95 replies to this topic

[voidla]

Silvergun Superman, on 26 March 2012 - 06:12 AM, said:

Yes, I do. Absolutely none of that compares in a logical way however to this topic.



We do name are children, do we not?

Also, you may want to read the article in the opening post. These fetus' are not being aborted within a 5 day span. They aren't developed enough within 5 days to provide scientists with the "materials" they are looking for to conduct this type of research.

Nonetheless, life begins at conception. So whether it was after 5 days or 5 months really makes no difference. You are still killing the being within the womb.

If you don't believe life begins at conception, then perhaps you should read through this post, in which you will find that even prominent abortion advocates readily admit life begins at conception and that abortion takes away another's life.



Again, these abortions aren't being done after 5 days. And as I stated above, even if they were it is still an act of killing and the taking away of another's life.



We know what this "clump of cells" is going to develop into - a human being. To speak of it as if it is no different then a "flesh-plant" (or a cancer cell, or sliver of skin as others have equated it to) is ridiculous.

Doing so is to clearly devalue human life.



I've been quite calm. To be honest with you, while my views on this topic differ greatly with a number of people who have posted within this thread, I've been pleasantly surprised that the discussion has taken place without outrageous behavior.

Yes, eating meat/vegetables/using products tested on animals does relate, because clearly you have a stupid ideal on what life is. You have a problem testing on or using human tissue for science, but you have no problem with plant or animal life being used for your potential health and eating habits.

There is a difference between 5 days and 5 months. You're being stupid if you're sticking by that.
A 5 month old baby has grown nerves and a working heart and brain. A 5 day clump of cells has not.

Of course life begins at contraception. Sperm is living. I don't see you championing for banning mast(ur)bation! (MODs can we get this word unfiltered please? We're mostly adults here!)

You do not know the cells are going to develop in to a human being.
That foetus/(eventual) child may die while in side the womb.

The fact is, the article is not talking about human beings when they're developed.
You have some form of obsession that the cells will form in to a human. So? The moment they are potentially being used for experiment, they are not a human being. They never will be a human being. Their life experiences are not being cut short.

You have no value for life. If you did you would regard eating animals/plants are the same as eating humans in different stages of living. Plants = sperm meets the egg forms a hybrid. A foetus with no brain/nerves (a vegetative state). Meat = brain/heart/blood/feelings/experiences.

I've noticed posts you've made in this thread. You've come across quite passive-aggressive, not calm at all.

Edited by voidla, 26 March 2012 - 07:53 AM.

[Left-Field]

voidla, on 26 March 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

Yes, eating meat/vegetables/using products tested on animals does relate, because clearly you have a stupid ideal on what life is. You have a problem testing on or using human tissue for science, but you have no problem with plant or animal life being used for your potential health and eating habits.

Yes, your above statements are correct - except for the part about my ideals being stupid.

Do you not understand the difference between human life and that of a plant or animal? Do you not differentiate between human life and other forms of life?

voidla, on 26 March 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

There is a difference between 5 days and 5 months. You're being stupid if you're sticking by that.

A 5 month old baby has grown nerves and a working heart and brain. A 5 day clump of cells has not.

Have you read the article in the opening post? Please tell me where you grabbed this "five days" from.

These babies are not one's that have been aborted after five days. At five days they aren't developed enough to have the "materials" scientists want for this type of research.

By the time these fetus' are aborted they have noticable feet, fingers, hands, toes, a head, developing eyes, and brain tissue present (and possibly more human features).

Nonetheless, life begins at conception. You can read here to see that even prominent abortion advocates believe life begins at that moment and that to kill a fetus is to take the life of another.

voidla, on 26 March 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

Of course life begins at contraception. Sperm is living. I don't see you championing for banning mast(ur)bation! (MODs can we get this word unfiltered please? We're mostly adults here!)

Do you know when conception takes place?

It occurs when sperm fertilizes an egg. Sperm alone will not develop into anything. Therefore there is no reason for me to claim that m********ion results in any act of killing a human life form.

voidla, on 26 March 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

You do not know the cells are going to develop in to a human being. That foetus/(eventual) child may die while in side the womb.

