Religion on the Left and Right

[apple0154]

Again, you are clinically, scientifically, and biologically WRONG! An organism is defined by science, neither you or I can arbitrarily assign our own interpretation to the term, it means what science says it means, and we have to go by that. What you keep trying to argue is, since in some cases the cells (or organism) stops functioning in that capacity, they can't be counted as "living" and I agree, AFTER the cells stop living, they are no longer a living organism. That doesn't change the fact they WERE living and WERE living organisms before they died. The fact they DIED should tell your ignorant ass that.

Unfortunately your ignorance is coupled with the inability to learn.

I am not saying the cells function correctly and then stop functioning. I'm saying the 50% that spontaneously abort probably never did function properly. Are you able to discern the difference?

 

[apple0154]

It doesn't stop being a fish, does it? And when it finally dies from being out of the water, that doesn't mean it wasn't ever a fish, does it?

No, it doesn't stop being a fish but it dies because it can not live out of water. If it did continue living once out of water it wouldn't still be considered a fish.

 

[Jarod]

but they only seem that way to dimwitted liberals....

No, many will admit it.

 

[apple0154]

The breath of life GOD breathed into Adam was God's Spirit at Creation, not oxygen like it is referring to in the parts you mentioned. You do some research and study the scriptures and keep them in context.

I gave you an example that had nothing to do with the time of creation. Do a search on "breath of life". From Adam to a group of men who had been been dead 3 days the story is the same; God breathed in the breath of life and the breath of life is described as smoke in the nostrils. Can it be any more descriptive?

Now tell us if the egg is a human egg and the sperm is a human sperm or not. Thanks.

Assuming both donators are human then the egg and the sperm would be human egg and human sperm.

 

[apple0154]

therefor, we ought to kill those that do survive and form a unique organism before they have a chance to be born and suffer........

We don't know if they formed a unique organism until they are born. Miscarriages happen later in pregnancies through no fault of the mother and we do not know why. Until science progresses and we are able to tell if such organisms properly formed we should not penalize the woman.

As for preventing suffering I recently read an article about Mother Teresa. While she is credited with helping children in poverty stricken Calcutta she was also against birth control. Imagine the number of children subjected to needless suffering due to her beliefs. I intend to further check the details but, if true, it borders on a crime against humanity.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Interesting hypothetical. Actually, I've given it considerable thought. Let's say you tell a fetus they would be born into poverty to alcoholic parents and be regularly beaten. Or maybe be born to a drug addicted mother. Or maybe be born and neglected resulting in them being a ward of the State and ending up with adoptive parents who couldn't give a damn about them. Or maybe born into lower middle class with both parents struggling to avoid poverty thereby working all the time and neglecting them resulting in them joining a gang and ending up as an accomplice to a serious crime and spending 10 years in prison.

I would think more than a few would be very happy to avoid a life of misery. Wouldn't you?

LMAO.... by your logic there would be far more suicides in this country if that were true. For who would CHOOSE to keep living if they were in that situation. Wouldn't those same people choose to kill themselves? Because that is what you are suggesting the 'fetus' would do.... elect to end its own life.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Please educate yourself. A human being has to fulfill the requirements of an organism which is, in part, the ability to carry on the processes of life. "Carry on" are the key words. Defective cells may simulate the act of carrying on the processes of life but, in reality, they are not.

Follow your own advice. At NO time after conception is the child anything other than a human being. The human part is clear via genetics. The Being part is evident by the fact that it exists.

Just admit you want to dehumanize the child so that you can sleep better after justifying to yourself that it is right to end the childs life.

 

[poet]

LMAO.... by your logic there would be far more suicides in this country if that were true. For who would CHOOSE to keep living if they were in that situation. Wouldn't those same people choose to kill themselves? Because that is what you are suggesting the 'fetus' would do.... elect to end its own life.

However, logical.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm talking about the following. “Possession of a genetic program. Francis Beckwith (1994) confirms that from conception, the fertilized egg has "its own unique genetic code." "The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the genetic information that will ever be needed.” That is an excerpt from Dixie’s link. http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm, The Definition of Life:Can the fertilized egg be included?

Anti-abortionists like to jump on the so-called scientific wagon when it comes to DNA saying DNA proves something is a human being and Dixie posted a link that states, “The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the genetic information that will ever be needed.”

That is false. In many cases there is either missing or defective genetic material that results in spontaneous abortion or children dying at a very young age. Therefore, those fertilized cells do/did not contain “all of the genetic information that will ever be needed.”

So what the above is saying is that those fertilized eggs that DO NOT possess a complete genetic code will spontaneously abort? No one is arguing that. If it spontaneously aborts, it is dying NATURALLY.

What of those that do NOT spontaneously abort?

A human fertilized cell is supposed to develop into a human being capable of carrying on the functions of life and being able to reproduce. Those are necessary requirements for something to be classified as an organism and it is necessary for something to be classified as an organism before it can be classified as a human being. When genetic material is missing or defective the object in question can not carry on the processes of life and those missing/defective elements were present at the time of conception, meaning all the necessary material was not present.

Those that have the complete genetic code WILL attach and develop just as YOUR requirements state. Those that do NOT have the complete genetic coding will spontaneously abort on their own (or result in a miscarriage depending on the degree of what is missing). Bottom line, they do so ON THEIR OWN. There is no justification for a forced abortion.

