Capital Punishment

[quote name='nasum']I use birth control so I can shag all I'd like without worry of pregnancy.
Also, I'm not running around saying abortions for all carrying a hanger and a vacuum. I'm saying that people should have the right to do what they will.
As I said before and I will always say. Abortion is a private issue that shouldn't have anything to do with politics or law as it only serves to be a "moral" rallying point for the goofy bible kids. No one is forcing anyone to have abortions against their will. If you want to say that the fetus is being aborted against it's will, I'll believe that when you have a conversation with one that says "nah, fuck that shit, I want to grow up ion poverty or have to deal with the emotional turmoil or adoption/orphange" and have some proof of that.
I'm not asking for the authority to say that abortion is ok for everyone. I'm demanding the right/authority to say that it is ok for me and my partner if that's what we decide to do.[/QUOTE]

But society should be able to tell you what is right.
[quote name='camoor']You forgot the part about forcing the unwed mother to wear a scarlet letter.[/QUOTE]
:rofl:

I still love that people call a ball of cells human life because they are human cells. I also love that human life is sacred, until you do something wrong, then your ass means nothing.
 
[quote name='camoor']On social issues progressives always win and conservatives always lose. We won on the issue you cited, we won on suffrage, we're currently winning on abortion, barring a fascist regime taking over we'll win on every single issue in the culture wars today. It's just a matter of time.

Back to the discussion - forget the final decision just answer the question - do you believe that the supreme court forgot that their ruling would be used to determine what is and isn't a human life?[/QUOTE]
No I don't believe that the SCOTUS forgot their ruling would be used to determine what is and what isn't a human life. They said it themselves that a fetus and pre-born children don't have rights under the constitution and therefor don't have a right to life, which in turn marks them as sub-human since they don't share the same rights as everyone else. As well I think you have to look back in history for your lessons in the culture wars. Who led the abolitionist movements in England and the Americas? Who led the marches against segregation and raised awareness for the equality of men? Come back to me after your history lesson it might surprise you.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']No I don't believe that the SCOTUS forgot their ruling would be used to determine what is and what isn't a human life. They said it themselves that a fetus and pre-born children don't have rights under the constitution and therefor don't have a right to life, which in turn marks them as sub-human since they don't share the same rights as everyone else. As well I think you have to look back in history for your lessons in the culture wars. Who led the abolitionist movements in England and the Americas? Who led the marches against segregation and raised awareness for the equality of men? Come back to me after your history lesson it might surprise you.[/QUOTE]

Lysander Spooner was not a supporter of your causes. For 20th century examples, neither was Goldwater, and especially not Rothbard.

It may come as a surprise to you that Glenn Beck hucks nonsense.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Lysander Spooner was not a supporter of your causes. For 20th century examples, neither was Goldwater, and especially not Rothbard.

It may come as a surprise to you that Glenn Beck hucks nonsense.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but when did I ever say that I listen to or follow Glenn Beck? Yet again another stawman. As well John Newton was the one I was referring to with the abolition of the slave trade in England, which in turn was a precursor to the ending of slavery in England. Rome wasn't built in a day as well as Slavery being abolished, stopping the slave trade was key to ending slavery in England.
Look I know how much you guys love having these political pissing contests because it blocks us from getting to the point by putting up straw men. I came here to talk about abortion, not the slave trade or which political party has done more good in the world.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']I'm sorry but when did I ever say that I listen to or follow Glenn Beck? Yet again another stawman. As well John Newton was the one I was referring to with the abolition of the slave trade in England, which in turn was a precursor to the ending of slavery in England. Rome wasn't built in a day as well as Slavery being abolished, stopping the slave trade was key to ending slavery in England.
Look I know how much you guys love having these political pissing contests because it blocks us from getting to the point by putting up straw men. I came here to talk about abortion, not the slave trade or which political party has done more good in the world.[/QUOTE]

You opened the door by implicating culture warriors led the tide on abolition and individual rights.

On abortion: are you willing to tell an individual that they must allow an intruder into their home against their will?
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']I'm sorry but when did I ever say that I listen to or follow Glenn Beck? Yet again another stawman. As well John Newton was the one I was referring to with the abolition of the slave trade in England, which in turn was a precursor to the ending of slavery in England. Rome wasn't built in a day as well as Slavery being abolished, stopping the slave trade was key to ending slavery in England.
Look I know how much you guys love having these political pissing contests because it blocks us from getting to the point by putting up straw men. I came here to talk about abortion, not the slave trade or which political party has done more good in the world.[/QUOTE]

There are exceptions to every rule, I'll grant you that. For example, there are Christians who actually do care about the poor and downtrodden such as John Newton. Sadly these figures are found more in history then the modern day. I also would hesitate to label a late 18th century Evangelist as a died-in-the-wool conservative. It wasn't all megachurches and militant fundie televangelist programming back then, donchaknow.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']Very good, you have noticed that we are not talking about life in general, we are talking about Human life, something many people forget.[/QUOTE]

Well that's telling, exiting conversation now.
 