Your reasoning is foolish. A human fetus will most definately develop into a human being as long as it isn't killed by means of artifical (abortion) or natural causes.

If your stance is that it's okay to kill it because it may die in the womb of natural causes anyway then your reasoning skills are suspect at best.

voidla, on 26 March 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

The fact is, the article is not talking about human beings when they're developed. You have some form of obsession that the cells will form into a human. So? The moment they are potentially being used for experiment, they are not a human being. They never will be a human being. Their life experiences are not being cut short.

Really? They're life experience is not being cut short?

How can you state such a thing when their life is being taken away from them before they are even born?

voidla, on 26 March 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

You have no value for life. If you did you would regard eating animals/plants are the same as eating humans in different stages of living. Plants = sperm meets the egg forms a hybrid. A foetus with no brain/nerves (a vegetative state). Meat = brain/heart/blood/feelings/experiences.

Are you even attempting to have a serious discussion?

From your statement above:

"You have no value for life. If you did you would regard eating animals/plants are the same as eating humans in different stages of living."

When you make comments like that you blatantly make it known that you do not value human life. You equate it to plants and animals and that is beyond ridiculous.

Quite frankly, based on your statement above, it's as if you'd find nothing wrong with aborted fetus' being used to make an omelet or any other type of food to be fed to humans or animals.

Is that really what you believe?

voidla, on 26 March 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

I've noticed posts you've made in this thread. You've come across quite passive-aggressive, not calm at all.

You're entitled to your own take on how I've come across. In knowing myself, however, I am well aware that I've remained pretty calm throughout this discussion.

[Rlyeh]

cerberusxp, on 26 March 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

I play on a poker site and there is this guy who's player name is "Addicted to dead babies". I'm throwing this in here for the emphasis on how far down the rabbit hole our country has gone. We all know who condones leaving a botched abortion live baby in a closet til they die. He plays golf a lot!

Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.

Okay...

[voidla]

Silvergun Superman, on 26 March 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

Yes, your above statements are correct - except for the part about my ideals being stupid.

Do you not understand the difference between human life and that of a plant or animal? Do you not differentiate between human life and other forms of life?



Have you read the article in the opening post? Please tell me where you grabbed this "five days" from.

These babies are not one's that have been aborted after five days. At five days they aren't developed enough to have the "materials" scientists want for this type of research.

By the time these fetus' are aborted they have noticable feet, fingers, hands, toes, a head, developing eyes, and brain tissue present (and possibly more human features).

Nonetheless, life begins at conception. You can read here to see that even prominent abortion advocates believe life begins at that moment and that to kill a fetus is to take the life of another.



Do you know when conception takes place?

It occurs when sperm fertilizes an egg. Sperm alone will not develop into anything. Therefore there is no reason for me to claim that m********ion results in any act of killing a human life form.



Your reasoning is foolish. A human fetus will most definately develop into a human being as long as it isn't killed by means of artifical (abortion) or natural causes.

If your stance is that it's okay to kill it because it may die in the womb of natural causes anyway then your reasoning skills are suspect at best.



Really? They're life experience is not being cut short?

How can you state such a thing when their life is being taken away from them before they are even born?



Are you even attempting to have a serious discussion?

From your statement above:

"You have no value for life. If you did you would regard eating animals/plants are the same as eating humans in different stages of living."

When you make comments like that you blatantly make it known that you do not value human life. You equate it to plants and animals and that is beyond ridiculous.

Quite frankly, based on your statement above, it's as if you'd find nothing wrong with aborted fetus' being used to make an omelet or any other type of food to be fed to humans or animals.

Is that really what you believe?



You're entitled to your own take on how I've come across. In knowing myself, however, I am well aware that I've remained pretty calm throughout this discussion.

Apologies for the late reply!

There is no difference between animal/plant and human life. Each one grows, lives and reproduces in it's own way. I find it stupid that you're willing to ignore the consciousness of one life so you can eat it, but totally concentrate on the other because you feel it's wrong to use it for a (subjective) positive (health/medicine).

