Death_By_Pod Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 why is it wrong to have the child aborted when it's a small ball of 4 to 8 cells Because that embryo, given enough time, would become a human. I'll illustrate my point another way; people are still put in jail for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder, because even if they didn't actually succeed in commiting the murder, they would have if given the chance. Seen the film Minority Report? It's enough that something will happen. Granted, the embryo doesn't have the same sensory ability as a baby, but if allowed to live, it will do. I'd argue that mothers don't have the right to abort their unborn children because those foetuses will become humans in the future. Any of us would be outraged if our parents had the authority to kill us, and why is it any different for an unborn child? I can use DNA from any other living cell in my body for the creation of a child (its called cloning). The sex cells are only a carrier for a child and mechanism for diversity. If I were to gut the sex cells and replace it with the right pieces from another cell it will still produce a child (albeit from only 1 parent). This process has been in use for quite some time and is know as cloning. Given enough time any cell in your body could be used to create a child. We do not outlaw the loss of any of these cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Abortions? Well...I think they should be allowed. You'd rather a 15 year old girl (an example) was forced to raise an unwanted child or deal with the problems of adoption than just lose it in an operation? If they ban abortions then a lot of the girls where I live are gonna be in trouble, the amount of boys they get with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
How2PK Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Abortion should be legal, though you can only do it the first three months. Signature by Maurice SendakWhen the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 what happens when the child tries to find the real parents. imagine searching for 20 years of your life looking for your mother only to find her and she never want to speak to you or hate you or possibly even for her to tell you that you are the result of a rape. the memories will all come back and depression will set in again. Is blood relation what's really important? Surely foster parents can love a child as much as any biological parents can. It's the same situation with surrogate mothers. What does it matter that someone gave birth to you? Sure you can love any child; but what really makes it special is that the child you are raising is a piece of you. A maternal bond is stronger then a paternal bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCStunner Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 I'll Go with Maddox's Opinion :o *WARNING ABUSIVE WORDS* http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=regressive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 i belive life starts when a baby can life on its own independant of the mother. You've relied heavily on science during your argument. By all scientific defitions, that embryo/foetus is alive: it moves, respires, senses, grows, can reproduce, excretes and requires nutrition. That's every feauture of life accounted for. There is no scientific or ethical base for the justification of the systematic murder of unborn children - abortion. What do you think of this then? I feel a foetus is in the same position. Viruses: non-living or alive? A virus hijacks its host's cell machinery to create more virus particles, hence completing the life cycle. Viruses are somewhere between being living and non-living. They can reproduce and show inheritance, but are reliant on the complex enzymes of their hosts, and in many ways can be treated like ordinary molecules (for instance, they can be crystalized). Whether or not they are "alive", they are obligate parasites, and have no form which can reproduce independent of their host. Like most parasites they have a specific host range, sometimes specific to one species (or even limited cell types of one species) and sometimes more general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnySmum Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Viruses: non-living or alive? A virus hijacks its host's cell machinery to create more virus particles, hence completing the life cycle. Viruses are somewhere between being living and non-living. They can reproduce and show inheritance, but are reliant on the complex enzymes of their hosts, and in many ways can be treated like ordinary molecules (for instance, they can be crystalized). Whether or not they are "alive", they are obligate parasites, and have no form which can reproduce independent of their host. Like most parasites they have a specific host range, sometimes specific to one species (or even limited cell types of one species) and sometimes more general. Viruses don't respire or excrete; and are incapable of movement of themselves. I'd argue that they are not "alive" in the same way that prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells are. Consisting solely of DNA in a protein coat (as I'm sure you know) they're more akin to biological toxins than traditional cells. A foetus on the hand consists of cells that are very much alive; its stem cells will one day form specific ones specialised to the task they will perform. Sure you can love any child; but what really makes it special is that the child you are raising is a piece of you. A maternal bond is stronger then a paternal bond. I'd challenge that. There are stories of fathers raising a child that they thought was theirs, unaware that their wife had been unfaithful. They raised the child no differently to if it was biologically theirs. In this case it's the though that counts. You'd rather a 15 year old girl (an example) was forced to raise an unwanted child or deal with the problems of adoption than just lose it in an operation? If they ban abortions then a lot of the girls where I live are gonna be in trouble, the amount of boys they get with. In consensual sex, whose fault is it if the girl becomes pregnant? The couple are taking that risk; they should be willing to face the consequences of (often their own incompetence in using birth control) their actions. I can use DNA from any other living cell in my body for the creation of a child (its called cloning). The sex cells are only a carrier for a child and mechanism for diversity. If I were to gut the sex cells and replace it with the right pieces from another cell it will still produce a child (albeit from only 1 parent). This process has been in use for quite some time and is know as cloning. Given enough time any cell in your body could be used to create a child. We do not outlaw the loss of any of these cells. Ah, but again, those cells wouldn't create a human if left to themselves. It requires human intervention to clone something. The zygote that is formed from the sperm and egg will create a human if left to itself; and so preventing this from happening is to prevent a future person from living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XheadcaseX Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 i think it should be alowed for