Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John Adams

Abortion

Recommended Posts

Why is it not true? Because you say so? That's one h*ck of a reasoning.

 

Very constructive sentence you posted...

 

If any of you had looked up the meaning of genocide you would see why I am saying it isn't that at all.

 

As you clearly have not, here is what genocide means (as taken from dictionary.com):

 

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

 

I clearly see how it is genocide.

 

Look up things before attempting to bash my logic,

 

quote]

You don't seem to grasp the simple fact that, while unborn babies have no relations with anyone bar their mother, grown-up people have relations with countless other people. That person that you're 'executing' has probably a wife, perhaps children, brothers, etcetera, etcetera. How would you feel if they killed a relative of yours, in cold blood to add insult to injury? Is it right that all those people I mentioned should suffer for one's crimes?

 

Is it right that a grandmother should be robed of her child? Is it right that a family member may never see their sisters child?

 

Is it right that the child should suffer from someone else's crime? So your saying the child should suffer for another one(s) crime? Makes perfect sense :aware:...

 

A developing fetus gets absolutely nothing from the father apart from one cell, while it gets nutrients, blood supply, etc. from the mother for nine months. If we want to count, a baby would be 99.99% the mother's.

 

So just to be clear, the fathers cell does not grow into two cells, it sits dormant? If so why does the mother not just create the kid on her own, without sperm?

 

She can't. Also, both the mother and the fathers genetics are in the baby, not just .001 percent of the fathers (look it up). It may not be equal (I'll have to see if I can find the exact amount of DNA from both parents), it is, however, much more then .001 percent of the fathers...

 

Before accusing others, try and acknowledge that a zygote or an embryo is not the same as a fully formed human being, much like a tree and a seed are very, very different.

 

Both are life. You and I may be very different, yet we are still living.

 

A child is different from it's parents, is it not alive because of this?

 

You calling someone a hypocrite is the classical case of the pot and the kettle. Stay black, brah.

 

Funny how your the first, and only one to say this... Please try to keep this debate on the subject of Abortion, not me...

 

3. Just one thing wrong: it's not called killing. Since the embryo is just some tissue inches in size without even a brain, it's like saying that breaking a rock is murder. It is not murder. It is ending pregnancy, which a woman has the right to do.

 

Which is a nice way of saying she is killing her child premeditated (which by all definitions is murder).

 

You seem so concerned about the rights of the blob of tissue, but what about the real people? Abortion helps to prevent overpopulation and raises the quality of life.

 

Which is why all of us are living happily and there is (a) no war and (b) no one killing eachother, right?

 

While you are listing false reasons, you should include that having an abortion will stop World War III. It will also cure cancer, aids, and every other disease known to man. In addition, it will also let man get to the starts faster...

 

And don't forget about the mother. Don't you think the human has more rights than the parasitic tissue inside of her? Why should she be forced to go through the pain of carrying, giving birth to, and raising the child she doesn't even want when it could all just be avoided by ending the pregnancy before it becomes a real human? She deserves to decide what she wants to do with her own pregnancy, not you.

 

(A) She had sex, she does not get to just shrug off anothers life because she was irresponsible.

(B) The child is not hers (it is roughly half hers), thus, no she does not get the say.

© The child is living, no one should be allowed legal intentional murder of innocent children after giving it much thought.

(D) She can give the child up to an adoption agency.

 

You're right, it's exactly the same... as long as the person you're killing is attached to you in a parasitic relationship and you are it's only source of food, oxygen, etc. And the only way to dispose of said relationship is by going through a medical procedure that can lead to your death. If that's the case, then yeah, it's the same. :)

 

By that logic, parents should be allowed to legally kill their children. As they are attached to their parents through the parents money, and the parents corrections of their actions...

 

~John

Edited by John Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who goes to a doctor for abortion will get anesthetics.

You obviously didn't read the link. Abortion hurts psychologically, emotionally, and can cause severe trauma.

And you're obvsiouly generalizing the hell out of abortion. It does not necessarily hurt psychologically and emotionally and does not necessarily cause severe trauma. Things like that only happen if the mother regrets her actions, in which the problem lays with the mother's ability to make good choices rather than the act of abortion.

 

We should make the golden rule of the Debate Room "Stop generalizing" because it seems everyone wants to do it.

So you're saying that it's their fault, they made poor choices, they should live with it? Shouldn't abortion facilities, at the very least, provide women with some sort of decision making process so they can make better decisions.

 

And birth is not for nothing, it should be so that the baby can be loved by it's parents and so that it can return that love. And obviously, pro-life people care about that so called "blob."

Why do you keep saying what things SHOULD be? Who are you to decide how things should be? Why not be more concerned with what they really are than what you want them to be?

Oh, right, I'm sorry that I think children should be born into a world where they will be loved.

I love how you tell other people to read what you say, then just bend your words later in your favor. How about you pay attention to MY point for once and put aside what you think things should be like for this debate and focus on how things really are.

If we focus how things really are, nothing will change. If we focus on how things should be, then things will change. Right now, I don't want abortion to be sanctioned and even funded by our government, so I want to change that, so that's why I am focusing on how things should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. Just one thing wrong: it's not called killing. Since the embryo is just some tissue inches in size without even a brain, it's like saying that breaking a rock is murder. It is not murder. It is ending pregnancy, which a woman has the right to do.

Which is a nice way of saying she is killing her child premeditated (which by all definitions is murder).

As I said in the post you just responded to ( :) ), stopping a blob of tissue from becoming a human in the future isn't murder.

You seem so concerned about the rights of the blob of tissue, but what about the real people? Abortion helps to prevent overpopulation and raises the quality of life.

Which is why all of us are living happily and there is (a) no war and (b) no one killing eachother, right?

 

While you are listing false reasons, you should include that having an abortion will stop World War III. It will also cure cancer, aids, and every other disease known to man. In addition, it will also let man get to the starts faster...

Nice, you just listed every single problem in this world. Now we know that millions more unnecessary people in this world won't be a problem, since it isn't on your list, right?

And don't forget about the mother. Don't you think the human has more rights than the parasitic tissue inside of her? Why should she be forced to go through the pain of carrying, giving birth to, and raising the child she doesn't even want when it could all just be avoided by ending the pregnancy before it becomes a real human? She deserves to decide what she wants to do with her own pregnancy, not you.

 

(A) She had sex, she does not get to just shrug off anothers life because she was irresponsible.

(B) The child is not hers (it is roughly half hers), thus, no she does not get the say.

© The child is living, no one should be allowed legal intentional murder of innocent children after giving it much thought.

(D) She can give the child up to an adoption agency.

A) So she makes a mistake. I'm sure you've made mistakes before. And she does get to decide whether or not to end her pregnancy because it's her body and her right, not a blob of tissue's.

B) Yes, the embryo is a part of her, so it's hers.

C) You keep calling the tiny parasitic blob of tissue an innocent child about to be murdered. Why is that?

D) Alternatively, she could get an abortion. :)

You're right, it's exactly the same... as long as the person you're killing is attached to you in a parasitic relationship and you are it's only source of food, oxygen, etc. And the only way to dispose of said relationship is by going through a medical procedure that can lead to your death. If that's the case, then yeah, it's the same. :aware:

 

By that logic, parents should be allowed to legally kill their children. As they are attached to their parents through the parents money, and the parents corrections of their actions...

 

~John

Yeah, except there is a difference between children and embryos. You guys need to stop using this distorted logic.

 

 

 

I feel like you people keep on repeating the same argument over and over, yet for the most part ignore the responses. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By that logic, parents should be allowed to legally kill their children. As they are attached to their parents through the parents money, and the parents corrections of their actions...

 

~John

 

No... if my parents kicked me out of the house and told be never to come back I wouldn't just shrivel up and die. Sure my quality of life would stink but I would still be alive. Sure I'm connected to my parents but that does mean I need them to survive.

 

Also, let me ask you this. Why is it that when soldiers go to some far off place and start killing people, innocent and otherwise, they get called 'heroes' but when some poor girls decides she's not ready to raise a child she get's called a 'murder?' Where's the justice in that? Don't get my post wrong I don't have a grudge against soldiers I'm just making a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're saying that it's their fault, they made poor choices, they should live with it? Shouldn't abortion facilities, at the very least, provide women with some sort of decision making process so they can make better decisions.

