Why abortion is wrong.

No.
My statement about dna is to distinguish who is human and to indicate a separation between child and mother. all of which still apply.
besides the necessity in being human, you may distinguish yourself as an individual because you are your own organism. the conjoined twins/identical twins are in the same boat. they are separate organisms, even if conjoined. that's what the word conjoin implies, to combine/join more than 1.

if you look at the web site provide, you may see the development of identical twins. this will help.

I only consider the difference in sense of just died, vs dead for some time.
what happened to my friend is a rarity. normally, no one is "brought back" after that time frame, or at least that which I have heard of.

the whole bit about having something "subjective" is that there is a right for you and a right for them and a right for me. there would be no correct stance, and everyone's position, which would be of their own, would be right/okay. the moment you say a group of people have it wrong, it's no longer subjective.

does that make sense?

now, a culture's viewpoint or a people's mindset about a subject may differ, but that does not change the subject if it is not subjective. in case of who is "human"/"human being"/"person", the view points of culture would not change "who is" but only change the treatment towards. For the nazi's, their actions/thoughts towards the Jews did not change the fact that the Jewish people are still humans, it only means the treatment towards them changed. that is the portion that changes, but still does not mean the fact that the condition of the Jewish people is subjective.





a human is a person is a human being (who all have personhood). that is how I use the terms for it is in accordance to their definitions.

here is the issue. animals have emotions, they have a sense of personality to them, they have intelligence.

elephants appear to mourn their dead within a family. they will walk in a line and smell/rub the recently dead wit their trunks (unless being hunted of coarse).
some apes can learn to communicate with humans through sign language.
many animals have their own communication patterns.
many animals have better memories than some humans.
bees, wolves, and many more animals have social characteristics to them and live in a social environment.

these things in humans are characteristics. they may describe who a person is and how they act, but it does not make them a person. Our social behavior is unique to our species because of how we develop.

if not, then how might things that transcend species give a special uniqueness or description that (in its definition) is applied and can only apply to one species?

It is rare for him to come back after 15 minutes but in no way is it unique, if you really think his coming back is the same as a week old corpse coming back you obviously don't know enough about biology to have this discussion. The level of decomposition on an acute time frame is nothing compared to the decomposition you get in corpses. The nerve cells in your friend will have started to undergo death due to starvation of oxygen but they won't have all died especially if he had first aid, it is very lucky he doesn't have noticeable brain damage but it is well within the realms of what is possible. A corpse that has been dead for a while coming back is in the realms of sci fi or even zombie films.

Your point on subjectivity is unclear. What I am assaying is that I believe in no absolute moral authority, there is no absolute right or wrong. only what we decide on individual, group or even society wide levels. Given that it is perfectly compatible for me to think the nazis were evil and wrong and for them to feel justified in what they did. Just as it is for soldiers to feel like they are heroes serving their country and for pacifists to think soldiers are evil killing machines.

So you are basically saying you wouldn't care if a cow developed a conscience, mind and emotions at a similar level to a human it would still be ok to eat it because it isn't human, all that matters is DNA.

You don't care if a human is totally brain dead and has never and will never felt anything at all, their DNA is human and that innately puts more value on their life than an ape that learn to speak English feel pain and know the basics of what society considers right and wrong.

To you all that matters is 23 pairs of chromosomes that say 'this organism can mate with other humans to produce fertile offspring' and hey that organism has exactly as much value as me or you. I don't care what DNA an organism has, I value the mind, emotions and consciousness, and to a lesser extent potential to develop them.

If all this debate breaks down to is that you value the bare essentials required to be part of the human species over what it takes to go beyond that and become a person this whole thing was a massive waste of time.

DO you consider a fertilized egg to be an individual?

individual
Adjective
Single; separate: "individual tiny flowers".
Noun
A single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family.

yes.

p.s. (separate from my answer)
I suspect something more. can't wait.

good film genre use
yes I understand decomposition. that's why i view it as "just dead" vs "dead for some time". I should have explained that further.

my friend does have brain & nerve damage. every time he'd get stung or get the wind knocked out of him, he just laughed and got back into it. very inspirational (for me).




Yes. though i rarely eat beef I can see why some would change their eating habits, however it would be little different than the view points of vegans or vegetarians today.

Although, I would point out that cows already have a conscience and a capacity to express emotion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/07/cows-best-friends
“Cows have a secret mental life in which they bear grudges, nurture friendships, and become excited over intellectual challenges…” — The Sunday Times (UK)
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/someone-not-something/110-2/
"They (170 cows) all had a different nature"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090128013811AAPpIAs


My view points are a little more complex than that. I don't really consider humans to have a "value", as this means you would have to judge that person and compare them to some standard. so what happens when that considered value is not there? no value. that is an issue because through out history, whom ever held to that moral or followed that attitude has discriminated against another group or person because of some 'abnormality' or difference. If I only consider DNA, however, then that prejudice should not be there. sure, someone might start looking at whose genetic coding is stronger or better than another, but that is why I put the emphasis on Human. DNA is just the qualifier.

