A New Approach to Pro-Life

  • Thread starter Thread starter jrgiancola
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Schn said:
Yes, there is DNA in hair. I am sorry if you were ignorant of this fact.
Click to expand...
Several years ago National Geographic had an article on this also.

ttp://www.doesgodexist.org/MayJun96/WhenAPlantScreams.html

When A Plant Screams!
The United States Department of Agriculture has learned that plants “scream” chemically when attacked by caterpillars. Corn plants, for example, release a chemical signal when mixed with the saliva of the caterpillar. This signal attracts wasps which lay their eggs in the caterpillar, eventually killing the caterpillar and saving the plant. If the leaf is cut or injured in some other way, the chemical signal is not emitted. Only when the caterpillar saliva mixes with the damaged portion of the leaf is the signal given off.
Because of this elaborate system, a wasp can seek out caterpillars in a huge corn field and stop large scale damage. James Tumlinson, of the USDA says soybeans and cotton plants have a similar defense against pests. We are only beginning to understand how many natural protective mechanisms are built into the environment to help us and protect us. Some pesticides may kill the wasps and not the caterpillars, defeating the system designed to protect the plants. There is much to learn about the design of living things–a design so complex that we maintain it cannot be a product of chance.
–Source Popular Science, October, 1993, page 33.

Also:
freerepublic.com/focus/fr/577029/posts
 
Schn said:
I’m not interested in the american government. I’d like to argue from logic not authority.
Click to expand...
If you value logic then why claim a human hair is similar to a human life? The hair follicle is not a developing child.
 
Schn said:
If unique DNA is your criteria for human beings, identical twins may not like you. Note also you may have to give human rights to single cells with unique DNA.
Click to expand...
Identical twins, even those developed from a single split egg, do show differences in DNA. The belief that there is a 100% match has been found to not be the case. Also, the phenotypes in each twin will have differences. These determine how the DNA sequence is expressed; ie “identical twins”, different finger prints.
 
AnotherVoice said:
Identical twins, even those developed from a single split egg, do show differences in DNA. The belief that there is a 100% match has been found to not be the case. Also, the phenotypes in each twin will have differences. These determine how the DNA sequence is expressed; ie “identical twins”, different finger prints.
Click to expand...
I learn something new every day. Thanks.

Can you throw a few references out so I can explore this in greater detail?
 
st_lucy said:
Well to address you first part of your post. We want abortion outlawed simply because it is murder and should not happen. Yes it may still happen after it is outlawed just as murder happens all the time but is still outlawed, but it does give one a moment to reconsider.

To your second part of your post the Church as in the CC does support a ton of pro-life clinics, homes and counseling. You need to do some research on this but the Church does do a lot.
Click to expand...
Lucy , I second your post our small city recently opened a womens help services two doors up from the abortion mill, Our Bishop came up and was here to bless and dedicate the opening. :)Carlan
 
Jermosh said:
Where the challenge for you is how do you put these thoughts in layman’s terms for others who do not “believe”? Its simply impossible to force others to “believe”, many have tried before and usually ended up in some humanitarian disaster or another. Or do you just stand behind the line in the sand?
Click to expand...
That is a challenge that I usually don’t accept. I am not an apologist and have little time to develop the required skills. If someone can look at a developing infant and convince themselves that the unborn baby is not human, I am not capable of forcing them to believe otherwise.

I state my opinions as clearly as I can and I appreciate counter points, and I do consider them. But look at the comments since I originally stated my position, how many are directed at enhancing anything. There are folks who want to join a debating society, which is fine for them. But I can not speed the time to formulate a position which is designed for the Golden Quill award as being impervious to attack.

I try not to just stand behind a line in the sand, but I am much better at collecting baby clothes, used cribs and other things that our assistance center can use.
 
Why is a whale fetus a whale but a human fetus not considered a human?

What is a Condor egg considered a Condor but a human fetus is not human?

Why is a snail darter more important then a baby?

Why does the destruction of salmon eggs carry a criminal penalty but the destruction of a human fetus does not?

Why is the tree the Northern Spotted Owl lives in protected for the owl but the womb of the human child is not?
 
Jermosh said:
No because they are just parts of the over all Human Being with their unique person. This also covers cells that are malignant or have different DNA, they are again defined as part of the larger organism and do not account for a life. A fertilized egg is the start of a new and unique organism though, it has its own unique life.
Click to expand...
fix said:
If you value logic then why claim a human hair is similar to a human life? The hair follicle is not a developing child.
Click to expand...
My statement that hair follicles also contain DNA was in response to his assertion that human rights are granted to things with human DNA. This is clearly incorrect or I will be committing mass murder if I ever scrape my knee.
Logic dictates many things though, if we look into Universal Natural Rights as defined by John Locke, we have the right to survive and thrive, but this is with the caveat that we can defend for them. This is why he felt a Govt could be good for man in that we would not have to defend constantly and would promote wealth.

