Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[fix]

This thread might be more aptly titled, ‘Pro-life versus pro-death: only fools will argue for the latter.’

Yes, “pro choice” is a type of evasion.

 

[Worthy5]

Not exclusive, but primary and fundamental. Without that protection all else is meaningless.

Granted protection of life is a major policy. But society does not do *everything *

And where do they come from my friend, please explain to us all. But there you go again, it is not a question whether abortion is morally wrong-it is. The question is what are the best means to help prevent it and society’s choice to use such different means to accomplish its goal. Not to forget, the need to protect us all from grandstanding moralist from implementing an autocratic government. Learn the distinction between a legal issue and a moral issue, it might help.

 

[rtconstant]

What would doing that prove?

As I’ve said before, there are more options than your opinion and my opinion. Simply declaring my opinion to be wrong doesn’t mean that yours is automatically right. If you want your opinion to be the basis of law, then defend it on its own merits.

What it helps with is that the pro-Abortion side never really did that. It was the default assumption by most people before the Supreme Court decision, that a baby born or unborn was a person. Roe vs. Wade simply put the right of a woman’s convenience over the right of a child to live. So yeah, the pro-Abortion side really does need to justify that.

Every person is given the rites of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by the Constitution. In order for Roe vs. Wade to be valid, the pro-abortion side must demonstrate that life isn’t being being obstructed by a luxury decision. And before you even go there, yeah I think that same reasoning needs to applied to war, property defense, and the death penalty.

In other words, by your own qualification Roe vs. Wade needs to demonstrate why that the infant doesn’t have the right to grow up. the pro-abortion side has not demonstrated how that the law allowing it is reasonable.

Again, I really don’t see what this would do. My personal definitions are irrelevant to the debate over whether abortion should be legal. In a free society, every action is legal unless a reasonable justification can be provided for why is should be illegal.

It’s not a matter of deciding between your opinion and mine; it’s a matter of deciding whether your opinion is a reasonable justification for the law, period.

It was reasonable for a long time. Roe vs. Wade is the new kid on the block, that needs to justify itself. Rights were removed from one individual and given to another. So yeah, the pro-abortion side needs to justify either that one of two being affected isn’t actually a person, or it needs to demonstrate how that the rights of one outweighs the rights of the other.

Other than in the rare cases of the threatening of the life of the mother, I’ve yet to hear anything approaching a reasonable argument one way or the other.

I don’t believe in souls. I think that people are unwilling to bring them up because they know that the soul is a religious concept. They want their opinion to rest on some sort of objectively provable foundation, but AFAICT, there isn’t one.

That’s because you’re making an assumption that your position requires no justification, and then your further clouding the waters by dismissing personhood to vague concept that seems to become more vague as we go. We’ve left off now where that you seem to be questioning if even born children are really persons, because that might just be an emotional response on your part. The problem with that type of reasoning is that eventually the only place you have left to go is that no life has value.

 

[Caramel]

Arrgh. Maybe it would be best to give up this analogy. It seems to be muddying the waters more than anything else (no pun intended).

If you didn’t make those statements, then someone has hacked into your account:

What would doing that prove?

As I’ve said before, there are more options than your opinion and my opinion. Simply declaring my opinion to be wrong doesn’t mean that yours is automatically right. If you want your opinion to be the basis of law, then defend it on its own merits.

Again, I really don’t see what this would do. My personal definitions are irrelevant to the debate over whether abortion should be legal. In a free society, every action is legal unless a reasonable justification can be provided for why is should be illegal.

It’s not a matter of deciding between your opinion and mine; it’s a matter of deciding whether your opinion is a reasonable justification for the law, period.

I don’t believe in souls. I think that people are unwilling to bring them up because they know that the soul is a religious concept. They want their opinion to rest on some sort of objectively provable foundation, but AFAICT, there isn’t one.

How did being a biologist have an effect on your position?

I’m personally of the opinion that the sciences only provide us with factual knowledge; while they do give us information on which we can base moral choices, they don’t dictate morality themselves.

I have an idea which might not have occurred to you. Why don’t you answer the questions I asked you in posts 381 and 382 and then we will discuss this post.

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss

 

[gearhead]

I have an idea which might not have occurred to you. Why don’t you answer the questions I asked you in posts 381 and 382 and then we will discuss this post.

