Canada Stands Alone On Anti-abortion

[lone wolf]

Obviously you haven't yet... Must be a very timey process for some....

 

[gerryh]

why is a 28 week fetus not human and can be killed with impunity and a 3 month old baby IS human and one would be charged with murder if it was killed?

 

[CDNBear]

That is not my answer, you haven't been paying attention. My argument is that it is not human life. We just don't know when it becomes human.

BS...

These are your answers, pay close attention to the ever moving goal posts...

It would be presumptuous if fetus were a human being. There is no evidence that it is.

Tonnington supplied proof.

It is only the Pope and other religious extremists who claim that life begins at conception. There is no scientific evidence for it.

It is a proven and scientifically at that, to be a life. By your own standards.

When it comes to science, I much perfer to believe scientists, rather than believe religious extremists.

And science has proven that it is life.

Quite so. The canard (or a religious belief, really) than life begins at conception is pure nonsense, there is no scientific validity to it.

Again, science dictates otherwise.

Indeed, the scientific view is that we don’t know when life begins.

Again, this has been proven wrong.

It is very difficult to define life.

According to who?

Any definition includes some inanimate objects and leaves out some live objects.

BS

If we cannot define life, how can we say with any certainty when it begins?

Science has defined life, you just keep moving your goal posts, because you cannot concede.

Scientific view is that we don’t know when life begins; life is a continuum without a beginning or an end.

This has been proven wrong, again and again.

 

[TenPenny]

why is a 28 week fetus not human and can be killed with impunity and a 3 month old baby IS human and one would be charged with murder if it was killed?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because one has been born and the other hasn't yet.

Following your logic, shouldn't masturbation be illegal?

 

[gerryh]

Oh, I don't know, maybe because one has been born and the other hasn't yet.

Following your logic, shouldn't masturbation be illegal?

Why? are you under the misconception that a sperm cell can develop into a baby on it's own? Remember now, a sperm cell has only half the DNA code required.

 

[CDNBear]

Why? are you under the misconception that a sperm cell can develop into a baby on it's own? Remember now, a sperm cell has only have the DNA code required.

And that hasn't stopped the Church from making it a sin either.

You and SPA are at either ends of the extreme spectrum.

 

[lone wolf]

So ... it was the CAGE that made all the fights break out in the general forums?

 

[CDNBear]

So ... it was the CAGE that made all the fights break out in the general forums?

:lol:

 

[gerryh]

And that hasn't stopped the Church from making it a sin either.

You and SPA are at either ends of the extreme spectrum.

and since you have no use for the Church, what does it matter to you what it makes a sin and what it doesn't?

 

[JLM]

Oh, I don't know, maybe because one has been born and the other hasn't yet.

Following your logic, shouldn't masturbation be illegal?

Nah, no point, they are going to be blind anyhow...............:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[CDNBear]

and since you have no use for the Church, what does it matter to you what it makes a sin and what it doesn't?

Just because I have a bias against organized religion, matters not. You are fully aware that I am (provably) objective on this issue and how the influence of the Church directly impact's it.

It matters what the Church makes a sin, because it directly impacts this issue. Furthermore, and with some respects, SPA is correct, it is fundamental Christian movement that is at the heart of the prolife debate.

That is inarguable.

I still respect your beliefs on the matter, I respect life in my own way. As it pertains to the metering of military action, as it pertains to abortion. My opinions are my own and I came to them with experience and with much thought, just as you have. I don't dismiss the value of your opinion.

And again, I reiterate, you and SPA are at either end of the extreme scale. I will add to, that TenPenny is right.

 

[Tonington]

Again that begs the question. How does that make the product of conception a human being? Product of conception is just that, product of conception. By whose definition is that a human being? By your definition?

I'm not using the word human being, because that is a word which IS arbitrary. It's our species, and it is composed of living cells, tissues, organs...it's not a great leap to call it a living human.

But you want to make it about human beings. Why? Does it need to be a human being to be killed, or to be alive? Nope. It's a red herring. It's a living human. Just as a trout egg is a live trout.

No I cannot.

Then you have nothing more to say on this point. Just naked assertions.

Human DNA is necessary, but not sufficient condition to humanity.

And now it's humanity...it's a living member of your species Joseph. Call it whatever you want, but that's a fact.

Sure you did. You pointed out a number of similarities between a fetus and a newborn baby. That doesn't mean that you have proved that they are one and the same thing.

I never said they are the same thing, I said they are the same species. I said they are both living. That's not in dispute at all.

But again, by whose definition? You point out a few similarities between a fetus and a baby and then claim that it proves that fetus is the same as a newborn baby. That is a logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy here is your straw man. I never said they are the same thing. I listed criteria that support these premises, and the conclusion:
1) The fetus is alive.
2) The fetus is a member of our species.
3) Therefore, it is a living human.

That's my syllogism, and it's not at all a fallacy. Unless you can prove any one of those points wrong, which you have already admitted you cannot. So I don't see what's left to argue. You want to get into philosophical grounds of human beings and humanity now...I'm not interested in that.

 

[gerryh]

Just because I have a bias against organized religion, matters not. You are fully aware that I am (provably) objective on this issue and how the influence of the Church directly impact's it.

and yet...... it is a "church" thing.:roll: The fact that "my" views on the taking of life are my own and not the "churches" escapes "people" like you and sjp. "I" don't worry what the "church" decides what is a sin, that should be very obvious considering my "lifestyle".

