-
Claudia wrote on 2012-05-04 00:54
Quote from Spartaaaaa;855256:
What do you have against old English? It's fun to use. [S]Don't forget to rep![/S]
Face it, the majority of women getting abortions are dumb teenagers who think they're too cool for abstinence and end up getting pregnant because of their own lack of responsibility. I'll start taking pro-death people seriously when they recognize that fact and stop trying to hide behind "rape", "incest", and "financial issues". The only time abortion is ever justified is if there is a 100% chance that both the mother and child will die if she tries to give birth.
You're speaking as if there's a magical test that says, "there is a 100% chance you/your child will die if you attempt to give birth."
-
Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-05-04 01:07
Quote from Claudia;855261:
You're speaking as if there's a magical test that says, "there is a 100% chance you/your child will die if you attempt to give birth."
Which is why I am against abortion because it's almost impossible to know for sure if either will die in the process of birth. But if there was some magical way of knowing, then an abortion
might be justified.
-
Himeko wrote on 2012-05-04 01:32
Oh hey this discussion again D:
I don't see why people are pushing their personal opinions (aka religion) into a debate that affects society as a whole, there's a time and place for it and I can assure you it isn't here.
Religion is a personal belief and should be kept as such, it should be no different than whether or not I like grapes. Just because I believe it's disgusting doesn't mean I can regulate everyone's lives based on that fact.
While I might think no one should eat them, what is best for our society, thinking in a realistic mindset, does not lie in my personal beliefs. What is best for our society lies in what is practical, moderate regulations and accepting that we are not a utopia, sometimes we must put aside how we feel and move forward with our own lives, realizing that some things just have to be some ways in order for us to continue striving forward towards greater improvements.
People wonder why hardly anything gets done government wise, why we're always going in circles as far as improvement and why there's such close mindedness when it comes to touchy issues. It's because of these things that actual solutions to issues such as abortion get shut down, while we have people trying to pass this and defend it.
Like I said before, the last time this discussion came up, abortion needs to be judged based on scientific facts while being moderately regulated. I'm not going further into this point because I've made it before in a very long post. ;;
-
Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-05-04 09:48
Like I said before, the last time this discussion came up, abortion needs to be judged based on scientific facts while being moderately regulated.
Scientific Fact: A blastocyst has all the genetic information needed to develop into a full grown human.
Scientific Fact: A blastocyst has 46 chromosomes, making it a human.
Common Sense: There shouldn't be any reason why a baby magically "becomes" a human once out of the womb, but somehow "isn't" a human while inside the womb.
-
whocares8128 wrote on 2012-05-04 15:14
Quote from Spartaaaaa;855465:
Scientific Fact: A blastocyst has all the genetic information needed to develop into a full grown human.
Agreed, assuming the blastocyst is from a human.
Quote from Spartaaaaa;855465:
Scientific Fact: A blastocyst has 46 chromosomes, making it a human.
A seed (which may become a plant) is not a plant.
When asked what makes a human, having 46 chromosomes is hardly the first (nor only) thing that comes to mind. By this definition of human, I have trillions of humans living inside me.
Also, these species' cells would be considered human as well:
- Muntjacs (Muntiacus reevesi)
- Black rat (Rattus rattus) , but not all of them have 46
- European hare (Lepus europeus)
- Merriam’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus canus)
- Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)
- Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa)
- Beach vole (Microtus breweri)
- Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus)
- Kirk’s dik-dik (Rhynchotragus kirki)
- Grey vole (Microtus arvalis)
- Large bentwing bat (miniopterus schreibersi)
- Bolivian Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys boliviensis)
- Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi)
- Crowned Lemur (Lemur mongoz coronatus)
- Red Titi (Callicebus cupreus)
Source
Quote from Spartaaaaa;855465:
Common Sense: There shouldn't be any reason why a baby magically "becomes" a human once out of the womb, but somehow "isn't" a human while inside the womb.
Personally, I believe the baby is human before birth (so I can sort of agree with you here as well), but exactly when is hard to say. It's somewhere between being composed of a few dozen and trillions of cells. An embryo is not a person though.
-
TA wrote on 2012-05-05 00:19
Here's something that will blow your mind:
A single double helix has all of the genetic information needed to develop a full grown human.
Every time you get a bloody nose it's genocide. Doesn't that just blow your mind?
Hell, every time you get a haircut it's worse than the holocaust. Man, I love this mindset. Makes even the most mundane activity into mass murder. Hell yeah!
-
User495 wrote on 2012-05-05 01:38
Quote from Spartaaaaa;854323:
Human embryos are not considered people?
I would also quote the above 2 posts to mention that is basically my opinion of this
but using "Embryos" to debate about abortion is just silly, you absolutely
can compare an embryo to a microbe, they are definitely
not people
for reasons already stated above
-
Episkey wrote on 2012-05-05 02:11
... Oh wow. How do I even begin word this?~
I understand it was satirical, but comparing a double helix to a blastocyst is simply illogical.
Double Helices are present in all forms of organisms, whether they be an animal or plant.
A human blastocyst is formed about 4-6 days after fertilization and is the start of a process that will eventually form an infant.
Even if a single double helix has all of the genetic information needed to develop a full grown human, that doesn't mean that it will develop a full grown human being.
A human blastocyst, on the other hand, will continue developing to form a human being. (Under the right conditions)
A double helix will not, on the other hand. I can very easily separate DNA into a solvent - since it's present in all organisms. I can assure you, even in the "right conditions" that double helix will not form anything remarkably close to a human. If anything at all.
