|
Post by chefmate51 on Jan 23, 2009 23:37:53 GMT
If a fertilized egg is not human, then what on earth is it? There are more categories of living things on this earth than just 'human' and 'not human'. Quite right but if the sperm is human male and the egg is human female than one can only assume from the facts before us the embryo is human and nothing else
|
|
|
Post by chefmate51 on Jan 23, 2009 23:38:58 GMT
For the same reason that the rights of another human being NOT to be murdered outweigh the 'rights' of another human being to commit murder. A zygote is cells. An embryo is a potential human being. Murder is unlawful killing. So. Come again??! I believe from conception an embryo is a human being and nothing less. Abortion by law is not killing but in my opinion, it is killing a human but that is my belief that I cannot push on anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate51 on Jan 23, 2009 23:41:06 GMT
chefmate. If you believe that a fertilised egg is a human being, why not campaign against those forms of contraception that effectively destroy it? Coils, and some of the contraceptive pills for example. If you already do, that is fine. But I seldom see such debates, just endless arguments about abortion. contraceptives prevent the egg from being fertilized; nothing is being destroyed except the sperm is unable to fertilize the egg...no conception has taken place birth control is not destroying a human but preventing one from being conceived by the sperm and egg joining; this process does not take place so no harm is done to a human
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2009 6:57:53 GMT
chefmte reply 42 - I am not an expert, but though you are right, some contraceptive pills go further. Sheould an egg become fertilised (and no contraceptive is 100 per cent successful) another ingredient prevents a fertilised egg from implantation. These are (or were) more widely prescribed. The coil does the same job.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 24, 2009 11:27:39 GMT
For the same reason that the rights of another human being NOT to be murdered outweigh the 'rights' of another human being to commit murder. Again, you're abusing the language. There is no such thing as a 'right' to commit murder; Indeed, it's a crime. Rather than 'abusing the language,' it would probably be true to accuse me of using shock tactics to make a point. Murder is a crime but sometimes it can be justified. I've already said that I feel the same way about abortion in a particular set of circumstances which I've already explained.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 24, 2009 12:16:58 GMT
chefmate. If you believe that a fertilised egg is a human being, why not campaign against those forms of contraception that effectively destroy it? Coils, and some of the contraceptive pills for example. If you already do, that is fine. But I seldom see such debates, just endless arguments about abortion. contraceptives prevent the egg from being fertilized; nothing is being destroyed except the sperm is unable to fertilize the egg...no conception has taken place birth control is not destroying a human but preventing one from being conceived by the sperm and egg joining; this process does not take place so no harm is done to a human I have an iud fitted. This is an abortificiant; it works by preventing the fertilised egg from resting in the womb, and is based on ancient traditional methods. (Arabs used to place pebbles in the wombs of their female camels before going on long desert journeys to prevent the camels from becoming pregnant on the way.) Am I a murderer? Am I destroying a human by having my body modified to reject a fertilised egg?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 24, 2009 12:18:07 GMT
There are more categories of living things on this earth than just 'human' and 'not human'. Quite right but if the sperm is human male and the egg is human female than one can only assume from the facts before us the embryo is human and nothing else A sperm is not 'human male'. A sperm is not a human being. An egg is not a human being. The embryo is a human embryo, that's undoubtable. But it's not a human being.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 24, 2009 12:43:06 GMT
A zygote is cells. An embryo is a potential human being. Murder is unlawful killing. So. Come again??! I believe from conception an embryo is a human being and nothing less. Abortion by law is not killing but in my opinion, it is killing a human but that is my belief that I cannot push on anyone else. That's fair. Although I would still debate the idea of when something human becomes A human. And that statement doesn't say killing is wrong. It also presumably means that switching off a human's life support machine is killing. Or destroying an embryo that will develop into a human with a syndrome or defect is killing a human. Is killing sometimes justifiable? Is killing a human zygote wrong when killing an independently living animal such as a pig is not wrong? Is killing a murderer more or less murder than killing a zygote?
