Quote
Something that is Alive is something that grows through metabolism and adapts through internal changes......
What you quoted is just a part of main description, which states "
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms". If you call yourself pro-life in this way, you'll have very hard time to prove your position if you ever killed a mosquito or took antibiotics (which kill live bacteria inside your body). I'm not even talking about eating animals, and therefore supporting animals being risen and killed just for this purpose.
Quote
An egg and sperm become one cell and then "grows through metabolism (the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available.) " and a zygote does this
And a lot of other things do it. If you do not support their right to live, then your position does not support your own definition of pro-life, and therefore you are not pro-life.
A sperm is also alive, so I wonder if you consider swallowing cannibalism? After all, one eats and digests something which could be the base for future BABIES!!!
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
jcd11235 0
QuoteGood point. I'm making these posts between phone calls and Emails at work, so does my childish explaination (stomach) make my opinions less valid?
Sorry. I was just trying to lighten up an abortion thread with some good, old fashioned cannibal humor.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Quote
This is exactly my point. The reactions of a baby in eutero is almost exactly the same as a newborn, as they are basically the same, so ending the life of a "baby" that has feet and hands and can react to it's surroundings is not right whether it is in a womans stomach or in a cradle.
Let's summarize now. Your point was that both fetus and newborn could have OPINION. Now you seem to agree that they both rely only on instinct, and therefore cannot have opinion. As a result, you have made your previous point invalid. The fetus does not have a choice because it simply cannot have a choice. Is the summary correct?
Quote
To quote Obama, I think that's above my pay grade, but as soon as science can tell me that life starts at EXACTLY this (whatever it is) instance, I will believe the that instance is either imediatly at fertilization or the first time that one cell splits into 2 cells.
Then you'll probably never believe, as the question where exactly 'life' starts is not scientific. It's political/religious question. So the answer you're looking for will come from something like International Association of Child Molesters (i.e. Catholic Church), and will be questionable by definition.
Quote
And I'm saying in one instance you are humainily putting your child in a better enviornment, and in the other you are choosing to end their life.
This is something you anti-choice crowd seem to be unable to understand (or, which is more likely, this is just another political game from your side). Pro-choice people do not chose to end someone's life (unlike pro-death-penalty people who do). They just allow the woman to make such a choice if she believes this is right. There is a lot of pro-choice people who would not do abortion themselves, but they support rights of others to do so. It is that simple.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
QuoteQuote
Like I said, whatever makes you feel better. Call it whatever you want. It's still a human life and it's not just the crazy ass right wingers who think so.QuoteWell, what really matters is that you've admitted that you're just playing games while inventing new meanings for well-known words,
No games. Just saying a fetus is a human life. If you want to say it's ok to abort because it's not defined as a baby then I think that's rediculous.QuoteWhich confirms my impression that the whole "pro-life" is just yet another mumbo-jumbo created by politicians to support their personal agenda/beliefs, and they do not really care of "sacred human life".
Now you're not even making sense. Pro-life means they don't want to end the human life inside a woman. Of course that supports their personal beliefs.QuoteI suspected that, but it's always nice to get first-hand confirmation.
And how have you gotten that?
A human life is a human life. A fetus is a human life 20 minutes before it's born and it's a human life after it meets the definition of a baby. You're claiming its ok to abort a fetus but its not ok to kill a baby because the two are defined differently in the dictionary.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
Quote>What difference does the specific definition make if your view is that
>un-born babies aren't really babies?
Legally? Killing one is murder, killing one isn't.
Interesting claim seeing as how I posted two cases of people being charged with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman.
Quote>Losing a "fetus" is like losing a "real baby" to those who have been through
>it (for those I knew, anyway).
Most people who "lose a fetus" (i.e. do not bring a conception to term) don't ever know it. It is not anything like losing a child.
What information could you possibly have to back up the claim that most women don't ever know they've miscarried. The women I've known who have lost pregnancies were crushed as if it were already born. The pain ended at least one marriage.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
QuoteQuoteQuote
If you don't want a baby, don't have sex. Don't rely on abortion as a plan B.
You're assuming that women always choose to have sex.
I was just expounding on your example.QuotePersonally, I wouldn't choose abortion unless my life was in danger. However, I'm not going to tell any woman that she has to have her rapist's baby, and I'm not going to advocate implementing a policy that encourages people to lie to get an abortion.
Why not implement a policy that requires proof of rape before an abortion is allowed? Not all rapes are violent enough to leave physical scares but they do leave emotional ones.
Making abortion completely legal based soley upon the rape example is wrong in my opinion.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
Quote
No games. Just saying a fetus is a human life. If you want to say it's ok to abort because it's not defined as a baby then I think that's rediculous.
Starving children in Africa and kids suffering from Iraq war are also human lives. So is someone on death row. Even Osama Bin Laden is human life. If you're saying you're pro-human-life but at the same time for example you support death penalty, I cannot see how could you ever call yourself pro-life.
Quote
Now you're not even making sense. Pro-life means they don't want to end the human life inside a woman.
Well, that's pro-fetus then, not generic 'pro-life'. Although I wouldn't even call it pro-fetus as your support for fetus is pretty narrow-minded. For example, you do not offer potential mothers financial incentives (out of your own pockets, of course) to keep the unwanted baby and then surrender it to adoption. All you want is to revoke her right to choose. That's why you're ultimately anti-choice.
Quote
Of course that supports their personal beliefs.
That's the main problem of Jesus crowd - they want everyone else act according to their personal beliefs, which are based on fairly tales written in an old myth book.
Quote
A human life is a human life. A fetus is a human life 20 minutes before it's born and it's a human life after it meets the definition of a baby.
...and it's still a human life when the baby grows up into Osama Bin Laden. You see my point?
Quote
You're claiming its ok to abort a fetus but its not ok to kill a baby because the two are defined differently in the dictionary.
No, I only brought dictionary because you kept calling an unborn fetus "baby". Since English is not my native language and I learned it quite recently, I had to check the word meaning in the dictionary, and shared my findings with you. You know, it's difficult to understand the opponent if he or she tries to use a word in a completely different meaning.
The real reason I'm ok for someone to abort fetus but not to kill the baby is because in the baby case if the person does not want to be a mother, the society could receive the baby from her, and find someone to adopt it. However at this moment it is not possible to adopt a fetus. Maybe in future, when it becomes possible, an abortion would mean transplanting fetus into the womb of "pro-life" female, and let her carry it to the full term instead. Would be really nice to see how many people would put their money where their mouth is.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
Why not implement a policy that requires proof of rape before an abortion is allowed?
Considering that even the court conviction - which may take years - is not always proof that rape really happened, and considering the short abortion time window (you do not want to do 3rd trimester abortion, do you?), what kind of proof you would consider reasonable?
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
So both are equally alive Thanks for helping me prove my point.
Equally alive? Sure, in the very last weeks of pregnancy, yes. One however, is inside of a woman's body, and the other is not--neither of which are able to form opinions or make choices as you claim.