Ultimately, yes. I am putting a condition on life. We can play god, I think enough evolution has occurred for us to be able to do that...in a way.

 

 

 

Until somebody else says it in a better form, all I can say is going to be a repeat of the last several posts.

 

 

 

That is against human nature. I'll point it back at you -

 

 

 

Lets look at some examples where conditions were put on life -

 

 

 

Hitler - You are only alive if you don't have jewish background.

 

Racists, white supremacists - you are only alive if you are white.

 

 

 

I find it a little strange that people advocate so hard for equal rights for women, children, the elderly, people of different races, but when it comes to the most vulnerable among us, all of a sudden, we aren't so equal after all.

 

 

 

I don't find it strange, for the pure reason some people clearly don't equate a weeks-old embryo/fetus with what you listed.

 

 

 

There's no point in continuing to say that scientists have proven that life begins at conception unless you qualify what that actually means. That means the maternal and paternal chromosomes combine to form a one celled zygote. I'd hardly call that a "child", and I most certainly wouldn't equate the termination of that life with what Hitler did.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Of course there is no 100% consensus, but I have read articles, and studies, and the majority of scientists beleive life beings at conception. It doesn't even deal with mammals alone; plants are also seen the same way. As soon as the seed is fertilized, it begins to grow.

 

 

 

It's interesting you'd bring up this point. Perhaps I can help you see the argument from the other side. Given that a seed is alive (albeit dormant, but let's overlook that right now), would you call me a tree lopper should I crush a bunch of them in my hand?

That is against human nature. I'll point it back at you -

 

 

 

Lets look at some examples where conditions were put on life -

 

 

 

Hitler - You are only alive if you don't have jewish background.

 

Racists, white supremacists - you are only alive if you are white.

 

 

 

I find it a little strange that people advocate so hard for equal rights for women, children, the elderly, people of different races, but when it comes to the most vulnerable among us, all of a sudden, we aren't so equal after all.

 

Dear Godwin,

 

 

 

Get out of this thread.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

People with real arguments

That is against human nature. I'll point it back at you -

 

 

 

Lets look at some examples where conditions were put on life -

 

 

 

Hitler - You are only alive if you don't have jewish background.

 

Racists, white supremacists - you are only alive if you are white.

 

 

 

I find it a little strange that people advocate so hard for equal rights for women, children, the elderly, people of different races, but when it comes to the most vulnerable among us, all of a sudden, we aren't so equal after all.

 

Dear Godwin,

 

 

 

Get out of this thread.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

People with real arguments

 

 

 

Preferably you could show me one of these "real arguements"?

 

Ultimately, yes. I am putting a condition on life. We can play god, I think enough evolution has occurred for us to be able to do that...in a way.

 

 

 

Until somebody else says it in a better form, all I can say is going to be a repeat of the last several posts.

 

 

 

That is against human nature. I'll point it back at you -

 

 

 

Lets look at some examples where conditions were put on life -

 

 

 

Hitler - You are only alive if you don't have jewish background.

 

Racists, white supremacists - you are only alive if you are white.

 

 

 

I find it a little strange that people advocate so hard for equal rights for women, children, the elderly, people of different races, but when it comes to the most vulnerable among us, all of a sudden, we aren't so equal after all.

 

 

 

I don't find it strange, for the pure reason some people clearly don't equate a weeks-old embryo/fetus with what you listed.

 

 

 

There's no point in continuing to say that scientists have proven that life begins at conception unless you qualify what that actually means. That means the maternal and paternal chromosomes combine to form a one celled zygote. I'd hardly call that a "child", and I most certainly wouldn't equate the termination of that life with what Hitler did.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Of course there is no 100% consensus, but I have read articles, and studies, and the majority of scientists beleive life beings at conception. It doesn't even deal with mammals alone; plants are also seen the same way. As soon as the seed is fertilized, it begins to grow.

 

 

 

It's interesting you'd bring up this point. Perhaps I can help you see the argument from the other side. Given that a seed is alive (albeit dormant, but let's overlook that right now), would you call me a tree lopper should I crush a bunch of them in my hand?

