Really? Here it says there are multiple answers and not one:
"descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior."
And yet, that is a definition made by humans, it depends whether God tells you what morality is or if what we see is all we have.
Do we use the texts of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam? Also, which of the religions within those parent religions do we use to guide us? And why are all of the others incorrect? Why do all of these variations exist in the first place?
If you want a thorough, detailed answer for that (I'm a Messianic Jew that believes Christ is the Messiah), PM me.
That's your conception of it
No, that's the definition.
it comes down to whether God exists or not.
Let us assume for … morethe sake of argument that god does exist. Which interpretation of his will are we supposed to use to guide our morality? Do we use the texts of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam? Also, which of the religions within those parent religions do we use to guide us? And why are all of the others incorrect? Why do all of these variations exist in the first place?
Geez, I'm just 16, I guess putting the responsibility on the rapist is better.. Didn't think that through.
Putting the responsibility is a much better idea, especially if the rapist can be caught and tried. It's a decent idea that works for both sides of the argument. If the woman wants to abort the child, the rapist should pay for it, and if she wants to have the child the rapist should pay for it. As well as serving his sentence.
And how is it more reasonable? Forcing a woman to bear a rape child is against her will, IMO."Give the child a chance!". Why? That child wasn't even supposed to exist until its fucked up rapist father decided otherwise. Or maybe didn't even decide anything, it just happened along the way.
Fetus isn't a developed human being yet and won't become one until mid-to-late period of pregnancy. Also, what do rocks and particles of air have to do with anything? Do you mean that a child has to be born simply because we can't make humans out of air or stone yet? That's a strange argument, for sure.
I still think that giving birth to a child against your will is more reasonable than taking away the right to live from someone, I guess I w… moreon't change your mind, nor will Belan...
You think they don't exist so they can be aborted, that's what you insist on, but they do exist upon fertilization and even if they don't, they are still taken the right to live, you can't transform a rock or particles of air into humans, while a fetus can grown into a full human being.
I still think that giving birth to a child against your will is more reasonable than taking away the right to live from someone, I guess I w… moreon't change your mind, nor will Belan...
You think they don't exist so they can be aborted, that's what you insist on, but they do exist upon fertilization and even if they don't, they are still taken the right to live, you can't transform a rock or particles of air into humans, while a fetus can grown into a full human being.
And how is it more reasonable? Forcing a woman to bear a rape child is against her will
I don't know if we should force them to, but I know for certain that the act of aborting the baby isn't right, and all I can do is try to explain it, I guess she has the right to choose, but that's something I'm still conflicted about.
That child wasn't even supposed to exist
Yet it does, I'm sorry, but it does.
Do you mean that a child has to be born simply because we can't make humans out of air or stone yet? That's a strange argument, for sure.
I was just referring to something Viva-La-Lee said earlier, I didn't make that up.
And how is it more reasonable? Forcing a woman to bear a rape child is against her will, IMO."Give the child a chance!". Why? That child was… moren't even supposed to exist until its fucked up rapist father decided otherwise. Or maybe didn't even decide anything, it just happened along the way.
Fetus isn't a developed human being yet and won't become one until mid-to-late period of pregnancy. Also, what do rocks and particles of air have to do with anything? Do you mean that a child has to be born simply because we can't make humans out of air or stone yet? That's a strange argument, for sure.
Forcing a living person into trauma for something that is not living is not more acceptable. It's disgusting. You're forcing her to either g… moreive birth or get it removed in a less safe way. If she truly wishes to get rid of it she will, and you're limiting her to a potentially harmful situation because you place the wellbeing of a group of cells over that of a real living person.
They aren't alive, so yes. They exist in no greater way than any other tiny globule of cells, the woman does. She can think, and feel, and love, and hate, and regret, and despise. She is living. They do not exist upon fertilization, for that logic they exist when the genetic material is in the same place (since this leads to the cell building process, which in turn leads to the creation of more cells and eventually a person). Two fetal cells in no more human than a sperm and an egg.
I don't know if we should force them to, but I know for certain that the act of aborting the baby isn't right, and all I can do is try to explain it, I guess she has the right to choose, but that's something I'm still conflicted about.
If it's something that isn't right, explain to me why. I can already guess what it might be, but do tell why it isn't right.
Yet it does, I'm sorry, but it does.
No. It's not a predefined act that was supposed to happen, but a spontaneous one that happened on a whim of the rapist. So, sorry, but it wasn't supposed to happen. Unless, of course, you have an explanation on why it was supposed to happen.
And how is it more reasonable? Forcing a woman to bear a rape child is against her will
I don't know if we should force them to, but… more I know for certain that the act of aborting the baby isn't right, and all I can do is try to explain it, I guess she has the right to choose, but that's something I'm still conflicted about.
That child wasn't even supposed to exist
Yet it does, I'm sorry, but it does.
Do you mean that a child has to be born simply because we can't make humans out of air or stone yet? That's a strange argument, for sure.
I was just referring to something Viva-La-Lee said earlier, I didn't make that up.
Really? Here it says there are multiple answers and not one:
"descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior."
And yet, that is a definition made by humans, it depends whether God tells you what morality is or if what we see is all we have.
All religious texts that humans use as their moral compasses are also written by humans.
If you want a thorough, detailed answer for that (I'm a Messianic Jew that believes Christ is the Messiah), PM me.
I would prefer if you were to type it out here in the public forum, so that we may further this public discussion, and allow others to give us their thoughts as well.
the definition.
Really? Here it says there are multiple answers and not one:
"descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put… more forward by a society or some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior."
And yet, that is a definition made by humans, it depends whether God tells you what morality is or if what we see is all we have.
Do we use the texts of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam? Also, which of the religions within those parent religions do we use to guide us? And why are all of the others incorrect? Why do all of these variations exist in the first place?
If you want a thorough, detailed answer for that (I'm a Messianic Jew that believes Christ is the Messiah), PM me.
Really? Here it says there are multiple answers and not one:
"descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a societ… morey or some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior."
And yet, that is a definition made by humans, it depends whether God tells you what morality is or if what we see is all we have.
All religious texts that humans use as their moral compasses are also written by humans.
If you want a thorough, detailed answer for that (I'm a Messianic Jew that believes Christ is the Messiah), PM me.
