Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

When a mother gets an abortion, technically they kill the baby but since the baby is not even born yet one can argue the baby does not feel/understand anything. Genocide is killing adults which do feel/understand themselves and their enviroment.

Huge difference in my opinion! I have no idea why some people are fanatically against abortion. Either they get carried away with religion or they are too emotional. Life is not a rose garden and nobody ever claimed it was. Its about making smart decisions for yourself and others!

I don't intend in getting involved in a flame war so I will respectfully walk out. I simply felt like giving my opinion for whatever it was worth.

reply to post by MindSpin


I don't think you understand the difference between brain death and a persistent vegetative state and coma.

www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...

www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...

You are the third person to attempt to play the "you are a forced euthanising freak" card. Which is not true by the way.


I'm also seeing you edge closer and closer to an ad-hominem attack, please try to restrain yourself as I have no patience for those kinds of posts anymore

Originally posted by kalamatas
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Basic biology? I miscarried at 8 weeks with a blighted ovum. No heartbeat yet.

Yes..no heart beat because there is no embryo in a blighted ovum.

www.mayoclinic.com...

A blighted ovum, also called an anembryonic pregnancy, occurs when a fertilized egg develops a placenta and membrane but no embryo

The egg was fertilized...the embryo never developed.

I'm sorry for your miscarriage.

reply to post by kalamatas


Who are you to determine what sex "should" be all about. Now we have the uterus police, sex police and the "what it should you should ne thinking about sex" about police. All in the same thread! GEEEZ!.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
reply to post by MindSpin

 

I don't think you understand the difference between brain death and a persistent vegetative state and coma.

www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...

www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...

You are the third person to attempt to play the "you are a forced euthanising freak" card. Which is not true by the way.

edit on 23-2-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

I'm also seeing you edge closer and closer to an ad-hominem attack, please try to restrain yourself as I have no patience for those kinds of posts anymore

edit on 23-2-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

Do you understand your whole argument up to this point has to do with an artifical process???

It's hard to debate you when you about the natural process of life when you keep wanting to talk about artificial methods of keeping a heart beating.

But just to be clear...even in patients that are "brain dead", they don't get declare dead until the artificial life support is turned off and the heart stops beating.

So I guess there goes your argument for when someone is "dead"...since the medical profession waits until the heart stops beating to declare them dead.


Now...do you care to try to show me a flaw in my logic??? And are you going to address the flaws I pointed out with your logic???


Debate is a two way conversation...I have answered every question you have presented to me...you have answered none of mine. Please provide some answers or this is no longer a debate...it is an interrogation.

reply to post by MindSpin


Right. I guess I should have used blastocyst or zygote, but these things occur before the development of the embryo. So wether the embryo started to develop and stopped or it never developed into an embryo at all are you still saying the contents of the ovum were an individual life because fertilization occurred?

reply to post by MindSpin


Um... A debate is not a two way conversation. It is a moderated presentation of two sides of one issue. I don't think you have made your argument better than somehumanbeing.

You never answered his petri dish question.

Originally posted by Sphota

Genocide is when a group of people with no emotional or spiritual quibbles decide, en masse, that another group of people - for the mere fact of who they are - should be totally eliminated.

Major difference.

Is it?

A group of people "en masse" called the Pro-Choice movement, decided that another group of people, the unborn can be killed because they are unborn.

Why? Convenience. So they don't have to worry about Birth Control and can have sex at any time without consequences. They may say otherwise but nearly all abortions are for Birth Control. Denying that is almost comical today.

This is one time where there simply is no good answer. I think Abortion is murder. Period and end of subject for me. It has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. I came to the conclusion that a fetus is a living Human Being based purely on logic. No argument will ever sway me on that.

Since it is legal in Western Society, I tolerate it as I must, but I don't have to pretend it's not murder, because I believe it is murder.

I worry that this will eventually make people so uncaring about Human Life that eventually it will lead to the killing of children after they are born, if they are not perfect. As we have all seen that is being seriously thought of in the UK now. How far is it from that to then deciding to put anyone who is handicapped or diseased out of their misery? I think that is a reasonable worry in fact. Assisted Suicide is already happening.