 

 

 

Why wouldn't you call it a child? Scientists do.

 

 

 

Of course I wouldnt called you a tree lopper. But I would be the first to say that you killed something that is alive.

Churches' rights should begin and end at the altar. They should never have the right to force an unsuitable mother to bear a child.

 

 

 

I agree as well.

Churches' rights should begin and end at the altar. They should never have the right to force an unsuitable mother to bear a child.

 

 

 

I agree as well.

 

They shouldn't force, no, it is the decision of the mother, to kill or not to kill. But an "unsuitable" mother shouldn't be able to kill the child just because she is "unsuitable".

Preferably you could show me one of these "real arguements"?

 

Read: Arguments that don't revolve around comparisons between abortion and Nazi Germany.

You miss the reason that the church is threatening to close their hospitals. They beleive abortion is murder, and as such are willing to do anything to stop murder.

 

 

 

Even for arguments sake it was murder anyone with half a brain knows that you can't stop murder by threatening to also murder (shut down their hospitals and leave their patients stranded.) At the end of the day they're contributing to the problem of murder 110% MORE.

 

 

 

All they are doing is taking the necessary steps to insure that they play no part in the murder of innocent human beings.

 

 

 

Refer to the above. They are either equally or more violent by retaliating or just damn right stupid.

 

 

 

And I hope they know even if they do carry forward with this ridiculous threat, they will only find people who are equally as qualified who don't have a problem with abortion and the hospital will stay under new management.

Why wouldn't you call it a child? Scientists do.

 

 

 

Of course I wouldnt called you a tree lopper. But I would be the first to say that you killed something that is alive.

 

 

 

Of course scientists don't call it a child. The proper scientific terms are zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and then (perhaps..) infant. Perhaps I'm missing some, but that's the gist of it.

 

 

 

And I wouldn't call it a child because when i think of a child I think of someone roughly 4-12 years old.

 

 

 

As for the tree lopper thing, the reasoning behind it is that people such as yourself tend to equate abortion with events like the holocaust, in which millions of adult Jews were exterminated. That's like calling a seed-killer a tree lopper. It's a way of trying to show you how ridiculous we think some of your views are (no offence).

You miss the reason that the church is threatening to close their hospitals. They beleive abortion is murder, and as such are willing to do anything to stop murder.

 

 

 

Even for arguments sake it was murder anyone with half a brain knows that you can't stop murder by threatening to also murder (shut down their hospitals and leave their patients stranded.) At the end of the day they're contributing to the problem of murder 110% MORE.

 

 

 

All they are doing is taking the necessary steps to insure that they play no part in the murder of innocent human beings.

 

 

 

Refer to the above. They are either equally or more violent by retaliating or just damn right stupid.

 

 

 

 

 

So they should just stand by, and have something they do not beleive in forced upon them? I think not.

 

 

 

Preferably you could show me one of these "real arguements"?

 

Read: Arguments that don't revolve around comparisons between abortion and Nazi Germany.

 

 

 

So now I'm not allowed to compare? I think not, I will compare all I like. I am being completely reasonable about it, but all you are doing is telling me not to. You can't even give me a reason.

 

 

 

Why wouldn't you call it a child? Scientists do.

 

 

 

Of course I wouldnt called you a tree lopper. But I would be the first to say that you killed something that is alive.

 

 

 

Of course scientists don't call it a child. The proper scientific terms are zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and then (perhaps..) infant. Perhaps I'm missing some, but that's the gist of it.

 

 

 

And I wouldn't call it a child because when i think of a child I think of someone roughly 4-12 years old.

 

 

 

As for the tree lopper thing, the reasoning behind it is that people such as yourself tend to equate abortion with events like the holocaust, in which millions of adult Jews were exterminated. That's like calling a seed-killer a tree lopper. It's a way of trying to show you how ridiculous we think some of your views are (no offence).

 

 

 

The technical term isn't the point. It's that no matter how you say it, a life is there.