Sure. I see no harm in abortion facilities having programs that can help women make sure they know what they're doing. But we're not debating about that, we're debating about abortion in general

 

If we focus how things really are, nothing will change. If we focus on how things should be, then things will change. Right now, I don't want abortion to be sanctioned and even funded by our government, so I want to change that, so that's why I am focusing on how things should be.

I don't think you understand what I mean. You keep saying things like "Birth should be this and that" but birth isn't always like that. It's never going to always be like that, so it's useless to say what you think things should be like. If you're really concerned about solving a problem, you would address the situation in an unbiased manner and look at it for what it really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem so concerned about the rights of the blob of tissue, but what about the real people? Abortion helps to prevent overpopulation and raises the quality of life.

 

Which is why all of us are living happily and there is (a) no war and (b) no one killing eachother, right?

 

While you are listing false reasons, you should include that having an abortion will stop World War III. It will also cure cancer, aids, and every other disease known to man. In addition, it will also let man get to the starts faster...

Ironically enough, aborted fetuses could potentially contain stem cells which theoretically hold the 'miracle cure' to many diseases. Unfortunately both removing stem cells from a fetus as well as doing research on them is illegal in most countries due to moral reasons. Quite the same reason there is a conflict in this debate at all.

 

I personally see nothing wrong with an abortion. An unexpected pregnancy can completely ruin someone's life, especially if they're irresponsible teens that were too reckless to use birth control.

I had a debate about this in one of my classes last year during school. Someone made a very good argument that, should someone really want the abortion they WILL do it. If it is made illegal it will just make it a much more dangerous process, but making things illegal hardly stops people from doing them. As long as the process remains legally available it at least gives people a safe environment to get abortions should they feel they wish to go through with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem so concerned about the rights of the blob of tissue, but what about the real people? Abortion helps to prevent overpopulation and raises the quality of life.

 

Which is why all of us are living happily and there is (a) no war and (b) no one killing eachother, right?

 

While you are listing false reasons, you should include that having an abortion will stop World War III. It will also cure cancer, aids, and every other disease known to man. In addition, it will also let man get to the starts faster...

Ironically enough, aborted fetuses could potentially contain stem cells which theoretically hold the 'miracle cure' to many diseases. Unfortunately both removing stem cells from a fetus as well as doing research on them is illegal in most countries due to moral reasons. Quite the same reason there is a conflict in this debate at all.

 

I personally see nothing wrong with an abortion. An unexpected pregnancy can completely ruin someone's life, especially if they're irresponsible teens that were too reckless to use birth control.

I had a debate about this in one of my classes last year during school. Someone made a very good argument that, should someone really want the abortion they WILL do it. If it is made illegal it will just make it a much more dangerous process, but making things illegal hardly stops people from doing them. As long as the process remains legally available it at least gives people a safe environment to get abortions should they feel they wish to go through with it.

...but that would be immoral!

 

Yeah, except there is a difference between children and embryos. You guys need to stop using this distorted logic.
I feel like you people keep on repeating the same argument over and over, yet for the most part ignore the responses.

Which is exactly why most people get sick of the debate board and get more thrills and funnies by talking to refrigerators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel that abortion is very wrong. Killing the life of an innocent human being is basically what these mothers are doing, this baby is alive inside a mother's womb and they basically are killing it. If a mother did not want to have a baby she should have used birth control pills.

Actually, abortion must be done in the early stage of pregnancy, where there is no way to talk about a human being, just a lumb of cells. Like killing a very very small ant. You killed an innocent ant once too, didn't you? Oh, what if the condom broke?

 

I dont see why mothers wouldnt have a baby anyways, they could send them off to an orphanage instead of killing them. It seems that these mothers are being selfish by in a sence being too lazy to give birth to this child.

What about a woman who was raped and got pregnant, and noticed too late for the morning after pill?

1: No, it's a life. That's biology, go off and cry if that's a problem.

2: So what, kill the kid for the father's foul-up? Yeah, that's :aware: just.

 

It's not a "father's foul-up." Imagine if a woman was raped and then 1 week later she finds out she is pregnant. She doesn't have the money to support a child nor does she know anything about parenting. In this case, abortion is a very legitimate option.

 

Anyway, I don't think anybody has any say in what a woman should do. It's the mother's choice and I don't feel that anybody can tell a woman what to do with her child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't abortion facilities, at the very least, provide women with some sort of decision making process so they can make better decisions.

They do.

Not always, and I'm talking about before the abortion.

 

Of course, abortion providers don't want to do that, because some people might chose not to have an abortion after all, and for them abortion=money.

 

3. Just one thing wrong: it's not called killing. Since the embryo is just some tissue inches in size without even a brain, it's like saying that breaking a rock is murder. It is not murder. It is ending pregnancy, which a woman has the right to do.

Which is a nice way of saying she is killing her child premeditated (which by all definitions is murder).

As I said in the post you just responded to ( :) ), stopping a blob of tissue from becoming a human in the future isn't murder.

Speaking with a scientific viewpoint, a human is a human because it has genetic coding that has become generally accepted as human genetic coding (in other words, a human is a human because it has human DNA). Also, the embryo/fetus is alive, and, since it has human DNA, it is thus a living human being (just like you and I). I'm pretty sure I've said this already (four or five times).

 

And don't forget about the mother. Don't you think the human has more rights than the parasitic tissue inside of her? Why should she be forced to go through the pain of carrying, giving birth to, and raising the child she doesn't even want when it could all just be avoided by ending the pregnancy before it becomes a real human? She deserves to decide what she wants to do with her own pregnancy, not you.

 

(A) She had sex, she does not get to just shrug off anothers life because she was irresponsible.

(B) The child is not hers (it is roughly half hers), thus, no she does not get the say.

© The child is living, no one should be allowed legal intentional murder of innocent children after giving it much thought.

(D) She can give the child up to an adoption agency.

A) So she makes a mistake. I'm sure you've made mistakes before. And she does get to decide whether or not to end her pregnancy because it's her body and her right, not a blob of tissue's.

B) Yes, the embryo is a part of her, so it's hers.

C) You keep calling the tiny parasitic blob of tissue an innocent child about to be murdered. Why is that?

D) Alternatively, she could get an abortion. :)

A) Sex isn't a mistake. The sperm and egg don't accidently meet (unless the condom broke).

B) The embryo/fetus is not part of her because it has it's own seperate genetic coding (DNA).

C) He calls it an innocent child because that's what it is. You're just a blob of tissue, too, you know.

D) Yep, and the child would be dead instead of being alive. :)

 

 

You're right, it's exactly the same... as long as the person you're killing is attached to you in a parasitic relationship and you are it's only source of food, oxygen, etc. And the only way to dispose of said relationship is by going through a medical procedure that can lead to your death. If that's the case, then yeah, it's the same. :aware:

 

By that logic, parents should be allowed to legally kill their children. As they are attached to their parents through the parents money, and the parents corrections of their actions...

 

~John

Yeah, except there is a difference between children and embryos. You guys need to stop using this distorted logic.

What's the difference, besides their size? They're both "blobs of tissue" with human DNA.

 

If we focus how things really are, nothing will change. If we focus on how things should be, then things will change. Right now, I don't want abortion to be sanctioned and even funded by our government, so I want to change that, so that's why I am focusing on how things should be.

I don't think you understand what I mean. You keep saying things like "Birth should be this and that" but birth isn't always like that. It's never going to always be like that, so it's useless to say what you think things should be like. If you're really concerned about solving a problem, you would address the situation in an unbiased manner and look at it for what it really is.

And how do you know this? One of the reasons the world isn't like that is because people like you don't try to make it better, claiming just that. Even if the world isn't perfect, should the child really die because of it? And I am looking at the situation for what it really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't abortion facilities, at the very least, provide women with some sort of decision making process so they can make better decisions.

They do.

Not always, and I'm talking about before the abortion.

 

Of course, abortion providers don't want to do that, because some people might chose not to have an abortion after all, and for them abortion=money.

I don't see how doctors wanting to make money would be an argument against allowing women to decide whether or not they want to end their pregnancy. If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her get an abortion. If she regrets it, tough luck.

