Republicans thank the Christian voters

[squakMix]

Originally posted by electricmime
the difference squak, is that it does affect someone else.. it affects the kid, and thats why the debate of its human or not is so important.. after all, child-abuse laws are there for a reason, so why should we have the right to take someones kids just because they beat them, and we disagree with that? i mean, you are terminating a (debateable) humans life, and why isnt that child given the freedom you are so kindly giving to the person who is killing it?

on another note, im not sure about this... but is it true that an underage girl can get an abortion without her parents permission? i thought that if i needed surgery to save my life i needed my parents permission... and if abortions arent murder, why does killing a pregnant woman count as a double murder?

squak, are you saying that because a relgion says that stealing is wrong, then the laws cant punish those who steal?

how is it "not against my religion, therefore legal" to take anyone off life support?

"It's a human life... it doesnt matter if you cant afford life support and will have to live on the street if you keep paying for it."

"Nobody asked the comatos, brain dead guy if he wanted to be taken off of life support..."

[Raz]

Originally posted by deeder7001
those milions of sperm don't have a future if they aren't in the right place. when put in the right place at the right time, they have a chance.

Which requires a choice. Why should the choice be taken away if the conciousness has still yet to develop. Once again, who are you to draw the line?

[Wolfgang]

Sperm aren't aware of anything that goes on around them. Only an organism can be, and sperm are nowhere near that.

Cabo, it depends on your definition of a person. I wouldn't call a foetus a person. Of course there's the whole grey area between a born human and a sperm, but still, as xzxzzx said, until it can sustain itself, I don't think you can call it a person, and therefore you can't give it rights "as a person".

[deeder7001]

but it is potentially a person. and just because it can't sustain itself doesn't mean it isn't a sentient being.

[Wolfgang]

Well then, me thinking about making love to my wife in order to make her pregnant to have a child, is that potentially a person?

[deeder7001]

maybe i didn't make what i'm saying clearly. a fetus is potentially a person.

[Wolfgang]

potentially is the key word. It doesn't mean the foetus is actually a person. Therefore it's OK to abort it, in my opinion.
But that's my opinion. I don't for a minute think I'm about to change yours.

[Raz]

Originally posted by deeder7001
maybe i didn't make what i'm saying clearly. a fetus is potentially a person.

Yeah, you already said.

[deeder7001]

sometimes what i say/type isn't exactly clear to everyone.

[electricmime]

Originally posted by squakMix
how is it "not against my religion, therefore legal" to take anyone off life support?

"It's a human life... it doesnt matter if you cant afford life support and will have to live on the street if you keep paying for it."

"Nobody asked the comatos, brain dead guy if he wanted to be taken off of life support..."

i dont agree with purposely killing humans, i suppose that one who thinks someone should be pulled off of life support could argue that they will never be able to 'live' again(while an unborn child has a very good chance of living), and in some cases, pulling the 'plug' has actually brought them 'back'

though i think you missed my point.. from your posts, you seemed to believe that simply because someone dislikes something because their religion tells them too, its not right for them to force that on others. and christianity says stealing is wrong.. and yet you dont argue that that shouldnt be illegal, it also says that adultery is wrong, but you dont see them trying to force that to become against the law

you also seem to think that the only reason people disagree with abortion is because their religion tells them to, and that is wrong. im not a christian, and i dont like killing humans. i didnt like going to war with iraq, i dont like the death penalty, i dont like guns, and i most certainly dont like abortion, which in my opinion is ending the life of a human.

[Mattress]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
An embryo has no more potential, as it requires huge amounts of supporting molecules from the mother - in essence, the mother's body is building the a body within itself. The child's DNA is the blueprint, but the mother provides the construction crew and all the materials - until that crew can be removed without the organism falling apart, it has only the potential for life, and that does not make it a human any more than the average sperm/egg cell.

Okay so that rationale taken to an extreme would make it okay to leave your infant out in the woods to die of exposure. If it can't survive without the "construction crew" feeding it and giving it shelter then I guess it only had the potential for life.

[squakMix]

Originally posted by electricmime
i dont agree with purposely killing humans, i suppose that one who thinks someone should be pulled off of life support could argue that they will never be able to 'live' again(while an unborn child has a very good chance of living), and in some cases, pulling the 'plug' has actually brought them 'back'

though i think you missed my point.. from your posts, you seemed to believe that simply because someone dislikes something because their religion tells them too, its not right for them to force that on others. and christianity says stealing is wrong.. and yet you dont argue that that shouldnt be illegal, it also says that adultery is wrong, but you dont see them trying to force that to become against the law

you also seem to think that the only reason people disagree with abortion is because their religion tells them to, and that is wrong. im not a christian, and i dont like killing humans. i didnt like going to war with iraq, i dont like the death penalty, i dont like guns, and i most certainly dont like abortion, which in my opinion is ending the life of a human.