[quote name='camoor']Lay your cards on the table - are you a devout Christian or did I totally miss the mark on that one?[/QUOTE]

GTFO. You cant even find a quote. Unless I am peddling the "god tells us not to kill" type stuff you do not have room to bring religion into this.

We are talking about the moral, and scientific properties of abortion, and pregnancy. Quit trying to fall back on the "he is a christian! his views don't count!" BS.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']
On abortion: are you willing to tell an individual that they must allow an intruder into their home against their will?[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to say that we want the government to tell women they must have sex and deal with the consequences? Or is it more the deal of if you have sex you must deal with the consequences? An intruder denotes something that was beyond your control that occurs by no action of your own.

So it is more along the lines of: Are you willing to tell an individual that if they do something, they must be responsible for what happens?

Which is why I am not sure on cases of rape or medical complications. I do not think I want to tell a rape victim they must carry their rapists baby. Nor do I want to tell a woman she must die for her baby to live.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']GTFO. You cant even find a quote. Unless I am peddling the "god tells us not to kill" type stuff you do not have room to bring religion into this.

We are talking about the moral, and scientific properties of abortion, and pregnancy. Quit trying to fall back on the "he is a christian! his views don't count!" BS.[/QUOTE]

Looks like I hit you pretty close to the mark on that one. :D

To be fair you haven't peddled anything other then a bunch of questions and a generic article explaining the basics of pregnancy. But come on. Given his sporadic posting history and lack of logical analysis on this issue, is anyone on this thread surprised that Knoell is a devout Christian?
 
[quote name='Knoell']GTFO. You cant even find a quote. Unless I am peddling the "god tells us not to kill" type stuff you do not have room to bring religion into this.

We are talking about the moral, and scientific properties of abortion, and pregnancy. Quit trying to fall back on the "he is a christian! his views don't count!" BS.[/QUOTE]
Because religion doesn't influence one's moral beliefs.
 
[quote name='camoor']Looks like I hit you pretty close to the mark on that one. :D

To be fair you haven't peddled anything other then a bunch of questions and a generic article explaining the basics of pregnancy. But come on. Given his sporadic posting history and lack of logical analysis on this issue, is anyone on this thread surprised that Knoell is a devout Christian?[/QUOTE]

You are wrong, but please continue generalizing and discounting a view because you can't/won't argue science. So now you are resorting to smear tactics trying to label me as a devout christian so "it is no wonder my views are like this". Typical garbage on this forum.

Not that there is anything wrong with being a devout christian, except in the eyes of the majority of intolerant fools on this forum.

And before you get your panties in a bunch saying "I did talk science! I did!", look back through your posts and see if you can figure out how "you didn't".
 
[quote name='Knoell']You are wrong, but please continue generalizing and discounting a view because you can't/won't argue science. So now you are resorting to smear tactics trying to label me as a devout christian so "it is no wonder my views are like this". Typical garbage on this forum.

Not that there is anything wrong with being a devout christian, except in the eyes of the majority of intolerant fools on this forum.

And before you get your panties in a bunch saying "I did talk science! I did!", look back through your posts and see if you can figure out how "you didn't".[/QUOTE]

I advocate for science and moral philosophy, not science alone. On this issue I don't see how anyone could fail to do so otherwise, save getting their viewpoint from a 2000 year old book as seen through the filter of 20th century blowhards. But keep thinking there's nothing wrong with that and wondering why rational people fail to agree with you every. single. time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']I advocate for science and moral philosophy, not science alone. On this issue I don't see how anyone could fail to do so otherwise, save getting their viewpoint from a 2000 year old book as seen through the filter of 20th century blowhards. But keep thinking there's nothing wrong with that and wondering why rational people fail to agree with you every. single. time.[/QUOTE]

It is quite funny how you (Im guessing an athiest) can be guided by moral philosophy. How is it that you have morals if you have no religion guiding them? For everyone else that is impossible eh? More BS, but keep talking.

Again you loop me in with christianity as if that somehow is a detriment to my position. Again I will ask you for a quote that has me representing the morals of christianity? Or is the other side of the moral argument irrational because it is not yours? Explain to me how it is irrational.