I would prefer if you were to type it out here in the public forum, so that we may further this public discussion, and allow others to give us their thoughts as well.
If it's something that isn't right, explain to me why.
Read everything Belan, Tinni and I wrote (since we think pretty much the same), I don't think that repeating myself would profit anyone.
So, sorry, but it wasn't supposed to happen. Unless, of course, you have an explanation on why it was supposed to happen.
Oops, sorry I kind of confused my replies to your last comment (explains why I used "does" instead of "was"), what I meant to say was that even if it is a mistake, it has the right to live resulting from its undeniable existence. That's what I believe at least.
I don't know if we should force them to, but I know for certain that the act of aborting the baby isn't right, and all I can do is try to ex… moreplain it, I guess she has the right to choose, but that's something I'm still conflicted about.
If it's something that isn't right, explain to me why. I can already guess what it might be, but do tell why it isn't right.
Yet it does, I'm sorry, but it does.
No. It's not a predefined act that was supposed to happen, but a spontaneous one that happened on a whim of the rapist. So, sorry, but it wasn't supposed to happen. Unless, of course, you have an explanation on why it was supposed to happen.
Read everything Belan, Tinni and I wrote (since we think pretty much the same), I don't think that repeating myself would profit anyone.
Oh, I did. The majority of it. It all goes around the same point. "Because it isn't right/morally wrong/selfish." Can you, however, give me a rational/practical/pragmatic reason to be against abortion? I might sound like I don't think these reasons are rational, but they are vague at best. Can you make them less "vague"?
Oops, sorry I kind of confused my replies to your last comment (explains why I used "does" instead of "was"), what I meant to say was that even if it is a mistake, it has the right to live resulting from its undeniable existence. That's what I believe at least.
Well, there's a difference between a child having a right to live and being supposed to exist. I'm not arguing with the former point, really. Only the latter, in case of rape children.
If it's something that isn't right, explain to me why.
Read everything Belan, Tinni and I wrote (since we think pretty much the same… more), I don't think that repeating myself would profit anyone.
So, sorry, but it wasn't supposed to happen. Unless, of course, you have an explanation on why it was supposed to happen.
Oops, sorry I kind of confused my replies to your last comment (explains why I used "does" instead of "was"), what I meant to say was that even if it is a mistake, it has the right to live resulting from its undeniable existence. That's what I believe at least.
This is situational to me as I stated. Also, I support the death penalty, so I don't support the protection of all human life.
The death penalty is an exception, as it is an upholding of the protection of life by punishing those who directly violate it. Those who commit murder really don't deserve to have their lives protected. An unborn baby deserves to have their life protected, and I do not think this should be subject to the financial/ emotional situation of the parents. It's life should be protected regardless of that.
Actually you can, the practice was known as weregild.
Well, sure you can. I didn't mean it literally, I was speaking more to what is morally righteous. I think there is a reason why such a thing is no longer around today
In my opinion, in a rape situation, it is right if it's what the raped woman wants. I personally don't think that denying an unborn child a chance at life is more wrong than willingly undergoing a pregnancy you didn't want, and suffering potential financial debt, as well as a constant reminder of the events that lead up to it. Altering the entire course of your life due to an unwanted pregnancy that was forced onto you by a rapist is crazy to me. I don't really see the overall justification for it, and I disagree with the mindset. Adding all of these hardships on top of the rape itself, to me, is something I would never want to force upon anyone.
But how does angst and finances add up to human life? It really doesn't. This baby only has one shot at life, and that shouldn't be stolen because of the emotional stress of the parents. It doesn't seem right to just say "Sorry bud, mom and dad can't handle the burden of the situation, so we're just going to make it all go away for them and rob you of your chance to live." Mom and Dad's lives go back to normal (well maybe not, in the case of rape), but the babies one shot at life is gone forever. That just... seems incredibly unfair to me. Its hard for me to imagine how someone could personally be selfish enough to let their own shitty situation cause someone else to pay the ultimate price. It's hard for me to imagine that someone could honestly wash their hands of their life problems at the expense of an unborn baby. I strongly feel that emotional pain (maybe even short term) or financial struggles (maybe short term) =/= taking away someone's chance to live. The circumstances should not dictate the baby's fate.
This entire debate is almost completely pointless though. This is one of those topics where no matter what is said and no matter how much reasoning is offered, no one is going to change their mind.
I disagree, as I think the protection of human life (born or not yet born) is something that should be upheld by the law.
This is si… moretuational to me as I stated. Also, I support the death penalty, so I don't support the protection of all human life.
Can't put a price tag on human life, right? It's just not right to me. Obviously this situation would be terrible for the parents, but that doesn't justify the snuffing out of human life in my opinion. I think their potential financial and even mental detriments do not add up to unfairly (and unjustly in my opinion) taking away an unborn's life.
Actually you can, the practice was known as weregild. In my opinion, in a rape situation, it is right if it's what the raped woman wants. I'll continue on this in the next segment.
Nah, I would never label you as a murderer in this case. I understand your reasoning here, and I understand you're just trying to be pragmatic about i… [view original content]
Sorry, you'll have to suffice with what I said, but maybe Belan or Tinni can make it "less vague" (even though I don't see how it's vague), because I don't really know how to explain it other than how I did.
I'm not arguing with the former point, really. Only the latter, in case of rape children.
I see, but if it's not supposed to exist, yet it does in fact exist, grows and slowly takes full human form, I believe that the moment the baby exists s/he gets the right which I call "right of undeniable existence" as in;
As long as no one intervenes, they will naturally be born, they will be alive, and by that I think they are inclined to the right of not being "aborted" in the womb.
Read everything Belan, Tinni and I wrote (since we think pretty much the same), I don't think that repeating myself would profit anyone.
… more
Oh, I did. The majority of it. It all goes around the same point. "Because it isn't right/morally wrong/selfish." Can you, however, give me a rational/practical/pragmatic reason to be against abortion? I might sound like I don't think these reasons are rational, but they are vague at best. Can you make them less "vague"?
Oops, sorry I kind of confused my replies to your last comment (explains why I used "does" instead of "was"), what I meant to say was that even if it is a mistake, it has the right to live resulting from its undeniable existence. That's what I believe at least.