Sure. It seems like I’m the only pro-choice poster in this thread now, so I’ve got a number of posts to respond to and only a limited amount of time to do it. It’s getting a bit hard for me to keep everything straight and not miss questions.

Gearhead, you just stated that every baby started out as an unfertilized egg. That means you are stating that an unfertilized egg is a baby. I don’t agree with this, but if you make that statement you must also agree that if an unfertilized egg is a baby, than a fertilized egg must be a baby also. And a baby is a person.

Is this what you meant to state?

No, that’s not what I meant. I meant that in every case where the end point is a baby, the path to that point went through an unfertilized egg.

Please provide some evidence which shows that the “pro-choice movement” would be willing to compromise; specifically, to “concede” late-term abortions. Oh, and could you also give a definition of “late-term abortion”?

My assessment is based on conversations with other people who are pro-choice. I’m sure you can find members of the radical fringe who disagree and won’t ever budge on their demand for the right to abort at any time all the way up to birth, but they seem to me to be a slim minority.

I think the meaning of “late term” can vary depending on who you ask, but I was specifically thinking of the third trimester. Potentially earlier as well, but not into the first trimester.

 

[Caramel]

If we truly believed that an embryo was human, we would not permit it to be destroyed.

Scott started his talk by outlining a few of the points his opponents make in their argument for a woman’s right to choose abortion.

1. Pro life people do not have the right to impose their opinion on others
2. Every person has the right to “choose”
3. Abortion is a choice between a woman and her doctor. No one else’s business.
4. Restricting abortion for the poor who cannot afford more children is unfair.
5. Women should have the right to abort their pregnancy at any time though out the nine months of pregnancy.
6. Women should not be required to give birth to an unwanted child that may be subjected to abuse, poverty, or illness.
7. Abortion should be permitted in all cases of rape or incest.

Scott surprises his opponent and his audience by agreeing with these arguments. He agrees with every aspect of their arguments; IF, the fetus is not human.

Scott’s point is that the whole controversy boils down to “is the fetus human?” Virtually no one would use any of these arguments to kill a 2 year old toddler. So, the question really is, “is the fetus human?” If the fetus is not human then all of the pro choice people are correct and we pro life people concede the right of a woman to have an abortion. The reason however, that we continue to oppose abortion is that all scientific evidence supports the fact that the fetus is human. If we were however, to concede for arguments sake that we do not know when the fetus becomes human; does that alone permit us to morally kill the fetus? If there is a doubt should we assume the fetus is human or assume it is not human? To illustrate this point, Scott uses the analogy of hunting with a friend and you see a bush rustling, and you are not sure if it is the deer you have been pursuing or your hunting partner, do shoot hoping it is the deer, or do you not shoot until you know it is a deer?

The pro choice people seem to take the position that since they do not know if the fetus is human or not, It is okay to accept this as an unknown and an excuse to do what is convenient. The fact that they do not know does not mean there is no truth or correct answer. There was a time when people were not sure if slavery was right or if the world was flat or round, but there always was a correct answer, as there is for this question. We should always error on the side of morality.

Some pro choice people like to make this an argument about religion. Religion has nothing to do with if we have the right to kill another human being. The most devout atheist does not believe we have the right to kill another human being. The religion argument is nothing but an attempt to change the subject and not face the real issue.

Some pro choice people like to use the argument that the fetus is not fully human by using the well known argument of the laboratory fire. This argument goes like this; you are in a laboratory that is on fire, in one corner are several frozen embryos, in another corner is a 2 year old toddler, you have time to save only the embryos or the toddler, which do you save? Because most people would choose the toddler, the pro choice argument is that even you pro life people do not believe that the embryos are human. Scott’s rebuttal is that emotional feelings do not change the fact of what is human and what is not. His example was if his 8 year old daughter was in the auditorium with us and a fire broke out and he had the choice of saving his daughter or all of us, we would all be “toast”; this does not prove that none of us were human.

Over the years of dialog I have had with those supporting the right to “choose” I have always been intrigued by the fact that they, almost without exception, have not watched, and refuse to watch any picture, video, or image of an actual abortion. Of course the excuse is always, “I refuse to watch such gory pictures” because they are offensive to me. Interestingly, these same individuals will pay good money to go to a movie which contains more graphic images then the abortion images. So, what is the real reason they do not want to see the images of an abortion; maybe, because they don’t want to subject themselves to the reality of abortion?