The five day comment was from a mishap with reading a comment. The post is not up on the website any more so I can't go back to it.

Can you pull up a source as to where these 'scientists' want to use an actual 'baby'? Baby being subjective as well. People may say it's a baby once it's born, at 20 weeks, or when a heart-beat is found. Or people like you say it's a baby at the moment a sperm meets an egg. That's fine, but that's just a clump of fertilized cells. Find a baby-gro for that!

Personally I don't believe in abortion if the child has grown noticeable features like veins, blood, a heartbeat or brain activity. So I don't agree with abortion after 20 weeks. I agree with abortion in the first few weeks depending on circumstances. Can the mother/parents look after the child financially/emotionally? Can the mother/parents give the child to another family who can look after the child? Will the birthing cause death/health issues for the child and the mother?

Their lives are not being taken away before they're being born. They have no lives before they're born. It's not like they've spent 10 years playing and experiencing love then it's being taken away from them.

I eat (not much) meat, I eat plants. Both are alive. I've just come to the point in my life where life is life and should be respected in the best way it can, even when killing it for our own nutritional or medicinal needs. Just like other animals and plants kill for their own nutritional and medicinal needs.

If a mother/parents aborted a 'child' a weeks after contraception and decided to eat the cells, I'm sure I'd feel freaked out, but would it not be similar to the mother/parents eating the placenta? Probably, but I can't hold judgement on that. No point.

You speak about life experience being cut short. Do you also say that when eating beef, pork, chicken or veal? Y'know, an actual growing life, being cut short.

This entire thing has made me sound crazy. I'm not!

Edited by voidla, 02 April 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[Left-Field]

voidla, on 02 April 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

There is no difference between animal / plant and human life. Each one grows, lives and reproduces in it's own way.

If you honestly believe there is no difference between the lives of humans, and that of plants and animals, then you are incredibly uneducated about the subject. It's not even a matter of opinion. It is a fact.

I tend to believe that the overwhelming majority of people, whether they are for or against abortion, agree that there is a great deal of difference between human life and that of plants and animals.

Your statement that, "Each one grows, lives and reproduces in it's own way," is in itself an acknowledgement that there are differences between the three.

voidla, on 02 April 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

I find it stupid that you're willing to ignore the consciousness of one life so you can eat it, but totally concentrate on the other because you feel it's wrong to use it for a (subjective) positive (health/medicine).

I am not ignoring the consciousness of any given thing's life (although I'm not so sure plants possess what would generally be considered "consciousness").

What I am stating is that human life is far more precious than that of any plant or animal. The reasons for which have nothing to do with being "so (I) can eat it."

As well, the extent of a human being's consciousness is far greater than that of any other known species.  

voidla, on 02 April 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

Can you pull up a source as to where these 'scientists' want to use an actual 'baby'? Baby being subjective as well. People may say it's a baby once it's born, at 20 weeks, or when a heart-beat is found. Or people like you say it's a baby at the moment a sperm meets an egg. That's fine, but that's just a clump of fertilized cells.

As you've stated, the term "baby" can be subjective. If you read here you will find that one of the definitions given for "baby" is - "a human fetus." In that regard I have all ready provided numerous sources indicating that these scientists are indeed using "an actual baby."

Even if one doesn't care to acknowledge that a human fetus is a baby, however, there is no denying that a human fetus is genetically programmed to become a human being just like you and I.

voidla, on 02 April 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

Personally I don't believe in abortion if the child has grown noticeable features like veins, blood, a heartbeat or brain activity. So I don't agree with abortion after 20 weeks.

How do you feel than about a fetus being aborted that has noticeable human features such as arms, legs, hands, feet, fingers, toes, a head, and the overall general appearance of a human being?

The stem cells these scientists use come from fetus' that have all ready developed to such a point, although I am uncertain if they have veins, blood, a heartbeat, or brain activity. I will have to look into that more before stating such definitively. They do, however, have brain tissue present.

voidla, on 02 April 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

I agree with abortion in the first few weeks depending on circumstances. Can the mother / parents look after the child financially / emotionally? Can the mother / parents give the child to another family who can look after the child? Will the birthing cause death / health issues for the child and the mother?