 

3. Just one thing wrong: it's not called killing. Since the embryo is just some tissue inches in size without even a brain, it's like saying that breaking a rock is murder. It is not murder. It is ending pregnancy, which a woman has the right to do.

Which is a nice way of saying she is killing her child premeditated (which by all definitions is murder).

As I said in the post you just responded to ( :) ), stopping a blob of tissue from becoming a human in the future isn't murder.

Speaking with a scientific viewpoint, a human is a human because it has genetic coding that has become generally accepted as human genetic coding (in other words, a human is a human because it has human DNA). Also, the embryo/fetus is alive, and, since it has human DNA, it is thus a living human being (just like you and I). I'm pretty sure I've said this already (four or five times).

So just having human DNA makes you equal to anyone else who has it? I could say apples and oranges are the same thing because they both have seeds.

 

And don't forget about the mother. Don't you think the human has more rights than the parasitic tissue inside of her? Why should she be forced to go through the pain of carrying, giving birth to, and raising the child she doesn't even want when it could all just be avoided by ending the pregnancy before it becomes a real human? She deserves to decide what she wants to do with her own pregnancy, not you.

 

(A) She had sex, she does not get to just shrug off anothers life because she was irresponsible.

(B) The child is not hers (it is roughly half hers), thus, no she does not get the say.

© The child is living, no one should be allowed legal intentional murder of innocent children after giving it much thought.

(D) She can give the child up to an adoption agency.

A) So she makes a mistake. I'm sure you've made mistakes before. And she does get to decide whether or not to end her pregnancy because it's her body and her right, not a blob of tissue's.

B) Yes, the embryo is a part of her, so it's hers.

C) You keep calling the tiny parasitic blob of tissue an innocent child about to be murdered. Why is that?

D) Alternatively, she could get an abortion. :)

A) Sex isn't a mistake. The sperm and egg don't accidently meet (unless the condom broke).

B) The embryo/fetus is not part of her because it has it's own seperate genetic coding (DNA).

C) He calls it an innocent child because that's what it is. You're just a blob of tissue, too, you know.

D) Yep, and the child would be dead instead of being alive. :)

A) Yeah, like all women who got abortions got pregnant on purpose and killed the embryo, just for fun.

B) If it isn't a part of her then it shouldn't be living inside and feeding off of her.

C) Yes, I'm the equivalent of an embryo. Murdering me would be exactly the same as getting an abortion?

D) No, the child just wouldn't happen. And the woman would be spared from the unnecessary pain and there wouldn't be another unwanted child.

 

You're right, it's exactly the same... as long as the person you're killing is attached to you in a parasitic relationship and you are it's only source of food, oxygen, etc. And the only way to dispose of said relationship is by going through a medical procedure that can lead to your death. If that's the case, then yeah, it's the same. :aware:

 

By that logic, parents should be allowed to legally kill their children. As they are attached to their parents through the parents money, and the parents corrections of their actions...

 

~John

Yeah, except there is a difference between children and embryos. You guys need to stop using this distorted logic.

What's the difference, besides their size? They're both "blobs of tissue" with human DNA.

If you can't see any differences between a child and an embryo besides size, you shouldn't be in this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't abortion facilities, at the very least, provide women with some sort of decision making process so they can make better decisions.

They do.

Not always, and I'm talking about before the abortion.

 

Of course, abortion providers don't want to do that, because some people might chose not to have an abortion after all, and for them abortion=money.

I don't know how that works over there, but here, if a woman gets into a hospital saying "o hi i want an abortion ty" she is first redirected to a gynecologist, then to the counseling offices (which are separate from said hospital) and should she decide to go on with the abortion, she can't do so until three days have passed, to prevent spur-of-the-moment mistakes.

 

Public hospitals (which are the vast majority here) do not gain any money from any medical procedure since they fund themselves on tax revenues and hospital fees (which cover less than 10% of the expenses in most cases), and private clinics are entitled only to a refund of the expenses sustained, except for normal tariffs applied by said clinic which apply anyway, no matter if you go there for an abortion or a broken arm - and if you go in those private clinics, you still have to go through the phases I explained earlier. Failure to do so would land both you and any negligent doctor into jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't abortion facilities, at the very least, provide women with some sort of decision making process so they can make better decisions.

They do.

Not always, and I'm talking about before the abortion.

 

Of course, abortion providers don't want to do that, because some people might chose not to have an abortion after all, and for them abortion=money.

I don't see how doctors wanting to make money would be an argument against allowing women to decide whether or not they want to end their pregnancy. If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her get an abortion. If she regrets it, tough luck.

That's extremely cruel, knowing the consequences if she regrets it. She needs to be consulted on it beforehand.

 

3. Just one thing wrong: it's not called killing. Since the embryo is just some tissue inches in size without even a brain, it's like saying that breaking a rock is murder. It is not murder. It is ending pregnancy, which a woman has the right to do.

Which is a nice way of saying she is killing her child premeditated (which by all definitions is murder).

As I said in the post you just responded to ( :) ), stopping a blob of tissue from becoming a human in the future isn't murder.

Speaking with a scientific viewpoint, a human is a human because it has genetic coding that has become generally accepted as human genetic coding (in other words, a human is a human because it has human DNA). Also, the embryo/fetus is alive, and, since it has human DNA, it is thus a living human being (just like you and I). I'm pretty sure I've said this already (four or five times).

So just having human DNA makes you equal to anyone else who has it? I could say apples and oranges are the same thing because they both have seeds.

They aren't the same, but people treat them the same (you eat them both. As far as I know, there is nobody who is against eating an apple or an orange). And seeds are far different from genetic coding. Genetic coding defines what the organism is; an embryo is a human because it has human genetic coding. Therefore, if you destroy an embryo/fetus, you are really killing a human being.

 

And don't forget about the mother. Don't you think the human has more rights than the parasitic tissue inside of her? Why should she be forced to go through the pain of carrying, giving birth to, and raising the child she doesn't even want when it could all just be avoided by ending the pregnancy before it becomes a real human? She deserves to decide what she wants to do with her own pregnancy, not you.

 

(A) She had sex, she does not get to just shrug off anothers life because she was irresponsible.

(B) The child is not hers (it is roughly half hers), thus, no she does not get the say.

© The child is living, no one should be allowed legal intentional murder of innocent children after giving it much thought.

(D) She can give the child up to an adoption agency.

A) So she makes a mistake. I'm sure you've made mistakes before. And she does get to decide whether or not to end her pregnancy because it's her body and her right, not a blob of tissue's.

B) Yes, the embryo is a part of her, so it's hers.

C) You keep calling the tiny parasitic blob of tissue an innocent child about to be murdered. Why is that?

D) Alternatively, she could get an abortion. :)

A) Sex isn't a mistake. The sperm and egg don't accidently meet (unless the condom broke).

B) The embryo/fetus is not part of her because it has it's own seperate genetic coding (DNA).

C) He calls it an innocent child because that's what it is. You're just a blob of tissue, too, you know.

D) Yep, and the child would be dead instead of being alive. :)

A) Yeah, like all women who got abortions got pregnant on purpose and killed the embryo, just for fun.

B) If it isn't a part of her then it shouldn't be living inside and feeding off of her.

C) Yes, I'm the equivalent of an embryo. Murdering me would be exactly the same as getting an abortion?

D) No, the child just wouldn't happen. And the woman would be spared from the unnecessary pain and there wouldn't be another unwanted child.

A) Now you're just twisting my words and if you're going to do that there's no point in arguing with you.

B) Children ages 0-18 live in their mother/parents' household, and rely and feed off them. Does that give a mother the right to kill them?

C) Yes it would.

D) The child existed from the moment sperm and egg met. It has a human genetic coding (human DNA) and is alive, so therefore is a human being. Destroying it would be killing it. And if she really didn't want the child, she could offer it up for adoption.

 

You're right, it's exactly the same... as long as the person you're killing is attached to you in a parasitic relationship and you are it's only source of food, oxygen, etc. And the only way to dispose of said relationship is by going through a medical procedure that can lead to your death. If that's the case, then yeah, it's the same. :aware:

 

By that logic, parents should be allowed to legally kill their children. As they are attached to their parents through the parents money, and the parents corrections of their actions...

