Like being a Tolkien starter kit?
Choose life
- Thread starter classical_hero
- Start date
Like being a Tolkien starter kit?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Tell us again how the Israelites were right to commit genocide.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
It is a hoax!
What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.
Even one-celled creatures are alive.
What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature.
The nature of the life in the woman is human.
It is the product of human DNA; therefore, its nature, its essence, is undeniably human.
Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby.
Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities.
A person born without arms and legs is still human.
A person who cannot speak is still human.
A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person.
What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, bird, or fish. It has human nature.
If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it?
If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human?
If so, then from where did it get this different nature, since the only sources of its nature are human egg and human sperm?
Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it's okay to kill it. So, it doesn't make any difference with a fetus.
Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is -- not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But the fertilized egg of a human is, by nature, that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of muscle or skin cells because these do not grow into humans. Therefore, a human cell and a human egg are not the same thing.
A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell.
To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.
Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature.
Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her?
Taken from carm.org
Even one-celled creatures are alive.
What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature.
The nature of the life in the woman is human.
It is the product of human DNA; therefore, its nature, its essence, is undeniably human.
Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby.
Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities.
A person born without arms and legs is still human.
A person who cannot speak is still human.
A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person.
What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, bird, or fish. It has human nature.
If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it?
If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human?
If so, then from where did it get this different nature, since the only sources of its nature are human egg and human sperm?
Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it's okay to kill it. So, it doesn't make any difference with a fetus.
Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is -- not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But the fertilized egg of a human is, by nature, that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of muscle or skin cells because these do not grow into humans. Therefore, a human cell and a human egg are not the same thing.
A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell.
To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.
Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature.
Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her?
Taken from carm.org
Stopping the fertilizing of an egg by refusing sex is murder.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That isn't actually true. Take an embryo out of a womb and plop it down on a tabletop, it'll be dead in minutes. Bringing it to term requires an active, ongoing and quite deliberate effort on the part of the mother. You can't erase that reality simply because it is rhetorically convenient for you to do so.
I mean, the whole thing is basically drivel, sub-amateur metaphysics by somebody skimmed a bit of Aristotle but didn't really understand what was going on, but this claim in particular is just factually incorrect, simply and flatly untrue, so it seemed an appropriate issue to raise.
It's more than that. Take my 'scratched skin cells' from upthread, in the right environment, they'd grow to become people. That doesn't mean that they're people even though they fit scarabu's first five criteria too.
KmDubya
King
You can use that same analogy with a child. Plop a two year old on a tabletop and it will die of starvation in a few days. Does that make a two year old not a human?
When someone has a miscarriage they feel bad because they lost a child, try telling them that prior to XX amount of time it was just a blob of cells so what are they sad about.
I am the callous one here in this argument but I am not the ones wanting to throw away an unborn child. Barring a life threatening complication, the particular reasons do not change the fact that a life will be terminated. Carrying to term and putting up for adoption would be the better course of action for the child.
Abortion supporters are OK with taking the life they just want some scientific cover to help them believe that it was not a life. First trimester is ok but third trimester or partial birth abortions start to make them uneasy.
And 100th trimester makes a religion.
So you think that an abortion is immoral and should not be done under any circumstances, but you're actually supporting the right of a woman to an abortion because you're not "forcing others to do the same via a law."?
I'm talking about the goverment taking organs from living persons against their will.
Because either your right to make decisions for your own body is more important than someone else's right to live, or it isn't. If you think that abortion should be forbidden, then you should as a consequence also support that organ donation thing.^ 
Abortion is, of course, of a distinct nature due to it being something involving both a potential life being disgarded, and 9 months of pregnancy which if the mother is not happy with can easily lead to severe issues for her and the baby anyway. So i think abortion should only be banned when the time has passed up to the point that pain is felt by the unborn 'child'. Which i suppose is happening in most cases already.
The level of debate on the issue does seem to often be very low, though, which i have to assume is not always due to bad information.
Abortion is, of course, of a distinct nature due to it being something involving both a potential life being disgarded, and 9 months of pregnancy which if the mother is not happy with can easily lead to severe issues for her and the baby anyway. So i think abortion should only be banned when the time has passed up to the point that pain is felt by the unborn 'child'. Which i suppose is happening in most cases already.
The level of debate on the issue does seem to often be very low, though, which i have to assume is not always due to bad information.
Maybe some of them are like that. I worked very hard to go the other direction, to figure out what I considered to be morally important and then studied until I had a good idea of when that was.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
If those are the best two non-horrible reasons you can come up with off the top of your head as being likely motivators, that makes me insanely sad.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I'd hardly characterize literally ruining the chances of many people from becoming successful and well-adjusted adults as "convenience".
Fortunately, many people can now take it for granted that they can get an abortion instead. That this is a giant step forward from the shotgun weddings and back alley abortions of the past.
Fortunately, many people can now take it for granted that they can get an abortion instead. That this is a giant step forward from the shotgun weddings and back alley abortions of the past.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
That would not be my definition of choosing life. My definition only includes the internal thought processes of the person who has to make that decision.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Calling them "Abortion supporters" exposes you as someone who is not really interested in an honest discussion here.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
So many things to unpack in that statement.
Using science to determine when the life becomes more than a life is silly. But using religion is fine.
Using science to determine when the life becomes more than a life is silly. But using religion is fine.
Hi there! 2 miscarriages here, one at 7 weeks the other at 12. Thanks for speaking for me by assuming that we cried because we thought we lost a child on 2 separate occasions! You're right. We didn't cry because of the disappointment associated with a major life setback, that's for sure. We didn't cry because of the feelings of biological inadequacy associated with being incapable of starting a family once we decided we were finally ready. We didn't cry because we now had to tell everyone in our lives that we had bad news, nor because of the multiple nights of labor contractions, inability to sleep or eat, hours upon hours spent in the bathtub hemorrhaging this failed pregnancy, nor the three utterly awful, humiliating, and painful trips to the emergency room. Nope, none of those reasons!
Seriously, I'm sure some people feel that way, but not us. And we're not outliers, as we know from extensive conversations on this subject.
Here's the view my wife and I share:
It really was just a blob of cells. I know - I was looking for it in the bathtub drain. It wasn't a person, it wasn't anything I would call human. That clot of cells had the *potential* to grow into a person, but neither me nor my wife went through this awful experience thinking that we actually had a kid die.
We cried because our future lives wouldn't be like we had planned. We had to start over - yet again - and with no guarantee that we wouldn't be bleeding out in the bathtub one more time in another "few" months.
But thanks for speaking for me anyway
What are your current thoughts on singles and homosexual couples being able to adopt?
