|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:29 PM |
|
|
Not meant to provoke 
I meant to say that according to your definition of human life, a tumor is something that shouldn't be killed as well.
Quote:
Because you can't deny that the fetus is human life. Not scientifically.
Cancer, whee!
What makes it human other than DNA, because you say: human life is something that multiplies with unique human DNA. Then what makes this DNA "human"? What makes this foetus different from a tumor, other then that the DNA is not unique? What makes the early foetus different from a parasite? 'human DNA'?
Strange concept, because in order for it to be human dna it needs to be part of a human organism. In order for it to be a human organism, it needs human DNA. It's a cyclical argument.
Why is life sacred? (provocative question, I know, but I'm always curious about it)
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:34 PM |
|
|
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.
Some of your science is a bit .. off however. There is a huge debate ammoung scientist when exactly the fetus is considered 'alive'. Science does not admit to their being a soul, so it becomes a matter of when the brain and body is advanced along enough to be considered 'human'. Which may be debated for much longer then anybody here will be alive  .
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. Everybody reacts a bit differently, but let me tell you one thing. After a rape you can feel like you hate your own body and yourself, and even want to end your own life. Let alone something that feels like an intruder in your body.
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.
In closing not everything in my post is directed to you (for instance the comments about the people who attack abortions and such).
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:34 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:37, 13 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
Not true. All humans are guilty of the original sin, which is the reason why there is a problem with children - on one hand they have to absolved from it to go to heaven, but on the other they didn't do anything that would justify a penalty.
I wasn't talking about guilty in the religious sense...
Quote:
In any case and no matter how you would define it, you'd have to explain why "innocent" life was better than "plain life"
Well excuse me if I value an innocent human being more than a killer also. Do I really have to get into that?
Quote:
Moreover you'd have to explain why in case of a rape the mother's innocence somehow is weighing heavier than that of the fetus.
Let me explain this with another analogy.
Suppose the "fetus" is a dude who, obviously, needs food to survive. Suppose now that you are an astronaut who goes in space for a 9 month mission (to keep the analogy!). Suppose that someone, i.e the rapist, comes and throws this "fetus" dude into the spaceship and he goes off into space with you (the fetus, not the rapist which is on Earth).
Now, is he entitled to YOUR food (suppose there's some food there)? Not really, you are not obliged to feed him to survive, after all, the rapist threw him there, so you only share the food with the fetus if you want (i.e keep the fetus).
Now, in the non-rape case, you bring this dude with you in the spaceship, and then he obviously depends on your food (he can't go out in space until 9 months). In THIS scenario you CANNOT refuse him because it was YOU who brought him there.
Quote:
Why is life sacred? (provocative question, I know, but I'm always curious about it)
If you wanna play this game, this goes two ways you know.
Why is the MOTHER's life sacred so much that she must have that choice?
@Dagoth: cancer also kills you or damages your health, not to mention that most cancer DNA is simply a mutation that shouldn't happen from your DNA. Furthermore, if your life is in danger, it only makes sense to abort, as the fetus won't probably survive anyway (in this case, cancer=fetus, and cancer cells die with you btw).
@mvassilev: a virus is alive. The idiotic definition that they aren't also rules out children who don't have reproductive capabilities from being "alive" too.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:38 PM |
|
|
Death:
The flaw in your analogy is this: not feeding the guy - in either case - is different from actively killing him.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I am a real pro-lifer.
The Bible does not forbid contraception. Neither an egg nor a sperm is a human life so human life is not destroyed if conception is prevented.
And I am not the one bringing religion into the discussion...
It's very up-to discussion. Genesis chapter 38. Tell me how do you interpret it. There is no big deal in bringing religion to discussion if it's not offtopic, I guess. Unless the mods say it's a no-no, I don't think we should be afraid to discuss some aspects of it here, since they are related.
