Responses to Pro-Choice Arguments

[Newbie2]

Actually, we don’t know that. Science doesn’t even know whether there is a difference between “mind” and “brain”, and might never know. That leaves aside the whole question when there is a soul, if one believes such a thing exists.

But consciousness does not determine “when life begins” anyway.

(this was in response to Agnothiest’s claim that ensoulment doesn’t happen at conception, and that science can prove that it doesn’t)

So what’s the scientific proof that ensoulment does** not** occur at conception?

 

[AgnosTheist]

How exactly do you explain the near death experience?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Biological_analysis_and_theories

We have events recalled that occurred with no physical presence at all. Memories made with no physical brain to record them.

Your source?

So it is not human until 3 months of age, but you believe this “non-human” has rights?

thats not what i said. please try to understand what you read.

 

[AgnosTheist]

So what’s the scientific proof that ensoulment does** not** occur at conception?

did i make any assertions about souls here?

i’m trying to be scientific here. and science says nothing about souls.

 

[miguel]

To those who would propose “tests” or “standards” to determine whether the unborn child is a “person,” I offer this warning: The day will come when you will not be able to pass your own test or meet your own standard.

And the day may well come when someone deliberately invents a test or standard you cannot pass.

And that someone will probably be a judge.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And that someone will probably be a judge.

Amen. Someone who wasn’t elected and is virtually immune to any sort of accountability.

 

[miguel]

Amen. Someone who wasn’t elected and is virtually immune to any sort of accountability.

They’re only immune, because we think they’re immune. Tyranny is a state of mind. John Paul II broke the Communist grip on his nation’s psyche by solidarity…the common resolve to stop cooperating with tyranny. MLK did the same thing in the South. Gandhi did the same thing in India.

 

[vern_humphrey]

They’re only immune, because we think they’re immune. Tyranny is a state of mind. John Paul II broke the Communist grip on his nation’s psyche by solidarity…the common resolve to stop cooperating with tyranny. MLK did the same thing in the South. Gandhi did the same thing in India.

If there were only a way to wipe the slate clean and start over.

 

[Verisimilitude]

if the fetus is old enough to survive in an incubator, then my opinion is that it deserves human rights. if not, i dont know yet.

first degree murder.

Three to four months of human growth spans the two extremes: a new party dress or a prison uniform for life. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?

Your suggests the sliding scale between the two extremes is enough of a buffer to not require much consideration of when human rights apply since at some point you have concluded the woman has the ultimate say in her body and the individual being within her has none…until some magical and indetermnate point. :whacky:

I think we have both accused Muslims of using some faulty logic to come to certain conclusions despite the obvious evidence shown them. Simple fact is when conception takes place a new human being is formed. It is not the same as being constipated where a pill is intended to evacuate something that has no potential of human life.

A two pound baby can survive with modern technology. If this was 1850 would you revise your human rights application to a 7 month old baby in the womb that made it through the birth process? What if power goes out at the local hospital tonight and the incubators **** down?

The woman has as much right to knowingly terminate her pregnancy at any point as a man does when he kills an unarmed man sleeping. Both are wrong and both can still be done but only one has consequences under our current law.

Society could tell its citizens that abortion is wrong just like murder is wrong and many would believe it. Now we tell ourselves it is ok up to a point. We shouldn’t go down that path anymore.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Simple fact is when conception takes place a new human being is formed.

that is a religious argument. for me a fertilized egg is as much as a human being as a severed skin. afterall we are beginning to discover of a way to use skin cells to clone a human.

i agree with cloning too, you know.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

that is a religious argument. for me a fertilized egg is as much as a human being as a severed skin. afterall we are beginning to discover of a way to use skin cells to clone a human.

As if ‘religion’ and ‘science’ are mutually exclusive???

So you’re saying that since we can ‘grow skin cells’ to clone a human, that a ‘fertilized egg’ is neither more nor less than skin cells because that egg will come to fruition in 9 months after passage through the birth canal as a ‘born’ being?

