And do you know how many of those 1% were aborted before 24 weeks?
Last time I checked we didn't do forced sterilisation as a matter of course on humans. Added to that we put down thousands of new born puppies, so you're talking *********...
Largest US abortion provider caught on tape selling body parts
- Thread starter spudbynight
- Start date
And do you know how many of those 1% were aborted before 24 weeks?
Last time I checked we didn't do forced sterilisation as a matter of course on humans. Added to that we put down thousands of new born puppies, so you're talking *********...
It's a big leap to assume me pointing out foetuses cannot survive, even with the latest medical techniques, is me being supportive of killing adults that can't survive without support.
Do you think we should allow abortion? If so what do you think the cutoff should be? If so what should be the basis of that cutoff? Personally the cutoff being the point at which most babies would survive after birth is a reasonable one, especially if at that point the brain isn't properly developed anyway.
It's also worth pointing out that a large proportion of those premature babies will go on to have severe health problems and disabilities as well.
Last edited:
The only Logical point for a new life to have come into being is conception.
All other arguments are philosophical ones on the nature of life (and apply as much to the end of life as they do to the beginning)
Those arguments range from the really rather interesting and thoughtful at one end to blatant sophistry at the other being used by pro-abortionists to deny (Both to themselves and to others) that they are killing young human beings.
My own attitudes in the "Abortion debate" might seem a bit ambiguous to some,
(I am unhappy about otherwise healthy babies being aborted simply because the mother doesn't want one just now, on the other hand I am perfectly happy to see sickly newborns subjected to what my Edwardian Grandmother used to refer to as "The Sink Test"! (Back in the day when most births were at home attended only by other members of the family (typically other female relatives) Young children growing up with serious birth defects were, shall we say, rare!))
But I am in no doubt as to when life begins!
All other arguments are philosophical ones on the nature of life (and apply as much to the end of life as they do to the beginning)
Those arguments range from the really rather interesting and thoughtful at one end to blatant sophistry at the other being used by pro-abortionists to deny (Both to themselves and to others) that they are killing young human beings.
My own attitudes in the "Abortion debate" might seem a bit ambiguous to some,
(I am unhappy about otherwise healthy babies being aborted simply because the mother doesn't want one just now, on the other hand I am perfectly happy to see sickly newborns subjected to what my Edwardian Grandmother used to refer to as "The Sink Test"! (Back in the day when most births were at home attended only by other members of the family (typically other female relatives) Young children growing up with serious birth defects were, shall we say, rare!
))But I am in no doubt as to when life begins!
The videos were edited, there were no body parts sales. Just a fake company created by the crazies to help in the fight againt abortion. They're getting desperate. 
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/2...ion-against-planned-parenthood.html?referrer=
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/2...ion-against-planned-parenthood.html?referrer=
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
The videos were edited, there were no body parts sales. Just a fake company created by the crazies to help in the fight againt abortion. They're getting desperate.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/2...ion-against-planned-parenthood.html?referrer=
Shock horror, who'd have thought it was anti-abortion brigade faking video footage to further their propaganda?
There is only one moment a new life is created at conception. That is a simple fact.
Anyone who obfuscates that for either side is confusing the only real true fact here for their own purpose.
Disagree, until the formation of a central nervous system, life is not present. The foundations that will support the life are being created, but no consciousness is active, therefore it is not alive.
Anyone who obfuscates that for either side is confusing the only real true fact here for their own purpose.
All living cells are living.
(And that includes Eggs and Sperm of course)
The point at which a new "identity" is created is at conception.
What people here are arguing (from the pro-abortion standpoint) is that there is no new "Identity" (IE Person) until it has a CNS/Circulatory system/Conciousness/can survive independently/whatever!
I still say that the only logical point to consider a new identity to have come into existence is when the genes from both parents have combined to produce a new and unique individual *
*
(I am not going to go there on twins just for now 
)
)And this is what I mean by someone who is a complete failure at quite basic biology.
The fundamentals of life, ie being alive, do not include having a central nervous system.
So nice attempt at being witty. Not so good attempt at pre-GCSE Biology.
Must try harder.
It's not sentient who cares if it dies?
a blade of grass is alive you still walk on it? why is one cell worth more than another?
It's a big leap to assume me pointing out foetuses cannot survive, even with the latest medical techniques, is me being supportive of killing adults that can't survive without support.
