Abortion: Science or Legalisms

[CatholicCrusader]

IMHO, the big problem with the discussion about Abortion in America today is that it always revolves around legal decisions and not scientific fact, something Rick Santorum pointed out not too long ago.

Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood, human flesh, human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is a human life. That is science. That is fact.

But. what is all too often being focused on instead of this scientific factr is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person. Now, does anyone know what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, they were human beings too, but the law denied them personhood, and that is what is being done here too. There was no scientific basis to deny slaves their human rights, onlky legal decisions based on predjudic and wrong-headed thinking, and the same goes for the child in the womb today.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says or what some Democrat says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.


EDIT: And it is noteworthy to add that the DNA of a fetus is uniquely different the the mother's DNA, which pretty much blows away the "its my body" argument. That uniqiue DNA is PROOF that the child in the womb is an indivudual person, not part of the mother's body.

 

[David]

IMHO, the big problem with the discussion about Abortion in America today is that it always revolves around legal decisions and not scientific fact, something Rick Santorum pointed out not too long ago.

Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood, human flesh, human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is a human life. That is science. That is fact.

But. what is all too often being focused on instead of this scientific factr is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person. Now, does anyone know what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, they were human beings too, but the law denied them personhood, and that is what is being done here too. There was no scientific basis to deny slaves their human rights, onlky legal decisions based on predjudic and wrong-headed thinking, and the same goes for the child in the womb today.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says or what some Democrat says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.


EDIT: And it is noteworthy to add that the DNA of a fetus is uniquely different the the mother's DNA, which pretty much blows away the "its my body" argument. That uniqiue DNA is PROOF that the child in the womb is an indivudual person, not part of the mother's body.

I love when they try the "then cutting hair should be illegal" when this is pointed out.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

I love when they try the "then cutting hair should be illegal" when this is pointed out.

People who use that analogy have no critical thinking skills whatsoever

 

[David]

People who use that analogy have no critical thinking skills whatsoever

It's still funny to see.

 

[DodgeFB]

I love when they try the "then cutting hair should be illegal" when this is pointed out.

As a guy that shaves his head at least 3 times a week I would be against that!

 

[myp]

Stop misrepresenting scientific academia. A fetus is arguably a human. Depends on how you define human and it is subjective to an extent. Biologists still aren't in agreement on a definition of life, let alone human life.

Also, the DNA of a fetus isn't exactly unique- it is just a combination of the mother's and father's DNA.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

Stop misrepresenting scientific academia. A fetus is arguably a human...........

And stop spinning the facts to support murder. How can a being with human DNA be arguably a human!!! That is absurd and ridiculous. In fact, that must rank in the top ten stupidest posts I have ever read!

A being with human blood, human flesh, conceived by human parents with human DNA is "arguably" a human! LOL!

Christ, that is DUMB!

 

[myp]

And stop spinning the facts to support murder. How can a being with human DNA be arguably a human!!! That is absurd and ridiculous. In fact, that must rank in the top ten stupidest posts I have ever read!

Sperm has human DNA. Human skin has human DNA. Human hair has human DNA. I think you are making the "ridiculous" argument here.

A being with human blood, human flesh, conceived by human parents with human DNA is "arguably" a human! LOL!

You obviously don't consider gametes to be humans (at least I hope not)- perhaps a zygote, but even that isn't awfully complex and there are parts of the human body - i.e. stem cells that might be more complex which you probably wouldn't consider human either. There is clearly a line somewhere but it is arguable- that is the point.

 

[David]

Also, the DNA of a fetus isn't exactly unique- it is just a combination of the mother's and father's DNA.

Uh, so are you.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

Uh, so are you.

Imagine that

 

[myp]

Uh, so are you.

Did I say I wasn't? I was merely saying that his claim that the DNA is "unique" is wrong.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

Did I say I wasn't? I was merely saying that his claim that the DNA is "unique" is wrong.

Its not wrong. Everyone's DNA is unique.

 

[myp]

Its not wrong. Everyone's DNA is unique.

Everyone's genotype is unique, the DNA is a combination of both parents and mutations. Either way, this is off-topic.

 

[David]

Everyone's genotype is unique, the DNA is a combination of both parents and mutations. Either way, this is off-topic.

And you derailed it.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

MYP, how do you know when you have gone off the dep end?
When you have made allies out of David and I, thats when.

 

[myp]

MYP, how do you know when you have gone off the dep end?
When you have made allies out of David and I, thats when.

You and David like to cling to your fringe views and support them like they are a sports team instead of something in which logic and facts have a place. It's fine- live in your fantasy world, I can spend my time better elsewhere.

Also note that I have not said I support abortion. It is one of the issues I am undecided on, but either way I am willing to listen to arguments from both sides (as I try to do with any issue) and give them the respect of not distorting their views or even worse distort scientific fact as you try to do in the opening post here.