 

 

 

So once again, 6 million adult jews were killed. 42 million children die worldwide do to abortion each year. Significantly more, eh?

 

What you are trying to say is that it is a worse crime to kill an adult than a child, once again putting a condition on life. A human life, all human lives have the same value, despite the circumstances.

 

 

 

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Preferably you could show me one of these "real arguements"?

 

Read: Arguments that don't revolve around comparisons between abortion and Nazi Germany.

 

But its the perfect way to kill a arguement!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

But to be serious, abortion is just gettin rid of something that gonna make your life crap if you didn't want it.

 

But theres other options, so its kinda immature to just kill off a baby before its born, theres adoption to concider.

You miss the reason that the church is threatening to close their hospitals. They beleive abortion is murder, and as such are willing to do anything to stop murder.

 

 

 

Even for arguments sake it was murder anyone with half a brain knows that you can't stop murder by threatening to also murder (shut down their hospitals and leave their patients stranded.) At the end of the day they're contributing to the problem of murder 110% MORE.

 

 

 

All they are doing is taking the necessary steps to insure that they play no part in the murder of innocent human beings.

 

 

 

Refer to the above. They are either equally or more violent by retaliating or just damn right stupid.

 

 

 

Id still like to point out I dont believe this bill would force doctors to do anything(if it does thats bs)

 

 

 

Sometimes you have to take a moral stand at any cost, if were going to argue that you cant murder to prevent murder I guess we should have just let germany win ww2, wouldnt want to kill anyone. Yes, thats a little out of scale, but you cant universally declare a moral stand wrong.

 

 

 

edit--just noticed another part of that

 

 

 

how does allowing people to die in protest equate to violence? Im not saying its justified but something is not violent unless it involves well violence.

So they should just stand by, and have something they do not beleive in forced upon them? I think not.

 

 

 

No, I believe anyone who doesn't agree with something so strongly should fight for it. But fighting war with war or fighting murder with murder is NOT the answer. If you look at the world today and it's history, a 13 year old could come to that conclusion. Being anti ANYTHING creates more of it!!

So, was there a link to the FOCA posted?

 

 

 

To add to the debate/flame war:

 

 

 

I am personally pro-choice. What has to be remembered though is that there are 3 choices. Have the baby and keep it; have the baby, put it up for adoption; abort. Each choice varies depending on the situation and the person. I don't see why you would ever think that giving a 15 year-old girl a baby to look after by herself (Maybe with support from parents) a good idea. Some people say that you are wasting a life when a pregnancy is aborted. What if the woman was 15 years old, would have to raise the baby on her own, came from a lower-class family, and had a very promising future that would involve commitment to university/high school? Abortion or adoption. What if the girl doesn't feel she could part with something she has given life to? Abortion. I know that is a very extreme case.

 

 

 

Also, I think what really needs to be taught is real sex education. Not [cabbage] abstinence. Teach protection, maybe with a minor emphasis on abstinence. I like how mine has been. Since grade 7, I've been taught about protection, however was always told that abstinence was the only 100% sure method.

 

 

 

I am pro adoption and abortion.

Also, I think what really needs to be taught is real sex education. Not [cabbage] abstinence. Teach protection, maybe with a minor emphasis on abstinence. I like how mine has been. Since grade 7, I've been taught about protection, however was always told that abstinence was the only 100% sure method.

 

 

 

agreed.

Preferably you could show me one of these "real arguements"?

 

Read: Arguments that don't revolve around comparisons between abortion and Nazi Germany.

 

But its the perfect way to kill a arguement!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

But to be serious, abortion is just gettin rid of something that gonna make your life crap if you didn't want it.

 

But theres other options, so its kinda immature to just kill off a baby before its born, theres adoption to concider.

 

 

 

Exactly. A child will make your life crap, so you can just get rid of it? How is that fair?

 

 

 

So they should just stand by, and have something they do not beleive in forced upon them? I think not.

