Abortion

FK wrote:

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.

+1

I am beginning to think every that is pro-abortion lacks a basic education in biology.

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.

*sigh* I am not avoiding your question, I answered it. but it seems that I will have to elaborate FK's statement so that you can comprehend how it applies to this situation.

That's a natural occurrence that 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.

What FK is saying is that those unfertilized eggs are ejected so that the fertilized egg will SURVIVE. Therefore ensuring and SUPPORTING its LIFE. ABORTION DOES NOT SUPPORT LIFE IN ANY WAY. The ejection of these unfertilized eggs does. If these unfertilized eggs were not ejected, the fertilized egg would not be able to devlop properly and would probably end up screwing up or killing the baby. So in your hypothetical "courtroom scenario" this would make the woman guilty of the death of the unfertilized eggs and the the developing fetus as well. Adding to her supposed manslaughter.

Trackaholic wrote:
*sigh* I am not avoiding your question, I answered it. but it seems that I will have to elaborate FK's statement so that you can comprehend how it applies to this situation.

That's a natural occurrence that 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.

What FK is saying is that those unfertilized eggs are ejected so that the fertilized egg will SURVIVE. Therefore ensuring and SUPPORTING its LIFE. ABORTION DOES NOT SUPPORT LIFE IN ANY WAY. The ejection of these unfertilized eggs does. If these unfertilized eggs were not ejected, the fertilized egg would not be able to devlop properly and would probably end up screwing up or killing the baby. So in your hypothetical "courtroom scenario" this would make the woman guilty of the death of the unfertilized eggs and the the developing fetus as well. Adding to her supposed manslaughter.

Yeah that's what I was saying.

Trackaholic wrote:

alex-likes-running wrote:

thelagwagon wrote:
I'm glad that politicians think with thier brains, not with their hearts.

imo

Thats exactly why this godforsaken country is going down the tiolet.

Once again, I state my defense that the end result of the fertilized eggs justifies its right to live. If the fertilized egg were truly nothing, then we wouldnt need it in this equation right?:

Sperm+Egg=Fertilized egg=fetus=fully developed baby

seeing as fertilized eggs are not important, lets just cross that out of the equation.

Sperm+Egg=Fertilized egg=fetus=fully developed baby

Hmm, something is worng now, the equation does not make sense!

Sperm+Egg= ??? =fetus=fully developed baby

You cant just mix the sperm and egg and viola, you get a fetus just like that! there is a missing link somewhere in there, what could it be, I wonder?

k with your logic then, take the sperm out of the equation and there is no baby. so condoms are murder and so is ejaculation in any form

Trackaholic wrote:

FK wrote:

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.

I took AP Bio and got a 4 on the exam. Not a 5, but i think i understood the subject pretty well.
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.

+1

I am beginning to think every that is pro-abortion lacks a basic education in biology.

i got a 4 on the AP Bio test last year. Not a 5, but I think I have a basic understanding of biology...

Trackaholic wrote:*sigh* I am not avoiding your question, I answered it. but it seems that I will have to elaborate FK's statement so that you can comprehend how it applies to this situation.

That's a natural occurrence that 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.

What FK is saying is that those unfertilized eggs are ejected so that the fertilized egg will SURVIVE. Therefore ensuring and SUPPORTING its LIFE. ABORTION DOES NOT SUPPORT LIFE IN ANY WAY. The ejection of these unfertilized eggs does. If these unfertilized eggs were not ejected, the fertilized egg would not be able to devlop properly and would probably end up screwing up or killing the baby. So in your hypothetical "courtroom scenario" this would make the woman guilty of the death of the unfertilized eggs and the the developing fetus as well. Adding to her supposed manslaughter.

No, that's not legal. You aren't allowed to sacrifice another human being, for the sake of another human being. An example of this being you can't kill one of your children, so that it can give an organ to save another childs life. Sacrifice isn't legal.

If you want to tell us that a fertilized egg is a human being, you treat it like one. Taking into account that sacrifice is illegal, how do you answer the questions now?

thelagwagon wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:*sigh* I am not avoiding your question, I answered it. but it seems that I will have to elaborate FK's statement so that you can comprehend how it applies to this situation.

That's a natural occurrence that 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.

What FK is saying is that those unfertilized eggs are ejected so that the fertilized egg will SURVIVE. Therefore ensuring and SUPPORTING its LIFE. ABORTION DOES NOT SUPPORT LIFE IN ANY WAY. The ejection of these unfertilized eggs does. If these unfertilized eggs were not ejected, the fertilized egg would not be able to devlop properly and would probably end up screwing up or killing the baby. So in your hypothetical "courtroom scenario" this would make the woman guilty of the death of the unfertilized eggs and the the developing fetus as well. Adding to her supposed manslaughter.

No, that's not legal. You aren't allowed to sacrifice another human being, for the sake of another human being. An example of this being you can't kill one of your children, so that it can give an organ to save another childs life. Sacrifice isn't legal.