This link will take you to a short video of not an actual abortion but the after math; if you have not seen these images, you need to see them at least once, once will be enough. If these images do not convince you that the fetus was human, I don’t think anything will.

Abortion after math Video

I posted this because I hope to bring the focus of this discussion back to what was originally planned. I had to cut some of the original post because of length.

What follows is my opinion based on my training as a biologist and on my faith as a Catholic.

Pro-aborts want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to have unprotected sex and they don’t want to do the small amount of work involved in Natural Family Planning, which is so so easy. They want to have abortion available so that they don’t have to carry a child from an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. In order to do this they must rationalize why it is OK to have an abortion.

As Catholics we don’t believe in murdering innocent people. So, let’s not call them people. If they aren’t people (persons, human beings) then it’s OK to kill them. Simple, clean, and WRONG!! They ARE people, persons, human beings and it is NOT OK to kill them. Love then, nurture them, accept them as the gifts from God that they are.

My mother became pregnant with me back in 1955. I was unplanned. The doctor told her she was pregnant and then said he would sign the papers that would allow the abortion. You see, she was diabetic and he didn’t think she should have more than two children. I was number three. She could have killed me. But of course she didn’t and she also did not kill her fourth child, my brother. She and my father were both Catholic and they didn’t just talk the talk, they walked the walk. They didn’t rationalize. They knew that it would cause financial problems. But I was a gift to them from God. And that is how they looked at me and I feel such love from that. I was never in any danger from abortion. And as Catholics this is how we MUST look at our children.

I love you, Mom. I love you, Dad. Thank you.

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss

 

[Caramel]

Sure. It seems like I’m the only pro-choice poster in this thread now, so I’ve got a number of posts to respond to and only a limited amount of time to do it. It’s getting a bit hard for me to keep everything straight and not miss questions.

No, that’s not what I meant. I meant that in every case where the end point is a baby, the path to that point went through an unfertilized egg.

So why did you state this? Perhaps a slip of the tongue?

My assessment is based on conversations with other people who are pro-choice. I’m sure you can find members of the radical fringe who disagree and won’t ever budge on their demand for the right to abort at any time all the way up to birth, but they seem to me to be a slim minority.

I think the meaning of “late term” can vary depending on who you ask, but I was specifically thinking of the third trimester. Potentially earlier as well, but not into the first trimester.

So you have NO scientific evidence, no quotes, no definition for “person” and a sad story about miscarriages (I do believe it is sad even if you don’t. Even if you don’t consider the loss to be human, it still dashed your hopes and caused physical problems. I’ve been there. It can hurt physically to have a miscarriage. Not only is there emotional pain, the physical pain can be immense.)

I am new to this forum, as you are. I’ve re-posted most of the original post in the post before this one. Have you read it?

I understand about how posts and things can get so involved and confusing. It’s getting too complicated for me. I think we should try to keep it a bit more simple, in terms of quotes from other posts, etc. I’ve had to trim two of my responses because they were too long.

I am sick today (degenerative disc disease) so I am not in my best form. I will wait until tomorrow to respond to your other post. Sorry.

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss

 

[ExDeoVita]

Here is the problem with arguing logic with one who puts more faith in Godwin’s law than in God’s law;

Godwin’s law is a typical tactic of the far left. Whenever there is a valid point (or person) such as the lessons of history like Hitler and Nazis Germany (or Sarah Palin) for which they have no counter argument, they demonize the use of the argument (or person) in an attempt to discredit its (or their) use. Because this causes some to shy away from supporting these arguments (or people), this tactic has been very successful, hence why it is continually used by those without a conscience.

You are right to point out ‘a’ strategy used by the far left: steering clear of perfectly consistent analogies that would otherwise unmask the horror of what there logic leads to and says about them.

I asked you if the way you parsed the idea of finding middle ground on abortion via reducing late term abortion and finding middle ground on something as equally heinous as the holocaust was logically consistent. And it would be consistent if that’s the way you parse ideas. To believe otherwise would demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what it is to be pro-life - as that kind of ‘middle ground’ would be ridiculous.

You can dance all you want but it is a pretty straight forward analogy and it deserves a straight forward answer. Here, i’ll demonstrate how easy it actually is from the pro-life standpoint:

The pre-born baby (fetal human) has intrinsic value equal at all stages of development - thus killing a pre-born baby before he/she has developed enough for a late term abortion would be just as wrong as killing a child, teen, adult…
Conclusion: you cannot parse developmental stages of human beings to find middle ground if you pro-life.

