Aborted babies being sold to researchers

[Left-Field]

General life does begin because an embryo has all the requirements for life, but human life, not so much. Unless you also want to classify cancer as human life. An embryo is no more human life than any cells in the body. So, scientist really want my antibody and want to pay for it, does that value make it alive? I guess you could say the B cells it comes from are alive, but not human life.

A human fetus will develop into a human being. Cancer cells won't develop into anything resembling a human. There is a big difference. The comparison you are making does not equate.

[Left-Field]

Taking one step further, any seed planted in the soil is something that is alive. Consider that a sliver of flesh cut from your body is alive. So, what conclusions can be made from all that? The answer is ... ?

My answer to that is a comment I just made in one of my last posts. A human fetus will develop into a human being. Plants and skin cells, etc will not.

The comparison you make above is incredibly far-fetched.

[Left-Field]

Exactly. Dead meat is dead meat is dead meat. F-in feed it to something, use it to cure something or toss it aside. Screw people who think this is wrong when it can do so much good. One more time religious viewpoints prove detrimental to a healthy society.

Feed it to something? Ugh...

Also, killing human fetus' is what is detrimental to society. That has nothing to do with religious beliefs. It is about what is moral.

[DKO]

Feed it to something? Ugh...

Also, killing human fetus' is what is detrimental to society. That has nothing to do with religious beliefs. It is about what is moral.

Because you think its immoral doesnt make it so, thats your opinion.

How does it affect society? The diseases/conditions that stem cell research can help is detrimental to society.

[Left-Field]

Because you think its immoral doesnt make it so, thats your opinion.

That would be like telling me to murder someone isn't immoral either.

How does it affect society? The diseases/conditions that stem cell research can help is detrimental to society.

It is a detriment to society because it devalues human life. We grow up being conditioned to believe it is ok to kill a human fetus.

[DKO]

That would be like telling me to murder someone isn't immoral either.

It is a detriment to society because it devalues human life. We grow up being conditioned to believe it is ok to kill a human fetus.

Its different, that person is a human a foetus is not.

I think you've been conditioned to believe that way through church or your upbringing. You believe life starts at conception which is false, you think a foetus is human whch is also false.

And anyway the topic was about already aborted foetus' being used for research not about abortion itself. Now that these foetus' are already aborted there are two options, throw it into the bin or use it for research to help others.

[Left-Field]

Its different, that person is a human a foetus is not.

What makes it a human only at that point? Why isn't it one beforehand?

And regardless, you can't tell me that it is able to make choices at that point in time. So by Rlyeh's standards we should still have the right to kill it.

I think you've been conditioned to believe that way through church or your upbringing. You believe life starts at conception which is false, you think a foetus is human whch is also false.

How can you tell me definitively that life does not begin at conception?

As for a human fetus, I know what it represents - and that is human life. I refuse to blind myself to that fact like it seems so many others are willing to do.

And anyway the topic was about already aborted foetus' being used for research not about abortion itself. Now that these foetus' are already aborted there are two options, throw it into the bin or use it for research to help others.

The topic is actually about people selling and profiting from aborted fetus' body parts - as if aborted babies are now materials of trade.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Silvergun Superman

[DKO]

What makes it a human only at that point? Why isn't it one beforehand?

And regardless, you can't tell me that it is able to make choices at that point in time. So by Rlyeh's standards we should still have the right to kill it.

How can you tell me definitively that life does not begin at conception?

As for a human fetus, I know what it represents - and that is human life. I refuse to blind myself to that fact like it seems so many others are willing to do.

The topic is actually about people selling and profiting from aborted fetus' body parts - as if aborted babies are now materials of trade.

No it cant make a choice but at that point it can think and dream(correct me if im wrong).

Life doesnt start at conception because its only a few cells at that point.

So you would be fine with it if they didnt make a profit?

[Left-Field]

No it cant make a choice but at that point it can think and dream(correct me if im wrong).

Life doesnt start at conception because its only a few cells at that point.

So you would be fine with it if they didnt make a profit?

I will have to research the dreaming and thinking question. With that in mind, I am also curious as to whether or not it is known if a fetus can feel pain.

To answer your last question, no, I would not be fine with it if they didn't make a profit. I am against abortion as it is. To sell the body parts afterwards only further disgusts me.

As to the question about when life begins, I came across the following which I found rather interesting. I realize people will claim the site is biased because it comes from an anti-abortion website. The article itself though provides viewpoints about when life begins from people who are pro-abortion.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Medical Testimony

A new human being comes into existence during the process of fertilization

PAGE SUMMARY: It is false to claim that no one knows when life begins and dishonest to argue that abortion does not kill a human being

Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate concedes this simple fact.

Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the world – Planned Parenthood – argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:

I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.¹

Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist author and abortion supporter, makes a similar concession when she writes:

Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life... we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.²

David Boonin, in his book, "A Defense of Abortion," makes this startling admission:

In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.³

Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, "Practical Ethics." He writes:

It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.⁴

Bernard Nathanson co-founded one of the most influential abortion advocacy groups in the world (NARAL) and once served as medical director for the largest abortion clinic in America. In 1974, he wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in which he states, "There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy..."⁵ Some years later, he would reiterate:

There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.⁶

Don't miss the significance of these acknowledgements. Prominent defenders of abortion rights publicly admit that abortion kills human beings. They are not saying that abortion is morally defensible because it doesn't kill a distinct human entity. They are admitting that abortion does kill a distinct human entity, but argue it is morally defensible anyway. We'll get to their arguments later, but the point here is this: There is simply no debate among honest, informed people that abortion kills distinctly human beings.