Well, there's a difference between a child having a right to live and being supposed to exist. I'm not arguing with the former point, really. Only the latter, in case of rape children.
They shouldn't be banned in my opinion. There is a difference between killing off a developing human fetus and preventing fertilization. I mean, if we wanted to get into the whole idea that protection robs people of the chance to live, we would also have to say that abstaining from sex does the same thing (which is obviously a silly point to make). It's not a parallel point, and is an apples-oranges comparison. There is a difference between preventing fertilization and terminating the process of human development/ birth.
Sorry, you'll have to suffice with what I said, but maybe Belan or Tinni can make it "less vague" (even though I don't see how it's vague), because I don't really know how to explain it other than how I did.
Well, if you can't, I doubt they can, either.
I see, but if it's not supposed to exist, yet it does in fact exist, grows and slowly takes full human form, I believe that the moment the baby exists s/he gets the right which I call "right of undeniable existence"
Again, this wasn't something planned/predefined. Just because it got conceived doesn't mean it was supposed to. But, repeating this point is beating a dead horse. Other people have explained it in depth, so I won't.
Can you make them less "vague"?
Sorry, you'll have to suffice with what I said, but maybe Belan or Tinni can make it "less vague" (e… moreven though I don't see how it's vague), because I don't really know how to explain it other than how I did.
I'm not arguing with the former point, really. Only the latter, in case of rape children.
I see, but if it's not supposed to exist, yet it does in fact exist, grows and slowly takes full human form, I believe that the moment the baby exists s/he gets the right which I call "right of undeniable existence" as in;
As long as no one intervenes, they will naturally be born, they will be alive, and by that I think they are inclined to the right of not being "aborted" in the womb.
Is that enough "common sense" for you? I don't know.. As long as those studies referred to in the articles aren't debunked, I will have to suggest life does, in fact, begin at conception.
Sorry, you'll have to suffice with what I said, but maybe Belan or Tinni can make it "less vague" (even though I don't see how it's vague), … morebecause I don't really know how to explain it other than how I did.
Well, if you can't, I doubt they can, either.
I see, but if it's not supposed to exist, yet it does in fact exist, grows and slowly takes full human form, I believe that the moment the baby exists s/he gets the right which I call "right of undeniable existence"
Again, this wasn't something planned/predefined. Just because it got conceived doesn't mean it was supposed to. But, repeating this point is beating a dead horse. Other people have explained it in depth, so I won't.
Here's an example for the twisted human conception of morality:
Tell me the truth, when you see on TV a tiger hunting down a zebra, do you go to the police and demand them to throw the tiger into a jail cell, or simply say "nature is amazing" and continue with your life?
If you don't demand that tiger to be judged, and do think that human murderers should be judged,
The tiger in that instance isn't murdering on a whim, the tiger is killing for food. If the tiger did not kill the zebra then the tiger would starve and die. Tigers generally do not kill other tigers for food, just as humans generally do not kill other humans for food. When a tiger kills another tiger and eats him, it is up to other tigers to decide if they want to associate with that tiger or not. I'm sure that if a tiger killed and ate a mother tiger's cubs that she would attempt to kill him. The situation would not be very different if we replaced humans with tigers. Also, tigers are not a part of human society, and do not follow human laws.
it would be pure hypocrisy, to think that us humans can rule this world, enslave animals and create a fucking holocaust off of their lives, making such grandiose statements about how we are so fucking moral in our special way, do you think that is true?
Humans are on top of the food chain, this is true. We also kill and eat other animals, this is true. Any omnivorous or carnivorous mammal that tops the food chain will eat the meat of animals it kills. The same mammal at the top of the food chain will also not be eating members of its own species, except in a few abnormal circumstances. A tiger might not have any interest in killing and eating another tiger, but it might be very interested in eating a human. A human might not have any interest in eating another human, but a human might be very interested in eating a cow. Different species of animals form their own societies, and exist within them, all while eating other animals.
There is nothing grandiose about eating other creatures, it's simply a fact of life. There is also nothing grandiose or hypocritical about claiming that morality comes down to individual perception/experience, while also eating other animals. It is simply a fact of life. Even if humans didn't eat any animals, and their populations skyrocketed, we would still be butchering them to feed our pets and the animals in zoos. Things eating thing is a part of life. It doesn't have to be pretty.
That is one way in which humans are no better than animals, unless you acknowledge the fact that there is something beyond us that gives humanity the right to eat meat.
So basically you are using god as an excuse to commit something you recognize as genocide? I've heard this before somewhere.
It all comes down to God when talking about morality, because God is not affected by emotions and decides universally while humans make morals out of their own life experiences and individual perspectives.
It all comes down to God when talking about morality, because God is not affected by emotions and decides universally
Which interpretation of his will are we supposed to use to guide our morality? Do we use the texts of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam? Also, which of the religions within those parent religions do we use to guide us? And why are all of the others incorrect? Why do all of these variations exist in the first place?
while humans make morals out of their own life experiences and individual perspectives.
That almost sounds like subjective morality to me.
Morality is subjective if God doesn't exist, and it's objective if God does exist, I believe you are atheist if you don't think there are criteria for "good" and "bad", right?
I am an atheist. I also didn't say that "there are no criteria for 'good' and 'bad.'" I said that these criteria vary between individuals.
Morality is a distinction of what is right and what is wrong, and this perception is different for each individual person.
That's yo… moreur conception of it, it comes down to whether God exists or not.
Here's an example for the twisted human conception of morality:
Tell me the truth, when you see on TV a tiger hunting down a zebra, do you go to the police and demand them to throw the tiger into a jail cell, or simply say "nature is amazing" and continue with your life?
If you don't demand that tiger to be judged, and do think that human murderers should be judged, it would be pure hypocrisy, to think that us humans can rule this world, enslave animals and create a fucking holocaust off of their lives, making such grandiose statements about how we are so fucking moral in our special way, do you think that is true?
^ That is one way in which humans are no better than animals, unless you acknowledge the fact that there is somethin… [view original content]
I would prefer if you were to type it out here in the public forum, so that we may further this public discussion, and allow others to give us their thoughts as well.
All religious texts that humans use as their moral compasses are also written by humans.
