Oh...it's not a 'baby' or a 'person' - it's just a FETUS...a clump of tissue!

[deaddude]

life: moving, having DNA, Requiring food, maturation, dying, there are other qualifiers, but I cant remember them.


Human life: a collective of cells working together to form a complex organism, all acting together under the command of the brain cells which are relayed through out the body by nerve cells, all working together for the good the collective whole. As a colective the brain cells of a fully functioning human should be capable of emotions and should be able to differentiate between pleasureable and painful stimuli. Self awareness is one of the defineing factors of a human.

In infancy (or fetal developement) it is the capability of emotion that seperates the humans (and a few other primates) from the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Aj said:
Joker you have a nice thought process but I find a something a little amiss in your statement. You seem to think that sex should only be used or found necessary for reproduction. Then you say that 'society has made sex acceptable as an activity and ignored its true purpose.'

If that were the case, then what is the necessity for married people who have passed the age of conception to have a sex life?

Sounds harsh but, who said they were ment to??? It's not the basis of mariage.
Aj:
You also ask "how do WE fix the REAL problem????"

My question to you is why is it our duty or place to fix any problem that has nothing whatsoever to do with US?

Maybe the problem lies with a personal private decision for a woman and/or man to make between themselves and their own conscious?

Sure it's our duty. If this mentallity evolves what will come next???
The problem presented already degrades the quality of human life.

 

[musicman]

AJ:

"The Constitution was made to evolve with changing times, technology and the protections afforded to citizens of the United States."

Really? Which constitution have you been reading? I don't remember seeing any statement of that kind in the U.S. Constitution. What I DO remember reading is that any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution automatically reverts to the states, or to the people. The intent of the framers could not have been clearer. The U.S Constitution is our safeguard against tyranny. Big, intrusive government is tyranny. An "activist" Judiciary overstepping it's clear constitutional boundaries in order to set a new social agenda is tyranny. Following the founders' wise principle of "devolution", or decentralization, of power (the government which governs least, governs best), a matter like abortion is the clear province of the people. It's just, simply, none of the Judiciary's business. Roe vs. Wade is bad law.

"Would you consider the destruction of one cell on the surface of your skin as an abortion of a living human being?"

I'm sorry it took awhile for me to get back to you, AJ. I had to bag some Zzz's, and eat, and stuff like that. I'll try to "hop to" more quickly in the future.

I'm equally sorry that you've waited, with bated breath, for an answer to a question that is so preposterous on it's face. I can state, with absolute, unerring certainty, that, by destroying one of my skin cells, I am not ending an innocent life which exists separately and distinctly from my own. I can make no such statement about abortion - not in all honesty. Neither can you. Neither can anyone. Therefore, I consider it prudent to err on the side of life.

 

[deaddude]

A fetus does not exist independantly of the mother. The fetus cannot survive outside her womb, and therefore its existance is completely dependant on the mother.

 

[musicman]

A fetus does not exist independantly of the mother. The fetus cannot survive outside her womb, and therefore its existance is completely dependant on the mother.

Ah, but it exists separately and distinctly from it's mother. The fact that he/she is dependent does not negate his/her existence.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

AJ, in answer to my earlier question "Do you have an inside track of Biblical knowledge that the Catholic Church somehow missed for centuries?" you gave me a rather confused answer:

Not being a Catholic or student of Catholic dogma, I have no inside track of 'Biblical knowledge(?)' that the Catholic Church somehow missed for centuries. If you are not referring to abortion, then please advise exactly what you are questioning in relation to the Catholic Church missing something or other for centuries?

If I have missed your question, please rephrase.

I will rephrase my question, but first let me give you some background that explains why I am asking you the question.

You earlier argued that the fetus is not human life until it gets a soul. You argued that the soul does not enter the body until it breathes life or is born. You cited from the Bible to prove your point:

"Genesis 2:7

7 And the L-RD G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (HUMAN LIFE and no longer just a forming fetus).

I suspect that the metaphor of man being formed out of dust holds as true today as exactly when Bible believing people also understand the metaphor that the first man and all mankind become human at that point in their existence.".