Do you think we should allow abortion? If so what do you think the cutoff should be? If so what should be the basis of that cutoff? Personally the cutoff being the point at which most babies would survive after birth is a reasonable one, especially if at that point the brain isn't properly developed anyway.
I'm pointing out its a rather silly line to chose.
if you can pull a baby out at 20 weeks and it cant survive, but it will sit here on the table wriggling in agony for the few minutes it takes for it to die. do you think it a sensible point to chose, just because it cant survive long term doesn't mean its not going to be aware its being ripped into little pieces or crushed before the end.
I think the "ability to survive" without intervention is a pointless line to chose because its got no more basis in the suffering or stage of development of the child as going "oh this 40 year old man needs a ventilator to live so we may as well put him down its ok, he wouldn't survive without intervention anyway"
you are aware that premature birth =/= abortion or is in anyway comparable given most abortions would have gone on to full term not have been premature?
So i'm not sure why "it's worth pointing out" that premature babies have health issues in support of aborting babies that aren't going to be premature.
So by your definition animals born by Parthenogenesis are never alive? That would also include the two human embryos created by Parthenogenesis in 2007.
There's also the question of cloning. Was dolly the sheep alive? Not by your definition.
A egg cell is alive and changes state by external influence and begins to divide, eventually forming a baby (if not miscarried or aborted before term). There is not always a need for genetic transfer of two parents, meaning the embryo/foetus/baby is not always "unique" relative to the parent.
While it's not that common "Virgin conception/birth" is possible and the definition of life should include it.
Why not argue that the new "identity" is when the foetus disconnects from the mothers body and begins to fend for itself (breathe and need its own food rather than nutrients from its attachment to the mother)? I.e. When it is born.
There's also the question of when when are you legally considered alive? By my reckoning that would be when you are born and become an individual, with a birth certificate and legal name.
As I said, it's a philosophical argument. There are many possible options for when life begins, it just depends on what you define life to be (which is one of the biggest philosophical questions about).
Edit: that was aimed at orionaut.
There's also the question of cloning. Was dolly the sheep alive? Not by your definition.
A egg cell is alive and changes state by external influence and begins to divide, eventually forming a baby (if not miscarried or aborted before term). There is not always a need for genetic transfer of two parents, meaning the embryo/foetus/baby is not always "unique" relative to the parent.
While it's not that common "Virgin conception/birth" is possible and the definition of life should include it.
Why not argue that the new "identity" is when the foetus disconnects from the mothers body and begins to fend for itself (breathe and need its own food rather than nutrients from its attachment to the mother)? I.e. When it is born.
There's also the question of when when are you legally considered alive? By my reckoning that would be when you are born and become an individual, with a birth certificate and legal name.
As I said, it's a philosophical argument. There are many possible options for when life begins, it just depends on what you define life to be (which is one of the biggest philosophical questions about).
Edit: that was aimed at orionaut.
Last edited:
You might not want to go there, but identical twins nicely torpedo the argument that you can assign human identity during conception.
Only if one determines that identity is derived of genetic cause with no environmental consideration which is of course very very stupid and very very against everything we understand to be true. It can be derived from the origin but that does not mean the origin is the sole determinant of the outcome.
That's equally incompatible with the view that identity can be assigned at conception.
U wot M8?
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,789
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
And do you know how many of those 1% were aborted before 24 weeks?
Last time I checked we didn't do forced sterilisation as a matter of course on humans. Added to that we put down thousands of new born puppies, so you're talking *********...
Well, actually the NHS did perform forced sterilisations. My wife used to work in the NHS with a woman who was involved in that programme.
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,789
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
The videos were edited, there were no body parts sales. Just a fake company created by the crazies to help in the fight againt abortion. They're getting desperate.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/2...ion-against-planned-parenthood.html?referrer=
The New York Times is a biased source. It lies.
Did the second video showing the Planned Parenthood Medical Director haggling over prices mislead as well. The prices needed to be "worth her while" as she needed to pay for a Lamborghini.
The fact is Planned Parentood are selling human organs. They are selling them and making a profit.
What do you call the money received over and above what it takes to break even? I think that is what is called profit.
Something being legal, doesn't make it moral.
Slavery was once legal - was it moral? Did it only become immoral when it became illegal? Were those people campaigning against it just nasty judgemental types getting in the way of people taking lawful decisions?
Global medical consensus says otherwise, but they are wrong and "some chap on the Internet" knows better.
Last edited: