|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted July 14, 2009 11:46 PM |
|
|
Lik someone said:
Quote:
When you're pre-born you're sacred and need to be taken care of, when you're pre-schooled, **** you!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 14, 2009 11:58 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:03, 15 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
You can say what you want, but their DNA is identical without having been cloned 
They come from the same spermatozoid and egg cell, so their blueprints are identical, same gender, same bone structure, same everything. Of course, from birth they get different impressions, so their brain will form a bit differently, but that's about it, really.
How do you think cloning works? That's just natural cloning
Quote:
Yeah,so? It's her personal guilt. It's in her womb. No one can take it off her - it's her responsibility and hers alone and if she doesn't want it she doesn't want it.
But it doesn't involve only her. That's the thing.
It would be analogously to the woman DRAGGING in a handicapped person who can't move inside her home, then saying "get out or I blow your head".
I'm sorry but it is NOT only HER responsibility because it does not involve only her.
Quote:
UNICEF figures are 25.000 children are DYING PER DAY due to poverty worldwide. Nearly 800.000 children are reported MISSING in the US alone per year.
And we're back at the religious sacrifice analogy
Not to mention actually, that what you're saying is again based on subjective values of morals that cannot be compared or following with any strict sense. Of course you may say all morals are subjective, but at least the law must be FAIR and thus comparisons must be available, not "open to interpretation".
Whether 1000000000000 (ridiculous example) people die everyday should make NO DIFFERENCE if a crime takes place. I mean saying "Meh, who cares about that one dude getting murdered, let's not charge him, so many die each day anyway." is wrong and unfair. Period.
____________
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 15, 2009 12:06 AM |
|
|
so clones are non-separate entities?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 12:09 AM |
|
|
Sortof. Most clones have separate wills though, so even if they may not be separate entities (whatever), they may still have separate wills.
Plus they're not even part of the same body! (unlike cancer for instance lol)
____________
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 15, 2009 12:18 AM |
|
|
this is to prove the point that the same DNA doesn't mean it's the same entity, so saying that same DNA = part of the same is kind of wrong, so we can conclude perhaps that the likeness or difference in DNA doesn't make it separate or non-separate
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 12:22 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:24, 15 Jul 2009.
|
Same DNA in the same body.
Imagine it like this:
You have products instead of humans. Product A is a case, and Product B is a hard drive. You have two B's (harddrives).
The hard drives are in the case. Are they a separate entity? Yes well, they have a different design/blueprint (at the manufacturing process), so they are separate.
But they have the same blueprint amongst themselves, they are just mass produced right? Well they are independent too
____________
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 15, 2009 12:23 AM |
|
|
We could go on about cannibalism, but I'll stop here
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 12:31 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:03, 15 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
Let me add something here.
For a fetus there is only ONE person in the wide world who can make it live to grow to a child - and of course the pro-lifers have nothing better to do than pressure someone else to be that one which is very convenient since lifting the forefinger is all that's necessaey.
Your claims are false. Christians have ministries to help pregnant women.
Yes, obviously the baby can only be nourished in the womb of the mother. That is the way the human life cycle has been designed. Even after birth many women breast feed the child so he is still being nourished from her body for a time. It isn't right to murder the innocent baby then either.
Quote:
However, with living children EVERY person in the world can make one or more live to grow an adult - and strangely enough here they are not nearly as loud - if they would care for LIFE, wouldn't they actively do something? Adopt a child? organize to help children?
A fetus IS living. The cells are multiplying. The cells of dead things don't multiply.
Your claim is false.  Christians have many thousands of ministries to help the poor. We have many children's ministries, ministries to unwed mothers. Soup kitchens, shelters.
There are many Christian adoption agencies then even pay for the hospital bills of those who chose to give the baby up for adoption instead of murdering it.
Oh, abortion is big business. Quite a lot of money made there. And of course the social engineering goal to "get rid of the undesirables" that the founder of Planned Parenthood had.
Quote:
It seems awfully convenient to tell others what they have or have not to do, especially when it's only the others who CAN do it.
I take it you are opposed to laws against theft, rape, ect since that is telling others what they have or have not to do.
Quote:
With 25 million children dying each year because of poverty there seems to be a awful lot of room for every pro-lifer to DO something for life instead of demanding things from others.
Christians do do something. (see above) Perhaps you would like to link to to pro-abortion organizations that are doing something besides killing babies. Pro-abortionists just lift the forefinger saying it is their right to kill their babies and everybody else should butt out. Since they place no value on children they could care less if they starve to death after birth.
Quote:
I mean, do you see protest marches before wall street, "don't let children starve and die"? At the Capitol, "Stop the trade with children" "Stop prostitution of children". Nope, that would be too political. Children starving, well, that's bad luck, right? Some are just born into a bad situation, but at least they ARE born, aren't they. But children aborted, that's different, that's personal sin. Best of all, you can put a finger on one person who's guilty, making things really easy.
No, we feed children and fight to keep pro-abortionists from murdering them.
