Even if a fetus is not a person, abortion is still wrong.

[tomsnowman123]

Our schools are failing because we have so many things other than what kids need to learn at school.

They aren't simply failing, they just need some serious change. One problem is school administrations and the strict guidelines they give teachers, another is the completely biased view of textbooks.

We don't need another social/moral issue taught by government.

A lot can be learned from studying society and moral debates. More than from a textbook.

They can't read.

The literacy rate in the US is 97%.

They can't spell, do math, they don't know history,

Most "history" is crap anyways. Please define what and how history hould be taught.

They know everything about sex, though!!

Only when it comes to crude jokes and gossip. Not the responsibility needed to commit to such an act though.

If you believe that women are often forced and abused by abortions, or don't understand the consequence, then let's educate them. Give students in middle school and high school readily available access to abortion information.

 

[classical_hero]

Don't breath, you're killing bacteria and viruses. Don't eat, you're either killing a plant or an animal. Don't be alive because you'll end up killing something else, don't die because you'll be killing yourself.

It's rather egotistical to say that human life is more important than the life of another organism.

You didn't answer my question, you side stepped it. So then when is killing another human right?

 

[El_Machinae]

Show me how skin cells can become a person. From what I know, they do not have all the genetic material to become human

I can't show you, because you don't know enough about biology and I don't believe that you have any actual interest in reading the materials required.
But your first statement is incorrect; skin cells (not all skin cells, mind you, but certain types - easily gotten by scratching a fingernail across your skin) DO have enough genetic information to become a person.
If I am wrong regarding your interest, then I suggest that you start with the topic of 'cellular dedifferentiation'.

You but an ebryo in the right environemtn, that being a womb, an it will grow into a a baby and eventually will need to come from out of the womb.

Are you saying that you don't think that an embryo can be nurtured to become a person outside of the womb? That it's impossible? How about an embryo that nurtured for some of its life outside the womb?

I want pro abortonists to show that the embryo is not human.

I'm not a 'pro abortionist', but I'll give it a crack. But I won't. An embryo is a human and as alive as a skin cell. What I don't think is that an embryo is a person; mainly because I hubristically refuse to err on the side of caution and refuse to feel guilty about scratching my skin.

So then when is killing another human right?

Right? Maybe in defending others, if it's the minimal force required. Acceptable? Maybe while using minimal force to defend one's self. Of course, I don't accept the BS excuses believers in the Bible would allow "it's okay to kill people when God tells you to".

 

[.Shane.]

And you are wrong. The religious right conservatives want the sex toys, the sadomasochistic activites to be indulged at home, off the streets, away from the children. It is necessary to have sadomasochistic parades? Stores near schools? Must you influence our childrent that it is OK if we object?

No, they truly don't want anyone to do anything they don't approve of. The funny part is that they're often so repressed that they do the more barbaric things to their own kids or others behind closed doors.

It is the public flaunting, the recruitment, and the open pushing for social acceptance - (ie taking away time from RRRs to teach in public schools that it is normal alternative lifestyle) that bother conservatives.

ROFL! "recruitment"? I think you've watched too many Village People videos.

And as far as 'not harming anyone but yourself' I have already addressed this. Girls are LIED TO about the affects this has on their mental health. It traumatizes them. They are rushed into doing an abortion when they don't understand the TRUTH of the risks, of the cost, and the actual procedure.

I'm not trying to demean your personal experience. But the reality is that everyone's experience is different. I know several people who've had abortions, or at least who'll admit they've had them (and, no, I'd never ask). For the most part they are grateful they had this right. And, yes, in a couple there's an aspect of sadness about lost possibilities. None of them has had any medical complications or issues as a result. None of them were rushed or coerced.

 

[.Shane.]

Our schools are failing because we have so many things other than what kids need to learn at school.

I'm not gonna argue that the schools are great. But they are hardly "failing." You can't categorize a system of 1000s of schools and millions of students in such grotesquely over-general terms.

