Whats the Harm...

Originally posted by Soothfast
Not if it can't survive apart from the mother's body. An embryo is no more a human life than an acorn is an oak.

You can think what you want, but it's ultimately none of your damn business.

Embryos can survive outside of the mother's body, that's why embryonic stem-cell research is done on living embryos, and also why they can be frozen. So, yet again, your point is to no avail.

And of course it's none of my business. Never said it was.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think the matter is quite clear, perhaps you need to read the statement again, at
conception, do you have conception when the sperm is 1mm away from the surface of
the egg? No, well what are you havering about and whether consciousness is present or
not is irrelevant, that fact of the matter is, you have no right to deny life, once it has
been conceived.

So you have a sample of sperm and egg combo's, one of which is human, the other animals like pigs, horses, cows, dogs. You look at each one and decide which one is human. That one gets implanted, the others discarded.

Are those zygotes worth more than another? How will you decide which one is the human?

Originally posted by vivify
Embryos can survive outside of the mother's body, that's why embryonic stem-cell research is done on living embryos, and also why they can be frozen. So, yet again, your point is to no avail.

And of course it's none of my business. Never said it was.

Embryos cannot survive on their own. Life support is required.

Stem cells, by the way, are basically grown in a petrie dish.

The debate is absurd. A zygote is not a human life in any meaningful sense of the word. Neither is an embryo or a fetus. The contrary argument is based on a "feeling" that cannot be substantiated save with colorful interpretations of scripture or arrogant assumptions about what some god's "will" must be on the matter. From both a secular and religious perspective the "pro-life" movement is nothing short of hysterical, in the clinical sense, to a degree that can only be explained as being motivated by a desire to control the lives of others.

This is an issue that makes it clear to me that it's high time to start taxing churches in the U.S. -- at a rate proportional to their political activism. Southern Baptist churches we should tax at a rate of 90%.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you have a sample of sperm and egg combo's, one of which is human, the other animals like pigs, horses, cows, dogs. You look at each one and decide which one is human. That one gets implanted, the others discarded.

Are those zygotes worth more than another? How will you decide which one is the human?

your arguments border on the absurd, we are not talking of research, we are talking of the beginning of human life which you have no authority under any guise to terminate. Your consciousness argument is equally ludicrous otherwise it would be lawful to kill anyone you found that happened to be unconscious at the time.

Originally posted by galveston75
What if a doctor informs a pregnant woman that carrying her child full term may put her life in danger?

Dr. Alan Guttmacher stated: “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save lif ...[text shortened]... ave the abortion one must accept God's laws and be willing to accept the possible consequences.

What if a doctor informs a pregnant woman that carrying her child full term may put her life in danger?

Like in all or most cases, it's her decision.

Despite your quotes, ectopic pregnancies happen in 2%. You may say that's rare and that's fine, but it's still a real situation women get into and it's ridiculous to save the embryo only to kill the woman and the embryo.

Also, yes, now it is much more rare to die during pregnancy or delivery - but it does happen. It is not up to you to force a woman to take that risk. It's up to her.

One should never take the life of an unborn child especially if it is out of not wanting that child for selfish reasons.

Sure, fine. So what? That doesn't give you the right to impose a law that prevents someone from making that choice.

Like the vast majority of people (even those who are pro-choice), I don't want there to be many abortions. The best way to prevent abortions though is to prevent the prerequisite: unwanted pregnancies. You do that by providing real sex education (i.e. NOT abstnence/ignorance only), easy access to contraceptives among other things.

The woman has ultimate rights to her own body to choose what is done with it - that includes the embryo or fetus.

As for rape, sure he fetus is not at fault for that rape, but it is also completely unreasonable to punish the rape victim further by forcing her to take the risks involved with a pregnancy and to carry that child if she doesn't want to.

I don't really acknowledge that the fetus has any rights that overrides the woman's right to control her own body- which includes the right to not have a fetus growing inside her.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
[b]What if a doctor informs a pregnant woman that carrying her child full term may put her life in danger?

Like in all or most cases, it's her decision.

Despite your quotes, ectopic pregnancies happen in 2%. You may say that's rare and that's fine, but it's still a real situation women get into and it's ridiculous to save the embryo only to kil ontrol her own body- which includes the right to not have a fetus growing inside her.[/b]

Your view is your view and you have your own opinion. Every person on the planet can decide on their own what they would do in any situation. I would never force anyone to do differently.
But everyone needs to know that ALL LIFE belongs to God as the Bible clearly explains many times.
For whatever reason a person takes the life of another no matter how big or small, they will have to account to God for that action.

Originally posted by galveston75

But everyone needs to know that ALL LIFE belongs to God as the Bible clearly explains many times.

I don't belong to anyone or anything but myself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your arguments border on the absurd, we are not talking of research, we are talking of the beginning of human life which you have no authority under any guise to terminate. Your consciousness argument is equally ludicrous otherwise it would be lawful to kill anyone you found that happened to be unconscious at the time.

