Political Crossfire Forums

[AllAmericanMan]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: A human embryo created by natural human reproduction developing within a human female would surprisingly enough be human, yes that is my shocking and unbelievable premise.

What of artificially created embryos, commonly known as "test tube babies"? I knew where this was heading thats why I already posted.

Quote: I suppose replication by a male and female could be one possible criteria for a human life. Youd have to have a clause for cloning however as it is artificial. Instead its easier to identify the individual as a metabolizing entropy resisting organism composed of either a single cell or multiple cells working together in a system You see, life is not defined soley by the way you come about.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: A human embryo created by natural human reproduction developing within a human female would surprisingly enough be human, yes that is my shocking and unbelievable premise.

What of artificially created embryos, commonly known as "test tube babies"?

I'm sorry are you stipulating that an embryo which is the product of the unification of the sperm and ovum creates a new unique individual human life or not?

If not what species do you suggest this new living organism is?

Lets complete our discussion on induced abortion in the real world before you seek to start a new thread on a different subject with an entirely new set of circumstances.

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I'm sorry are you stipulating that an embryo which is the product of the unification of the sperm and ovum creates a new unique individual human life or not?

If not what species do you suggest this new living organism is?

Lets complete our discussion on induced abortion in the real world before you seek to start a new thread on a different subject with an entirely new set of circumstances.

You misunderstand my questions. I pose these questions to you in an attempt to see if the creation of two humans in human by transition. You provided answers, and now I question those answers. For the interest of debate, I ask that you answer my questions posed instead of ignoring questions made against your claims. Ignoring opposition to our beliefs only shows how fallible we are.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I'm sorry are you stipulating that an embryo which is the product of the unification of the sperm and ovum creates a new unique individual human life or not?

If not what species do you suggest this new living organism is?

Lets complete our discussion on induced abortion in the real world before you seek to start a new thread on a different subject with an entirely new set of circumstances.

You misunderstand my questions. I pose these questions to you in an attempt to see if the creation of two humans in human by transition. You provided answers, and now I question those answers. For the interest of debate, I ask that you answer my questions posed instead of ignoring questions made against your claims. Ignoring opposition to our beliefs only shows how fallible we are.

Help me out here which one of these did I not answer or give me the question in a form I can understand?

Where is my ambiguity here?

Gilbert1908 wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Plodder wrote: rocks and paper are not alive and they are not human. and embryo is both human and alive.

Your argument was that since an embryo has committed no crime, that it is innocent. You referenced nothing about the humanity of the embryo. However, since you have decided to play that card:

What makes an embryo more human than a rock? Appearances?

Let see....its alive and human?

Or was I somehow straddling the fence here?

Gilbert1908 wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: What species do you think the offspring of a human being might be?

That's not what I asked. The question I posed was "Because an embryo is created by humans, does that make it human?"

He answered you.

No, he answered a different question. I will say again:

Because an embryo is created by humans, does that make it human?

A human embryo created by natural human reproduction developing within a human female would surprisingly enough be human, yes that is my shocking and unbelievable premise.

Unless your are going to say that a house is made by humans therefore IT must be human or a fireplace is made by humans so it must be human.

I must just not understand your question.

This questioning started since you have denied that a human embryo is human, I am assuming my two responses here as well as my attempt at the sarcastic "what do you suppose the offspring of two human beings could be?", made it clear that I thought that a human embryo to be both alive and strange as apparently it seems to you, human.

My question remains, if a human embryo is not human what species would you suppose it is?

[Omega1]

Quote: My question remains, if a human embryo is not human what species would you suppose it is?

It's a human organism, but there isn't any person. The organism at the blastocyst stage is only a bunch of stem cells. Nothing special.

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Unless your are going to say that a house is made by humans therefore IT must be human or a fireplace is made by humans so it must be human.

Precisely my argument. The point I was trying to make was that just because something is created by humans, it is not automatically human by nature.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Unless your are going to say that a house is made by humans therefore IT must be human or a fireplace is made by humans so it must be human.

Precisely my argument. The point I was trying to make was that just because something is created by humans, it is not automatically human by nature.

We are not taking about something or everything made by humans we are specifically talking about the specific process by which human beings reproduce.

If you are unfamiliar with the process perhaps a bit more reading may be in order.

As far as I know induced abortions are decided upon by pregnant human females, not carpenters or masons.

