Another abortion article...

[Mark1031]

Sorry, Mark, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. They're your interpretations, based on your opinions, and not everyone shares them, or they'd be in the dictionary too.

So I can't say an elephant is not a monkey because the dictionary does not explicitly state it therefore it is just an opinion.

 

[Keirador]

So I can't say an elephant is not a monkey because the dictionary does not explicitly state it therefore it is just an opinion.

Well, what alternate source do you quote for your additions?

 

[blackheart]

Are the bolded bits your additions? (The hyphens would suggest it.) If so, by what authority do you add them? Or are they simply your opinion?

What Mark added is pretty much true if you were to use logical assumptions based on the scientific definitions for zygotes, fetus, embryo, etc. A little (un)common sense is required.

 

[Keirador]

Please explain these assumptions.
I can't assert that they're lies, but they do look like opinion.

 

[Mark1031]

Well, what alternate source do you quote for your additions?

Are you being purposely dense .

How about this bit of logic.


A mass of nucleated cells..within which there is a cavity or blastocoele. .does not =. An infant, a young child of either sex. (Formerly synonymous with child; now usually restricted to an infant ‘in arms.’)

Therefore Blastocyst .does not =. Baby.

QED

 

[blackheart]

zy·gote

1. The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
2. The organism that develops from a zygote.

em·bry·o
1.
1. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
2. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
2.
1. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
2. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
3. Botany. The minute, rudimentary plant contained within a seed or an archegonium.
4. A rudimentary or beginning stage: “To its founding fathers, the European [Economic] Community was the embryo of the United States of Europe” (Economist).

fe·tus

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

blas·to·cyst (blst-sst)

The modified blastula stage of mammalian embryos, consisting of the inner cell mass and a thin trophoblast layer enclosing the blastocoel. Also called blastodermic vesicle.

Now all, except for blastocyst (IDK what this does exactly) has its features and time limits stated. You can tell that each word/definition is distinctly different from one another, therefore you cannot lump zygote and fetus together. If it is required, there will be wiki links.

By the way, these are taken directly from dictionary.com

 

[cgannon64]

The needed link is 'a zygote is a person', which is not a scientific statement.

Well once you get into the definition of a "human person", the debate ceases to be scientific. The very idea of "consciousness", as far as I can see, is a highly unscientific debate.

Every action you take effectively prevents a human from existence, and creates another in its place. Every time you fail to impregnate a woman you meet you are preventing a potential human from existence. An apple is a potential part of you, so what?

I realize that the potentiality argument is a little sketchy, but I think it is at least a little valid and worth bringing up

I also realize that, at least at first glance, if preventing a potential human from being born is immoral, then not having sex the time that would have created a person is immoral. But, I think the difference is that one is conscious of the action's results with an abortion, and unconscious of the action's results with all the little events leading up to pregnancy, such as missing a bus or meeting your wife in a cafe. In aborting you fetus, you are saying that this specific human life - and I don't think it can be denied that the specific embryo will be a specific human life, and is different from every other embryos - shall not exist. You are consciously preventing a specific human from being born, whereas when you put on a condom you are making a general statement that you do not want to create any life.

Can't you see your hand in front of your face? I guess I was too subtle, let me spell it out.

Rationalize the desire to prevent people from using birth control pills.

I was not trying to rationalize a pre-existing belief against birth control pills. I had no objection to birth control pills before I heard this information, and frankly, I don't have much of an objection now that I learned it is pretty much false.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Ok, so they don't LOOK human, and they don't have the same capacity as adult humans. So, should we be able to kill the mentally and physically handicapped if they're ugly? Zygote, blastocyst, and fetus are stages of human development, not seperate species apart from the human race. They differ from me no more significantly than does a black man, an elderly woman, or an Asian baby. To imply anything else is to be guilty of dehumanizing for the purpose of pushing an extermination agenda against the unborn for your own personal gain.

Killing the unborn might be barely less evil than killing the born, or it might be the same thing. Either way, I cannot tolerate it being done for less than critically neccessary reasons. The personal preference of the parents does not qualify in this regard. The personal safety of the mother does. (And AGAIN, since some slavering idiot is bound to bring it up like it's relevant (2.8% of abortions involve rape or incest according to pro-abortion sources), I consider rape to be a special case in which the mother's personal preference should hold sway, and it's a choice I think she should make AFTER getting some therapy, since who knows how she'll feel ten years later when she 'realizes' she 'used murder to erase rape'?)

Be careful where you base your arguments, and think about the logical extrapolations of them. Appearance-based discrimination against any demographic is vile, levelling it against the unborn, who cannot even cry out on their own behalf, is unspeakably vile and evil.

