Abortion: The Facts

That the human genome was similar to other species is well known, the closest being chimpanzee, I believe. I had never heard, however, that humans had other species dna inside of them. Please provide citations, evidence of this claim. I hope this isn't like your earlier bacterial claim, that was really just your misunderstanding. By the way, putting something in CAP LOCKS makes you less credible, not more.

 

Still waiting

Neither of which matter, and as a unique entity is must gain unique consent to impose itself onto another person.

You as a unique person can gain consent to sexually intercourse with another person, that consent does not imply that you have free reign to have sexually intercourse with the same person at any time in the future, if you were attempt to do so that person has every right to defend themselves, up to and including deadly force, neither does the consent you gained mean another unique person can assume they also have consent to impose themselves onto said person.

Why should a fetus, as a person, be afforded rights over and above those of ALL other people, why do you want to create a 'super-person' and then remove those rights at birth?

Why are you so free and easy with other peoples rights?

BTW: Still waiting for your response to Post #758 & Post #759 along with the other thread as well

 

As i said before, different standards should apply because of the implications of abortion.

For one reason and one reason alone-the moral implications of abortion.

 

Quit jumping through hoops and define "implications of abortion".

 

Curious....do YOU notice when you can't stay on topic?

Alpha is talking about fertilized human eggs.....you talk about "fetuses". Somebody wants to talk about fetuses....you talk about "babies".

See if you can even try it? Somebody discusses fertilized human eggs....discuss NOTHING...but fertilized human eggs. I doubt you can.

 

and as I have said before your personal opinion has no bearing and no relevance to the reality.

 

As all Morality is an extension of individual opinion and belief, what you are stating is that YOU should be able to impose your own onto the personal life and physical being of others.

You user name is quite fitting...one hell of an Ego.

 

I have other things to do than keep track of your every post to me. I come here once, maybe twice a day. You telling me that I don't care about the rights of others, instead of taking me at my word, is like begging me to ignore the crap outta you. So, keep waiting. I'm not obliged to answer anything.

 

It doesn't matter here, and I've stopped referring to "babies" in these debates days ago due to Fugazi's request for civility (which he appears less and less interested in honoring). But, here it really doesn't matter. Baby, fetus, zygote, unborn, sperm, skin cell. Which part of the body contains dna of other species (an assertion Sir FoxHastings the Scientific made). I've never heard any claim of the sort and can't find it on google, so I'm hoping he will enlighten me. This doesn't change the topic at all. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

 

You mean brain cells?

I think you have to kill all of the cells in an organism, to be accused of murder. Of course, the organism has to also be human.

But one has to wonder what sort of logic you are using?

Abortion is basic murder, for you have not taken the life of a dog, a cat, a monkey, but of your own species. Now granted, if one is trying to save the life of the mother, it should be accepted, but mourned, by those that have respect for human life.

The trouble is of course that we really don't respect any human life, other than our own. So, we throw up arbitrary lines of what is, and what isn't a human life, so we can do with it with a clear conscience. Abortion is the taking of human life for mere convenience in most cases. And it shows up the great lack of personal responsibility. With all of the birth control readily available today, there should be very few abortions. So, far too many of us are just dangerously irresponsible people who are only concerned with out own egos. But that is the root of all evil. The pursuit of self gratification of the ego, which is a thing created by thought.

 

But that's not the argument you make. You continually try to "upgrade" the discussion to the next level of gestation.

Is a freshly fertilized human ovum...a "fetus"? If not, then why when Alpha talked of fertilized eggs....did you respond talking about fetuses???

- - - Updated - - -

Really?

If it were illegal, would you want it PUNISHED as "murder"...or "something less"?

 

Another example of the dangerous stupidity that comes from a religion that says you cannot use birth control. They don't take into account that we are not living in biblical times when it was essential to procreate like rabbits. We no longer need to expand the population, for the earth cannot support as many as we would end up with.

So just more proof that the Bible was not actually written by an all knowing god, but by man, who was a product of their culture and their times.

 

God states in the Bible that children are not to be punished for the crimes/sins of their parents. Then God turns around and condones children being killed in front of their parents as punishment to the parents. In addition God has the Israelites kill all the women children in babies in certain cities.

This of course makes God out to be a contradictory flip flopper with the most petty of human emotions and little for-sight.

Back to Santorum. As soon as one brings up OT Law such as stoning adulterers or other things unpalatable to the right wing fundamentalists they will claim "OT Law does not apply because Jesus made a new covenant"

When it comes to things in OT law the agree with they will conveniently ignore the new covenant claim. Santorum is not only a religious control freak that wants to force his religious beliefs on others through force of law ... he is also a hypocrite.