You also said:

I have given you bible chapter and verse that states clearly and unambiguously that the human soul is not in the forming fetus. You simply ignore the Bible validation and find yourself (and Bonnie) to revise the Bible itself.
Your arguements have no substance but simply your own feelings and emotions attempting to prove the Bible incorrect..

Musicman made a great point when he said:

You interpret this to mean that God "...has advised mankind in his Bible that there is no HUMAN LIFE in the forming fetus." That's an exraordinary leap, AJ - especially when you consider that ADAM WAS NEVER A FETUS!.

OK, here's my question again - rephrased: What makes you think that your interpretation of the Bible regarding the beginning of human life is any better than that of the Catholic Church?

I can't see how your interpretation of the Bible is any better than centuries of study by thousands of scholars in the Catholic Church. As musicman so eloquently said:

I'll allow your bizarre interpretation of the Book of Genesis to speak for itself. Nothing I add could convict you more eloquently..

 

[ajwps]

life: moving, having DNA, Requiring food, maturation, dying, there are other qualifiers, but I cant remember them.

Human life: a collective of cells working together to form a complex organism, all acting together under the command of the brain cells which are relayed through out the body by nerve cells, all working together for the good the collective whole. As a colective the brain cells of a fully functioning human should be capable of emotions and should be able to differentiate between pleasureable and painful stimuli. Self awareness is one of the defineing factors of a human. In infancy (or fetal developement) it is the capability of emotion that seperates the humans (and a few other primates) from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Deaddue I am again having a little bit of difficulty with your life and human life definitions. You equate a 'few other primates' and humans as having HUMAN LIFE. A few primates with that which human beings usually associate with the gift from a Creator making a difference between an animal life force and a human SOUL.

Interesting....

 

[ajwps]

AJ:

"The Constitution was made to evolve with changing times, technology and the protections afforded to citizens of the United States."

Really? Which constitution have you been reading? I don't remember seeing any statement of that kind in the U.S. Constitution. What I DO remember reading is that any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution automatically reverts to the states, or to the people. The intent of the framers could not have been clearer. The U.S Constitution is our safeguard against tyranny. Big, intrusive government is tyranny. An "activist" Judiciary overstepping it's clear constitutional boundaries in order to set a new social agenda is tyranny. Following the founders' wise principle of "devolution", or decentralization, of power (the government which governs least, governs best), a matter like abortion is the clear province of the people. It's just, simply, none of the Judiciary's business. Roe vs. Wade is bad law.

"Would you consider the destruction of one cell on the surface of your skin as an abortion of a living human being?"

I'm sorry it took awhile for me to get back to you, AJ. I had to bag some Zzz's, and eat, and stuff like that. I'll try to "hop to" more quickly in the future.

I'm equally sorry that you've waited, with bated breath, for an answer to a question that is so preposterous on it's face. I can state, with absolute, unerring certainty, that, by destroying one of my skin cells, I am not ending an innocent life which exists separately and distinctly from my own. I can make no such statement about abortion - not in all honesty. Neither can you. Neither can anyone. Therefore, I consider it prudent to err on the side of life.

For the time being I am going to ignore your references to the US Constitution and the Supreme Court because I am interested in your response to my question about abortion and one of your living skin cells.

Dolly the musicman:

Science has now come to a very real point in which almost any cell in your body can be taken and placed in a fluid that will keep the cell alive for a period of time. Your skin cell contains a full compliment of your DNA genetic makeup from which you are unique being from all other human beings.

An unfertilized ova (egg) from any woman can be harvested and with the proper technique can have its entire nucleus removed under a high powered micrscope. Then your skin cell can have the reverse procedure performed where the nucleus containing your entire chromosomal genetic DNA can be removed from your skin cell and implanted into the now enucleated female ova.

Under the proper conditions, the ova with your own full genetic compliment can be implanted into any women's womb and the possibility exists that you can be cloned. You can have a carbon copy of yourself to form to full term and be delivered as a full human baby. The concept is that this human copy of yourself would not have your same personality or be you in mind nor feel pain when you were pricked with a needle.