Again, that comes down to whether God exist… mores or not.
allow others to give us their thoughts as well.
That, my friend, will end up in this thread getting closed... Trust me.
They shouldn't be banned in my opinion. There is a difference between killing off a developing human fetus and preventing fertilization. I m… moreean, if we wanted to get into the whole idea that protection robs people of the chance to live, we would also have to say that abstaining from sex does the same thing (which is obviously a silly point to make). It's not a parallel point, and is an apples-oranges comparison. There is a difference between preventing fertilization and terminating the process of human development/ birth.
I'm going to avoid this because it is all pretty much addressed in our other conversation.
Could you address the points here, considering this is where we are actively discussing the issue? I don't believe that anything that I said there is even debatable, opinionated, or up to interpretation. I'll just copy and paste it here:
"This goes back to what we were discussing on the other page (haven't had a chance to get to your latest post on that page yet). It doesn't matter if you want to refuse to acknowledge them as living while they are developing in the womb, the fact remains that you are taking something away from them. How is this even disputable? If you were to not interfere at all, they would obviously continue to develop and be born into the world. So, through the act of abortion you are very clearly taking something away from them, regardless of whether or not you want to twist the argument into you personally not viewing them as being alive at the point the abortion is enacted. Your view on this doesn't change the fact that you're changing something, that you're actively preventing and stopping human life. To argue that you personally do not view the fetus as a living being is totally 100% irrelevant to the fact that either way you're taking away human life by the very action of stopping it/ aborting it/ terminating it/ killing it."
You're right, but I feel understating the event only makes it more appealing, or at least less negative, to force the woman to continue in a traumatizing fashion. Something I could never, and don't see how anyone ever could, do to a person.
Because it's about more than just the mother's personal suffering.
You prevent life every time you (or anyone) engages in sex while wearing a condom. Should we ban the use of condoms so that every possible human being gets the chance to live their life? There are millions of sperm that should have connected with an egg that never got to go any further, that isn't fair to the child that would have been born from that combination of genetic material, is it?
"They shouldn't be banned in my opinion. There is a difference between killing off a developing human fetus and preventing fertilization. I mean, if we wanted to get into the whole idea that protection robs people of the chance to live, we would also have to say that abstaining from sex does the same thing (which is obviously a silly point to make). It's not a parallel point, and is an apples-oranges comparison. There is a huge difference between preventing fertilization and terminating the process of human development/ birth."
When that someone doesn't exist and the mother does, it's actually < (but don't misconstrue, the clump of cells is not a someone). Emotional suffering on this level can hardly be expected for be "x" amount of time... that is a life long baggage, only made worse by forcing her into more trauma. And that is what is disgusting.
The fetus exists, as does it's ongoing development towards birth. As has been stated before, it does not matter if you want to downplay it's existence, you're still affecting it in the worst kind of way, and you're taking away it's life (the fetus would be born if left to naturally develop).
The whole point of me saying "x" amount of time was to indicate it could be any given amount of time, including a lifetime. It's definitely terrible for a mother to go through, but it adds zero justification to the act of abortion.
This goes back to what we were discussing on the other page (haven't had a chance to get to your latest post on that page yet). It doesn't m… moreatter if you want to refuse to acknowledge them as living while they are developing in the womb, the fact remains that you are taking something away from them. How is this even disputable? If you were to not interfere at all, they would obviously continue to develop and be born into the world. So, through the act of abortion you are very clearly taking something away from them, regardless of whether or not you want to twist the argument into you personally not viewing them as being alive at the point the abortion is enacted. Your view on this doesn't change the fact that you're changing something, that you're actively preventing and stopping human life. To argue that you personally do not view the fetus as a living being is totally 100% irrelevant to the fact that either way you're taking away human life … [view original content]
It is living, the moment the egg is fertilized is the beginning of human development. This is what defines the characteristics of a living being in terms of basic text book Biology:
1.Living things are highly organized.
2.All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3.All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4.All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5.All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment of fertilization, the being is highly organized – it’s sex, hair and skin color, and facial features are already determined. From the moment of fertilization, the being has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species.) Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence.
And here's some evidence debunking your "it's a clump of cells and nothing more" claim..
The claim that embryos are no different in kind from ordinary body cells is just plain false. Dr. Maureen Condic, Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, writes that from conception forward, human embryos clearly function as whole living organisms. They are not mere collections of cells like those on a corpse, but are “living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances.“they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death—the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living human cells….It is precisely this ability that breaks down at the moment of death, however death might occur. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer function together in a coordinated manner.”
(”Maureen L. Condic, “Life: Defining the Beginning by the End,” First Things, May 2003.)
Forcing a living person into trauma for something that is not living is not more acceptable. It's disgusting. You're forcing her to either g… moreive birth or get it removed in a less safe way. If she truly wishes to get rid of it she will, and you're limiting her to a potentially harmful situation because you place the wellbeing of a group of cells over that of a real living person.
They aren't alive, so yes. They exist in no greater way than any other tiny globule of cells, the woman does. She can think, and feel, and love, and hate, and regret, and despise. She is living. They do not exist upon fertilization, for that logic they exist when the genetic material is in the same place (since this leads to the cell building process, which in turn leads to the creation of more cells and eventually a person). Two fetal cells in no more human than a sperm and an egg.
Just Googled "does life begin at conception?", here's the first thing I saw:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/18/undisputed-scientific-fac… moret-human-life-begins-at-conception-or-fertilization/
And then this:
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Aaaaand this:
http://www.naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception/
Is that enough "common sense" for you? I don't know.. As long as those studies referred to in the articles aren't debunked, I will have to suggest life does, in fact, begin at conception.
It's really not. One leads to the next step in the formation of a person, the other leads to the next step in the formation of a person. So, ban condoms and ban abstinence so every possible person gets their chance. It's only fair.
They shouldn't be banned in my opinion. There is a difference between killing off a developing human fetus and preventing fertilization. I m… moreean, if we wanted to get into the whole idea that protection robs people of the chance to live, we would also have to say that abstaining from sex does the same thing (which is obviously a silly point to make). It's not a parallel point, and is an apples-oranges comparison. There is a difference between preventing fertilization and terminating the process of human development/ birth.