It matters what the Church makes a sin, because it directly impacts this issue. Furthermore, and with some respects, SPA is correct, it is fundamental Christian movement that is at the heart of the prolife debate.

That is inarguable.

of course it's arguable. The anti-christian argument is only thrown out because, realistically, those that support the murder have no REAL basis for their position aside from selfishness and a lack of responsibility.

I still respect your beliefs on the matter, I respect life in my own way. As it pertains to the metering of military action, as it pertains to abortion. My opinions are my own and I came to them with experience and with much thought, just as you have. I don't dismiss the value of your opinion.

By throwing in the "church" card you ARE dismissing and devaluing my opinion.

And again, I reiterate, you and SPA are at either end of the extreme scale. I will add to, that TenPenny is right.

:roll: so, not only is my opinion because of the church, but I am on the same plane as sjp. don't goit nothin...do ya.

tenpenny gave a stupid and ignorant answer and you know it.

 

[CDNBear]

and yet...... it is a "church" thing.:roll: The fact that "my" views on the taking of life are my own and not the "churches" escapes "people" like you and sjp.

Do you think you would have come to the same beliefs had you not been raised RC Christian?

I'm not even small enough to say that about my own code Gh. That's me giving the Church some credit, please not that.

"I" don't worry what the "church" decides what is a sin, that should be very obvious considering my "lifestyle".

Again, I agree, which would be the reason I stated it like this...

My opinions are my own and I came to them with experience and with much thought, just as you have

You can not deny your thoughts were guided by some outside entities.

of course it's arguable. The anti-christian argument is only thrown out because, realistically, those that support the murder have no REAL basis for their position aside from selfishness and a lack of responsibility.

OK, I'll concede to that.

By throwing in the "church" card you ARE dismissing and devaluing my opinion.

Not at all, that's your perception of it. And given the very real fact that I have credited you and other Christians for assisting me to out grow my contempt for said, should be proof enough that your perception is in error.

:roll: so, not only is my opinion because of the church, but I am on the same plane as sjp. don't goit nothin...do ya.

You call it murder, that is an extreme. Just as SPA says what he says and then moves around the goal posts so he can justify his extremism.

tenpenny gave a stupid and ignorant answer and you know it.

I didn't see it as either. Again perceptions.

Anyways, I have an appointment to go fishing, that was canceled earlier this week. I intend to keep it. So when you reply, don't expect a quick response...

 

[gerryh]

I didn't see it as either. Again perceptions.

Of course, how stupid of me. Comparing a sperm cell, with only half the number of chromosomes required to grow into a baby, with a fetus is a reasonable comparison.

 

[wulfie68]

The anti-christian argument is only thrown out because, realistically, those that support the murder have no REAL basis for their position aside from selfishness and a lack of responsibility.

I can buy this in some cases but not all. This doesn't answer for victims of rape/incest: how is it a woman's fault if she is forced into sexual intercourse against her will? Is it your contention that if a woman is raped "she was asking for it"?

How is it just that she is now compelled to carry the result of a crime against her, to term? How can it be right that she is forced to acknowledge and relive the attack on her evertime she looks in a mirror or down at her belly?

 

[gerryh]

I can buy this in some cases but not all. This doesn't answer for victims of rape/incest: how is it a woman's fault if she is forced into sexual intercourse against her will? Is it your contention that if a woman is raped "she was asking for it"?

How is it just that she is now compelled to carry the result of a crime against her, to term? How can it be right that she is forced to acknowledge and relive the attack on her evertime she looks in a mirror or down at her belly?

another bullsh*t argument brought out to justify the slaughter. The percentage of abortions preformed because of rape or incest is minuscule, but it can be pulled out to score big points with those that are too lazy to take a good look at the reasons for abortion.

as for the poor woman argument....... what about the baby? Why should the baby be killed for the "sins of the father"? I thought we, as a society, had moved beyond having the progeny of a murderer/sinner/enemy killed as well.

 

[wulfie68]

another bullsh*t argument brought out to justify the slaughter. The percentage of abortions preformed because of rape or incest is minuscule, but it can be pulled out to score big points with those that are too lazy to take a good look at the reasons for abortion.

as for the poor woman argument....... what about the baby? Why should the baby be killed for the "sins of the father"? I thought we, as a society, had moved beyond having the progeny of a murderer/sinner/enemy killed as well.

No its not BS.

I'll agree with you that the number of rape related abortions is small but it is a situation that DOES exist and thus can't be whitewashed by your moral absolutism. As far as rape victim vs potential child goes, I have less problem with condemning that fetus than others: it is still potential, not guaranteed. I'm not ashamed to say I feel the mother's rights and welfare (as an actual independent person) come first.

 

[gerryh]

No its not BS.

I'll agree with you that the number of rape related abortions is small but it is a situation that DOES exist and thus can't be whitewashed by your moral absolutism. As far as rape victim vs potential child goes, I have less problem with condemning that fetus than others: it is still potential, not guaranteed. I'm not ashamed to say I feel the mother's rights and welfare (as an actual independent person) come first.

Right, killing a baby to possibly prevent a woman from "maybe" having "issues" above and beyond the rape or being "inconvenienced" is definitely a proportional and reasonable response.

 

[YukonJack]

According to SirJosephPorter and his ilk, it is OK to kill a five-year-old child, because it is not yet developed into a fifty-year-old adult.