You also have social equity, so does an unborn child have the same social equity of the pope? This is a weird mystery though, on one hand the Church states they both are equal in right to life, but they employ an army to protect the pope, but have strict rules forbidding violence for Pro-Life activities.
Click to expand...
My statement in not being interested in the government stemmed from his giving it’s handling of a particular murder as an example as if it influenced the debate.
elts1956 said:
Several years ago National Geographic had an article on this also.

ttp://www.doesgodexist.org/MayJun96/WhenAPlantScreams.html

When A Plant Screams!
The United States Department of Agriculture has learned that plants “scream” chemically when attacked by caterpillars. Corn plants, for example, release a chemical signal when mixed with the saliva of the caterpillar. This signal attracts wasps which lay their eggs in the caterpillar, eventually killing the caterpillar and saving the plant. If the leaf is cut or injured in some other way, the chemical signal is not emitted. Only when the caterpillar saliva mixes with the damaged portion of the leaf is the signal given off.
Because of this elaborate system, a wasp can seek out caterpillars in a huge corn field and stop large scale damage. James Tumlinson, of the USDA says soybeans and cotton plants have a similar defense against pests. We are only beginning to understand how many natural protective mechanisms are built into the environment to help us and protect us. Some pesticides may kill the wasps and not the caterpillars, defeating the system designed to protect the plants. There is much to learn about the design of living things–a design so complex that we maintain it cannot be a product of chance.
–Source Popular Science, October, 1993, page 33.

Also:
freerepublic.com/focus/fr/577029/posts
Click to expand...
What’s your point? That we should give plants human rights? Ok.
fix said:
What do you call the intentional killing of an innocent person?
Click to expand...
Murder, but we’re not talking about killing an innocent person.
AnotherVoice said:
Identical twins, even those developed from a single split egg, do show differences in DNA. The belief that there is a 100% match has been found to not be the case. Also, the phenotypes in each twin will have differences. These determine how the DNA sequence is expressed; ie “identical twins”, different finger prints.
Click to expand...
That’s quite cool. Any references? I can still oppose unique human DNA, fertilized eggs from in-vitro fertilization that are not implanted are routinely thrown away.
YADA said:
Why is a whale fetus a whale but a human fetus not considered a human?

What is a Condor egg considered a Condor but a human fetus is not human?
Click to expand...
Human fetuses are human, that’s for sure. But only in the same way that my hand is human.
Why is a snail darter more important then a baby?
Click to expand...
Not sure how endangered species are relevant to this.
Why does the destruction of salmon eggs carry a criminal penalty but the destruction of a human fetus does not?
Click to expand...
For different reasons. Salmon are endangered, human fetuses are not necessarily human beings.
 
Schn said:
My statement that hair follicles also contain DNA was in response to his assertion that human rights are granted to things with human DNA. This is clearly incorrect or I will be committing mass murder if I ever scrape my knee.

My statement in not being interested in the government stemmed from his giving it’s handling of a particular murder as an example as if it influenced the debate.

What’s your point? That we should give plants human rights? Ok.

Murder, but we’re not talking about killing an innocent person.

That’s quite cool. Any references? I can still oppose unique human DNA, fertilized eggs from in-vitro fertilization that are not implanted are routinely thrown away.

Human fetuses are human, that’s for sure. But only in the same way that my hand is human.

Not sure how endangered species are relevant to this.

For different reasons. Salmon are endangered, human fetuses are not necessarily human beings.
Click to expand...
“Human fetuses are human, that’s for sure. But only in the same way that my hand is human.” Your hand is not a complete human baby. It may be your baby, but it could be cut off and you could live. Scraping a womb, pulling a baby out of a womb piece by piece, or stabbing it in the back of the head when it is 95% out of the womb means that infant won’t live. Its life is cut off, not only its hand.
 
Schn said:
My statement that hair follicles also contain DNA was in response to his assertion that human rights are granted to things with human DNA. This is clearly incorrect or I will be committing mass murder if I ever scrape my knee.

My statement in not being interested in the government stemmed from his giving it’s handling of a particular murder as an example as if it influenced the debate.

What’s your point? That we should give plants human rights? Ok.

Murder, but we’re not talking about killing an innocent person.

That’s quite cool. Any references? I can still oppose unique human DNA, fertilized eggs from in-vitro fertilization that are not implanted are routinely thrown away.

Human fetuses are human, that’s for sure. But only in the same way that my hand is human.

Not sure how endangered species are relevant to this.

