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

reply to post by Maslo

Definition of death varies, but it is precisely brain death that is considered important for all medical and legal purposes. As a student of medicine, I know the definition of death we were required to learn: irreversible cessation of higher brain activity, which is brain death.

As a "student of medicine", I would HOPE you had better sources than wikipedia

Or is that where you do your studies from???


Are you studying to become an MD, RN, or PA?

One third of abortions are performed on teenagers without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

over 80 percent say they would have carried to term under better circumstances or with the support of loved ones, over 60 percent report having felt "forced" to have the abortion by others or circumstances, and approximately 40 percent were still hoping to discover some alternative to abortion when going for counseling at the abortion clinic.

Perhaps one reason for the strong abortion/suicide link exists in the fact that in many ways abortion is like suicide. A person who threatens suicide is actually crying out for help. So are women who contemplate abortion. Both are in a state of despair. Both are lonely. Both feel faced by insurmountable odds.

Like the suicide clinics described above, abortion clinics also exploit desperate people. They promise to release clients from the darkness of their despair. They appeal to our consumer society's demand for instant solutions to all our problems. They pose as places of compassion, but they are actually reaping huge profits through the harvest of the lonely, frightened, and confused people who are "unwanted" by society. In place of life, they offer the "compassion" of death.

Granting the wish for suicide or abortion is not an aid to desperate people. It is abandonment. It is a false compassion that protects us from getting entangled in the "personal problems" of others. It is "cheap love." www.abortionfacts.com

(updated April 2010)
A report released by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) shows that the suicide rate among teen girls and young women has tripled in the past 25 years, despite an overall drop in suicide rates across the United States.

NIH reports that suicide is now the third leading cause of death among American young people, and the sixth leading cause of death for children between the ages of 5 and 14 www.physiciansforlife.org...

It is also worth noting the suicide rate among women in China is the highest in the world. Indeed, 56 percent of all female suicides occur in China, mostly among young rural women.(12) It is also the only country where more women die from suicide than men. For women under 45, the suicide rate is twice as high as that of Chinese men. Government officials are reported to be at a loss for an explanation..Given the known link between abortion and suicide, can there be any doubt that maternally-oriented Chinese women who are coerced by their families and communities to participate in these atrocities are more likely to commit suicide? www.abortiontv.com...

"The data clearly shows what we have long suspected: that abortion is harmful rather than helpful to women," said Elliot Institute director Dr. David Reardon, one of several researchers working on the study..example, found that women who had abortions were three-and-a-half times more likely to die within the next year as women who carried their pregnancies to term..They also presented studies that found higher rates of depression, mental illness, miscarriages and substance abuse among post-abortive women compared to women who gave birth www.afterabortion.org...

A conspiracy of silence seems to surround the well-documented excess of suicide deaths among women with a history of abortion.Dr. Barry Garfinkel, head of the University of Minnesota's Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Department, surveyed teenagers to determine what factors contributed to depression, stress, and thoughts of suicide. The study found that girls who had abortions were four times as likely to attempt suicide as girls who had not aborted.
"Suicide More Likely Among Aborted Teens" National Right to Life News 4 Apr. 2, 1987

For many women, it is a life changing event with significant physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences. Most women who struggle with past abortions say that they wish they had been told all of the facts about abortion and its risks

reply to post by kevinunknown


Well genocide is the murder of a whole race of people and well abortion is for parents who cannot afford a baby and dont want it to be spun out and ruined by the adoption system. Make sense? I didn't think it would to the liberal types who try to control every problem in the world. How about we fix abortions for real? But to do that we would have to get rid of poverty and throw the immoral brainwashing that is on the television every night then we will have to get rid of FEMINISM. In the 1950's only the man would have to work and they could have a car and a nice house and no debt problems to speak of. When the global elites funded the feminism movement "Civil rights" was NOT their agenda, the problem to them is that with women at home they could only tax 50% of the population. Get out of the cave America its dark in there!

I don't really wanna throw gas on the fire but i think that genocide pales in abortion.

May I first make the point that genocide effects everyone, when a tyrannical dictator is willing to kill his "own" people or any people within his region on a genocidal scale then every mans life is in threat. When a village full of people is killed based on their race or religion then the living relatives are effected and the remaining people or the same race and religion are threatened.
Abortion is a personal issue between the woman bearing the potential life and the potential father of said life. Unlike genocide the loss is only of potential life, not actual life, a fetus doesn't have life with out it's host. The only connection to anything that fetus has is to the potential father and the potential mother. The issue is 100% solely not concerning external influence outside of the two living humans involved.

