To what extent does Religion influence the decision making of women on abortion?

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think this is heading towards soliloquy.

Anyway, I think that your point regarding the consistency of decision where an anti-death penalty stance leads onto a "pro-life" stance is an important one, JA.

Yet there are many christians that support the death penalty... Or are they not true christians...?

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

Yet there are many christians that support the death penalty... Or are they not true christians...?

MrP

If I believed for a moment that you were actually interested in an answer, rather than your usual curt attempts at trolling, Pudding, I might actually give a proper response.

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

Yet there are many christians that support the death penalty... Or are they not true christians...?

MrP

It's a fair point.

It's broader than merely Christianity though. I would seriously question whether or not someone is in earnest pro-life if they are pro-death penalty. It if you will is equally valid in the reverse.

Dare I say, I find it tragically ironic when pro-life domestic terrorists in the US end up killing abortion practitioners.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If I believed for a moment that you were actually interested in an answer, rather than your usual curt attempts at trolling, Pudding, I might actually give a proper response.

This is not an attempt at trolling, I am genuinely interested. I have always thought it strange that people can be so vehemently anti abortion but equally vehement about murdering alleged criminals.

We don't have to look far in this forum to find people that adhere to this kind of moral code, and there are many other more high profile adherents to this worldview.

So, I am genuinely interested in an answer, and I am genuinely not trolling and an answer would be much appreciated.

MrP

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Are you just going to ignore what I've said then? You seem to be more interested in monologue and not dialogue.



Laws also exist to protect. Protecting children being one example. Our laws protect the unborn also.

Secular doesn't particularly matter. There are many atheists and agnostics in the pro-life movement.

Do you believe our laws shouldn't aim towards the right and the good where possible?



Divorce and contraceptives have nothing to do with life or death.

Abortion and the death penalty both do. I'm against both for the same reason. It would be inconsistent to be against the death penalty but yet be pro-choice. I don't see how it works honestly. Well, in your case in particular where you can't even tell us where the line begins in saying someone is alive.



Its not open to individual choice in this State. I hope it never is. It is a wholly barbaric situation that one would kill their own child.

Jackass I am not ignoring what you have said at all, I am not just giving the answers you and the others would wish to impose on me.

Now to your points -you speak of laws protecting our children, and then you refer to ''protect the unborn also''. So you do distuinguish between the shild and the unborn.

Secular matters a very great deal, it is not too long ago that similar arguments as are being used now were used against contraception and some would have us return to those ''great'' days.

And there are many committed christians in the pro-life movement (again another measuring competition)

As to where laws should aim , No i dont particularly believe they should aim toward the right and the good, the vast majority of laws are just practical arrangements and have nothing to do with right and good.

Divorce & contraception have nothing to do with death ! glad to hear it, though not what was being before-''thin end of the wedge'' and all that argument. do you dismiss that argument completely then.

If i understand you correctly , you believe life begins at conception , am I right in saying that ??

And If I dont agree with that definition I am at best wrong , a worst a murderer etc etc

And furthermore I if for aguments sake did agree with your position but felt any other individual should have the right to make up there own mind
I would still be wrong.

you could go on to say That if I did agree with you but was lax in spreading the message I am also in error. This could go on ad nauseum

All it boils down to is your way or the highway and as it is your way in Ireland 7000 women take the highway abroad each year.

But Heigh heigh -result ,no abortion in Ireland !

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

This is not an attempt at trolling, I am genuinely interested. I have always thought it strange that people can be so vehemently anti abortion but equally vehement about murdering alleged criminals.

We don't have to look far in this forum to find people that adhere to this kind of moral code, and there are many other more high profile adherents to this worldview.

So, I am genuinely interested in an answer, and I am genuinely not trolling and an answer would be much appreciated.

MrP

I find it difficult to read any of your posts on this forum without seeing the presence of some underlying jeering intent.

Still, I'll put aside my reservations for the moment and take your question to be a sincere one.

My simple response is that I don't know how these people justify their position. Perhaps they might say the obvious difference is choice. The unborn is the epitome of helplessness whereas the criminal makes their choice in the full knowledge of the consequences. But I'm not an apologist for capital punishment.