You do realize that that child would grow up to be a taxpayer, correct? Ultimately, it will contribute back to society greater then the cost of it's birth.
It's a long term investment that includes a lot of what ifs. Such as the kid committing suicide before contributing back, or spending the vast majority of their life in prison for a heinous crime. There's also the possibility of them becoming a valued member of society, however, I'd rather my tax money be invested in something else.
Let the mother have kids on her own terms, and let those kids be a long term investment and future tax payers. Even if this scenario includes a lot of what ifs as well, the mother is still having children on her own terms.
Also, tigers are not a part of human society, and do not follow human laws.
Why do you think we're so goddamn different from them then? Do you really believe that all of the distinguishes between humans and animals are a result of mere evolutionary evolvement? I don't, oh well.
Any omnivorous or carnivorous mammal that tops the food chain will eat the meat of animals it kills. The same mammal at the top of the food chain will also not be eating members of its own species
There is nothing grandiose about eating other creatures, it's simply a fact of life.
Vegans live a healthy life without eating meat, there is not human critical need for meat in our lives, eating animals can be prevented for the simple fact that today's society has found replacements for meat.
So basically you are using god as an excuse to commit something you recognize as genocide? I've heard this before somewhere.
Where? Inquisitions? Don't make me laugh, God never said to the Christians to do what they did.
On the other hand, God allowed humans to eat meat in Genesis.
And here's a fun fact: In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were vegans; they did not eat meat at all, and God only allowed humans to eat meat afterwards because he saw that humans can't control their urges to not murder and kill eachother, he still wanted them to live in peace with the animals.
That is also why people believe when Christ will arrive they will all live in peace together again:
"And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them." (Isaiah 11:6)
Which interpretation of his will are we supposed to use to guide our morality?Which interpretation of his will are we supposed to use to guide our morality?
That's not relevant as long as God doesn't exist to you, is it?
I also didn't say that "there are no criteria for 'good' and 'bad.'" I said that these criteria vary between individuals.
When I said "no criteria" I meant that it's not absolute and changes between people, I guess I should have phrased it better.
Here's an example for the twisted human conception of morality:
Tell me the truth, when you see on TV a tiger hunting down a zebra, d… moreo you go to the police and demand them to throw the tiger into a jail cell, or simply say "nature is amazing" and continue with your life?
If you don't demand that tiger to be judged, and do think that human murderers should be judged,
The tiger in that instance isn't murdering on a whim, the tiger is killing for food. If the tiger did not kill the zebra then the tiger would starve and die. Tigers generally do not kill other tigers for food, just as humans generally do not kill other humans for food. When a tiger kills another tiger and eats him, it is up to other tigers to decide if they want to associate with that tiger or not. I'm sure that if a tiger killed and ate a mother tiger's cubs that she would attempt to kill him. The situation would not be very different if we replaced humans w… [view original content]
We don't dictate what is and isn't supposed to exist. The rape unfortunately happened, there is now another life in question, and saying it shouldn't exist doesn't negate the fact that it does. It is the rapist's fault it happened, not the baby's. "Getting rid of it" will not bring the woman peace or ease the pain of the rape, it will only increase it. Now along with being the victim of rape she is now the mother of a dead baby.
fetus isn't a developed human being yet and won't become one until mid-to-late period of pregnancy.
Conception/fertilization is the beginning of human life. The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month old baby, a 2 year old toddler, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation.
And how is it more reasonable? Forcing a woman to bear a rape child is against her will, IMO."Give the child a chance!". Why? That child was… moren't even supposed to exist until its fucked up rapist father decided otherwise. Or maybe didn't even decide anything, it just happened along the way.
Fetus isn't a developed human being yet and won't become one until mid-to-late period of pregnancy. Also, what do rocks and particles of air have to do with anything? Do you mean that a child has to be born simply because we can't make humans out of air or stone yet? That's a strange argument, for sure.
It is not the same thing. Just because both are related to birth does not mean the processes are the same. There is a massive difference between not fertilizing an egg and actually killing/destroying an already developing human being. In the case of the latter, a human being would be born into the world if left alone. In the case of the former... nothing happens, period. This alone shows that the two are not comparable. Would you argue that a 17 year old girl abstaining from sexual intercourse is actively robbing people of the chance to live? You could certainly do so, but it would be a ridiculous thing to argue, and is obviously vastly different from actively stopping/terminating an already developing human being. Am I personally robbing people of the chance to live because I'm not going around the neighborhood sleeping around? You could make the argument that I am, but that again is a ridiculous point to make.
It's really not. One leads to the next step in the formation of a person, the other leads to the next step in the formation of a person. So, ban condoms and ban abstinence so every possible person gets their chance. It's only fair.
I already talked to you about it some time ago, I'm not going to engage in one of those again... I don't have the mindset to argue hours with someone who thinks the opposite way I do.
Anyway, I think we can talk about abortion without bringing God up, since I feel like the biggest difference between you and me is what defines a human being.
I would prefer if you were to type it out here in the public forum, so that we may further this public discussion, and allow others to give us their thoughts as well.
Well I'm interested.
Personal feelings, probably for the best. This world fucking sucks. Parents don't care about their children, to grow up as a child infused with a seed of pain sucks. Those crack baby kids, man. So fucking sad.
Dude, those were literally the 3 first links that popped up, I didn't cherry pick the web from a sea of articles supporting what you said, in fact, I didn't see a single one denying the fact life begins at conception but links to blogs and what not (with personal opinions), which are not legit places to bring you links to.
You want to call me out for bringing up false information? Prove it to be wrong and then accuse it of being wrong, not the other way around.
Yet you still haven't shown me a single legit place where it says life doesn't begin at conception.
Alright, I was just saying I would be interested to see the discussion you and I had between others. Ours wasn't a particularly good one considering I didn't know what I was getting into
I already talked to you about it some time ago, I'm not going to engage in one of those again... I don't have the mindset to argue hours wit… moreh someone who thinks the opposite way I do.
Anyway, I think we can talk about abortion without bringing God up, since I feel like the biggest difference between you and me is what defines a human being.
We don't dictate what is and isn't supposed to exist.
And what/who does? Is it God?
The rape happened, there is now another life in question, and saying it shouldn't exist doesn't negate the fact that it does.