I'm not saying most of the morals based around christian values are bad at all - in fact, christianity was very very well written; It included much of what people need to do to be able to live comfortably.

it also says that adultery is wrong, but you dont see them trying to force that to become against the law

I'm surprised it HASNT been suggested/supported by people wanting adultry illegal; It's the same deal here.

Let me ask you -

would you rather someone live a life suffering on the streets, growing up to be someone that almost literally has no chance of happiness - the kind of person that will never finish highschool , or would you rather have someone's life prevented before they come into being? I dont consider an inanimate fetus as "living".

so, rephrased - would you rather someone live, but live a life of extreme suffering, or to not live at all, but not suffer at all?

also: what makes a "life", and what do you have against getting ending one before it started?

Why are you for birth control? A fertile egg and sperm about to concive a life is about as close to human as an unconscious, un thinking, un living fetus is.

[Mattress]

first of all, Who am I to determine what another person considers suffering? Some people like living on the street. Also, how does anyone know what kind of life a person is going to have? Additionally, a person directs the course of their own life, and people can, and constantly do, rise above the circumstances they find themselves in.

Also, since when is a fetus "un living"?

[squakMix]

Fine: It's un living in that it doesnt think or pump blood etc; at this stage it's just a developing mass of skin, not it's own, seperate, living entity.

Originally posted by Mattress
Some people like living on the street.

you serious?

[billyvnilly]

Originally posted by Wolfgang
Cabo, it depends on your definition of a person. I wouldn't call a foetus a person. Of course there's the whole grey area between a born human and a sperm, but still, as xzxzzx said, until it can sustain itself, I don't think you can call it a person, and therefore you can't give it rights "as a person".

i asked my ob/gyn (im a medical student) and she agreed that for the most part (shes mormon so she wouldnt fully agree i suspect) that the fetus has not become a person till A) the spinal cord has fully formed B)a complete vasculature has developed.


living things have A)brain activity B)heart beat.....hence the spinal cord/brain and vasculature

[deeder7001]

Originally posted by billyvnilly

living things have A)brain activity B)heart beat.....hence the spinal cord/brain and vasculature

wrong and wrong. plants are living things. they don't have a heart or a brain. spiders don't have a spinal cord. does that mean that the things i just mentioned aren't living?

[Raz]

No, but it means they aren't human.

[electricmime]

Originally posted by squakMix
I'm not saying most of the morals based around christian values are bad at all - in fact, christianity was very very well written; It included much of what people need to do to be able to live comfortably.



I'm surprised it HASNT been suggested/supported by people wanting adultry illegal; It's the same deal here.

Let me ask you -

would you rather someone live a life suffering on the streets, growing up to be someone that almost literally has no chance of happiness - the kind of person that will never finish highschool , or would you rather have someone's life prevented before they come into being? I dont consider an inanimate fetus as "living".

so, rephrased - would you rather someone live, but live a life of extreme suffering, or to not live at all, but not suffer at all?

i would rather them be born and be able to make the choices to lead their life and be given the same freedoms every human deserves.. i suppose it would be ideal for the parent to give it up for adoption, that way the baby will get a parent that can actually take care of it and *gasp* actually love it, instead of one who is willing to kill it

that argument is extremely stupid though, thats like saying 'why dont we just nuke poor sections of the world! look how much they are suffering.. instead of helping them, or at least giving them a chance... lets just end their lives!!'

i believe life begins when the child is conceived and preventing pregnancy is one thing, but aborting it is another

[ertmann|CPH]

Can you be pro death penalty and anti abortion?

Should abortion be legal if birth would put the mother at fatal risk?

How come abortion is pretty much a non issue for most European christians? not counting in catholics

[Mattress]

You can definately be pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. You can hold the belief that some people are deserving of death because of terrible things that they have done in their lives. Since unborn people have not done much of anything deserving death, they are shoud not be killed. Everyone deserves a chance to do things worthy of the death penalty.

I can understand having an abortion if the mother is at fatal risk, a better alternative would be to try to remove the child (premature birth) and attempt to save it as well. I'm not sure about how a mother can be at fatal risk being pregnant, but I imagine it would only happen in later stages of pregnancy. Can anyone offer examples where an abortion was required to save a mother's life?