 

~John

Yeah, except there is a difference between children and embryos. You guys need to stop using this distorted logic.

What's the difference, besides their size? They're both "blobs of tissue" with human DNA.

If you can't see any differences between a child and an embryo besides size, you shouldn't be in this debate.

Okay, so they look different (even though from about a month on you can make out individual features on the embryo/fetus). Apart from that, it has human DNA just like you and I and should be treated with the same respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. Just one thing wrong: it's not called killing. Since the embryo is just some tissue inches in size without even a brain, it's like saying that breaking a rock is murder. It is not murder. It is ending pregnancy, which a woman has the right to do.

Which is a nice way of saying she is killing her child premeditated (which by all definitions is murder).

As I said in the post you just responded to ( :) ), stopping a blob of tissue from becoming a human in the future isn't murder.

You seem so concerned about the rights of the blob of tissue, but what about the real people? Abortion helps to prevent overpopulation and raises the quality of life.

Which is why all of us are living happily and there is (a) no war and (b) no one killing eachother, right?

 

While you are listing false reasons, you should include that having an abortion will stop World War III. It will also cure cancer, aids, and every other disease known to man. In addition, it will also let man get to the starts faster...

Nice, you just listed every single problem in this world. Now we know that millions more unnecessary people in this world won't be a problem, since it isn't on your list, right?

And don't forget about the mother. Don't you think the human has more rights than the parasitic tissue inside of her? Why should she be forced to go through the pain of carrying, giving birth to, and raising the child she doesn't even want when it could all just be avoided by ending the pregnancy before it becomes a real human? She deserves to decide what she wants to do with her own pregnancy, not you.

 

(A) She had sex, she does not get to just shrug off anothers life because she was irresponsible.

(B) The child is not hers (it is roughly half hers), thus, no she does not get the say.

© The child is living, no one should be allowed legal intentional murder of innocent children after giving it much thought.

(D) She can give the child up to an adoption agency.

A) So she makes a mistake. I'm sure you've made mistakes before. And she does get to decide whether or not to end her pregnancy because it's her body and her right, not a blob of tissue's.

B) Yes, the embryo is a part of her, so it's hers.

C) You keep calling the tiny parasitic blob of tissue an innocent child about to be murdered. Why is that?

D) Alternatively, she could get an abortion. :P

You're right, it's exactly the same... as long as the person you're killing is attached to you in a parasitic relationship and you are it's only source of food, oxygen, etc. And the only way to dispose of said relationship is by going through a medical procedure that can lead to your death. If that's the case, then yeah, it's the same. :aware:

 

By that logic, parents should be allowed to legally kill their children. As they are attached to their parents through the parents money, and the parents corrections of their actions...

 

~John

Yeah, except there is a difference between children and embryos. You guys need to stop using this distorted logic.

 

 

 

I feel like you people keep on repeating the same argument over and over, yet for the most part ignore the responses. :)

 

 

Hey your a blob of tissue too idiot. And the fetus is just as alive as you are. It's a forming child that is living. It is owned by itself not by the person who had sex. Because they have different DNA. And you guy's aren't smart, the only card you people have is, "what if a girl gets raped?" gee tell me what happens more, a mother doing it because she wants to or a girl getting raped. And not to many girls get raped, and even if they do they still might not get pregnant. But saying that just shows that you aren't smart enough to come up with something better. Well, this shows how :) smart you are ^.^

Edited by definedeath2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't abortion facilities, at the very least, provide women with some sort of decision making process so they can make better decisions.

They do.

Not always, and I'm talking about before the abortion.

 

Of course, abortion providers don't want to do that, because some people might chose not to have an abortion after all, and for them abortion=money.

I don't see how doctors wanting to make money would be an argument against allowing women to decide whether or not they want to end their pregnancy. If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her get an abortion. If she regrets it, tough luck.

That's extremely cruel, knowing the consequences if she regrets it. She needs to be consulted on it beforehand.

It isn't cruel. Forcing her to give birth when she doesn't want to is cruel. She should be consulted on it beforehand, and then she should decide what to do with her body.

 

3. Just one thing wrong: it's not called killing. Since the embryo is just some tissue inches in size without even a brain, it's like saying that breaking a rock is murder. It is not murder. It is ending pregnancy, which a woman has the right to do.

Which is a nice way of saying she is killing her child premeditated (which by all definitions is murder).

As I said in the post you just responded to ( :/ ), stopping a blob of tissue from becoming a human in the future isn't murder.

Speaking with a scientific viewpoint, a human is a human because it has genetic coding that has become generally accepted as human genetic coding (in other words, a human is a human because it has human DNA). Also, the embryo/fetus is alive, and, since it has human DNA, it is thus a living human being (just like you and I). I'm pretty sure I've said this already (four or five times).

So just having human DNA makes you equal to anyone else who has it? I could say apples and oranges are the same thing because they both have seeds.

They aren't the same, but people treat them the same (you eat them both. As far as I know, there is nobody who is against eating an apple or an orange). And seeds are far different from genetic coding. Genetic coding defines what the organism is; an embryo is a human because it has human genetic coding. Therefore, if you destroy an embryo/fetus, you are really killing a human being.

You kind of missed the point. And this is going to go on forever. You believe the embryo has DNA so it's a human with rights. I believe it doesn't have rights over the woman who is carrying it, since it can't feel, think, or function in any way.

 

And don't forget about the mother. Don't you think the human has more rights than the parasitic tissue inside of her? Why should she be forced to go through the pain of carrying, giving birth to, and raising the child she doesn't even want when it could all just be avoided by ending the pregnancy before it becomes a real human? She deserves to decide what she wants to do with her own pregnancy, not you.

 

(A) She had sex, she does not get to just shrug off anothers life because she was irresponsible.

(B) The child is not hers (it is roughly half hers), thus, no she does not get the say.

© The child is living, no one should be allowed legal intentional murder of innocent children after giving it much thought.

(D) She can give the child up to an adoption agency.

A) So she makes a mistake. I'm sure you've made mistakes before. And she does get to decide whether or not to end her pregnancy because it's her body and her right, not a blob of tissue's.

B) Yes, the embryo is a part of her, so it's hers.

C) You keep calling the tiny parasitic blob of tissue an innocent child about to be murdered. Why is that?

D) Alternatively, she could get an abortion. :wub:

A) Sex isn't a mistake. The sperm and egg don't accidently meet (unless the condom broke).

B) The embryo/fetus is not part of her because it has it's own seperate genetic coding (DNA).

C) He calls it an innocent child because that's what it is. You're just a blob of tissue, too, you know.

D) Yep, and the child would be dead instead of being alive. :P

A) Yeah, like all women who got abortions got pregnant on purpose and killed the embryo, just for fun.

B) If it isn't a part of her then it shouldn't be living inside and feeding off of her.

C) Yes, I'm the equivalent of an embryo. Murdering me would be exactly the same as getting an abortion?

D) No, the child just wouldn't happen. And the woman would be spared from the unnecessary pain and there wouldn't be another unwanted child.

A) Now you're just twisting my words and if you're going to do that there's no point in arguing with you.

B) Children ages 0-18 live in their mother/parents' household, and rely and feed off them. Does that give a mother the right to kill them?

C) Yes it would.

D) The child existed from the moment sperm and egg met. It has a human genetic coding (human DNA) and is alive, so therefore is a human being. Destroying it would be killing it. And if she really didn't want the child, she could offer it up for adoption.

A) So you're saying the woman didn't get pregnant on purpose since she didn't want a baby. That must mean she accidentally got pregnant.

B) Stop doing that. Children are not embryos.

C) No, it wouldn't. I am quite different from an embryo.

D) However, killing it is still different from killing a person. And is she really didn't want the child, she could get an abortion, which would be easier.

 

You're right, it's exactly the same... as long as the person you're killing is attached to you in a parasitic relationship and you are it's only source of food, oxygen, etc. And the only way to dispose of said relationship is by going through a medical procedure that can lead to your death. If that's the case, then yeah, it's the same. :aware:

 

By that logic, parents should be allowed to legally kill their children. As they are attached to their parents through the parents money, and the parents corrections of their actions...

