But I didn't I rephrased the line to include your deliberate and considered word and it didn't make any difference.
This is just plain wrong. It has every physical feature of a human at that stage of development.
The reason I carefully used the word "physical" was because I know that all the code for a human life is there in the DNA just as it was there in the sperm and egg before conception. However to suggest that somehow each human attribute has already begun existing is simply not so. Yes we can assume they would be there soon enough if left alone to develope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
So sensory apparatus defines what a human is?
Not on it's own no, but we can at least be sure that without one a zygote has no capacity for self-awareness or pain or just about anything more than any small cluster of cells would have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Yes, we realize iyo playing the game of which humans can be killed and which are allowed to live is nothing for you to agonize over.
A zygote is not a human any more than a sperm and egg are. I save my agonising for actual humans with sensory apparatus that can feel pain, have self awareness, memories and can interact with other humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
It wouldn't be a tough choice if you really believed it wasn't a human. You betrayed yourself.
Nonsense I still accept it as potential human life but I also choose to consider the whole specific situation involving actual extant humans who do feel pain, can interact with other humans and who have memories of things like rape that they would rather not have or be reminded of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Quote:
Do you then worry and agonise for every egg that remains unfertilised, is every sperm sacred?
That isn't a conclusion you could come to from anything I've said. Why would you think that?
If not then why do you concern yourself so much about the very same things a moment later after they have merged and shared their DNA? My own concerns for it might only develop perhaps as gradually it does particularly from when it can actually begin to sense things. would that shock you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
It is a concern to me. That's why I'd kill the rapist so it wouldn't happen. Killing the innocent child would make the problem worse.
I see, but is that really in the best interest of the raped woman if she were forced anyway against her will to gestate and give birth to a now dead rapists baby? A woman with her own life and her chosen partner's too perhaps now even irreversibly damaged, when the best damage limitation might well have been, imo, the early abortion, time to forget and perhaps a resumption of their normal sex lives that they would have had to fore-go under your diktat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Once you abandon the sacredness of human life, no matter how great your declaration is, it always ends in legal murder.
I simply suggest that you do with you and yours as you see fit and leave others alone to do the same.
Red, how many abortions, today, are actually done because of rape? Your question is a non-issue since most abortions are done as a form of birth control.
I hope you get that. Less than 10% of abortions are performed in the US because of rape/incest or potential health problems to the mother or the child. So, like I said above, the issue of abortion due to rape is pretty much a non-issue in the US.
I wasn't aware of the 6% figure. Is the "potential" for health problems grounds for extermination? In my opinion it's not.
"Smoking cannabis makes people more intelligent."
Dope smoker and attempted Presidential assassin Oscar Romero Ortega-Hernandez
Slogan/motto:
"Fate Rarely Calls Upon Us at a Moment of Our Choosing"
Reputation:
April 16th, 2012, 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harriet61
Thou shall not murder is as black and white as it gets.
Specifically, and in precise inarguable terms, please tell us exactly when and why abortion is murder. I am not asking for your opinion, but rather for facts that establish that abortion, all abortions are in fact the murders that you claim them to be.
In addition, when is it reasonable to conclude that an egg, sperm, zygote, fetus, etc., has become a person/viable human life that CAN be murdered? Is it prior to conception? Is it at conception or immediately following conception? Is it at 12 weeks, 18 weeks, or 24 weeks? When, at what point that is, is abortion virtually the same as infanticide?
The reason I carefully used the word "physical" was because I know that all the code for a human life is there in the DNA just as it was there in the sperm and egg before conception. However to suggest that somehow each human attribute has already begun existing is simply not so. Yes we can assume they would be there soon enough if left alone to develope.
Of course not ever human attribute has already begun existing. But again we are left with your opinion on what attributes make a human. Others have a different opinion, and mine encompasses all of yours. And something that covers all definitions isn't a definition at all.
Quote:
Not on it's own no, but we can at least be sure that without one a zygote has no capacity for self-awareness or pain or just about anything more than any small cluster of cells would have.
So is it self-awareness, pain, or some other thing that defines humans. Please let us know so we know who you will kill and who others, armed with your definition, might kill.
Quote:
A zygote is not a human any more than a sperm and egg are.