We don't need another social/moral issue taught by government.

And that would be what, in this case?

They can't read. They can't spell, do math, they don't know history, they can't type! They don't know literature, government, they don't understand science or know how to cook, or eat a balanced diet.

ROFL. The basic RRRs are fine. What's missing is the course content that fleshes out a persons knowledge. I'd agree that social sciences (history, geography, etc...) go out the window as do PE and Art.

The irony is its the people you seem to be defending who are the cause of this. The far right are the ones who live in fear that their kids might be taught something that scare the crap out of them or that doesn't fit the "biblical truth". They squash art funding, sex ed., pass laws that require all kinds of ridiculous testing, etc....

They know everything about sex, though!!

No, they don't know enough. That's the problem. If most public schools were allowed to teach true sex ed and not some purantical morality then we would actually have less abortions and reduced teen pregnancy.

 

[GinandTonic]

It is the public flaunting, the recruitment, and the open pushing for social acceptance - (ie taking away time from RRRs to teach in public schools that it is normal alternative lifestyle) that bother conservatives.

My bold

Rather the crux of the issue. Why should people not push for social acceptance if there is nothing wrong with their actions? Why should they not push for acceptance "openly"? The only possible justification is that you think their actions are wrong, so defend that premise.

 

[Homie]

El Mac, there is a differance between something naturally becoming a person (embryo growing in a womb) and artificially cloning a cell, then nurturing it in a lab to make a physical copy of an already existing person. Persons are unique, a clone is not - a clone is a freak of science that should not be attempted to be made.

I know single-egged twins are geneticilly identical, but they are not clones of anything, they are still the result of mom and dad's genes being mixed, they just happen to be the exact same mix of mom and dad. And they have developed naturally and randomly, not constructed in a lab.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, in your world, a clone would not be a person? It would not be due rights? It would not deserve protection?

That's crap, to be honest. To treat someone as non-human, merely because they were produced in a lab, would be (in my mind) evil. And the fact that you would be willing to treat something that walks, talks, cries, and laughs as "non-human" pretty well makes my case.

Finally, my clone would still be a mix of my 'mom and dad's' genes. Just like me. Except it would be a unique person.

Here's a video of the life of a cell, it comes with some sound (and only shows idealised reactions). But it's quite pretty.

http://aimediaserver.com/studiodaily/videoplayer/?src=harvard/harvard.swf&width=640&height=520

(the play button is at the bottom of the screen, you might need to scroll down)

 

[Homie]

Why would you make a clone? Making a clone is wrong in the first place, and does not naturally occur. The defense of your argument is based on the fact that one can artificially make people from any cell of the body, therefore an embryo or fetus is no different than any other cells in the mom's body. But it is different, it is genetically unique, it is a new person in the progress of being developed. A skin cell is not that, it is simply a cell, not in the progress of becoming anything else, it is not unique - but any person made from it would be a copy, not a new person. Cloning is perverting nature, and it definately does not work as a defense of abortion.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I disagree - what is less human about a clone? My problem is that while the skin cells in question may only be potential humans, the clone is - and so is a fetus. I don't see how emerging from the womb is what makes us human.

 

[mdwh]

Getting OT, but:

And you are wrong. The religious right conservatives want the sex toys, the sadomasochistic activites to be indulged at home, off the streets, away from the children. It is necessary to have sadomasochistic parades? Stores near schools? Must you influence our childrent that it is OK if we object?

There are plenty of people who wish these things to be banned, even in private. As I said, S&M is illegal in the UK - and this vocal minority are now campaigning for possession of BDSM porn (even if they are private photos between consenting adults, or faked images, and never published) to be criminalised, and treated the same as child porn (and the Government is making plans to do so).

Maybe we wouldn't need to parade if these people and the Governments did not wish to take away our freedom.