Look I can do it too.

"On this issue I don't see how anyone could fail to do so otherwise, save getting their viewpoint from a moralless progressive guide as seen through the vision of a 21st century utopia. But keep thinking there's nothing wrong with that and wondering why rational people fail to agree with you every. single. time"

Smear Accomplished! I win!!!!11111 fucking ridiculous.
 
[quote name='Knoell']It is quite funny how you (Im guessing an athiest) can be guided by moral philosophy. How is it that you have morals if you have no religion guiding them? For everyone else that is impossible eh? More BS, but keep talking.

Again you loop me in with christianity as if that somehow is a detriment to my position. Again I will ask you for a quote that has me representing the morals of christianity? Or is the other side of the moral argument irrational because it is not yours? Explain to me how it is irrational.

Look I can do it too.

"On this issue I don't see how anyone could fail to do so otherwise, save getting their viewpoint from a moralless progressive guide as seen through the vision of a 21st century utopia. But keep thinking there's nothing wrong with that and wondering why rational people fail to agree with you every. single. time"

Smear Accomplished! I win!!!!11111 fucking ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

For someone who is such a devout Christian, you sure get upset when someone mentions it. It's almost like you have something to hide. Are you that embarrassed of your religion?

And I'm not a rational materialist or a Communist, or whatever you are trying to infer in your second paragraph. But you are a devout Christian, are you not? I must be Criss Angel, however did I guess :whistle2:k

The reason that I go there is because you haven't given me anything else. Forget compelling arguments, you haven't even clarified your position save the vague statement about obviousness of a zygote having the same right to life as a baby, child, or adult. I don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that you haven't thought this through and are just aping what you heard at church.
 
[quote name='camoor']For someone who is such a devout Christian, you sure get upset when someone mentions it. It's almost like you have something to hide. Are you that embarrassed of your religion?

And I'm not a rational materialist or a Communist, or whatever you are trying to infer in your second paragraph. But you are a devout Christian, are you not? I must be Criss Angel, however did I guess :whistle2:k

The reason that I go there is because you haven't given me anything else. Forget compelling arguments, you haven't even clarified your position save the vague statement about obviousness of a zygote having the same right to life as a baby, child, or adult. I don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that you haven't thought this through and are just aping what you heard at church.[/QUOTE]

I love how people always assume I am upset on forums. I am laughing most of the time.

Anyways Why are you getting upset about what I called you? Huh? Got something to hide? I bet you do! Embarressed of something?

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Besides that stupidity, what position do you need clarifying? The part where I said the fetus deserves the right to live, or the part where I said the fetus (or zygote) is the earliest form of human development and must be protected. Or maybe the part where I said that people should be held responsible for their actions?

But again those are just the views of the church and not backed by science or morals or anything, and if it is, it is the churchs science and morals so it doesn't count! AmIright?

Again sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Now let's look at your "consistancy" - you disagree with 3rd trimester abortions, you agree with womens choice, you agree with the legality of 2nd trimester abortions, you "believe" life starts somewhere in the 2nd trimester but cannot pinpoint it. You are full of contradictions.

But yes you are being quite "rational".
 
[quote name='Knoell']It is quite funny how you (Im guessing an athiest) can be guided by moral philosophy. How is it that you have morals if you have no religion guiding them? For everyone else that is impossible eh? More BS, but keep talking.

Again you loop me in with christianity as if that somehow is a detriment to my position. Again I will ask you for a quote that has me representing the morals of christianity? Or is the other side of the moral argument irrational because it is not yours? Explain to me how it is irrational.

Look I can do it too.

"On this issue I don't see how anyone could fail to do so otherwise, save getting their viewpoint from a moralless progressive guide as seen through the vision of a 21st century utopia. But keep thinking there's nothing wrong with that and wondering why rational people fail to agree with you every. single. time"

Smear Accomplished! I win!!!!11111 fucking ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

I consider belief in fairy tales a detriment to anyone's position.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I love how people always assume I am upset on forums. I am laughing most of the time.[/QUOTE]

Good.

[quote name='Knoell']what position do you need clarifying? The part where I said the fetus deserves the right to live, or the part where I said the fetus (or zygote) is the earliest form of human development and must be protected.[/QUOTE]

Technically the human sperm and/or human egg is the earliest form of human development. Aside from that though, I'd like to know why the zygote "must be protected". It is truly not obvious to me.

[quote name='Knoell']Or maybe the part where I said that people should be held responsible for their actions?[/QUOTE]

Why do you make it sound like a punishment? What good does it do to force a woman to bear a child that she doesn't want?