That's just my 2 cents, I'd like to assume liberty and freedom could triumph over personal views. I know that irregardless of my views, so long that someone's freedoms or liberties don't get in the way of my own then they can keep on keeping on.

Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. www.abort73.com...

Sir Albert Lilley, widely considered the "Father of Fetology", and unabashedly pro-life (as anyone with his vast knowledge of fetal development should be) makes some remarkable statements about fetal pain..By the same token we lack any proof that animals feel pain. However, to judge from their responses, it seems charitable to assume they do. Were this not so there would be no point in having an organization like the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I for one would be unhappy to think we would withhold from the human fetus a charitable consideration we were prepared to extend to animals. www.abort73.com...

"There is a great deal at stake here. When the public learns that the causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been downplayed by the scientific community- for reasons that are idealogical rather than factual -- the feeling of betrayal will be strong." stopabortionbreastcancer.org

We were told abortion would "empower" women and let them make their own choices. But research has shown that 80 percent of women are pressured by their husbands or boyfriends or by their parents to abort their baby. Is this empowerment? www.hoshuha.com

fetus
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg," from L. fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from Latin base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). In Latin, fetus sometimes was transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (cf. Horace's "Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus"), but this was not the basic meaning. www.etymonline.com

reply to post by Nitemare26


ummm.....psssst!!!
my mom worked, she had to if we kids were gonna have a roof over our head and food on our table...our dad worked also....
together, they made due.
my grandmother also worked, had to...she raised my father with no support from his father.
her mother also worked, matter a fact, through the depression, it was my grandmother, her sister and her mom all working that manage to keep the family home and keep themselves afloat.
so, well, that dates back before 1930.
There's a lady at work that is gonna be turning 90 this year. she's worked in that industry all her life, which I believe would include the 50's. most of the fist jobs we kids from my hometown would be a the canning factory in town. this was back in the 70's. the crew consisted mainly of the towns kids, and a bunch of old ladies....many of those ladies were working in that factory in the 50's.
the idea that the women didn't have to work in the past isn't true! they did. most of them did, unless they were the wife of a man in the upper classes. who had plenty of money. it's a fairy tale.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Well I think it all comes down to at what point does a child become a human being - when the egg is first fertalized?
By the fourth week of pregnancy your developing baby is about 1mm in length and looks like a tiny tadpole - is it human then? What about week 6 when the length of your baby is about 4 - 6 mm or 0.15 - 0.24 inches, week 10 27 - 35 mm?
I have a feeling your view is being a catholic is that when the egg is fertalised that is God giving a child life. As much as you say the way you feel has nothing to do with your religion if this is your view it is a contradiction. For people who believe scientifically a baby is a human being as soon as the egg is fertalised I pose the question how is it any different besides genetically to other animals of this world at this stage?

If God exists then having an abortion may be a waste of the gift of life but it has only killed a body - not a soul- you are not really destoying their life either because aparently God could give that soul a new body - if it is his will. So I think maybe people need to have some faith in their own beliefs.

If God or any form of afterlife does not exist - then nothing happens when we die, and this fetus (say it with me) is not self aware at 10 weeks - so no harm has been done. And if you can understand this then where do we draw the magical line?


Some would go as far as saying the sperm itself is the seed of life and should not be wasted. Masturbation in their eye's is a crime, and all you guys reading this know you kill a lot of babies all the time in their eyes ;-)


Article on world most premature baby that has survived.

The worlds most premature baby that has survived is was only 22 weeks old, I don't think using your friends 24month old baby as an example is much proof of anything. I can agree with the argument of making late abortion laws tighter and reducing the maximum age - but as shown by other posters there are alot of valid reasons for abortion, we can not begin to understand someone's reasons based off their position - we do not know their whole life - who are we to judge others - let's leave that to god and for those who are not of faith let's just leave our nose out of it.

reply to post by VI0811


So wait....your only reason to be okay with abortion is because it keeps the population down? This argument does not seem thought out. We are discussing the lives of human beings here...not stray dogs.