 

~John

Yeah, except there is a difference between children and embryos. You guys need to stop using this distorted logic.

What's the difference, besides their size? They're both "blobs of tissue" with human DNA.

If you can't see any differences between a child and an embryo besides size, you shouldn't be in this debate.

Okay, so they look different (even though from about a month on you can make out individual features on the embryo/fetus). Apart from that, it has human DNA just like you and I and should be treated with the same respect.

You don't get to choose how they should be treated. I say they shouldn't be treated with the same respect since it isn't the same as you and I.

 

3. Just one thing wrong: it's not called killing. Since the embryo is just some tissue inches in size without even a brain, it's like saying that breaking a rock is murder. It is not murder. It is ending pregnancy, which a woman has the right to do.

Which is a nice way of saying she is killing her child premeditated (which by all definitions is murder).

As I said in the post you just responded to ( :ice: ), stopping a blob of tissue from becoming a human in the future isn't murder.

You seem so concerned about the rights of the blob of tissue, but what about the real people? Abortion helps to prevent overpopulation and raises the quality of life.

Which is why all of us are living happily and there is (a) no war and (b) no one killing eachother, right?

 

While you are listing false reasons, you should include that having an abortion will stop World War III. It will also cure cancer, aids, and every other disease known to man. In addition, it will also let man get to the starts faster...

Nice, you just listed every single problem in this world. Now we know that millions more unnecessary people in this world won't be a problem, since it isn't on your list, right?

And don't forget about the mother. Don't you think the human has more rights than the parasitic tissue inside of her? Why should she be forced to go through the pain of carrying, giving birth to, and raising the child she doesn't even want when it could all just be avoided by ending the pregnancy before it becomes a real human? She deserves to decide what she wants to do with her own pregnancy, not you.

 

(A) She had sex, she does not get to just shrug off anothers life because she was irresponsible.

(B) The child is not hers (it is roughly half hers), thus, no she does not get the say.

© The child is living, no one should be allowed legal intentional murder of innocent children after giving it much thought.

(D) She can give the child up to an adoption agency.

A) So she makes a mistake. I'm sure you've made mistakes before. And she does get to decide whether or not to end her pregnancy because it's her body and her right, not a blob of tissue's.

B) Yes, the embryo is a part of her, so it's hers.

C) You keep calling the tiny parasitic blob of tissue an innocent child about to be murdered. Why is that?

D) Alternatively, she could get an abortion. ^_^

You're right, it's exactly the same... as long as the person you're killing is attached to you in a parasitic relationship and you are it's only source of food, oxygen, etc. And the only way to dispose of said relationship is by going through a medical procedure that can lead to your death. If that's the case, then yeah, it's the same. :)

 

By that logic, parents should be allowed to legally kill their children. As they are attached to their parents through the parents money, and the parents corrections of their actions...

 

~John

Yeah, except there is a difference between children and embryos. You guys need to stop using this distorted logic.

 

 

 

I feel like you people keep on repeating the same argument over and over, yet for the most part ignore the responses. :wub:

 

Hey your a blob of tissue too idiot. And the fetus is just as alive as you are. It's a forming child that is living. It is owned by itself not by the person who had sex. Because they have different DNA. And you guy's aren't smart, the only card you people have is, "what if a girl gets raped?" gee tell me what happens more, a mother doing it because she wants to or a girl getting raped. And not to many girls get raped, and even if they do they still might not get pregnant. But saying that just shows that you aren't smart enough to come up with something better. Well, this shows how :) smart you are ^.^

The nerve of you. I'm the stupid one? You hypocrite.

 

I'm not the equivalent of an embryo, idiot. If the embryo is a human with rights above the mother who's carrying it, don't you think it should be more than a tiny blob of tissue inches in size without the ability to think or feel when it gets "killed", idiot? You're also insulting my intelligence again, because I keep playing the rape card. Sorry, I actually haven't done that, idiot. Like you don't keep on repeating the same arguments. What else can you say besides how you consider the embryo to have the same rights as the mother and how stupid I am, idiot? Well, this shows how :) smart you are ^.^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey your a blob of tissue too idiot. And the fetus is just as alive as you are. It's a forming child that is living. It is owned by itself not by the person who had sex. Because they have different DNA. And you guy's aren't smart, the only card you people have is, "what if a girl gets raped?" gee tell me what happens more, a mother doing it because she wants to or a girl getting raped. And not to many girls get raped, and even if they do they still might not get pregnant. But saying that just shows that you aren't smart enough to come up with something better. Well, this shows how :aware: smart you are ^.^

Psst. A tip: try and read all the replies to a thread. You've shown you haven't.

 

Other than that, stop namecalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey your a blob of tissue too idiot. And the fetus is just as alive as you are. It's a forming child that is living. It is owned by itself not by the person who had sex. Because they have different DNA. And you guy's aren't smart, the only card you people have is, "what if a girl gets raped?" gee tell me what happens more, a mother doing it because she wants to or a girl getting raped. And not to many girls get raped, and even if they do they still might not get pregnant. But saying that just shows that you aren't smart enough to come up with something better. Well, this shows how :aware: smart you are ^.^

Umm, no, i am not a blob. I have bones, and muscles, and organs, fetuses dont have any of those, so how about you STFU if you dont know what you are on about, idiot. And that just shows how :) smart you are. And it is forming into a living child, it isnt living until it can live outside the mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't abortion facilities, at the very least, provide women with some sort of decision making process so they can make better decisions.

They do.

Not always, and I'm talking about before the abortion.

 

Of course, abortion providers don't want to do that, because some people might chose not to have an abortion after all, and for them abortion=money.

I don't see how doctors wanting to make money would be an argument against allowing women to decide whether or not they want to end their pregnancy. If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her get an abortion. If she regrets it, tough luck.

That's extremely cruel, knowing the consequences if she regrets it. She needs to be consulted on it beforehand.

It isn't cruel. Forcing her to give birth when she doesn't want to is cruel. She should be consulted on it beforehand, and then she should decide what to do with her body.

By forcing her to give birth it's the same as saying she can't kill her child. That's not cruel at all. It's the government's job to protect it's people. The embryo is not part of her body, it simply relies on her body. Hell, most kids in America rely on their parents, does that give the mother the right to kill them? I've repeated myself several times on this.

 

3. Just one thing wrong: it's not called killing. Since the embryo is just some tissue inches in size without even a brain, it's like saying that breaking a rock is murder. It is not murder. It is ending pregnancy, which a woman has the right to do.

Which is a nice way of saying she is killing her child premeditated (which by all definitions is murder).

As I said in the post you just responded to ( :) ), stopping a blob of tissue from becoming a human in the future isn't murder.

Speaking with a scientific viewpoint, a human is a human because it has genetic coding that has become generally accepted as human genetic coding (in other words, a human is a human because it has human DNA). Also, the embryo/fetus is alive, and, since it has human DNA, it is thus a living human being (just like you and I). I'm pretty sure I've said this already (four or five times).

So just having human DNA makes you equal to anyone else who has it? I could say apples and oranges are the same thing because they both have seeds.

They aren't the same, but people treat them the same (you eat them both. As far as I know, there is nobody who is against eating an apple or an orange). And seeds are far different from genetic coding. Genetic coding defines what the organism is; an embryo is a human because it has human genetic coding. Therefore, if you destroy an embryo/fetus, you are really killing a human being.

You kind of missed the point. And this is going to go on forever. You believe the embryo has DNA so it's a human with rights. I believe it doesn't have rights over the woman who is carrying it, since it can't feel, think, or function in any way.

An unconscious person can't feel, think, or function. Is it now okay to kill them, as well? Killing a human is wrong, no matter if they can feel it or not.

 

And don't forget about the mother. Don't you think the human has more rights than the parasitic tissue inside of her? Why should she be forced to go through the pain of carrying, giving birth to, and raising the child she doesn't even want when it could all just be avoided by ending the pregnancy before it becomes a real human? She deserves to decide what she wants to do with her own pregnancy, not you.

 

(A) She had sex, she does not get to just shrug off anothers life because she was irresponsible.

(B) The child is not hers (it is roughly half hers), thus, no she does not get the say.

