Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by T A A on December 11, 2011 at 5:36am

The only point 'sentience' is relevant to is reduction in pain. Whether death happens to a sentient being or a non-sentient one is not relevant and is a point that is simply used by pro-lifers to diminish the point that as long as that living entity is not independent from its progenitor, it is not an independent life form and is therefore not addressed by any law.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on December 11, 2011 at 11:40pm

The zygote is genetically human, and humans get rights that protect them from murder.

So, if the genetic make up is the strongest part of your argument (presuming), what then do we do with the fact that most of the DNA within the human body is not actually human? After-all, you have 10 times more bacteria cells in your body than you do human cells. 

And the idea that "potential" life is on par with life or personhood is bizarre to me. The logical conclusion to that is that each time we refrain from a chance at procreation, we are destroying a person's life.  This is a very Catholic way of thinking and lends itself to no barrier that I can see from pushing the decree back beyond conception to condemn other contraceptive aids such as condoms. It relegates women to becoming baby factories and deprives them of their reproductive rights. Also, won't somebody think of all the poor baby-daddies? 

In other words, if she does not terminate the unplanned zygote, her decision then causes the window of opportunity for the future planned child to come into existence, to be closed.

And if I would have sexed up the wife instead of wanking to midget porn, then maybe some alternate reality would exist.  It is as immaterial as it is ass backwards.  Trying to conjure "what-ifs" to life is counter productive.  Trust me, I've wasted a lot of time wondering "what if I had dated out that beautiful brunette that used to have a huge crush on me back in high school" to no avail.  Damn, if only...

We are animals that have evolved over billions of years.  Our lineage persists because, among many things, of our ability to procreate.  Our existence is owed to that remarkable potential for replication.  It is not a sacred gift from a god but a natural fact about biology.  The idea that a zygote is endowed with all the qualities of a fully formed human being and deserves rights that either compete or supersede actually formed human beings is absurd. A person must become a person before they get those rights.  And the kicker is that there is no person until there is a person.  There is no "on deck" circle where people souls are waiting their turn to bat and abortion robs them of their turn by ending the inning. If that were the case, I'd probably weep for millions every time I pumped off into a sock.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 3equ3cp1fsw0n on December 12, 2011 at 12:41am

 There is no "on deck" circle where people souls are waiting their turn to bat and abortion robs them of their turn by ending the inning. If that were the case, I'd probably weep for millions every time I pumped off into a sock.

@ Reggie - LOL!  But ewwwww!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zach Winkler on December 10, 2011 at 5:45pm

It is fine to not allow unconcieved zygotes from coming into existence. As I have typed before, the possibilities do not matter. What is their right now is what the issue comes down to for me. A baby that "could" exist in the future has no influence on the situation or status of the current zygote that you type of. You can stop future babies from forming (like using protection) because they do not exist and do not get the rights that already existing ones get. I find this argument completely outrageous, but I understand you trying to get a feel for what I believe in, so go ahead. I hope I explained my-self clearly in this explanation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 3equ3cp1fsw0n on December 10, 2011 at 8:54pm

It is fine to not allow unconcieved zygotes from coming into existence.

@ Zach - There is no such thing as an unconceived zygote, as far as I know. Did you mean it is fine to not allow a zygote to come into existence?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on December 11, 2011 at 11:45pm

You can stop future babies from forming (like using protection) because they do not exist and do not get the rights that already existing ones get. I find this argument completely outrageous

I'd like you to expound on this point some more.  What about the idea of not granting rights to non-existent people do you find outrageous?  If I've misunderstood, then please forgive me.  If you've already explained it, help me find it or sum it up for me.  There are a lot of pages to this discussion now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jewelz on December 12, 2011 at 12:03am

To sum it up - Zach believes any form of BC that prevents the egg from being fertilized and thus, prevents a non-existent person from coming into existence is acceptable. All forms that may prevent implantation are equal to murder because an egg magically becomes a person at the instant of fertilization (but not when the sperm is only 3/4 of the way in - I asked) and should then be granted full human rights including protection from murder.

He cannot understand why no one here seems to follow this logic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on December 12, 2011 at 9:37am

So, this is a secular version of the ensoulment argument.  Only instead of souls, it is some arbitrary importance being placed on the union of germ cells?  

I guess IVF is murder? Or is it excusable because it is granting a life to a combination of germ cells that would not otherwise come into being at the expense of sacrificing other combinations whose best chance of coming into being was the very process that destroyed them?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kimberly Busick on December 11, 2011 at 9:32am

I know this is going to sound terrible, but I hate to think of our overly populated world more full of unwanted babies, more people homeless or living on welfare, more crime etc etc...all because every fertilized egg of every young girl, or woman (except in the horrible case rape) absolutely had to result in a birth. You just have to realize that not all people are capable, (mentally, physically, geographically, etc.) or going to make the mature decision of adoption if they are not capable (bc nobody realizes what they are in store for) and that this world could not support all of those people that have sadly been cut short of a chance of life. It is horribly sad but a horribly sad choice that I don't think should be taken away from any individual. I just think so much more horrible things would result if that choice was to be taken away. Poverty, hunger, abuse, homelessness, so many things would skyrocket inevitably if that choice was ever taken away. If everybody was like you, possibly mature, smart, maybe financially secure, yes it would be easy to say that every precious little fetus should be given a chance, but unfortunately its survival of the fittest and not all are fit to parent or even carry a baby. I certainly cannot make the decision of who is fit and who is not...let those people decide for themselves.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herk on December 11, 2011 at 7:12pm

@Zach ~

I understand that you think that a zygote is a human and therefore has a right to live. But here's the problem: there is no such thing as human rights except for those you are first willing to define and then defend. There are no automatic rights.

For most of history this wasn't a problem. This whole alleged pro-life thing seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. Ancient Romans didn't think you were fully human until you were an adult. Abortions were performed by Christians into antiquity. In the OT, killing babies seems to have been routine. In Napoleon's time he had to have turntables installed in the walls of convents because so many left babies on the doorstep and they died of exposure before they were found.

My own opinion is that abortion is a necessary option. There are a great many reasons why it is not always feasible to carry a fetus to term, and by all means, do it as early as reasonable or possible. Worldwide, giving women options regarding childbirth would help to control poverty, misery, and the rape of the planet's resources.

As to the rights of the fetus, it's a hitchiker, a parasite, wholly dependent on others for survival while the world's survival as well as the survival and well-being of the parent(s) is often dependent at least to some extent upon the wisdom of the decisions made regarding it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 3equ3cp1fsw0n on December 12, 2011 at 12:49am

To sum it up - Zach believes any form of BC that prevents the egg from being fertilized and thus, prevents a non-existent person from coming into existence is acceptable. All forms that may prevent implantation are equal to murder because an egg magically becomes a person at the instant of fertilization (but not when the sperm is only 3/4 of the way in - I asked) and should then be granted full human rights including protection from murder.

He cannot understand why no one here seems to follow this logic.

@ Jewelz - Okay, so now I am wondering if Zach approves of the rhythm method as an acceptable form of birth control.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jewelz on December 12, 2011 at 12:59am

I am wondering if Zach approves of the rhythm method as an acceptable form of birth control.

According to Zach's logic, the following methods of birth control are acceptable: abstinence, the rhythm method, tubal/vasectomy, condoms, and diaphragms.

Women who use any other forms of birth control are murdering babies.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 46
• 47
• 48
• 49
• 50
• …
• 59
• Next ›
• Page