or believe that I should be given any power to make the choice for someone other than myself ( if I was a women ).....
I have personally had to discuss this option with a freind and understood the reasons that were involved.....It was a hard thing to talk about but I supported her decision even though I did not agree with it....
and I sure dont want the Government or any body selecting passages from the Bible or any other religion in order to justify makeing laws to goveren me ( if I was a women ) or my family or anyone for that matter, in such private matters....
30-xtra high
Active Member
get on topic!, the threadmaker didn't ask you when life starts... or why or anything like that... he/she asked " are you for or against abortion"
personally, i'd say religion has to do with 75% of it, and personal opinion, and ability to cope with guilt has to do with 25%.
science has nothing to do with if you are for or against abortions... personally, i blame you journeyman, sorry but science and when birth starts really has nothing to do with anything on this thread, i respect your opinions, but personaly i'd have to say you're wrong, you are going to completely disagree with me, and i'm not bashin you in any way, but honestly science is pointless. science is often wrong,
"science" states those who use cell phones have a 50% chance of getting tomers in their skull, i know so many people with cell phones without head tomers...
science is often wrong, perosnally i disregard most things stated... like "the big bang"... more like "big bull$h1t".
religion, and opinion is where its at.
and the truth is... it all depends on the circumstances. you cannot give an answer because there are some many variables...
personally, i'd say religion has to do with 75% of it, and personal opinion, and ability to cope with guilt has to do with 25%.
science has nothing to do with if you are for or against abortions... personally, i blame you journeyman, sorry but science and when birth starts really has nothing to do with anything on this thread, i respect your opinions, but personaly i'd have to say you're wrong, you are going to completely disagree with me, and i'm not bashin you in any way, but honestly science is pointless. science is often wrong,
"science" states those who use cell phones have a 50% chance of getting tomers in their skull, i know so many people with cell phones without head tomers...
science is often wrong, perosnally i disregard most things stated... like "the big bang"... more like "big bull$h1t".
religion, and opinion is where its at.
and the truth is... it all depends on the circumstances. you cannot give an answer because there are some many variables...
ruaround
Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
Im pro-life and pro-choice....can you dig it....
I dont like knowing that many feel that they have to make this decision.....for what ever reasons they make the decision....I wish that this world could be a place were no one would feel that they would want an abortion....that every pregnacy could be result in a healthy, happy child....
Of course thats not the reality of this world and I dont want to or believe that I should be given any power to make the choice for someone other than myself ( if I was a women ).....
I have personally had to discuss this option with a freind and understood the reasons that were involved.....It was a hard thing to talk about but I supported her decision even though I did not agree with it....
and I sure dont want the Government or any body selecting passages from the Bible or any other religion in order to justify makeing laws to goveren me ( if I was a women ) or my family or anyone for that matter, in such private matters....
i can dig it!!!
michaeltx
Moderator
just a reminder for everyone this topic has stayed very civil ** and to be honestly I am surprised about it sense it is so heart felt** its a delima for everyone on what side you are on. so let keep it civil and have a healthy well thought out thread and not let it get ugly and misguided.
Thanks everyone for being civil on this subject ! !
Mike
Thanks everyone for being civil on this subject ! !
Mike
ruaround
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Sorry for your loss. I also know that feeling.
The difference in our experiences and abortion, however, is that in a fetus we're talking about a potentially healthy baby.
The life support issue is another tragic, difficult debate.
thank you... and i agree...
Sorry for your loss. I also know that feeling.
The difference in our experiences and abortion, however, is that in a fetus we're talking about a potentially healthy baby.
The life support issue is another tragic, difficult debate.
thank you... and i agree...
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by 30-xtra high
get on topic!, the threadmaker didn't ask you when life starts... or why or anything like that... he/she asked " are you for or against abortion"...
No offense taken.
I would argue, however, that in order for this question to be answered the parameters must be addressed.
That's like asking "are you against murder". Then someone says" Ya, the military shouldn't be killing people...". Obviosuly you have to define what "murder" is to have a healthy debate.
