|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:22 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:23, 13 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
So is it in the egg cells and the semen, but Elodin is no defender of potential life, he's a defender of human life. I know you defend potential human life and I think that's the part where our ways of thinking collide.
Those are DNA from your, or the woman's, not a distinct new one 
Quote:
And I think I understand what you mean. The body is designed to conceive and give birth, right? But not so for cancer?
I could ask why certain cells respond that way to certain types of radiation, but I won't.
Why don't you ask me why SLASHING a human body apart isn't part of the body to see the analogy...Quote:
It's not in the design of the human body to procreate
LOL what?
Quote:
so the difference between a tumor and a foetus is that one destroys and the other one continues the cycle of life... Not necessarily and I could ask bothersome questions, but I know you mean this on a physical level.
Even if we ignore the above, if a fetus is gonna kill the mother (and also it would die of course) then abortion would be justified obviously (and the mother penalized, if she KNEW she had health problems... however, penalized slightly of course!).Quote:
Eloin would respond now saying that a virus and a parasite aren't human life, but what makes human life human life? "human DNA?"
I would say so, probably yes. But you know, I'm not just a "pro-human-life" dude (I value other life too) so if you ask me it would get a lot more complicated.
Quote:
What is human DNA?
That's easy. Do you know how processors, or just about any mass-product is designed? Yes you need a sketch/blueprint for it. That's the DNA.
And I think that's what defines a human. After all, a sketch can differentiate between a CPU and some other semiconductor integrated circuits equipment (motherboard, video card, or other electronics) even if they both use the same materials. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:28 PM |
|
|
Oh, one typo and that's all I can think about correcting...
Ugh...
Oh, and I apologise... had no idea about it being the blueprints in itself. 
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:33 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 19:35, 13 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
You misread my post Elodin. I never claimed you brought religion into it, but wanted to make sure you understood that there is a similarity between this and our debate in the other thread. IE that one can not force others to follow our beliefs be they religious or not.
I have never at any time attempted to force any belief on anyone. That is not to say that I can't say my beliefs are right. 2 + 3 = 5 even if someone else things it is 7.
Quote:
Some of your science is a bit .. off however.
Oh? Are you claiming that the cells of dead things multiply? Please provide a link if you do. The cells of a fetus are multiplying which means the fetus IS alive.
The human DNA means that the fetus is a human, not a donkey, monkey, fish, or elephant. In addition, life experience indicates a pregnant woman has never birthed a cat.
Oh, are you claiming a brain damaged person is not human? What about a 75 year old Alzheimer's patient. My mother has alzeheimer's. She is very much human. What about mentally retarded people? Are they less human than you and I? People in a comma?
Quote:
Also, please don't be offended when I say...You will never have to worry about the 'carry your child even if raped' thing, so it is easy to tell somebody else what they should do in the situation.
I don't buy the "only a woman can get pregnant so only a woman has a say in abortion" thing. There is a human life in the womb of the mother and the mother has no right to kill it.
Quote:
To try to force somebody to be reminded every single day of one of the worst things to ever happen to them is not only wrong but cruel.
For a woman to force here will on the baby to die is cruel.
Like I said previously, rape counseling is available. She will have issues regardless. And she may very well suffer from post abortion syndrome if she aborts the baby.
Quote:
It's very up-to discussion. Genesis chapter 38. Tell me how do you interpret it
Genesis 38 has nothing to do with abortion or contraception. The issue is refusal of Onan to sire a child to carry on his brother's name. Gen 38:9 makes that clear.
Quote:
Why? is this ok morally? To prevent people from getting born?
Contraception that prevents conception does not prevent anyone from being born. Human life comes into being with conception. Your logic would dictate that everyone have sex every moment of every day in order to "not prevent people from being born."
Quote:
Why is denying conceiving+birth good, but denying only birth bad?
Denying conception is neither good nor bad and does not deny birth.
Killing a baby to prevent it from being born is evil.
Quote:
So, if you agree with intention, and agree with outcome, why do you disagree with abortion, that shares the same intention and the same outcome?
No, contraception prevents conception. Abortion murders.
Quote:
Isn't that hypocrisy? I really think it is.
Nope. Contraception is not murder. Abortion is.
