Abortion

I apologize, when I said they need only meet one characteristic, I was wrong. and I apologize.

However, the embryo meets all these characteristics anyway.

abortion is the deprivation of life, you are depriving the fetus of the ability to live by killing it. simple point.

Trackaholic wrote:

wrong statement man, I was talking about this one:

That's a natural occurrence that I'm assuming is done by the mother's body in order to ensure that one baby will go on to survive. Unlike abortion, that situation favors life.

and because a dead baby is dead man.

If a dead baby or man is discovered, an investigation would be launched. The person would be issued a death certificate. If a child dies because of the decision of a mother (to create a baby by having sex), even if she involuntary kills him, she is still guilty of manslaughter. Why should these not apply to an ejected egg, if it's a human being?

thats it...you can try to say that an embryo isnt a human but it is no matter what way you want to look at it and taking its life away from it is murder

funrunner wrote:

BA_Sadie. wrote:funrunners saying that cars can make at least one characteristic of life so would that make it living..at least i think thats what hes saying

Yup. If Tracko's using that definition of life (which is not the only accepted definition), the object has to meet ALL of the requirements.

I know, I got that much but i dont know..I guess you can only use that definition on things that arent man made. except babies, get it man made??? haha, ohh nvm

Pinthin wrote:

funrunner wrote:

BA_Sadie. wrote:funrunners saying that cars can make at least one characteristic of life so would that make it living..at least i think thats what hes saying

Yup. If Tracko's using that definition of life (which is not the only accepted definition), the object has to meet ALL of the requirements.

I know, I got that much but i dont know..I guess you can only use that definition on things that arent man made. except babies, get it man made??? haha, ohh nvm

no he was just making a point that for something to be living it has to have all the requirements a car doesn't have all the requirements but it does have some and trackaholic was saying that if it has at least one its living lol. which isn't true. but he knows he was wrong now he just misunderstood or something idk so it doesn't matter.

thelagwagon wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

wrong statement man, I was talking about this one:

That's a natural occurrence that I'm assuming is done by the mother's body in order to ensure that one baby will go on to survive. Unlike abortion, that situation favors life.

and because a dead baby is dead man.

If a dead baby or man is discovered, an investigation would be launched. The person would be issued a death certificate. If a child dies because of the decision of a mother (to create a baby by having sex), even if she involuntary kills him, she is still guilty of manslaughter. Why should these not apply to an ejected egg, if it's a human being?

AGAIN, I referenced FK's statement, which I think answers that question pretty well. Need I post it again?

BA_Sadie. wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

funrunner wrote:

BA_Sadie. wrote:funrunners saying that cars can make at least one characteristic of life so would that make it living..at least i think thats what hes saying

Yup. If Tracko's using that definition of life (which is not the only accepted definition), the object has to meet ALL of the requirements.

I know, I got that much but i dont know..I guess you can only use that definition on things that arent man made. except babies, get it man made??? haha, ohh nvm

no he was just making a point that for something to be living it has to have all the requirements a car doesn't have all the requirements but it does have some and trackaholic was saying that if it has at least one its living lol. which isn't true. but he knows he was wrong now he just misunderstood or something idk so it doesn't matter.

no I understood it, I dont think i'm making my point clear?? hmm its alright I'll just drop it. haha

http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp theres some facts for people, I dont know might give you something to think about, or I thought was kinda interesting. AND its legit sourworms if your reading this..I PROMISE

Pinthin wrote:

BA_Sadie. wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

funrunner wrote:

BA_Sadie. wrote:funrunners saying that cars can make at least one characteristic of life so would that make it living..at least i think thats what hes saying

Yup. If Tracko's using that definition of life (which is not the only accepted definition), the object has to meet ALL of the requirements.

I know, I got that much but i dont know..I guess you can only use that definition on things that arent man made. except babies, get it man made??? haha, ohh nvm

no he was just making a point that for something to be living it has to have all the requirements a car doesn't have all the requirements but it does have some and trackaholic was saying that if it has at least one its living lol. which isn't true. but he knows he was wrong now he just misunderstood or something idk so it doesn't matter.

no I understood it, I dont think i'm making my point clear?? hmm its alright I'll just drop it. haha

http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp theres some facts for people, I dont know might give you something to think about, or I thought was kinda interesting. AND its legit sourworms if your reading this..I PROMISE

alright haha..sounds fair.

that website is really good it gives lots of good information on both sides, click i am pro-life or i am pro-choice button in the side bar thingy

Trackaholic wrote:AGAIN, I referenced FK's statement, which I think answers that question pretty well. Need I post it again?