What am I saying however is that you think contraception is fine, thus you:
agree with the intention. Contraception's intention is to prevent having kids. In other words, it's directly aimed at denying life that inevitably (take 100000000 intercourses with 20% success rate to make it 99.99999% or something chance of having a single kid if you don't like the "inevitably" part - we're not talking about a single intercourse here, but more a "global thing") will be conceived and born. Why? is this ok morally? To prevent people from getting born? Even if you don't want to compare it with abortion, why do you consider this ok? Think of the people whose lives have been denied because of a condom or pill. Didn't they deserve a chance to live? Why is it different than abortion when it comes to "chance to live"?
agree with the outcome, and the outcome is: no kid. You say it's bad to kill a kid so it can't be born. Why is it good to make him impossible to form, thus preventing you from having to kill him? Why is denying conceiving+birth good, but denying only birth bad?
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? Is it because of the process? So you don't like the process, but think the intention and outcome, two things MORE important thing than the technical method used to obtain the effect, are ok?
Isn't that hypocrisy? I really think it is.
If you don't want to discuss it, than at least answer the questions given after the bolded parts.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
that shouldn't happen
I think the people that have an undesired child, would also think that the mutation shouldn't have happened in them, but it did.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
agree with the intention. Contraception's intention is to prevent having kids. In other words, it's directly aimed at denying life that inevitably (take 100000000 intercourses with 20% success rate to make it 99.99999% or something chance of having a single kid if you don't like the "inevitably" part - we're not talking about a single intercourse here, but more a "global thing") will be conceived and born. Why? is this ok morally? To prevent people from getting born? Even if you don't want to compare it with abortion, why do you consider this ok? Think of the people whose lives have been denied because of a condom or pill. Didn't they deserve a chance to live? Why is it different than abortion when it comes to "chance to live"?
See my analogy and post why "denying life" is not the same as "killing life".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:43 PM |
|
|
The problem has not really been really about religion. It is about how the participants of a discussion talk to each other. As long as people talk to each other in an attitude of respect ((you don't have to agree with a person to respect their right to their view)) everything is awesome.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think the people that have an undesired child, would also think that the mutation shouldn't have happened in them, but it did.
No sorry that's like drinking and then driving and saying "accidents shouldn't happen".
I was talking along the lines of how a normal body functions, biologically, not as "accidents". Mutations cause imbalances, and are not in the original DNA.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
See my analogy and post why "denying life" is not the same as "killing life".
What about the point I have made. That the people denied via pills that would be inevitably conceived should have a chance to live.
Well, shouldn't they?
Even if you think those two are different (fine, it's up to interpretation), I don't understand why do you think it's ok to have many people never born and stripped out of their chance to live because of selfish need to have sex and not burden yourself with kids.
So let's leave the "denying=/=killing" discussion (since it's really up to interpretation) and focus on the "chance to live" problem, in other words..
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin:
You say a fetus is alive because its cells are dividing. Would you then say that a virus is also alive?
A virus is alive but is not a human life. I pointed to the cells multiplying as an evidence of life, not as a definition of life. The cells of dead things don't multiply.
Quote:
Not meant to provoke
I meant to say that according to your definition of human life, a tumor is something that shouldn't be killed as well.
No. An egg and a sperm does not result in a tumor or a parasite.
A fetus is a natural part of the human life cycle. Calling a fetus a tumor or a parasite shows a lack of respect for human life and an ignorance of the human life cycle.
The fetus will continue to grow and enter other stages of the human life cycle (unless a tragedy occurs) when the time is right. A fetus is as much a stage of human life as adolescence and old age is.
Quote:
Why is life sacred? (provocative question, I know, but I'm always curious about it)
Please made a question entitled "Is life Sacred?" or some such thing, because that is off topic here.
For those who acuuse me of bringing religion into every topic, please note that I am not the one bringing religion into the topic.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:53 PM |
|
|
You mean it shouldn't happen according to nature's design? Why shouldn't it happen then? It happens. Nature even says: if you take too much UVa it happens. So it shouldn't happen but it does and I asked Elodin what makes it different. Whether it should happen? Both happens, the words could've and should've have nothing to do. Both manifest in nature, so both are entirely natural things. Delimbing shouldn't happen either but it still makes it quite similar to partial paralysis.
and leave intent out of this, what if the contraception proved to be defunct or whatever? It shouldn't have happened but it did.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 06:58 PM |
|
|
@Doomforge: well I wasn't really talking about the "chance to live". Mind you I am against contraception, but I realize that the arguments for that are unrelated to abortion at least in my interpretation/viewpoint. So I don't use them here, naturally.
