Babies are babies...unformed zygotes and phoetuses have no emotional nor legal status.
I wonder if these antiabortion males use condoms? Frankly, if the men do not want women to have unwanted pregnancies, or have sex for that matter, they could use a little self-control on themselves. Perhaps, that should be pushed at the next pro-life rally. Ya think that will every happen?
The double standard for men and women is no more noticeble than in these apes misogynistic ravings about abortion.
Epithets such as 'baby mama' and 'women should keep their legs closed' etc etc etc completely ignoring the pressures that men put on women for sex and the control that they should have in using condoms or not having sex whenever they want it!
Nope. The difference is that an unfertilized sperm can't ever be a person and a fetus most definitely can (if you don't kill it). A sperm is not recognized as a human life...a fetus most definitely is.
"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, If a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate."
Monty Python
"May all sentient beings be free from suffering." the Buddha
The Church, and Pro-lifers in general, argues that abortion is taking away someone's choice: The baby's. In fact it is taking away every choice the baby would ever get to make.
The Church and pro lifers believe a clump of cells is a baby which is where problems arise.
Nope. The difference is that an unfertilized sperm can't ever be a person and a fetus most definitely can (if you don't kill it). A sperm is not recognized as a human life...a fetus most definitely is.
You forgot 'zygote' and the reality of potential.
The religious shoud really think of this when they don't acknowledge the HUGE percentage of human Zygotes which naturally miscarry.....
ie God's abortion mechanism.
I'm not forgetting it any more than I 'forget' someone's death by natural causes or accidental injury in discussions about what constitutes murder. Just because miscarriages happen is no more a justification for abortion than death by natural causes justifies a murder.
One can no more have an untrue feeling than they can bleed from a wound that never cut them.
Depends on how you look at achievement. The Monarch butterfly is avoided by many predators supposedly because it tastes bad. And predators can avoid it because of it's distinctive markings and color. There's more than a dozen species of butterfly that have evolved a similar appearance which can cause predators to mistake them for the Monarch and increase their odds of living another day. This does not appear to be a conscious decision to deceive on the part of any self-aware entity in the universe, certainly not the butterflies themselves...but no less effective an adaptation if it were.
This too may not be viewed as an achievement...but it does follow a rather remarkable sensibility where there is no known conscious, sentient or sensible entity that deliberately brought the conditions into being. So...not quite exactly an accident either. Neither is DNA.
Depends on how you look at achievement. The Monarch butterfly is avoided by many predators supposedly because it tastes bad. And predators can avoid it because of it's distinctive markings and color. There's more than a dozen species of butterfly that have evolved a similar appearance which can cause predators to mistake them for the Monarch and increase their odds of living another day. This does not appear to be a conscious decision to deceive on the part of any self-aware entity in the universe, certainly not the butterflies themselves...but no less effective an adaptation if it were.
This too may not be viewed as an achievement...but it does follow a rather remarkable sensibility where there is no known conscious, sentient or sensible entity that deliberately brought the conditions into being. So...not quite exactly an accident either. Neither is DNA.
Things can adapt, therefore God doesn’t exist?
Evolution doesn’t deal with bringing anything into being, let alone the ability to adapt.
If you aren't sure if your post will violate the ToS, just don't post it. Err on the side of caution and this forum will live a long and happy life.
Depends on how you look at achievement. The Monarch butterfly is avoided by many predators supposedly because it tastes bad. And predators can avoid it because of it's distinctive markings and color. There's more than a dozen species of butterfly that have evolved a similar appearance which can cause predators to mistake them for the Monarch and increase their odds of living another day. This does not appear to be a conscious decision to deceive on the part of any self-aware entity in the universe, certainly not the butterflies themselves...but no less effective an adaptation if it were.
This too may not be viewed as an achievement...but it does follow a rather remarkable sensibility where there is no known conscious, sentient or sensible entity that deliberately brought the conditions into being. So...not quite exactly an accident either. Neither is DNA.