Oh, Christians are opposed to prostitution and slavery and Christians probably make up the majority of the pro-life movement. Although there are some atheists involved as well. Oh, and we do protest prostitution and usually the same people saying they have a right to kill kids say they have a right to prostitute their bodies too.
It is pro-abortionists who are generally in favor of both abortion and prostitution, not pro-lifers.
Meanwhile pro-abortionists point the finger telling us to get out of the way because its their right to kill their babies. They value neither the born nor the unborn (as a whole.) It is all about "my right to kill my baby."
Edit: Oh, that couple that was murdered recently. The one that adopted all those "special needs" kids. I'll bet they were pro life.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 01:28 AM |
|
|
Pro or anti life or however it's classified, here's an interesting article about a Christian ministry devoted to helping women bear their children. Might help the discussion a bit.
Sounds generally alright. Though I still keep the opinion that any subsequent abortion of a child conceived by rape is the rapist's guilt first and foremost, and that no one has the right to impose child-bearing on anybody.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 08:28 AM |
|
|
Bak, of course that is right. What would be wrong with founding an unobtrusive organization which is there to help insecure pregnant women. There is nothing wrong with advising, on the contrary. People should get advice before they do something - anything that may involve more serious consequences, after all, that's what defines our civilization, does it? People don't have to make all experiences the hard way and can be taught things.
That doesn't change anything about the fact, though, that the final decision should be that of the pregnant woman. Otherwise advice and help would make no sense at all and you could just order it.
And Dagoth, yeah, that's so true.
And Death Quote:
I'm sorry but it is NOT only HER responsibility because it does not involve only her.
You are mistaking one thing for another here:
It's only HER reponsibility because NO ONE ELSE CAN TAKE IT! The responsibility, I mean. What it involves is of no or lesser consequence. Accepting the responsibility for ANOTHER life is no automatic function of becoming pregnant.
Which brings us to another question: A woman gets pregnant. Let's say she is forced to bear the child until birth, then she's giving it to adoption. What about the "father" in the time of pregnancy? What is HIS responsibility? HIS personal sacrifice? Where is HE involved? He was involved, obviously. If he did something at all to avoid a pregnancy, he did a lousy job.
Which is another reason why it's WOMAN'S responsibility - SHE bears the consequences, and if there is doubt, SHE has the work. So, allowing abortion is a question of social equality as well.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 09:08 AM |
|
|
Educating someone seeking an abortion is great. Once they see pictures of aborted babies they'll know they've been lied to. The fetus is human (like the DNA proves.)
But the law is supposed to protect innocent life, so no, the woman should not be allowed to murder the baby.
Quote:
Which brings us to another question: A woman gets pregnant. Let's say she is forced to bear the child until birth, then she's giving it to adoption. What about the "father" in the time of pregnancy? What is HIS responsibility? HIS personal sacrifice? Where is HE involved? He was involved, obviously. If he did something at all to avoid a pregnancy, he did a lousy job.
The man will be required to at least pay child support if the woman keeps the child. Often he also has to pay other things like insurance and school clothes.
Now, if the man does not want the child and the child is given up for adoption the adoptive parents will take responsibility for the child and the man will be shut out of the child's life, not even knowing who the child was placed with.
No, abortion has nothing to do with social equality. Otherwise the man would have the right to murder the baby too.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 10:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me add something here.
For a fetus there is only ONE person in the wide world who can make it live to grow to a child - and of course the pro-lifers have nothing better to do than pressure someone else to be that one which is very convenient since lifting the forefinger is all that's necessaey.
However, with living children EVERY person in the world can make one or more live to grow an adult - and strangely enough here they are not nearly as loud - if they would care for LIFE, wouldn't they actively do something? Adopt a child? organize to help children?
It seems awfully convenient to tell others what they have or have not to do, especially when it's only the others who CAN do it.
With 25 million children dying each year because of poverty there seems to be a awful lot of room for every pro-lifer to DO something for life instead of demanding things from others.
I mean, do you see protest marches before wall street, "don't let children starve and die"? At the Capitol, "Stop the trade with children" "Stop prostitution of children". Nope, that would be too political. Children starving, well, that's bad luck, right? Some are just born into a bad situation, but at least they ARE born, aren't they. But children aborted, that's different, that's personal sin. Best of all, you can put a finger on one person who's guilty, making things really easy.
It's because pro-lifers usually don't give a **** what happens with human life after it gets born. Quite ironical, anyway. They will fight for your oblivious existence but once you come aware, they will sentence you to orphanage and never care anymore.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 12:46 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:00, 15 Jul 2009.
|
Elodin, sorry but you are missing something.
If having human DNA, being alive, and having cells multiply is HUMAN, then Cancer in humans is HUMAN. Cancer cells are most certainly alive, they most certainly multiply, and they have the same DNA as the human they are in. I don't know a single person who would argue that cancer should be 'protected'.
So I don't buy the whole "The second an egg is fertalized by a sperm its a human" bit. Sorry.
Once limbs and features start developing, yeah I'd agree. We differ only slightly, and that to me is ok. What you believe is your business, but your 'science' don't jive with me. Different scientist have many different views on when 'life' begins. Don't put your belief as the only scientific fact, because that simply is not the case.