 

 

 

No, I believe anyone who doesn't agree with something so strongly should fight for it. But fighting war with war or fighting murder with murder is NOT the answer. If you look at the world today and it's history, a 13 year old could come to that conclusion. Being anti ANYTHING creates more of it!!

 

 

 

Then what is the answer?

 

 

 

Say you were asked to kill your brother, or your father would be killed.

 

Would you kill your brother? I somehow doubt it.

 

 

 

Just in the same way, the pro-life doctors refuse to kill children to protect the lifes of others. Killing is never justified, ever, simple as that.

 

 

 

Also, I think what really needs to be taught is real sex education. Not [cabbage] abstinence. Teach protection, maybe with a minor emphasis on abstinence. I like how mine has been. Since grade 7, I've been taught about protection, however was always told that abstinence was the only 100% sure method.

 

 

 

agreed.

 

 

 

The reason absitence is taught is because it IS the only method that really works, 100%. Saying that it shouldn't be taught is like saying using a calculator shouldn't be taught to do math, because it is the most reliable method.

So they should just stand by, and have something they do not beleive in forced upon them? I think not.

 

 

 

No, I believe anyone who doesn't agree with something so strongly should fight for it. But fighting war with war or fighting murder with murder is NOT the answer. If you look at the world today and it's history, a 13 year old could come to that conclusion. Being anti ANYTHING creates more of it!!

 

 

 

im going to assume that is just horribly worded ,but if that holds true then I guess we should all be pro theft and arson, wouldnt want to cause more of them.

 

 

 

edit--

The reason absitence is taught is because it IS the only method that really works, 100%. Saying that it shouldn't be taught is like saying using a calculator shouldn't be taught to do math, because it is the most reliable method.

 

 

 

a. calculators have a way of making you mess up calculations

 

b. if you dont teach kids protection you lower the rate of useage of it. Id rather have a high rate of protected sex then a slightly lower rate with more unprotected sex.

Why wouldn't you call it a child? Scientists do.

 

 

 

Of course I wouldnt called you a tree lopper. But I would be the first to say that you killed something that is alive.

 

 

 

Of course scientists don't call it a child. The proper scientific terms are zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and then (perhaps..) infant. Perhaps I'm missing some, but that's the gist of it.

 

 

 

And I wouldn't call it a child because when i think of a child I think of someone roughly 4-12 years old.

 

 

 

As for the tree lopper thing, the reasoning behind it is that people such as yourself tend to equate abortion with events like the holocaust, in which millions of adult Jews were exterminated. That's like calling a seed-killer a tree lopper. It's a way of trying to show you how ridiculous we think some of your views are (no offence).

 

 

 

The technical term isn't the point. It's that no matter how you say it, a life is there.

 

 

 

So once again, 6 million adult jews were killed. 42 million children die worldwide do to abortion each year. Significantly more, eh?

 

What you are trying to say is that it is a worse crime to kill an adult than a child, once again putting a condition on life. A human life, all human lives have the same value, despite the circumstances.

 

 

 

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

 

 

 

Of course the technical term is the point, because you continually call them children. Do you see the point I'm trying to make here with the tree-lopper analogy?

 

 

 

As for comparing the numbers, it doesn't matter if you don't consider embryos children. Yes, this is putting a condition on life, but I don't see what the problem is. As far as I'm concerned it's entirely ridiculous to make a blanket judgment that zygotes assume the same rights and properties as you or I when sperm meets egg.

to the above post

 

 

 

that brings us to how we should legally define human life, anyone care to start that debate?

Why wouldn't you call it a child? Scientists do.

 

 

 

Of course I wouldnt called you a tree lopper. But I would be the first to say that you killed something that is alive.

 

 

 

Of course scientists don't call it a child. The proper scientific terms are zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and then (perhaps..) infant. Perhaps I'm missing some, but that's the gist of it.

 

 

 

And I wouldn't call it a child because when i think of a child I think of someone roughly 4-12 years old.

 

 

 

As for the tree lopper thing, the reasoning behind it is that people such as yourself tend to equate abortion with events like the holocaust, in which millions of adult Jews were exterminated. That's like calling a seed-killer a tree lopper. It's a way of trying to show you how ridiculous we think some of your views are (no offence).