There again, a human person weather Jew, Christian, handicapped, short, tall is still a human person and to parse the demographic somehow so seek middle ground involving the holocaust would be equally impossible given pro-life philosophy.

That was not hard to do, but since you logic places you on the opposite end in both cases I suppose it will be hard for you to answer this. In fact, as you have already demonstrated, you probably won’t.

Regardless, the glaring inconsistency within your logic will remain know matter how you try to dance around this issue…

 

[gakroeger]

You are right to point out ‘a’ strategy used by the far left: steering clear of perfectly consistent analogies that would otherwise unmask the horror of what there logic leads to and says about them.

I asked you if the way you parsed the idea of finding middle ground on abortion via reducing late term abortion and finding middle ground on something as equally heinous as the holocaust was logically consistent. And it would be consistent if that’s the way you parse ideas. To believe otherwise would demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what it is to be pro-life - as that kind of ‘middle ground’ would be ridiculous.

You can dance all you want but it is a pretty straight forward analogy and it deserves a straight forward answer. Here, i’ll demonstrate how easy it actually is from the pro-life standpoint:

The pre-born baby (fetal human) has intrinsic value equal at all stages of development - thus killing a pre-born baby before he/she has developed enough for a late term abortion would be just as wrong as killing a child, teen, adult…
Conclusion: you cannot parse developmental stages of human beings to find middle ground if you pro-life.

There again, a human person weather Jew, Christian, handicapped, short, tall is still a human person and to parse the demographic somehow so seek middle ground involving the holocaust would be equally impossible given pro-life philosophy.

That was not hard to do, but since you logic places you on the opposite end in both cases I suppose it will be hard for you to answer this. In fact, as you have already demonstrated, you probably won’t.

Regardless, the glaring inconsistency within your logic will remain know matter how you try to dance around this issue…

???

The only sense I can make from this is that you must have misread a post somewhere. My quote you used here makes no reference to middle ground and I have never suggested that. Maybe you need to go back and find the quote you are referring to and who the author was…

???

 

[gearhead]

So why did you state this? Perhaps a slip of the tongue?

No, I think my intended meaning was there in the sentence as I originally wrote it. It seems that it left room for interpretation, and you’ve latched onto that for some reason.

So you have NO scientific evidence, no quotes, no definition for “person” and a sad story about miscarriages (I do believe it is sad even if you don’t. Even if you don’t consider the loss to be human, it still dashed your hopes and caused physical problems. I’ve been there. It can hurt physically to have a miscarriage. Not only is there emotional pain, the physical pain can be immense.)

Wait… what? AFAICT, you asked me why I believed that most pro-choice people would compromise on late term abortions if they didn’t think it would result in a ban of all abortions generally. What scientific evidence would you want? And I’m sure I can dig up a few quotes if you really want me to, but the important thing here is the general feeling of the community, not opinions.

I am new to this forum, as you are. I’ve re-posted most of the original post in the post before this one. Have you read it?

I’m going through the thread here. Like I mentioned before, it looks like I’m the only pro-choice poster here right now, so I’m getting a bit overwhelmed.

I am sick today (degenerative disc disease) so I am not in my best form. I will wait until tomorrow to respond to your other post. Sorry.

No worries - take your time. I hope you feel better tomorrow.

 

[Caramel]

No, I think my intended meaning was there in the sentence as I originally wrote it. It seems that it left room for interpretation, and you’ve latched onto that for some reason.

Wait… what? AFAICT, you asked me why I believed that most pro-choice people would compromise on late term abortions if they didn’t think it would result in a ban of all abortions generally. What scientific evidence would you want? And I’m sure I can dig up a few quotes if you really want me to, but the important thing here is the general feeling of the community, not opinions.

You have to be able to defend your position. When you state that you believe that most pro-choice people would compromise on late term abortions you need to show why this is true. Otherwise it is simply your opinion. Show some proof. You are saying here that you believe what you believe because you believe it. Is there evidence that most pro-choice people would compromise?

I’m going through the thread here. Like I mentioned before, it looks like I’m the only pro-choice poster here right now, so I’m getting a bit overwhelmed.

Just the first post in the discussion. It is what we should be debating.

No worries - take your time. I hope you feel better tomorrow.

Thank you!!

