Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts


Recommended Posts

AJ, if the embryo/fetus isn't a human being, what species is it?

 

Show me in your science book where the breakdown is or where there are different species for growing embryos.

 

All DNA is there.  You guys can throw out all of the terms like "fetus", "potential" or "inside the mother" but all of those are just word trickery.  They have no science behind them, they are like arguments politicians make to keep you from seeing the truth.

 

You're avoiding my question. And please don't lump me in with "you guys." Who are "you guys?" I'm a human being goddamn it, my life has value! (Movie quote).

 

Yes, the embryo/fetus is part of the process we call "human being." It is a process, though. Is an acorn an oak? It is part of the process of the oak, but is it the same thing? In your mind is there a difference between cutting down a 200-year old oak and stepping on an acorn? 

 

So you tell me: Is the early stage embryo, the first picture above, a human being? Is it not the same thing as an acorn, which is the beginnings of the oak, and more truly the potential of an oak rather than the actuality of the oak?

 

To you this is a black and white issue, either it is a human being or not a human being. But is there no differentiation? I know the rap - "life begins at conception." I'd actually say life begins before that, that the sperm and egg are life. But is that where you draw the line? At conception? Is the morning after pill murder, to you?

 

Anyhow, the point is that you are subjectively deciding when a human being is a human being. That's all well and good, just don't confuse it with some kind of objective science. The human being is a spectrum, a process of becoming - from sperm and egg to death and everything in-between (and perhaps before and after). But please don't tell me there's no difference between the early stage embryo and a newborn infant, or Trump and the Dalai Lama for that matter!

Edited by Angelsjunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you show me the "process" you speak of in any kind of science book.  When you see a list of phylum, family etc where do you see these other categories for life you speak of?

 

I don't need to answer your question because it is silly.  Strictly from a scientific point of view, a human being is a human being whether they sit around trying to sound wise or they are a toupee wearing megalomaniac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is simple, mtangelsfan.

 

Acorn -> Germination -> Sprout -> Sapling -> Oak.

Sperm/Egg -> Embryo -> Fetus ->Infant -> Child -> Adult.

 

Both are processes, no? If you want to refer to science, sure - nothing I wrote in those two lines is antithetical to science. In fact, you can look up life cycles of trees and human beings. There are stages of growth and development - that is scientific, no? An acorn is the seed of an oak, but is it an oak?

 

The point is, a human being includes a series of stages, from sperm and egg to full maturation (and then decay). Is there not a difference, in a similar sense that the oak goes through different stages? Is not the value and worth of a living human being, post-utero, more than that of a newly conceived embryo?

 

p.s. Do you think the Dalai Lama just "sits around trying to sound wise?" Or do you think he might actually be wise and compassionate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dalai lama thing is just a diversion.  (I may have ADD but not that bad)

 

My argument has been that abortion is the act of killing a human being.  Your argument about stages doesn't change that fact.  You may want to apply worth to different stages but that doesn't change the fact that it is a human being.

 

Throughout all the stages you speak of, whether prior to birth or afterwards, the one item that does not change is DNA, which is the same no matter what stage you are referring to, an oak is an oak, a whale is a whale and human being is a human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dalai lama thing is just a diversion.  (I may have ADD but not that bad)

 

My argument has been that abortion is the act of killing a human being.  Your argument about stages doesn't change that fact.  You may want to apply worth to different stages but that doesn't change the fact that it is a human being.

 

Throughout all the stages you speak of, whether prior to birth or afterwards, the one item that does not change is DNA, which is the same no matter what stage you are referring to, an oak is an oak, a whale is a whale and human being is a human being.

 

What you're missing is that you're deciding what a "human being" is. That's fine, but don't falsely claim that science is on your side (and even science doesn't have a clear answer, other than what scientists decide).

