Abortion: Good or Bad?

[Rose Dome]

Do the sperm and ova have bodies in the sense of arms, legs, brain and heart? No.

They're cells. They have physical structures.

A body of arms, legs, brain and heart and human DNA is a human body.

Rebuttal 1: Sperm and ova carry DNA in their nuclei, and vary depending on species. This means that human sperm and ova are unique, making the human body argument a slippery slope (as I have said before )

Rebuttal 2: It's immoral to kill a fetus on the basis that it has arms and legs?

This argument is emotional blackmail. Having hands and feet does not enable the fetus to survive outside the womb, or give it a "soul" of any sort.

This debate with you is tiring, but I will persevere with it until I am unplugging my cable, and hitting myself over the head.

[Super Aurora]

Like I said before Disney Geek, He doesn't know shit about how biology or the concept of it works.


I also laugh at fact he talk about "human DNA" to help his claim yet in earlier statement he says he "doesn't believe in DNA or genetic" as it means that science "controls us" or some shit like that.

[yamiiguy]

Because a human killing a human is murder and is illegal.

One could argue that killing other animals is just as much of 'murder' as killing human beings. And also, just because something is illegal (as deemed by the government), it is automatically immoral? I wholeheartedly disagree. Personally, morality isn't something that can be universally determined anyways.

Killing a human is apparently 'morally wrong' to the majority of the world, while killing other living beings - plants, insects, cows, fish, etc... - isn't a big deal at all. That's what I find so astonishing about this. We put ourselves in front of every other living being in the world for our own selfish gain, and thats ok with everyone. You kill a bug (who is atleast more alive than a fetus in the first months) and don't even think about it. You remove a sack of cells and it's deemed murder simply because they hold human DNA..

I saw a nice comparison a couple days ago on this subject. A fetus cannot live on its own - the source referred to it as a 'parasite.' Of course the child is alive, but before the actual birth of the child, there is only one living being there (the mother's). To quote: "Saying a fetus is a distinct living being is like saying my arm is a distinct living being. My arm is alive, yes, but you can’t murder my arm."

I thought that was interesting. :shrugs:

Can I just applaud you on managing to say what I wanted to say but couldn't manage to compose coherently. I agree wholeheartedly.

[Disney Duster]

Well I guess it comes down to your definition of life. If an animal cannot live independently then surely it cannot be classified as living? Excluding parasites of course. At what stage would you consider abortion murder? Even in the early zygote stage?

Perhaps the definition if life differs. But the definition of death is when the heart stops. When you stop the fetuses heart you are killing it and since the fetus is human DNA with a body, heart, and brain it's a human life and is being killed. A siamese twin must depend on the other to survive, yet killing one of them would be considered murder.

Because a human killing a human is murder and is illegal.

One could argue that killing other animals is just as much of 'murder' as killing human beings. And also, just because something is illegal (as deemed by the government), it is automatically immoral? I wholeheartedly disagree. Personally, morality isn't something that can be universally determined anyways.

Killing a human is apparently 'morally wrong' to the majority of the world, while killing other living beings - plants, insects, cows, fish, etc... - isn't a big deal at all. That's what I find so astonishing about this. We put ourselves in front of every other living being in the world for our own selfish gain, and thats ok with everyone. You kill a bug (who is atleast more alive than a fetus in the first months) and don't even think about it. You remove a sack of cells and it's deemed murder simply because they hold human DNA..

I saw a nice comparison a couple days ago on this subject. A fetus cannot live on its own - the source referred to it as a 'parasite.' Of course the child is alive, but before the actual birth of the child, there is only one living being there (the mother's). To quote: "Saying a fetus is a distinct living being is like saying my arm is a distinct living being. My arm is alive, yes, but you can’t murder my arm."

I thought that was interesting. :shrugs:

The reason killing humans is so bad is if it's human killing humans, killing your own species. And because if you have an animal and a human both in a fire you all know you should save the human first if you can.

As for the arm comparison...the arm doesn't have a brain or beating heart, does it? No. It is no comparison.

Do the sperm and ova have bodies in the sense of arms, legs, brain and heart? No.

They're cells. They have physical structures.

A body of arms, legs, brain and heart and human DNA is a human body.

Rebuttal 1: Sperm and ova carry DNA in their nuclei, and vary depending on species. This means that human sperm and ova are unique, making the human body argument a slippery slope (as I have said before )

Rebuttal 2: It's immoral to kill a fetus on the basis that it has arms and legs?

This argument is emotional blackmail. Having hands and feet does not enable the fetus to survive outside the womb, or give it a "soul" of any sort.

This debate with you is tiring, but I will persevere with it until I am unplugging my cable, and hitting myself over the head.

No it's immoral to kill human life and if there's a human body with a heart and brain that is human life. The sperm and ova do not have a heart and brain.

Like I said before Disney Geek, He doesn't know shit about how biology or the concept of it works.


I also laugh at fact he talk about "human DNA" to help his claim yet in earlier statement he says he "doesn't believe in DNA or genetic" as it means that science "controls us" or some shit like that.