Perhaps they have some sublime understanding of the morality behind what appears to me to be a dichotomous position of stating that human life is sacrosanct, while also holding that life can be destroyed if a person fails societal standards.

Whatever their reasoning, I think it unhelpful to answer your own question by suggesting that they aren't "real Christians".

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

Dare I say, I find it tragically ironic when pro-life domestic terrorists in the US end up killing abortion practitioners.

My guess is that in murdering they believe are preventing a greater evil. Perhaps there is a certain twisted logic to it if they mangle the Just War theory.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Jackass I am not ignoring what you have said at all, I am not just giving the answers you and the others would wish to impose on me.

I don't want to impose any answer. I just want your answer which hasn't been given. No reasoning has been given which is why it is getting quite difficult to discuss.

marienbad wrote: »

Now to your points -you speak of laws protecting our children, and then you refer to ''protect the unborn also''. So you do distuinguish between the shild and the unborn.

The only differentiation is in age. The same way I distinguish between a baby and a toddler, or a teenager and an adult.

marienbad wrote: »

Secular matters a very great deal, it is not too long ago that similar arguments as are being used now were used against contraception and some would have us return to those ''great'' days.

If it is about secularism why are atheists and agnostics involved in the pro-life movement?

marienbad wrote: »

And there are many committed christians in the pro-life movement (again another measuring competition)

It's a human rights issue so people from every spectrum are going to be interested in it.

marienbad wrote: »

As to where laws should aim , No i dont particularly believe they should aim toward the right and the good, the vast majority of laws are just practical arrangements and have nothing to do with right and good.

Interesting. Personally, I really would like to live in a world where people did aim to do right and good by each other and where it threatens peoples liberties (including the right to life) to be backed sufficiently with law.

marienbad wrote: »

Divorce & contraception have nothing to do with death ! glad to hear it, though not what was being before-''thin end of the wedge'' and all that argument. do you dismiss that argument completely then.

It's not relevant to this thread. We can discuss divorce or contraceptives on another thread in this forum if you'd like but it only serves to obscure the discussion otherwise.

marienbad wrote: »

If i understand you correctly , you believe life begins at conception , am I right in saying that ??

Yes.

marienbad wrote: »

And If I dont agree with that definition I am at best wrong , a worst a murderer etc etc

It's not about agreement. If I agree that rape is socially acceptable, and if I never rape anyone, I have not committed a crime apart from to have a very unsavoury opinion on rape.

It is about what actions people take on the result of those beliefs that should have legal consequences.

marienbad wrote: »

And furthermore I if for aguments sake did agree with your position but felt any other individual should have the right to make up there own mind
I would still be wrong.

I don't see how logically you could agree with my position (that it is taking another persons life) and say that individuals should have the right to make up their own mind. What is saying that I can't decide whether or not my best friend lives or dies. What if I think 30 is too old and indeed he wouldn't be the same guy I knew when he was in his twenties?

If it is taking another persons life, why shouldn't I have the right to take life dependent on my beliefs or circumstances?

What if I believe that I should have the right to do this?

marienbad wrote: »

All it boils down to is your way or the highway and as it is your way in Ireland 7000 women take the highway abroad each year.

The latest figures I've seen have been around 4,400. Where are you getting 7,000 from?

Even if it was 7,000, this is still well over 1,000 less abortions than took place in Wales in 2008 according to the Guardian.

Between 2008 and 2009 there was a drop in the number of Irish abortions (I'm fairly sure this includes Northern Ireland).

Less abortions take place here than in Wales which is a country of similar population. The difference? Abortion by choice is illegal in Ireland.

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

If i understand you correctly , you believe life begins at conception

Just about any relevant definition of life you care to apply would suggest that life begins at conception.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I find it difficult to read any of your posts on this forum without seeing the presence of some underlying jeering intent.

Why thank you, I'm touched.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Still, I'll put aside my reservations for the moment and take your question to be a sincere one.

Thank you.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My simple response is that I don't know how these people justify their position. Perhaps they might say the obvious difference is choice. The unborn is the epitome of helplessness whereas the criminal makes their choice in the full knowledge of the consequences. But I'm not an apologist for capital punishment.