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss

 

[John_Pascendi]

gee wrong direction…at conception a human life starts…period…not a little doggy or catbird but a human being…slavery was the ownership of other humans by folks with money and power and greed and hate…abortion is a form of slavery for the temporary host has been given the right to kill whatever is growing inside of her! Our nation has gone downhill since the abortion issue was passed by the supremes…child abuse,rape and incest go on and on…this did not just happen ,in early flicks like Peyton place a rape took place between a step father and his beautiful step daughter…later the towns doctor…Lloyd Nolan…performed an abortion and then later looked down on the village as hypcrites for not believing as he does…what nonsense…flicks like this created a subliminal conditioned reflex on americans that to oppose abortion is to be bigoted and narrowminded…and yes heartless. on the other side .capital punishment.we saw flicks that showed people being ‘innocent’ but being executed anyway…prison movies which illustrated brilliant sensitve cons while the warden and guards were morons and thugs…all a plan…brainwashing takes time to work but once it sets in is like concrete…!!!the advice in my day was just have the number of kids that you can send to college…since my wife and I had a large family we were teased and insulted for years.funny thing happened…all…all of our kids are college grads earning their way thru scholarships while the wise n hymers with one kid ended up with a pot head who lived off of them for years…go figure…now we cant criticize the present head of gov because if we do we are branded with a bad name that reveals we are unfair and dishonest and sure…hateful…and thats how it goes with the abortion issue…we who want a developing baby to be born and take a turn at bat are the bad narrow minded ones…Pavlov just beams from below at his handiwork…keep smiling…Pas

 

[gearhead]

You have to be able to defend your position. When you state that you believe that most pro-choice people would compromise on late term abortions you need to show why this is true. Otherwise it is simply your opinion. Show some proof. You are saying here that you believe what you believe because you believe it. Is there evidence that most pro-choice people would compromise?

It is only my opinion. As I said, it’s my general impression; I never presented it as anything else. You can take it or leave it as you please.

Just the first post in the discussion. It is what we should be debating.

Do you mean your first post, or the first post in the thread (i.e. gakroeker’s)?

 

[fix]

   		 			 				  Granted protection of life is a major policy. But society does not do *everything *

to protect life, if it did we certainly would have only speed limits of 25 mph. And no all else is not meaningless, but society would become unsustainable with an autocratic government which occurs if the value of limited government does not hold some weight.

Quote:
 	 		 That is your opinion on what means are the best to prevent abortion. Reasonable people can differ with you on that. And you mean criminal law? right, do you know.  	 	 




Quote:
 	 		 			 				  Well, let us see, the policy of limited government-you know that thing conservatives like to champion. 			 		 	 	 


		 		 	 	  	Quote:
 	 		 			 				And where do they come from my friend, please explain to us all.:rolleyes: But there you go again, it is not a question whether abortion is morally wrong-it is. The question is what are the best means to help prevent it and society's choice to use such different means to accomplish its goal. Not to forget, the need to protect us all from grandstanding moralist from implementing an autocratic government. Learn the distinction between a legal issue and a moral issue, it might help.*
  
  
 	We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Speed limits are not equal to abortion. Every abortion involves intentional killing.

Not every immoral action needs to be illegal, just those that involve murder. Not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[Worthy5]

 	We hold these truths to be self-evident*, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

All you are so correct they are self-evident. And what is government’s job, to implement the means it see best to protect ALL of these values. Your desire to make all abortions criminal accomplishes what? That no abortion occurs-----hardly. Govt can select different mean to achieve its goal of protecting " life". And what other value have you stated my friend,(by the way that is the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution you quote from), the value of " liberty" which is threaten by a government that is expansive and autocratic with its power.

 

[fix]

All you are so correct they are self-evident. And what is government’s job, to implement the means it see best to protect ALL of these values. Your desire to make all abortions criminal accomplishes what? That no abortion occurs-----hardly. Govt can select different mean to achieve its goal of protecting " life". And what other value have you stated my friend,(by the way that is the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution you quote from), the value of " liberty" which is threaten by a government that is expansive and autocratic with its power.

Liberty and happiness mean nothing if you get to be killed. Limited government does not mean murder should be codified into civil law. The law is a teacher as well as a corrector. Teach people it is acceptable to kill babies and they will as we see today.

No one was equating the two. The point that you missed is that no " value" is protected or promoted exclusively at the expense of all of values. Again, pick up a book on legal reasoning-really it will help.