Also, it seems down right racist considering the facts. They can get confusing though. 60 percent of all US abortions are performed on white babies. But if you compare the amount of white women in the US to black women, a black woman is more than 3 times more likely to have an abortion than a white women. They make up for only 17 percent of all abortions even though their population numbers are considerably smaller. www.abortionno.org...

The simple solution is birth control. This would be a non-issue if governments and pro-choice supporters focused their energy more on making birth control easier to obtain and more widely available.

If abortion was abolished the use of birth control would raise.

I believe that in 50 years both the death penalty and abortion will not be around anymore except in the history books.

reply to post by MindSpin


So as you are so against abortions...
There's one question I want to ask to you:
"Is it better for a child to live a life full of misery, without love or to end it's life before even it has developed a consciousness of itself? Is it better to have one's life a hell on earth just because some people who think of themselves as saints do not approve of abortion?"

P.S. - I am nor pro not anti abortion guy. I'm asking you this question out of interest.

reply to post by Maslo

No, sperm does not qualify, just as embryos and early fetuses dont. Sperm and embryos are by definition not living beings, only living cells. They both lack qualities that define a being.
I have never claimed sperm is a living being, now you are comitting strawman. I said both sperm+egg and embryo are systems which would potentially turn into a being in the future.

So says the mighty wikipedia

Do you notice how you have to keep redifining your position??? I asked you this before...I asked you many questions...but you just ignore them.

My position is simple and hasn't wavered. And it is SCIENTIFICALLY BASED....not based on PHILOSOPHY as yours is.

I'll take science over philosophy any day of the week.

Then your speciecist philosophy breaks down in case of hypothetical intelligent aliens and transhumans, it has a singularity there. If you are OK with it, your call, but I dont think we should base as important thing such as legal abortion rights on such narrow and ad-hoc and self-centered philosophy, which does not offer answers to why the life in question should be or should not be protected, only establishes it as a fact, even if there are many which do not agree.

Oh boy...can you please stop trying to interject ideas into my argument???

Really....hypothetical aliens??? Wow.

How is proven biology ad-hoc and self-centered???

It's funny...because usually it is the pro-choice people screaming about staying scientific...and now all you want to do is discuss philosophy. You might as well say that God says it's ok

See above.

Nice dodge...I'll ask again.

My argument is simple...human biological process of life. Dispute that life starts at conception from the biology standpoint.

If we have a system that is capable of developing into a human person, it doesnt really matter if at the beginning it is going to do it on its own and we prevent it (abortion of the embryo), or at the beginning it is not capable of doing it on its own and we fail to enable it to do so if we can (man + woman). The consequence of our choice is the same - no human being where there could be if I acted differently.

So you are saying that aborted babies would of self-aborted anyway...LOL...such illogical arguments to desperately defend your philosophical position.

I never realized Laughner logic was so common here....funny.

If yu are not a moral consequentialist, then you may not agree with it, but I dont think deontological morality (actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the consequences) could really be justified without resorting to some supernatural being, so I dont consider it valid as an atheist.

More philosophy...let's try to keep it SCIENTIFIC..ok?

Yes I have, and yes, dog is sentient and IMHO its not OK to kill dogs, except in self-defense, just as humans.

Ok...dogs get protected by you. Cows? Ants you already said you have to look into it more (LOL). Dolphins? Whales? Chickens? You got a lot of work on your hands...and so many special cases and arbitrary judgement.

Not one shred of scientific process...but pfffttt...who needs that...right??? I mean, you solve everything with philosophy...and then bash the use of religion by others.

LOL....the HYPOCRISY is TOO MUCH.

Opinion? Read something about the history of medical death, and why it includes those other criteria, and why they are not mandatory in the EEG and life support age, only optional. The most used definition in the modern era in clinical practice is brain death. Disconecting vegetative patients or donating hearts would be ILLEGAL if your definition was used.

Even you admitted in practice it is done by the stoppage of the heart...that is when they declare death...that is the time on the death certificate.

Come one "student of medicine"...you have got to have something else besides Wikipedia???

Criteria is set from the beginning - presence of sentience. If we cannot YET in practice determine where some of the unimportant border cases belong, that is not the fault of the philosophy

Using PHILOSOPHY IS THE PROBLEM.

I'll stick with pure biological SCIENCE.

You stick with your PHILOSOPHY...why don't you go argue with others that use PHILOSOPHY...like those using RELIGIOUS arguements. Because that is all religion is...a form of PHILOSOPHY.