I think that is probably the main line of reasoning, though it does not sit quite right with me. Either human life is sacred or it isn't, I find the line that they acted in full knowledge to be not quite satisfying. I appreciate that you are not an apologist for capital punishment, but I think you have still manage to hit the nail on the head.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps they have some sublime understanding of the morality behind what appears to me to be a dichotomous position of stating that human life is sacrosanct, while also holding that life can be destroyed if a person fails societal standards.

This is exactly my problem. When you consider the history of capital punishment and look at the types of minor crime people used to be put to death for, it is clear that capital punishment is not decided by some overriding universal moral constant, but at the whim of the society in which it is used.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Whatever their reasoning, I think it unhelpful to answer your own question by suggesting that they aren't "real Christians".

I did not answer my own question, it was typed with tongue firmly in cheek. I said it because the "not proper christians" is rolled out on occasion, and it seems like this could be one such occasion. No offence was meant by it.

I am at the opposite end of the spectrum from this type of christian. I and firmly pro-choice / baby murdering and very firmly anti-capital punishment.

MrP

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Just about any relevant definition of life you care to apply would suggest that life begins at conception.

in the context of this discussion that depends on your point of view,on the whole human person /human being/ sense of pain etc. I really dont see it as relevant to the issue.of choice.

There are differing views from yours out there and not of the crackpot variety either. thay are just as validly held and substantiated as yours.

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

Why thank you, I'm touched.

Just calling it how I see it.

MrPudding wrote: »

It is clear that capital punishment is not decided by some overriding universal moral constant, but at the whim of the society in which it is used.

I'm not sure that anyone would argue otherwise. The question from the perspective of the Christian is whether societies decision on X, Y or Z is one an the same as God's will.

MrPudding wrote: »

I am at the opposite end of the spectrum from this type of christian. I and firmly pro-choice / baby murdering and very firmly anti-capital punishment.

Then ideologically I think you probably have more in common with them than you do me.

Festus

p

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Science says that from fertilization until death it is a member of homo sapiens, what we call in English a human being.

No it doesn't. It says that at fertilization we have the construction of a unique genetic code. This code will begin a process of catalysis, and the cell will develop from a zygote to an embryo, to a fetus, to a child, to an adult. At what point we consider a member of homo sapiens to emerge is not a scientific question.

A major advantage of declaring the moment of conception as the moment a new human being emerges is it is convenient. While most of the processes that go on in the womb, such as the development of a brain, heart, lungs etc are gradual, conception is relatively quick and represents a clear-cut point. But other than that, it seems somewhat arbitrary. I am not compelled to see an embryo as anything more than an instruction set that will assemble a human being. Similarly, a human being could have a genetic sequence constructed from skittles for all I care, as I would still consider them a human being regardless of their DNA.

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

in the context of this discussion that depends on your point of view,on the whole human person /human being/ sense of pain etc. I really dont see it as relevant to the issue.of choice.

OK, so defining what life is isn't all that important?

marienbad wrote: »

There are differing views from yours out there and not of the crackpot variety either. thay are just as validly held and substantiated as yours.

When did I ever deny that there were opposing views out there? This whole thread and every other debate on abortion is testament to reality that different people have different views. I think you are so desperate to paint others as intolerant that you come across as rather intolerant yourself.

Festus

p

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, so defining what life is isn't all that important?



When did I ever deny that there were opposing views out there? This whole thread and every other debate on abortion is testament to reality that different people have different views. I think you are so desperate to paint others as intolerant that you come across as rather intolerant yourself.

When you start decending to that type of comment maybe it is time for me to go. The fundamental tenet of my view is based on tolerance and the rights of others to hold and act on their views as they see fit in all matters of concience as long as they remain within the law of the land.

The is why we export own problems to another jurisdiction where it is a matter of concience.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

I suggest you do some research.

An embryo is not a blueprint. The blueprint is already in the DNA of every cell in the embryo and the embryo is a growing human being.

The arguement you are attempting to present is an argument that suggests there are some humans who are not human.

From your argument I surmise that your genetic code is constructed from skittles and therefore you are not human.

I never said an embryo is just a blueprint. And my argument is that a human embryo is not necessarily a human being, as our genetic code does not define our humanity.