[quote name='Knoell']But again those are just the views of the church and not backed by science or morals or anything, and if it is, it is the churchs science and morals so it doesn't count! AmIright?[/QUOTE]

Prove to me that the opinion of the church is based on science and morals and I'll listen. Hell you may get a convert if you're convincing enough.

[quote name='Knoell']Now let's look at your "consistancy" - you disagree with 3rd trimester abortions, you agree with womens choice, you agree with the legality of 2nd trimester abortions, you "believe" life starts somewhere in the 2nd trimester but cannot pinpoint it. You are full of contradictions.[/QUOTE]

Where is the inconsistency? I'm not seeing it. Please let me know - if I am being inconsistent I would appreciate the opportunity to revise my opinion.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I consider belief in fairy tales a detriment to anyone's position.[/QUOTE]

Your opinion is noted. I consider a belief that killing off poor peoples children being good for the rest of us a detriment to anyone's position.

Not existing > Poverty all the way man. Morally sound.
 
[quote name='camoor']Good.



Technically the human sperm and/or human egg is the earliest form of human development. Aside from that though, I'd like to know why the zygote "must be protected". It is truly not obvious to me.



Why do you make it sound like a punishment? What good does it do to force a woman to bear a child that she doesn't want?



Prove to me that the opinion of the church is based on science and morals and I'll listen. Hell you may get a convert if you're convincing enough.



Where is the inconsistency? I'm not seeing it. Please let me know - if I am being inconsistent I would appreciate the opportunity to revise my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Yet again you are wrong on all counts. Go look up sexual education, you need a refresher.

Punishment? You created a life, and want to snuff it out because of various reasons, good or bad. The argument is to protect the life, not to punish the woman. The reason responsibility comes up is because of ridiculous arguments like "are you willing to tell someone that they must let an intruder into their house?".

The church's position is that it is a human life at its most vulnerable state, and must be protected. I have been telling you the science of the fetus, and zygote are the human life in early development for the last 10 pages. It isn't my fault you discounted it.

The only possible argument against it is that it isn't sentient. Which you all admittedly say you don't know when it becomes sentient but still support aborting it even when you don't know.

Morally? Do I have to explain the morals of ending what science calls the earliest developmental stages of a human life?

I have already pointed out your inconsistancy. You admit a lack of knowledge of when life begins, but still support abortions. Unless you believe all abortions should be legal, you should be against abortions until a point of life beginning (or rather sentience) is accurately defined. Not to mention in an earlier paragraph you go on about "making a woman bear a child she doesnt want" when you are making them bear one in the third trimester.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yet again you are wrong on all counts. Go look up sexual education, you need a refresher.[/QUOTE]

How can I be wrong when I'm asking questions? (Take a second look - each of the paragraphs in that post is a question)

[quote name='Knoell']Punishment? You created a life, and want to snuff it out because of various reasons, good or bad. The argument is to protect the life, not to punish the woman. The reason responsibility comes up is because of ridiculous arguments like "are you willing to tell someone that they must let an intruder into their house?".[/QUOTE]

Ah - so (using your post mind you) there can be good reasons to snuff out a life. Interesting. And contradictory.

[quote name='Knoell']The church's position is that it is a human life at its most vulnerable state, and must be protected. I have been telling you the science of the fetus, and zygote are the human life in early development for the last 10 pages. It isn't my fault you discounted it. [/QUOTE]

You told me the science but neglected to say why a ball of cells that has the potential to become a baby "must be protected" (beyond the fact that it's the church's position)

[quote name='Knoell']The only possible argument against it is that it isn't sentient. Which you all admittedly say you don't know when it becomes sentient but still support aborting it even when you don't know.[/QUOTE]

Not the only "arguement". I gave the three criteria I base my opinion about abortion on, they are:
1) stage of biological development
2) differentiantion from other mammals at that stage
3) degree to which the organism is sentient

[quote name='Knoell']Morally? Do I have to explain the morals of ending what science calls the earliest developmental stages of a human life?[/QUOTE]

Again, technically the human sperm and human egg are the earliest developmental stages of a human life. However I would still really appreciate your explaination.

[quote name='Knoell']I have already pointed out your inconsistancy. You admit a lack of knowledge of when life begins, but still support abortions. Unless you believe all abortions should be legal, you should be against abortions until a point of life beginning (or rather sentience) is accurately defined. Not to mention in an earlier paragraph you go on about "making a woman bear a child she doesnt want" when you are making them bear one in the third trimester.[/QUOTE]

I have a general knowledge of where life begins. But I'm not so arrogant as to presume that I can pinpoint the exact moment where human life begins better then the top biological scientists and moral philosophers of our day.