I do not want one red cent of my tax money to go to murdering children for Birth Control, period end of subject. People who want Abortions should pay for it themselves and Planned Parenthood should raise it's own money. I don't think that is unreasonable at all. Expecting those who believe it is murder to help pay for it is the definition of unreasonable. As far as education and condoms and such, where do I send a check? For those who don't want children anyway, I'd even consider donating to free sterilization.

I do think that the government should stay out of it completely. In that way I am Pro-Choice. It's a very personal moral issue that the government only got into to pander for votes. That is wrong also. These should be personal decisions each person makes on their own.

I personally can't think of anything more violent than an Abortion. The slaughter of ones own children. I do know multiple women who had Abortions when they were young. They all are now Pro-Life. Nothing hits home quite like walking out of a cold, callous abortion clinic knowing you have just killed your own child.

Then we come to the truly evil side of this, the Late Term Abortions. People who are for that, clearly don't care about Human life at all. I've actually had extended conversations with three MD's about that. They all agreed that there is no valid reason for a Late Term Abortion ever. In all cases a C-Section is the correct and safest for the Mother. That means that the Mother who wants one is literally committing an act of Infanticide along with a willing Doctor. I think last I read, there are only 5 in the whole United States willing to commit such an atrocity.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by kalamatas

 

Who are you to determine what sex "should" be all about. Now we have the uterus police, sex police and the "what it should you should ne thinking about sex" about police. All in the same thread! GEEEZ!.

I'm not determining what sex should be, I'm saying that inarguably the purpose of sex is to make a baby. Responsibility and self control prevents unwanted pregnancies. If we're going so far as to have conversations about murdering children inside the womb, obviously there is a fundamental problem, which is an irresponsible, oversexed society, that obviously doesn't see the sanctity in the creation of new life.

reply to post by SevenBeans




I could not see where it was TOP of the list ! it certianly figured, why wouldn't it? it also said

"QUOTE" such statistical approaches are very uncertain. The reasons are self reported and

thus not verifiable.

I would rather draw from my own experiences and know of several women who have been

through the procedure and finance never came into any of their decessions.



And i'd just like to point out to all the posters who believe that God is going to punish all

the poor Women SINNERS didn't he say "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"

Well there's been a lot of rocks thrown on this thread.

Originally posted by kalamatas
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Right. I guess I should have used blastocyst or zygote, but these things occur before the development of the embryo. So wether the embryo started to develop and stopped or it never developed into an embryo at all are you still saying the contents of the ovum were an individual life because fertilization occurred?

Yes, that life just ended very very early.

Which is why I said I was sorry to hear about your miscarriage.

reply to post by MindSpin


I have already pointed out to you the flaw in your logic, you have tried to defend it by trying to find a flaw in my logic which i have promptly defended. Let's summarise

You believe life begins in fertilisation, when cell-division begins.
You believe cell-division alone is enough proof for the beginning of a human being's life.
You believe that brain activity nor heart-beat are needed for the beginning of a human being's life

I have stated your first belief is a general opinion, an arbitrary scientific "fact" that can go as far prior to fertilisation to the development of the sperm cell and the egg.

I have stated that cell-division alone is not enough for proof of human-life, I have exemplified this with the scenario of the brainless body being kept alive through machines. The artificiality of the scenario is irrelevant; the resultant ethical, moral, and philosophical implications are what matters.

I have stated that a brain-activity is the prime definition of a living human being. You bring the example of medical practitioners that declare a person dead when the heart stops beating; that is mere convenience, when the heart stops beating, the brain is not dead (although lack of oxygen will inevitably lead to it's dead after a small amount of time)

When a definition of when a person suffered a biological death is needed, coroners and doctors turn to when the brain ceased functioning at all. When a person's heart stops beating, there are opportunities for revival using CPR, when a persons brain stops function completely, it is irreversible.

When the embryos brain begins demonstrate presence of brain-waves, it can begin to be considered a living human being, prior to which, it is merely a bundle of cells, akin to the brainless human body.


I see you don't see my general replies to your questions as direct enough. I will answer your reply to my petri-dish question in a more direct manner:

So you do not classify any organism undergoing cell-division as a living being, I see, okay, well what provides you with the belief that a bundle of cells prior to brain-function is a living being?

Because it can eventually develop it provided the means, just as a sperm cell or egg can eventually develop human life provided the means?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Um... A debate is not a two way conversation. It is a moderated presentation of two sides of one issue. I don't think you have made your argument better than somehumanbeing.