A rape that happened because some rapist decided it's a good day to rape somebody. A woman didn't ask to get raped nor did she want to get pregnant, from her rapist, no less. But, let's ignore that because it's "selfish".
Conception/fertilization is the beginning of human life.
Is the fetus at that point of life the same as the already matured adult? I doubt it. In my opinion, the "human" begins only when the baby starts showing signs of cognitive development. That's why I mentioned "mid-to-late pregnancy" as my example.
We don't dictate what is and isn't supposed to exist. The rape unfortunately happened, there is now another life in question, and saying it … moreshouldn't exist doesn't negate the fact that it does. It is the rapist's fault it happened, not the baby's. "Getting rid of it" will not bring the woman peace or ease the pain of the rape, it will only increase it. Now along with being the victim of rape she is now the mother of a dead baby.
fetus isn't a developed human being yet and won't become one until mid-to-late period of pregnancy.
Conception/fertilization is the beginning of human life. The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month old baby, a 2 year old toddler, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation.
'm glad your father was and is such a positive influence in your life. I unfortunately cannot say the same for my father, he was not right in the head.
You're welcome. I'm glad your father was and is such a positive influence in your life. I unfortunately cannot say the same for my father, h… moree was not right in the head. Thankfully my mother made sure to expose me to many good men when I was little to make up for his downfalls, such as the pastor at our church, and local policemen and firemen. If anything, because of my time with my father I know everything a real man isn't and shouldn't be. As you said, real men will protect and take care of their families no matter what, they aren't cowards, they face their responsibilities, they love their children unconditionally and are present in their lives trying to be the best role model they can be.
So, and this applies to both men and women, if you are having sex, be responsible by using condoms. And if you don't wanna use protection, than you need to be willing to accept whatever consequences may follow. And if you're not willing to do either… [view original content]
Alright, I was just saying I would be interested to see the discussion you and I had between others. Ours wasn't a particularly good one considering I didn't know what I was getting into
'm glad your father was and is such a positive influence in your life. I unfortunately cannot say the same for my father, he was not right in the head.
I'm sorry, my dad wasn't there either in my life.
All I'm saying is that we can't point at something and say just because we didn't expect it or want it, that it doesn't/shouldn't exist. It does, it's living, and we now need to consider it on equal footing as one would with a fully grown human when making decisions regarding it's life, because it's a human in the midst of development.
Rape is never the woman's fault, nor is it the child's fault. It's solely the rapist's fault, taking away an innocent life isn't going to change what happened or make her feel better, now she just has to live with the fact that she killed her baby. Of course she didn't ask to be raped, and the baby didn't ask to be conceived. Taking it out on the only other innocent party will not soothe any wounds.
Yes. Human life is a continuous process, this is all basic Biology. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.
We don't dictate what is and isn't supposed to exist.
And what/who does? Is it God?
The rape happened, there is now another li… morefe in question, and saying it shouldn't exist doesn't negate the fact that it does.
A rape that happened because some rapist decided it's a good day to rape somebody. A woman didn't ask to get raped nor did she want to get pregnant, from her rapist, no less. But, let's ignore that because it's "selfish".
Conception/fertilization is the beginning of human life.
Is the fetus at that point of life the same as the already matured adult? I doubt it. In my opinion, the "human" begins only when the baby starts showing signs of cognitive development. That's why I mentioned "mid-to-late pregnancy" as my example.
Comments
Really? Here it says there are multiple answers and not one:
"descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior."
And yet, that is a definition made by humans, it depends whether God tells you what morality is or if what we see is all we have.
If you want a thorough, detailed answer for that (I'm a Messianic Jew that believes Christ is the Messiah), PM me.
And how is it more reasonable? Forcing a woman to bear a rape child is against her will, IMO."Give the child a chance!". Why? That child wasn't even supposed to exist until its fucked up rapist father decided otherwise. Or maybe didn't even decide anything, it just happened along the way.
Fetus isn't a developed human being yet and won't become one until mid-to-late period of pregnancy. Also, what do rocks and particles of air have to do with anything? Do you mean that a child has to be born simply because we can't make humans out of air or stone yet? That's a strange argument, for sure.
I just want to throw it out there that no one has answered his question about banning condoms yet.
I don't know if we should force them to, but I know for certain that the act of aborting the baby isn't right, and all I can do is try to explain it, I guess she has the right to choose, but that's something I'm still conflicted about.
Yet it does, I'm sorry, but it does.
I was just referring to something Viva-La-Lee said earlier, I didn't make that up.
Well, I think that they are human, can you show me some sort of study/article/source that proves otherwise? I mean, there must be something.
If it's something that isn't right, explain to me why. I can already guess what it might be, but do tell why it isn't right.
No. It's not a predefined act that was supposed to happen, but a spontaneous one that happened on a whim of the rapist. So, sorry, but it wasn't supposed to happen. Unless, of course, you have an explanation on why it was supposed to happen.
All religious texts that humans use as their moral compasses are also written by humans.
I would prefer if you were to type it out here in the public forum, so that we may further this public discussion, and allow others to give us their thoughts as well.
Again, that comes down to whether God exists or not.
That, my friend, will end up in this thread getting closed... Trust me.
Read everything Belan, Tinni and I wrote (since we think pretty much the same), I don't think that repeating myself would profit anyone.
Oops, sorry I kind of confused my replies to your last comment (explains why I used "does" instead of "was"), what I meant to say was that even if it is a mistake, it has the right to live resulting from its undeniable existence. That's what I believe at least.
Oh, I did. The majority of it. It all goes around the same point. "Because it isn't right/morally wrong/selfish." Can you, however, give me a rational/practical/pragmatic reason to be against abortion? I might sound like I don't think these reasons are rational, but they are vague at best. Can you make them less "vague"?
Well, there's a difference between a child having a right to live and being supposed to exist. I'm not arguing with the former point, really. Only the latter, in case of rape children.
The death penalty is an exception, as it is an upholding of the protection of life by punishing those who directly violate it. Those who commit murder really don't deserve to have their lives protected. An unborn baby deserves to have their life protected, and I do not think this should be subject to the financial/ emotional situation of the parents. It's life should be protected regardless of that.