Besides, there comes a point where almost everyone agrees the baby needs to be protected (Southpark did a great parody of this btw). Same with human sperm and human egg - almost everyone doesn't believe that these deserve to be afforded the same protection as a newborn baby. So there is common ground, we are are just talking about a refinement of position.

And I'm not saying my stance on abortions would create a perfect utopia, but I do think it would cut down on the number of unwanted children. IMO we can't let 'perfect' be the the enemy of 'better'.
 
[quote name='camoor']How can I be wrong when I'm asking questions? (Take a second look - each of the paragraphs in that post is a question)

Again, technically the human sperm and human egg are the earliest developmental stages of a human life. However I would still really appreciate your explaination.

[/QUOTE]

I will respond to your other points when you realize what you are saying and why you are wrong.

Throw this in for good measure.

[quote name='camoor']No not 'whatever'. Words have meanings. Facts matter. You were wrong, man up and stop this nonsense about me not knowing the scientific difference between a sperm and a zygote. You either know it's bullshit or you're dumber then I thought.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Knoell']I will respond to your other points when you realize what you are saying and why you are wrong.

Throw this in for good measure.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty weak.
 
[quote name='camoor']That's pretty weak.[/QUOTE]

Weak? You are wrong. Neither a sperm nor an egg are a human life and as so cannot be classified as the earliest developmental stages of human life.

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"),[1] or zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. It is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male—which combine to form the single diploid cell. Such zygotes contain DNA derived from both the mother and the father, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. The term zygote is also used more loosely to refer to the group of cells formed by the first few cell divisions, although this is properly referred to as a morula.
 
[quote name='camoor']That's pretty weak.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

You will notice the onus (look it up knoell) is only ever on the person "arguing" with him/it.

Knoell can get away with just responding "lol" to your arguments.
 
[quote name='camoor']

1. Ah - so (using your post mind you) there can be good reasons to snuff out a life. Interesting. And contradictory.



2. You told me the science but neglected to say why a ball of cells that has the potential to become a baby "must be protected" (beyond the fact that it's the church's position)



3. Not the only "arguement". I gave the three criteria I base my opinion about abortion on, they are:
1) stage of biological development
2) differentiantion from other mammals at that stage
3) degree to which the organism is sentient

4. I have a general knowledge of where life begins. But I'm not so arrogant as to presume that I can pinpoint the exact moment where human life begins better then the top biological scientists and moral philosophers of our day.

5. Besides, there comes a point where almost everyone agrees the baby needs to be protected (Southpark did a great parody of this btw). Same with human sperm and human egg - almost everyone doesn't believe that these deserve to be afforded the same protection as a newborn baby. So there is common ground, we are are just talking about a refinement of position.

6. And I'm not saying my stance on abortions would create a perfect utopia, but I do think it would cut down on the number of unwanted children. IMO we can't let 'perfect' be the the enemy of 'better'.[/QUOTE]

1. Good reasons? Are you freaking kidding me? Do you not realize I put that in there so that we wouldn't start arguing about how it would save kids from being in poverty again? Lay off the crack. I have already outlined the two conditions I would accept for abortions. Medical Complications, and rape. Rape is a borderline subject though. Of course Unclebob has stated before it is hypocritical to kill the child because its mother was raped, yet I cannot stomach forcing a rape victim to carry her rapists child to term. So sure, on the rape situation, I am a hypocrite. Other than those situations, no.

2. Do I have to say again why it should be protected? Because it is the earliest stage of human life. You don't seem to understand that you were that bunch of cells as well. You developed from the cells into who you are today. There is no magic moment, besides sentience that occurs to make you human.

3. I already addressed your three conditions, and asked what biological stage is most relavent to you, you said you don't know. It seems you would prefer third trimester and up to be off limits yet you concede life may begin at the second trimester.

Science shows a human fetus can be easily differentiated from anything else, unless you are talking about pure physical attributes, which develop far earlier than the third trimester.

Lastly is the unproven time of sentience. Which I will continue to exhaustively tell you we don't know. So if we are really taking this into consideration, we should probably stop killing until we find out.

4. Again I will ask you what general area you are speaking of as life beginning? Last time you stated sometime in the second trimester, but won't support banning 2nd trimester abortions in the same way we ban 3rd trimester abortions.

5. Here I am simply guessing you are basing this on the guilt factor most people go on. If it looks like a baby, too far?

6. Does it matter what these unwanted children would want?
 
[quote name='Knoell']1. Good reasons? Are you freaking kidding me? Do you not realize I put that in there so that we wouldn't start arguing about how it would save kids from being in poverty again? Lay off the crack. I have already outlined the two conditions I would accept for abortions. Medical Complications, and rape. Rape is a borderline subject though. Of course Unclebob has stated before it is hypocritical to kill the child because its mother was raped, yet I cannot stomach forcing a rape victim to carry her rapists child to term. So sure, on the rape situation, I am a hypocrite. Other than those situations, no.

2. Do I have to say again why it should be protected? Because it is the earliest stage of human life. You don't seem to understand that you were that bunch of cells as well. You developed from the cells into who you are today. There is no magic moment, besides sentience that occurs to make you human.

3. I already addressed your three conditions, and asked what biological stage is most relavent to you, you said you don't know. It seems you would prefer third trimester and up to be off limits yet you concede life may begin at the second trimester.

Science shows a human fetus can be easily differentiated from anything else, unless you are talking about pure physical attributes, which develop far earlier than the third trimester.

Lastly is the unproven time of sentience. Which I will continue to exhaustively tell you we don't know. So if we are really taking this into consideration, we should probably stop killing until we find out.

4. Again I will ask you what general area you are speaking of as live beginning? Last time you stated sometime in the second trimester, but won't support banning 2nd trimester abortions in the same way we ban 3rd trimester abortions.

5. Here I am simply guessing you are basing this on the guilt factor most people go on. If it looks like a baby, too far?

6. Does it matter what these unwanted children would want?[/QUOTE]

1. Interesting. Because once the child is born, I think you would agree that the question of whether they were a product of rape becomes irrelevant. So it seems you are able to understand that at some point the ball of cells is not deserving of the right to life yet you also want to be a good Christian so you choose to wilfully ignore it (unless when it is inexpedient to do so as in the case of rape)

2. I was also a human sperm and a human egg at one point. If my human sperm had hit a condom wall I would be done for, but I don't see you calling for a ban of those.

3. First paragraph I'm OK with. Second paragraph - not just appearances, my understanding is that the fetus contains many characteristics similar to mammals (specifically primates) at early stages. By diving into the DNA or other telltale genetic markers you can determine what it's going to be. As for sentience we can't just shrug and say Christians win by default. Other folks have dogs in this fight too. The way to proceed is to base the decision on science and reasoned debate, with a helping of good ol' fashioned American Democracy on the side.

4. For me, once the magic moment is decided it becomes the lynchpin upon which you can consider the organism to be a person and have a protected right to life.

5. Not at all, just pointing out that we do agree at a 5 billion mile high view.

6. In my view, seeing as they were never anything more then a ball of cells they never existed as a human being. So not really. Before you hit the keyboard just think about that for a second. It's a tough concept but just might transform your thinking if you can wrap your mind around it.
 
You lack the ability to read what I write for some reason. I already told you I was hypocritical of the whole rape thing, and half on the fence and have off. I think there is a better solution out there than a total ban, but I don't want to be the one that tells the ones that slip through that they must have a baby they were forced into making.

You were not a human sperm and a human egg at one point. Or else you lost a million other parts of you when you were created. Like the definition says, those two things are joined together to form a NEW organism that has everything necessary to develop into an individual.

I am not understanding why finding out what it is going to be is so important to you. You know it is human. It is impossible for it to be a primate, and we can prove through genetics that it is human. Science proves it is human, why is that not good enough?

I also love how you believe this is a christian thing. Yes a lot of christians voice their opinions, but a lot of different people across the world in different religions, and atheists believe abortion is wrong. You act as if its just those crazy christians stirring up trouble again.

This is where your argument falls on its face. It isn't just a ball of cells. It is very ignorant of the scientific properties of the zygote to say that. But you know, you look at the science right?
 
[quote name='Knoell']You were not a human sperm and a human egg at one point. Or else you lost a million other parts of you when you were created. Like the definition says, those two things are joined together to form a NEW organism that has everything necessary to develop into an individual.[/QUOTE]

OK let's be a little more simple. Was a cake ever flour, sugar, butter, sugar (and possibly candy coated peanut butter pieces shaped like fish)?
 
[quote name='camoor']OK let's be a little more simple. Was a cake ever flour, sugar, butter, sugar (and possibly candy coated peanut butter pieces shaped like fish)?[/QUOTE]

When you figure out that scientists say that the creation of the zygote is the very beginning of the new organism let me know.

A cake is not a cake until you put the ingredients together. You can argue a cake is a cake before it is cooked, because it has all the attributes and capabilities of becoming a cake and has started its development to be a cake. However a cup of flour is not an early form of a cake.

Make all the cake analogies you want, science says you are wrong. Did you even read this?

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"),[1] or zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. It is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male—which combine to form the single diploid cell. Such zygotes contain DNA derived from both the mother and the father, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. The term zygote is also used more loosely to refer to the group of cells formed by the first few cell divisions, although this is properly referred to as a morula.
 
[quote name='Knoell']When you figure out that scientists say that the creation of the zygote is the very beginning of the new organism let me know.

A cake is not a cake until you put the ingredients together. You can argue a cake is a cake before it is cooked, because it has all the attributes and capabilities of becoming a cake and has started its development to be a cake. However a cup of flour is not an early form of a cake.

Make all the cake analogies you want, science says you are wrong. Did you even read this?

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"),[1] or zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. It is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male—which combine to form the single diploid cell. Such zygotes contain DNA derived from both the mother and the father, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. The term zygote is also used more loosely to refer to the group of cells formed by the first few cell divisions, although this is properly referred to as a morula.[/QUOTE]

Sure.

Do you believe that a human sperm is alive? And a human egg is alive?
 
[quote name='camoor']Sure.

Do you believe that a human sperm is alive? And a human egg is alive?[/QUOTE]

By definition of any cell being alive yes. However AGAIN they are not joined together yet to create the zygote which is the FIRST stage of a human beings development.
 
I don't even know what the hell y'all are arguing.

Knoell, you seem to think it would be OK to abort it if it weren't human, which is itself an arbitrary distinction (hell, I imagine you're fine killing all kinds of living things that are actually far more aware than a zygote or embryo). Are you against camoor's distinction because you think it's arbitrary or because you disagree where the arbitrary distinction goes?

That itself is only one concern in whether women should be able to get abortions, the other main one being their own autonomous control of their bodies and what's developing within them.

(Side note Knoell, humans are primates)
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't even know what the hell y'all are arguing.

Knoell, you seem to think it would be OK to abort it if it weren't human, which is itself an arbitrary distinction (hell, I imagine you're fine killing all kinds of living things that are actually far more aware than a zygote or embryo). Are you against camoor's distinction because you think it's arbitrary or because you disagree where the arbitrary distinction goes?

That itself is only one concern in whether women should be able to get abortions, the other main one being their own autonomous control of their bodies and what's developing within them.

(Side note Knoell, humans are primates)[/QUOTE]

I am not sure what you are saying. The argument is the preservation of a human life in its most defenseless stage, not what you are putting it through when you kill it.

If you are going to protect a human life, it should be protected throughout its entire development. The "ball of cells" is a human just as much as the fetus, just as much as the infant, and just as much as the adult. It is the same person all the way through. The ball of cells did not make you, you are what the ball of cells developed into. If you are going to argue that there is a turning point from "ball of cells" to human, you better damn well know a specific period of time. So far camoor has not been able to tell me anything except that he "thinks" it is somewhere in the second trimester. Which for the 10000000 time, begs the question, why does he support second trimester abortions?

I assumed he was talking about other types of primates than humans. I think you know I thought that. I guess better wording could have been used. Instead of "it is impossible to be a primate" I should have said "it is impossible for it to be a different primate"
 
I think he's been saying that he's not really qualified as an individual to tell you when it becomes human and that a ball of cells isn't human simply because it will probably become a baby if nothing (including the environment or other uncontrolled circumstances) interferes with the process. And I think the sperm/egg argument is probably more that they too will probably develop into a human if you don't interrupt the process (that process being sperm ejaculated into a uterus containing an egg). A condom is just as much an interruption in the development process as Plan B as hormonal birth control as abortion. They're just at different stages.

The process itself is more complicated than simply a ball of cells that grows on its own into a fully formed human if left alone. A sperm and egg can meet, start cell division, but never attach to the uterus. Is that a human? It's absolutely necessary for it to attach to continue to develop, so at the point that it doesn't it's not going anywhere, similarly to how it's not going anywhere if there are physical barriers to sperm or other hormonal or chemical birth controls used to prevent attachment or detach the zygote.

Is the physical removal of a zygote or embryo in a first trimester abortion fundamentally different from the hormones or chemicals that prevent attachment of fertilized eggs?
 
[quote name='SpazX']I think he's been saying that he's not really qualified as an individual to tell you when it becomes human and that a ball of cells isn't human simply because it will probably become a baby if nothing (including the environment or other uncontrolled circumstances) interferes with the process. And I think the sperm/egg argument is probably more that they too will probably develop into a human if you don't interrupt the process (that process being sperm ejaculated into a uterus containing an egg). A condom is just as much an interruption in the development process as Plan B as hormonal birth control as abortion. They're just at different stages.