Saying that the destruction or physical removal of these double helices is akin to murdering humans is silly.
Atoms compose all things, so eating said atoms is like eating an organism? What about water or something inorganic?
Likewise, double helices are present in genetic coding - in every living organism.
Spartaaaaa's point was concerning a blastocyst. As in, something created via the fertilization of an egg and sperm. Not a simple component of a substance.
-
paladin wrote on 2012-05-05 02:41
Religious beliefs
The best way to spark conflict!
-
User495 wrote on 2012-05-05 02:50
Quote from Episkey;856036:
A human blastocyst is formed about 4-6 days after fertilization and is the start of a process that will eventually form an infant.
I think the point was, it isn't a human "yet" but we're treating it as a human
Quote from Episkey;856036:
Saying that the destruction or physical removal of these double helices is akin to murdering humans is silly.
not meaning to be offensive in any way, just pointing out how redundant that is
-
Episkey wrote on 2012-05-05 02:57
Quote from Seviraph;856098:
I think the point was, it isn't a human "yet" but we're treating it as a human
I understand that, which that isn't what I was concerned about. My issue was the comparison something as simple as a building block of all living things to a
blastocyte.
They are two completely different things and therefore have no bearing as to how "human" or "not-human" an embryo or blastocyte is.
Quote from Seviraph;856098:
not meaning to be offensive in any way, just pointing out how redundant that is
Not meaning to be offensive in any way, but redundancy is a key element of persuasion.
People are more apt to remember things that are said repeatedly. That repetition serves as emphasis to my key point, which is what I wanted to convey to any reader.
However, I'll be sure to keep what you pointed out - for future reference ...
-
Maenad wrote on 2012-05-05 05:12
A human embryo has the full potential to become a very successful human being, but it also has the potential to regenerate lost limbs and cure cancer in every single person to live after that embryo would have with the proper research.
Christianity: One barely developed embryo, worth more than hundreds of millions of future lives.
-
Himeko wrote on 2012-05-05 05:25
Everyone has different opinions on when abortion is considered murder, even within scientific community.
The main point I'm making is, like how I stated before, the US isn't a utopia. You cannot let everyone run around doing whatever they want and at the same time we are not a totalitarian style government where we dictate every aspect of our citizens lives. As a society made up of many view points and lifestyles, absolutes just won't work.
Even if you personally feel that from the moment of conception, that it is murder if it were to be aborted, a view that extreme implemented into society's legal system isn't plausible. Abortions would still happen, just in less than acceptable conditions and as our government it is their responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens and offer clean, safe clinics for those wishing to get an abortion to go to.
Technically an embryo and fetus are stages of human development, so no matter how you argue it you are by definition killing a developing human being but at the same time you are not killing a "baby" because that is a later stage of human development. So it becomes a matter of determining at what stage of human development is abortion acceptable.
It seems awhile back abortion was allowed to 24 weeks(during pre-viable stage) but now that has become debatable because of modern technology which has allowed for human life to survive outside the womb earlier than what used to be presumed.
I've been told that some places around the world allow abortions up until it has developed a beating heart, which is 5-10 weeks. Rather than both sides trying to push extremist views as solutions to this tough question, a law reflecting a reasonable moderate stance like how I just mentioned seems to be more viable. It doesn't leave room for viability questioning, is early in the pregnancy and can appease both parties to some extent.
Limiting abortions while not completely controlling an aspect of a persons life to the degree they feel oppressed and stripped of free will.
Everyone has to remember, that as a nation of many different religions, opinions and lifestyles, it is important to remain open minded in regards to others and their situations. It is because of that, that we must separate our own personal feelings on some issues and work towards what can be reasonably applied here.
Keeping in mind others and accepting that we must all come together and find middle ground if we are to co-exist and make progress when creating solutions that embody balance, moderation and thoughtfulness is key.
Both parties need to give a little leeway because right now, instead of hindering progress by trying to push extremist views into law, the US has far bigger issues at hand to focus on.
[SPOILER="Spoiler"]; ; hopefully I'm not coming off too strongly on this, I'm not an abortion expert either so if other people know more about things regarding it /would love to hear :D. I have nothing against religion or people expressing their personal views, I'm just more interested in what people would consider reasonable adjustments that keeps in mind the nation as a whole on these kinds of topics.
Just to add onto what I said, if someone is trying to negate the point I brought up by saying that I'm for abortion, then they are mistaken D: for myself personally, I probably would not be able to bring myself to get one. [/SPOILER]
-
Episkey wrote on 2012-05-05 14:33
Quote from Araria;856204:
A human embryo has the full potential to become a very successful human being, but it also has the potential to regenerate lost limbs and cure cancer in every single person to live after that embryo would have with the proper research.
With the same
proper said research, those miraculous things can occur without the usage of human embryos.
Why stall the advance of science by using something so debatable? :/
Also, ignoring your petty statement on Christianity.
Quote from Himeko;856207:
*Entire post*
How wise of you to say that. Idealistically, abortion shouldn't even be necessary ...
Still - the issue currently seems to be in favor of a particular "side". This article talks about the halt of an effort to grant personhood rights to human embryos.
Not really seeing that compromising going, like you stated, on either "side".
-
TA wrote on 2012-05-05 14:55
Human double helix -> implant into donor egg -> clone successful.
I'm not going to bother dumbing it down further for you guys. It's not like anything short of being struck by lightning would change your opinion anyways.