New Mexico Abolishes Death Penalty.

[SirJosephPorter]

The pro-life camp believes that a fetus is a human life and deserves the same rights as any other human.

Yes, that is the Fundamentalist Christian and official Catholic view. No doubt prolifers dream of a Fundamentalist Theocracy in USA, where the Fundamentalist version of the Bible will be made into the Constitution.

It is all part of the religious right’s agenda for USA. Banning abortion is but one plank. Some of the others are, banning contraception (except for married couples), recriminalizing homosexuality with stiff prison sentences, mandatory teaching of Book of Genesis, Biblical account of creation in addition to (or more likely, in place of) evolution, strict censorship of press (to ban pornography), prohibiting married women form working outside home (a woman’s place is in the home) etc.

Now that is the religious right idea of paradise.

 

[Cannuck]

I suppose it depends upon one’s point of view.

What depends on one's point of view? You post didn't really address what I said although you quoted it.

... prolifers feel noble...conservatives, which now are pro life...Lincoln was very much a liberal and the confederacy was decidedly conservative in outlook...

As much as you try and make this a right/left issue, it isn't.

After all, what can be more noble that fighting slavery.

Fighting for all people that don't have basic human rights.

On the other hand, if one is prochoice, then anti-abortion is similar to pro-prohibition. Prohibition tried to ban a product (alcohol) which was popular. Prohibition did not stop alcohol consumption, it simply went underground, we had speakeasies.

Similarly, prolifers want to ban a product which is popular, who has always been popular and will continue to be popular (abortion). If prolifers somehow manage to bring Fundamentalist Theocracy to USA and are successful in banning abortion, abortion will simply go underground, will go from qualified doctors to backstreet butchers.

Interesting that you defend something simply because it's popular. You obviously would have defended slavery had you lived in Atlanta 150 years ago. Shame on you.

But prolifers, even with the power of a Theocracy at their disposal, will not be able to get rid of abortion.

You love to throw the labels around don't you. You seem to think that by simply throwing the "right-wing" or the "religious" label at something, you have discredited it. It takes a bit more than that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You love to throw the labels around don't you. You seem to think that by simply throwing the "right-wing" or the "religious" label at something, you have discredited it. It takes a bit more than that.

It is not the question of discrediting anybody, Cannuck. I call them as I see them. Prolife movement is a far right movement, which basically wants to bring Fundamentalist Christian theocracy to USA (and perhaps to Canada, but they haven’t a snowball’s chance in Hell for that).

I couldn’t care less if that discredits them or not.

After all, what can be more noble that fighting slavery.

Fighting for all people that don't have basic human rights.

Except of course, homosexuals. Homosexuals do not deserve any rights. On the contrary, they deserve to be locked up, given long prison sentences. At least that is the official religious right line.

 

[Cannuck]

At least that is the official religious right line.

Please provide a link to the official religious right line.

You ignorance of the issues are staggering. There is tons of info out there about the so-called pro-life movement and it is hardly made up of just the religious right. In 2007 a CNN poll found 45% were pro-choice and 50% were pro-life. Your ideas that pro-lifers are the radical right is mindnumbingly silly. I do understand how it helps you to dumb things down and to oversimplify your world view but really, if you want to have any credibility, you have to start thinking outside the box.

BTW, I picked a CNN poll because I know how "credible" they are.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

We are done debating, Cannuck. I have explained it on another thread. From now on you will have to debate with yourself.

 

[Cannuck]

I think it's pretty clear that what you have been doing is not debate.

 

[JLM]

We are done debating, Cannuck. I have explained it on another thread. From now on you will have to debate with yourself.

I doubt very much if either side of the abortion issue has anything to do with politics, more to do with conscience and possibly religion, but I doubt if any political persuasion values life more than any other.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I doubt very much if either side of the abortion issue has anything to do with politics, more to do with conscience and possibly religion, but I doubt if any political persuasion values life more than any other.

You are right, JLM, it is very much a philosophical issue. However, it does spill into politics, at least in USA.

We Canadians are more sensible. If you remember we had a vigorous, no holds barred debate in Canada many years ago. After that, the issue of abortion was settled, and a politician these days will dig it up at his own peril, that will be the quickest way to commit political suicide (especially in Ontario, Quebec and BC).

But I don’t know about Americans. They keep fighting the same battles decade after decade. They legalized abortion in 1973, much earlier that we did. Yet they are still fighting the same battle, we settled the issue long time ago.

So in Canada what you say may be right, it is more a philosophical, religious or conscious issue. However, in USA it is very much involved in politics.

Anyway, I have to get my beauty sleep now. So goodnight.

 

[Cannuck]

I doubt very much if either side of the abortion issue has anything to do with politics, more to do with conscience and possibly religion, but I doubt if any political persuasion values life more than any other.

That is exactly right. I happen to consider myself a Christian although I haven't been in a church in...I can't even remember. I voted Green last election and I'm pro-choice. SJP has made assumption after assumption and it just goes to show that these issues are not as cut and dried as some might like to believe.

 

[ironsides]

Nice answer, but you are streatching it a bit. "Since that DNA is consistent with that of Homo Sapiens (Human Beings), it can't possibly be any other species. Since the fetus has DNA which is unique to itself, it cannot be anything other than an individual homo sapien (human being)." If fetus is grownig it is alive. Sound about right to me.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Nice answer, but you are streatching it a bit. "Since that DNA is consistent with that of Homo Sapiens (Human Beings), it can't possibly be any other species. Since the fetus has DNA which is unique to itself, it cannot be anything other than an individual homo sapien (human being)." If fetus is grownig it is alive. Sound about right to me.

