In the framework of how those cells got to be there (we call it procreation, don't we?) one has to admit, if one is honest, that something else is going on besides thumbnail scrapings and what-not. It's not a line but it is a clear indication that there is a human in there and the genetics are unique and merged of the mother and father., are they not? I'd hate to see all that damage and destruction but the innocent children deserve protection first. If people are going to do stupid stuff, let them do it to themselves first rather than the innocent.
In an embryo? Did you know that they took the DNA from a man's leg and stuck it into a cow's egg and the thing starting going? They destroyed it after 12 days to avoid ethical and legal issues. It's just machinery. proteins, DNA, complex chemicals that obey thermo processes and do their thing. Some day people will be able to construct embryos. You don't gain a soul from a genetic event. It comes from learning and exposure to the world. From experience and development. IT's contained in the mind. How can you have anything without a network of neurons? There's nothing but a bunch of cells. It's not your heart, your arms, your lungs, or anything that makes you alive. It's your mind. Your religion and beliefs are what they are. But they are just beliefs. Not everyone's reality. You need to respect that.
For argument's sake, what if it was determined that a fetus was indeed a life? Would anyone care to eat that crow? I personally don't take a stand either way because I'm not arrogant enough to say that I know for sure that life doesn't start with a fetus. But if I were forced to take a stand I'd go with the safe play.
It still doesn't matter if I believe it, a woman has the right to decide what her body is used for and if she doesn't want to use it to bring a fetus to term, it is HER belief that matters. It is her body, her choice, within what I think are reasonable restrictions.
So you give absolutely NO choice to the baby inside her. That's not fair to the baby at all. You were once a baby inside your mother...
Now you're making the argument that a mother has the right to murder her baby. I seriously doubt that's stance you'd have.
He's spinning around, dizzy and confused. He changes his logic by the day. He's lost any credibility he had, and is now posting purely on hatred and bias. A true Vesuvius liberal.
The line of argumentation here about murder or moral trifle is irrelevant. People would be better suited looking for empirical justifications as to how government non-intervention, as given precedence by English common-law tradition, is not the best way to handle this issue. Until then, Roe v. Wade will stand unscathed, and pro-lifers will be left chasing people on forums, admonishing them for "murder", while some personally support war hawk policies, or eat steaks that were processed at the cost of one or two starving third world citizens.
It would be come relevant if indeed it was determined that life began at conception/embryo/fetus. Most of the arguments against giddyup were based on where folks believed life began. Who can say 100%? Why all the baby hating?
Exactly, i dont understand why neocons have their heads shoved so far up their asses. They cant just accept what ever benefits them as fact and science and ignore the rest.
Even if one were to overturn the scientific consensus on this issue (which precious few people try to do; instead they rely on vague moral arguments on how an embryo is human), it once again becomes an issue where you have to argue the legal perspective of how to handle such a complex issue. In any case, something to chew on--- Chromosomes are baby haters, my friend. And if you believe in the chromosome creator, well, they have quite a bit of blood on their hands.
So if it were determined that life began as an embryo, would you keep the same stance supporting the law as it is now? Or would you point to the chromosome creator and say 'if he can do it, so can I'? Not much wiggle room left.
Yes, I would, because I don't think of abortions as good things as they are. I would however, discourage government intervention in such a matter as it has been proven time and time again that it doesn't work. Am I against excessive drug use? Yes. Do I think government criminalization of drug use works? Hell no. Like I said, your first clause is already a very weighted assumption (it's a bit like saying "what if we found out dinosaurs didn't exist, would you still argue that dinosaurs exist?"---yeah come back to me when that happens) and, in any case, even if you put the work towards overcoming the first (which precious few do), the whole issue of how to regulate such an issue in the legal sense still comes into play. Notice when the Supreme Court articulated its' argument, it didn't turn around and say "babies are the WORST, we hate them." Find a way to knock that down, then get back to me.
determined by whom? There is no science here. It's arbitrary when you define human life to begin. I say it's when brain activity starts. When there are memories. Thoughts. Feelings. That's life. An embryo will never have any of that - not possible.
You aren't even arguing with him, but rather a strawman you have created. The only Vesuvius is you my friend. bigtexxx = bigfallacyyy
Ok. So we're back to you would support killing a baby because the law allows it and you support the law even when you don't agree to it. Let me know if I'm not following. Yeah, it's based on a hypothetical but in my hypothetical you're throwing your moral compass out the window by sticking with the law.
Everytime giddyup derails a thread to talk about abortion I'm going to go out and get 10 girls pregnant and insist they all abort the fetus.
Good question. Here are three answers. In war. In death penalty cases. In hunting, meat-eating, skin/fur-wearing
