A Non-Religious Abortion Debate

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Bone75
Wow I used to think this place was full of intelligent rational thinkers, but I've come to realize that a frightening majority of you are simply the outspoken victims of brainwashing and incapable of undoing the damage.

Unwind from that fetal position, friend. Why not attack our points instead of attacking us?

You haven't made one yet.

Your refusal to validate my point does not negate its existence and says more about your character than mine.

Since when does blatant denial of a proven fact constitute as a point?

What am I denying? The ability of a 2 week old embryo to exist outside of a uterus? Please enlighten me, because you aren't making any sense.

Perhaps we should start discussing how illogical it would be to ban all contraception and abortions.

For one, the birthrate would rise dramatically. That being said, their would inevitably be a rise in "back-street" abortion clinics, abandonment of children and dare i say it, extreme poverty. It is a shame that we live in a time were average people cannot support large families, but we have to accept, economically, we are way past that point. Wages have stagnated over the past 40 years, well paid skilled jobs have been shipped off abroad, society has changed its views towards child-rearing and career chasing (These are not bad things imo)

Whatever the cause of those issues, you have to accept the facts, the societies we in today could not viably support the large families which would result from a ban on contraception and access to safe abortions.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Of course not ALL scientist agree with it...not ALL scientist agree on much.

But current accepted biology does agree with it, has for a very long time. What you just provided are two professors that are attempting to change accepted biology to say that humans are "special" and unlike all other mammals...humans only become "human" when they develop a portion of their brain. However, a dog is a dog at conception. Also, when they state that sperm and egg are "alive"...that causes me to question their credibility...because they are specifically mis-using that term to trick the readers.

A frog is a frog at conception...it will never be anything else. A dog is a dog at conception...it will never be anything else. Humans are not special in that regard...a human is a human at conception.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Let's stop calling it something so arbitrary as "abortion" then, and call it what it really is, Preterm Delivery. At 10 weeks or 39 weeks, if the resulting biological mass can exist on it's own, can we all agree that it is alive?

Can a newborn at 40 weeks exist "on it's own"?

Why is it that if a mother doesn't feed a 40 week old human (40 weeks from conception) it is neglect, but if she doesn't provide for a 2 week old human (2 weeks from conception) it isn't?

I totally accept your caveat.

If a 2 week old embryo that survives pre-term delivery is able to continue to assimilate nutrients, it is alive. If not, it is not. Is that better?

If any human, regardless of age, can't assimilate nutrients...it will not be alive. But for it to cease to be alive at some point, then you must concede that it was alive before that point.

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Bone75

 

No, I understand that a new and completely unique human life begins at fertilization.

No No, don't deflect. I asked you if you believe, or understand, same difference, that life begins at fertilization.

Your answer states YES.

So what gives you that 'understanding' or that idea?

~Tenth

Basic Biology gives me that understanding.

Then you know very little about biology. Here's a video lecture from Yale University that will give you the basic reasons why you're wrong, within the first 5-10 minutes.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

This is a silly thread.

If a lump of cells is a human, are my toenails a human?

If a lump of human cells can survive on it's own, it's a human. If it can't; it's not alive.

That’s kind of a lame argument because a 2 year old child cannot survive on his/her own, much less an unborn child. I guess 2 year olds aren’t human based on your logic.

Hell, I could barely survive on my own at age 20!

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Perhaps we should start discussing how illogical it would be to ban all contraception and abortions.

For one, the birthrate would rise dramatically. That being said, their would inevitably be a rise in "back-street" abortion clinics, abandonment of children and dare i say it, extreme poverty. It is a shame that we live in a time were average people cannot support large families, but we have to accept, economically, we are way past that point. Wages have stagnated over the past 40 years, well paid skilled jobs have been shipped off abroad, society has changed its views towards child-rearing and career chasing (These are not bad things imo)

Whatever the cause of those issues, you have to accept the facts, the societies we in today could not viably support the large families which would result from a ban on contraception and access to safe abortions.

edit on 8-7-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)

If that is the only reasoning you have...then why do we "ban" murder? Why do we "ban" cannibalism?

