Debates
18 Sep 07
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallI agree. Certain things should be done to reduce the growth of humans.
Despite your sarcasm, the extinction of any species, fauna or flora, has a more profound consequence on Humanity than an abortion.
The human race is overpopulated.
Putting in legal safeguards to ensure that every possible instance of human life is being protected is illogical and puts further strains on the existing population.
Your inability to be rational doesn't change the fact that we are currently past a sustainable population foot-print.
You don't think a panda fetus is more important than a human one?
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001This question belongs in spirituality, as few except religious enthusiasts have any issues with abortion.
I was wondering how people justify abortion? I mean, how is a fetus not "human." Last time I checked, an unborn baby doesn't magically turn human - or does it?
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84What about retarded people? People with Down Syndrome? Severe mentally handicapped people? Do we understand where we are? Because you have no memory of the party last night now makes you not human? What if I did not dream when you went to sleep? Please tell me precisely what qualifies as human because your definition excludes some handicapped people and even some others.
But there's a massive difference between pre and post birth. Like the prefix implies the baby has literally not been born yet. People are talking about the point at which the fetus gets human rights and I'll offer this: what really separates a human being from animals is our conscioussness, mental capacity, memory, etc. In the early stages of birth the ...[text shortened]... and foremost because it's someone else's body we're talking about, I'm all for them.
Brain waves are detected in unborn babies at about 43 days after fertilization. However, just because that is the earliest time we can detect brain waves, can we say that it is not human?
"Brain death indicates the end of human life as we know it, the dead brain having no capacity to revive itself. But the developing embryo has the natural capacity to bring on the functioning of the brain.[3]" (Andrew Varga, The Main Issues in Bioethics, Second edition (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), pp. 61-62.)
Yogurt will never grow into a human. That bacteria will never grow into a human. An unborn baby has a genetic make-up and has all the components to grow into an adult human being. Yogurt bacteria will never achieve this.
I am talking about abortion as a personal selfish choice. Now, if a woman was pregnant and had medical issues and the ONLY possible way to save the woman from death was a method that would probably kill the unborn baby, then that would be a situation where you could take the child's life as being absolutely unnecessary to save the mother's life.
If the woman was raped, there are several ways to save a human life and not take it out on an innocent life. Adoption is a viable option. There are support groups for that.
"It is a poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
-Mother Teresa
Is choice justified when innocent life is at stake? You apparently think so. I hope no one ever makes the choice to kill you.
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Well, a few things...
What about retarded people? People with Down Syndrome? Severe mentally handicapped people? Do we understand where we are? Because you have no memory of the party last night now makes you not human? What if I did not dream when you went to sleep? Please tell me precisely what qualifies as human because your definition excludes some handicapped peop ...[text shortened]... e is at stake? You apparently think so. I hope no one ever makes the choice to kill you.
brain waves are simply emissions of the electrical impulses of the nerves, which does not suggest pain or the ability to feel it, that comes later in development.
You still seem to be concentrating on potential but have not answered my point on the contradiction if it is merely the potential that grants the foetus rights.
Finally, and this is a very important point...
+++Mother Teresa, when she said that, was speaking about orphans dying of disease, malnourishment and the life of a street child generally in Calcutta (remember, the reason she's famous is for caring for orphans). These children were not able to be cared for by their parents and were either abandoned or given up for adoption.+++
It was precisely because they weren't aborted before they could feel pain that Mother Teresa spent her life giving palatative care to children as they died slowly over the course of weeks or more in great pain.
21 Sep 07
1 edit
An unborn baby has a genetic make-up and has all the components to grow into an adult human being.So do dead people in theory.
Your argument for rape victims completely ignores that trauma that the women in question has to suffer. Not only the rape itself but now you want to put her through nine months of carrying the memory around in her body, stress and strain on her body, loss of time at work, childbirth, the emotional stress and possible guilt of having her child adopted and consign her forever to being a mother without choice.
You want to do this because you have a dogmatic attachment to a thing that would not survive on its own and in all probability has no clue it even exists.
Nice.