Hypothetical question: Since you are so certain that aborting such a forming fetus before it came to full term could not be possible, would an abortion of this life be the same as murder of this new HUMAN LIFE OR SOUL?

In this case would you err on the side of this innocent life?

 

[r2200t]

I'm Pro Choice, I've had a GF who had an abortion. and one who took a day after pill.
have a question here.. We know that today (year 2004) sex is more often used for pleasure/anti-depressant than for anything else. And Mistakes happen. And young teenagers in metropolises are having sex at young ages (14?). We also know that accidents happen.. all the time.

1. Do the conservatives consider life from moment the successful sperm enters the egg? in this case, are "pro-life" people against the day after pill?

2. What solution do you have for young teens who get pregnant, and who decide to use coat hangers to perform abortions on themselves? (for fear that their parents reaction.)

Again, abstenance is not an option, since some of us live in 2004, in metropolises, where pre-marital sex is the norm. Those who don't have sex by the age of 18 are considered ubnormal by fellow schoolmates (or really ugly) and become rejects. They don't get invited to parties...

do we need to give all men vesectomies and reverse it when they are married? or freeze their sperm?

What is the solution for today?

 

[dilloduck]

For the time being I am going to ignore your references to the US Constitution and the Supreme Court because I am interested in your response to my question about abortion and one of your living skin cells.

Dolly the musicman:

Science has now come to a very real point in which almost any cell in your body can be taken and placed in a fluid that will keep the cell alive for a period of time. Your skin cell contains a full compliment of your DNA genetic makeup from which you are unique being from all other human beings.

An unfertilized ova (egg) from any woman can be harvested and with the proper technique can have its entire nucleus removed under a high powered micrscope. Then your skin cell can have the reverse procedure performed where the nucleus containing your entire chromosomal genetic DNA can be removed from your skin cell and implanted into the now enucleated female ova.

Under the proper conditions, the ova with your own full genetic compliment can be implanted into any women's womb and the possibility exists that you can be cloned. You can have a carbon copy of yourself to form to full term and be delivered as a full human baby. The concept is that this human copy of yourself would not have your same personality or be you in mind nor feel pain when you were pricked with a needle.

Hypothetical question: Since you are so certain that aborting such a forming fetus before it came to full term could not be possible, would an abortion of this life be the same as murder of this new HUMAN LIFE OR SOUL?

In this case would you err on the side of this innocent life?

Are you asking if a clone should be treated with the same respect as it's cell donor?

 

[ajwps]

AJ, in answer to my earlier question "Do you have an inside track of Biblical knowledge that the Catholic Church somehow missed for centuries?" you gave me a rather confused answer:

You earlier argued that the fetus is not human life until it gets a soul. You argued that the soul does not enter the body until it breathes life or is born. You cited from the Bible to prove your point:

OK, here's my question again - rephrased: What makes you think that your interpretation of the Bible regarding the beginning of human life is any better than that of the Catholic Church?

I can't see how your interpretation of the Bible is any better than centuries of study by thousands of scholars in the Catholic Church. As musicman so eloquently said:


Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman
I'll allow your bizarre interpretation of the Book of Genesis to speak for itself. Nothing I add could convict you more eloquently.

You have now posed an interesting question.

It seems from my Catholic Church historical abortion perspective, human life have changed many times depending on any particular Pope or changing RC Church dogma over the years from the establishment of the ROMAN Church some 300+ years after Christ's crucifixion.

From my perspective, the words of Genesis 2:7 have not changed one letter or dot in at least 2100 years as seen in the now famous Dead Sea Scrolls written around the time of Christ.

The defintion of HUMAN LIFE and SOUL have not changed one time, from at least 2100 years ago until this very day. Yes Adam was metaphorically said to have been formed from the dust of the earth and only THEN did G-d breathe the LIFE FORCE or SOUL into his nostrils which made Adam a human being.