everyone but i personly wouldnt do it unless my kid was badly handicaped (what kinda life would it have then) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 You'd rather a 15 year old girl (an example) was forced to raise an unwanted child or deal with the problems of adoption than just lose it in an operation? If they ban abortions then a lot of the girls where I live are gonna be in trouble, the amount of boys they get with. In consensual sex, whose fault is it if the girl becomes pregnant? The couple are taking that risk; they should be willing to face the consequences of (often their own incompetence in using birth control) their actions. Alcohol, stupid girls and horny boys don't mix. :evil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnySmum Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Alcohol, stupid girls and horny boys don't mix. Evil or Very Mad The operative word being stupid ;). In this case, many of the girls would be using abortion as a means of birth control, which in itself is pretty crazy, as it can render the girl infertile. Why should the baby die just because it isn't wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doorbell Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Abortion should be legal, though you can only do it the first three months. Why just the first three months? but i personly wouldnt do it unless my kid was badly handicaped (what kinda life would it have then) If that's your reasoning, then why should we allow handicapped people to live? Besides, I've met handicapped people, and they are actually happier then un-handicapped people. All of them would definitely rather live in their state than not live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doorbell Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Alcohol, stupid girls and horny boys don't mix. Evil or Very Mad The operative word being stupid ;). In this case, many of the girls would be using abortion as a means of birth control, which in itself is pretty crazy, as it can render the girl infertile. Why should the baby die just because it isn't wanted? Frankly, if you don't want a child, then don't go through the process that creates one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Viruses: non-living or alive? A virus hijacks its host's cell machinery to create more virus particles, hence completing the life cycle. Viruses are somewhere between being living and non-living. They can reproduce and show inheritance, but are reliant on the complex enzymes of their hosts, and in many ways can be treated like ordinary molecules (for instance, they can be crystalized). Whether or not they are "alive", they are obligate parasites, and have no form which can reproduce independent of their host. Like most parasites they have a specific host range, sometimes specific to one species (or even limited cell types of one species) and sometimes more general. Viruses don't respire or excrete; and are incapable of movement of themselves. I'd argue that they are not "alive" in the same way that prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells are. Consisting solely of DNA in a protein coat (as I'm sure you know) they're more akin to biological toxins than traditional cells. A foetus on the hand consists of cells that are very much alive; its stem cells will one day form specific ones specialised to the task they will perform. Sure you can love any child; but what really makes it special is that the child you are raising is a piece of you. A maternal bond is stronger then a paternal bond. I'd challenge that. There are stories of fathers raising a child that they thought was theirs, unaware that their wife had been unfaithful. They raised the child no differently to if it was biologically theirs. In this case it's the though that counts. I can use DNA from any other living cell in my body for the creation of a child (its called cloning). The sex cells are only a carrier for a child and mechanism for diversity. If I were to gut the sex cells and replace it with the right pieces from another cell it will still produce a child (albeit from only 1 parent). This process has been in use for quite some time and is know as cloning. Given enough time any cell in your body could be used to create a child. We do not outlaw the loss of any of these cells. Ah, but again, those cells wouldn't create a human if left to themselves. It requires human intervention to clone something. The zygote that is formed from the sperm and egg will create a human if left to itself; and so preventing this from happening is to prevent a future person from living. First Point: A virus acts much in the same manner as a child. A virus is a parasite to the host and the foetus is a parasite to its mother. A virus is very much alive; its hijacked cells are its living aspect to the organism (it still has to insert its DNA into a host; this in itself would be a sign of life). It shows inheritance (much like the foetus does of its parents) and is dependent of the host (much like the foetus). Without a host neither organisms would be alive (in this respect I would be talking about a fertilised egg as no further development will take place). A footnote here, link to a real living virus. http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041011/full/041011-14.html Second Point: I'd challenge that. There are stories of fathers raising a child that they thought was theirs, unaware that their wife had been unfaithful. Due to the detachment of the birthing process all a father has to rely on is the truth from his spouse. In this scenario he was told it was his child and with that he treated it in every respect as his child. The only thing that would give away this secret is unusual traits in the child (recessive features that would not appear if it were his child) but if the biological father was similar to the father then it would be hard to determine. If the father knew it was not his child, this would be a different story. Sure he may still take on the same qualities but that maternal bond would be severed as it was not his in the first place. Third Point: The zygote needs human intervention to exist. Sure this human intervention is automatic still does not invalidate the point that, without the mother the child would not be created if left to itself; much like a virus in the previous point. You would have no qualm removing a leech from your body but without a host body this leech would not survive for long. Why not extrapolate this idea further, would it not be murder if we kill any living organism. This would mean we could not kill animals or trees, but surely such a law would not be passed; it is too absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Alcohol, stupid girls and horny boys don't mix. Evil or Very Mad The operative word being stupid ;). In this case, many of the girls would be using abortion as a means of birth control, which in itself is pretty crazy, as it can render the girl infertile. Why should the baby die just because it isn't wanted? Frankly, if you don't want a child, then don't go through the process that creates one. You do understand that drugs alters a state of mind. What you naturally think as logical normally may not apply when youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re under the