Way to not really care to get what I was saying before correct. Of course I believe there is genetic DNA. And I also believe in a soul, which perhaps comes into a human body after the brain is formed in a fetus, who knows. What I am saying is that if the only thing all people can agree on believing is human DNA, then if this DNA has constructed a brain and heart which are alive because they have activity or are beating, then it stands to kill that is murder.

[Super Aurora]

Like I said before Disney Geek, He doesn't know shit about how biology or the concept of it works.


I also laugh at fact he talk about "human DNA" to help his claim yet in earlier statement he says he "doesn't believe in DNA or genetic" as it means that science "controls us" or some shit like that.

Way to not really care to get what I was saying before correct. Of course I believe there is genetic DNA. And I also believe in a soul, which perhaps comes into a human body after the brain is formed in a fetus, who knows. What I am saying is that if the only thing all people can agree on believing is human DNA, then if this DNA has constructed a brain and heart which are alive because they have activity or are beating, then it stands to kill that is murder.

And yet you stated this:

You know it's kinda funny. You said all that yet you accept the proven genetic fact that a person sexuality is something they are born with as oppose to choice like most Christians and anti-gay people just say.(which is mostly a justification means to be anti gay.

You have given me the perfect example to cover the rest of the things here. One, how well do any of you really understand me, for I have never once said I accept the idea of genes being responsible for being gay. I despise such a theory. If that theory was true, then once the gene was located, parents who like to choose how their growing unborn children should be, as some already do these days, could choose to have their baby straight, and perhaps the gene could even go extinct altogether someday. This is also what I meant by science controlling us. That if we really were just our physical genes, and experiences, then science could make us straight or gay, and eventually control our whole lives. Instead of genes, I believe our soul really controls us. You know how you can choose to “use” your brain? Your brain controls the physical things in you, but you (your soul) controls your brain. There is even evidence that what they thought was “the gay gene” can be turned on or off. Perhaps the soul can turn it on or off, while developing in the womb, unconsciously (and the soul is also called the unconscious). So in a way I guess that would be like a choice, but one you can’t even help making, so it’s not a choice. It would be something, of, well, a miracle.

To me you don't know wtf you're deciding to accept at this point.

This is why I called out on you on your ignorance in biology and genetic as people are gay by genetic makeup of their body. Animals are same way hence why some have homosexual tendencies. If you don't know that simple fact then listening to you on anything you have to say on abortion (especially since you're not a female and don't know the shit they go through) will fall on deaf ears.

Also you don't "believe" in genetic or DNA. It exist in all living things and is apart of our makeup of who we are.

Also your logic in that paragraph I posted here made no fucking sense.

[Lazario]

No it's immoral to kill human life and if there's a human body with a heart and brain that is human life. The sperm and ova do not have a heart and brain.

So then, you believe the sperm and the ova are soulmates? And all along, they were hunting for each other during the fertilization process? Instead of it being more incidental- which sperm impregnates the egg?

[yamiiguy]

Well I guess it comes down to your definition of life. If an animal cannot live independently then surely it cannot be classified as living? Excluding parasites of course. At what stage would you consider abortion murder? Even in the early zygote stage?

Perhaps the definition if life differs. But the definition of death is when the heart stops. When you stop the fetuses heart you are killing it and since the fetus is human DNA with a body, heart, and brain it's a human life and is being killed. A siamese twin must depend on the other to survive, yet killing one of them would be considered murder.

That definition of death is archaic due to the fact you can restart the heart and due to the fact that some living organisms do not have a heart. Due to the fact that there is no real definition of life, there is no real definition of death. A siamese twin wasn't really a good example to use either because they both require each other to survive while only the foetus needs the mother to survive - the mother doesn't need the foetus to survive.

[Heartless]

Perhaps the definition if life differs. But the definition of death is when the heart stops. When you stop the fetuses heart you are killing it and since the fetus is human DNA with a body, heart, and brain it's a human life and is being killed. A siamese twin must depend on the other to survive, yet killing one of them would be considered murder.

The definition of death is NOT when the heart stops. The definition of death is when you cease to be alive. For some organisms, once the hearts stops you may die (but not necessarily), but as yamiiguy already pointed out, some organisms don't even have hearts to begin with, so this argument of "death = heart stop" shouldn't be considered valid.

One could argue that killing other animals is just as much of 'murder' as killing human beings. And also, just because something is illegal (as deemed by the government), it is automatically immoral? I wholeheartedly disagree. Personally, morality isn't something that can be universally determined anyways.

Killing a human is apparently 'morally wrong' to the majority of the world, while killing other living beings - plants, insects, cows, fish, etc... - isn't a big deal at all. That's what I find so astonishing about this. We put ourselves in front of every other living being in the world for our own selfish gain, and thats ok with everyone. You kill a bug (who is atleast more alive than a fetus in the first months) and don't even think about it. You remove a sack of cells and it's deemed murder simply because they hold human DNA..