 

 

 

The technical term isn't the point. It's that no matter how you say it, a life is there.

 

 

 

So once again, 6 million adult jews were killed. 42 million children die worldwide do to abortion each year. Significantly more, eh?

 

What you are trying to say is that it is a worse crime to kill an adult than a child, once again putting a condition on life. A human life, all human lives have the same value, despite the circumstances.

 

 

 

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

 

 

 

Of course the technical term is the point, because you continually call them children. Do you see the point I'm trying to make here with the tree-lopper analogy?

 

 

 

As for comparing the numbers, it doesn't matter if you don't consider embryos children. Yes, this is putting a condition on life, but I don't see what the problem is. As far as I'm concerned it's entirely ridiculous to make a blanket judgment that zygotes assume the same rights and properties as you or I when sperm meets egg.

 

 

 

Of course they don't deserve the same rights, they deserve one right, one basic right, the right to life.

 

In your OPINION it is ridiculous, because you don't consider a fertilized embryo to be a human being. I do, because it is alive. And that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

 

 

 

 

to the above post

 

 

 

that brings us to how we should legally define human life, anyone care to start that debate?

 

 

 

The US senate recently asked that question.

 

 

 

Please read: http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prol ... tion.shtml

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm at work, so I need to stop debating for the time being. I'll be back tomorrow, never fear :thumbsup:

that brings us to how we should legally define human life, anyone care to start that debate?

 

 

 

To be honest I've been waiting for someone to say this, because as far as I'm concerned it's utterly [developmentally delayed]ed to not discuss it. Y_guy, you say over and over again that scientists have proven that life begins at conception. A single-celled zygote is alive, and so is a single-celled bacterium. The question is, is it a human life?

 

 

 

Of course they don't deserve the same rights, they deserve one right, one basic right, the right to life.

 

 

 

And what guarantees them this right? A constitution? Last I checked an unborn baby is not a citizen, much less a day old cell. Religion? That has no place in deciding whether or not abortion should be allowed or disallowed under the law. Some people don't consider a baby a human until it is born; after all, that is when it is named and becomes an individual separate from its mother. You can also recognize the development of a nervous system as the cutoff, or a heartbeat. There a lot of positions someone can take and frankly, taking an extremist one, to either side, is not helping anything.

how does allowing people to die in protest equate to violence? Im not saying its justified but something is not violent unless it involves well violence.

 

 

 

Fighting murder with murder even when violence isn't presentable is still murder. You still have the same result, DEATH.

 

 

 

Then what is the answer?

 

 

 

Say you were asked to kill your brother, or your father would be killed.

 

Would you kill your brother? I somehow doubt it.

 

 

 

Just in the same way, the pro-life doctors refuse to kill children to protect the lifes of others. Killing is never justified, ever, simple as that

 

 

 

If I had all the answers then I would be the new president. But it is well known that being anti anything creates more of what you're protesting about. You only have to look back on the centuries and centuries of looking at anti anything.

 

 

 

How to end war

 

 

 

One person at a time

 

 

 

War is the plague that human beings bring upon themselves. It is also a plague we might be able to end. On any given day since you and I were born, some part of the world has been at warin 2003 the total number of open conflicts was thirty. In the twentieth century at least 108 million people died in wars. Of the 20 largest military budgets on earth, 14 belong to developing countries. United States spends more on its military than the next 16 countries combined.

 

 

 

That war is the major problem in the world is undeniable.

 

 

 

The need for a new idea is just as undeniable.

 

 

 

The new idea is to bring peace one person at a time until the world reaches a critical mass of peacemakers instead of warmakers.

 

 

 

"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way." Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

 

Why Ending War Hasn't Worked

 

 

 

Peace movements have tried three ways for bringing war to an end:

 

 

 

Activism, the approach of putting political pressure on governments that wage war. Activism involves protests and public demonstrations, lobbying and political commitment. Almost every war creates some kind of peace movement opposed to it.