But I notice you have not actually addressed the argument, but have (again) resorted to insults. This childish streak is common in your posts.

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

When you start decending to that type of comment maybe it is time for me to go. The fundamental tenet of my view is based on tolerance and the rights of others to hold and act on their views as they see fit in all matters of concience as long as they remain within the law of the land.

And if the law of the land say that infanticide is acceptable then what? A casual glance a our history suggests that genocide has often been approved of by those in power as much as the man on the street.

I really dislike the post-modern notion that one "truth" is as good as the next, and the only big no-no is having a strong view that someone is utterly mistaken.

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And if the law of the land say that infanticide is acceptable then what? A casual glance a our history suggests that genocide has often been approved of by those in power as much as the man on the street.

I really dislike the post-modern notion that one "truth" is as good as the next, and the only big no-no is having a strong view that someone is utterly mistaken.

I completely agree with you on the vagaries and injustice often inherent in the law of the land and if you want to discuss that no prob.

but then you postulate that ''one truth'' is as good as the next is incorrect. O.k so how do we arrive at the true ''one truth''.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

but then you postulate that ''one truth'' is as good as the next is incorrect. O.k so how do we arrive at the true ''one truth''.

In this forum the answer will be obvious

If you think about it nobody believes that one truth is as good as the next. If someone believes that genocide is acceptable, not many are going to say that this is as right as what they think should be the case. Nobody believes this, not even you.

If you did. If I wanted to go field shooting Scotsmen outside a pub in Edinburgh on a Sunday evening for a bit of recreation nobody would say "Ah, he's just having his fun leave him at it. His version of good is just as good as mine". I'd be arrested (hopefully).

Festus

p

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

The is why we export own problems to another jurisdiction where it is a matter of concience.

We don't export them. They go of their own free will. To suggest we export them is to suggest they are no more than cattle.

Would that there was no where for them to go and that all countries recognised that all humans regardless of age or place of living enjoyed the same right to life.

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

In this forum the answer will be obvious

If you think about it nobody believes that one truth is as good as the next. If someone believes that genocide is acceptable, not many are going to say that this is as right as what they think should be the case. Nobody believes this, not even you.

If you did. If I wanted to go field shooting Scotsmen outside a pub in Edinburgh on a Sunday evening for a bit of recreation nobody would say "Ah, he's just having his fun leave him at it. His version of good is just as good as mine". I'd be arrested (hopefully).

Oblige me then Jakkass, why not state the obvious answer ?

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

We don't export them. They go of their own free will. To suggest we export them is to suggest they are no more than cattle.

Would that there was no where for them to go and that all countries recognised that all humans regardless of age or place of living enjoyed the same right to life.

Would you prevent them from travelling then if you had the legal means to do so and you knew they were going to procure an abortion ?

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Oblige me then Jakkass, why not state the obvious answer ?

Well, since Christians believe that God is Lord over all, Christians believe God is the ultimate authority as to what is right or wrong.

Do you have any thoughts as to the rest of my post?

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

Would you prevent them from travelling then if you had the legal means to do so and you knew they were going to procure an abortion ?

Read what I said. My preference is for all jurisdictions to recognise and protect all humans regardless of age or where they happen to be living.

Would you prevent a paedophile from travelling to Spain or Chile if you knew they were doing so to avail of an age of consent that is lower than it is here?

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

Read what I said. My preference is for all jurisdictions to recognise and protect all humans regardless of age or where they happen to be living.

Would you prevent a paedophile from travelling to Spain or Chile if you knew they were doing so to avail of an age of consent that is lower than it is here?

You are quick to demand answers, but slow to give them.

Would you advocate prevention ? yes or no

philologos

marienbad - If you're not willing to deal with other peoples posts why should they deal with yours. It's a little unfair no?

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, since Christians believe that God is Lord over all, Christians believe God is the ultimate authority as to what is right or wrong.

Do you have any thoughts as to the rest of my post?

by the rest rest of your post do you mean shooting scotsmen etc ? It just dosnt apply , same as the 4year old mozart juggling 58 balls. I am sorry we will have to disagree there. Some believe life begins at conception ,some dont.