No, I think you're avoiding the question, because it forces you to admit that you can't rationally treat fertilized eggs the same as humans. For example:

If you think that the fertilized egg should be treated as a human being, then you would charge the woman. Even if the exact method of murder (ejecting the eggs) was completely involuntary, the circumstances (that placed the child in that situation caused its death) were a choice of the mother (having sex and creating a human being, according to you). This would make the woman guilty of involuntary manslaughter. A court might even decide that she was in control of the situation (by having sex), and declare her guilty of murder. According to you. At very minimum, this is admitting that the fertilized egg gets a death certificate. Anybody who has died gets one.

If you think that the woman shouldn't be put in jail, then you admit that the fertilized egg simply can't be treated the same as a human being, which is the only rational thing to think.

thelagwagon wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:AGAIN, I referenced FK's statement, which I think answers that question pretty well. Need I post it again?

No, I think you're avoiding the question, because it forces you to admit that you can't rationally treat fertilized eggs the same as humans. For example:

If you think that the fertilized egg should be treated as a human being, then you would charge the woman. Even if the exact method of murder (ejecting the eggs) was completely involuntary, the circumstances (that placed the child in that situation caused its death) were a choice of the mother (having sex and creating a human being, according to you). This would make the woman guilty of involuntary manslaughter. A court might even decide that she was in control of the situation (by having sex), and declare her guilty of murder. According to you. At very minimum, this is admitting that the fertilized egg gets a death certificate. Anybody who has died gets one.

If you think that the woman shouldn't be put in jail, then you admit that the fertilized egg simply can't be treated the same as a human being, which is the only rational thing to think.

+1

thelagwagon wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:AGAIN, I referenced FK's statement, which I think answers that question pretty well. Need I post it again?

No, I think you're avoiding the question, because it forces you to admit that you can't rationally treat fertilized eggs the same as humans. For example:

If you think that the fertilized egg should be treated as a human being, then you would charge the woman. Even if the exact method of murder (ejecting the eggs) was completely involuntary, the circumstances (that placed the child in that situation caused its death) were a choice of the mother (having sex and creating a human being, according to you). This would make the woman guilty of involuntary manslaughter. A court might even decide that she was in control of the situation (by having sex), and declare her guilty of murder. According to you. At very minimum, this is admitting that the fertilized egg gets a death certificate. Anybody who has died gets one.

If you think that the woman shouldn't be put in jail, then you admit that the fertilized egg simply can't be treated the same as a human being, which is the only rational thing to think.

good post

BA_Sadie. wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

BA_Sadie. wrote:but your not killing anythingggggggg. its just cells when you wipe your arm you kill cells its the exact same thing if you get an abortion right away or take the morning after pill.

So say I go back in time during your development and convince your mother to pursue a career as Jet Pilot, in order to do so, she must abort you.

you chill with that?

i am if im not alive yet lol its not hurting me i just wouldn't have been born.

Do you like your life?

funrunner wrote:If a girl just gets straight knocked up, then she needs to accept the consequences. She can always put the baby up for adoption.

I agree.

funrunner wrote:If a girl is raped, though, that is a completely different story. That child will grow up being hated by its mother. In that case, an abortion may be justified.

Why can't there be an adoption here too? And if that makes her not be able to go to school or work, there should be something that doesn't permit her to be fired and gives her free tutoring for school etc, whatever she needs to keep her current life if this is the case.

funrunner wrote:And a fertilized egg is not considered an organism until it reaches a certain age (I'm not sure, but I think it's well over a month).

Source?

funrunner wrote:And remember, if a woman really wants to, she'll find a way to abort a child, whether it's safe and legal or not.

Then she would face the consequences. With work, I think if abortion was illegal it would definitelydecrease the amount of abortions overall.

SourWorms wrote:a fertilized egg is in no way a life. an ant is more alive and serves a greater purpose than a fertilized egg but you have no problem exterminating them. its no different from using a condom, you are preventing a baby from being born. a fertilized egg does not breath and is not self-sustaining and thus is not alive in any sense of the word. at that point it is a mass of dividing cells as much alive as a paramecium.

Once conception begins and the fetus is given chromosomes, the potential for life becomes a reality. Before sex, the baby could turn out to be anyone, but once the chromosomes are given it is now a specific human being.