Oh, I don't mind discussing religion. But usually it will come down to me being accused of bringing religion into the topic and that I am just preaching and trying to force my religion on others.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:49 PM |
|
|
My personal opinion about this differs from science, even though I am usually far more to the science side than to the religious side.
In my personal opinion, the mother of an unborn baby has ALL rights to do with this fetus whatever she wants to!
Why?
Because until the day the baby/fetus is born, it is PART of the woman's body. And everybody has the right to do with his body whatever he wants to.
As simple as that.
Not even the church has the right to FORCE a woman to give birth to a baby. A woman is NOT a reproducing MACHINE. It is her FREE WILL to decide about her body.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:55 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
Quote:
Oh, are you claiming a brain damaged person is not human? What about a 75 year old Alzheimer's patient. My mother has alzeheimer's. She is very much human. What about mentally retarded people? Are they less human than you and I? People in a comma?
What about Palestinians? Are they human?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:58 PM |
|
|
Please...no political islam/arab discussion when the original topic is about cells and unborn babies!!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My personal opinion about this differs from science, even though I am usually far more to the science side than to the religious side.
In my personal opinion, the mother of an unborn baby has ALL rights to do with this fetus whatever she wants to!
Why?
Because until the day the baby/fetus is born, it is PART of the woman's body. And everybody has the right to do with his body whatever he wants to.
As simple as that.
Not even the church has the right to FORCE a woman to give birth to a baby. A woman is NOT a reproducing MACHINE. It is her FREE WILL to decide about her body.
Yes but SHE put the fetus there. The woman already FORCED the fetus to be there. Expecting a force on her isn't unreasonable.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:00 PM |
|
|
I claim people without brains are not human. I won't even call them people anymore. Brain damaged people or people who lose all conscious/ memory are a little less human than us, because they don't have the ability to use their brains to their full potential.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Please...no political islam/arab discussion when the original topic is about cells and unborn babies!!
Sorry for that Angelito. But I read the whole thing and i feel it weird that Elodin is raising arguments for each human life to be preserved while he wrote other issues in "other" threads. Versatile now and ever.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I claim people without brains are not human. I won't even call them people anymore. Brain damaged people or people who lose all conscious/ memory are a little less human than us, because they don't have the ability to use their brains to their full potential.
What's a brain? 1 neuron? 500 neurons? Billions of neurons? Also, the brain design is again, already in the DNA.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:05 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:08, 13 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
Because until the day the baby/fetus is born, it is PART of the woman's body. And everybody has the right to do with his body whatever he wants to.
As simple as that.
Not even the church has the right to FORCE a woman to give birth to a baby. A woman is NOT a reproducing MACHINE. It is her FREE WILL to decide about her body.
The baby is inside her body, not part of her body. The fetus has unique human DNA and so cannot be part of her body.
The baby being inside her body does not give her the right to kill it. The baby will leave during the part of the human life cycle that he is supposed to leave the womb.
Edit: Oh, do I have the right to use my hand to punch somebody in the nose just because I want to? My right to do with my body as I will ends when I begin to harm another human life.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:07 PM |
|
|
Salamandre:
Pro-lifers aren't really pro-life most of the time (talking about the demograph). They validate the death penalty and don't care about giving money to education, most of them anyway. They just want people at military age
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Salamandre:
Pro-lifers aren't really pro-life most of the time (talking about the demograph). They validate the death penalty and don't care about giving money to education, most of them anyway. They just want people at military age
Hmmmm. It seems you are going into "insult mode." You have certainly misrepresented the views of pro-lifers and are talking about off-topic things.
Please stick to the topic and avoid insulting those who disagree with you. Thanks. 
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:18 PM |
|
|
The "off topics" may be relevant about your interlocutor. One can not militate against pollution and drive a plane every day.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Salamandre:
Pro-lifers aren't really pro-life most of the time (talking about the demograph). They validate the death penalty and don't care about giving money to education, most of them anyway. They just want people at military age
Well, I'd appreciate if people would recognize there are more than two sides to this debate, that is not just "pro-choice" and "pro-life".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes but SHE put the fetus there. The woman already FORCED the fetus to be there. Expecting a force on her isn't unreasonable.