Not true, if someone is unconscious but alive, blood still flows, brain cells are still active but maybe on a lower level. That is not the same thing in the slightest.
A zygote has ZERO cells in it that can be identified as brain cells, heart, etc., since they haven't differentiated yet. They are EXACTLY the same as a goat or horse at that point in time. There isn't even the beginning of a brain yet so there is ZERO possibility of consciousness.

The point I am making is you cannot tell the difference between a human zygote and a goat zygote because they are still in such an early stage of development.

This sanctity of life issue is absurd in itself when there are 8 billion people on the planet and millions more born each year, to the point where the planet is choking with people, enough for any real disaster to kill billions like the start of an ice age.

The sanctity of life issue is just a dodge to get religious people to reproduce like rabbits so their particular religion can get as many followers as possible, a political move for power.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Not true, if someone is unconscious but alive, blood still flows, brain cells are still active but maybe on a lower level. That is not the same thing in the slightest.
A zygote has ZERO cells in it that can be identified as brain cells, heart, etc., since they haven't differentiated yet. They are EXACTLY the same as a goat or horse at that point in time. T o their particular religion can get as many followers as possible, a political move for power.

bwhahaha, now I know you are joker for sure, you are blaming population growth on
the religious, that's funny, that's real funny! so if you are not conscious, you can be
killed and if you are religious you should be neutered, feels bum to make sure he's not
dreaming.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
bwhahaha, now I know you are joker for sure, you are blaming population growth on
the religious, that's funny, thats real funny!

Lol. I agree. But did you not get your order for all Christians to get busy with it and have as many children as us Christians can? I did and I'm up to 47 kids now and planning for 30 more.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
bwhahaha, now I know you are joker for sure, you are blaming population growth on
the religious, that's funny, that's real funny! so if you are not conscious, you can be
killed and if you are religious you should be neutered, feels bum to make sure he's not
dreaming.

You are forgetting the part in the bible that people take to heart, be fruitful and multiply? That was not speaking to the idea of learning math.....
Catholics certainly took that to heart and lo and behold, 1 billion of them on the planet now or close to it. That was not an accident, that was designed into the religion specifically to grow as many catholics as humanly possible in as short a time as humanly possible so they can become, did become, a world power, a political game having nothing to do with spirituality.

If the population is very low, like it has been shown to have happened in the deep past, the entire human race down to a few hundred people, the sanctity of life is a real issue. With 8 billion of us, where do you get off still touting the sanctity of life?

I also said if someone is unconscious they are still breathing, still pumping blood so that would be murder pure and simple.

Zygotes die all the time, something happens that they say, don't get the right nutrition or oxygen from mom and that is the end of that zygote. So you figure it is your god personally saying to each zygote whether it is to live or die?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I don't belong to anyone or anything but myself.

lol, so lonely!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, so lonely!

I'm not lonely at all.

I have a loving family and friends. They simply don't own me as I don't own them.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Embryos cannot survive on their own. Life support is required.

Same with an infant. Doesn't mean it's not a life now, does it?

The debate is absurd. A zygote is not a human life in any meaningful sense of the word. Neither is an embryo or a fetus. The contrary argument is based on a "feeling" that cannot be substantiated save with colorful interpretations of scripture or arrogant assumptions about what some god's "will" must be on the matter. From both a secular and religious perspective the "pro-life" movement is nothing short of hysterical, in the clinical sense, to a degree that can only be explained as being motivated by a desire to control the lives of others.

Pay attention to your own argument: you use the word "meaningful" when saying an unborn isn't a life, then go on to use "feeling" to describe pro-lifers as wrong. You're using two similar subjective concepts to justify your position, while trashing the other.

Secondly, I have no desire to control what people do. I don't think abortion should be illegal, even though I disagree with it. So your generalization that being pro-life has to do with "control" of the lives of others, is wrong.

Originally posted by galveston75
I think the point that is being missed here is this. God is the one and the one only that starts the process of all life. Nothing in the universe comes to life without God's spirit giving it that spark of being a living human, plant, animal, etc.
No different then having gasoline and oxygen together in an engine, but the life of that engine will not st ...[text shortened]... arts it. Man has no right at anytime after this to termenate the life that he alone started.

I think the point that is being missed here is this. God is the one and the one only that starts the process of all life.
Nothing in the universe comes to life without God's spirit giving it that spark of being a living human, plant, animal, etc.

But god doesn't exist, there is no 'spark', no soul, no spirit, no life force, no afterlife.

These things don't exist.

There is just matter obeying the laws of physics.

You have no rational/experimental/evidence based/scientific basis for your belief that a god exists.

And your version of god is but one among many.

Some of which agree with you on this issue, others don't.

Given that imposing views based in religion (right or wrong) is to create a theocracy.

Any argument for a secular democracy that allows freedom of religion and thus also necessarily freedom from religion, CANNOT
be based on the assumption that a particular god exists.




So do you have any arguments that don't in ANY way rely on the existence/truth of your god/religion?


Because in a question on what should be legally allowed in a secular (multi-faith) western democracy can't be based on anyone's
religious beliefs.



Any and all arguments that rely on your god to work are just going to be dismissed by any and all atheists (and everyone who doesn't
believe in your particular god) who will simply say "your god doesn't exist."