From the website pinthin posted on the last page:
At that very moment [conception], a new and unique individual is formed. All of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it’s a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become.

This is now a unique living thing, it's no longer potential, it's reality!

thelagwagon wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

wrong statement man, I was talking about this one:

That's a natural occurrence that I'm assuming is done by the mother's body in order to ensure that one baby will go on to survive. Unlike abortion, that situation favors life.

and because a dead baby is dead man.

If a dead baby or man is discovered, an investigation would be launched. The person would be issued a death certificate. If a child dies because of the decision of a mother (to create a baby by having sex), even if she involuntary kills him, she is still guilty of manslaughter. Why should these not apply to an ejected egg, if it's a human being?

Because it's a natural occurrence with no way to stop it. Did they blame (legally) unborn babies that caused their mothers to die before the days of C-Sections?

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:a fertilized egg is in no way a life. an ant is more alive and serves a greater purpose than a fertilized egg but you have no problem exterminating them. its no different from using a condom, you are preventing a baby from being born. a fertilized egg does not breath and is not self-sustaining and thus is not alive in any sense of the word. at that point it is a mass of dividing cells as much alive as a paramecium.

Once conception begins and the fetus is given chromosomes, the potential for life becomes a reality. Before sex, the baby could turn out to be anyone, but once the chromosomes are given it is now a specific human being.

From the website pinthin posted on the last page:
At that very moment [conception], a new and unique individual is formed. All of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it’s a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become.

This is now a unique living thing, it's no longer potential, it's reality!

how is it living though? it is just a group of cells that cannot survive on its own.

the fetus is not given "chromosones" the egg and sperm cell fuse to create a diploid from two haploids that already contained 23 chromosones. it is not a fetus at this point at all but rather a mass of cells rapidly dividing. i don't see how this is a living organism.

mae2937 wrote:that website is really good it gives lots of good information on both sides, click i am pro-life or i am pro-choice button in the side bar thingy

that whole website is completely pro-life. its really quite obvious and not a good source of information

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:a fertilized egg is in no way a life. an ant is more alive and serves a greater purpose than a fertilized egg but you have no problem exterminating them. its no different from using a condom, you are preventing a baby from being born. a fertilized egg does not breath and is not self-sustaining and thus is not alive in any sense of the word. at that point it is a mass of dividing cells as much alive as a paramecium.

Once conception begins and the fetus is given chromosomes, the potential for life becomes a reality. Before sex, the baby could turn out to be anyone, but once the chromosomes are given it is now a specific human being.

From the website pinthin posted on the last page:
At that very moment [conception], a new and unique individual is formed. All of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it’s a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become.

This is now a unique living thing, it's no longer potential, it's reality!

how is it living though? it is just a group of cells that cannot survive on its own.

the fetus is not given "chromosones" the egg and sperm cell fuse to create a diploid from two haploids that already contained 23 chromosones. it is not a fetus at this point at all but rather a mass of cells rapidly dividing. i don't see how this is a living organism.

there are some parasites that are only a few cells and cannot survive on their own. Bacteria for example.

and they are considered living things

4 weeks after fertilization the heart begins to beat. one could then argue that this group of cells is now alive. it is beginning to self-sustain. unfortunately at this point, abortion is ILLEGAL. prior to that it is a right for a woman to have an abortion, end of story.

SourWorms wrote:4 weeks after fertilization the heart begins to beat. one could then argue that this group of cells is now alive. it is beginning to self-sustain. unfortunately at this point, abortion is ILLEGAL. prior to that it is a right for a woman to have an abortion, end of story.

What about the brain?

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:a fertilized egg is in no way a life. an ant is more alive and serves a greater purpose than a fertilized egg but you have no problem exterminating them. its no different from using a condom, you are preventing a baby from being born. a fertilized egg does not breath and is not self-sustaining and thus is not alive in any sense of the word. at that point it is a mass of dividing cells as much alive as a paramecium.

Once conception begins and the fetus is given chromosomes, the potential for life becomes a reality. Before sex, the baby could turn out to be anyone, but once the chromosomes are given it is now a specific human being.

From the website pinthin posted on the last page:
At that very moment [conception], a new and unique individual is formed. All of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it’s a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become.

This is now a unique living thing, it's no longer potential, it's reality!

how is it living though? it is just a group of cells that cannot survive on its own.

Ok you edit idiot for the last edit time its living because it meets ALL the edit characteristics of life SET FORTH by the same edit scientists you so edit love.