[Plodder]

Quote: Precisely my argument. The point I was trying to make was that just because something is created by humans, it is not automatically human by nature. so? and in a way yes, what is created by two humans is human. with no added resources a man and woman can create only one thing, another human life. all other cratios like building a house are simply the rearrangment of materials.

[cindilee63]

I am pro-choice by choice. I do not believe in abortion. I believe women should have the right to choose just as a man has the right to choose how many women he impregnates without any laws infringing on that right. I worked in an OBGYN office and you'd be surprised how many of the same men showed up with different women for their first pregnancy visit as time went on the women would come alone.....hmmm? Some women are sneaky and do trap men, but changing the law is not going to stop them.

Many pro-lifers say if you are pro-choice you are pro-abortion, so if you are pro-lifers you are terrorists, bombing clinics and killing doctors is an act of terrorism. Breaking the law is wrong.

Again, I am pro-choice, by choice and pro-life, by choice.

[Gilbert1908]

cindilee63 wrote: I am pro-choice by choice. I do not believe in abortion. I believe women should have the right to choose just as a man has the right to choose how many women he impregnates without any laws infringing on that right. I worked in an OBGYN office and you'd be surprised how many of the same men showed up with different women for their first pregnancy visit as time went on the women would come alone.....hmmm? Some women are sneaky and do trap men, but changing the law is not going to stop them.

Many pro-lifers say if you are pro-choice you are pro-abortion, so if you are pro-lifers you are terrorists, bombing clinics and killing doctors is an act of terrorism. Breaking the law is wrong.

Again, I am pro-choice, by choice and pro-life, by choice.

Do you support a women's choice to terminate a human life at any point in her pregnancy?

[scoobysnack]

All life is precious. We have free will to do what we choose. I just belive abortion is the wrong choice. Raising the child will help you grow spiritually, which is the reason you all chose to come to this planet in the first place. It was your parents who gave you a body for your soul to inhabit in order to learn how love and experiance and learn from mistakes where otherwise with out the physical body would have been more difficult.

That's just my opinion. I'm not very vocal in this subject (abortion)

If it's illegal to commit suicide, why not make it illegal to have an abortion. If it's your body, you should be able to kill yourself, with out being prosecuted if you fail. Sure, you are stupid if you try to kill yourself, and fail, you would end up in a mental institution.

You would have to learn what reality really is, to understand the true spiritual consequences of committing suicide.

This will help you understand.

http://near-death.com/suicide.html


For those of you who think you have the right to kill your innocent baby because you were selfish to begin with, and were using sex as a recrational activity instead of the sole purpose of procreation, you still can make that mistake.

Most people don't realize that the original "Roe" actually Norma McCorvey, wants to overturn the Roe vs Wade decision after she realized how abortions actually harm rather then help the women who have them.


"Seeking an abortion at the age of 21, McCorvey made up a story that she had been raped. She was put in touch with two attorneys who aimed to challenge the Texas abortion statute. "Plain and simple, I was used," she said. "I was a nobody to them. They only needed a pregnant woman to use for their case, and that is it. They cared, not about me, but only about legalizing abortion.

Having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects on woman. Also, new scientific evidence indicates abortion is associated with more physical and psychological complications for women than were known about in 1973. In contrast, there have been no scientific studies measuring any significant benefits abortion has produced in women's lives."

source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33113

This subject causes mixed emotions among people. Sure it's the women's body, but it's also another human being's body who is being disposed of.

Read the testimony of many women who have had abortions and read how it has ruined their lives.

http://www.operationoutcry.org/pages.asp?pageid=29154


Here's an example from Amber in Arkansas:


Abortion: "Please don't do it!! Who better to say this than one who has been through it. You will NEVER get over it and you will NEVER be able to undo it and get your child's life back - your innocent child!"

source: http://www.operationoutcry.org/stories/storiesPDFViewer.asp?pdffile=AmberArk.pdf

Killing your innocent child is what they want you to do. The establishment is all about depopulation. Forced abortions and steralizations. It is the culture of death.

[Prog]

Plodder wrote: while you may classify yourself as pro choice, I and all the other prolifers will classify you as pro abortion or my favorite for those that really care, Pro death.

This is were Pro-life narrow-mindedness really shines. I am personally against abortion (in most cases) yet, my legal stance toward abortion is pro-choice.

Pro-lifer's like yourself seem to lack the ability to discern between subjective opinion and emotive/opinion-free, objectivity.

.....or is everyone supposed to act, think, and believe as you decree?!!