influence. Personally if I were having sex drunk the last thing I would think of is it a cause for children. Rather it would be a expression of raw emotion brought out by an altered state of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doorbell Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Good grief. If alcohol and drugs make you do stupid things that you regret later, then don't drink/do drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnySmum Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 You do understand that drugs alters a state of mind. What you naturally think as logical normally may not apply when youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re under the influence. Personally if I were having sex drunk the last thing I would think of is it a cause for children. Rather it would be a expression of raw emotion brought out by an altered state of mind. Indeed, but carelessness is no grounds for abortion. A virus acts much in the same manner as a child. A virus is a parasite to the host and the foetus is a parasite to its mother. Babies aren't parasits. Mothers get the advantage of absorbing stem cells from the foetus, which increases life expectancy and reduces the chance of cancer. A virus is very much alive; its hijacked cells are its living aspect to the organism Many scientists would disagree with you there. The host cell is alive; but the virus itself isn't. Hehe I'm not really sure why we're talking about viruses anyway:). The zygote needs human intervention to exist. Sure this human intervention is automatic still does not invalidate the point that, without the mother the child would not be created if left to itself I'm not sure how this is relevant to abortion? You would have no qualm removing a leech from your body but without a host body this leech would not survive for long. Why not extrapolate this idea further, would it not be murder if we kill any living organism. There is no moral implication in killing animals. Humans are a different matter. We kill millions of animals every day for food. This would mean we could not kill animals or trees, but surely such a law would not be passed; it is too absurd. Again, there's nothing wrong with killing animals, but humans are more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
How2PK Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Abortion should be legal, though you can only do it the first three months. Why just the first three months? Because after the three months this futeus (sp?) is created. Signature by Maurice SendakWhen the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Again, there's nothing wrong with killing animals, but humans are more important. :shock: I really can't believe you just said that. That is so narrow minded. Why do we have more right to be here than a spider? Tell me that. Because we're bigger than them? I don't agree that killing any living creature is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doorbell Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Abortion should be legal, though you can only do it the first three months. Why just the first three months? Because after the three months this futeus (sp?) is created. So the for the first three months, it's a "blob of cells" and then after that it is a "fetus?" What differnce does that make anyway? What scientific study backs your belief that at three months "voila!" it turns into a "fetus?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doorbell Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Again, there's nothing wrong with killing animals, but humans are more important. :shock: I really can't believe you just said that. That is so narrow minded. Why do we have more right to be here than a spider? Tell me that. Because we're bigger than them? I don't agree that killing any living creature is right. Does that mean you don't eat anything? B/c eating plants or animals requires (usually at least) that the plant/animal die first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
How2PK Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Abortion should be legal, though you can only do it the first three months. Why just the first three months? Because after the three months this futeus (sp?) is created. So the for the first three months, it's a "blob of cells" and then after that it is a "fetus?" What differnce does that make anyway? What scientific study backs your belief that at three months "voila!" it turns into a "fetus?" 3. FETAL DEVELOPMENT 14-16th WEEKS: Brain developed to the point that baby can suck, swallow and make irregular breathing movements. 16th WEEK: 6", 6 oz. (180 grams) Complete closure of nasal septum and palate. Fetal heart beat heard with amplification. Fetal movement is recognized. Sex is distinguishable now. Meconium formation in intestines. 20th WEEK: 8", 10 oz. (300 grams). Lanugo - fine hair covering over entire body, probably for protection of skin. Vernix Caseosa - secreted by fetus, made of sebaceous material, and other materials and is probably protective. Has some antimicrobial substances. Fetal heart beat heard: 120-160 beats per minute. As you hopefuly see; brain is created after 3 months. Information directly copied and pasted from this site. Signature by Maurice SendakWhen the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Does that mean you don't eat anything? B/c eating plants or animals requires (usually at least) that the plant/animal die first. Well I'm a vegetarian so I choose not to eat animals. :wink: I guess the plant thing is true, I never thought of it like that. :? But I don't agree with killing animals. I know some other people do but when people say that humans are more important it really pisses me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doorbell Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 What scientific study backs your belief that at three months "voila!" it turns into a "fetus?" 3. FETAL DEVELOPMENT 14-16th WEEKS: Brain developed to the point that baby can suck, swallow and make irregular breathing movements. 16th WEEK: 6", 6 oz. (180 grams) Complete closure of nasal septum and palate. Fetal heart beat heard with amplification. Fetal movement is recognized. Sex is distinguishable now. Meconium formation in intestines. 20th WEEK: 8", 10 oz. (300 grams). Lanugo - fine hair covering over entire body, probably for protection of skin. Vernix Caseosa - secreted by fetus, made of sebaceous material, and other materials and is probably protective. Has some antimicrobial substances. Fetal heart beat heard: 120-160 beats per minute. As you hopefuly see; brain is created after 3 months. I think you evidence supports the fact that the brain has reached a certain point at three months, not that it begins to form at three months. Define "created," to clarify your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCStunner Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 er? First we're talking about abortions Now we're talking about eating animals. Whats next? Eating babies? :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doorbell Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Maybe eating plants. I'm not sure who started the "Are humans superior to other animals" line, but it is somewhat relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now