Would you agree that all humans are made of the dust of the earth? You know the saying 'dust to dust.'

Correct me if I am wrong, but the human concept of a human being a distinct entity from all animal life was derived from the Bible. Earlier religions and peoples believed that mankind arose from fire gods creations or brought out of swamps, etc. No evidence exists from these earlier peoples exist that says that humans are distinct with what is considered an unseen SOUL or LIFE FORCE separate and distinct from all other forms of earth creatures.

The Catholic church and most religions including Islam derive this human soul concept from the earlier Old Testament. Mankind has no way of knowing about how, when or if this formed dust molded into a human form obtains a HUMAN SOUL unless it comes from the source book mentioned.

It is my opinion that the original source of this basic information is sufficient to conclude that either a human soul doesn't exist or that it is placed in human beings when each person gets his or her first breathe on planet earth. For before that first breathe, we all have fluid in our trachea and lungs.

The Catholic Church simply had different opinions based on different men's concepts of when human life entered the human being.

 

[ajwps]

Are you asking if a clone should be treated with the same respect as it's cell donor?

No I am asking if a clone can be aborted without murdering an innocent and helpless baby.

 

[dilloduck]

No I am asking if a clone can be aborted without murdering an innocent and helpless baby.

In other words--"do clones have souls?"

 

[ajwps]

In other words--"do clones have souls?"

Hey you can muse if you try.

 

[ajwps]

musicman it also occurs to me that almost every cell in our body is a potential full human life under the right circumstances.

Does a colon cell or a muscle cell have an independent human soul which is murdered if you voluntarily cut yourself in your gut or in your arm muscle?

When does human life or soul enter the potential life cell in your body?

Could it be only after this new life takes its first breath after delivery becomes a living human being with a soul?

 

[musicman]

musicman it also occurs to me that almost every cell in our body is a potential full human life under the right circumstances.

Does a colon cell or a muscle cell have an independent human soul which is murdered if you voluntarily cut yourself in your gut or in your arm muscle?

When does human life or soul enter the potential life cell in your body?

Could it be only after this new life takes its first breath after delivery becomes a living human being with a soul?

In a bizarre sense, I have to confess a grudging admiration for you, AJ. There's just no "quit" in you. Even after you've been completely shut down, and cannot possibly argue another syllable about what IS, you introduce what is theoretically POSSIBLE into the conversation, and argue it as FACT. You're a role model for mall lawyers everywhere.

If human beings are ever cloned, it's going to raise some very interesting questions, to say the least. But, for now, it is all conjecture. When the question involves life and death, I prefer to address myself to what IS. I reiterate:

I can state, with absolute, unerring certainty, that, by destroying one of my skin cells, I am not ending an innocent life which exists separately and distinctly from my own. I can make no such statement about abortion. Neither can you. Neither can anyone. Therefore, I consider it prudent to err on the side of life.

When you can argue with that, in the realm of what is, let me know.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You have now posed an interesting question.

It seems from my Catholic Church historical abortion perspective, human life have changed many times depending on any particular Pope or changing RC Church dogma over the years from the establishment of the ROMAN Church some 300+ years after Christ's crucifixion.

From my perspective, the words of Genesis 2:7 have not changed one letter or dot in at least 2100 years as seen in the now famous Dead Sea Scrolls written around the time of Christ.

The defintion of HUMAN LIFE and SOUL have not changed one time, from at least 2100 years ago until this very day. Yes Adam was metaphorically said to have been formed from the dust of the earth and only THEN did G-d breathe the LIFE FORCE or SOUL into his nostrils which made Adam a human being.

Would you agree that all humans are made of the dust of the earth? You know the saying 'dust to dust.'

Correct me if I am wrong, but the human concept of a human being a distinct entity from all animal life was derived from the Bible. Earlier religions and peoples believed that mankind arose from fire gods creations or brought out of swamps, etc. No evidence exists from these earlier peoples exist that says that humans are distinct with what is considered an unseen SOUL or LIFE FORCE separate and distinct from all other forms of earth creatures.