It's hard to discuss a topic with someone with such a warped view. When a sperm and egg join you have an entirely new set of DNA distinct from father or mother which creates a new human. Do I have to quote wiki on you again?
Quote:
I save my agonising for actual humans with sensory apparatus that can feel pain, have self awareness, memories and can interact with other humans.
So is it self-awareness, pain, or some other thing that defines humans. Please let us know so we know who you will kill and who others, armed with your definition, might kill.
Quote:
Nonsense I still accept it as potential human life but I also choose to consider the whole specific situation involving actual extant humans who do feel pain, can interact with other humans and who have memories of things like rape that they would rather not have or be reminded of.
So should I add interaction with other humans and memory to what defines a human? You really are starting to slip into a morass that anyone bent on wiping out some particular humans can twist to their needs.
Quote:
If not then why do you concern yourself so much about the very same things a moment later after they have merged and shared their DNA?
Because the shared DNA is now a complete new human's DNA. Now would be a proper time to call you a name based on what you just said. But I'll refrain because you've never taken constructive criticism well.
Quote:
My own concerns for it might only develop perhaps as gradually it does particularly from when it can actually begin to sense things. would that shock you?
That humans are defined by when they sense things? Yes, that is shocking.
Quote:
I see, but is that really in the best interest of the raped woman if she were forced anyway against her will to gestate and give birth to a now dead rapists baby?
It would be better than killing an innocent child, too.
Quote:
A woman with her own life and her chosen partner's too perhaps now even irreversibly damaged, when the best damage limitation might well have been, imo, the early abortion,
Your opinion doesn't line up with reality. Killing an innocent child along with rape causes more problems, not less. Read articles by Rebecca Kiessling here
Quote:
time to forget and perhaps a resumption of their normal sex lives that they would have had to fore-go under your diktat?
If the forgetting includes remembering to kill the innocent child, then killing the child after it is born is OK by your logic. I'm sure you'd deny that, but then you'd have to ask yourself "why"?
Quote:
I simply suggest that you do with you and yours as you see fit and leave others alone to do the same.
That's the kind of complacency in the face of innocents being killed that will eventually lead to killing babies after they are born. You still haven't justified why your definition (as sloppy as it is) is any better than anyone else's definition. In fact, why would you disagree with these guys?
Good things come to those who shoot straight.
Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
The reason I carefully used the word "physical" was because I know that all the code for a human life is there in the DNA just as it was there in the sperm and egg before conception. However to suggest that somehow each human attribute has already begun existing is simply not so. Yes we can assume they would be there soon enough if left alone to develope.
Of course not ever human attribute has already begun existing. But again we are left with your opinion on what attributes make a human. Others have a different opinion, and mine encompasses all of yours. And something that covers all definitions isn't a definition at all.
Actually no human attribute has developed at this point but it is why I choose not to suppose it is actually a human person when deciding on what would be the best outcome in a particular difficult situation such as this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
Not on it's own no, but we can at least be sure that without one a zygote has no capacity for self-awareness or pain or just about anything more than any small cluster of cells would have.
So is it self-awareness, pain, or some other thing that defines humans. Please let us know so we know who you will kill and who others, armed with your definition, might kill.
Yes in this case it might well be best all round imo to assume that some basic sensory perception is going on before deeming it sacred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
A zygote is not a human any more than a sperm and egg are.
It's hard to discuss a topic with someone with such a warped view. When a sperm and egg join you have an entirely new set of DNA distinct from father or mother which creates a new human. Do I have to quote wiki on you again?
So for you presumably simply a particular string of DNA = sacred human being. For me however it remains just a string of DNA while the woman otoh is an actual human person with working sensory apparatus demanding for me anyways far more concern than a chain of chemicals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
I save my agonising for actual humans with sensory apparatus that can feel pain, have self awareness, memories and can interact with other humans.
So is it self-awareness, pain, or some other thing that defines humans. Please let us know so we know who you will kill and who others, armed with your definition, might kill.
I probably do have more worries about the last chicken I ate which lived and died for me than the rapist’s tiny un-sensing cluster of cells, but making me out to have murderous intent is simply more of your nonsense and doesn’t make me think you have any rational argument at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
Nonsense I still accept it as potential human life but I also choose to consider the whole specific situation involving actual extant humans who do feel pain, can interact with other humans and who have memories of things like rape that they would rather not have or be reminded of.
