Debate Pro (Choice + Life)

[TranceAm]

Censorship and Freedom of Speech don't go together.

 

[Jaymes]

Lemme relocate my question, since it was getting the other thread OT.

If the baby has a right to life before it is born, why don't I have a right to drive, drink, buy into the stock market, attempt to run for president, etc, before I am of age?

 

[Christopher Krajewski]

Some kind of sin it must have been if we feel that an abortion is concommital to question. But again who makes the judgment? To the church it's the doctor. I personallu believe that that's a scape goat, and the judgment somehow was truly available through some form of Love or God:tsk: .

But the choice in the holy spirit is so often conceived a la Saddam Hussein; better if we were naively pre-determined all to follow the simple sequence for happenings in Life .

Most people have complex lives in much of the misguided World. The complexity is able to hide what appears questionably as sin. For this reason I feel that the phetus is not a sin either way: dead or alive. Seen as such it becomes an existence of Love: to the Man.

And the man is thus in the position fo judging the Holy Spirit:jiggy: .

 

[Scuba Pete]

Wow Christopher...

that made absolutely no sense to me, and I read it twice. Could you possibly translate it for a simpleton such as myself?

 

[Christopher Krajewski]

Yes, I can understand how it was rationalistic to the hilt. But the empriricism seems to follow so little practical sociology. Which is O.K. What is this site for but heartful debating about the less specialistic concerns of no doubt Faith.

But pro-choice you do agree is somewhat a problem of the holy spirit, the confirmed mission, the attempt at re-conciliation.

My more real question was about the blessed trinity. What's so hard about that form, that after-all in the act of church services in the new millenium we wanted that theoretical fulfillment for the human body at Mind.

 

[Christopher Krajewski]

But pro-choice you do agree is somewhat a problem of the holy spirit, the confirmed mission, the attempt at re-conciliation .



Holding on to an illegitimate child was often a good act of "choice".

That's why I am supporting: "pro-choice" .

Maybe George Bush has the power tochange a lot.

 

[Scuba Pete]

ain't a baby yet.

Yeah I know, the DNA is all wrong. It only becomes human DNA much later in develpoment.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Yes, TranceAm, DNA should have rights. Our DNA is the only thing that distinguishes us from other animals.

The "tunafish sandwich" as I am free to call it ;-) ain't a baby yet.
However, there is potential for life in the form of a baby.
The layers of cells can become a baby, and there is enough that can go wrong as is.
Nature doesn't grant rights, it hands potential.

The way I see it, you can believe whatever you want. I may not agree with it, but that's to be expected. It bothers me, however, when people do not have their facts right, and seem to word things in a way that makes it easier for them to accept--such as this. Believe what you want, but don't call it something that it's not. Allow me to explain:

When an egg is first fertilized, it takes between 4 to 7 days, give or take, to travel out of the fallopian tube and implant in the uterine lining. At this point, the fertilized egg can be correctly categorized as "potential life", in that it has not yet begun to divide and 'live'. However, once it implants itself into the lining of the uterus, it does just that. Know that when you have an abortion, you are killing somthing which is living, and which is also human. This may or may not bother you, but please get your facts straight and call it what it is.

Another thing: I think that you are using the word 'baby' incorrecty. It seems that your use of the word baby refers to a phenotypic description, and this is not the case. 'Baby' refers to a living human entity under a certain age, which means that just because something may not look like a baby, doesn't mean that it's not.

I've included a web-site that features a play-by-play of the first trimester, if you're interested. It tells you when the heart and brain develop, amongst other organs. It also includes pictures of the fetus for almost every week.

http://www.wprc.org/trimester1.phtml

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't know... you were making the case that they weren't human and I was just trying to help.

 

[Pah]

Yeah I know, the DNA is all wrong. It only becomes human DNA much later in develpoment.

Ah, Doc - it's just a scientific label for a particular stage of human developement. "Baby" used to be clearly thought of as child that could not walk (toddler takes over at that stage) until the word was hijacked for emotional argument. I have no problem when someone says an abortion kills the fetus - but killing a baby?


gitchy gitchy goo

 

[Ceridwen018]

Iagre that if you are going to give rights to DNA, where are you going to stop, Atoms?
And unless one proves the part of the DN that forms the soul molecule in the DNA they are nothing more then that, a complicated molecule with some rather funny characteristics.