Well, sure you can. I didn't mean it literally, I was speaking more to what is morally righteous. I think there is a reason why such a thing is no longer around today
But how does angst and finances add up to human life? It really doesn't. This baby only has one shot at life, and that shouldn't be stolen because of the emotional stress of the parents. It doesn't seem right to just say "Sorry bud, mom and dad can't handle the burden of the situation, so we're just going to make it all go away for them and rob you of your chance to live." Mom and Dad's lives go back to normal (well maybe not, in the case of rape), but the babies one shot at life is gone forever. That just... seems incredibly unfair to me. Its hard for me to imagine how someone could personally be selfish enough to let their own shitty situation cause someone else to pay the ultimate price. It's hard for me to imagine that someone could honestly wash their hands of their life problems at the expense of an unborn baby. I strongly feel that emotional pain (maybe even short term) or financial struggles (maybe short term) =/= taking away someone's chance to live. The circumstances should not dictate the baby's fate.
Nahh, I'd hate to be obstinate.
It's a wondrous thing called common sense and reasoning. There are plenty of articles out there, a google search will lend you enough.
Sorry, you'll have to suffice with what I said, but maybe Belan or Tinni can make it "less vague" (even though I don't see how it's vague), because I don't really know how to explain it other than how I did.
I see, but if it's not supposed to exist, yet it does in fact exist, grows and slowly takes full human form, I believe that the moment the baby exists s/he gets the right which I call "right of undeniable existence" as in;
As long as no one intervenes, they will naturally be born, they will be alive, and by that I think they are inclined to the right of not being "aborted" in the womb.
They shouldn't be banned in my opinion. There is a difference between killing off a developing human fetus and preventing fertilization. I mean, if we wanted to get into the whole idea that protection robs people of the chance to live, we would also have to say that abstaining from sex does the same thing (which is obviously a silly point to make). It's not a parallel point, and is an apples-oranges comparison. There is a difference between preventing fertilization and terminating the process of human development/ birth.
Well, if you can't, I doubt they can, either.
Again, this wasn't something planned/predefined. Just because it got conceived doesn't mean it was supposed to. But, repeating this point is beating a dead horse. Other people have explained it in depth, so I won't.
Just Googled "does life begin at conception?", here's the first thing I saw:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/18/undisputed-scientific-fact-human-life-begins-at-conception-or-fertilization/
And then this:
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Aaaaand this:
http://www.naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception/
Is that enough "common sense" for you? I don't know.. As long as those studies referred to in the articles aren't debunked, I will have to suggest life does, in fact, begin at conception.
I agree with you, it wasn't predefined, but I still think it has the right to live for the sole reason that the human exists.
The tiger in that instance isn't murdering on a whim, the tiger is killing for food. If the tiger did not kill the zebra then the tiger would starve and die. Tigers generally do not kill other tigers for food, just as humans generally do not kill other humans for food. When a tiger kills another tiger and eats him, it is up to other tigers to decide if they want to associate with that tiger or not. I'm sure that if a tiger killed and ate a mother tiger's cubs that she would attempt to kill him. The situation would not be very different if we replaced humans with tigers. Also, tigers are not a part of human society, and do not follow human laws.
Humans are on top of the food chain, this is true. We also kill and eat other animals, this is true. Any omnivorous or carnivorous mammal that tops the food chain will eat the meat of animals it kills. The same mammal at the top of the food chain will also not be eating members of its own species, except in a few abnormal circumstances. A tiger might not have any interest in killing and eating another tiger, but it might be very interested in eating a human. A human might not have any interest in eating another human, but a human might be very interested in eating a cow. Different species of animals form their own societies, and exist within them, all while eating other animals.
There is nothing grandiose about eating other creatures, it's simply a fact of life. There is also nothing grandiose or hypocritical about claiming that morality comes down to individual perception/experience, while also eating other animals. It is simply a fact of life. Even if humans didn't eat any animals, and their populations skyrocketed, we would still be butchering them to feed our pets and the animals in zoos. Things eating thing is a part of life. It doesn't have to be pretty.
So basically you are using god as an excuse to commit something you recognize as genocide? I've heard this before somewhere.
Which interpretation of his will are we supposed to use to guide our morality? Do we use the texts of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam? Also, which of the religions within those parent religions do we use to guide us? And why are all of the others incorrect? Why do all of these variations exist in the first place?
That almost sounds like subjective morality to me.
I am an atheist. I also didn't say that "there are no criteria for 'good' and 'bad.'" I said that these criteria vary between individuals.
Well I'm interested.
Since we're on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
Could you address the points here, considering this is where we are actively discussing the issue? I don't believe that anything that I said there is even debatable, opinionated, or up to interpretation. I'll just copy and paste it here:
"This goes back to what we were discussing on the other page (haven't had a chance to get to your latest post on that page yet). It doesn't matter if you want to refuse to acknowledge them as living while they are developing in the womb, the fact remains that you are taking something away from them. How is this even disputable? If you were to not interfere at all, they would obviously continue to develop and be born into the world. So, through the act of abortion you are very clearly taking something away from them, regardless of whether or not you want to twist the argument into you personally not viewing them as being alive at the point the abortion is enacted. Your view on this doesn't change the fact that you're changing something, that you're actively preventing and stopping human life. To argue that you personally do not view the fetus as a living being is totally 100% irrelevant to the fact that either way you're taking away human life by the very action of stopping it/ aborting it/ terminating it/ killing it."
Because it's about more than just the mother's personal suffering.
"They shouldn't be banned in my opinion. There is a difference between killing off a developing human fetus and preventing fertilization. I mean, if we wanted to get into the whole idea that protection robs people of the chance to live, we would also have to say that abstaining from sex does the same thing (which is obviously a silly point to make). It's not a parallel point, and is an apples-oranges comparison. There is a huge difference between preventing fertilization and terminating the process of human development/ birth."
The fetus exists, as does it's ongoing development towards birth. As has been stated before, it does not matter if you want to downplay it's existence, you're still affecting it in the worst kind of way, and you're taking away it's life (the fetus would be born if left to naturally develop).
The whole point of me saying "x" amount of time was to indicate it could be any given amount of time, including a lifetime. It's definitely terrible for a mother to go through, but it adds zero justification to the act of abortion.