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 24, 2009 12:46:15 GMT
chefmate. If you believe that a fertilised egg is a human being, why not campaign against those forms of contraception that effectively destroy it? Coils, and some of the contraceptive pills for example. If you already do, that is fine. But I seldom see such debates, just endless arguments about abortion. contraceptives prevent the egg from being fertilized; nothing is being destroyed except the sperm is unable to fertilize the egg...no conception has taken place birth control is not destroying a human but preventing one from being conceived by the sperm and egg joining; this process does not take place so no harm is done to a human That's an important distinction, I agree. Early (let's just say under 6 weeks for argument's sake) abortions can be argued as not killing a human but preventing a human from developing.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 24, 2009 12:57:08 GMT
Again, you're abusing the language. There is no such thing as a 'right' to commit murder; Indeed, it's a crime. Rather than 'abusing the language,' it would probably be true to accuse me of using shock tactics to make a point. Murder is a crime but sometimes it can be justified. I've already said that I feel the same way about abortion in a particular set of circumstances which I've already explained. How about accidental pregnancy and a mother-to-be that has no means to raise a child and has no support from a man or a family and absolutely does not want this baby. An early abortion seems fair to offer. Doesn't she have any right at all, regardless of how it started, to stop it before it really gets going? To not to offer herself as incubator to a group of cells that will one day soon be a human child but right now are not at that level of development? Does a fully developed human really have less rights over her body and life than a potential one?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 24, 2009 13:11:27 GMT
contraceptives prevent the egg from being fertilized; nothing is being destroyed except the sperm is unable to fertilize the egg...no conception has taken place birth control is not destroying a human but preventing one from being conceived by the sperm and egg joining; this process does not take place so no harm is done to a human I have an iud fitted. This is an abortificiant; it works by preventing the fertilised egg from resting in the womb, and is based on ancient traditional methods. (Arabs used to place pebbles in the wombs of their female camels before going on long desert journeys to prevent the camels from becoming pregnant on the way.) Am I a murderer? Am I destroying a human by having my body modified to reject a fertilised egg? REALITY hon. there is NO similarity, in any way, between birth control and abortion. preventing a life from beginning, by whatever means, is not even close to being the same as killing the life after it has begun
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 24, 2009 13:13:33 GMT
Quite right but if the sperm is human male and the egg is human female than one can only assume from the facts before us the embryo is human and nothing else A sperm is not 'human male'. A sperm is not a human being. An egg is not a human being. The embryo is a human embryo, that's undoubtable. But it's not a human being. you are quite correct there. there is no human being until the two are together and form one
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 24, 2009 13:15:46 GMT
I have an iud fitted. This is an abortificiant; it works by preventing the fertilised egg from resting in the womb, and is based on ancient traditional methods. (Arabs used to place pebbles in the wombs of their female camels before going on long desert journeys to prevent the camels from becoming pregnant on the way.) Am I a murderer? Am I destroying a human by having my body modified to reject a fertilised egg? REALITY hon. there is NO similarity, in any way, between birth control and abortion. preventing a life from beginning, by whatever means, is not even close to being the same as killing the life after it has begun If life begins at conception, then using an iud IS 'killing the life after it has begun'.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 24, 2009 18:28:46 GMT
A sperm and an egg are separate entities but once the ova has been fertilised by the sperm they become a living unit.
From the moment of conception therefore a human being has been actualised.
|
|
|
Post by drewsmom595 on Jan 24, 2009 20:51:57 GMT
It depends on the IUD. Some IUD's actually chemically kill the sperm so no fertilization takes place. So there is no "life" to kill in the first place. But even if an egg becomes fertilized and the uterine lining is affected so it prevents implantation by a type of IUD, I personally do not feel that an IUD is morally or ethically wrong. It simply is a method of birth control.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate51 on Jan 24, 2009 22:20:31 GMT
No wonder why people only made love for reproduction as it gets to complicated beyond that and trying to determine all the varying factors and beliefs.
I wish abortion didn't have to exist but as long as people have sex, there are going to be pregnancies whether planned or not.
I will never stop believing abortion is killing a unborn baby but the majority have spoken and so we live with it.
I will also believe that because we allowed abortions and showed a callous disregard for human life, the next step in the chain of inhumanity towards others was the abuse and neglect of children....this is the next progressive step in the downward spiral of losing our morality.
If we can kill the unborn, harming the born is but a small step and we already see euthanasia on the horizon for the terminally ill or elderly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 10:25:27 GMT
A sperm and an egg are separate entities but once the ova has been fertilised by the sperm they become a living unit. From the moment of conception therefore a human being has been actualised. In that case, Lin, are you anti any contraceptives that effectively destroy the fertsilised egg?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 26, 2009 13:11:07 GMT
I haven't thought that through to be honest. I guess on balance I think that there's enough preventative methods around to make abortion a last-resort choice.
I'd have to think about your question, Skylark.
Like I've said many times, I can accept ONE mistake or whatever but NOT the multiple abortions which are becoming more and more common.
|
|