Wrong. SHE didn't do anything. The body does that WITHOUT the woman doing anything "active".
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:22 PM |
|
|
Hey angelito, I see it the same way! I had the impression that you are a German as well - we probably have the genetic defect as Germans that we don't value life much, especially when it's innocent.
Right, probably not very funny, but, well...
I could add that life and well-being of a fetus is completely dependant on the fate of its host, and as long as it is so, the fate of the fetus depends on it, willingly or unwillingly. Whether the fetus is considered life, human life or innocent life, doesn't matter for me. There's just no alternative: the fetus will rise and fall with what happens with the mother.
This is different depending on the current technology starting with about month 7 at this point and of course after birth. Others can take responsibility then - society as a whole, basically.
Therefore, it should be up to the mother whether she wants a child or not. Nature is on the side of the fetus anyway: the longer a woman is carrying a fetus, the more difficult her instincts will make it for her to get rid of it - which actually is as it should be. We should trust nature to make sure that if a mother doesn't want a child she'll have her reasons.
Interesting cases here. Assume in all cases the pregnant doesn't want the child:
A father rapes his 13-year-old daughter. She gets pregnant.
An older woman already in her menopause surprisingly gets pregnant. She's already in her 40s and chances are the child will be handicapped in some way. The woman has 2 grown-up children already and is happy in her current job. She doesn't want to bear aother chil at this stage, especially not with the chance that it will be handicapped. Go ahead and tell her to get the child.
A 16-year-old drug addict working the streets gets pregnant...
A 15-year-old with a divorced and alcoholic mother runs away from home, getting pregnant by trying to get through.
A 25-year-old having already 5 kids goes to the authorities and tells them, that she doesn't want children anymore, but she hasn't got the money for either operation or pill and her husband doesn't care and gives her no rest.
What about this? A 13-year-old is pregnant from her brother; in this case they both want to have the child and live together.
Oh, and all those cases seem to suffer from a lack of care for the living more than for the not-yet living.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The baby is inside her body, not part of her body.
Oh...but my HEART and my KIDNEY are also INSIDE my body.
Quote:
The baby being inside her body does not give her the right to kill it.
That's your opinion. My opinion differs. Life of a human starts (imho!) with the first breath outside of the woman's body.
Quote:
The baby will leave during the part of the human life cycle that he is supposed to leave the womb.
This is not the question here. We are NOT talking about what will be in....years. We are talking about the situation when the fetus is INSIDE the body of the woman. Outside, it is NOT part of her anymore, therefore she doesn't have the right anymore to do whatever she wants to.
Quote:
Edit: Oh, do I have the right to use my hand to punch somebody in the nose just because I want to? My right to do with my body as I will ends when I begin to harm another human life.
As long as you do NOT accept my point of view (doing with THE OWN body whatever she wants to), your example has no value. Except the nose of this "somebody" is also part of your body
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:29 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:29, 13 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes but SHE put the fetus there. The woman already FORCED the fetus to be there. Expecting a force on her isn't unreasonable.
Wrong. SHE didn't do anything. The body does that WITHOUT the woman doing anything "active".
Does the fetus have a choice? Nope.
Does the woman have a choice? I think you know the answer to this one.
Personally, I've never seen car accidents without the choice of going on the wheel. I've also never seen pregnancy for women that did not have sex, except for artificial insemination, but seriously why abort if you do that? (again, exclude rape because I already outlined, in THAT case the woman has no choice).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes but SHE put the fetus there. The woman already FORCED the fetus to be there. Expecting a force on her isn't unreasonable.
Wrong. SHE didn't do anything. The body does that WITHOUT the woman doing anything "active".
Does the fetus have a choice? Nope.
Does the woman have a choice? I think you know the answer to this one.
Personally, I've never seen car accidents without the choice of going on the wheel. I've also never seen pregnancy for women that did not have sex, except for artificial insemination, but seriously why abort if you do that? (again, exclude rape because I already outlined, in THAT case the woman has no choice).
Now we have "TheDeath-time" again...
Could you ONE time stick to what you have said and NOT change your point of view when you realize you are "trapped"?
You clearly said: Yes but SHE put the fetus there
And I said: NO.
Having sex =/= pregnant!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
