It has human DNA. The human DNA an amalgamation of two different humans. Buuuut in the time between a zygote and the point where discernable human characteristics are noticed, it is not human?

Can I kill an infant? It certainly isn't a fully developed human...

It cannot self sustain. It must be physically attatched to the mother in order to function. It is not a human being yet.

Once born, it can sustain, but it still needs to be fed. Before... what is it... like 6 months... if you take the fetus out it will certainly die. After that point, it's a human being. If it can live outside the womb, it's a human being. Up until that point, it's a fetus.

And don't give me some **** about how it's going to be a person, because odds are that you've masturbated within the last 48 hours, and if you have, you've killed many potential people.

And God's plan can stay out of this. God's plan doesn't seem to be working too well for the cancer patients. We have some procedures for that as well. I don't hear you harping about how chemo kills cancer cells.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

AGAIN, the debate is crapped out.

The argument HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FETUS other than THE GIRL IS PREGNEANT.

Discussion at Hand = Does abortion negate sexual responsibility.

This just in: the retarded, comatose, and elderly are no longer considered human.



A sperm can sit there for all eternity and not become anything more than a sperm cell.



What a piss-poor argument. By that logic, falling down and scraping your knee is against God's plan.



No, it does not. Anyone who thinks otherwise is akin to the brilliant morons that caused the explosion of STDs in the homosexual (and now heterosexual) communities.

If it were that the people getting an abortion because they were too damn lazy to use protection were jailed after the abortion, then it would be hard to not learn responsibility about it. Especially if you tossed in some harsher punishments.

It should be a federal offense for stupid breeding.

Get over it people. Bottom line:


Whether you're oppposed or for abortion, the decision is up to the person who decides to have or not have one, and nobody else's. If you don't like their choice, tough ****. Deal with your own life.

Exactly.

Regardless of what we conclude, it's important that there isn't any legislation against abortion, so that couples can have this exact discussion for themselves.

So you're basically saying (whether you realize it or not) is that it's ok for a woman to completely screw up her child's life for her own selfish desires. It's hard not to be for abortion with views like that.

You admitted it's a living entity. THEREFORE, it must be a specific species.
Your provision of such a generic answer indicates you have no basis for your argument.
Shoot. I understood that around 11, and I'm a friggin' guy.
That argument fails horribly. Everything need nourishment, no matter how old it is. The manner in which that nourishment is attained is 100% irrelevant.


Except sperm doesn't contain any human DNA pairs. Nor does an egg, if you're going to argue menstration, too.


It's rather ironic that the atheists are bringing up crap about "God's plan" while the religious in this thread haven't even brought it up. Try arguing about things actually mentioned first.

*sigh*
Our individual cells compose ONE single mult-cellular organism. They are not seperate organisms of their own. Rip your skin off and see how long it survives.


In reality, this practice fails. Nobody is 100% independant. If we only dealt with our own life, we wouldn't need laws, and everything would quite literally be in chaos. It is a uniquely introverted person that does not care for the needs of others, including the unborn.

Whoah there, sparky. This thread was perfectly civil until you decided to crash it. Calm down...

His post is fine. He's merely providing counterpoints to all that was said.

Quick edit: To which I'll say are well done.

Yeah, right.

Really.

If you make a mistake, in my eyes you should suffer the consequences.

There are way too many "oops" I was lazy and irresponsible abortions.

He didn't say anything about it being 'right' (which still depends on your morals. I hate how people say that fetus' ARE children though--that's the thing that's up for debate right now! And said people (including you) base their whole code of morals around this highly debated opinion, which is why abortion is pretty much here to stay)



It takes girls a lot, lot longer to realize things like this, and I'm sure you 'understood' it, but you may not have FULLY understood it. Not only that, but sex ed both in and out of class is nowhere near uniform across the nation, so ages may differ on when full realization hits.

Yeah, if you've come of age. This girl is still 13. You don't put a kid in jail for 5 years for stealing for a reason, and neither do you put them in jail for 20 years for drug abuse for a reason.

Exactly!

I think a 13 year old, a girl especially understands the outcome of sex.

98% of the time thats part of the "Parental unit, why is my hoo-ha bleeding profusely" discussion.

Crap, I sorta missed this thread, didn't I. Oh well. Just FYI, though, very few people would be able to surivive on thier own with out other humans around to help them.

