Why abortion is wrong.

Well if a foetus has an heartbeat then I would say that is a human being. You seem to think because the foetus is dependant upon the mother then that means it's not a human being? That's like saying people in care homes are not people because they're can't look after themselves. Or people on life support are not human because they can't support themselves. It's absurd logic.

Since you've asked me, why don't you give me your definition of human life?

Yeah, I don't think pro-lifers ever actually consider what it might be like to have an abortion. People who act like I'm a selfish cow who doesn't use contraception, when they don't even know my circumstances...

To think it's a lightly taken decision is also a load of rubbish. EVERY girl who's ever had a preg scare knows quite how horrid it is. They were two of the worst days of my life, but I'd do it again if I had to. Abortions happen whether they are "allowed" or not. It is the responsibility of a decent government to make sure all women can access them safely and without judgement should they need to.

I don't as such disagree with your point but your analogy is poor. The aim of buying a car is to drive, not get hit by another car (which you have no control over), the sole biological reason for sex is the creation of children (which you do).

I made four posts in a row, only one of which contained pictures.

Ironic that you stoop to "infantile" belittling.

Just as you lack the decency to respect the rights of human beings in the womb, it is clearly your trait to lack decency in responding to opposing arguments as well.

but by driving a car you are accepting the possibility that you could be in an accident, same as by having sex, even with all possible contraception, there is still the risk of pregnancy and so by having sex you are taking that risk and so should make sure you are in a situation where you can have a child before you do it. Its just selfish to think 'oh no, it will never happen to me' or 'we used contraception so it's not our problem' cos it bloody well is your problem and you should accept the consequences!

Jews were considered sub-humans by the Nazis and were killed. Babies are butchered in the uterus of thousands every day because they are just considered cells when they will grow up to be contributing people of society with feelings and dreams and ambitions.

Abortion is purely selfish. I do not buy any argument that the child will not have a good life. How can anyone even begin to presuppose whether a life will be good or not. We aren't psychics.

Justin Bieber's mother wanted to abort him, when he was young, but her Christianity led her to change her mind and keep the baby. Listen, I don't like his music, but you just cannot say that anybody is just not going to have a good life as an excuse to abort them.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100200108/the-guardian-jokes-about-justin-bieber-being-aborted-how-low-can-it-sink/

PS: Tell the 30000 plus who liked that video how killing 6 million Jews is not in many ways linked to the sinister destructive massacres that are abortions.

http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/rebekah8363/

Answer this question:

If your mother was going to have an abortion, and it was you that she was thinking of aborting, would you stand by your arguments?

The person I was replying to was saying that by driving the car, you are consenting. Consenting =/= awareness of risk. By getting in the car, you are not granting permission for other motorists to rear-end you. You're just granting permission to be in the car.

I think you're the selfish one, to be honest. Mistakes happen. I expect you're the sort of person who'd deny medical treatment to a person falling out of a tree/injuring themselves skiing as they clearly accepted the risk and so should deal with the consequences, right?

by getting in the car you are understanding that there is a very small chance that there could be an accident and considering that i'm the one trying to help save the lives of unborn children rather than just killing them because its inconvenient to the parents i wouldn't consider myself selfish. and no, i wouldn't deny someone who falls out of a tree treatment but my point is that you wouldn't blame the tree if you fell, similarly you shouldn't blame the contraception. you choose to climb the tree even though you realise that you might fall out. There is a difference between giving someone a paracetamol and killing a baby.

The Nazis were WRONG about the Jews being subhuman. Jews are human. However, I am justified in saying that embryos are not humans. So there's a difference between killing a live human, and killing something that can be allowed to grow into a live human.

Out of emotional self interest I wouldn't stand by it. But it's irrelevant, the embryo doesn't have a say in the morality of the decision, it is the female's body and her right to make the decision.

Well so what? They're still potential babies.

People have sex for other reasons beside procreation though. I'm just saying that consent to one thing doesn't equal consent to a million other possibilities that may or may not spring from it. I appreciate that there may have been better analogies to use.



Yeah, they were equally pathetic.

Cute pun.

You didn't make an argument, that's my point :L



The person I was replying to was saying that by driving the car, you are consenting. Consenting =/= awareness of risk. By getting in the car, you are not granting permission for other motorists to rear-end you. You're just granting permission to be in the car.