The problem is, Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 verdict which legalized abortion in the U.S. is actually built on the claim that there's no way to say for certain whether or not abortion kills because no one can say for certain when life begins. Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored the majority opinion wrote:

The judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to... resolve the difficult question of when life begins... since those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus.⁷

Justice Blackmun's assertion is a ridiculous one, at least as it applies to the field of medicine. Dr. Nathanson had this to say about the ruling:

Of course, I was pleased with Justice Harry Blackmun's abortion decisions, which were an unbelievably sweeping triumph for our cause, far broader than our 1970 victory in New York or the advances since then. I was pleased with Blackmun's conclusions, that is. I could not plumb the ethical or medical reasoning that had produced the conclusions. Our final victory had been propped up on a misreading of obstetrics, gynecology, and embryology, and that's a dangerous way to win.⁸

Dr. Nathanson would eventually abandon his support for elective abortion and note that "the basics [of prenatal development] were well-known to human embryology at the time the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 1973 rulings, even though the rulings made no use of them."⁹ In biological terms, life's beginning is a settled fact. Individual human life begins at fertilization, and there are all sorts of authoritative, public resources to prove this.

POSSIBLE OBJECTION: Even if an embryo is technically alive at fertilization, it's still just a clump of microscopic cells. Until the heart is beating or the brain is functioning, women should be free to have an abortion.

TO LEARN OUR RESPONSE, CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE: Prenatal Development

FOOTNOTES

1.Faye Wattleton, “Speaking Frankly,” Ms., May / June 1997, Volume VII, Number 6, 67.

2.Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” The New Republic, October 16, 1995, 26.

3.David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), xiv.

4.Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 2008), 85-86.

5.Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., “Deeper into Abortion,” New England Journal of Medicine, November 28, 1974, Vol. 291, No. 22: 1189-1190.

6.Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., The Hand of God (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 1996), 131.

7.Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

8.Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New York: Pinnacle Books, 1979), 163.

9.Ibid, 201.

Source

Edited March 25, 2012 by Silvergun Superman

[Amy the Mighty]

If we framed this issue as; "aborted foetuses to attain a level of dignity that they were denied in life, by providing their cells to save children in the future," would you feel so offended? Do you think that being sold to medical researchers who want to save lives, is less dignified than being incinerated in a yellow biohazard bag? Do you think that companies that provide disposal services to hospitals operate at a loss?

Selling foetuses to medical research laboratories is no different than contracting your organisation's waste to a disposal service provider. Did you think that the resulting foetal tissue gets a funeral? Perhaps with a piper and some cress sandwiches at the wake?

[Rlyeh]

So, perhaps my question should be this:

If we didn't have access to enough aborted fetus' to be used for extensive stem cell research would you then be against woman becoming pregnant for the sole purpose of aborting the pregnancy once the fetus has developed to the point scientists can use it for research?

Ofcourse. However there are still unused IVF embryos which could be used rather than being incinerated.

So because a fetus can't make any decisions known we therefore have the right to kill it? If that is the case, why would people have any issues with aborting a baby that is 7, 8, or 9 months developed within the womb. If we killed the child then it would still be at a point in which the being within the womb has no possession of choice.

Never said it had the right to be killed, however killing it is not against its will as it has none.

[cerberusxp]

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.

Edited March 26, 2012 by cerberusxp

[voidla]

OP, do you eat meat, vegetables or use products that were tested on animals?

Yes. You have.

A clump of matter 5 days after fertolization is not a baby. With your logic you might as well give it a name and book it in for university.

This clump of cells at 5 days after sperm meets egg won't feel or have a brain.

They're more of a flesh-plant than a human baby. They're closer to a sperm-egg hybrid than a human-baby.

Calm down.

[Left-Field]

If we framed this issue as; "aborted foetuses to attain a level of dignity that they were denied in life, by providing their cells to save children in the future," would you feel so offended?

Yes, I would still be offended by it because of the fact you are denying life to one person as a means of possibly improving the life of others.

It's like the saying "two wrongs don't make a right."

Do you think that being sold to medical researchers who want to save lives, is less dignified than being incinerated in a yellow biohazard bag? Do you think that companies that provide disposal services to hospitals operate at a loss?

I don't think there is any dignity to be found in killing a human fetus regardless of how its remains are used or disposed of afterwards.

And no, I don't think disposal services to hospitals operate at a loss.

Selling foetuses to medical research laboratories is no different than contracting your organisation's waste to a disposal service provider. Did you think that the resulting foetal tissue gets a funeral? Perhaps with a piper and some cress sandwiches at the wake?

There is a big difference when you are discussing human life being disposed of. To summarize it as simply being "waste" of any sort is disturbing to me.

And sadly, I am all to aware of the fact aborted fetus' are treated like trash rather then what they should be regarded as.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Silvergun Superman

[Left-Field]

OP, do you eat meat, vegetables or use products that were tested on animals?

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

A clump of matter 5 days after fertolization is not a baby. With your logic you might as well give it a name and book it in for university.

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.

This clump of cells at 5 days after sperm meets egg won't feel or have a brain.

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.

They're more of a flesh-plant than a human baby. They're closer to a sperm-egg hybrid than a human-baby.

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.

Calm down.

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.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Silvergun Superman

[voidla]

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 March 26, 2012 by voidla

[Left-Field]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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]

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]

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 April 2, 2012 by voidla

[Left-Field]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 April 3, 2012 by Silvergun Superman

[DingoLingo]

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..