I do not think animals or any life on this planet have a value to them because of the same reason. the other life forms on this planter are very important and I hold dear to all of them, even those that frighten me or are not greatly known/understood. I do not see "importance" as being equal to "having value". this may lead to "had value" in which some think the importance or value dissipated. this is true as to how I feel about humans.

as I have said before. your ability to have/express emotions comes from DNA. you have consciousness because: unlike plants, fungi, and some other organisms, your DNA explains cells to form into that brain. so if you would not be as you are w/o your dna, what is the point of saying that the condition to which you may not have had, is all you need in order to be what you already are?

also, to what extent does your qualifications go to? how must it be like in order to be considered human when there are other animals that express similar if not the same attributes???


live long and prosper

I have a ball in my hand. I drop the ball, now with interfering without the ball it will most definitely fall to the floor. This is its natural cycle. I let go, ball falls, ball hits the ground. The fact that the ball will fall is a fact. Now let me ask you, what is the difference between me releasing the ball, catching it before it even leaves my hand and burning it and me dropping the ball and catching it half-way and burning it. The answer is; there is none! You end a natural cycle before its definite end, you kill of the emotions, the experiences it was definitely going to have; you have killed a person.

Now let me give you some statistics:

196,082 abortions in the UK in 2011
44,000,000 abortions (that is 44 million) in the world
Let me put this in to perspective, in 10 years you have killed more than the population of the united States.

7% of abortions are for either a consequence of rape or health problems to the mother. The rest is because of social reasons. This just infuriates me, if you don't kill your fellow man to steal his money why kill your own child?

Millions are killed every year because people are unable to make an emotional connection with them just because they are bound in a sack of skin. The same people that say "How could the Nazis kill millions of people" well they did it the same way you do!

(the You refers to everyone supporting abortion)

Thank you for reading,

Gray Wolf


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/Sedgh-Lancet-2012-01.pdf

At what point does one individual, a fertilised egg, turn into two individuals?

Very well, maybe a waste of time was harsh, these things need to be talked about and I respect your right to have an opinion, I think putting value on DNA is a little silly but that is probably because I've studied it and it isn't anything special to me, I actually am vegetarian for precisely the reasons we have been talking about, because I value the ability to feel pain etc i avoid meat where I can.

Your last comment about DNA determining conciousness is a good one but I think it's an important distinction between a developed human whose DNA has given them consciousness an an embyro that has yet to develop it, I think the ability to develop conciousness makes human DNA somewhat special.

Anyway, live long and prosper, despite coming from a religious viewpoint like the majority of pro lifers we didn't bring religion into the discussion once which is actually reall helpful to me because when I had this debate amongst my peers no-one really said much for the pro life argument and in a room full of pro choice people the debate felt artificial and the other side was woefully underrepresented. In answer to your last question I am a second year medical student studying at univercity college London, 3 days from my end of year finals

I have a ball in my hand. I drop the ball, now with interfering without the ball it will most definitely fall to the floor. This is its natural cycle. I let go, ball falls, ball hits the ground. The fact that the ball will fall is a fact. Now let me ask you, what is the difference between me releasing the ball, catching it before it even leaves my hand and burning it and me dropping the ball and catching it half-way and burning it. The answer is; there is none! You end a natural cycle before its definite end (Before it's definite end, so a menstruation would be a definite end to the potential for life because an egg is being lost, should we fertilize all eggs? Of course not), you kill of the emotions, the experiences it was definitely going to have; you have killed a person. I don't agree because I don't believe an embryo is a person.

Also I found your ball scenario thing unclear when I was trying to figure out what you were even trying to say about the ball, the floor and ending of the cycle.

Now let me give you some statistics:

196,082 abortions in the UK in 2011
44,000,000 abortions (that is 44 million) in the world
Let me put this in to perspective, in 10 years you have killed more than the population of the united States. Yes that is a lot of unborn babies, however you do realize if you were to have stopped those abortions then that is the an amount of unwanted babies larger than the population of the united states who would enter the system and most likely go to care, some of the mothers/ fathers my have chosen to keep the baby but I highly doubt it would have been a large proportion By adding such a massive amount of children to the care system it would become far more overcrowded than it already is and the children would have lives much worse than children in care already get (for the most part)

7% of abortions are for either a consequence of rape or health problems to the mother. The rest is because of social reasons. This just infuriates me, if you don't kill your fellow man to steal his money why kill your own child? Social reasons such as not having the means to looking after a child or not wanting a child to go into the care system as you don;t want the baby yourself are good reasons in my opinion and not at all comparable to killing a man for money. Though I do think men and women should take responsibility for their actions by using protection during sex to prevent this situation.

Millions are killed every year because people are unable to make an emotional connection with them just because they are bound in a sack of skin. The same people that say "How could the Nazis kill millions of people" well they did it the same way you do! Not even remotely the same, the people killed by Nazis were living breathing emotion feeling people who could feel pain, who had a life and jobs and owned books and bike they laughed and smiled etc. Embryos up until a certain stage (which is where I think the cut of stage for abortions should be) don't think or feel, they do not yet have a life, there is a potential for life but they are not yet there they are dependent on their mother. You may argue that because there is a potential for life they have the right to not be aborted, I do not agree. An ovum and a sperm have a potential for life but you don't make ludicrous calls to harvest every sperm and egg to continue with that potential of life by fertilizing them.

(the You refers to everyone supporting abortion)

Thank you for reading,

Gray Wolf


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/Sedgh-Lancet-2012-01.pdf