I think you're the selfish one, to be honest. Mistakes happen. I expect you're the sort of person who'd deny medical treatment to a person falling out of a tree/injuring themselves skiing as they clearly accepted the risk and so should deal with the consequences, right?

My personal belief is that how can any unborn baby be better off dead if he or she could go to perhaps a loving family whos dream is to adopt a child and love and care for them as their own, whove tried years and years of IVF treatment etc whose only ever wish is to have a child...ofcourse everyone is entitled to their opinion but to kill a unborn baby because of the circumstances the women is in i cannot understand as they could give the baby to be adopted to people who will take on the mother and father role and give them a chance in life that they deserve.
Against abortion but do not criticise those who choose it, i just know I could not ever abort a baby no matter what the circumstances are

You're not killing a baby, you're removing some cells. Like clipping your toenails or getting a haircut

It has separate DNA from conception. From that moment it is a separate individual with rights.

Most scientists are justified in saying that life begins at conception, despite your views.

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Nimbyism really - arguing for something except when it directly affects you.

Yes. Lots of sperm cells die during the fertilisation process as well. Similarly, eggs also decompose. These are natural and neither contain the genetic makeup of a separate human being to the mother or father. That is the critical difference.

Thanks. Perhaps you think baby butchery is also cute.

http://www.abort67.co.uk/content/dare-see-truth

We have killed people since the beginning of our time, but haven't been doing operations, nor been able to fight cancer, nor live past the age of ~40 for most of the time humans lived on earth.

the act of helping your body defeat an illness (cancer) is natural.

I completely agree with all of these definitions, but not with many of your extrapolations from them, for example: how does "man, woman and child" include a 'pre-born'?

In addition, your entire argument is built upon the premise that a foetus, an embryo and a zygote are all human beings (I use this as a synonym for 'person'). This is what you need to justify and it's what I disputed in my original post - simply saying "the zygote is alive and has life" isn't justification: that's the claim that you need to justify.

I'm having difficulty understanding your point with the above paragraph.
You should look up the definition of the word "quality" and apply it to the context of the definition that you cited: it has nothing to do with value or perceived value - it refers to the
countable type of quality.

1.The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something: "quality of life".
2.General excellence of standard or level

Can you give me an example of any animal (including humans) trying to 'defeat' cancer in the wild?

I don't know a single natural substance that we use in chemotherapy. Many of them are derived from naturally occurring chemicals, yes, but they are all either synthetic or semisynthetic.

Radiation, for the most part, is completely harmless: the exceptions are the stuff at the high-energy end of the spectrum.

What about the IVs, the synthetic drugs, and the linear particle accelerators that we need to treat cancer? Are they natural, too?

though the methods have changed, we humans, have always tried some method in helping our bodies fight deseases.

A pre-born is a child. the child (or children in some cases) of the mother and father. All pre-borns, regardless of developed state/stage fits this term both in the manner we use it in society and manner of description for offspring.

excuse me, I did not know I needed to cite nor explain biology. did not know this portion was in question either. Characteristics of life is described in different ways at times, so here are just a few links I found you could visit rather I type it up myself.
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7characterisitcs_of_life.htm
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/pdf/origin06.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_7_characteristics_of_life

the pre-born follow the above. ergo - living.

as for the premise of all pre-born humans are human beings and therefore a person.
humans can only reproduce other humans. not a single human nor animal may reproduce an offspring that is a different 100% completely new species (that then turns around and changes into what ever species the parents are - in this case human) or a non-living thing. if there is serious doubt, you can tell by DNA. that is all we need in order to be human.

chromosone count may help in determining "being" rather a part of or not a "being".

there are different meanings to the word of quality, I did not see the word in use of the definition of 'personhood' as refering to quantity or something strickly countable.there are many ways to try and determine "quality of life". economics is one way. however one might try, my point is that you can not determine another person's death based on your concept of "quality".

if you noticed, I said illness (which includes cancer). humans have a rich history of curing illnesses at any attempt by any means (this includes the non-scientific sort as well).
for example: use of leaches,

my main concern was the above statement.

if radiation therepy was harmless, then there would not be reports of patients developing cancer from it, nor dieing from related issues. that's another topic, however.