How. . .strange. You will go through all sorts of scientific procedures to ‘clone’ a human being and greet the result with loud huzzahs for ‘scientific achievement’. . .yet burn, chop, and eviscerate the ‘product of conception’ for any, or even no reason, and greet the result with loud huzzahs for ‘right to choose’.

 

[AgnosTheist]

As if ‘religion’ and ‘science’ are mutually exclusive???

they are mutually exclusive when it comes to the argument that a fertilized egg is a human being.

So you’re saying that since we can ‘grow skin cells’ to clone a human, that a ‘fertilized egg’ is neither more nor less than skin cells because that egg will come to fruition in 9 months after passage through the birth canal as a ‘born’ being?

im just trying to say that both are the same in the aspect that neither of them are BEINGS.

How. . .strange. You will go through all sorts of scientific procedures to ‘clone’ a human being and greet the result with loud huzzahs for ‘scientific achievement’. . .yet burn, chop, and eviscerate the ‘product of conception’ for any, or even no reason, and greet the result with loud huzzahs for ‘right to choose’.

Different methods may bring new benefits.

 

[vern_humphrey]

they are mutually exclusive when it comes to the argument that a fertilized egg is a human being.

You’re wrong, you know.

The Church says the fertilized egg is a living human being.

Science says:

The fertilized egg is living (if it were not, we would not be having this discussion.)

The fertilized egg has human DNA and is therefore human.

The fertilized egg has its own DNA and is terefore a being, not part of its mother’s body.

Science and the Church agree – the fertilized egg is a living human being.

 

[Newbie2]

did i make any assertions about souls here?

i’m trying to be scientific here. and science says nothing about souls.

I dunno, did you?

they are mutually exclusive when it comes to the argument that a fertilized egg is a human being.

im just trying to say that both are the same in the aspect that neither of them are BEINGS.
.

And science defines “beings” how? Isn’t that the realm of Philosophy and Theology?

 

[RobbyS]

Apples and oranges argument.
The one with the oxygen tank did not take action to make the other come along. A fact that makes this decidedly different from pregnancy.
Pregnancy is the result of action freely taken and is a consequence freely accepted.
Abortion is shirking the responsibility.

The only argument against trying to make abortion illegal is that our society has come to accept it, or at least tolerate it. and the most powerful members of our society promote it. It is the same thing that kept Lincoln from advocating the abolition of slavery. Even in the north, the bulk of the population opposed abolition. Even the policy of preventing the expansion of slavery was opposed less because it was thought immoral than because it would force whites to live with blacks.

 

[Verisimilitude]

that is a religious argument.

No it isn’t. Marriage is a religious institution but the government made it a secular one and they have screwed it up. Life is pretty basic and needs no court of law to define it. Science has proved that at conception the zygote has fully developed human dna that has started the growing process.

Secular law is trying to re-define what I am most of the planet knows as common sense. Where is yours?

i agree with cloning too, you know.

Molly the sheep or humans? If human you are once again on the side of error. I’m not a big fan of animal cloning eitehr but that is a differnt topic.

A person with integrity will conclude on the side of Life once they have exhausted all the failed arguments. We are almost there.

 

[mapleoak]

a fertilized egg is as much as a human being as a severed skin.

It is laughable when people pretend to know what they are talking about. It is recommended you study the subject of biology before attempting to be an authority in it.

 

[vz71]

It is laughable when people pretend to know what they are talking about. It is recommended you study the subject of biology before attempting to be an authority in it.

But that wouldn’t further his ends…

It takes nothing to troll around just to stir up arguments.

 

[mapleoak]

But that wouldn’t further his ends…

It takes nothing to troll around just to stir up arguments.

That is why I suggested on another thread to not feed the troll. It is pointless.

 

[wabrams]

that is a religious argument. for me a fertilized egg is as much as a human being as a severed skin. afterall we are beginning to discover of a way to use skin cells to clone a human.

i agree with cloning too, you know.

Seems you know jack squat about science. Severed skin very quickly becomes dead skin; a fertilized egg, as Vern states in #112, is alive and continues to grow.

 

[vz71]

mmmmmmmmmmm

Troll food…