G
gt14
Guest
I was making a decision based on what actually happens medically during an abortion, while I certainly did and continue to have an emotional reaction to this subject, it is not a knee jerk one.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
gt14
Guest
It is not a human right for one human to intentionally kill another.IF you are have ANY emotional reaction to someone exercising a human right there is nothing I can do or say to help you.
I became objective when I educated myself on what happens medically during an abortion.I wish you the best and suggest you try to remain objective in the future.
J
JimG
Guest
I have seen this video before. I can’t watch it now because I’m using a laptop with no sound. This is a talk which Stephanie Gray gave at Google, entitled “Abortion—from controversy to civility.” She gives a talk which is reasonable and civil rather than contentious.
The fact is, every human being has a beginning. That beginning is at conception. The newly formed human starts out as a single cell zygote, but quickly grows and differentiates. The new human is genetically distinct from its mother and father. It is and will remain a distinct person.
We don’t bestow rights based on a person’s abilities or stage of development. Rights are inherent to the fact of humanity. A new human being is still a human being. There is no point other than conception at which a new and distinct human individual comes into existence.
We might arbitrarily deefine a human as beginning at 6 months after birth, or one year, or five years or at age 7. But that would be wrong and arbitrary. A new and distinct individual of the human species comes into existence at conception. That is embryology, not religion.
The fact is, every human being has a beginning. That beginning is at conception. The newly formed human starts out as a single cell zygote, but quickly grows and differentiates. The new human is genetically distinct from its mother and father. It is and will remain a distinct person.
We don’t bestow rights based on a person’s abilities or stage of development. Rights are inherent to the fact of humanity. A new human being is still a human being. There is no point other than conception at which a new and distinct human individual comes into existence.
We might arbitrarily deefine a human as beginning at 6 months after birth, or one year, or five years or at age 7. But that would be wrong and arbitrary. A new and distinct individual of the human species comes into existence at conception. That is embryology, not religion.
E
Entwhistler
Guest
But we are not talking about just any cluster of cells. We are talking about a human fetus. From what I have read the only reason you have given as to why the fetus is not human is it does not have a will (which is not an argument because neither does a one year old baby) and it is not viable outside of the Mother’s womb (which is also not an argument because in a few technological years we will be able to get the baby viable outside of a woman as long as the fetus is in a vat of some sort. Which is almost the same as a person hooked up to an IV and only alive because of fluids pumped into him).Clusters of cells are NOT HUMAN BEINGS AND HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS
The burden of proof is on you since life is such an important thing. If we are to say that a human being is not a one, we need proof.
Last edited:
E
Entwhistler
Guest
Well, good luck to you mate. I’m afraid you probably didn’t come close to convincing anyone of much since those who are pro-life believe the fetus is a human being with rights that other human beings have. You are talking about depriving the human rights of the mother. That’s all fine and good. But we believe the baby has human rights also. So your argument based on human rights kind of falls apart with those who are pro-life. It won’t convince them of much.
G
gt14
Guest
It doesn’t feel like an hour when watching, the speaker is really engaging. Maybe watch it over a couple of days?
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, it really is a good talk, given in a reasonable and civil manner by an engaging speaker.It doesn’t feel like an hour when watching, the speaker is really engaging. Maybe watch it over a couple of days?
S
StephieNorthCo
Guest
Several years ago I was pro choice. My rationale was, even though I would never ever abort an innocent life, it was not my place to tell someone else they couldn’t, nor prevent them from doing so. After all, it was between them and their conscience.
Then the brain kicked in.
There’s a lot more to this story. There are multi facets to this issue. What if the thing that is developing in the body IS a unique life. Sure it is. It ain’t just a growth that happens. So where is human life? At conception? At birth? Somewhere in between. Scientifically, only at conception makes sense. Legally, maybe at conception, at development of brain, when heart starts, at pain threshold, at the point where it is viable, albeit with life support without the mother, at birth?
Disclaimer: I am a premie… I weighed 2.2 pounds at birth.