Also, perhaps heterosexuality shouldn't be publicly flaunted and shoved down people's throats all the time, too.

 

[El_Machinae]

Making a clone is wrong in the first place, and does not naturally occur.

I would like you to expand your thinking on this one.
What would be immoral about making a clone? Is it immoral for a woman to do anything that would increase the odds of her birthing twins?

Really, judging the action of making a clone as immoral needs to be fleshed out.

 

[mdwh]

Like I said, that would be a clone, UNLIKE an embryo that has a different genetic makeup than the skin cells on the mother's body. You very well know this I am sure, so how can you still hold to your argument?

But is this an important distinction?

Imagine if the cell had its DNA altered - perhaps by mutation, or perhaps a combination was made with another cell as in sexual reproduction. Would this suddenly mean that skin cells were something which should not be killed?

On the other hand, let's say we went ahead with human cloning. Clearly it would be silly to say that once it is born, it's okay to kill the human because it's a clone - no, that would be murder. And we'd still have to ask whether it was okay to abort the clone. And I presume anti-abortion people would still say no. In which case, where do we draw the line, and why isn't the original skin cell special? In all cases along the line from skin cell to human being, it has the same genetic makeup.

 

[El_Machinae]

The defense of your argument is based on the fact that one can artificially make people from any cell of the body, therefore an embryo or fetus is no different than any other cells in the mom's body.

One can make people artificially from sperm and eggs. But I bet you'd be thinking that such a product is a person and deserving of rights. The fact that an 'artificially produced embryo' deserves rights (in your mind) means that you should consider other living things (that are just like an artificial embryo - capable of becoming a person) as people too.

 

[Homie]

See, its like this. If a clone was made, I would not condone killing it, that would still be wrong. But I don't want a world where we would have to even consider rights for clones, because I think cloning is wrong. And if we never make clones, we won't have to deal with the ethical questions that it would entail.

Why do I think cloning is wrong? It is messing with nature, playing God, unnatural. In nature we humans reproduce sexually, which makes every human unique. When we make a clone, it is simply a copy of someone else, it is almost like it is not a new person. That is not how God intended, because then He would make it possible for humans to reproduce asexually in the natural sense.

 

[Homie]

mdwh, I won't even go into your argument about the mutated skin cell, that argument is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

 

[Masquerouge]

See, its like this. If a clone was made, I would not condone killing it, that would still be wrong. But I don't want a world where we would have to even consider rights for clones, because I think cloning is wrong. And if we never make clones, we won't have to deal with the ethical questions that it would entail.

Why do I think cloning is wrong? It is messing with nature, playing God, unnatural. In nature we humans reproduce sexually, which makes every human unique. When we make a clone, it is simply a copy of someone else, it is almost like it is not a new person. That is not how God intended, because then He would make it possible for humans to reproduce asexually in the natural sense.

How far are you willing to go to reproduce the way God wanted? Are you okay with epidurals, or anything that will make the pain of giving birth less, since obviously God intended for the act of giving birth to be a painful, dangerous matter?
Should we use C-sections when obviously if God had wanted babies to come out of the belly he would have made it so?

 

[Atlas14]

Im pro-abortion if done in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy, but I think Mathilda pointed out that women sometimes don't even know they are pregnant then. But after the 6 week mark, it should be illegal.

 

[mdwh]

mdwh, I won't even go into your argument about the mutated skin cell, that argument is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

How is it a "stretch"? I'm questioning the claim that having the same DNA makes any difference, by comparing with a skin cell with altered DNA.

As for "it's not natural", using a computer is not "natural" either, along with all other technology.

 

[Homie]

How far are you willing to go to reproduce the way God wanted? Are you okay with epidurals, or anything that will make the pain of giving birth less, since obviously God intended for the act of giving birth to be a painful, dangerous matter?
Should we use C-sections when obviously if God had wanted babies to come out of the belly he would have made it so?

Good point. I'll have to think about this one.