What value trumps innocent life? Do we get to kill because a baby is too expensive? Is that how you define limited government. Again, pick up a book on forming a proper conscience and moral reasoning. Any legal philosophy that is devoid of the moral law is no good philosophy.

Who said that it does? You only need one " moral" issue for the grandstanders to get carried away with government power. Why evade the notion that govt can select other means to protect life as well as protecting the competing value of limited govt (as wells as limited resources)?. With you complete criminal ban of all abortions under all circumstance what do you suggest–that we place all those women in jail? You want to pay for the increase costs? What are we going to do, let other violent criminals who are more of a threat out sooner due to space? Why is it govt completely responsibility for protecting life? What about the women’s duty to the early fetus? This has all been stated above before. Starting to get a little tricky-saying only one value (and only one means to promote that value) matters at the expense of everything else.

Sorry, but your reasoning seems terribly utilitarian and misguided. We expect our government to protect innocent life, period. The cost is not the issue. Do we stop prosecuting rapists if they are single fathers with no one to care for his children? Is that the logic now?

Why is the government reponsible for proetcting innocent life? Because we ought to be living in a civilized society of just laws, not might makes right or moral relativism.

 

[Caramel]

It is only my opinion. As I said, it’s my general impression; I never presented it as anything else. You can take it or leave it as you please.

True. My apologies.

Do you mean your first post, or the first post in the thread (i.e. gakroeker’s)?

I mean the first post on the thread - gakroeker’s.

On another forum that I was on it was very easy to not only find all posts that one had written, but also to find all replies to that post. I don’t know how to do that here. And now a lot of what you have stated and asked and what I have stated and asked have been kind of swallowed up in the immensity of postings. I realized this morning that you asked me how my study of biology contributed to what I believe. And I never answered you. I’m sorry about that, especially because I expected you to answer every question that I have put to you. I didn’t do it intentionally, but I did do it.

I’ve been thinking about biology and what I learned from it in regards to abortion. This is all only what happened to me. I can’t speak for any other biologists, of course. I think it all started with taking a Histology class. I was pre-med and this was an important class (I was also a smart-mouth and got a “C” in that class but I guess that is off the subject.)

I learned about the parts of the cell and the way they reproduce, and tissues and all that stuff. And I put it all in the back of my head until I took Herpetology, In that class (I got an “A”) I not only learned about reptiles and amphibians but what makes a particular type of animal an animal. What makes a lizard a lizard? Why is a lizard a lizard and not a snake or a frog? Or a mammal? The more I learned the more I realized that what makes a particular animal what it is is that it can reproduce with other members of its species to make a new animal of the same species. But is a fertilized lizard egg a lizard? Yes - it is the essence of the new lizard. It can’t be taken apart anymore and still be a lizard. Once it is reduced to an ovum and a spermatozoan the essence is gone. There are lizard ova and lizard spermatozoa but these separately are reproductive cells of lizards, not lizards in and of themselves.

If you take an ovum of many mammals (rabbits, sheep) and pierce it with a tiny little uh thing that pierces, it will develop into an organism. You don’t even need sperm. But this organism has the same genetics as the ovum, so it is questionable as to whether it is a new animal. And these animals are sick. They die very young. More research is going into this and I think it is a philosophical question, too. Another philosophical question is whether a person is one organism or a collection of millions of organisms working together.

I’m not a philosopher. But remember this is my experience, not scientific data or anything like that. Let’s go back to “essence” and back to humans. I believe that the fertilized egg is the beginning point of the essence of a human being. And the essence is the most basic, fundamental, and simplest way of defining a human being. What makes a human being a human being? Its essence. Is its essence its soul? I don’t believe it is. I used to. But take that fertilized egg and look at it. It has a full complement of chromosomes, different from both the unfertilized egg and the spermatozoan. It has everything it needs to develop along its continuum - zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, child, adult, and it will eventually die. It is the most basic bit of new, separate human being you can have. Of course it will be dependent on others all through its life; first its mother, than probably parents, physicians, etc. Someone once said that death is the only thing we do all by ourselves. I can’t remember who said that. But it may hold some truth.

Whether the human being is inside the mother or inside one of those awful lung machines they used to have is irrelevant. Whether it is a midget or a giant is irrelevant. It has that “essence” from the moment of conception to death.