First of all, atoms do not have DNA. DNA is contained in the cells. Second of all, ...I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in your second sentence, but I am going to assume that you're trying to argue that an embryo lacks human DNA, and is rather a "complicated molecule".
Aside from the fact that an embryo cannot be classified as a single "molecule", it is common biological knowledge that an embryo contains a complete set of human DNA at the moment of conception. In fact, that is what conception is all about: two gametes, the egg and sperm, (which are 'haploids', which means that they both contain half of a complete set of DNA), join together in conception, and their half-sets of DNA merge together to form a 'diploid'. You and I, given that we both contain full sets of DNA, are considered to be diplods, just as this unborn baby is a diploid.

Like I said--believe what you want about abortion, but please get your scientific facts straight.

Also, did you look at that site I gave you? I don't know if that seems interesting to you or not, but you seem to have limited scientific knowledge regarding fetal development, so I figured it might be beneficial.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So now DNA has rights?

You can play rhetorical ping-pong all day but it means little absent some consensus on what is meant by 'rights', there source, and some protocol for validation.

 

[Pah]

... You and I, given that we both contain full sets of DNA, are considered to be diplods, just as this unborn baby is a diploid.

At the moment of my previous attachment and for a period of one day, the zygote is one cell that has two, unfused nuclei.

Conception does not even confer human status until the fusing of half of the DNA from each gamete.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So where do the rights of a potential overide the rights of the host/mother?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Please define "rights", indicate their source, and supply some protocol for verification - unless, of course, you're more comfortable crouched behind ambiguity.

 

[Pah]

You can play rhetorical ping-pong all day but it means little absent some consensus on what is meant by 'rights', there source, and some protocol for validation.

The protcol is inclusion in Constitutional law, the source is innate and rights are those minimum properties of life required for equality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"The embryo has full rights to life, when it claims its right to be alive by being alive independent, and by defending and supporting that right with all means possible/availlable to it."

That's not a definition of rights but an assertion as to their scope.

Source : Nature.

How did you determine that rights are 'natural' rather than 'cultural'?

Protocol: Your concience case you are the host/mother and common sense from everyone not first party in that.

Any protocol reliant on guilt and common sense is laughable and inherently fickled, burning heretics and witches one day and draft cards and bras the next.

 

[Ceridwen018]

TranceAm,

Ooohhh, I get it. I thought that you misspelled the word "sole" as "soul", but I see now that you meant an 'actual' soul. Sorry for the confusion, and I thank you for explaining it to me.

Well TranceAm, we run into several problems here. For starters, as far as we know there is no "soul" gene in our DNA. The problem with your argument however, is that if embryos don't have it, that means you don't have it either. Our DNA does not change from the moment of conception to the moment of our death at old age, preferably. So basically, we are left with two options here: either both the born and the unborn have souls, or no one has souls.

Also, you should note that "soul" as you seem to define it, is a purely religious and fanciful musing with the purpose of making us humans feel more important over other animals, amongst other things. What I'm getting at, is that "souls" are founded on no science whatsoever.

I am intrigued by this combination of beliefs though. I find it very interesting that you believe in souls, but support abortion. It seems to me that if one belives in souls, they usually believe in god. It also seems to me that the gods of most religions abhor abortion.

Pah,

We were both slightly wrong. When an egg is fertilized, the two gametes immediately fuse. I was wrong in stating that the resulting embryo waits until it implants in the uterine lining to begin dividing. Rather, the cell immediately begins to divide, forming a blastocyst.

http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/reprod/fert/cleavage.html

 

[Christopher Krajewski]

Information from the knowing life after death. Don't get me wrong; it's the facts of consideration for the universe. There was once the Kuhn's Facts of scientific paradigm. and the new revolution of determinism: what changes in time can change the laws of the universe.

Don't believe me if you can, and be humble to the needs of good professionalism.

 

[Ceridwen018]

But wasn't a soul what made us different from all other animals?

The concept of a soul is completely unscientific. I personally do not belive in souls, and believe that our difference from other animals is found entirely in simple genetic differences. We are no different from dogs than mice are, etc.

I'm not quite getting your point here. What does this have to do with abortion?

 

[Scuba Pete]

So when is it "OK" to kill a human? Soul, sole, or not?