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by agrysonActually at the moment of conception, there are two cells that unite and start dividing so it is not one cell that begins to divide but rather only when both the sperm and the egg cell form into each other does the process actually technically begin. Anytime before that the process of a human growing will not begin and therefore it cannot be thought of as human being until the 2 cells unite and begin to divide.
But at the moment of conception, you have a single cell with a single and individual genetic make-up. It so happens that this is a human cell, with the potential to become a fully fledged and productive member of society. That much I understand (if I'm not mistaken, that's what you mean, the cell has the potential and that that potential is in and of itself ...[text shortened]... rly from your response, you do, would you care to expand on where the distinction can be made?
Also, it is not that when the two cells unite and start dividing that there is a "potential" of a human because every baby born is human-we don't have non-humans being born- so when the cells begin dividing there "is" a human and not a "potential" human.
Just because something is obviously "consciousness" does not make it human. If you play football and lose consciousness, does that mean you are not human for the time you are unconsciousness? No, you have the genetic code of a human and your body is alive and growing.
The Catholic Church has a document that explains the moral part of something such as the rythm method.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
go to the section under "Recourse to Infertile Periods"
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by agrysonIt is not the "potential" that gives a "fetus" rights but rather the fact that it "is" human. When the egg and sperm form and begin to divide, it is no longer a "potential" but rather an "actuality" that it is human.
Well, a few things...
brain waves are simply emissions of the electrical impulses of the nerves, which does not suggest pain or the ability to feel it, that comes later in development.
You still seem to be concentrating on potential but have not answered my point on the contradiction if it is merely the potential that grants the foetus rights.
Finally, ...[text shortened]... alatative care to children as they died slowly over the course of weeks or more in great pain.
Okay so the Mother Teresa qoute may have not been the best. I was trying to point out that a large majority of abortions are done for selfish reasons and rarely for legitimate health reasons.
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001No, it's not the fact that's it's human. If a fetus has rights, it's because it's a person. If it doesn't it's because it's not a person.
It is not the "potential" that gives a "fetus" rights but rather the fact that it "is" human. When the egg and sperm form and begin to divide, it is no longer a "potential" but rather an "actuality" that it is human.
Okay so the Mother Teresa qoute may have not been the best. I was trying to point out that a large majority of abortions are done for selfish reasons and rarely for legitimate health reasons.
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallSo when the scientist that may discover a cure for cancer is aborted as a baby, I guess that won't impact humanity too much.
Despite your sarcasm, the extinction of any species, fauna or flora, has a more profound consequence on Humanity than an abortion.
The human race is overpopulated.
Putting in legal safeguards to ensure that every possible instance of human life is being protected is illogical and puts further strains on the existing population.
Your inability to be rational doesn't change the fact that we are currently past a sustainable population foot-print.
I doubt the human race is overpopulated. France is paying its citizens to have children.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1575401,00.html
Have you ever traveled in the U.S.A.? There are some really desolate areas. If you always stay in a city, it's easy to think that the world is overpopulated.
21 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by eagleeye222001What about those who may kill the scientist who might discover that cure? Abort them and the cancer cure is saved.
So when the scientist that may discover a cure for cancer is aborted as a baby, I guess that won't impact humanity too much.
I doubt the human race is overpopulated. France is paying its citizens to have children.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1575401,00.html
Have you ever traveled in the U.S.A.? There are some really desolate areas. If you always stay in a city, it's easy to think that the world is overpopulated.
We know there are lots of killers, but how common is the cancer curing scientist? Thus abortion should increase the odds of cancer curing. It's been proven that legal abortion correlates with less crime ~20 years down the road. I've yet to see an inverse correlation between legal abortions and scientific advances.
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHow does abortion correlate to less crime when an innocent human life is taken with every abortion? Sounds like more killing to me!
What about those who may kill the scientist who might discover that cure? Abort them and the cancer cure is saved.
We know there are lots of killers, but how common is the cancer curing scientist? Thus abortion should increase the odds of cancer curing. It's been proven that legal abortion correlates with less crime ~20 years down the road. I've yet to see an inverse correlation between legal abortions and scientific advances.
Where is this that abortions correlate to less crime? Do you have a link to a credible source on this?