The Catholic church and most religions including Islam derive this human soul concept from the earlier Old Testament. Mankind has no way of knowing about how, when or if this formed dust molded into a human form obtains a HUMAN SOUL unless it comes from the source book mentioned.

It is my opinion that the original source of this basic information is sufficient to conclude that either a human soul doesn't exist or that it is placed in human beings when each person gets his or her first breathe on planet earth. For before that first breathe, we all have fluid in our trachea and lungs.

The Catholic Church simply had different opinions based on different men's concepts of when human life entered the human being.

So, essentially, you have nothing to stand on but YOUR interpretation of the Bible?

Sorry, but if it's a choice of opinion, I would rather believe the Catholic Church's interpretation.

 

[musicman]

r2200t:

"We know that today (year 2004) sex is more often used for pleasure/anti-depressant than for anything else."

Well, of course. Today's young people are the first in history to discover that sex can actually be pleasureable. And, Lord knows, you've got so much more to be depressed about than any generation that came before you. MTV screams it at you a thousand times a day; it MUST be true.

"And Mistakes happen."

Some might call it an interesting Freudian slip - the fact that you capitalized "Mistakes". Yes - these particular "Mistakes" are innocent and helpless. Perhaps you might want to re-examine your concepts of what sex is for.

"1.) Do the conservatives consider life from the moment the successful sperm enters the egg?"

Well, speaking for myself, my honest answer is that I don't know. But, since the consequences of my actions in this case would reach well outside myself, and could possibly involve the life or death of an absolutely blameless, helpless human being, I'd say that the only sane action would be to err on the side of caution, and concern for innocent life.

"2.) What solution do you have for young teens who get pregnant, and who decide to use coat hangers to perform abortions on themselves?"

Your question is rhetorical, not to mention loaded. Otherwise, I'd answer, "Don't do it! Talk to somebody! There's no problem the mind of man can set that the mind of man can't solve!" You know - concerned, heartfelt stuff. But you don't want to hear that. You're mind's already made up, and you're just looking for some validation. So, my advice is, "Do it near an emergency room".

"Those who don't have sex by the age of 18...become rejects...don't get invited to parties...".

Well, my first instinct is to point out that that is an alarmingly shallow and self-centered point of view, but, what the hell - the Democrat nominee for President claims to believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and he doesn't give a shit. If the unborn stand between him and a vote - screw 'em! So, why should you let them spoil your party?

"Again, [ abstinence] is not an option... What is the solution for today?"

Ah, yes - the solution for TODAY, as opposed to any other time. Other people, from other times, who faced the gutwrenching problems of life, but stepped up and did the right thing no matter how hard it was, simply wouldn't understand what the young people of TODAY are going through.

Here's some advice, though that's not what you came here looking for. Since you've already determined the parameters of what is and isn't possible for you, my advice is to close your ears. Anytime you hear a discouraging word about some unpleasant topic like the sanctity of life, or personal responsibility, drown it out with a happy little tune.

I don't know what to tell you about that little voice in your head, though.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

1. Do the conservatives consider life from moment the successful sperm enters the egg? in this case, are "pro-life" people against the day after pill?

Pay attention. The "at conception" debate is not even on the table. the lefty murder worshippers on here will not even concede a child is alive at any point PRIOR TO BIRTH. To defend this, AJ illogically clings to a religious text. I thought only conservatives did that. I guess, in reality, the left is far more illogical than the right. That's why they had to create a fake "new age" religion to peddle their illogical wares.

 

[musicman]

Pay attention. The "at conception" debate is not even on the table. the lefty murder worshippers on here will not even concede a child is alive at any point PRIOR TO BIRTH. To defend this, AJ illogically clings to a religious text. I thought only conservatives did that. I guess, in reality, the left is far more illogical than the right. That's why they had to create a fake "new age" religion to peddle their illogical wares.

Good morning, RWA! How are you a-doin' today? How about that Zell Miller! Who do you like in the Super Bowl this year? I don't really have a hell of a lot to say - I just thought your post should be seen as much as possible. Have a good day!