 

[dabdab]

IMHO, the big problem with the discussion about Abortion in America today is that it always revolves around legal decisions and not scientific fact, something Rick Santorum pointed out not too long ago.

Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood, human flesh, human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is a human life. That is science. That is fact.

But. what is all too often being focused on instead of this scientific factr is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person. Now, does anyone know what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, they were human beings too, but the law denied them personhood, and that is what is being done here too. There was no scientific basis to deny slaves their human rights, onlky legal decisions based on predjudic and wrong-headed thinking, and the same goes for the child in the womb today.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says or what some Democrat says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.


EDIT: And it is noteworthy to add that the DNA of a fetus is uniquely different the the mother's DNA, which pretty much blows away the "its my body" argument. That uniqiue DNA is PROOF that the child in the womb is an indivudual person, not part of the mother's body.

I want to start as emphasizing that I'm against Abortion in principal for a Religious reasons . there are few cases were I can accept Abortion one is if it endangers the mother's life ; another is rape ,then I can accept Abortion at any stage of the fetus life .needles to say any law governing the Abortion has to be legislated for , like any other matter , according to population opinion . it really doesn't matter if a fetus is a human being or not . even for religious reason you have to decide when a fetus is considered a life form and for me that is when parts start to be recognizable . before that it is a lump of meat or cells . saying Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being is not true . science has no thing to do with it . man is just an another animal as far as science is concerned .Is there a soul in the thing ? for religious reasons only !.

 

[David]

You and David like to cling to your fringe views and support them like they are a sports team instead of something in which logic and facts have a place. It's fine- live in your fantasy world, I can spend my time better elsewhere.

Also note that I have not said I support abortion. It is one of the issues I am undecided on, but either way I am willing to listen to arguments from both sides (as I try to do with any issue) and give them the respect of not distorting their views or even worse distort scientific fact as you try to do in the opening post here.

Our position is based on logic. A fetus is Human and unlike a hair of fingernail is a whole Human and unlike a brain dead vegetable will, barring complications during pregnancy, grow into a functioning member of society. That is scientific fact and while you may argue that it's not a person until it can think the argument that an embryo, zygote and fetus aren't Humans is factually incorrect. If you argue abortion on personhood fine but if you argue on he child's Humanity then abortion is killing a Human no matter your opinion on the subject.

 

[myp]

Our position is based on logic. A fetus is Human and unlike a hair of fingernail is a whole Human and unlike a brain dead vegetable will, barring complications during pregnancy, grow into a functioning member of society. That is scientific fact and while you may argue that it's not a person until it can think the argument that an embryo, zygote and fetus aren't Humans is factually incorrect. If you argue abortion on personhood fine but if you argue on he child's Humanity then abortion is killing a Human no matter your opinion on the subject.

It is derived from a human sure. Is it a human life yet and is its destruction murder? Arguable. It isn't an awfully rare case that multiple eggs are fertilized and one dominates, killing the other (which would have otherwise grown) in the process. Are you going to charge the baby that grows from that zygote with murder?

Then you have the potential to have cells that are more human and more complex than a simple zygote in laboratory settings or naturally elsewhere in the human body. I bet you won't consider those humans. So what is it that makes it a human life comparable to that of a baby or an adult? It is arguable.

You can't say it is a human life because you say it is a human life

As for the utility it brings to society, there are many children that will end up being born into poor situations that might turn them to crime or poor living conditions. If you are arguing in terms of societal utility, it can be argued that legal abortion increases utility. Freakonomics looks at it from a crime perspective. Another one is to consider how many mothers will still want abortions when it is illegal and turn to unsafe black market measures- which will happen and once more with that will come violent crime.

Also my comments towards both of you on ignoring facts extend way beyond this thread.

 

[David]

It is derived from a human sure. Is it a human life yet and is its destruction murder? Arguable. It isn't an awfully rare case that multiple eggs are fertilized and one dominates, killing the other (which would have otherwise grown) in the process. Are you going to charge the baby that grows from that zygote with murder?

Murder is the unlawful killing of 1 Human by another. An unborn child no making it to term isn't the same thing as purposeful abortion.

Then you have the potential to have cells that are more human and more complex than a simple zygote in laboratory settings or naturally elsewhere in the human body. I bet you won't consider those humans. So what is it that makes it a human life comparable to that of a baby or an adult? It is arguable.

Can they be brought to term ether by in vetro or artificial incubation (I'm onl asking if it's possible not if it's the intent)? If yes it's a Human if not then no. Nice try with the tumors are Humans card, I haven't seen that 1 in a while.

You can't say it is a human life because you say it is a human life

Facts are facts. As I said, if you argue abortion on personhood fine but you have no standing if you argue on an unborn child's Humanity.