Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by noisician on March 20, 2009 at 2:35pm

right... and why not draw the line even earlier?

why not give sperm & egg cells their proper consideration? they are alive. they have the potential to become a human being. and yet they are slaughtered by the billions, every day. this holocaust must be stopped!

any line drawn is just arbitrary without a strong argument to back it up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on May 3, 2009 at 6:34pm

They have no potential to become a human being, only to contribute half the genome of a human being.

A fetus, on the other hand, already is a human being.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on March 20, 2009 at 3:12pm

well said Synth.
i would add that if you're going to legislate with potential for life in mind then you might as well pass laws that say that every time a man and woman meet they should have sex without contraception because each meeting has the potential for life- the meeting of egg and sperm; conception. it's just as arbitrary.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on March 27, 2009 at 2:26am

OOH! Touche, Nelson.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on March 27, 2009 at 8:49am

I didn't think that necessitated rebuttal. Gametes are cells of the parent. When they fuse, a new organism is created.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robyn on May 7, 2009 at 10:26am

do you really care if someone gets an abortion/ what business is it of yours? i miss the days when people would mind their own business...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by davesnothome on March 29, 2009 at 2:41pm

I think that Synthaetica has revealed the essence of this argument, there really is a movement afoot for a theocratic takeover of our government. Divisive issues like abortion serve to polarize citizens to serve that purpose and the idea behind it has more to do with control than saving babies. There is a demonstrable assumption that most Americans are more responsive to the emotional aspect of an issue and are inclined to completely ignore the bigger picture, and that assumption is played out clearly within this issue. Simply, there is a lot of stigma attached to being a "baby killer" and as a result, you will find too many people on the side of the fence that leans towards that theocratic takeover as opposed to the side of the fence where citizens defend their freedom at any cost.

"Our" stance really is more about not swallowing the dogma attached to these social issues - anytime we hear cute catch phrases like "prenatal person-hood", we need to step back and examine the origin of such a claim because ultimately, It's dogma with a pretty pink bow.

As we become aware of this theocratic coup, we as "patriots" are obliged to be alert to it's signs and advances upon our constitutionally guaranteed liberties. The issue really has nothing to do with the rights of a fetus or an unborn child; it's a part of a greater strategy that will have us as a free people voluntarily handing over our liberties one social issue at a time.

I'm sorry Nulona that your stance on this issue has you in the middle of the cross-fire but you take a precarious position when you try to expand your interpretation of freedom into the lives of the citizens around you. Because of my statement above though, I do have to consider the issue of incest as a social issue as well. I don't know if it's a natural phenomenon or social programming that makes the idea feel repulsive to so many of us but I do think that the "fetal deformity" claim is propaganda and that it's completely false. I believe that the genetic theory behind that idea would take many generations to play out - that being, that certain dominant genetic mutations would not be suppressed by genetic diversity over time. Isn't that ironic? That's a theory that displays the amazing power of evolution and it's strongly supported by the church. HAHA.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chelle on March 20, 2009 at 6:02pm

Why is the life of the unborn child important?
- The potential of that life?
- The emotional ties to those that know it or feel attached to it?
- Concern for what will happen to it's soul when it dies? (as an atheist I disregard this)

What harm do we cause in ending that life prematurely, does the life in question matter?
In regards to the potential for life I am unsure if it matters to stop life when the individual does not feel the loss of it.
As for the relatives the mother and father may feel the loss of this life due to their attachment, and this is a personal issue. So I believe that abortion is an emotional and psychological issue and should be dealt with on a case by case basis (practicalities of this are challenging I'll grant) with the interests of the mother put first.

Personally I feel I probably would not abort a child because of the loss to me psychologically, but the fact that at this point in my life I really do not want another child, I would feel some compulsion to want to terminate especially if it had been forced upon me through violence.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on May 3, 2009 at 6:42pm

Everyone's life is valuable.

And that last comma should be a semicolon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on March 21, 2009 at 3:04pm

1: Personhood begins at fertilization. Libertarians for Life have great arguments. l4l.org
2: A person is any human being. A human being is any organism of the species Homo sapiens, or, more broadly, to any hominid. A gamete is not an organism. Therefore, a gamete is not a human being. Therefore, a gamete is not a person.
3: Agreeing with religious people isn't always bad. The Bible says "Thou shalt not steal.", but we still criminalize thieves.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on March 21, 2009 at 4:32pm

1. that's a bald assertion and then an appeal to internet authority. liberterians for life says it so it must be true!
2. "a person is any human being"- i agree. "a human being is any organism of the species homo sapiens, or, more broadly, to any hominid."- another bald assertion with nothing to back it up. you're arguing by fiat alone. and you can't seriously be saying that a human being is any hominid organism. do you really mean to say that a human being is a chimpanzee or a gorilla, after all, they're hominid organisms too.
3. "agreeing with religious people isn't always bad"- straw man. no one is saying that they disagree just because some religious people agree.

if you go back through these posts you'll find that we're asking for you to present any sort of evidence that personhood begins at conception- something besides emotional arguments, bald assertions, and, strangely, inducting the great apes into personhood.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nulono on March 22, 2009 at 5:42pm

1: No, this is not an appeal to authority. I'm not saying you should believe it just because they do. I'm telling you to read there arguments, which are some of the best.
2: Sorry, wrong word. I was reciting it from memory. I meant the genus Homo.
3: I was responding to Synth's claim that upholding prenatal rights contributes to a theocratic dictatorship: http://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/1982180:Comment:59253

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 20
• Next ›
• Page