© The child is living, no one should be allowed legal intentional murder of innocent children after giving it much thought.

(D) She can give the child up to an adoption agency.

A) So she makes a mistake. I'm sure you've made mistakes before. And she does get to decide whether or not to end her pregnancy because it's her body and her right, not a blob of tissue's.

B) Yes, the embryo is a part of her, so it's hers.

C) You keep calling the tiny parasitic blob of tissue an innocent child about to be murdered. Why is that?

D) Alternatively, she could get an abortion. :)

A) Sex isn't a mistake. The sperm and egg don't accidently meet (unless the condom broke).

B) The embryo/fetus is not part of her because it has it's own seperate genetic coding (DNA).

C) He calls it an innocent child because that's what it is. You're just a blob of tissue, too, you know.

D) Yep, and the child would be dead instead of being alive. :)

A) Yeah, like all women who got abortions got pregnant on purpose and killed the embryo, just for fun.

B) If it isn't a part of her then it shouldn't be living inside and feeding off of her.

C) Yes, I'm the equivalent of an embryo. Murdering me would be exactly the same as getting an abortion?

D) No, the child just wouldn't happen. And the woman would be spared from the unnecessary pain and there wouldn't be another unwanted child.

A) Now you're just twisting my words and if you're going to do that there's no point in arguing with you.

B) Children ages 0-18 live in their mother/parents' household, and rely and feed off them. Does that give a mother the right to kill them?

C) Yes it would.

D) The child existed from the moment sperm and egg met. It has a human genetic coding (human DNA) and is alive, so therefore is a human being. Destroying it would be killing it. And if she really didn't want the child, she could offer it up for adoption.

A) So you're saying the woman didn't get pregnant on purpose since she didn't want a baby. That must mean she accidentally got pregnant.

B) Stop doing that. Children are not embryos.

C) No, it wouldn't. I am quite different from an embryo.

D) However, killing it is still different from killing a person. And is she really didn't want the child, she could get an abortion, which would be easier.

A) Assuming she wasn't raped, she chose to have sex (which, from our biology, is a reproductive act used to create a pregnancy).

B) Children=small organisms with human DNA. Embryo=small organism with human DNA. This is what, the sixth time I've said it?

C) How is it different? Because you can't hear the embryo scream as you kill it?

D) Once again, how is it different, apart from the fact that it's smaller than you and I?

 

And tell me, do you think killing a living human being is wrong?

 

You're right, it's exactly the same... as long as the person you're killing is attached to you in a parasitic relationship and you are it's only source of food, oxygen, etc. And the only way to dispose of said relationship is by going through a medical procedure that can lead to your death. If that's the case, then yeah, it's the same. :aware:

 

By that logic, parents should be allowed to legally kill their children. As they are attached to their parents through the parents money, and the parents corrections of their actions...

 

~John

Yeah, except there is a difference between children and embryos. You guys need to stop using this distorted logic.

What's the difference, besides their size? They're both "blobs of tissue" with human DNA.

If you can't see any differences between a child and an embryo besides size, you shouldn't be in this debate.

Okay, so they look different (even though from about a month on you can make out individual features on the embryo/fetus). Apart from that, it has human DNA just like you and I and should be treated with the same respect.

You don't get to choose how they should be treated. I say they shouldn't be treated with the same respect since it isn't the same as you and I.

They're human, we're human, we should be treated equally. Neither our lives or their lives should be taken from them.

Edited by Finway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be legal. Personally I'm against abortion unless its due to medical issues which may endanger the woman's life.

 

And I am especially against the use of abortion as contraception - as in "we didn't use protection, oops let's abort".

 

There's always adoption I feel. As for rape victims and all others having an unwanted pregnancy... it's their choice. What makes it "ok" for a rape victim to abort and "not ok "for anyone else to? Rape is a terrible violation true, and an unwanted pregnancy can be very hard to bear if one isn't ready.

 

So... though I'm personally against abortion, I feel people should be able to make their own choices, whether or not I personally agree with them.

 

They're human, we're human, we should be treated equally. Neither our lives or their lives should be taken from them.
So, a fetus should be entitled to go to school, have legal rights etc? :aware: Like an adult can sue and be sued in his own name, shall a fetus be given that right too? :)

 

I do agree that en embryo/fetus is a living thing and that while "natural abortions" (aka miscarriages) occur, that doesn't necessarily mean that abortion is "right".

But does that mean a fetus should be accorded the same rights as a human being? The right to life maybe, but until it is born, I don't think courts consider it a legal human being. By that extension, is 3 day embryo equal to you? If so, then one's skin cells should also be accorded the same status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize you're pretty much repeating the same things over and over again, right?

 

Shouldn't abortion facilities, at the very least, provide women with some sort of decision making process so they can make better decisions.

They do.

Not always, and I'm talking about before the abortion.

 

Of course, abortion providers don't want to do that, because some people might chose not to have an abortion after all, and for them abortion=money.

I don't see how doctors wanting to make money would be an argument against allowing women to decide whether or not they want to end their pregnancy. If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her get an abortion. If she regrets it, tough luck.

That's extremely cruel, knowing the consequences if she regrets it. She needs to be consulted on it beforehand.

It isn't cruel. Forcing her to give birth when she doesn't want to is cruel. She should be consulted on it beforehand, and then she should decide what to do with her body.

By forcing her to give birth it's the same as saying she can't kill her child. That's not cruel at all. It's the government's job to protect it's people. The embryo is not part of her body, it simply relies on her body. Hell, most kids in America rely on their parents, does that give the mother the right to kill them? I've repeated myself several times on this.

And I've repeated myself many times on this: embryos aren't the same as children, amputees, or any type of person. Embryos can't think or feel. They haven't even lived yet. Who are you to say that they have rights over their mothers?

 

3. Just one thing wrong: it's not called killing. Since the embryo is just some tissue inches in size without even a brain, it's like saying that breaking a rock is murder. It is not murder. It is ending pregnancy, which a woman has the right to do.

Which is a nice way of saying she is killing her child premeditated (which by all definitions is murder).

As I said in the post you just responded to ( :) ), stopping a blob of tissue from becoming a human in the future isn't murder.

Speaking with a scientific viewpoint, a human is a human because it has genetic coding that has become generally accepted as human genetic coding (in other words, a human is a human because it has human DNA). Also, the embryo/fetus is alive, and, since it has human DNA, it is thus a living human being (just like you and I). I'm pretty sure I've said this already (four or five times).

So just having human DNA makes you equal to anyone else who has it? I could say apples and oranges are the same thing because they both have seeds.

They aren't the same, but people treat them the same (you eat them both. As far as I know, there is nobody who is against eating an apple or an orange). And seeds are far different from genetic coding. Genetic coding defines what the organism is; an embryo is a human because it has human genetic coding. Therefore, if you destroy an embryo/fetus, you are really killing a human being.

You kind of missed the point. And this is going to go on forever. You believe the embryo has DNA so it's a human with rights. I believe it doesn't have rights over the woman who is carrying it, since it can't feel, think, or function in any way.

An unconscious person can't feel, think, or function. Is it now okay to kill them, as well? Killing a human is wrong, no matter if they can feel it or not.

No, it is not okay to kill an unconscious person. It would be okay to "kill" an embryo, since they also don't have a loving family or have even experienced real life yet. Please stop doing that.

 

And don't forget about the mother. Don't you think the human has more rights than the parasitic tissue inside of her? Why should she be forced to go through the pain of carrying, giving birth to, and raising the child she doesn't even want when it could all just be avoided by ending the pregnancy before it becomes a real human? She deserves to decide what she wants to do with her own pregnancy, not you.

 

(A) She had sex, she does not get to just shrug off anothers life because she was irresponsible.

(B) The child is not hers (it is roughly half hers), thus, no she does not get the say.

© The child is living, no one should be allowed legal intentional murder of innocent children after giving it much thought.

(D) She can give the child up to an adoption agency.

A) So she makes a mistake. I'm sure you've made mistakes before. And she does get to decide whether or not to end her pregnancy because it's her body and her right, not a blob of tissue's.

B) Yes, the embryo is a part of her, so it's hers.