Things can adapt, therefore God doesn’t exist?
Evolution doesn’t deal with bringing anything into being, let alone the ability to adapt.
Not my argument, really. Just saying that even in the absence of any intelligent designer or deity making conscious decisions...the comprehensiveness of such adaptations cannot be easily ignored. I'm saying that it does not matter much what one attributes these amazing things to...even if explained with nothing but science, this and things like DNA are not accidents, even if they aren't personal or individual achievements per se.
One can no more have an untrue feeling than they can bleed from a wound that never cut them.
Evolution doesn’t deal with bringing anything into being, let alone the ability to adapt.
Not my argument, really. Just saying that even in the absence of any intelligent designer or deity making conscious decisions...the comprehensiveness of such adaptations cannot be easily ignored. I'm saying that it does not matter much what one attributes these amazing things to...even if explained with nothing but science, this and things like DNA are not accidents, even if they aren't personal or individual achievements per se.
You began with a paragraph about adaptation, then concluded your post with a statement about bringing the conditions into being.
While “accident” probably isn’t the best word to use, “intentional” is even more off the mark.
If you aren't sure if your post will violate the ToS, just don't post it. Err on the side of caution and this forum will live a long and happy life.
Not my argument, really. Just saying that even in the absence of any intelligent designer or deity making conscious decisions...the comprehensiveness of such adaptations cannot be easily ignored. I'm saying that it does not matter much what one attributes these amazing things to...even if explained with nothing but science, this and things like DNA are not accidents, even if they aren't personal or individual achievements per se.
You began with a paragraph about adaptation, then concluded your post with a statement about bringing the conditions into being.
While “accident” probably isn’t the best word to use, “intentional” is even more off the mark.
I know! That's what makes it, in my observation, a monumentally more thought-provoking matter than diluting the merits of such things down to whether it's an "achievement" or "potential".
One can no more have an untrue feeling than they can bleed from a wound that never cut them.
The Church, and Pro-lifers in general, argues that abortion is taking away someone's choice: The baby's. In fact it is taking away every choice the baby would ever get to make.
Abortion v. birth-control: They both take away every choice the baby would ever get to make.
A neighbor of mine had a pregnancy in which the fetus had serious health issues. Doctors estimated that the baby would never become a teenager. The cost of care (parental time, near round-the-clock babysitting, and medical) would drain the family's resources. The parents decided to abort so that they would have the resources to bear other children.
Yes, they took away every choice that the baby would ever get to make. However, the parents were able to have two healthy children who would not have been born. Not only did other these children have lots of choices, but (so far) those children have given their parents three health grandchildren who are making lots of choices themselves.
And since this is a religion forum, why did Jehovah give them a deformed baby in the first place?
All the do-gooders who don't want abortions should pay for the care of unwanted children.
As for choices, I wonder how many unborn were denied their many choices because I wore a condom or my wife was on the pill.
The Church, and Pro-lifers in general, argues that abortion is taking away someone's choice: The baby's. In fact it is taking away every choice the baby would ever get to make.
The Church and pro lifers believe a clump of cells is a baby which is where problems arise.
Atheists and, um, pro-deathers believe a baby is just a clump of cells which is where the problems arise. We could do this all day, or we just could acknowledge that whether it's a baby or just a clump of cells solely depends on whether or not it's wanted.
If you aren't sure if your post will violate the ToS, just don't post it. Err on the side of caution and this forum will live a long and happy life.
The Church and pro lifers believe a clump of cells is a baby which is where problems arise.
Atheists and, um, pro-deathers believe a baby is just a clump of cells which is where the problems arise. We could do this all day, or we just could acknowledge that whether it's a baby or just a clump of cells solely depends on whether or not it's wanted.