You never answered his petri dish question.

I sure did answer his question...I'll even link you to it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No, not ANY organism undergoing cell-division...I never said ANY cell-division is a living human being. I said once a human sperm fertilizes a human egg and THOSE cells start dividing...it is a human life.

When a dog sperm fertilizes a dog egg and cells start dividing...it is the start of a new dog life.

Is bacteria alive...yes...at the basic level it is alive. And if you believe in evolution...I would think you also think a bacteria is "alive".

If you don't think my argument is valid...feel free to disput it...somehumanbeing surely hasn't...he won't even answer my questions to him.

And forgive me if I don't consider you an unbiased judge for the matter

reply to post by MindSpin


I don't sympathize with you either, but I declare somehumanbeing the winner of the debate!

Originally posted by OhZone
reply to post by kevinunknown

 

First let me tell you that babies do not come from god.

2nd, why do you make any woman's private decisions your business?

3rd, how does either the life or the death of another woman's baby affect your life?

4th, don't you have a life of your own to live?

And this is your excuse for killing babies? that you think they dont come from God? And if society as a whole does not support this life, why would we ever expect the individual woman to? Even from a strictly Humanist level of thinking, you cannot base an argument for abortion on the basis the baby is not from "God".

reply to post by kevinunknown


If you have an abortion remember this for the rest of your natural life...You murdered your child...only way abortion should be legal is if the woman was raped then its still a crime

reply to post by kevinunknown


No, I don't.

BUT, I would condone some form of medical sterilization until such time as an individual or couple can meet guidelines that would establish a 'right to reproduce'.

reply to post by kevinunknown


First of all, you neglected to mention what should happen if the pregnancy was the result of a rape. How you could ever judge a woman whose been through that is beyond me.
Now I will say I'm not a fan of late term abortions, but I totally disagree with you comparing abortions to killing 8 year olds. Abortion is a touchy subject because no one grew up thinking they want to have to go through that kind of thing. I firmly believe it's the mother's choice. I actually can appreciate the fact that a lot of these people are not ready to be good and loving parents, and therefore decide not to move forward with the pregnancy. I would rather an abortion be performed than watching some little hell spawn create problems for society because their parents weren't there for them.
I know it sounds harsh, but it's the reality we live in.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I have no idea why some people are fanatically against abortion. Either they get carried away with religion or they are too emotional. Life is not a rose garden and nobody ever claimed it was. Its about making smart decisions for yourself and others!

I'm opposed to murder and believe abortion is murder. That is not fanatical. My belief is not religious in any way. A Fetus is a complete Human Being with everything it needs self-contained. Nobody can say in advance what it's life will be like, not even the Mother.

I'm a fairly average Pro-Life person. I'm non-violent. I don't engage in silly protests outside Abortion Clinics. I simply believe Abortions are murder and ask that my government not use any tax money to pay for murders. That is hardly fanatical.

Are you opposed to Murder? If not why not? If you are, then you are the same as those you say you don't understand. We believe abortion is murder and even worse Infanticide. You are literally asking us to say yes to murder for convenience just so you can have all the sex you want and not worry about using Birth Control. Who is the fanatic here? We who love life or those who don't place any value on even their own childrens lives?

When I decided I wanted to have no more children, I had a Vasectomy right away. Now if you want to talk about how the phony Macho Men are responsible for a lot of these murders, lets talk about that. People who say they don't want kids, but won't have a simple safe procedure. What about Women who say the same but won't have their tubes tied in another simple and safe procedure?

Either way, you calling a position that is the current majority position fanatical speaks volumes.

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by kalamatas
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Right. I guess I should have used blastocyst or zygote, but these things occur before the development of the embryo. So wether the embryo started to develop and stopped or it never developed into an embryo at all are you still saying the contents of the ovum were an individual life because fertilization occurred?

Yes, that life just ended very very early.

Which is why I said I was sorry to hear about your miscarriage.

Thank you for your sympathy. Oddly though, even though I was initially upset about the miscarriage, when I found out it was a blighted ovum, I didn't feel as sad knowing it hadn't developed into an embryo, I felt it hadn't developed a little individual life form yet. Not to say, in my perception, there wasn't someone waiting to come into that form.