 

 

 

Why has it failed.

 

 

 

Because the protesters are not heard.

 

 

 

Because they are worn down by frustration and resistance.

 

 

 

Because they are far outnumbered by the war interests in society.

 

 

 

Because their idealism turns to anger and violence.

 

 

 

Activism has left us with the ironic picture of outraged peacemakers who wind up contributing to the total sum of violence in the world.

 

 

 

Humanitarianism, the approach of helping the victims of war. Bringing relief to victims is an act of kindness and compassion. As embodied by the International Red Cross, this effort is ongoing and attracts thousands of volunteers worldwide. Every nation on earth approves of humanitarianism.

 

 

 

Why has it failed?

 

 

 

Because humanitarians are wildly outnumbered by soldiers and warmakers.

 

 

 

Because of finances. The International Red Cross's annual budget of $1.8 billion dollars is a tiny fraction of military budgets around the world.

 

 

 

Because the same countries that wage war also conduct humanitarian efforts, keeping the two activities very separate.

 

 

 

Because humanitarians show up on the scene after the war has already begun.

 

 

 

Personal transformation, the approach of ending war one person at a time. The prevailing idea is that war begins in each human heart and can only end there. The religious tradition of praying for peace is the closest most people will ever come to ending war in their own hearts. Most people have actually never heard of this approach.

 

 

 

Why has it failed?

 

 

 

Because nobody has really tried it.

 

 

 

"Can you be the change that you wish to see in the world?" Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

 

Why War Ends With You

 

 

 

The approach of personal transformation is the idea of the future for ending war. It depends on the only advantage that people of peace have over warmakers: sheer numbers. If enough people in the world transformed themselves into peacemakers, war could end. The leading idea here is critical mass. It took a critical mass of human beings to embrace electricity and fossil fuels, to teach evolution and adopt every major religion. When the time is right and enough people participate, critical mass can change the world.

 

 

 

Can it end war?

 

 

 

There is precedent to believe that it might. The ancient Indian ideal of Ahimsa, or non-violence, gave Gandhi his guiding principle of reverence for life. In every spiritual tradition it is believed that peace must exist in one's heart before it can exist in the outer world.

 

 

 

Personal transformation deserves chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"When a person is established in non-violence, those in his vicinity cease to feel hostility." Patanjali, ancient Indian sage

 

 

 

The Best Reason to Become a Peacemaker

 

 

 

Now you know the program. If you transform yourself into a peacemaker, you won't become an activist marching in the streets. You will not be "anti" anything. No money is required. All you are asked to do is to go within and dedicate yourself to peace.

 

 

 

It just might work.

 

 

 

Even if you don't immediately see a decline in violence around the world, you will know in your heart that you have dedicated your own life to peace.

 

 

 

But the single best reason to become a peacemaker is that every other approach has failed.

 

 

 

We don't know what number the critical mass is--the best we can hope is to bring about change by personal transformation. Isn't it worth a few moments of your day to end 30 wars around the world and perhaps every future war that is certain to break out?

 

 

 

"War is like cancer: it will only get worse if we don't prevent it and heal it." Deepak Chopra

 

 

 

Right now there are 21.3 million soldiers serving in armies around the world. Can't we recruit a peace brigade ten times larger?

 

 

 

A hundred times larger?

 

 

 

The effort begins now, with you.

 

 

 

"It is an illusion to think that military strength and weapons create security. Security and peace can only be obtained by those who are peaceful and defenseless."

 

 

 

Deepak Chopra

 

 

 

 

Mother Teresa is a smart woman. She declared that she would never be seen at an anti war rally. If there were a celebration for "pro life" she would be the first person there.

 

 

 

I'm not saying it is the answer, but something that hasn't been tried yet is an answer.

 

 

 

They could still work in the hospital and ask not to perform abortions. Doing their part by sticking to their morals.

 

 

 

im going to assume that is just horribly worded ,but if that holds true then I guess we should all be pro theft and arson, wouldnt want to cause more of them.