If you want to tell us that a fertilized egg is a human being, you treat it like one. Taking into account that sacrifice is illegal, how do you answer the questions now?

Like I said before, it's a natural process that can't be helped. They didn't charge unborn babies with murder before there was such thing as C-Sections.

HXC_Runner2012 wrote:Why do you say you are (for example) 15 years old, when you were conceived 16 years ago?

Because you don't know the exact date of your conception unless you ask your parents a really awkward question, and they could've forgotten.

well you could just count back about 9 months from your birthday and get an idea....

FK wrote:Like I said before, it's a natural process that can't be helped.

No, it can be helped. A woman had sex, and as soon as the egg fertilized the sperm, she created a child. She made a decision. So, even if the actual act of ejecting the egg was uncontrollable, she still gets charged for manslaughter. She has, not by intention, but killed a child, according to you. Because she had control of it (she chose to have sex), and her killing a child was a consequene of that, she is guilty of manslaughter. So, taking this into account, please answer the questions. Should ejected fertilized eggs be treated the same as finding a dead human in a room? You are still dodging it, as you know you can't answer it.

They didn't charge unborn babies with murder before there was such thing as C-Sections.

A baby isn't responsible legally for anything. A baby could shoot the president and walk away a free person. The mother of the child would be legally responsible for all of her actions. So your point doesn't stand.

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

alex-likes-running wrote:

thelagwagon wrote:
I'm glad that politicians think with thier brains, not with their hearts.

imo

Thats exactly why this godforsaken country is going down the tiolet.

Once again, I state my defense that the end result of the fertilized eggs justifies its right to live. If the fertilized egg were truly nothing, then we wouldnt need it in this equation right?:

Sperm+Egg=Fertilized egg=fetus=fully developed baby

seeing as fertilized eggs are not important, lets just cross that out of the equation.

Sperm+Egg=Fertilized egg=fetus=fully developed baby

Hmm, something is worng now, the equation does not make sense!

Sperm+Egg= ??? =fetus=fully developed baby

You cant just mix the sperm and egg and viola, you get a fetus just like that! there is a missing link somewhere in there, what could it be, I wonder?

k with your logic then, take the sperm out of the equation and there is no baby. so condoms are murder and so is ejaculation in any form

Guess what? We catholics are aginst birth control and masturbation for those very same reasons.

No, it can be helped. A woman had sex, and as soon as the egg fertilized the sperm, she created a child. She made a decision. So, even if the actual act of ejecting the egg was uncontrollable, she still gets charged for manslaughter. She has, not by intention, but killed a child, according to you. Because she had control of it (she chose to have sex), and her killing a child was a consequene of that, she is guilty of manslaughter. So, taking this into account, please answer the questions. Should ejected fertilized eggs be treated the same as finding a dead human in a room? You are still dodging it, as you know you can't answer it.

No Laggy, I am not dodging it. If I was dodging it, I would have stopped arguing about it altogether awhile ago. I understand what you are saying but I disagree that it "can be helped". We are thinking in terms of rationality here laggy, putting a woman up for manslaughter because she underwent a biological process she cannot control to dispose of eggs that WOULD NOT become babies in order to CONCIEVE and have a child is entirely irrationaly and quite frankly, silly. This is your only leg to stand on, and its very weak.

Abortion=Can be controlled, can be stopped, against life. Kills babies.
Ejection of unfertilized eggs= Cannot be controlled, cannot be stopped. Pro-life, supports development of fertilized egg.

Abortion and the ejection of unfertilized eggs are almost polar opposites laggy. And you know what? IF THE WOMAN DIDNT HAVE SEX, SHE WOULDNT HAVE TO HAVE AN ABORTION EITHER, LAGGY. SO if your whole standing point is that the ejection of unfertilized eggs is controllable by NOT HAVING SEX. I say to you, SO IS ABORTION.

Circular reasoning laggy.

They didn't charge unborn babies with murder before there was such thing as C-Sections.

A baby isn't responsible legally for anything. A baby could shoot the president and walk away a free person. The mother of the child would be legally responsible for all of her actions. So your point doesn't stand.

what is legal and what is not is decided by men, not by god.

mae2937 wrote:well you could just count back about 9 months from your birthday and get an idea....

you do that, have fun.

HEY EVERYONE LETS AGREE THAT ABORTION IS ETHICAL AND MORAL SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DONT ADD 9 MONTHS TO OUR AGE.

Trackaholic wrote:*sigh* I am not avoiding your question, I answered it. but it seems that I will have to elaborate FK's statement so that you can comprehend how it applies to this situation.

That's a natural occurrence that 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.