 

According to your (subjective) definition, which seems to be "a human being is anything that has human DNA", this is a human being:

 

8_3_1_IVF.jpg

 

Again, according to your logic that picture above is "a human being." I don't see it that way, at least not in the same manner as I see a newborn infant or child or adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it wasn't the same species. I'm saying that there are stages of development within that species and it is enormously simplistic to conflate all stages. I'm trying to point out that it is a spectrum, not black and white (as you would have it).

 

This is why many vegetarians will eat eggs but not chickens, but by your logic it is all chicken. Here's one for you: eggs don't feel pain, they don't run away when you try to kill them. An egg is not a chicken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "logic" is what every science book out there tells me.

 

My argument has always been the same, abortion ends the life of a human being.  Your "stages" argument is just what helps you feel better about being pro-choice. 

 

Really, mt? You are saying "My view is objective, because science books say so." That's weak. Your view is also subjective, and could just as easily be said to "help you feel better about" believing what you believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We aren't even having the same argument AJ.  I have said from the beginning that abortion ends the life of a human being.  You have already agreed to that.

 

Your argument is about worth. 

 

Not exactly. I agree that abortion ends the life of a fetus, but whether that fetus is yet a "human being" is debatable. A fetus is in the process of becoming a human being, certainly - in a similar way that an acorn is becoming an oak. It depends upon what we mean by human being. You seem to think a human being is any kind of living cellular organism with human DNA, which makes an embryo at conception a human being.

 

Anyhow, as I've said a few times, you are confusing your subjective definition of "human being" with objective reality, and refusing to acknowledge it. That's a big boundary to further conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do pro-lifers want abortion to be outlawed all together? Even in cases of rape, incest, mothers health, family history, mental illnesses, poverty, etc?

 

Is there a single country with strict abortion laws that anyone here would want to live in? 

 

 

Google is your friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so nobody knows?

MV5BMTQ0MzE3NzMzNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMzM5

 

This guy is suspected of buying them up.

 

Tank, Stem cell and other research institutes.  Article below lists govt. agencies which I thought was interesting. Probably some black market stuff for the rich people like Trump, trying to find a way to live forever or just plant on his head.

 

http://clinicquotes.com/selling-unborn-babies-the-reality-of-fetal-tissue-research/

Edited by Kurt Swanson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not I have a very tough time finding a rational view of what this country would look like with strict abortion laws. It's easy for states to make access difficult , ensuring the poor have difficulty accessing clinics but those with the financial means can still access an abortion clinic easily. But for the entire country to outlaw abortion or limit abortion would change things quite a bit.

 

I'm very curious, since members here appear to be both educated and entrenched in their view, how their new post RvW country would operate.

 

If you're only answer is "Figure it out yourself" then I have no choice but to stand firm in my belief that abortion is a wedge issue that in reality republican presidents can not, will not, and have not done !@#$ about it, ever. It brings in the votes though, so they keep bringing it up. As I said it's easy for a local politician to pass laws making access more difficult but the door is always open to cross state lines.

 

 

But you're asking a blanket question looking for a blanket answer.  "Do pro-lifers want xyz ..."  If abortion was as simple as you posed the question, it wouldn't be such an issue.  So you can continue to stand firm in whatever belief you want.  Or, if you're truly interested, you can do some deep dive research.  

 

Is it a wedge issue?  It can be.  Like Angels N Skins said earlier, "abortion is to libs what guns are to cons."  They can both be used as wedge issues.  And both parties will talk them up and ultimately do little to nothing about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dalai lama thing is just a diversion. (I may have ADD but not that bad)

My argument has been that abortion is the act of killing a human being. Your argument about stages doesn't change that fact. You may want to apply worth to different stages but that doesn't change the fact that it is a human being.

Throughout all the stages you speak of, whether prior to birth or afterwards, the one item that does not change is DNA, which is the same no matter what stage you are referring to, an oak is an oak, a whale is a whale and human being is a human being.

Human fetuses are potential human beings. Acorns are potential oaks, and whale fetuses are potential whales.

Again, agree to disagree. As much as I enjoy a good argument, deep down I know I'm not convincing anybody unless they want to be convinced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...