As I stated accurately above, it is a clump of cells with a unique DNA which has the 'potential' to be come a human baby if a lot of things go well for it. JUST because it has unique DNA as some idiot said does not mean that it 'deserves' to progress to being a baby human ( an argument that the high level of natural miscarriages supports ) THere are many things that can interfere with achieveing normal babyhood and you are correct in asssigning some importance to the fact of it being with wanted or not, which will have considerable effect on what kind of life it may have, and as someone else pointed out, that of the parents and siblings if there is something seriously wrong with it which is possible to assess early in the pregnancy, for a justifiable abortion. The main point is that it is no-one els'e business what the outcome is except the woman's with advice from partner, doctors family and friends. End result...HER decision.
Atheists and, um, pro-deathers believe a baby is just a clump of cells which is where the problems arise. We could do this all day, or we just could acknowledge that whether it's a baby or just a clump of cells solely depends on whether or not it's wanted.
As I stated accurately above, it is a clump of cells with a unique DNA which has the 'potential' to be come a human baby if a lot of things go well for it. JUST because it has unique DNA as some idiot said does not mean that it 'deserves' to progress to being a baby human ( an argument that the high level of natural miscarriages supports ) THere are many things that can interfere with achieveing normal babyhood and you are correct in asssigning some importance to the fact of it being with wanted or not, which will have considerable effect on what kind of life it may have, and as someone else pointed out, that of the parents and siblings if there is something seriously wrong with it which is possible to assess early in the pregnancy, for a justifiable abortion. The main point is that it is no-one els'e business what the outcome is except the woman's with advice from partner, doctors family and friends. End result...HER decision.
Let's say a woman is on her way to a clinic to have a clump of cells removed, but gets stabbed on the bus, effectively terminating the pregnancy. My bottom dollar says that clump of cells will automagically become a murdered baby.
If you aren't sure if your post will violate the ToS, just don't post it. Err on the side of caution and this forum will live a long and happy life.
As I stated accurately above, it is a clump of cells with a unique DNA which has the 'potential' to be come a human baby if a lot of things go well for it. JUST because it has unique DNA as some idiot said does not mean that it 'deserves' to progress to being a baby human ( an argument that the high level of natural miscarriages supports ) THere are many things that can interfere with achieveing normal babyhood and you are correct in asssigning some importance to the fact of it being with wanted or not, which will have considerable effect on what kind of life it may have, and as someone else pointed out, that of the parents and siblings if there is something seriously wrong with it which is possible to assess early in the pregnancy, for a justifiable abortion. The main point is that it is no-one els'e business what the outcome is except the woman's with advice from partner, doctors family and friends. End result...HER decision.
Let's say a woman is on her way to a clinic to have a clump of cells removed, but gets stabbed on the bus, effectively terminating the pregnancy. My bottom dollar says that clump of cells will automagically become a murdered baby.
I refer you back to your own statement:
whether it's a baby or just a clump of cells solely depends on whether or not it's wanted.
...except that it can't be a murdered 'baby' due to what I have outlined several times in this thread, however it would be an 'unlawfully terminated pregnancy by criminal violence', and assault on the mother. The issue of abortion is irrelevant in this case.
Let's say a woman is on her way to a clinic to have a clump of cells removed, but gets stabbed on the bus, effectively terminating the pregnancy. My bottom dollar says that clump of cells will automagically become a murdered baby.
I refer you back to your own statement:
whether it's a baby or just a clump of cells solely depends on whether or not it's wanted.
...except that it can't be a murdered 'baby' due to what I have outlined several times in this thread, however it would be an 'unlawfully terminated pregnancy by criminal violence', and assault on the mother. The issue of abortion is irrelevant in this case.
That is the exact statement I was clarifying by way of example, and yet still somehow you don't get it.
If you aren't sure if your post will violate the ToS, just don't post it. Err on the side of caution and this forum will live a long and happy life.
...except that it can't be a murdered 'baby' due to what I have outlined several times in this thread, however it would be an 'unlawfully terminated pregnancy by criminal violence', and assault on the mother. The issue of abortion is irrelevant in this case.
That is the exact statement I was clarifying by way of example, and yet still somehow you don't get it.