And no, I'm not the "I want you to give the chance to life to as many babies as you want", actually I *hate* overpopulation. My arguments for that (which are unrelated, again, to abortion) are about pointless sex without goal (that is, no procreation). But I guess you already know that
Quote:
You mean it shouldn't happen according to nature's design? Why shouldn't it happen then? It happens. Nature even says: if you take too much UVa it happens. So it shouldn't happen but it does and I asked Elodin what makes it different. Whether it should happen? Both happens, the words could've and should've have nothing to do. Both manifest in nature, so both are entirely natural things. Delimbing shouldn't happen either but it still makes it quite similar to partial paralysis.
and leave intent out of this, what if the contraception proved to be defunct or whatever? It shouldn't have happened but it did.
Dagoth, I think everyone knows the basic sketch idea of how a human body SHOULD act, and that people without a fifth finger on one hand for instance "aren't normal"... Or how the heart is supposed to work etc... Cancer blocks this design. CONCEPTION ACTUALLY IS PART OF THE DESIGN.
Two unrelated things.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:00 PM |
|
|
|
Yeah I know that, still, if someone is pro-life, he should really be pro-life, not "pro-life but anti-life when it comes to wild sex because it's too damn good to care about pro-life stuff".
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Calling a fetus a tumor or a parasite shows a lack of respect for human life and an ignorance of the human life cycle.
Human life deserves no respect, if you asked me. No one respects it anyway, they just pretend to when it's small and harmless, but in all other cases, the sanctoty of life is the last thing that enters the minds o the people. Now, I respect human life, even though it deserves none. I just do not call that state of life human. You also dodged my question: what makes it human?
and because it's human is no answer.
And just because I don't agree on the subject of what constitutes human life, I am not ignorant.
Quote:
The fetus will continue to grow and enter other stages of the human life cycle (unless a tragedy occurs) when the time is right. A fetus is as much a stage of human life as adolescence and old age is.
No, because these creatures don't even have their most basic brains yet. How do I know? The gender-issue I already responded to earlier 
A human without a brain is not a human to me, simple as that.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah I know that, still, if someone is pro-life, he should really be pro-life, not "pro-life but anti-life when it comes to wild sex because it's too damn good to care about pro-life stuff".
Well I'm not pro-life, again, as I hate overpopulation. I am pro-innocent-life, but that doesn't mean, I want MORE innocent life, I just "protect" what it already is
____________
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 07:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
CONCEPTION ACTUALLY IS PART OF THE DESIGN.
Both things happen in nature's design.
What makes something part of the design and what doesn't?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:04 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:04, 13 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
No, because these creatures don't even have their most basic brains yet. How do I know? The gender-issue I already responded to earlier
Everything the fetus becomes is already THERE in the DNA. The brain's "design" is there already.
Quote:
Both things happen in nature's design.
What makes something part of the design and what doesn't?
Why do medics study "the human body" since there are always exceptions then? What does "The human body" mean if you think that any mutation "is normal"? THAT's the design. A heart has a purpose -- if someone has a mutated heart, or a slashed heart, it doesn't mean that it was part of the "human body design".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well I'm not pro-life, again, as I hate overpopulation. I am pro-innocent-life, but that doesn't mean, I want MORE innocent life, I just "protect" what it already is
Well that wasn't really directed at you.. rather than at people who use arguments such as "aborted people deserved to have a chance" while using contraception as much as they can.
We can use many arguments but some are just stupid and illogical when people do exactly what they condemn, just with different method. People should really be careful about what they pick for an argument. That was my whole point.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 07:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Everything the fetus becomes is already THERE in the DNA.
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.
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. It's in the design of the human body to procreate, 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.
So in conclusion, what is hupan life, again? I think we lost our way, while wondering about what separates a foetus from these creatures.
Eloin would respond now saying that a virus and a parasite aren't human life, but what makes human life human life? "human DNA?"
What is human DNA? PArt of human life? Cyclical arguments again...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