For different reasons. Salmon are endangered, human fetuses are not necessarily human beings.
Click to expand...
Because of the looseness of the protective laws letting abortion be illegal, all of humanity is in danger. People are not looking any further than the ends of their noses when they say abortion is no threat to humans. And we have just started with the elimination of 50,000,000 babies through abortion since 1973. That is not worldwide, but only here in these United States.
 
elts1956 said:
“Human fetuses are human, that’s for sure. But only in the same way that my hand is human.” Your hand is not a complete human baby. It may be your baby, but it could be cut off and you could live. Scraping a womb, pulling a baby out of a womb piece by piece, or stabbing it in the back of the head when it is 95% out of the womb means that infant won’t live. Its life is cut off, not only its hand.
Click to expand...
He was confusing human (my hand is human) and human being deserving of human rights (I am a human being). I disagree that a fetus deserves human rights.
 
Schn said:
He was confusing human (my hand is human) and human being deserving of human rights (I am a human being). I disagree that a fetus deserves human rights.
Click to expand...
He isn’t the only one who is confused. :eek:
 
There are reasons, other than religious, to disagree with abortion.

It is anti-women.
It is anti-diversity, and is supported by the KKK as a means of keeping non-WASPs off the face of the planet.
It is lethal to the mother as well as the child.
The “history” that argues for it is deceptive and full of lies.
64% of abortions are forced.
80% of women who have had abortions were never told that there was another option.
Physical health risks include, but are not limited to: breast cancer, cervical caner, ovarian cancer, liver cancer, uterine perforations, cervical lacerations, endometriosis, infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, toxic shock, fever, chronic abdominal pains, second degree burns, Rh sensitization, vomiting, gastro-intestinal disturbances, and death.
Psychological health risks include, but are not limited to: Post Abortion Syndrome, sleep disorders, anxiety/nervous disorders, grief, eating disorders, substance abuse, divorce, chronic relationship problems, self punishment, child abuse, and suicide.
If a woman does decide that she wants a child later on in life, she often has one or more of these problems: infertility, ectopic/tubal pregnancy, placenta previa, miscarriage, premature birth, still-birth, and it even causes handicaps in the children.

The writers of the original anti-abortion laws in the US were the original feminists, including Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul. They considered it their most important work. Those laws were later repealed by NARAL, under the the guidance of a man named Larry Lader, who lied to get NOW to take up repealing the laws as their main cause.

Do you really want to support such a travesty?

Read the article “The Feminist Case Against Abortion”: feministsforlife.org/taf/2004/summer-fall/Summer-Fall04.pdf
 
Oh, and if you need a few more links, here ya go:
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10010706.html
blackgenocide.org/
klanparenthood.com/
theunchoice.com/coerced.htm
unfairchoice.info/intro.htm
abort73.com/
abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony
childpredator.com/
priestsforlife.org/articles/abortionachoiceagainstwomen.html
iol.ie/~hlii/abortion_risks.html
crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/847/Abortion_Linked_to_Mental_Health_Problems.html
leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap4.html
afterabortion.org/reasmor.html
afterabortion.org/moreart.html
afterabortion.org/news/CDCdeathswrong.htm
afterabortion.org/complic.html
afterabortion.org/PALinks.html
childpredators.com/
childpredators.com/ReadReport.cfm
klannedparenthood.com/History_of_Abortion_Statistics/
crusadeforlife.org/misconceptions.htm
operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/
maryourmother.net/Life.html
cirtl.org/syndrome.htm
lifenews.com/nat4741.html
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17718
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09111306.html
nrlc.org/Judicial/SavageLATimes091405.html
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09111903.html
operationrescue.org/archives/illegal-back-alley-abortionist-opens-risky-late-term-abortion-mill/ - ADMITS TO KILLING!!!
operationrescue.org/archives/pregnant-pro-lifer-attacked-by-abortion-worker-outside-kc-abortion-clinic/
operationrescue.org/archives/abortion-promoters-whine-over-cape-cod-being-abortion-free/ - Even when the reasoning is that no one wants to practice there
afterabortion.org/maintest.html
theunchoice.com/pblresearch.htm
gospelweb.net/Prolife/DictionaryOnRoevsWade.htm
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/zabortdepr.htm
priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm <–warning: photos of abortion
Psychological Responses of Women After First-Trimester Abortion - archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/57/8/777
Two Senseless Deaths Following an Abortion - afterabortion.org/PAR/V2/n2/TESTIMON.htm
Abortionists Are Not Held Accountable for Their Mistakes - afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/berning.html

Abortion and Breast Cancer
crusadeforlife.org/Rep-ABC.htm
abortionbreastcancer.com/
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/BCANCER.TXT
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/ABORTBC.TXT
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/ABORRISK.TXT
lifenews.com/nat5874.html

Feminist sites and articles:
feministsforlife.org/
gargaro.com/abortion/notpr.html
gargaro.com/abortion/stories.html
prolifeaction.org/providers/index.htm
gargaro.com/abortion/quotes.html
feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm
feministsforlife.org/history/index.htm
feministsforlife.org/news/WDBSMF150.pdf