 

 

 

It's perfectly worded only you just don't grasp the concept. If you're being pro something you would be pro it's opposite :wall:

Why wouldn't you call it a child? Scientists do.

 

 

 

Of course I wouldnt called you a tree lopper. But I would be the first to say that you killed something that is alive.

 

 

 

Of course scientists don't call it a child. The proper scientific terms are zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and then (perhaps..) infant. Perhaps I'm missing some, but that's the gist of it.

 

 

 

And I wouldn't call it a child because when i think of a child I think of someone roughly 4-12 years old.

 

 

 

As for the tree lopper thing, the reasoning behind it is that people such as yourself tend to equate abortion with events like the holocaust, in which millions of adult Jews were exterminated. That's like calling a seed-killer a tree lopper. It's a way of trying to show you how ridiculous we think some of your views are (no offence).

 

 

 

The technical term isn't the point. It's that no matter how you say it, a life is there.

 

 

 

So once again, 6 million adult jews were killed. 42 million children die worldwide do to abortion each year. Significantly more, eh?

 

What you are trying to say is that it is a worse crime to kill an adult than a child, once again putting a condition on life. A human life, all human lives have the same value, despite the circumstances.

 

 

 

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

 

 

 

Of course the technical term is the point, because you continually call them children. Do you see the point I'm trying to make here with the tree-lopper analogy?

 

 

 

As for comparing the numbers, it doesn't matter if you don't consider embryos children. Yes, this is putting a condition on life, but I don't see what the problem is. As far as I'm concerned it's entirely ridiculous to make a blanket judgment that zygotes assume the same rights and properties as you or I when sperm meets egg.

 

 

 

Of course they don't deserve the same rights, they deserve one right, one basic right, the right to life.

 

In your OPINION it is ridiculous, because you don't consider a fertilized embryo to be a human being. I do, because it is alive. And that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

 

 

And again, you're using a term without really qualifying what it means. What does it mean to be a human being? To have a full complement of human DNA? Then yes, a zygote would be a human being, but that doesn't necessarily mean it ought to have the same rights as you or I. In the same vein, of course a zygote is alive, but that doesn't necessarily mean it ought to have the same rights as you or I. A lot of things are alive, but we don't give them the same rights as we give to ourselves.

 

 

 

Again, I am putting a condition on life, but I don't see a problem here. My opinion (yes, it is an opinion) is that giving zygotes the same rights are you or I is ridiculous. Your opinion is that we have the same universal rights.

 

 

 

That's ultimately what it boils down to; my opinion vs. yours. That's just how it is for some issues, moral issues especially.

You have to remember that the Church values human life very seriously.

 

 

 

What other choices would the Church have if they are forced to do abortions?

 

 

 

Either they do it (which is never going to happen) or get sued, lose money and shut down (which none of you want).

 

 

 

The only alternative option I see is to allow religiously run hospitals to deny abortions. The girl can go to the other 70% of hospitals that does it.

 

 

 

The Church can help them in different ways, not just by terminating life.

 

 

 

Counselling.

 

Additional support from community.

 

Donations.

 

Basically the Church can, and will, help them in any possible way (aside from abortion).

 

 

 

Maybe the government should build facilities so that suicidal people can hang themselves. It's their right and they do not have to tell their parents.

I agree with your concept if there is another hospital available within the community within a reasonable distance. But I don't think it would work with the law. And suicidal people want to die so that's not the best comparison.

I study in a Catholic school.

 

 

 

I HATE IT

 

 

 

 

 

All my family is deeply Catholic, as are most of my friends, every damn day we are talked about how abortion is bad etc...

 

 

 

I have a small theory, that instead of actually reminding you that abortion is bad, it makes you think about it alot. So it's always on your mind and you know there is that option, i even spoke to a few of my friends (Catholics) And they told me they think abortion is right in some cases. But they are Catholics so they must say no to abortion. In my opinion, It should be legal, what if i was raped and i do not have the age/money/time to have a child? What if i may die giving birth to it?

 

 

 

It should be legal, but only if some experiments are met, (rape)