The process itself is more complicated than simply a ball of cells that grows on its own into a fully formed human if left alone. A sperm and egg can meet, start cell division, but never attach to the uterus. Is that a human? It's absolutely necessary for it to attach to continue to develop, so at the point that it doesn't it's not going anywhere, similarly to how it's not going anywhere if there are physical barriers to sperm or other hormonal or chemical birth controls used to prevent attachment or detach the zygote.

Is the physical removal of a zygote or embryo in a first trimester abortion fundamentally different from the hormones or chemicals that prevent attachment of fertilized eggs?[/QUOTE]

Preventing the sperm from fertilizing the egg is not terminating an established life form. They are not just simply different stages. Science has taught us that the new organism is not created until the zygote is created.

Is a natural death different than a purposeful death? I don't think anyone is aborting failed pregnancies so this question is a non issue. The pregnancy ends on its own. The other way you are purposefully developing agents to kill it. Do you really not see the distinction there?

If you use your logic you can say the same for late term miscarriages as well. Third trimester abortions are illegal, so having an accidental miscarriage is practically illegally killing the baby right? Prrrrrobably not the same as purposefully aborting it.
 
Question 1:

Hormonal birth control, IUDs, and Plan B (probably others too) don't prevent fertilization (pills kinda do, they increase mucus that makes it more difficult for sperm to get through IIRC, but that's not their main focus). They all prevent attachment (whether the egg is fertilized or not).

Is that different from an abortion? Your distinctions seem to hinge entirely on intention, and these are an intentional disruption in the environment to prevent the fertilized egg from developing further.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Preventing the sperm from fertilizing the egg is not terminating an established life form.

Is a natural death different than a purposeful death? I don't think anyone is aborting failed pregnancies so this question is a non issue. The pregnancy ends on its own. The other way you are purposefully developing agents to kill it. Do you really not see the distinction there?

If you use your logic you can say the same for late term miscarriages as well. Third trimester abortions are illegal, so having an accidental miscarriage is practically illegally killing the baby right? Prrrrrobably not the same as purposefully aborting it.
[/QUOTE]

More clues, I know you're not Catholic now.

Without a human egg, the human sperm will die in a matter of hours. There is nothing natural about a human condom, it is a completely artificial object. Using a condom is man interfering with the sexual act of reproduction. Don't take my word for it - ask a scientist, ask the Vatican, any of us will tell you the same thing.

I have more bad news for you Knoell. Unless you are a fructarian, you participate in the termination of established life forms every day.
 
.....you guys are idiots. Your points completely ignore anything I say, and bring up more idiocy than I can deal with.

When did I say condoms are natural?

How does it hinge on intention? You either kill the zygote or above or you don't. Notice the YOU. The sperm on it's own is not classified that way. Look it up, stop being dumb.
 
So they're different or the same?

It hinges on intention because you have to intentionally use those forms of birth control, your argument is that intentionally ending the pregnancy is killing a human.
 
[quote name='SpazX']So they're different or the same?

It hinges on intention because you have to intentionally use those forms of birth control, your argument is that intentionally ending the pregnancy is killing a human.[/QUOTE]

Intentionally ending the pregnancy. Focus on that. Intentionally preventing pregnancy is not aborting a created life form. Get that through your thick head.

Now you guys are just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Intentionally ending the pregnancy. Focus on that. Intentionally preventing pregnancy is not aborting a created life form. Get that through your thick head.

Now you guys are just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.[/QUOTE]

But a human sperm is alive. Stranding it in a sterile rubber bag is essentially killing it, same as altering a woman's hormonal cycle to create a hormonal imbalance that a zygote is incapable of living in (also known as the Plan B drug)
 
Just looking at your statements is ridiculous. One has no idea when or how the egg is fertilized, the other thinks that a sperm is alive on the same terms of a zygote.

Show me something that proves otherwise.

You know what nervermind, come back when you educate yourselves on the matter. I am off to play poker.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Just looking at your statements is ridiculous. One has no idea when or how the egg is fertilized, the other thinks that a sperm is alive on the same terms of a zygote.

Show me something that proves otherwise.

You know what nervermind, come back when you educate yourselves on the matter. I am off to play poker.[/QUOTE]

Really? Because peering in a microscope you would say "go ahead and kill that little sqiggly thing with a bulbous head but that big ball with the squiggle pointing out of it clearly has the same right to life as a person"? And I'm being ridiculous?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top