[squakMix]

Originally posted by electricmime
i would rather them be born and be able to make the choices to lead their life and be given the same freedoms every human deserves.. i suppose it would be ideal for the parent to give it up for adoption, that way the baby will get a parent that can actually take care of it and *gasp* actually love it, instead of one who is willing to kill it

that argument is extremely stupid though, thats like saying 'why dont we just nuke poor sections of the world! look how much they are suffering.. instead of helping them, or at least giving them a chance... lets just end their lives!!'

i believe life begins when the child is conceived and preventing pregnancy is one thing, but aborting it is another

again: define "living.

I dont consider an inanimate, un thinking, un-capable-of-life-as-a seperate-unit hunk of developing tissue "living".

"Tumors have the right to live, so even if you are going to die because of one it should have the same right as a human because it has human DNA."

[Psythik]

I for one, am glad this bill was passed. Everyone deserves a chance at life, whether or not they came from an "accident" or from having their father be a rapist.

[billyvnilly]

save the plants, save the viruses!!!!

How come abortion is pretty much a non issue for most European christians? not counting in catholics

because right now in america there is a Quaker spiritual revival, evangelism is at its highest point since Carter era. We are trying to return to a much more holier-than-thou time period...leave it to beaver

[ertmann|CPH]

Originally posted by Mattress
I can understand having an abortion if the mother is at fatal risk, a better alternative would be to try to remove the child (premature birth) and attempt to save it as well. I'm not sure about how a mother can be at fatal risk being pregnant, but I imagine it would only happen in later stages of pregnancy. Can anyone offer examples where an abortion was required to save a mother's life?

Allmost all D&X or "partial birth abortions" are carried out to save the mothers life....

[Mattress]

what were the circumstances making it necessary?

[electricmime]

Originally posted by squakMix
again: define "living.

I dont consider an inanimate, un thinking, un-capable-of-life-as-a seperate-unit hunk of developing tissue "living".

"Tumors have the right to live, so even if you are going to die because of one it should have the same right as a human because it has human DNA."

possesing life

i dont have a problem with killing the baby to save the mother, so instead of pointing out the differences between cancer and babies, lets just use the same logic, its okay to kill the cancer to save ones life

[squakMix]

Originally posted by electricmime
possesing life

i dont have a problem with killing the baby to save the mother, so instead of pointing out the differences between cancer and babies, lets just use the same logic, its okay to kill the cancer to save ones life

Earlier in this thread we covered the issue of people that will die if they give birth, and the anti abortionists still supported abortion.

If abortion is outlawed, what happends to someone in this case if they happen to concieve during rape?

Yea, I know it's a slim chance that this situation would happen. More meant to be hypothetical.

Also: let's say someone gets a syst removed. That's about as living as a severely underdeveloped fetus is.

Maybe the issue is more about preventing FURTHER development thusly stopping a life from happening. Well, if that's the case, why dont you believe in having as many babies as possible? Every moment you dont make babies is one moment that a potential life is being prevented. Instead of sitting around you COULD be making lives! ...or: Why are you for birth control? Every time you have sex and keep a life from happening means that something that could be living in the future was prevented.

The whole point is that unless the baby is actually living - not just an inanimate little dot of flesh still living completely off of the host - the only thing that is happening is a life in the FUTURE is being prevented, not killing one now.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
First off, I think you sell Christianity short on its bid, as a Christian can ask, "why did God make it immoral?" Being Christian does not nessicerily make you limited.

I didn't mean to imply that it does. It's just more clear-cut.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
as for consciencesness, does that mean I can kill you while you sleep?

No, because I'm dreaming.



I hope you're being facetious.

If I damage your brain beyond repair, but you're still technically "alive", is that significantly different than murder?

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Cancer DNA maybe different from other body cells, but its not unique.

Yes it is. Do you understand what cancer is?

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Identical Twins?
They are separate entities.

Um, yes, that's the point, the entity is the valuable part of a human, not the unique combination of DNA.

---

Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
xzxzzx, there is another side that you left out...

To kill a person deprives them of their future life. It doesn't matter if they haven't developed a consciousness yet.

Like Raz says:

Originally posted by Raz
Cabo, but if it is still potential, then you have also deprived millions of sperm their future conciousness every time you masturbate. Who are you to draw the line?

---

Originally posted by Mattress
Okay so that rationale taken to an extreme would make it okay to leave your infant out in the woods to die of exposure. If it can't survive without the "construction crew" feeding it and giving it shelter then I guess it only had the potential for life.

Wrong. Taken to that kind of an "extreme" (aka, twisting the logic around to make it seem invalid), it would make it okay to put you in a box and claim that you're unable to survive without a "construction crew".