It is living, the moment the egg is fertilized is the beginning of human development. This is what defines the characteristics of a living being in terms of basic text book Biology:
1.Living things are highly organized.
2.All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3.All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4.All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5.All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment of fertilization, the being is highly organized – it’s sex, hair and skin color, and facial features are already determined. From the moment of fertilization, the being has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species.) Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence.
And here's some evidence debunking your "it's a clump of cells and nothing more" claim..
The claim that embryos are no different in kind from ordinary body cells is just plain false. Dr. Maureen Condic, Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, writes that from conception forward, human embryos clearly function as whole living organisms. They are not mere collections of cells like those on a corpse, but are “living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances.“they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death—the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living human cells….It is precisely this ability that breaks down at the moment of death, however death might occur. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer function together in a coordinated manner.”
(”Maureen L. Condic, “Life: Defining the Beginning by the End,” First Things, May 2003.)
When looking for the evidence you want to find, you will find it. That is called confirmation bias.
It's really not. One leads to the next step in the formation of a person, the other leads to the next step in the formation of a person. So, ban condoms and ban abstinence so every possible person gets their chance. It's only fair.
It's a long term investment that includes a lot of what ifs. Such as the kid committing suicide before contributing back, or spending the vast majority of their life in prison for a heinous crime. There's also the possibility of them becoming a valued member of society, however, I'd rather my tax money be invested in something else.
Let the mother have kids on her own terms, and let those kids be a long term investment and future tax payers. Even if this scenario includes a lot of what ifs as well, the mother is still having children on her own terms.
Why do you think we're so goddamn different from them then? Do you really believe that all of the distinguishes between humans and animals are a result of mere evolutionary evolvement? I don't, oh well.
Humans are omnivorous, they do not need to eat the ones "below them" in the food chain (see this link: https://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm#conc)
Vegans live a healthy life without eating meat, there is not human critical need for meat in our lives, eating animals can be prevented for the simple fact that today's society has found replacements for meat.
Where? Inquisitions? Don't make me laugh, God never said to the Christians to do what they did.
On the other hand, God allowed humans to eat meat in Genesis.
And here's a fun fact: In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were vegans; they did not eat meat at all, and God only allowed humans to eat meat afterwards because he saw that humans can't control their urges to not murder and kill eachother, he still wanted them to live in peace with the animals.
That is also why people believe when Christ will arrive they will all live in peace together again:
"And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them." (Isaiah 11:6)
That's not relevant as long as God doesn't exist to you, is it?
When I said "no criteria" I meant that it's not absolute and changes between people, I guess I should have phrased it better.
We don't dictate what is and isn't supposed to exist. The rape unfortunately happened, there is now another life in question, and saying it shouldn't exist doesn't negate the fact that it does. It is the rapist's fault it happened, not the baby's. "Getting rid of it" will not bring the woman peace or ease the pain of the rape, it will only increase it. Now along with being the victim of rape she is now the mother of a dead baby.
Conception/fertilization is the beginning of human life. The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month old baby, a 2 year old toddler, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation.
You're arguing a fallacy here.
It is not the same thing. Just because both are related to birth does not mean the processes are the same. There is a massive difference between not fertilizing an egg and actually killing/destroying an already developing human being. In the case of the latter, a human being would be born into the world if left alone. In the case of the former... nothing happens, period. This alone shows that the two are not comparable. Would you argue that a 17 year old girl abstaining from sexual intercourse is actively robbing people of the chance to live? You could certainly do so, but it would be a ridiculous thing to argue, and is obviously vastly different from actively stopping/terminating an already developing human being. Am I personally robbing people of the chance to live because I'm not going around the neighborhood sleeping around? You could make the argument that I am, but that again is a ridiculous point to make.
I already talked to you about it some time ago, I'm not going to engage in one of those again... I don't have the mindset to argue hours with someone who thinks the opposite way I do.
Anyway, I think we can talk about abortion without bringing God up, since I feel like the biggest difference between you and me is what defines a human being.
Woman's choice.
Personal feelings, probably for the best. This world fucking sucks. Parents don't care about their children, to grow up as a child infused with a seed of pain sucks. Those crack baby kids, man. So fucking sad.
Dude, those were literally the 3 first links that popped up, I didn't cherry pick the web from a sea of articles supporting what you said, in fact, I didn't see a single one denying the fact life begins at conception but links to blogs and what not (with personal opinions), which are not legit places to bring you links to.
You want to call me out for bringing up false information? Prove it to be wrong and then accuse it of being wrong, not the other way around.
Yet you still haven't shown me a single legit place where it says life doesn't begin at conception.
[removed]
Alright, I was just saying I would be interested to see the discussion you and I had between others. Ours wasn't a particularly good one considering I didn't know what I was getting into
And what/who does? Is it God?
A rape that happened because some rapist decided it's a good day to rape somebody. A woman didn't ask to get raped nor did she want to get pregnant, from her rapist, no less. But, let's ignore that because it's "selfish".
Is the fetus at that point of life the same as the already matured adult? I doubt it. In my opinion, the "human" begins only when the baby starts showing signs of cognitive development. That's why I mentioned "mid-to-late pregnancy" as my example.
I'm sorry, my dad wasn't there either in my life.
What exactly were you getting into, if I might ask?
It's alright, it's the cards I was dealt in life, and I just have to keep moving forward. I'm sorry your father wasn't around either.
I'm not, he was a abusive man. He is dead now. Its weird, i don't have any feelings for him either way.
All I'm saying is that we can't point at something and say just because we didn't expect it or want it, that it doesn't/shouldn't exist. It does, it's living, and we now need to consider it on equal footing as one would with a fully grown human when making decisions regarding it's life, because it's a human in the midst of development.
Rape is never the woman's fault, nor is it the child's fault. It's solely the rapist's fault, taking away an innocent life isn't going to change what happened or make her feel better, now she just has to live with the fact that she killed her baby. Of course she didn't ask to be raped, and the baby didn't ask to be conceived. Taking it out on the only other innocent party will not soothe any wounds.
Yes. Human life is a continuous process, this is all basic Biology. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.
A discussion about religion with a Messianic Jew. Never been in that territory before, and was quickly consumed by the unknown geography