I have stated at least once within this thread that should a woman's life be in danger due to the pregnancy, or should the pregnancy be the result of rape, then I can sympathize with the would-be mother considering abortion.

As for the other concerns you raise, those are all things a woman (and her partner) should take into account before engaging in intercourse.

At the very least a woman engaging in sexual activities should be of the mindset that if she gets pregnant (while knowing she couldn't care for the child) she will carry the child through its full term and give birth, after which she can then give the child up for adoption.

Abortion should not be looked, or relied upon, as a form of birth control.

voidla, on 02 April 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

Their lives are not being taken away before they're being born. They have no lives before they're born. It's not like they've spent 10 years playing and experiencing love then it's being taken away from them.

The act of abortion is very much so the taking of one's life before they are born.

As I have brought to attention here, even prominent abortion advocates acknowledge that, to abort a fetus is to kill it, and take away the life of another human being.

If people are going to argue in favor of abortion, they should at the very least acknowledge what it means to do so.

voidla, on 02 April 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

I eat (not much) meat, I eat plants. Both are alive. I've just come to the point in my life where life is life and should be respected in the best way it can, even when killing it for our own nutritional or medicinal needs. Just like other animals and plants kill for their own nutritional and medicinal needs.

That's because it is natural to do so. Animals eat other animals, and plants, because it is a means of survival. While I do not approve of the way in which many animals are slaughtered for human consumption, I realize there is nothing absurd about humans consuming meat and plants.

Where your logic fails miserably is in your insistence that animal and plant life is equal to human life.

voidla, on 02 April 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

If a mother / parents aborted a 'child' a weeks after contraception and decided to eat the cells, I'm sure I'd feel freaked out, but would it not be similar to the mother / parents eating the placenta? Probably, but I can't hold judgment on that. No point.

Yes, there would be a huge difference. It's called cannibalism. And there would be a point in holding judgment on it. The point would be establishing what is, and is not, ethical and proper behavior amongst humans.

Based upon your belief that all life is equal, however, it would appear you see nothing wrong with human cannibalism. Furthermore, if you truly believe what you have stated about life, you would see nothing wrong with man killing man as a means of feeding themselves.

You would also have to be of the belief that it is acceptable for one man to kill a woman's children because they were fathered by another male (such as lions and polar bears do). And for him to then mate with this woman so that she will bear his offspring as a means of making sure his genetic traits will carry on.

There is a whole host of other absurd scenarios you must believe in if you truly believe human life should be regarded no differently than that of animals and plants.  

voidla, on 02 April 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

You speak about life experience being cut short. Do you also say that when eating beef, pork, chicken or veal? Y'know, an actual growing life, being cut short.

Yes, I readily acknowledge that to kill any animal, regardless of the reason, is to cut short that animal's life. To claim it is the same as the taking of a human life, however, is outrageous.

Edited by Silvergun Superman, 03 April 2012 - 03:01 AM.

[DingoLingo]

willowdreams, on 23 March 2012 - 01:59 AM, said:

Do I like this? NO. DO I like abortions? No. DO I feel abortion is up to the mother? Yes.

I also believe that once you are dead, you are dead. Period. SHould there be a soul/afterlife, I do not feel your body is useful there. It decays anyway. It is basically broken down and no use to anyone.

So though I do not like the idea of the bodies being chopped up and such and such. They are not alive. There is nothign there. If there was a soul there, it is not there anymore.

The shell is doing nothing for the soul/spirit.

So if mankind can use it for some good, then go for it. I understand that with science and medical growth, they need some tissues/bilogical ingrediants, and I may not like it, but that does not change the fact of what is needed to help things along faster.

Unless they are making something akin to soylant green and feeding it to pple without letting them know what they are eating and giving the choice, I honestly cannot say 'ooh this is soo horrible, let us stop it!'

They are not forcing people to have abortions in order to get the bodies. Woman concent to the abortions. Unless they choose to do something about what is aborted, then if science can use it, so be it.

If there is an after life, the shell is not part of that. The good stuff went elsewhere.

Could not have put this any better.. well said..