socralynnek wrote:The poll is not neutral. It's suggesting the answer already.
Cause much depends onwhat your definition of "life" is. When does a fetus begin to live?
Does it live already when it's just one cell?
For me, it does live from the moment where the fetus has a slight chance to survive on its own. And from that moment on, I am against abortion.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough, what i wanted to say is: where it has the chance to survive outside of the womb of the mother if feed and be held warm.jay_a2j wrote:socralynnek wrote:The poll is not neutral. It's suggesting the answer already.
Cause much depends onwhat your definition of "life" is. When does a fetus begin to live?
Does it live already when it's just one cell?
For me, it does live from the moment where the fetus has a slight chance to survive on its own. And from that moment on, I am against abortion.
So, tha'd be about 2 years old. Wow! A newborn can't survive on its own. If left alone it would die.
Does that make it any different? Exactly how much is "barely anything". Can you state your source please?Sammy gags wrote:HIV passed by IV drugs, by blood transfusion, & breastmilk is barely anything compared 2 ppl passing it by having sexBackglass wrote:Please read some more about HIV. I guess all those intravenous drug users are just having too much sex?
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries. ...a whole new dimension to the term blow job...jay_a2j wrote:vtmarik wrote:I submit to you, that since the sperm has no soul and that the egg has no soul, by the principle of "you can't get something from nothing" AKA "Life cannot come from non-life" that you can't get a soul out of no soul.jay_a2j wrote:No, I believe when the sperm fertilizes the egg is when the soul enters the child.
Unless the soul is breathed into the child by God, at conception.
Backglass wrote:Huh? Thats like saying "I am against the death penalty but hey, if the state wants to kill a convict, then ok".Paulicus wrote:I'm pro-life but what it all ends up being is the parents choice.
You my friend are pro-choice. (THE HORROR!!!!)
YOU might do something different, but arent going to impose your beliefs on others. Thank You.
Please read some more about HIV. I guess all those intravenous drug users are just having too much sex?Paulicus wrote:If people could control themselves in regards to sex we wouldn't have AIDS now would we.
And beyond that, arn't more gay's afflicted with HIV than non gays.
This jsut shows how ignorant you are of the transmission of AIDS through sex in africa. Usually it just barely borders on consensual. If anyone admits to having aids they are socially shunned, and to rpove they don't have aids they are under societal pressure to have unprotected sex to "prove" they dont' have AIDS. Theres a reason that many Africans aren't using condoms that are being supplied by humanitarian forces: it shwos as a weakness in society. Its not that they're having wild orgies in Africa.Paulicus wrote:Backglass wrote:Huh? Thats like saying "I am against the death penalty but hey, if the state wants to kill a convict, then ok".Paulicus wrote:I'm pro-life but what it all ends up being is the parents choice.
You my friend are pro-choice. (THE HORROR!!!!
YOU might do something different, but arent going to impose your beliefs on others. Thank You.
Please read some more about HIV. I guess all those intravenous drug users are just having too much sex?Paulicus wrote:If people could control themselves in regards to sex we wouldn't have AIDS now would we.
As far as the parents choice part goes I also had the babies who end up in dumpters in the sentance after that, which was my point. And AIDS started in Africa, which I'm sure is rampant with drug use like the states
I'm sure if society stepped in and had everyone in the world tested for AIDS in an effort to stop its spread, everyone would be yelling human rights violations.cowshrptrn wrote:This jsut shows how ignorant you are of the transmission of AIDS through sex in africa. Usually it just barely borders on consensual. If anyone admits to having aids they are socially shunned, and to rpove they don't have aids they are under societal pressure to have unprotected sex to "prove" they dont' have AIDS. Theres a reason that many Africans aren't using condoms that are being supplied by humanitarian forces: it shwos as a weakness in society. Its not that they're having wild orgies in Africa.Paulicus wrote:Backglass wrote:Huh? Thats like saying "I am against the death penalty but hey, if the state wants to kill a convict, then ok".Paulicus wrote:I'm pro-life but what it all ends up being is the parents choice.
You my friend are pro-choice. (THE HORROR!!!!
YOU might do something different, but arent going to impose your beliefs on others. Thank You.
Please read some more about HIV. I guess all those intravenous drug users are just having too much sex?Paulicus wrote:If people could control themselves in regards to sex we wouldn't have AIDS now would we.