Logically, both of those would alleviate certain issues in our society.

The logical thing is not always the right thing.

A Non-Religious Abortion Debate,

No such thing.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

This is a silly thread.

If a lump of cells is a human, are my toenails a human?

If a lump of human cells can survive on it's own, it's a human. If it can't; it's not alive.

That’s kind of a lame argument because a 2 year old child cannot survive on his/her own, much less an unborn child. I guess 2 year olds aren’t human based on your logic.

Hell, I could barely survive on my own at age 20!

No, based on your logic a 2 year old child is not a human. You are implying that your logic is based on mine. Caveats have already been made in the thread. Keep up.

reply to post by firemonkey

Can a newborn at 40 weeks exist "on it's own"? Why is it that if a mother doesn't feed a 40 week old human (40 weeks from conception) it is neglect, but if she doesn't provide for a 2 week old human (2 weeks from conception) it isn't?

Anyone can take care of a newborn, besides the mother. But no one but the mother can carry a fetus to delivery. A premature baby may survive outside of the womb, but not with artificial aide, which the mother is incapable of providing.

Once a fetus / baby is outside the womb and can survive with or without artificial aide, it is a person. Otherwise, it is not.

Originally posted by randyvs

A Non-Religious Abortion Debate,

No such thing.

It doesn’t have to be a religious debate. When life begins really has more to do with science than religion. For instance:

Dr. Joseph DeCook, executive director of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of about 2,500 members, said an embryo is a living human being at the moment of fertilization.

“There’s no question at all when human life begins,” said DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist. “When the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed.”

Pregnancy begins when the embryo is implanted on the uterine wall, he said. “But we’re not talking about pregnancy,” he said. “The question you have to focus on, is when does meaningful, valuable human life begin? That’s with the union of the two sets of chromosome. You have a complete human being that begins developing.”

thechart.blogs.cnn.com...

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


You're denying 2 proven facts :
1. A fertilized egg is a living human being.
2. A human being's life begins the moment the egg is fertilized.

Now you can go off track and start arguing terminology if you like, but at some point you're going to have to let those 2 statements sink in because they are irrefutable.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

f a lump of human cells can survive on it's own, it's a human. If it can't; it's not alive.

Don’t play games. You said if a lump of cells can’t survive on it’s own it’s not alive. A 2 year old human can’t survive on its own. So, based on your simple minded criteria, a 2 year old human isn’t alive.

Ridiculous!

Life begins at fertilization according to science (see my previous post).

“There’s no question at all when human life begins,” said DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist. “When the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed.”

thechart.blogs.cnn.com...

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Let's stop calling it something so arbitrary as "abortion" then, and call it what it really is, Preterm Delivery. At 10 weeks or 39 weeks, if the resulting biological mass can exist on it's own, can we all agree that it is alive?

Can a newborn at 40 weeks exist "on it's own"?

Why is it that if a mother doesn't feed a 40 week old human (40 weeks from conception) it is neglect, but if she doesn't provide for a 2 week old human (2 weeks from conception) it isn't?

I totally accept your caveat.

If a 2 week old embryo that survives pre-term delivery is able to continue to assimilate nutrients, it is alive. If not, it is not. Is that better?

If any human, regardless of age, can't assimilate nutrients...it will not be alive. But for it to cease to be alive at some point, then you must concede that it was alive before that point.

I do not accept that it was ever alive, so your assertion about 'ceasing' to be alive is moot. However, you -do- accept that something that cannot assimilate nutrients is not alive.

An embryo outside of a uterus is not alive.
A human is a being that lives outside of a uterus.

reply to post by windword


I watched the video, and their argument is that life doesn't "begin" at conception because life is a "cycle" and in a "cycle", there is no beginning. I will ignore the fact that you are using an argument from authority, and implying since this is from Yale...then they are correct. But you also didn't state that this is a class on "population problems"...and not a biology class.