Which is why you should move... to Antartica...

So you just said that you want Obi to go die somewhere... How is that relevent to this topic?

The difference:

I didn't start debating something near completely different. I just made an offhand comment.

I think you've taken the example I gave out of context. And Freelancer too, apparently. It's quite simple: If a woman does things like that while pregnant, the child suffers for it too, often for the rest of it's life. It doesn't matter when especially when the effects are permanent or long-lasting. It's not exactly earth-shattering logic.

Great counterpoint.


None of you have yet to show why a fetus isn't human. I (and several others) have fulfilled our burden of proof, and unless someone provides a factual counterpoint, this debate is over.

The fact is, abortion is here to stay because it's not evident at what point a zygote becomes life. End of debate.

Thats not even PART of this debate, damnit..

Go start a thread about that if you wanted to debate it.

Biological definition of life.

A zygote grows, it consumes nutrients and stores energy, it replicates itself, and it responds to stimulation.

How does it respond to stimulation?

Give her the benefit of a doubt. She's 13. For chrissakes, I'm not just talking about the consequences of sex, I'm talking about the consequences of the consequences. What it will do, how it will affect her life. Etc.

So?

I mean yeah she's probably not going to do it again, but is that stopping anyone else?

Making people more responsible for their actions is the best way to get other people to be more responsible.

Yeah, but you'd ruin her life, ruin the baby's life, ruin EVERYONE IN THE SITUATION'S LIFE if you forced her to keep this baby. All in the name of 'teaching her a lesson'?

No, that's not stopping anyone else. That's why we need to teach girls about what the consequences are sooner, to prevent more of this bull****. Seriously, making her an example is not a good solution to this problem. It won't stop it from happening anywhere else, and it won't do any good for her or the family.

If people understood, that you would be held accountable for your actions than, yes it would be a deterrant against stupid behavior.

It's why we have laws in the first place.

And note, I include the sleeze that fertilized her seed in this equation.

You butter your damn bread, now freaking eat it.

If you want instant sexual gratification, you can masturbate. There are no 'consequences' or 'responsibilities' to masturbation, other than the cost of a few kleenex tissues. Free sex, sex without responsibility, is just two individuals basically masturbating together.

...

You say the most ridiculous things.

You know, I'm liberal, especially on this issue, but this is just stupid. You do realize that this attitude is why venereal diseases are so widespread right? This is why so many have died of AIDS, suffer from siphilis, etc?

Seriously.

It's not, eh?
Then tell me, how does it manage to attach to the uterine wall if it's not alive? (Happens, btw, within only the first 2 weeks after the egg is fertilized.)


The above is one of many examples. Bottom line is that anything alive responds to stimulation in some way, and if it doesn't, it's dead.


Masturbation != sex
Regardless of whether it's mutual, or if you're going solo.

dude hitler killed babies

AIDs in Africa is not from irresponsible sex, it is from uneducated sex. It is not because Africans are all crazy sexbeasts having rampant sex with everyone else, it is because they are not educated as to using condoms. Sex with a condom is no more 'responsible sex', you're having just as much sex as you would otherwise.

No, human DNA is a set of instructions for creating an amalgamation of two different humans. Rather large difference there.

And the issue isn't whether it's "life." Salad is technically "life." So is tofu. And cereal. If you want to go around preventing all "life" from being killed good luck with that.

<3

Mort--you can still catch venereal diseases with condoms on. And if the Africans didn't have rampant amounts of sex, they wouldn't have AIDS so widely spread, now would they?

Oh, but of course it all lies on the fact that they were 'uneducated'.

There were actually magazines (after the eruption of STDs among homosexuals) aimed at homosexuals with ads encouraging them to not use condoms because "it feels better." Sexual irresponsibility, not ignorance, is what has led to the explosion of STDs in homosexual (and now heterosexual) communities.

And Yoshi is right - STDs can still be spread, even with protection. A woman who has herpes can transmit it to a man because her...fluids...are not contained within a condom. I suppose if you really wanted to be almost 100% safe, you could do diaphragm + condom.



Uh...no. The DNA is 23 chromosomes from the mother, and 23 from the father, forming a full set of 46 chromosomes. That is an amalgamation.



No, they aren't. Salad, tofu, and cereal don't multiply, don't respond to stimulation, don't consume and store energy, and do not grow. They are not biologically alive. Thus, your example is nullified.