As far as the parents choice part goes I also had the babies who end up in dumpters in the sentance after that, which was my point. And AIDS started in Africa, which I'm sure is rampant with drug use like the states
your sperm inside of you hasnt started a life yet so i dont see how u can even start to consider that the same thingslash1890 wrote:Right now, while I'm not having sex, am I a murderer? Thousands of sperm inside of me are dying as I'm typing this, and all of them could be potential lives. How is that different from a fetus without a functioning brain? Am I killing millions of people each day by not letting them reach an egg? It's not my choice. Even if I was constantly engaging in sexual intercourse, only one of the millions of sperm I ejaculate would be reaching the egg to produce life anyway.jay_a2j wrote:Pro-life because no one has the right to end life but God.
cowshrptrn wrote:Well a zygote, and fetus are POTENTIAL lives, they have no nervous system, and are incapable of feeling things, jsut like a sperm or egg are a potential for life. I see how the metaphor slash used is a bit of a stretch, but if you follow his (and my) belief on whether or not a fetus is a life or potential life then it makes sense.
Since whether or not to have an abortion is really what each person believes about the life of a fetus, then it is immoral to legislate and ban it because that would be forcing one group's beliefs onto another groups.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
mightyal wrote:give me a break from this can't get life from non-life argument. It is no doubt an extreme right-wing fundamentalist christian term. It defines all shades of grey as black or white and makes no logical or moral sense.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Well I've always felt that the reason Christians lash out like they do sometimes is because there's no balance in their pantheon.mightyal wrote:give me a break from this can't get life from non-life argument. It is no doubt an extreme right-wing fundamentalist christian term. It defines all shades of grey as black or white and makes no logical or moral sense.
vtmarik wrote:Well I've always felt that the reason Christians lash out like they do sometimes is because there's no balance in their pantheon.mightyal wrote:give me a break from this can't get life from non-life argument. It is no doubt an extreme right-wing fundamentalist christian term. It defines all shades of grey as black or white and makes no logical or moral sense.
Every great pantheon; the egyptians, the greeks, the vikings; all had balance. There were Gods that were good and at least one god that was evil. Now these pantheons derived their worship en masse. Some would ask Odhinn for good fortune in battle, others would ask Aphrodite for success in love. The evil gods served their place, and were understood as a part of the great cosmic order of things. You can't have good without evil, light without dark, etc.
Christianity, unfortunately, does not have this sense of duality and balance. You're either good or you're screwed. This creates a massive amount of pressure and hyper inflates what Freud called the Superego, the societal pressures on the psyche. So anything that isn't clear cut must be eliminated because things are black and white in monothiestic religions such as Christianity and Islam.
Polytheistic and semi-theistic religions don't suffer from this overinflated superego simply because the nature of both the good and evil sides of man are given equal time. And in the case of semi-theists, like the Satanists, there is no debate on the nature of good and evil because it's all a given.
And sperm are alive, so is the ovum. But there's a difference between that which is alive and that which is a person. A bacteria is alive, but when you get a bacterial infection you take antibiotics. A mold is alive, but if it's growing on your bread you toss out the bread. A zygote is alive, but it ain't a fucking person! It's a collection of cells, it doesn't become a person until the brain forms (which psychologists and scientists believe the personality exists). Does a human body with no brain count as a person? No. It may have been a person at some time but it ain't anymore, now it's just meat with a face.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
If those were equal choices, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately following God leads to paradise and following Satan leads to eternal damnation and punishment. Forgive me for looking at that and not seeing a real balance.jay_a2j wrote:Good grief! You want balance? God is Good, Satan is evil. There is your balance. God wants you to accept God. Satan wants you to reject God.
We're not talking about when life starts, we're talking about when life becomes sentient life. Dogs are alive, so are cats, amoeba, and skin cells. What the real issue is when does consciousness arise, when does the animal become a person. The sperm and the egg are alive, so why not say that life starts even before the two meet. It's 100% accurate to say that, and its also irrefutable. However, it's inconvenient to your world-view.In the United states we don't convict a person when there is reasonable doubt (leave OJ out of this). So, if there is reasonable doubt that a zygote is in fact a human being it is unethical to kill it. (note I said "unethical" not "immoral") The problem arises when there are 50,000 different definitions as to when life starts. (ie. a human being is formed) I stand by "the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg".
The embryo is about 1/5 of an inch in length. A primitive heart is beating. Head, mouth, liver, and intestines begin to take shape.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
The head is taking shape, which means that currently there isn't a fully formed brain in there. Animals with brains similar to ours, while not ours, don't seem to have the level of sentience that we have.jay_a2j wrote:Why not week 6?????
The embryo is about 1/5 of an inch in length. A primitive heart is beating. Head, mouth, liver, and intestines begin to take shape.