And that is how biology convinced me that a human being is present at conception. Of course I didn’t come to this conclusion and then stop. I could write a fifty page essay on essence. But this is all I can do now and any more would be extraneous.

Sorry if I rambled. I’m still sick and I have computer problems (my screen already flipped on its side once today.)

Hope this helps explain my position and answer your question to me.

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss

 

[Caramel]

gee wrong direction…at conception a human life starts…period…not a little doggy or catbird but a human being…slavery was the ownership of other humans by folks with money and power and greed and hate…abortion is a form of slavery for the temporary host has been given the right to kill whatever is growing inside of her! Our nation has gone downhill since the abortion issue was passed by the supremes…child abuse,rape and incest go on and on…this did not just happen ,in early flicks like Peyton place a rape took place between a step father and his beautiful step daughter…later the towns doctor…Lloyd Nolan…performed an abortion and then later looked down on the village as hypcrites for not believing as he does…what nonsense…flicks like this created a subliminal conditioned reflex on americans that to oppose abortion is to be bigoted and narrowminded…and yes heartless. on the other side .capital punishment.we saw flicks that showed people being ‘innocent’ but being executed anyway…prison movies which illustrated brilliant sensitve cons while the warden and guards were morons and thugs…all a plan…brainwashing takes time to work but once it sets in is like concrete…!!!the advice in my day was just have the number of kids that you can send to college…since my wife and I had a large family we were teased and insulted for years.funny thing happened…all…all of our kids are college grads earning their way thru scholarships while the wise n hymers with one kid ended up with a pot head who lived off of them for years…go figure…now we cant criticize the present head of gov because if we do we are branded with a bad name that reveals we are unfair and dishonest and sure…hateful…and thats how it goes with the abortion issue…we who want a developing baby to be born and take a turn at bat are the bad narrow minded ones…Pavlov just beams from below at his handiwork…keep smiling…Pas

My goodness, you do ramble a bit, don’t you?

Just kidding ya; I agree with most of what you say. I disagree with your stand on capital punishment, but you have brought up an interesting point and that is how society looks upon the “moral minority.” I remember when people smoked at work. Cigarette smoke makes me ill and I was pregnant and didn’t want my child to be exposed to second-hand smoke. Or me either!! And one day a coworker blew smoke into my face, not to be rude, but because that is where his face happened to be pointing. And when I waved the cloud of smoke away he accused me of being so, so rude and I shouldn’t treat him like that and it’s legal to smoke and I have a lot of nerve, etc.

With abortion it is so much like that. Do I dare put a pro-life bumper sticker on my car? Someone might get mad and key the car. I can’t afford to have that fixed or pay for the increased insurance rates because my car was vandalized. I went ahead and did it anyway and nothing happened but I don’t dare put an environmental bumper sticker on my car because I live in Oregon and they don’t take too kindly to environmentalists. Or to people who don’t “worship” Obama.

The movies and tv shows we watch definitely have an effect on people, especially younger people who are still forming their opinions. The amount of violence and sex in PG movies and in prime-time tv shows is amazing. I’ve given up. I haven’t turned on my tv in seven months.

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss

 

[Caramel]

Every person is given the rites of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by the Constitution.

That isn’t from the Constitution. It’s from the Declaration of Independence.
No biggie - a common error.

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss

 

[Worthy5]

Liberty and happiness mean nothing if you get to be killed. Limited government does not mean murder should be codified into civil law. The law is a teacher as well as a corrector. Teach people it is acceptable to kill babies and they will as we see today.

It is criminal law you are talking about. Law as a teacher-to a certain extent but not competely, otherwise we have something like a Theocracy/or Plato’s Republic. The American Govt is not founded SOLEY on the notion that govt is to be used an expansive means to develop the character of each individual. Yet you get right to my point, by only regulating abortions during the early stages you can have means to educate women on making a better decision. You outlaw all abortion, women go underground you have less influence over them. But you can use the law as a teacher by outlawing later terms abortions and counseling women on the gravity of the decision to abort early terms. So saying that, which approach is really using govt the best to be a " teacher". No one would be teaching women to kill babies-actually the opposite.

Govt is responsible for protecting life, we disagree on the best means to do that as wells as the need to consider that to protect any value at the complete expense of all other values actually threatens the very value you claim to want to protect.

Before you said " natural rights do not come from the majority." True, but without majority rule and the govt the majority forms, you have a state of nature-anarchy-and natural rights really do not do well in that environment.