And I see nothing wrong with continuing to classify, improve and research the nature of sentience and its implications on universal sentient being rights in our complex world,

Sure...continue to improve the "science"...but let's not use incomplete and currently mis-understood philosophical concepts to define when life begins when we have a perfectly good SCIENTIFC alternative.

Please...I beg you...dispute that the biological proccess of human life starts when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg.

PLEASE???

its certainly better than setting one arbitrary, narrow, selfcentered and medieval rule that ONLY humans are protected

Arbitrary??? What is Arbitrary about BIOLOGY???

YOU are using ONE ARBITRARY concept to determine life...you choose ONE bodily function and use it. Otheres use other bodily functions...they are all arbitrary.

Biology is the only non-arbitrary and scientific measure we have.

in ALL stages of development, and other conscious life which may be even more advaced is unprotected, rule unable to answer many important philosophical questions and without any objective morality justification for its existence.

There you go again with your PHILOSOPHY.

Do you find it just a weeee bit ironic that the pro-life argument (me) is coming from a purely SCIENTIFIC approach...and the pro-choice argument (you) is coming from PHILOSOPHY???

I find it hilarious. But those silly religious people better not come in with their dirty philosophy...LOL.

What the hell has science of improving human genome have to do with anything?

Oh I don't know...your whole bit about decreasing suffering...determining who should live and die based on a standard of living that you arbitrarily decide....something like that.

Assuming they suffer (which overwhelming majority of them dont, they are very often more happy than normal people) so much that they would themselves prefer death over life they should have the right to voluntary euthanasia. Otherwise you will most probably increase suffering by killing them. Noone knows to decide better whether death is preferable to life than the person in question.

Yes...I agree...which is why a women choosing the death of their child is MURDER. The child didn't decide to die...someone else did for them.

I love how you serve these up for me.

But I have to address another part of this quote that is just too funny to pass up.

"which overwhelming majority of them dont, they are very often more happy than normal people"

LOL. You have proof of that???

What is it with supposedly LOGICAL people making ridiculous baseless claims on this site???

For the record, I support voluntary euthanasia.

Ok...irrelevant really.

How does "they dont know who they are" imply "they suffer"?

I don't know...I guess that is up to a bunch of philosophers to decide since scientifically it is impossible.

Maybe after you decide if ants are sentient..you can declare if these people have the right to life as well

It has singularities everywhere where advanced sentient non-human life is theoretically considered, or worse, allows for killing it.

Yes...my position isn't about other forms of life. Quite simple to understand. We kill other life right now...we have to eat.

I'm not concerned about protecting hypothetical aliens (LOL)...I'm concerned about definign HUMAN life. Unless human women are aborting baby aliens...I don't see the issue.

But keep up the ridiculous examples...it is entertainment.

You should define what you mean by "human concept". Do you mean things thought up or invented by people? (thats what I assumed from you including purely social construct such as religion), or do you mean things made by nature, discovered by us, which only affect our society to a certain degree, but are not social constructs but natural (biological) in origin? (consciousness, shizophrenia)?

Go measure "schizophrenia"...I'll wait.

You can study it in many other ways using neurology.

I didn't ask if you can study it...I asked if you can "measure" it???

And good lord...another wikipedia reference. Is your "student of medicine" text book just references to wikipedia???

Occams Razor dictates that we shouldnt multiply entities without reason. That means until we find some attribute of consciousness that couldnt be in principle explained using what we already know about the brain from natural sciences like neurology (eplained as emergent property of complex brain neural network), we must assume it is all there is.

I have no idea what you just said...I feel like I am reading a circular argument here.

Again, does our inability to compute planet orbits with infinite or ridiculously high precision invalidate our theory of gravity, and imply its not complete?

Ummm...no...but it doesn't mean we should make decisions based on innacurate data. Which is what you are proposing to do with abortion. You admit we don't have accurate information or means of measurement...and yet you want to use that as the arbitrary rule to determine "life".

I think you are shooting yourself in the foot here.

No. Theory is exactly right, just our computational capabilities are limited.

The Biological process of life is pretty much exactly right. Unless you care to dispute it (is this the 4th time I asked you to do this in this reply???).

Please do...dispute that the beginning of the process of biological human life starts when the human sperm fertilizes the human egg.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.