I don't even know if I can explain the difference, if you can't see it.

[electricmime]

well, i think its okay to kill the baby to save the mother, and just because i agree with some parts something, doesnt mean i have to agree with all parts... as i made it clear earlier in this thread.. i consider myself a liberal, and this is one of the few things that i disagree with *most* other liberals on

i suppose i could see those who wish for the babies health over the womens even though i dont agree with it.. someone once told me that men have to die for their country, and consider it an honor to die for their family, for their children.. and that they thought it selfish that some women dont feel the same way for their children, again, i dont share the same mentality, but i can see where theirs comes from

i said before that in my opinion, life begins when the baby is conceived, you obviously disagree with my opinions on life, and what defines a human life

as for this being a christian view and it is oppressing non-christians... well, if i am right, and life does begin when the child is conceived, then this is no more oppressing them, then it is oppressing religions that sacrifice human lives, though as i said before.. i am not a christian

I don't even know if I can explain the difference, if you can't see it.

thats about how i feel about comparing cancer to a baby

[squakMix]

life begins when the baby is conceived,

...I dont understand where your mentallity for this comes from.

Please explain.

[electricmime]

Originally posted by squakMix
...I dont understand where your mentallity for this comes from.

Please explain.

i consider life to begin when the first cell that contains dna not of the mother or father appears, because that cell is an entirely differnt person

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by electricmime
thats about how i feel about comparing cancer to a baby

Which is exactly why it's an entity that's valuable, not a unique human DNA pattern.

[electricmime]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Which is exactly why it's an entity that's valuable, not a unique human DNA pattern.

what do you mean?

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by electricmime
what do you mean?

Originally posted by xzxzzx
That having been said, there is an argument that I find ... pestiferously erroneous, which is the idea that an embryo is valuable due to it's unique genetic makeup.

This is so very fallacious that it is hard to begin. A cancer cell has a unique, human, DNA. Cancer cells, obviously, are not valuable, and are certainly not considered a life. So, then, we consider the other side of the argument - that the life must be preserved, because it's uniqueness of DNA makeup is so very valuable. If this, however, were the case, then we must, morally, create as many children as possible, and the "sin" of abortion is the same as simply not having a child. My third and final argument is that identical twins are certainly not any less valuable as humans than fraternal twins, so how can DNA be viewed as being distinctive?

[electricmime]

doesnt cancer have the same dna as the host? except it can grow without limit? while an embryos has an entirely different dna

[squakMix]

Originally posted by electricmime
doesnt cancer have the same dna as the host? except it can grow without limit? while an embryos has an entirely different dna

about as different from the host as a tumor from its host (...<-based on little understanding of human ginetic make up)

[Mattress]

if you leave a tumor to grow, in most cases, it kills the person it is inside of. If you leave an embroy to grow, in most cases, it becomes a human being.

What's important is not just the DNA, but what that DNA does or will do. Comparing an embryo with cancer is ridiculous and you know it.

[billyvnilly]

the DNA of tumor cells are mutated. most likely due to turning off saftey measures, or a mutation that indefinitely turns on growth factors. Tumor DNA is a mutated form of the person's DNA. A difference of 1-10/30,000 genes though...little difference in the big picture. tumor cells are not foriegn to the body.

[squakMix]

Originally posted by Mattress
it becomes a human being.

What's important is not just the DNA, but what that DNA does or will do.

You're referring to POTENTIALITY, which is bullshit and you know it. There's a potential life in every sperm you waste masterbaiting.

There's potential life in every second you waste NOT pumping out babies.

The point is that a fetus isnt a "human life" yet (but rather a dot of developing skin tissue), but can eventually BECOME a life.

Same with every one of your sperm - You're killing something (or rather not CREATING something, as with your arguments on abortion) every time you waste one.

[electricmime]

Originally posted by squakMix
You're referring to POTENTIALITY, which is bullshit and you know it. There's a potential life in every sperm you waste masterbaiting.

There's potential life in every second you waste NOT pumping out babies.

The point is that a fetus isnt a "human life" yet (but rather a dot of developing skin tissue), but can eventually BECOME a life.

Same with every one of your sperm - You're killing something (or rather not CREATING something, as with your arguments on abortion) every time you waste one.

i disagree, i dont think its a potential life, i think its an actual life

i think its a human life, this is just a human in its earlier form. while sperm and eggs are actually part of the mother and father, an embryo is an entirely new person, a new human

its just like how a baby is a human, though it has yet to grow into an adult, its not a 'potential human', its just a 'potential adult'