So the late term club I automatically have a problem with. Hey, you gonna legally kill me? Hey, not to brag but I have 23 patents… you gonna deprive society of that benefit? Thank you very much.
So, conception it is. Nothing else makes sense. That means you abort, you murder. Period.
But then, think in another area. What about rights? What do these rights DO?
Well, if I need rights for my body, and I am free to kill a living organism, then there is no value to that living organism. There is no value to life. AND I AM SIMPLY AN OBJECT TO BE USED FOR SELFISH PLEASURE. Is that what humanity is about?
I don’t think so.
Think about it.
Then the brain kicked in.
There’s a lot more to this story. There are multi facets to this issue. What if the thing that is developing in the body IS a unique life. Sure it is. It ain’t just a growth that happens. So where is human life? At conception? At birth? Somewhere in between. Scientifically, only at conception makes sense. Legally, maybe at conception, at development of brain, when heart starts, at pain threshold, at the point where it is viable, albeit with life support without the mother, at birth?
Disclaimer: I am a premie… I weighed 2.2 pounds at birth.
So the late term club I automatically have a problem with. Hey, you gonna legally kill me? Hey, not to brag but I have 23 patents… you gonna deprive society of that benefit? Thank you very much.
So, conception it is. Nothing else makes sense. That means you abort, you murder. Period.
But then, think in another area. What about rights? What do these rights DO?
Well, if I need rights for my body, and I am free to kill a living organism, then there is no value to that living organism. There is no value to life. AND I AM SIMPLY AN OBJECT TO BE USED FOR SELFISH PLEASURE. Is that what humanity is about?
I don’t think so.
Think about it.
Last edited:
M
Mary888
Guest
I meant to say we are we are never in a vegetative state. Not even when we are codependent like a baby’s life depends of his/her mother’s.
During the first weeks of pregnancy most women experience sickness, stranger new food tastes or food obsessions. It is clear that the presence of another conscience is there, in them, right from the start. A conscience capable enough to send moods to the mother. A conscience capable of emitting is communicating hence is a person. Capable of interferring with mother’s preference. A person. Does she/he have a right to a more complete material existence just for being able to contact and make self present in material existence?
I vote Yes they do.
During the first weeks of pregnancy most women experience sickness, stranger new food tastes or food obsessions. It is clear that the presence of another conscience is there, in them, right from the start. A conscience capable enough to send moods to the mother. A conscience capable of emitting is communicating hence is a person. Capable of interferring with mother’s preference. A person. Does she/he have a right to a more complete material existence just for being able to contact and make self present in material existence?
I vote Yes they do.
Last edited:
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
Am i the only one to find it unsettling that we even have to debate this topic on a Catholic forum?
T
Theo520
Guest
I have sympathy for your thinking, but this is probably one of the few places you can debate a more progressive person on the topic.Am i the only one to find it unsettling that we even have to debate this topic on a Catholic forum?
Anybody that is okay with abortion either lacks understanding or compassion. It is a scientific fact that a human being with unique DNA exists at the moment of conception. If you don’t believe in the concept of a soul, this only leaves room for debate on the philosophical concept of a person and their value. Given that the only difference between an infant and an unborn human moments before birth is their location in space, and location in space would be an absurd criteria for qualifying a human being as a person, the unborn must become a person at some point within the womb.
People try to pick a point based on a stage of development, but what if you’re wrong? The bottom line is that trying to establish any criteria for human worth, such as skin color, sex, mental capacity, or anything other than simply being the offspring of two human parents is reckless, and has historically always led to oppression of people that should have been treated with equal worth. The only compassionate view is to accept all human beings as people of worth, and avoid any chance of genocide.
People try to pick a point based on a stage of development, but what if you’re wrong? The bottom line is that trying to establish any criteria for human worth, such as skin color, sex, mental capacity, or anything other than simply being the offspring of two human parents is reckless, and has historically always led to oppression of people that should have been treated with equal worth. The only compassionate view is to accept all human beings as people of worth, and avoid any chance of genocide.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.