[Hypocritical_Hypocrisy]

As usual, pro-choicers trying to distance themselves from the truth of what they are advocating. Abortion is infanticide in all but name.
And Prog, without morals, what separates us from animals? Mechanically deciding to kill a baby doesn't make it right, just doable. Pro-choicers amorality shines brighter than any pro-life "narrow-mindedness" you claim. I would rather be narrow-minded than homicidal any day, but that's just me.

[Gilbert1908]

Prog wrote: Plodder wrote: while you may classify yourself as pro choice, I and all the other prolifers will classify you as pro abortion or my favorite for those that really care, Pro death.

This is were Pro-life narrow-mindedness really shines. I am personally against abortion (in most cases) yet, my legal stance toward abortion is pro-choice.

Pro-lifer's like yourself seem to lack the ability to discern between subjective opinion and emotive/opinion-free, objectivity.

.....or is everyone supposed to act, think, and believe as you decree?!!

Why are you personally against abortion, what about abortion makes you oppose it personally in most cases?

[straw man]

Omega1 wrote: Quote: My question remains, if a human embryo is not human what species would you suppose it is?

It's a human organism, but there isn't any person. The organism at the blastocyst stage is only a bunch of stem cells. Nothing special.

It's a human organism yet not a "person".. I'd love to know the practical difference between them. I'm thinking they are the same thing. Switching the label of what you call it is fun, but doesn't justify anything. Semantical mumbo jumbo really. (It would be like arguing in favor of slavery and saying some technical rhetorical objection to defened it like: "they're not "SLAVES" they're "compelled workers" so everything's okay. What you use for labels really doesn't make much difference.

[ieatfood]

straw man wrote: Omega1 wrote: Quote: My question remains, if a human embryo is not human what species would you suppose it is?

It's a human organism, but there isn't any person. The organism at the blastocyst stage is only a bunch of stem cells. Nothing special.

It's a human organism yet not a "person".. I'd love to know the practical difference between them. I'm thinking they are the same thing. Switching the label of what you call it is fun, but doesn't justify anything. Semantical mumbo jumbo really. (It would be like arguing in favor of slavery and saying some technical rhetorical objection to defened it like: "they're not "SLAVES" they're "compelled workers" so everything's okay. What you use for labels really doesn't make much difference.

all morality is semantical mumbo jumbo

[straw man]

Yeah it looks like you're right. It's all just "words".

[Gitana]

Quote: without morals, what separates us from animals?

Animals only kill for food or survival - we kill for greed, aggression, lust, hatred, politics, lies, fun - the list is endless.

By your arguement, then the animals are superior to us - and they have no idea what 'morals' are. One could make a reasonable case that morals may not be a good thing, since they certainly haven't improved human nature, have they?

Quote: What you use for labels really doesn't make much difference.

Changing labels doesn't change what a thing is. Changing what you call a slave doesn't change that he is a slave, just as calling a dividing clump of cells a child doesn't make it one, scientifically - or in any other way except in your mind. It's also inaccurate. ;)

[Lumina]

Gitana wrote: Quote: without morals, what separates us from animals?

Animals only kill for food or survival - we kill for greed, aggression, lust, hatred, politics, lies, fun - the list is endless.

By your arguement, then the animals are superior to us - and they have no idea what 'morals' are. One could make a reasonable case that morals may not be a good thing, since they certainly haven't improved human nature, have they?

Quote: What you use for labels really doesn't make much difference.

Changing labels doesn't change what a thing is. Changing what you call a slave doesn't change that he is a slave, just as calling a dividing clump of cells a child doesn't make it one, scientifically - or in any other way except in your mind. It's also inaccurate. ;)

Changing what you call a slave doesn't change the fact that he's a slave, and calling a growing baby a "dividing clump of cells" may help get you through the night...but doesn't change the fact that left unharmed, and whatever its current size, it's a human life.

[Gitana]

Quote: It's a human organism yet not a "person".. I'd love to know the practical difference between them.

The practical difference:

human organism - blastocyst explanation:


greatly magnified human blastocyst:


human being, person, baby:


Anyone who can look at a blastocyst and call it a 'baby' is not entirely dealing with reality.
To answer the thread question; prochoicers do not equate a blastocyst or zygote with a baby or child - because it isn't one - we can see that it is a clump of cells. Prolifers see it as the same thing as a child, & believe it should have the same rights as a real baby or child. They believe no woman should be able to prevent those microscopic cells in her body from later becoming a baby, and they intend to pass laws to enforce their views on all of us.

That's the entire abortion issue.