Just like fractal is determined by its one simple equation exactly into infinite depth, but in practice we cannot compute how fractal looks at ridiculously high zoom. But that does not imply our "theory" of the fractal (equation) is somehow wrong or incomplete.

It may imply a lot of things. It may imply our understanding of algebra and geometry is flawed. It may suggest our perception is flawed. I don't understand your point.

We have a clear usable definition of human life...it's called BIOLOGY.

Why do you hate science???

OK. Try to justify using your favourite moral system why only human life should be protected in all stages, and equally sentient (or equally nonsentient in case of embryos) non-human life should not.

I'm sorry...I'll stay SCIENTIFIC in my views.

My goal is to define HUMAN LIFE...and I am using BIOLOGY to do so. You are using PHILOSOPHY and MORALS...which do you think is more accurate?

I'll leave the PHILOSOPHY to you and the RELIGIOUS folks. Maybe you are better suited discussing this with them, since you refuse to acknowledge SCIENCE.

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by kevinunknown

 

Agreed, abortions should not be willy-nilly. But, as you state, if abortions are necessary in some instances, then who should provide that service?

You know what the circumstances are when women do not consult a reliable medical professional to have an abortion? When the practitioners of abortion go under ground because it's been de-funded by the government or made illegal.

And usually, that step would go hand in hand with a larger social situation that promotes more unwanted pregnancy.

In my opinion, the "pro-life" crowd is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of abortions in every back alley.

How to cut down on abortion? Promote sexual and reproductive awareness in "coming-of-age" adolescents, either through the schools, places of worship or family. There is nothing unholy about sex, if you look at it from a religious point of view, because this is how you create more human beings. However, when, on the one hand nobody wants to talk about or teach sex and reproduction, and, on the other hand, young teens are exposed to innuendo and suggestion, as well as their own hormonal changes, what can you expect.

Bottom line, it is 100% unacceptable to look at abortion in a bubble. It straddles the spheres of sexual education, poverty and social programs and crime. You cannot just make it legal or illegal to solve any problem. The only way to neutralize abortion as "only-when-absolutely-necessary" is to examine all of the links it has to other aspects of our society.

Oh, and to answer your rather inane juxtaposition:

Abortion is when a woman in a horrible emotional, spiritual or medical dilemma must make a personal decision with potentially negative repercussions for herself and the sadness of losing what could have been.

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.

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

edit on 23-2-2011 by Sphota because: formatting

I want this quote to be repositioned in this thread; it was the first one, and it hit the nail on the head.

Originally posted by archasama
reply to post by MindSpin

 

So as you are so against abortions...
There's one question I want to ask to you:
"Is it better for a child to live a life full of misery, without love or to end it's life before even it has developed a consciousness of itself? Is it better to have one's life a hell on earth just because some people who think of themselves as saints do not approve of abortion?"

P.S. - I am nor pro not anti abortion guy. I'm asking you this question out of interest.

It is better to give a child a chance at life.

Not everyone is a victim of their environment...good can come from bad.

Plus, no one knows what a childs life will be...no one can see the future. To make such a claim as "this child would live a life of misery" is illogical.

If you disagree with any of the above...please point out my flaws. I'll list out my points to make it eaiser.

- It is better to give a child a chance than to kill it before it even does

- Not everyone is a victim of their environment. Good can come from bad.

- No one knows the future or would be able to tell the quality of a childs life.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Let’s not forget, this thread is about the Murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, that is what some of you are defending no matter what clever logic you use. We are talking about murder.

...no... the topic is ABORTION, a legal medical procedure...

Originally posted by kevinunknown
because I am a man I have less of a say in the matter as you women.

...has nothing to do with you being a male... it has everything to do with you thinking you have a right to stick your nose into a stranger's very personal and private legal medical procedure...

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Again people, please remember we are talking about the mass genocide of our children.

...no... thats what you're talking about...

...you created a thread about abortion... you do not have the right or the power to dictate how people respond to your thread about a legal medical procedure...

reply to post by dawnstar


So... by that rationale, any issue that creates a giant conflict should be permitted? No matter how you spin it, no matter how much justification you give to it, and no matter how much it interferes with an adult, it does not reach the severity of warrantless punishment dished out on a child. Like I said earlier, you can not redefine life to make killing somebody ok. If you start there, it becomes up for debate for every other human being that may cause grief to another human being.