C) You keep calling the tiny parasitic blob of tissue an innocent child about to be murdered. Why is that?

D) Alternatively, she could get an abortion. :)

A) Sex isn't a mistake. The sperm and egg don't accidently meet (unless the condom broke).

B) The embryo/fetus is not part of her because it has it's own seperate genetic coding (DNA).

C) He calls it an innocent child because that's what it is. You're just a blob of tissue, too, you know.

D) Yep, and the child would be dead instead of being alive. :)

A) Yeah, like all women who got abortions got pregnant on purpose and killed the embryo, just for fun.

B) If it isn't a part of her then it shouldn't be living inside and feeding off of her.

C) Yes, I'm the equivalent of an embryo. Murdering me would be exactly the same as getting an abortion?

D) No, the child just wouldn't happen. And the woman would be spared from the unnecessary pain and there wouldn't be another unwanted child.

A) Now you're just twisting my words and if you're going to do that there's no point in arguing with you.

B) Children ages 0-18 live in their mother/parents' household, and rely and feed off them. Does that give a mother the right to kill them?

C) Yes it would.

D) The child existed from the moment sperm and egg met. It has a human genetic coding (human DNA) and is alive, so therefore is a human being. Destroying it would be killing it. And if she really didn't want the child, she could offer it up for adoption.

A) So you're saying the woman didn't get pregnant on purpose since she didn't want a baby. That must mean she accidentally got pregnant.

B) Stop doing that. Children are not embryos.

C) No, it wouldn't. I am quite different from an embryo.

D) However, killing it is still different from killing a person. And is she really didn't want the child, she could get an abortion, which would be easier.

A) Assuming she wasn't raped, she chose to have sex (which, from our biology, is a reproductive act used to create a pregnancy).

B) Children=small organisms with human DNA. Embryo=small organism with human DNA. This is what, the sixth time I've said it?

C) How is it different? Because you can't hear the embryo scream as you kill it?

D) Once again, how is it different, apart from the fact that it's smaller than you and I?

 

And tell me, do you think killing a living human being is wrong?

A) And getting pregnant from sex would have been an accident, since she should have been more careful.

B) Embryos = tiny parasitic blobs of tissue with no vital organs, no ability to think or feel, no loving family, and has never even experienced a life. A child = A CHILD.

 

And yes, I believe killing people is wrong.

 

You're right, it's exactly the same... as long as the person you're killing is attached to you in a parasitic relationship and you are it's only source of food, oxygen, etc. And the only way to dispose of said relationship is by going through a medical procedure that can lead to your death. If that's the case, then yeah, it's the same. :aware:

 

By that logic, parents should be allowed to legally kill their children. As they are attached to their parents through the parents money, and the parents corrections of their actions...

 

~John

Yeah, except there is a difference between children and embryos. You guys need to stop using this distorted logic.

What's the difference, besides their size? They're both "blobs of tissue" with human DNA.

If you can't see any differences between a child and an embryo besides size, you shouldn't be in this debate.

Okay, so they look different (even though from about a month on you can make out individual features on the embryo/fetus). Apart from that, it has human DNA just like you and I and should be treated with the same respect.

You don't get to choose how they should be treated. I say they shouldn't be treated with the same respect since it isn't the same as you and I.

They're human, we're human, we should be treated equally. Neither our lives or their lives should be taken from them.

But we shouldn't be treated equally since we aren't equal.

Edited by Pig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're human, we're human, we should be treated equally. Neither our lives or their lives should be taken from them.
So, a fetus should be entitled to go to school, have legal rights etc? :aware: Like an adult can sue and be sued in his own name, shall a fetus be given that right too? :)

 

I do agree that en embryo/fetus is a living thing and that while "natural abortions" (aka miscarriages) occur, that doesn't necessarily mean that abortion is "right".

But does that mean a fetus should be accorded the same rights as a human being? The right to life maybe, but until it is born, I don't think courts consider it a legal human being. By that extension, is 3 day embryo equal to you? If so, then one's skin cells should also be accorded the same status.

Yes, a fetus should have the same rights. Scientifically speaking, it is a human being, so the courts should consider it a human being. And the skin cells don't together make up a living human being. An embryo, however, is an individual human being.

 

You realize you're pretty much repeating the same things over and over again, right?

Because you're completely ignoring pretty much most of what I'm saying.

 

Shouldn't abortion facilities, at the very least, provide women with some sort of decision making process so they can make better decisions.

They do.

Not always, and I'm talking about before the abortion.

 

Of course, abortion providers don't want to do that, because some people might chose not to have an abortion after all, and for them abortion=money.

I don't see how doctors wanting to make money would be an argument against allowing women to decide whether or not they want to end their pregnancy. If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her get an abortion. If she regrets it, tough luck.

That's extremely cruel, knowing the consequences if she regrets it. She needs to be consulted on it beforehand.

It isn't cruel. Forcing her to give birth when she doesn't want to is cruel. She should be consulted on it beforehand, and then she should decide what to do with her body.

By forcing her to give birth it's the same as saying she can't kill her child. That's not cruel at all. It's the government's job to protect it's people. The embryo is not part of her body, it simply relies on her body. Hell, most kids in America rely on their parents, does that give the mother the right to kill them? I've repeated myself several times on this.

And I've repeated myself many times on this: embryos aren't the same as children, amputees, or any type of person. Embryos can't think or feel. They haven't even lived yet. Who are you to say that they have rights over their mothers?

This is where you're wrong--they are alive from conception. Since they have human DNA, scientifically speaking, they are human beings. You're completely ignoring this aspect of it, and I'm sick of arguing you, since you're simply not listening. I'm a person trying to tell them that killing is wrong, and it's not a right over their mothers, it's equal rights. They both are equal, and thus are both entitled to life.

 

3. Just one thing wrong: it's not called killing. Since the embryo is just some tissue inches in size without even a brain, it's like saying that breaking a rock is murder. It is not murder. It is ending pregnancy, which a woman has the right to do.

Which is a nice way of saying she is killing her child premeditated (which by all definitions is murder).

As I said in the post you just responded to ( :P ), stopping a blob of tissue from becoming a human in the future isn't murder.

Speaking with a scientific viewpoint, a human is a human because it has genetic coding that has become generally accepted as human genetic coding (in other words, a human is a human because it has human DNA). Also, the embryo/fetus is alive, and, since it has human DNA, it is thus a living human being (just like you and I). I'm pretty sure I've said this already (four or five times).

So just having human DNA makes you equal to anyone else who has it? I could say apples and oranges are the same thing because they both have seeds.

They aren't the same, but people treat them the same (you eat them both. As far as I know, there is nobody who is against eating an apple or an orange). And seeds are far different from genetic coding. Genetic coding defines what the organism is; an embryo is a human because it has human genetic coding. Therefore, if you destroy an embryo/fetus, you are really killing a human being.

You kind of missed the point. And this is going to go on forever. You believe the embryo has DNA so it's a human with rights. I believe it doesn't have rights over the woman who is carrying it, since it can't feel, think, or function in any way.

An unconscious person can't feel, think, or function. Is it now okay to kill them, as well? Killing a human is wrong, no matter if they can feel it or not.

No, it is not okay to kill an unconscious person. It would be okay to "kill" an embryo, since they also don't have a loving family or have even experienced real life yet. Please stop doing that.

There are many people who don't have any family or friends-if they fall unconscious, then, is it okay to kill them? The truth is, it doesn't matter if anyone loves them or not, they are human beings, and therefore they are entitled to life.

 

And don't forget about the mother. Don't you think the human has more rights than the parasitic tissue inside of her? Why should she be forced to go through the pain of carrying, giving birth to, and raising the child she doesn't even want when it could all just be avoided by ending the pregnancy before it becomes a real human? She deserves to decide what she wants to do with her own pregnancy, not you.

 

(A) She had sex, she does not get to just shrug off anothers life because she was irresponsible.

(B) The child is not hers (it is roughly half hers), thus, no she does not get the say.

© The child is living, no one should be allowed legal intentional murder of innocent children after giving it much thought.

(D) She can give the child up to an adoption agency.

A) So she makes a mistake. I'm sure you've made mistakes before. And she does get to decide whether or not to end her pregnancy because it's her body and her right, not a blob of tissue's.