If one wants to take a purely scientific view, as many anti-abortionists like to hang their argument on, then a child who develops tay-sachs disease does so due to defective genes at the time of conception. The necessary “genetic information that will ever be needed” in order to be classified as an organism and, thus, a human being is missing. (ie: The ability to carry on the processes of life and reproduce.)Therefore, neither the fertilized egg nor the child can not be classified as a human being, according to the criteria espoused by the author of the article and by most anti-abortionists.

The word you are looking for is PRO-LIFE... I know you Anti-Lifers like to use the negative towards those who would protect a life vs. destroying it, but in reality.... it is your position that is the ANTI.

Again, your 'classification' process is complete fabricated bullshit. By your definition, men and women who are born sterile or unable to reproduce are not human. How fucking intelligent do you feel now?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

However, logical.

Logical in the sense that he is trying to use it.... but illogical when actually applied. If he were correct in his presumptions, then as I stated, there would be far more suicides as kids/teens/adults would end there lives rather than continue to play a tough hand that was dealt to them.

Bottom line, it is insane to project onto the 'fetus' the tendency to just quit/kill itself. There is no logic in that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

We don't know if they formed a unique organism until they are born. Miscarriages happen later in pregnancies through no fault of the mother and we do not know why. Until science progresses and we are able to tell if such organisms properly formed we should not penalize the woman.

So you admit that we are unable to tell if they are 'properly formed' and yet you would allow the CHILD to be penalized with Death?

As for preventing suffering I recently read an article about Mother Teresa. While she is credited with helping children in poverty stricken Calcutta she was also against birth control. Imagine the number of children subjected to needless suffering due to her beliefs. I intend to further check the details but, if true, it borders on a crime against humanity.

You mean greater suffering than DEATH? Greater suffering than 'Never given a chance'?

By your standards then every person in poverty who gives birth should be tried for a crime against humanity. By your standards, we should not ALLOW people in poverty to EVER have kids. By your standards we should FORCE people in poverty to be sterilized. Why would we EVER allow them to have kids if those kids would 'be subjected to needless suffering'????

 

[Onceler]

I've gotta believe that medical technology will make this debate basically irrelevant over the next few decades.

 

[poet]

Logical in the sense that he is trying to use it.... but illogical when actually applied. If he were correct in his presumptions, then as I stated, there would be far more suicides as kids/teens/adults would end there lives rather than continue to play a tough hand that was dealt to them.

Bottom line, it is insane to project onto the 'fetus' the tendency to just quit/kill itself. There is no logic in that.

Insane? Probably. Fetuses don't possess the ability to "self-abort" (that we know of)....who knows? Maybe it happens more times than we know.
I'm in favor of abortion, rather than to be born into poverty or abuse.

 

[Alias]

Yes, they are both human but that doesn't mean their joining always produces a human being. The reality is half of the "products" formed can not carry on the functions of organisms.

When they join and create a zygote, is that zygote human or not?

 

[brazenhussy]

I've gotta believe that medical technology will make this debate basically irrelevant over the next few decades.

How so?

 

[brazenhussy]

Insane? Probably. Fetuses don't possess the ability to "self-abort" (that we know of)....who knows? Maybe it happens more times than we know.
I'm in favor of abortion, rather than to be born into poverty or abuse.

I really laughed over the idea of a fetus committing suicide. That's so funny. It would make a great black comedy.

Like can you imagine, a fetus finds out alias is its father and starts looking around for the umbilical cord to strangle itself?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I've gotta believe that medical technology will make this debate basically irrelevant over the next few decades.

I would agree.

 

[NOVA]

You talk about logic. Extrapolate your logic to every day life. Roasted eggs sold as B-B-Q chickens. Apple seeds sold as apples. The local plant nursery selling acorns as oak trees. Try ordering scrambled chickens and bacon for breakfast the next time you're out.

Obviously we can't get through to you so share your views with the rest of the world and then come back and tell us about your experience. Deal?

Stop with the playground bullshit already.....no one calls a baby a teenager, or a toddler a senior citizen, or an egg a chicken, or a bag of ingredients a cake.....

If you can't debate like an adult, log out or go visit facebook with the kiddies.....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Insane? Probably. Fetuses don't possess the ability to "self-abort" (that we know of)....who knows? Maybe it happens more times than we know.
I'm in favor of abortion, rather than to be born into poverty or abuse.

Yes. YOU are. But would you advocate killing a two year old who was living in poverty and being abused? No, of course you wouldn't. So why the arbitrary protection? Why protect the two year old and not the unborn child?

What if that child born into poverty becomes Dwayne Wade? The next great physicist? inventor? Doctor? geneticist? etc...

Does that child not deserve a chance to over come whatever cards are dealt?

Why should he/she be denied that opportunity?.... should it be because OTHER people decide that 'it would just be too hard on the kid, so lets abort instead'?

Again, by that standard, why not FORCE ALL who live in poverty to avoid having children. That would solve the poverty problem within a generation, would it not?

 

[NOVA]

We don't know if they formed a unique organism until they are born. Miscarriages happen later in pregnancies through no fault of the mother and we do not know why. Until science progresses and we are able to tell if such organisms properly formed we should not penalize the woman.

As for preventing suffering I recently read an article about Mother Teresa. While she is credited with helping children in poverty stricken Calcutta she was also against birth control. Imagine the number of children subjected to needless suffering due to her beliefs. I intend to further check the details but, if true, it borders on a crime against humanity.

Yeah, if you kill the little bastards first, they won't have to suffer hunger...or rain or sunshine or love either.....killing is the answer....

she should have killed them when she met them, the only difference was their age....shouldn't matter if its a week before birth, a week after or 5 years after....its the outcome that counts....they're saved all that suffering they MIGHT have run into by living....