Also, please don't use 'sex' to determine if something produces humans either. Or do you not think test tube babies are 'human'?
Please don't get me wrong. I respect your opinions and beliefs, even if I dissagree with them. I just disagree with your deffinition of 'science' in this matter.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 01:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
and they have the same DNA as the human they are in.
sorry to bust in, but cancer has different DNA due to many dislocations, aberrations, insertions, deletions, fusions and aneuploidia. Because of those, cancer happens 
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 03:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Educating someone seeking an abortion is great. Once they see pictures of aborted babies they'll know they've been lied to. The fetus is human (like the DNA proves.)
I would it is, after 11 weeks was it? Here is something dragged from Baklava's link:
Quote:
is a model of an 11- to 12-week-old "preborn" with a card describing its size, weight and its capabilities at this stage of development.
Before that stage, abortion can be done. After that? Then we need a proper hard reason.
Quote:
But the law is supposed to protect innocent life, so no, the woman should not be allowed to murder the baby.
But its unlife before 11-12 weeks, and after that its still only "potential" life.
So how is it murder?
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 04:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, sorry but you are missing something.
If having human DNA, being alive, and having cells multiply is HUMAN, then Cancer in humans is HUMAN. Cancer cells are most certainly alive, they most certainly multiply, and they have the same DNA as the human they are in. I don't know a single person who would argue that cancer should be 'protected'.
So you've changed your mind on cancer? You said earlier, "It is not alive just because it is cells dividing in a human. Or the cancer, tumor can be called 'alive'." Then I pointed out that the cells of dead things don't multiply.
I really don't think you read my posts. I explained what cancer is earlier.
Oh, in my post that responded to your post I asked you some questions which you eveidently can't answer because you made no attempt to do so.
That's on page 52.
A cancerous human cell is a cancerous human cell. It is not a human being. The cancer is alive, as I corrected you earlier. The cancer is a specialized cell gone bad.
The HUMAN DNA proves a fetus is human. Do you claim the product of human sex could result in a cow or pig? Human reproduction. Reproduce human.
Comparing a fetus to a cancer or tumor shows a lack of understanding of human reproduction and of cell function and structure. It also disrespect to humanity.
The human reproductive processes results in a new genetically unique living human being. The human being is a single cell at the beginning of the human life cycle.
The fetus will continue to grow and go through the various stages of the human life cycle, being born, becoming a toddler, adolescent, ect, until it dies.
Oh, if you claim the organism that is a product of human conception is not human, what is it and why does it have human DNA?
Now, lets talk about cells. The human body develops specialized cells. What cell becomes what kind of cell (skin, kidney cell, bone cell, ect) depends on which genes are read. If a gene is missing or is misread or read out of sequence the cell could become cancerous.
A cancer in a human are cells gone bad. The cancer was not the product of human sex. The cancer in a human is a mutated part of a human.
Oh, as I've said many many times, it takes an egg and a sperm to produce a human life. Each contributes one half of the chromosomes. Each is a specialized human cell (see discussion of cell specialization above.)
Quote:
So I don't buy the whole "The second an egg is fertalized by a sperm its a human" bit. Sorry
You are free to reject science. Nothing has human DNA that is not human. Nothing that is dead has multiplying cells.
Quote:
Once limbs and features start developing, yeah I'd agree.
So you have to be born with limbs to be human? I'm sure there are some handicapped folks who will not like you calling them sub-human. If a human loses his limbs is he no longer human? Being human is defined by legs and arms?
Quote:
Also, please don't use 'sex' to determine if something produces humans either. Or do you not think test tube babies are 'human'?
A test tube baby is still the union of an egg and a sperm. That is when human life begins according to science. The egg and sperm each contribute half the chromosomes. Changes immediately occur on the surface of the egg to block other sperm. The sex of the child is already determined at this point.
Quote:
But its unlife before 11-12 weeks, and after that its still only "potential" life.
So how is it murder?
Your claims have no basis in science. The cells of dead things don't multiply. so the fetus is alive.
|
|
smvuy
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 05:20 PM |
|
|
banning abortion is a cruel tactic by religious douches to "keep the women in their place" as a walking baby factory there's a george carlin monlogue about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXviTQZQZxM
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 05:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
banning abortion is a cruel tactic by religious douches to "keep the women in their place" as a walking baby factory there's a george carlin monlogue about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXviTQZQZxM
Carlin had a mouth that spewed out raw sewage.
Perhaps you would care to present your arguements rather tnan just insulting others who disagree with you.
PRO-LIFERS care about both born and unborn babies. We don't want them murdered. That is not "trying to keep women in their place." Certainly I know no one that believs a woman is a "walking baby factory" so your claims are patently false.
Killing babies is what is cruel, not prevention of their murder.
|
|
smvuy
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 05:33 PM |
|
|
|
you are beyond any discussion.... trying to convince you is to medicate a dead man
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 15, 2009 06:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Killing babies is what is cruel, not prevention of their murder.
Oh...now we call a fetus "a baby" already? Great.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