So should I add interaction with other humans and memory to what defines a human? You really are starting to slip into a morass that anyone bent on wiping out some particular humans can twist to their needs.
Again with the crass and feeble attempts to make me out to have evil murderous intent, is this really the best you can do?
Clearly that particular strand of DNA is far more important and sacred to you than is a real, perhaps traumatised and violated, woman, you are dogmatically heartless and uncaring imo whatever I am.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
If not then why do you concern yourself so much about the very same things a moment later after they have merged and shared their DNA?
Because the shared DNA is now a complete new human's DNA. Now would be a proper time to call you a name based on what you just said. But I'll refrain because you've never taken constructive criticism well.
When you are capable of constructive criticism I’ll let you know, but here you simply have no material reason at least to show what is specifically so special about it now than the moments just before conception. All you have here is your own adherence to a particular religious dogma which isn’t mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
My own concerns for it might only develop perhaps as gradually it does particularly from when it can actually begin to sense things. would that shock you?
That humans are defined by when they sense things? Yes, that is shocking.
That you define it by adherence to a religious dogma rather than by using your own human best judgement is scary imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
I see, but is that really in the best interest of the raped woman if she were forced anyway against her will to gestate and give birth to a now dead rapists baby?
It would be better than killing an innocent child, too.
Seems to me Yorzhik that you rather relish the idea of killing this rapist? This is a human after all who is unknown to you in this scenario, but in your righteous fury, which I find shocking, he will be put to death. Perhaps you would like to have all rapists lined up for you to do with them as you deem fit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
A woman with her own life and her chosen partner's too perhaps now even irreversibly damaged, when the best damage limitation might well have been, imo, the early abortion,
Your opinion doesn't line up with reality. Killing an innocent child along with rape causes more problems, not less. Read articles by Rebecca Kiessling here
That is something that can best be addressed on a case by case basis as to what the best outcome would be by those directly involved, but not imo by a detached universal dogmatic diktat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
time to forget and perhaps a resumption of their normal sex lives that they would have had to fore-go under your diktat?
If the forgetting includes remembering to kill the innocent child, then killing the child after it is born is OK by your logic. I'm sure you'd deny that, but then you'd have to ask yourself "why"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
I simply suggest that you do with you and yours as you see fit and leave others alone to do the same.
That's the kind of complacency in the face of innocents being killed that will eventually lead to killing babies after they are born. You still haven't justified why your definition (as sloppy as it is) is any better than anyone else's definition. In fact, why would you disagree with these guys?
You guys are so keen to interfere that you forget that making the best or least worst choice is not something to do lightly it requires sometimes making tough choices judged to be for the best overall outcome for a particular situation. There is no specific definition I can give you any more than you can tell me why a human actually is human from the moment of conception, I however use my own judgement right or wrong on individual cases which is not based on a dogma but on my own independent secular values.
Slogan/motto:
Gaudium de veritate (Latin, "Delight in the truth")
Reputation:
April 18th, 2012, 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
That seems a rather circumspect and possibly ambiguous response to the OP imo.
What part of my statement requires clarification, in your mind?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
"The very tradition, teaching, & faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles & preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded..." ~ St. Athanasius (4th cent.)
Well why stop in-utero? Why not children? Why not elderly? Downs syndrome? Where does the hyperbole end?!?!
Even if it were 100 or a 1000 each, including a few babies, down syndrome kids and elderly, it would still not mean there is a species extermination problem like you claimed.
Abortion is a moral issue, not a demographic/survival of the species issue.
"What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"
Slogan/motto:
Gaudium de veritate (Latin, "Delight in the truth")
Reputation:
April 19th, 2012, 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
Only that you don't seem to be answering the OP imo, is abortion wrong 100% of the time?
I thought I was quite clear. I'll rephrase:
Yes, the deliberate taking of innocent human life is wrong 100% of the time.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
"The very tradition, teaching, & faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles & preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded..." ~ St. Athanasius (4th cent.)
Thou shall not murder is as black and white as it gets.
April 18th, 2012, 09:43 PM
Linear Mode