 

Definitely true. Though Santorum claims his opposition to abortion and gay rights is based on his "Catholic teachings"......

he had NO trouble supporting wars (like Iraq) that the RCC opposed or supporting capital punishment that the RCC also opposes.

 

Quote one Bible verse where God ordered children to be killed for punishment of the parents sins.

 

You got it.....

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” --- 1 Samuel 15:3




(did you forget, Sam?)

 

One of many: Exodus 12:29 God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh’s actions in the first place. Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler’s forced action?

 

God killed the first born children of Egypt to punish the pharaoh for not letting the sleeves go. He wasnt punishing the children.

 

Interesting interpretation. Most consider being killed out of spite a pretty harsh punishment.

But okay....how about from those stone tablets Moses found:

"'You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 'You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Deuteronomy 5:8-10) or (Exodus 20:4-6)"

 

In the Old Testament, God didnt give special treatment to Israel. He did condone Israel wiping out Caanan for their sins, but he also condoned other nations going to war with Israel to punish them for their sins-2 Chron 36:17, Isaiah 10:12.

 

You've got it backward. I was talking about fetuses, and he changed the noun. I maintain that it doesn't matter. I'm not saying a fetal iced egg is a person, or isn't a person. I'm saying that we shouldn't have the right to end innocent human life. Somehow, pro choicers introduce some philosophical, impossible to answer criteria like "personhood", and have decided that if that impossible to answer criteria cannot be answered, then the default should be the accept the right to kill the entity in question. It doesn't matter what stage. Answer it for any stage. Explain to me why you are a person, philosophically. Remember you can't rely on legal statutez, because those can be changed. . Fox has argued that the unborn, at every stage of gestation isn't a person, and that passage through the birth canal bestows the rights to being a person. He has argued that they don't have bacteria. I showed evidence that was false, and now he is insisting that unborn have other than human dna. Now I'm waiting for supporting evidence. Don't try to distract by suggesting I've moved the goalposts.

 

A fetus is called such because it is not a Zygote, a zygote is differentiated from a baby as well, by the definition we have given it. A person is not a biological or scientific term..it is a cultural designation given to living breathing homo sapien life when it becomes a part of society. If it ceases to breath we define it as a corpse, if it comes from Asia we define it as Asian, and if it is malformed we may call it many different things.

My point is....we make all these labels up, and get to explain what they actually mean.

 

so you pretence at the start of this about wanting an adult debate were nothing more than lip service . .good to know, it's also funny that you find the time to reply to others here who you obviously feel your arguments can over come.

Oh and in case you didn't realise there is a big difference between accusing you of something and asking a question of you . .that is what a question mark means at the end of a comment by the way.

I can fully understand why you don't answer, simply because you cannot.

 

One has to follow the whole set of comments before jumping in with something that doesn't have any relevance to the chain of events.

Nope, not in anyway, shape or form .. for one abortion does not meet the legal requirement for murder, for another even if abortion were to be made illegal it would still happen, unless of course you don't believe in the right of a person to defend themselves against non-consented injuries.
The only way that abortion could ever be considered as any form of homicide, let alone murder, would be for the unborn to be deemed the same as a born person .. but of course if that were to happen then the unborn are bound by the same restrictions every other person has, one of those restrictions is that a person cannot impose onto another person without consent. If a woman does not consent to being pregnant then she has ever right to defend herself against the injuries that pregnancy causes. Now I suspect you will try to form an argument that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, unfortunately for you that is not correct on a biological or legal standing.

Really, I respect all human life that does not impose onto others without their consent.

Please do show what arbitrary lines I have "thrown up", everything I state is backed up by biological facts and legal standings, where as pro-lifers (and I am assuming you are a pro-lifer) rely on nothing more than religious opinion and ignorance of biological and legal facts.

That is your opinion and of course you are entitled to it, as yet though I have never met a pro-lifer who can substantiate that claim in any other way than placing what they personal believe is "convenience"

Again that is nothing more than what you consider to be personal responsibility, what you consider to be personal responsibility may not be what someone else does, so the question is why should your opinion on the matter over rule another persons?

100% agree, now if you can just convince the majority of pro-lifers of this, perhaps the issue of abortion can move forward. It is of no coincidence that 6 of the top 10 states with the highest teenage birth rates also have the most restrictive sex education, or that 1/3rd of teenage girls did not know they could get pregnant the first time they had sex, or that in those states with restrictive sex education that girls are told that condoms don't work, or that the best types of contraception are priced above the limit of those who fall into the lowest wealth bracket.

Again more opinion without facts.

In your opinion, now how about some facts to put some meat on those bones.

 

For one I have been nothing but civil to you from the start, you are the one who has become more and more erratic and less civil with each comment you make.