 

[Rhymes]

Ok, so they don't LOOK human, and they don't have the same capacity as adult humans. So, should we be able to kill the mentally and physically handicapped if they're ugly? Zygote, blastocyst, and fetus are stages of human development, not seperate species apart from the human race. They differ from me no more significantly than does a black man, an elderly woman, or an Asian baby. To imply anything else is to be guilty of dehumanizing for the purpose of pushing an extermination agenda against the unborn for your own personal gain.

Killing the unborn might be barely less evil than killing the born, or it might be the same thing. Either way, I cannot tolerate it being done for less than critically neccessary reasons. The personal preference of the parents does not qualify in this regard. The personal safety of the mother does. (And AGAIN, since some slavering idiot is bound to bring it up like it's relevant (2.8% of abortions involve rape or incest according to pro-abortion sources), I consider rape to be a special case in which the mother's personal preference should hold sway, and it's a choice I think she should make AFTER getting some therapy, since who knows how she'll feel ten years later when she 'realizes' she 'used murder to erase rape'?)

Be careful where you base your arguments, and think about the logical extrapolations of them. Appearance-based discrimination against any demographic is vile, levelling it against the unborn, who cannot even cry out on their own behalf, is unspeakably vile and evil.

Whats good or evil is relative to the society's point of view. In some native societies it was well seen to perform ritual sacrifices. In middle ages society it was well seen to execute thieves. While both of them might be seen as "evil" in our society.

It just happens that to kill undevelloped and undesired embryos is not something that the general society's point of view considers evil.

Your in a position where your personal values differ with the society's values. It happens to everyone, in every era. Everyone cant agree on everything, thats why we need democracy.

 

[cgannon64]

Rhyme, the madness of your position must be evident. Would you have gone along with the Nazis? After all, they had the majority.

 

[Rhymes]

Rhyme, the madness of your position must be evident. Would you have gone along with the Nazis? After all, they had the majority.

No... Nazi's stole the majority and hid what they were doing from the people. Plus, they used dictatorship intimidation ways to scare people off. The vast majority of germans would have been strongly moraly against what was going on, and the ones that knew probably were...

Whats socialy acceptable and whats going on in the world are two different things, thats why dictators and criminals exist.

Hitler being tagged as a criminal after the war only shows that what he was doing was at that time socialy unacceptable and that, had democracy really worked, it wouldn't have happened.

 

[Fischfang]

No... Nazi's stole the majority and hid what they were doing from the people. Plus, they used dictatorship intimidation ways to scare people off. The vast majority of germans would have been strongly moraly against what was going on, and the ones that knew probably were...

Well, if everybody was against it, why did it happen?

 

[Rhymes]

Well, if everybody was against it, why did it happen?

because a minority of very powerfull and influent people, who were not "against it", decided to do whatever is necessary to achieve their goal.

 

[cgannon64]

OK, well let's not get into an argument about the Nazis. I just meant that there are many cases where the majority goes completely bat**** and murders alot of people. Are you supposed to just sit there and allow that because they have the numerical advantage?

 

[Rhymes]

OK, well let's not get into an argument about the Nazis. I just meant that there are many cases where the majority goes completely bat**** and murders alot of people. Are you supposed to just sit there and allow that because they have the numerical advantage?

In our modern society, standard murders are very socially unacceptable, so such an event couldn't happen. There will always be a larger amount of people there to defend the murder victims. (that is if there is something they can do about it)

My point is that in our society, abortion isn't seen "evil enough" so that enough people are willing to rise up against it..... Anyway.. i,m tired and this needs more tought ... But do you see where I'm going?

 

[cgannon64]

Yes, but there is no reason to assume that society is always correct.

 

[Fischfang]

Yes, but there is no reason to assume that society is always correct.

I think what he is saying is that society determines what's correct and what isn't.

 

[cgannon64]

And I'm praying that the madness of this position is clear.

Not to mention that he probably doesn't follow his own philosophy - just based on the fact that he exists, I'm betting that he's broken a law.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

And that is wrong. What is morally correct is determined by God and God alone, and never changes.

EDIT:

It occurs to me that some of you are going to drag out some dusty old statutes from Leviticus and what-not to try to make me eat those words.

Leviticus was the code of laws established for the Levite priests in particular, and the nation of Israel in general. God gave those laws to the Israelites because the Ten Commandments weren't being followed, as a means of preserving some sort of law and order among His chosen people. They refused to follow even these laws, so Jesus came down, and lived by all of them, and the Ten Commandments to show that it could be done, and then gave us the laws that the Levite code and the Ten Commandments were meant to support:

Love thy God with all thy heart.
Love thy neighbor as thyself.

If everyone did just these two things, we'd all be happy. But many of us don't, so only the greediest and strongest think they are.

 

[Keirador]

I think what he is saying is that society determines what's correct and what isn't.

And there's a basic difference between religious thought and secular thought. Religious folk can appeal to a higher authority than the mass of man. Personally, I don't believe that slavery was morally correct. Apparently, some would argue that at a time when the majority was in favor of slavery, it was appropriate.