Since that DNA is consistent with that of Homo Sapiens (Human Beings), it can't possibly be any other species. Since the sperm has DNA which is unique to itself, it cannot be anything other than an individual homo sapien (human being)."

Ironsides, I copy and pasted what you have written, and substituted sperm for fetus. So if you are saying that fetus is human, are you also saying that male sperm is also human? Because if you are, you are opening a huge big can of worms.

If you are not, then your argument is inconsistent and nonsense.

 

[ironsides]

No No what I am saying that when the sperm joins with an egg they become the fetus. Either by itself is not living growing human.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No No what I am saying that when the sperm joins with an egg they become the fetus. Either by itself is not living growing human.

Why not?

I know that is the official Catholic and Fundamentalist Christian line (that life begins at conception). However, that is not the scientific consensus.

Anyway, so if fetus is a human being at conception, why isn’t the sperm a human being before conception? It is very much alive, it has human DNA, each sperm is unique. A typical load of semen contains hundreds of millions of sperms. Each sperm is unique and if mated with an egg, will produce a unique human being. So the probability of you being born was one in 300 or 400 million.

So anyway, if fetus at conception is a human being, then why not the sperm?

 

[gerryh]

Why not?

I know that is the official Catholic and Fundamentalist Christian line (that life begins at conception). However, that is not the scientific consensus.

Anyway, so if fetus is a human being at conception, why isn’t the sperm a human being before conception? It is very much alive, it has human DNA, each sperm is unique. A typical load of semen contains hundreds of millions of sperms. Each sperm is unique and if mated with an egg, will produce a unique human being. So the probability of you being born was one in 300 or 400 million.

So anyway, if fetus at conception is a human being, then why not the sperm?

You answered your own question.

 

[JLM]

No No what I am saying that when the sperm joins with an egg they become the fetus. Either by itself is not living growing human.

I don't think you can get a living organism by joining two dead things.

 

[talloola]

You answered your own question.

It has always puzzled me 'why' those who are against abortion, are in favour
of birth control, (in many cases). If they feel that it is murder to do an abortion, in my opinion they should think it is murder to kill sperm and/or egg.
All are alive.
(this analogy does apply to me, by the way,) as I am not against early abortion.
(I apolgize for being off topic.)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't think you can get a living organism by joining two dead things.

Quite right, JLM, sperm and eggs are fully as much alive as the fetus. If we are calling fetus alive (and I am not sure that is the right thing to do), we also must call sperm and egg alive. But then that doesn’t fit into Church’s definition of what is alive.

Indeed, that is precisely why scientists say that they don’t know when life begins. Another way of looking at it is that life is a continuum, with no beginning or end. Either way, to say that life begins at conception is a religious position, nothing more.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It has always puzzled me 'why' those who are against abortion, are in favour
of birth control, (in many cases). If they feel that it is murder to do an abortion, in my opinion they should think it is murder to kill sperm and/or egg.

Talloola, Catholic Church is not hypocritical in this instance. It is wrong and in many instances it is hypocritical, but here Church’s position is consistent, in that it is opposed to abortion and all forms of contraception.

Religious right's position on the other hand is totally hypocritical (on this issue, as on most issues). Many of them have no problem with birth control, at least for married people. They have no problem killing sperm, because Bible doesn’t say anything about killing sperm.

Bible doesn’t’ say anything about killing fetus either (in all of Bible, the words abortion and fetus are nowhere mentioned). However, religious right’s interpretation of the Bible is that life begins at conception. So according to their belief, sperm and egg are dead, and at conception, God breaths life (and soul) into the fetus.

 

[talloola]

It has always puzzled me 'why' those who are against abortion, are in favour
of birth control, (in many cases). If they feel that it is murder to do an abortion, in my opinion they should think it is murder to kill sperm and/or egg.

Talloola, Catholic Church is not hypocritical in this instance. It is wrong and in many instances it is hypocritical, but here Church’s position is consistent, in that it is opposed to abortion and all forms of contraception.

Religious right's position on the other hand is totally hypocritical (on this issue, as on most issues). Many of them have no problem with birth control, at least for married people. They have no problem killing sperm, because Bible doesn’t say anything about killing sperm.

Bible doesn’t’ say anything about killing fetus either (in all of Bible, the words abortion and fetus are nowhere mentioned). However, religious right’s interpretation of the Bible is that life begins at conception. So according to their belief, sperm and egg are dead, and at conception, God breaths life (and soul) into the fetus.

I'm not approaching this from any religious veiw, for me it is just common
sense, as egg, is alive, sperm is alive, and together they are alive.
I do understand where the catholic church are coming from, and yes they are
consistent at least, even though I disagree with there approach to this matter.

 

[ironsides]

Why not?

I know that is the official Catholic and Fundamentalist Christian line (that life begins at conception). However, that is not the scientific consensus.

Anyway, so if fetus is a human being at conception, why isn’t the sperm a human being before conception? It is very much alive, it has human DNA, each sperm is unique. A typical load of semen contains hundreds of millions of sperms. Each sperm is unique and if mated with an egg, will produce a unique human being. So the probability of you being born was one in 300 or 400 million.

So anyway, if fetus at conception is a human being, then why not the sperm?

I have to get personal with you SirJosephPorter, no where did I mention anything about your favorite anti subject religion. But when a Zygote is formed we have life.
[SIZE=+0]What is said about you is right, you twist turn manipulate thinking all the time that you will be right. Well this time you really asked a dumb question. Usually your to smart to make a fool of yourself. Look up in your basic Biology Bio-1 book and answer the question yourself.[/SIZE]