I saw a nice comparison a couple days ago on this subject. A fetus cannot live on its own - the source referred to it as a 'parasite.' Of course the child is alive, but before the actual birth of the child, there is only one living being there (the mother's). To quote: "Saying a fetus is a distinct living being is like saying my arm is a distinct living being. My arm is alive, yes, but you can’t murder my arm."

I thought that was interesting. :shrugs:

The reason killing humans is so bad is if it's human killing humans, killing your own species. And because if you have an animal and a human both in a fire you all know you should save the human first if you can.

As for the arm comparison...the arm doesn't have a brain or beating heart, does it? No. It is no comparison.

Who cares what species it is your killing, you are still killing. Why should we all know that humans should always come first? Its a general belief by humans that humans are superior creatures, that's why. Super Aurora is right in saying that the human race is a disgustingly selfish group of organisms.

You know, humans are the only creatures that ever, EVER, kill something unnecessarily. You put an anaconda in a herd of antelope and its not going to just start killing them all off one by one. It will feed off of them as it sees fit for survival. But humans raise and create millions animals for the sole purpose of killing them. Forget the fact that you believe humans are the greatest beings on the planet, and how is this any better than removing a fetus from the womb?

And also, as we've pointed out already, having a heart or brain does not mean something is alive or not.

No it's immoral to kill human life and if there's a human body with a heart and brain that is human life. The sperm and ova do not have a heart and brain.

In your opinion, its immoral. I already said that morality is subjective. You only believe killing human life is "immoral" because of your religion and the majority of society thinks the same way. And you see no problems with killing off other organisms because the general public does not either.

[my chicken is infected]

My opinions are very simple and to the point.

Do I like abortion? No.

Do I think sometimes it's the best option? Probably.

Will I ever be pregnant? Nope.

Therefore, do I have any reason or clout whatsoever to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body? Nope.

Pro-choice all the way. Pro-choice =/= pro-abortion. I don't think anyone likes abortion. I don't know anyone who's like "Oh, I just cannot WAIT to get this abortion! We'll paint toenails, order Chinese, watch some romantic comedies, have fetus-shaped cookies! It'll be fun!" It just means it's someone else's choice, not mine.

[Super Aurora]

You know, humans are the only creatures that ever, EVER, kill something unnecessarily.

Dolphins kill for fun too.

But like humans, Dolphins are also pretty smart.

[Heartless]

Dolphins kill for fun too.

But like humans, Dolphins are also pretty smart.

I bet the other dolphins are okay with it.

[Disney's Divinity]

Not the dead ones.

[Barbossa]

With approx 7 billion people on this planet...

Actually I think it's about time we have a WWIII to cleanse the planet a bit, and keep our populations in check.

Check this out, and hit refresh to see the numbers jump:
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

[Rose Dome]

No it's immoral to kill human life and if there's a human body with a heart and brain that is human life. The sperm and ova do not have a heart and brain.

Gah!!!

A fetus isn't human life if it isn't viable outside the womb, and you mentioned arms and legs when arguing that it is. Another problem with what you have said(raised by yamiiguy), is that using the heart to define life and death, is outdated, as not all organisms have hearts.

I'm finished with this. You are using wishy washy arguments in the face of accepted Biology, and I don't know what else I can write if you're going to opine that limbs make an underdeveloped baby a soulful being

I'm not cutting you off, but I've learnt first hand that discussing heavy topics with you leads to nothing.

[Lazario]

Check this out, and hit refresh to see the numbers jump:
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

According to that thing, best I can figure- 1 baby is born every second. Surprisingly, that doesn't exactly shock me.

It's still horrifying and out of control but... how many people die statistically in 1 minute?

[yamiiguy]

With approx 7 billion people on this planet...

Actually I think it's about time we have a WWIII to cleanse the planet a bit, and keep our populations in check.

Check this out, and hit refresh to see the numbers jump:
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

You should watch this fantastic BBC documentary, presented by David Attenborough on that very topic.

[candydog]

Check this out, and hit refresh to see the numbers jump:
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

According to that thing, best I can figure- 1 baby is born every second. Surprisingly, that doesn't exactly shock me.

It's still horrifying and out of control but... how many people die statistically in 1 minute?

A lot more people are born every minute than the amount who die, which is why the population is constantly growing. The numbers you see through the link account for both births AND deaths as far as I can gather, and seeing as it is still continuously rising births obviously outnumber deaths by a quite a lot.

As for WWIII Barbossa, interesting but not necessary. Like I said earlier, nature has a way of balancing these things out. It's basic logic. If the population gets too big, there won't be enough food or supplies to support it, therefore people will die and the population will shrink. It's harsh, but that's how it usually works.

[yamiiguy]

Yeah but if the population gets to the point where there isn't enough food to be around, it'll cause wars, suffering etc. Best to nip it in the bud.

[Goliath]

Yeah but if the population gets to the point where there isn't enough food to be around, it'll cause wars, suffering etc. Best to nip it in the bud.

There is actually more than enough food to feed every living person on the planet; it's just not distributed equally.

[yamiiguy]

There is currently but in a future where the population reaches the projected levels, that might not be so. It's all explained in the documentary I posted above.