abortion question

I agree with the sentiments of your statement, but DON'T double wrap. That can create friction and actually cause them to be more likely to break. This has been a public service announcement from....me.

 

I did not read the article, but I am pro choice all the way.

DD

 

I ask again, where exactly is that point?

 

zac:

It's pointless arguing with giddyup/richrocket. He's possibly the most irrational human being I've encountered in my entire life. Why bang your head against a wall? Good arguments are wasted, here. Save them for someone who will actually understand them.

 

Prove that life begins at conception, if you can't, then where does life begin exactly?

 

Talk about a worthless comment. Just ignore the discussion and go to personal attacks. "Zac, you're ugly" "Goophers, you smell bad" "Giddyup, your momma's so fat...."

 

At conception, the ovum and sperm of the mother and father are combined to create a mass of tissue with new genetic material. If allowed to grow (via warmth, nutrients, etc.) it will form what everyone accepts as a human being. It does not deviate from this (you can't form a new liver or heart for the mom). This new tissue is not part of the mother's body because it has new genetic material. Unless the tissue dies (by stillbirth, abortion, etc) it can only form a new and separate being.
In brief, this is now a new life because it has the DNA and RNA which are unique that encode it as a person, and it is now growing.

I am open to modifications of my current belief, and I would like your inputs.

 

How about people be responsible before the fact and then they dont have to worry about coathangers. I think that it is pretty naive and ignorant to make a statement that unlawful abortions would be in trailer parks.

Or back alleys. Or office buildings. Or houses. Or anywhere. My point is that women resorted to all sorts of horrifying things to terminate their pregnancies before Roe v. Wade. A lot of them died as a result. I've seen the numbers and the pictures, and I'd prefer not to revert to those days. Of course, some of you seem to think these women *deserve* to bleed to death on a bathroom floor...

Who was it that mentioned the 'casual abortion'? I've known *many* women who had abortions and none of them were in the least bit 'casual' about it. Of *course* it's a last resort for most people. It's hardly the preferred option.

 

I am sort of both sides. While I am against abortion, I agree with it in extremem situations such as rape, incest, etc.

 

WOW! How fast this thread had grown.

<b>haven</b>:Once again, it is proven that Truth cannot be bullied by haven's shenanigans .... so he must resort to insult! Gotta love it.

This is the equivalent of "I'm taking my ball and going home!" He even tries to dissuade others from conversing with me....

You think that just because I don't buy your arguments, I don't get them and am irrational? That is typical of your stance. I get every one of your arguments; I just find them unacceptable when a human life hangs in the balance. Does that make you heartless?

<b>Jeff</b>: I know we will agree to disagree. I don't really seek to change your mind. I seek to air the Truth of this issue for others to consider. Keep whatever beliefs suit you, but if you think I'm going to sit idly by while you favor abortion because it's just part of the great Reincarnation Ride of the Universe... you are wrong. I won't just sit by and witness the slaughter.

<b>rimbaud</b>: That I am RichRocket was confirmed in that thread two weeks ago with MannyRamirez. I changed my email and the log-in process got screwed up... so I just re-registered. No big secret; although it is interesting that it seems to matter to some people.

<b>puedlfor</b>: I am not the one intent on killing so I don't feel the need to prove anything. Just weeks after conception there are signs of life, new genetic material, etc. The onus on "proving" is on those who seek to destroy the life that they say does not exist. When in doubt conserve; for God's sake a life is at stake!

<b>Zac D</b>: You are the one who unwittingly compared it to racism; I just pointed it out. I'm not trying to make a scientific argument out of it; you are. I am the one who pointed out different argument, same conclusion. The pro-Abortion crowd is trying to turn a moral issue into a scientific debate. This is a moral issue that does not hinge on religious beliefs; most everyone agrees that innocent lives deserve protection.

 

I understand you have strong feelings on this issue, but, don't EVER dreide my beliefs as a way to serve your purpose.

I realize this is a contentious debate, but I never called you wrong. I never said that believing in Jesus was stupid. I never insinuated that you were a kook for your beliefs. In fact, I did the polite thing and agreed to disagree.

But, you take any more shots like that at what I believe and I will not be polite.

You don't have to accept any beliefs. You don't even have to respect them. But, you do have to treat the members of this board with a measure of respect and you are walking a particularly thin line at this point.

 

Jeff, you'll understand as you grow older.

 

History's a pretty strong witness, isn't it, dimsie ? There were plenty of abortions in far less religious and affluent days than these...

Great to know that Jeff's wrong! Funny how he's so much more persuasive on the issue. Also odd that he seems more far compassionate than you, since he's a baby-killer.

Hell, if I started a poll right now, that asked:

"Who's a more compassionate person, and posts in a way more consistent with the teachings of Jesus," I'm willing to bet you almost anything Jeff would beat you.

 

Max: You make a good point. For me, I think that I won't ever view abortion for others as a decision I can make for them and that may be the bottom line for many of us here. I would feel less than comfortable making that decision for someone I knew or loved let alone a total stranger.

 

I agree in part, and disagree in part. I completely agree that the issue boils down to whether you believe a fetus is a human being or not. I think almost everyone believes that murder is wrong, so if a fetus is a human being and not just a mass of tissue then it's wrong to kill it.

But that questions isn't really a clinical one. Medicine may advance to the point that a baby may be delivered from the womb three months premature, or even earlier. But medicine isn't going to give us an answer to the "when does human life begin" question. As I see it, that's more of a metaphysical/faith-based belief than anything else.

 

MadMax: but then, you go back to the question of what constitutes the value of human life? What makes human life sacrosanct? Most of us, I think, avoiding religion, believe that it's because humans are sentient. We think, we feel. That's what makes it wrong to kill a human, but not a cow, in my estimation.

A foetus isn't sentient. Incidentally, the foetus does begin to become sentient during the 3rd trimester (or at least, its neurons began to connect in the brain)... and I'm opposed to abortions after this, except for the life (not health) of the mother.

 

Well, it became important to me when you stated in that other thread (as giddyup) that I never seemed able to understand your posts. Since I didn't really know who "giddyup" was, I was confused, but had seen Manny make a reference to the connection, but it still seemed vague. Anyway, I asked in the other thread and was not answered, so still was not sure.

No big deal, just makes me feel less crazy by thinking that there is some negative history with a poster who has only been here two months.

 

Well I happen to think science and ethics provide the best perspectives to address social issues. So yeah, if you discount them as irrelevant there is hardly any reason for us to debate this matter further. If we fundamentally disagree on how to frame the debate or what constitutes evidence to support our positions--there is no place for a common ground understanding.

To repeat myself, in the areas of human activity in which decisions of life and death or health and well-being are concerned, that’s where. Again, a former alcoholic gets a liver transplant if needed to survive. The smoker gets lung cancer treatment. The person who causes an automobile collision gets treatment just as speedily as others not at fault. The promiscuous get AIDS treatment (though many with AIDS are not). The little boy who refused to wear his bike helmet gets medical treatment for his concussion. We don't go around deciding fault or responsibility in deciding who to care for, who to treat, who to try to help, who to try save. The "personal responsibility" issue is moot from this debate. If you want to argue for the pro-life side, I have suggested areas to frame the debate from that are not moot if you want to go back and re-read it.

OK, and if you cause an auto collision or didn’t wear a seatbelt the EMS shouldn't treat you. And if you have unhealthy food habits or poor exercise habits that contribute to your heart disease, sorry you don't deserve top care. Why should you get all "that crap" at my expense. All I can say is I think most people are glad we don't live in your ideal world.