What FK is saying is that those unfertilized eggs are ejected so that the fertilized egg will SURVIVE. Therefore ensuring and SUPPORTING its LIFE. ABORTION DOES NOT SUPPORT LIFE IN ANY WAY. The ejection of these unfertilized eggs does. If these unfertilized eggs were not ejected, the fertilized egg would not be able to devlop properly and would probably end up screwing up or killing the baby. So in your hypothetical "courtroom scenario" this would make the woman guilty of the death of the unfertilized eggs and the the developing fetus as well. Adding to her supposed manslaughter.

No, that's not legal. You aren't allowed to sacrifice another human being, for the sake of another human being. An example of this being you can't kill one of your children, so that it can give an organ to save another childs life. Sacrifice isn't legal.

If you want to tell us that a fertilized egg is a human being, you treat it like one. Taking into account that sacrifice is illegal, how do you answer the questions now?

I answer the question very simply laggy, for it is a simple question.

What is legal and what is not legal is concept of man. Not god. God's 6th commandment is that thou shall not kill. an unfertilized egg is not a human being seeing as it is infertile and will never be one. Therefore it is not manslaughter. Second, our bodies and the way they work was fashioned by god, the process of ejecting fertilized eggs was a process created by god so that the fertilized egg could devlop properly. God does not condemn a person for the uncontrollable ejection of unfertile eggs, and neither would an rational court of man.

FK wrote:

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?

Trackaholic wrote:No, it can be helped. A woman had sex, and as soon as the egg fertilized the sperm, she created a child. She made a decision. So, even if the actual act of ejecting the egg was uncontrollable, she still gets charged for manslaughter. She has, not by intention, but killed a child, according to you. Because she had control of it (she chose to have sex), and her killing a child was a consequene of that, she is guilty of manslaughter. So, taking this into account, please answer the questions. Should ejected fertilized eggs be treated the same as finding a dead human in a room? You are still dodging it, as you know you can't answer it.

No Laggy, I am not dodging it. If I was dodging it, I would have stopped arguing about it altogether awhile ago. I understand what you are saying but I disagree that it "can be helped". We are thinking in terms of rationality here laggy, putting a woman up for manslaughter because she underwent a biological process she cannot control to dispose of eggs that WOULD NOT become babies in order to CONCIEVE and have a child is entirely irrationaly and quite frankly, silly. This is your only leg to stand on, and its very weak.

Which is exactly my point! You are treating fertilized eggs differently from human beings! No matter, even if it would save another life, you can't kill another person! And, in your own words, there is no rational way you can treat these eggs like human beings, or mothers all across the world would be guilty of manslaughter for ejecting HUMAN BEINGS according to you. It can be helped, by a woman not having sex. Isn't that a typical thing you pro-lifers suggest?

I said unfertilized eggs were not humans, but I believe fertilized eggs are. dumbass, read my post more thoroughly.

If people only had sex during marriage, and only had sex when they knew the child could be raised, and only had sex TO have children, would there even be a need for an abortion?

No. And dont bring up rapists, there would be no rape if everyone followed the guidelines stated above. Also, the solution to rapists is to put them in jail, not to kill the baby.

The problem is, abortion is a sin that has snowballed from a previous sin (pre marital sex, rape, etc)

Trackaholic wrote:I said unfertilized eggs were not humans, but I believe fertilized eggs are. dumbass, read my post more thoroughly.

Fertilized eggs are ejected. That's the point of my argument. Often more than one egg is in a womans uterus when she has sex. When the multiples eggs are fertilized, one joins onto the uterus wall. The uterus develops a lining stopping the other eggs from joining the wall. They are ejected.

Trackaholic wrote:I said unfertilized eggs were not humans, but I believe fertilized eggs are. dumbass, read my post more thoroughly.

If people only had sex during marriage, and only had sex when they knew the child could be raised, and only had sex TO have children, would there even be a need for an abortion?

No. And dont bring up rapists, there would be no rape if everyone followed the guidelines stated above. Also, the solution to rapists is to put them in jail, not to kill the baby.

The problem is, abortion is a sin that has snowballed from a previous sin (pre marital sex, rape, etc)

ironyy

thelagwagon wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:I said unfertilized eggs were not humans, but I believe fertilized eggs are. dumbass, read my post more thoroughly.

Fertilized eggs are ejected. That's the point of my argument. Often more than one egg is in a womans uterus when she has sex. When the multiples eggs are fertilized, one joins onto the uterus wall. The uterus develops a lining stopping the other eggs from joining the wall. They are ejected.

this is not always so, in the case of twins or quadruplets. So not only does this NOT HAVE to happen, and not only is it uncontrollable if it does, it is a process created by god. God will not condemn anyone for something they could not control or something that he designed to happen on purpose.

George W. Bush will protect your unborn fetus, then send your grown child to die in war

Wow, kind of ironic how that all works out. I don't think God would let that happen Adonai...

^ nope he would, its all part of gods evil scheme

ooh I'm just kidding

what do you mean? you could not be suggesting that Bush's war is not in line with the will of our lord?

Mhm, Mr. Bush is just trying to please the man in the clouds