It is a threat to our civil liberties to try to decide on who lives or dies. I can see both sides but, ultimately, until you take out the "womens rights" angle and until you take out the "religious nut case" angle... you will never have an effective dialog about it.

reply to post by byteshertz


So killing a baby just 1 week before it becomes self aware is no big deal right? Great logic.

Besides...what's so great about self awareness? How does that give us the right to live?

I just think we need to either say it is never okay to kill someone or it is always okay to kill someone. I mean, technically a 2 year old still needs my assistance to live right? In fact, without me there he would die. So he relies on my body to survive. What if he's "dumb"? What if he is never "self-aware?" I should be able to kill him when I want right with no negative consequences?

Obviously self pleasure cannot result in a child. A man is not killing children when he spills his seed. It takes TWO sexual cells of different types to create a being. So sure, you may have a point if he was masturbating onto the sex cell of a woman. Otherwise, it is another failed point. Sperm cells are not humans. Ovums are not humans. When the two haploids join...it becomes a being.

If you have an abortion, even an early one, I can understand convincing yourself it wasn't a being...but it was. It was a being that if not disturbed would grow to a larger being much like yourself with it's own thoughts and beliefs. You know, kind of like a 2 year old.

There are no age or size requirements to deserve to live. Also, take your argument about "how we can't kill the soul blah blah blah" and apply it to illegal murder. It still applies right? I believe that if you can take your argument and apply it to something that is obviously wrong and it still fits....it's time to rethink your argument.

Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by kevinunknown

 

how bout i beat you within an inch of your life?

then get your ass pregnant.


shall i gloat when you are feeding that kid?

when you are 14 or 32 shall i not care?


screw you. it ain't your kid is it? you got some stake in raising it?

Obvioulsy if a person of any age is raped they are not going to be able to bear the thought of looking at a bastard child; Conceived by an evil rapist, and be able to really love that child. BUT no-one says the rape victim has to look after and feed that child! There are adoption agencies out there, and Loving people who themselves, would probably kill to have the chance to conceive or rare a child. Yet because of the option of abortion, thier chances of bringing up a child has been greatly reduced.

Abortion is by no means genocide, but it is still murder...Regardless of of the manner of conception, it's like a double standard. Rape can never and should never be justified by the killing of a child.

If the parent or victim know they can't bring up a child because of personal circumstances, whatever they may be, then there are options available other than abortion. Enough said


"screw you. it ain't your kid is it? you got some stake in raising it?"

No it's not anybodies elses kid, and, with your views it will never have a chance to be!

This is an open invitation to any pro-choicer here.

If anyone wants to officially debate me in the debate forum about the beginning of HUMAN LIFE...I will gladly accept.

My position, as I have stated numerous times, is simple.

Human life is purely a biological process. It begins when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg to create a complete and unique human DNA and cells begin dividing.

That's it...no special cases...no philosophy or morals...just pure biological science.


Anyone interested?

America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience.-Mother Teresa (Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94)

In the past 12 American wars, we lost 651,543 American soldiers. Yet, in the past 30 years, we have lost over 41 million Americans to abortions. That means we lost 64 times more Americans through abortion than we have in all of our wars combined (41,704,000 / 651,543 = 64). (Source: Time Almanac 2002)

Taken all together, we have 401 million deaths over nearly 2000 years of war and barbarism. Just for the sake of argument, let’s add another 10%, or 40 million, to cover margins of error, and other wars. This would bring our total to 441 million deaths over the last 20 centuries.

Now, what about abortion? At the low end of the Guttmacher scale, even if we ignore all abortions done prior to 1980 when accurate numbers are a little more difficult to ascertain, abortion accounts for more than twice the number of deaths by war! In just the last 25 years, the ghastly toll for abortion has totaled over 900 million dead babies. Taking the more probable mean average, the toll rises to well over 1 billion babies; or nearly three times the amount of deaths due to war. www.covenantnews.com...

reply to post by MindSpin

As a "student of medicine", I would HOPE you had better sources than wikipedia

Or is that where you do your studies from???

The definition of legal death as brain death was also in our lecture.

Here is another relevant quote:
en.wikipedia.org...

A patient with working heart and lungs who is determined to be brain dead can be pronounced legally dead without clinical death (cessation of blood circulation and breathing) occurring. However, some courts have been reluctant to impose such a determination over the religious objections of family members, such as in the Jesse Koochin case.