Science doesn't say 50% of people who use cell phones will get tumors...
If we throw out "science" as you propose we are left with nothing but opinion. How can we be expected to make reasonable decisions based on that? There are a group of people in our country who have the opinion that minorities are inferior. Does there opinion deserve credence? Of course not.
Science is the study of things. It is neutral (not all scientists are however). Using science to analyse an issue is never a bad thing.
get on topic!, the threadmaker didn't ask you when life starts... or why or anything like that... he/she asked " are you for or against abortion"...
No offense taken.
I would argue, however, that in order for this question to be answered the parameters must be addressed.
That's like asking "are you against murder". Then someone says" Ya, the military shouldn't be killing people...". Obviosuly you have to define what "murder" is to have a healthy debate.
Science doesn't say 50% of people who use cell phones will get tumors...
If we throw out "science" as you propose we are left with nothing but opinion. How can we be expected to make reasonable decisions based on that? There are a group of people in our country who have the opinion that minorities are inferior. Does there opinion deserve credence? Of course not.
Science is the study of things. It is neutral (not all scientists are however). Using science to analyse an issue is never a bad thing.
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by hot883
Lets stop and think about that one.
Lets see, the sperm seaks out the egg and BOOM! Instant baby. I don't think so. Terminate it before it even begins.
There is not a more horrible thing can happen to a woman, why make her FOREVER remember that haneous event everytime she looks at the child. Pro-choice.
i used to believe that as well untill i saw a program with 10 woman and there children, and how wonderfull life was for them and there accomplishment, all were children born from ----
Lets stop and think about that one.
There is not a more horrible thing can happen to a woman, why make her FOREVER remember that haneous event everytime she looks at the child. Pro-choice.
i used to believe that as well untill i saw a program with 10 woman and there children, and how wonderfull life was for them and there accomplishment, all were children born from ----
reefreak29
Active Member
i would like to say that every woman ive met that has had an abortion , felt great guilt and have struggled tromendasly over that decision
i dont think theres a woman out there that was happy to have an abortion ,and they had to grieve the rest of there lives its such a sham, it should be illegal not only because its murder but from the scicological damage it creates
i dont think theres a woman out there that was happy to have an abortion ,and they had to grieve the rest of there lives its such a sham, it should be illegal not only because its murder but from the scicological damage it creates
phixer
Active Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
the universal definition of "kill" is "to deprive of life". but there is no universal definition of "life". there are only theories of what life actually is and when life begins.
some of these "theories" say that life is what happens at the moment of conception. other "theories" say that life is something that can live and grow independently of any other living thing. so my theory is that since a 2 month old clump of blood and mucus cannot grow and live independently of the mother, it is not life. and therefore, abortion is not "killing".
If you get a chance take a close look at some of the before and after photos of an abortion. Arms and legs, in some you can even see the fingers. Take a look at the 2 month old under a microscope. It is unmistakeably a human being.
So... if the universal definition of "kill" is to deprive of life, and in fact that " 2 month old clump of blood and mucus" eventually becomes a human life (what else would it become, a pony?) then an abortion is depriving that "2 month old clump of blood and mucus" the chance of a life. So abortion is stopping a human life.
the universal definition of "kill" is "to deprive of life". but there is no universal definition of "life". there are only theories of what life actually is and when life begins.
some of these "theories" say that life is what happens at the moment of conception. other "theories" say that life is something that can live and grow independently of any other living thing. so my theory is that since a 2 month old clump of blood and mucus cannot grow and live independently of the mother, it is not life. and therefore, abortion is not "killing".
If you get a chance take a close look at some of the before and after photos of an abortion. Arms and legs, in some you can even see the fingers. Take a look at the 2 month old under a microscope. It is unmistakeably a human being.
So... if the universal definition of "kill" is to deprive of life, and in fact that " 2 month old clump of blood and mucus" eventually becomes a human life (what else would it become, a pony?) then an abortion is depriving that "2 month old clump of blood and mucus" the chance of a life. So abortion is stopping a human life.