B) Yes, the embryo is a part of her, so it's hers.

C) You keep calling the tiny parasitic blob of tissue an innocent child about to be murdered. Why is that?

D) Alternatively, she could get an abortion. :/

A) Sex isn't a mistake. The sperm and egg don't accidently meet (unless the condom broke).

B) The embryo/fetus is not part of her because it has it's own seperate genetic coding (DNA).

C) He calls it an innocent child because that's what it is. You're just a blob of tissue, too, you know.

D) Yep, and the child would be dead instead of being alive. :)

A) Yeah, like all women who got abortions got pregnant on purpose and killed the embryo, just for fun.

B) If it isn't a part of her then it shouldn't be living inside and feeding off of her.

C) Yes, I'm the equivalent of an embryo. Murdering me would be exactly the same as getting an abortion?

D) No, the child just wouldn't happen. And the woman would be spared from the unnecessary pain and there wouldn't be another unwanted child.

A) Now you're just twisting my words and if you're going to do that there's no point in arguing with you.

B) Children ages 0-18 live in their mother/parents' household, and rely and feed off them. Does that give a mother the right to kill them?

C) Yes it would.

D) The child existed from the moment sperm and egg met. It has a human genetic coding (human DNA) and is alive, so therefore is a human being. Destroying it would be killing it. And if she really didn't want the child, she could offer it up for adoption.

A) So you're saying the woman didn't get pregnant on purpose since she didn't want a baby. That must mean she accidentally got pregnant.

B) Stop doing that. Children are not embryos.

C) No, it wouldn't. I am quite different from an embryo.

D) However, killing it is still different from killing a person. And is she really didn't want the child, she could get an abortion, which would be easier.

A) Assuming she wasn't raped, she chose to have sex (which, from our biology, is a reproductive act used to create a pregnancy).

B) Children=small organisms with human DNA. Embryo=small organism with human DNA. This is what, the sixth time I've said it?

C) How is it different? Because you can't hear the embryo scream as you kill it?

D) Once again, how is it different, apart from the fact that it's smaller than you and I?

 

And tell me, do you think killing a living human being is wrong?

A) And getting pregnant from sex would have been an accident, since she should have been more careful.

B) Embryos = tiny parasitic blobs of tissue with no vital organs, no ability to think or feel, no loving family, and has never even experienced a life. A child = A CHILD.

 

And yes, I believe killing people is wrong.

A) So it's her fault, she chose to have sex, she shouldn't be suprised if she's pregnant.

B) If you rely on you're parents for food (which most children do) you're just a parisitic blob. And I pointed out above that it doesn't matter if they can think, feel, have a loving family, or experienced life (which is actually a reason why you shouldn't get an abortion). And it doesn't matter if they have vital organs or not, they are still people, by scientific terms.

 

And what would you consider a human being? For about the twentieth time, a human is a human because it has human DNA. Killing it is therefore killing a person.

 

You're right, it's exactly the same... as long as the person you're killing is attached to you in a parasitic relationship and you are it's only source of food, oxygen, etc. And the only way to dispose of said relationship is by going through a medical procedure that can lead to your death. If that's the case, then yeah, it's the same. :)

 

By that logic, parents should be allowed to legally kill their children. As they are attached to their parents through the parents money, and the parents corrections of their actions...

 

~John

Yeah, except there is a difference between children and embryos. You guys need to stop using this distorted logic.

What's the difference, besides their size? They're both "blobs of tissue" with human DNA.

If you can't see any differences between a child and an embryo besides size, you shouldn't be in this debate.

Okay, so they look different (even though from about a month on you can make out individual features on the embryo/fetus). Apart from that, it has human DNA just like you and I and should be treated with the same respect.

You don't get to choose how they should be treated. I say they shouldn't be treated with the same respect since it isn't the same as you and I.

They're human, we're human, we should be treated equally. Neither our lives or their lives should be taken from them.

But we shouldn't be treated equally since we aren't equal.

I pointed out above that they are, at least scientifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're human, we're human, we should be treated equally. Neither our lives or their lives should be taken from them.
So, a fetus should be entitled to go to school, have legal rights etc? :aware: Like an adult can sue and be sued in his own name, shall a fetus be given that right too? :)

 

I do agree that en embryo/fetus is a living thing and that while "natural abortions" (aka miscarriages) occur, that doesn't necessarily mean that abortion is "right".

But does that mean a fetus should be accorded the same rights as a human being? The right to life maybe, but until it is born, I don't think courts consider it a legal human being. By that extension, is 3 day embryo equal to you? If so, then one's skin cells should also be accorded the same status.

Yes, a fetus should have the same rights. Scientifically speaking, it is a human being, so the courts should consider it a human being. And the skin cells don't together make up a living human being. An embryo, however, is an individual human being.

An embryo doesn't have a heart or organs yet. If it did, then there would be no abortions because it would be considered murder.

Edited by XmoneyX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're human, we're human, we should be treated equally. Neither our lives or their lives should be taken from them.
So, a fetus should be entitled to go to school, have legal rights etc? :aware: Like an adult can sue and be sued in his own name, shall a fetus be given that right too? :)

 

I do agree that en embryo/fetus is a living thing and that while "natural abortions" (aka miscarriages) occur, that doesn't necessarily mean that abortion is "right".

But does that mean a fetus should be accorded the same rights as a human being? The right to life maybe, but until it is born, I don't think courts consider it a legal human being. By that extension, is 3 day embryo equal to you? If so, then one's skin cells should also be accorded the same status.

Yes, a fetus should have the same rights. Scientifically speaking, it is a human being, so the courts should consider it a human being. And the skin cells don't together make up a living human being. An embryo, however, is an individual human being.

An embryo doesn't have a heart or organs yet. If it did, then there would be no abortions because it would be considered murder.

But it does have it's own DNA, and is a living organism.

 

Also, there are abortions even if the fetus has a beating heart and developed organs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're human, we're human, we should be treated equally. Neither our lives or their lives should be taken from them.
So, a fetus should be entitled to go to school, have legal rights etc? :aware: Like an adult can sue and be sued in his own name, shall a fetus be given that right too? :)

 

I do agree that en embryo/fetus is a living thing and that while "natural abortions" (aka miscarriages) occur, that doesn't necessarily mean that abortion is "right".

But does that mean a fetus should be accorded the same rights as a human being? The right to life maybe, but until it is born, I don't think courts consider it a legal human being. By that extension, is 3 day embryo equal to you? If so, then one's skin cells should also be accorded the same status.

Yes, a fetus should have the same rights. Scientifically speaking, it is a human being, so the courts should consider it a human being. And the skin cells don't together make up a living human being. An embryo, however, is an individual human being.

An embryo doesn't have a heart or organs yet. If it did, then there would be no abortions because it would be considered murder.

But it does have it's own DNA, and is a living organism.

 

Also, there are abortions even if the fetus has a beating heart and developed organs.

If the fetus is developed, it should be illegal. If it isn't, it should be legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're human, we're human, we should be treated equally. Neither our lives or their lives should be taken from them.
So, a fetus should be entitled to go to school, have legal rights etc? :aware: Like an adult can sue and be sued in his own name, shall a fetus be given that right too? :)

 

I do agree that en embryo/fetus is a living thing and that while "natural abortions" (aka miscarriages) occur, that doesn't necessarily mean that abortion is "right".

But does that mean a fetus should be accorded the same rights as a human being? The right to life maybe, but until it is born, I don't think courts consider it a legal human being. By that extension, is 3 day embryo equal to you? If so, then one's skin cells should also be accorded the same status.

Yes, a fetus should have the same rights. Scientifically speaking, it is a human being, so the courts should consider it a human being. And the skin cells don't together make up a living human being. An embryo, however, is an individual human being.

An embryo doesn't have a heart or organs yet. If it did, then there would be no abortions because it would be considered murder.

But it does have it's own DNA, and is a living organism.

 

Also, there are abortions even if the fetus has a beating heart and developed organs.

If the fetus is developed, it should be illegal. If it isn't, it should be legal.

What do you mean by developed? If you mean when it has a beating heart, that's about, one month? And I would consider it murder even if it's before that, since it has human DNA and is a living organism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.