If I understand you on Christian belief correctly, you would use that ethos as the basis of right and wrong ? Is that a fair thing to say ?

Would you make that belief the law of the land ?

philologos

It does apply. If you have read the logic I gave. You're ignoring the posts repeatedly!

As for God being the source of right and wrong, yes certainly. As to what should be the law of the land. Humans cannot be trusted to adequately be moral legislators. Therefore we should only legislate laws that protect peoples freedom. Protecting the right to life is important, therefore I oppose abortion, because I support liberty and freedom to live as I live. I have been blessed with the right to live, and I don't believe that all should be born free, but all should be born with opportunities to succeed in life.

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

marienbad - If you're not willing to deal with other peoples posts why should they deal with yours. It's a little unfair no?

I have answered every post to the best of my ability, (and without the level of snide comment you and Festus seem to delight in) .

You insist on trying to make this a discussion on when life begins, I have not said what I think one way or the other on that issue, it is an open question, but it is not the issue I have mainly concerned with which is individual concience and the right to choose.

Now will you answer the question ?

Would you prevent women going abroad for abortion if you had the means to do so ? Yes or no

Fanny Cradock

I heard Jackass been called a few names in the past but snide was never one of them. I can't imagine how you get mockery out of his posts.

philologos

marienbad - I really want to talk to you, but you're actually not willing to listen to what people are saying. It's very frustrating

As Fanny Craddock has said, I don't want to mock, I want to have a proper discussion. Not a Q&A session.

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

You are quick to demand answers, but slow to give them.

The questions are designed to make you think.

marienbad wrote: »

Would you advocate prevention ? yes or no

Would you advocate the prevention of a woman travelling to another jurisdiction where she will be legally raped and her child legally murdered if she wishes to this done to her of her own free will?

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

I have answered every post to the best of my ability, (and without the level of snide comment you and Festus seem to delight in) .

I think you'll find I'm the snide one :rolleyes: and generally only with those who provoke it.

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

You insist on trying to make this a discussion on when life begins, I have not said what I think one way or the other on that issue, it is an open question, but it is not the issue I have mainly concerned with which is individual concience and the right to choose.

I think you'll find that would be my point. So the right to choose what? Murder?

That the life of all human beings begins at conception is a scientific fact. The life of a new human being begins at no other point in their life.
The destruction of that life if done wilfully and directly and for no other reason other than to prevent that person being born is murder.

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

marienbad - I really want to talk to you, but you're actually not willing to listen to what people are saying. It's very frustrating

I have listened to every single person on this thread ( Have I misunderstood ? Possible , but I dont think so). And I am always willing to listen . It is only being brought up by you, festus, and one of the mods, all in favour of the prolive view and anti pro choice. And all in attempt to elicit answers in a semantic way that will not shed any light on the issues and will certainly not win hearts and minds.

What Questions do you want to ask ? I have no problem answering any questions , but I expect the same in return.

please keep them simple:)

philologos

You've not responded to the questions that you've been asked already, but yet insist that we answer your questions. It's confusing to say the least

I think the thread has gone past it's original question which is what impact does religion have in abortion, rather than is abortion right or wrong. I wish you the best marienbad, but I'm afraid I'm out.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

I address your point

No you didn't. My point was that our DNA, while good at helping understand out place in natural history, does not define our humanity. I do not care if a human being has human DNA, or DNA made out of skittles. It is utterly incidental.

an instruction set is a blueprint.

That assembles things? Blueprints cannot assemble things. An embryo, on the other hand, has chemicals which catalyse and react to the DNA to start producing cells. These cells will eventually differentiate into the various kinds of cells needed to grow something with a human mind. This is why I explicitly used the phrase "that assembles a human being". If you don't like the use of the word embryo, I can consider a zygote just as easily.

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

You've not responded to the questions that you've been asked already, but yet insist that we answer your questions. It's confusing to say the least

I think the thread has gone past it's original question which is what impact does religion have in abortion, rather than is abortion right or wrong.

Ok jakkass, the thread went adrift after about the first 6 post, as I have said I have answered all questions maybe not to your satisfaction, but answered non the less. And by the way answered a lot more than I asked.