So the problem is that he is using the general concept of "life cycle" and applying it to individuals and saying since it is a "cycle"...there is no beginning...and this is just false. As individuals, we don't have a cycle...we are part of the cycle, but we don't have a cycle ourselves. We have a beginning and an end...we don't keep cycling. He is saying that "life is a cycle"...and he is correct when you are talking about the continuation of life in general...but that isn't what we are talking about, we are talking about individuals

We have a general consensus on when we are "alive" as individuals...the only issues we have right now is determining the beginning and end points. In this topic, we are talking about the beginning of an individual human life.

So are you telling me that your opinion is that individual humans have no beginning?

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

f a lump of human cells can survive on it's own, it's a human. If it can't; it's not alive.

Don’t play games. You said if a lump of cells can’t survive on it’s own it’s not alive. A 2 year old human can’t survive on its own. So, based on your simple minded criteria, a 2 year old human isn’t alive.

Ridiculous!

Life begins at fertilization according to science (see my previous post).

“There’s no question at all when human life begins,” said DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist. “When the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed.”

thechart.blogs.cnn.com...

Keep up with the thread. This has been discussed and is currently BEING DISCUSSED.

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Perhaps we should start discussing how illogical it would be to ban all contraception and abortions.

For one, the birthrate would rise dramatically. That being said, their would inevitably be a rise in "back-street" abortion clinics, abandonment of children and dare i say it, extreme poverty. It is a shame that we live in a time were average people cannot support large families, but we have to accept, economically, we are way past that point. Wages have stagnated over the past 40 years, well paid skilled jobs have been shipped off abroad, society has changed its views towards child-rearing and career chasing (These are not bad things imo)

Whatever the cause of those issues, you have to accept the facts, the societies we in today could not viably support the large families which would result from a ban on contraception and access to safe abortions.

edit on 8-7-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)

If that is the only reasoning you have...then why do we "ban" murder? Why do we "ban" cannibalism?

Because "murder" consists of plotting and killing someone who has a legal status in the world. Usually carried out with foul motives. And to be clear, you cant call abortion murder if you cant legally pinpoint when foetus becomes a human with a legal identity.

Cannibalism is illegal because eating other human beings would contribute to the spread of diseases.

Logically, both of those would alleviate certain issues in our society.

I fail to see how making murder lawful would alleviate "issues" in society?

The logical thing is not always the right thing.

That statement defeats the purpose of what you're trying to say. Logic usually wins hands down, without the use of logic human's may have never "progressed" to this point.

While you're replying to my post, could you actually try and poke holes in my assumptions of what banning birth control and abortions would lead to? Do you accept that there would be:

For one, the birthrate would rise dramatically. That being said, their would inevitably be a rise in "back-street" abortion clinics, abandonment of children and dare i say it, extreme poverty

?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by firemonkey

 

Can a newborn at 40 weeks exist "on it's own"? Why is it that if a mother doesn't feed a 40 week old human (40 weeks from conception) it is neglect, but if she doesn't provide for a 2 week old human (2 weeks from conception) it isn't?

Anyone can take care of a newborn, besides the mother. But no one but the mother can carry a fetus to delivery. A premature baby may survive outside of the womb, but not with artificial aide, which the mother is incapable of providing.

Once a fetus / baby is outside the womb and can survive with or without artificial aide, it is a person. Otherwise, it is not.

Person? Sure, the lawyers can define when it is a "person" all they want...I don't care about that...we are talking about when it is a living human. Big difference. However, the lawyers have decided it is a "person" much earlier than what you are saying here.

Somewhat of an unrelated question from abortion, but still linked. Would you have a problem with lawyers defining other humans who aren't considered a "person"?

reply to post by seabag


I believe these debates are religious in frequency. Not so much as spiritually.

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

You're denying 2 proven facts :
1. A fertilized egg is a living human being.
2. A human being's life begins the moment the egg is fertilized.

Now you can go off track and start arguing terminology if you like, but at some point you're going to have to let those 2 statements sink in because they are irrefutable.

Those are your opinion. I'm not going to argue your opinion.

Now let's get back to what I was saying.

Can an embryo survive and continue to develop outside of a uterus? No. This is not indicative of human life. Humans CAN survive and thrive outside of a uterus.