Abortion

[jeffpugh]

I think the problem here Dairy, is that you're separating the soul and the body, which is a fallacy, being that we are embodied souls, and not ghosts in a machine. Also, the "mass of cells" in the womb are not the same as any other cell. Their purpose is to develop the human being that is there. There is no way that you can compare them to blood cells, skin cells or hair cells, etc.

[dairygirl4u2c]

true, i think they are called blatocytes early on, or something. i'd be interested if anyone knows of distinguishing features of blastocytes and most body cells of human adults. and how stem cells vary, as i think the early ones might be stem cells, or somehting.
but, the red blood cell analogy can still be made to make the point, even if it's not fully analogous.

Edited November 11, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1417666' date='Nov 11 2007, 02:36 PM']also, you can have a person who is clinically dead, whose body can be sustained using machines. i think we'd all agree this is no longer a person. it's just organs being sustained by machines. of course, a machine is involved, so it's an important point. but, a machine often sustains a person on life support too. the person on life support is often just getting an aid, but there can come a point where it's unclear. no one can reasonably dispute most people on life support, and so you can't argue that it's the same as abortion arguments for early on. ( true, some day or some people might start thinking they aren't human on life support, but what are you gonna do.... i'm pretty sure that'd just be a soceity that is fooling itself, and i don't thik that fooling itself thing necessarily applies to abortion arguments, as a matter of fact )
you can start subtracting body parts from a person, and start using machines, but where is it no longer a person and a machine?[/quote]
How do you define a person?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1417666' date='Nov 11 2007, 02:36 PM']also, you can have a person who is clinically dead, whose body can be sustained using machines. i think we'd all agree this is no longer a person. it's just organs being sustained by machines. of course, a machine is involved, so it's an important point. but, a machine often sustains a person on life support too. the person on life support is often just getting an aid, but there can come a point where it's unclear. no one can reasonably dispute most people on life support, and so you can't argue that it's the same as abortion arguments for early on. ( true, some day or some people might start thinking they aren't human on life support, but what are you gonna do.... i'm pretty sure that'd just be a soceity that is fooling itself, and i don't thik that fooling itself thing necessarily applies to abortion arguments, as a matter of fact )
you can start subtracting body parts from a person, and start using machines, but where is it no longer a person and a machine?[/quote]
How do you define a person?

[dairygirl4u2c]

that's a loaded question. and the fact that it's a loaded question is my point.
i'd set as definition, as science tries to do. then, things at the frays of the definition would make our definition seem suspect. then scientists would disagree with how to define a person. they'd agree as far as generalities go, for sure. but when things get complicated, they'd disagree.

also, i just mentioned it briefly, but remember that the early cells are not by definition clinically alive.

Edited November 11, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1417705' date='Nov 11 2007, 03:54 PM']that's a loaded question. and the fact that it's a loaded question is my point.
i'd set as definition, as science tries to do. then, things at the frays of the definition would make our definition seem suspect. then scientists would disagree with how to define a person. they'd agree as far as generalities go, for sure. but when things get complicated, they'd disagree.

also, i just mentioned it briefly, but remember that the early cells are not by definition clinically alive.[/quote]
Of course they are ALIVE< otherwise they would be dead and decaying. The only thing that is dead and alive at the same time is a virus.

[dairygirl4u2c]

they are not clinically alive though.
and alive doesn't translate into a person. cue all the stuff i said in this thread.
i acknowledge your minor point though.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1417722' date='Nov 11 2007, 04:12 PM']they are not clinically alive though.
and alive doesn't translate into a person. cue all the stuff i said in this thread.
i acknowledge your minor point though.[/quote]
When an egg is fertilized by a sperm, it becomes a unique human person, unless it splits into twins who still grow up to be different individuals.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'd use that as an argument that it's not a human person. the fact that it could split. it seems odd that a person would split. of course, a person could split, but.

i'd also point out that. most cells do not get implanted after conception and they die. it doesn't seem like a person would die in this regard, even though it is a natural phenomenon and not the same as abortion.

but i'm starting to get into arguments involving persons and souls. and i do not intend to go there. i am simply sticking to biology. my above two paragraphs are only in reference to how God would treat the persons as bilogical beings.
if you started inserting sould etc arguments, the above two paragraphs would better bolster my arguments, but i wish to stay strictly with biology.

this thread is good, cause all the argument i've ever made or heard i think are in this relatively short thread. in fairly condensed form.

Edited November 11, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1417716' date='Nov 11 2007, 05:04 PM']Of course they are ALIVE< otherwise they would be dead and decaying. The only thing that is dead and alive at the same time is a virus.[/quote]
So the conclusion is that viruses are undead. I knew it

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1417740' date='Nov 11 2007, 04:37 PM']So the conclusion is that viruses are undead. I knew it [/quote]
You should know that from reading the zombie thread!

[jeffpugh]

AH yes, that gem. Good times, people. Good times.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]I believe I remember being told that if the mother's life is in danger during the pregnancy and that the only solution (unfourtunaly) would be to abort the baby (for whatever reason), she is allowed to do so to save her life.
[/size]

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1418041' date='Nov 11 2007, 10:25 PM'][size=1]I believe I remember being told that if the mother's life is in danger during the pregnancy and that the only solution (unfourtunaly) would be to abort the baby (for whatever reason), she is allowed to do so to save her life.
[/size][/quote]

though the "life of the mother" situation is one of the Culture of Death's favorite propagandist arguments, it needs to be stated [b]FIRST[/b]... only 2% of the 1,500,000 abortions performed each year in the US are considered "endangerment." and the ridiculous thing about that number is that the statistics include [i]emotional[/i] endangerment. in other words, if a woman says she's having an abortion for her mental health, it is classified in this category...and EVEN THEN, it still only comes out to 2%.

planned parenthood likes to paint a picture that we're living in backward medical days where pregnancy is simply dangerous and could harm many women if they didn't kill their babies. yet, they never explain that they mean harm in an "emotional" sense.

and [b]SECOND[/b] of all, no, it is not acceptable to take another's life to save your own. the Church is very clear on this. the Bible is very clear on it. the Catechism is very clear on it. etc. etc. i would be very skeptical of who was telling you otherwise, as it is in no way Catholic teaching.

and from a personal standpoint, as my wife and i go through our first pregnancy now, i have to marvel at how cold some in our society can be, especially those who have had children and still support forms of abortion. even granting this "endangerment" argument...suppose my wife was physically endangered for some reason and killing our unborn child would probably save her life. what kind of parents would that make us? how could we ever have children in the future after doing such a vicious thing? how could we ever look each other in the face again after knowing our selfishness led to the death of an innocent life?

the sad truth is we live in a world where self-[u]preservation[/u] is deemed heroic, not self-[u]sacrifice[/u]. but, as Our Lord said:

[quote][size=3]This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
[u]Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.[/u]
You are my friends if you do what I command you. [/size][/quote]

[RandomProddy]

Proof by Contradiction:

[quote name='Antones' post='1416782' date='Nov 10 2007, 01:47 AM']Killing is killing. Death is death. There are no arguments for killing.[/quote]

Therefore all faithful Christians are vegetarians. Contradiction therefore false.

I love maths sometimes