I have also invited you to ask any direct questions you wish and I will answer to the best of my ability and in good faith, provided you and festus etc do the same. What more can I do ?

You seem to be now willing to close down the debate as it gets to is most
interesting aspects.

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

I think you'll find I'm the snide one :rolleyes:

We'll see when you've been posting here for 5 years :pac:. My remark wasn't intended as a swipe at you, it just I've never associated snideness with JA.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We'll see when you've been posting here for 5 years :pac:. My remark wasn't intended as a swipe at you, it just I've never associated snideness with JA.

Oh I understand that and no offense taken.
Snide would be a little harsh. Acerbic would be more correct

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

Oh I understand that and no offense taken.
Snide would be a little harsh. Acerbic would be more correct

No Festus, snide is spot on, acerbic usually has some wit involved even if on the sour side:)

Festus

pish

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

No Festus, snide is spot on, acerbic usually has some wit involved even if on the sour side:)

Dictionaries are available on the internet. PM me if you need links.

lmaopml

I think this debate inevitably goes back to when we believe a feotus in utero is 'human' or even 'human enough' and valuable, and whether the potential for human life once set in motion is worthy of protection - the same as a baby outside the uterus is.....or even one that has reached the second/third trimester, which most believe is worthy of protection.

The thing about a zygot is that most people don't even know they are pregnant at that stage...and at weeks 6-8 we have brain activity and a beating heart in a 'human' feotus...



I never understood how people can justify the early termination more than the later termination ( and thank God, I've never travelled in those shoes ) to themselves - the difference in 'value for potential' of a feotus of 12 weeks as not human enough, and one of 20 weeks that is more human just sounds like semantics.....We don't value any other humans more for their longevity or superior functioning power.

It never made sense to me, both have brain activity but neither is conscious as far as I know? Actually, I don't think a newborn baby is fully 'conscious' and aware either...

It's a sad debate all round. I know Ireland 'export' a problem.....that doesn't exactly 'solve' it either.... I'm not sure I fully agree with this, as I feel my soul shake with pity for some of these women......

However, I don't see an easy 'solution'. To have an abortion one must believe I guess that the feotus is not worth the same as a child is..

It seems we're stuck with it though, women will have abortions, always have....even if it's a backstreet hack. I think if there is any 'common' ground between the pro-life and pro-choice campaign worthy of extra effort, it is that both would like to see a way of 'reducing' the amount of women finding themselves in a situation where they feel an abortion is the only way....



Anyway, this topic is fairly upsetting I must say...Just my tuppence..

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

I have no problem with the terminology. What I have a problem with is the attempt to declare that science cannot say what is human and what is not once a human being is conceived when it patently can and your displays of ignorance of biology, embryology and human development in an effort to move the discussion towards what makes a human human.

I have not "displayed ignorance" of them. Instead, you have displayed ignorance of demarcation in science. I have already told you that I consider the embryo to be a human embryo. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether a human embryo is a human "being". To answer that, we must understand what a human "being" is, and that is not a scientific question. I, for example, couldn't care less about what DNA people have. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not I see them as human beings.

To declare some humans are not human is the fallacious core of the pro-abortion mentalitly. So forgive me, but if you are capable of considering a human being in the uterus to be less than human then allow me the latitude to consider those, like yourself who hold to this, to be equally subhuman.

I have corrected you on this before. It is not being claimed that some humans are not humans. It is being claimed that a human embryo is not necessarily a human being.

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

Anyway, this topic is fairly upsetting I must say...Just my tuppence..

Indeed:( I've even heard some on these boards refer to the unborn as a parasite. A PARASITE for petes sake! Then they get all technical about the definition of a parasite in order to defend their position. Its lamentable. I couldn't care less about science or studies or scientists etc in this subject. A human is given life at conception. It grows from there. The rest is just a debate about at what stage of a humans development is it ok to extinguish their life. It disgusts me. EDIT: Actually, disgusts is probably not true to how it makes me feel. Saddens, perplexes and baffles would probably be more accurate.

I empathise with rape victims etc, who find themselves in these circumstances. However, we should not devalue life so that they can feel easier about killing their unborn. If they do decide to do such a thing, they should know that they are killing a baby.

Festus

p