Atheist/Humanist articles:
godlessprolifers.org/home.html
godlessprolifers.org/links/prolife.html
godlessprolifers.org/library/trageser3.html
fnsa.org/fall98/reed.html
compleatheretic.com/pubs/letters/020624.html
 
40.png
Jermosh:
Christian rule and law? Like Mary Dyer?
Huh! That does not in anyway address what I said. Here are my questions again:

*Is morality a matter of a majority vote? *
*And who says that science should dictate what is moral? *
And why should we Christians be advocating for law that is against Christianity? For political correctness? For human respect?
Abortion was accepted in society long before RvsW. Event the Egyptians had abortion techniques, the early Church even spoke the evils of it.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Non Christians practice abortion and deem it okay. And again you make my case for me, the early Church Fathers spoke of its evils. Get that? As Christians we are suppose to call it what it is, EVIL and not try to sanitize it like you are doing.
It
Click to expand...
would be naive to think that it is a modern issue and that its legality has anything to do with it happening.

I never said it is a modern issue. But when Christianity became the major religion in the west, this was considered evil so practice was not as wide as it is now, now that it is legal and so deemed moral by a lot of people That is the one thing keeps escaping you.
This is a false paradigm based on the fact that you think that yesterday was less evil then today. Today is just as evil as the day that Christ was born or the day of the Great Fall.
Click to expand...
No it is not a false paradigm. You know very well what I am talking about . I am not talking about general evil. I am talking about abortion and how there was less of it in the Christian world prior to its legalization. So nice try but it doesn’t work.
As I and** fix** have said before, the law is an educator. So long as it is legal, more babies will be killed by their own mothers. That is a simple matter of FACT.
What needs to be done is to educate people and raise their moral consciousness. That is what is gone, this sense of sin.
Stop with the false accusations, you have no real idea of my intent or grasp the idea that there is another valid avenue to stop abortions.
Click to expand...
It is not a false accusation. This is how the devil tries to get us to do evil, by dimming the lights. You will not stop abortion so long as people think it is about economics. That is where you are so completely wrong. Because IT IS NOT ABOUT ECONOMICS.
You may think standing in a line with a sign in hand is effective, or sending gobs of money to groups in Washington is as well.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I ever said anything of the kind. And you will never stop abortion so long as you think it’s okay to make it legal. That is one way of ensuring that abortion continues.
I disagree and in fact have proof that they don’t work since abortion is more ingrained into our society then ever.
Click to expand...
They don’t work because there is a far greater lobby in Washington wanting for the evil to continue. THAT is why it doesn’t work; because devil-speak is prevalent: call it foetus, call it a blob of cells, but don’t call it a baby.

So there you see the devils work again of twisting everything to suit its own evil ends. Dim the lights. What we are suppose to do is put the spotlight on its evil nature and call this spade the dirty bloody shovel it is.

People as a rule are geared towards the good. That is why we rationalize evil. We try to make something evil seem good otherwise we will not be able to do it. This kind of thing happens all the time.

Take for a example petty office theft: you take home a pencil, or tape and you say to yourself: well it’s only a little thing, besides the bosses are corrupt any way. So you rationalize this violation of the 8th commandment to make it easier to commit it.

Or people who commit adultery. They try to rationalize it by saying they “love” the other person.

We need to stop the excuses and rationalization and start walking in the light.
 
Jermosh said:
This is why you will always be on the otherside of the fence, you cannot help anyone from that side of the fence.
Click to expand...
But who says that this debate is about helping any one? This debate is about what is right and wrong.
Where did Christ stay and eat with? What side of the fence do you think that He would have been on?
Click to expand...
He would have been on the side of the Truth. Jesus forgave sins but He did NOT CONDONE them.

This is where you and a lot of people go so wrong. When He ate with the tax collector, He called the tax collector to a higher moral standard. When He forgave the adulteress, He told her GO AND SIN NO MORE.

The mission of the Church is not to feed the world. The mission of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel of liberation from sin and death.
Do you think He would have been on the outside with a sign telling them they are all living in sin? Or do you think that He would be inside making people understand by His mere presence?
Click to expand...
Well, what does scripture say about it. He ate with sinners. But why, so that they can remain sinners? Is that the whole point?
Jesus has no hesitation of naming the sin and showing it’s evil. That is what He came here for, for the fogiveness of sins. Not to dish out schmaltz.
Also, you have still have not explained how you are going to stop people from being sinful
Click to expand...
The first stop is to expose the evil for what it is. Your position will only make abortion even more entrenched in society.

You just fail to grasp the reason for abortion. It is never about, economics. That is the devil’s lie that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

What is the first step in AA? To admit that one is an alcoholic. Same with this. For things to turn around we need to admit the sin and ask for forgivenss.

So again I say to you, stop buying into the rationale of the devil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top