In response to:

Planned Parenthood Performed 333,964 Abortions in 2011

indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:38 PM
I personally disagree with abortion, in my opinion life begins at contraception, but that is my belief, I really do not have much proof to back it up.....and that is why I can't really say much to people who want to do early term abortions...late term abortions are obviously a completely different situation....but at the end of the day I have no right to tell people what to do with their bodies and their belief system, they are the ones that have to live with the consequences of their actions....
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:00 PM
I respect your belief. You are entitled to it. I admire that you're honest enough to admit that it is a belief whereas others dogmaticaly profess that life begins at coception as if it were a proven fact. But it isn't a proven fact. If it were, then there wouldn't be a debate. I personally don't know when life truly begins. I can see some logic to life beginning at conception, but I can also see logic to life beginning after other phases like brain activity, viability, first breath, etc. None have any definitive proof yet, which is why I think it's an important issue to discuss.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:07 PM
agreed, no one really knows when life begins...its like saying you are 100% sure there is afterlife with a God and angels waiting for you....the truth is you believe that, no one really knows....
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:08 PM
It is a proven fact. The only reason there is debate is because there are so many blind fools in the world - like yourself - who make it their point to obfuscate the issue in order to ensure its political viability.

Brain activity, viability, first breath - none of those have any real bearing on humanity outside of personal opinion. Even people in vegetative states, along with people who are unable to breath on their own, are still considered human beings. Everyone human being has a limited viability - deprive someone of air, water, food or shelter and see how long they are able to live.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:17 PM
its just different view points, we will probably never agree...you seem to be for more govt. control and I as a libertarian am against almost all form so of govt.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:26 PM
A true libertarian would recognize the necessity of preserving the inalienable right to life and the equal protection under the law for all humans.

You are no libertarian - you are a liberal scumbag who is either incapable of forming a rational opinion or simply dishonest about your stated opinion in order to appear meaningful in this debate.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:32 PM
wow, came down to the insults already, I actually thought you were decent until that...its ok, when you can't win an argument you always have to resort to insults......like I said we just have to agree to disagree....here you go for the libertarian stand point:

Libertarians promote individual liberty and seek to minimize the role of the state. The majority of libertarians support legal access to abortion as part of their general support for individual rights, especially in regard to what they consider to be a woman's right to control her body.

There are always going to be opposing viewpoints on this, because no one really knows when life starts, we all just THINK we do....
GodsLaws Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:41 PM
It isn't proven that life DOES NOT start at conception either. However, all evidence and legal precedents hold that an unborn child is indeed an individual human -- therefor deserving of the same protections as anyone else.

The burden of proof therefore is on the abortionists. Just as prosecutors must prove guilt in order to incarcerate a defendant, so abortionists must PROVE that life DOES NOT begin at conception -- presumably by demonstrating incontrovertably when it does begin.

Abortionists must ignore signs of life to justify themselves. Those who respect life may simply rely on the preponderance of evidence, scientific, medical and legal.

You have no case.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:44 PM
There has been no debate here - you continue to drool your uninformed opinions without offering a single fact on which to base them while totally ignoring the evidence presented against you.

Individual liberty is built upon the preservation of the liberty of all individuals. If you fail to preserve the liberty of one person, then you are ensuring that your own liberty will someday be eliminated as well.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:46 PM
there is no proof either way, so there is no burden of proof.....that is what I am saying, I can't prove anything and you can't prove anything...its comes down to what you believe....
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:50 PM
listen, you still don't understand....I am with you...but we might be wrong and I will not impose my beliefs on others until we can prove that a fertilized egg has a soul,....you are more then welcome to try, but you will fail......there is no science involved in beliefs, is there was people would have stopped reading the bible and believing in God a long time ago......
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:56 PM
The proof is in genetics and biology, as well as the law. Genetics and biology prove that a fertilized egg is both a human organism and alive. If it is both a human organism and alive, then it is a human being. Human beings are protected according to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, among other laws.

Prove this reasoning wrong. The burden is now upon you.
GodsLaws Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:58 PM
Indy; when Anonimus calls you a liberal scumbag, that's not an insult, its a statement of fact based on the evidence you have supplied.

You claim to be a libertarian, but deny the right of life to the most defenseless people in the nation. Our founders (the original libertarians) understood that anarchy cannot support a peaceable, productive society. they established the baseline government role -- the uniform and equal protection of life, liberty and property, due process and transparency.

The abortionist sidesteps due-process and ignores the preponderance of evidence of life present from the moment of conception. The burden of proof of "nonlife" has not been adequately met to deny the most basic right to a whole demographic.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:00 PM
I agree its human...I agree its alive....but others in the scientific community could disagree....one scientist said this:

There is never a “dead” phase — life is continuous. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive; you could even make the argument that since two cells (gametes) enter, but only one cell (a zygote) leaves, fertilization ends a life. Not that I would make that particular claim myself, but it’s definitely true that life is more complicated than the simplistic ideologues of the anti-choice movement would make it.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:07 PM
What others believe is irrelevent if they can't back it up with facts.

Sperm and eggs are not organisms in and of themselves - they are simple cells without the ability to regulate or maintain themselves. It is only when they combine that a new, unique, living, human organism is formed.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:20 PM
tell that to anyone who believes in Jesus....are there beliefs irrelevant?
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:32 PM
Once again, stop equating beliefs to facts. They are not the same. I am presenting facts to you - observable evidence - you continue to bring up personal beliefs on this matter (opinion). Facts win, every time there is a conflict.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:00 PM
facts won't win this, its all about beliefs......there is only one fact, everyone has a different definition of life, until we do not agree on when life starts there will not be a resolution to this.......you don't seem to understand that other people will disagree with you, and that is why this is still an issue.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:06 PM
If facts "don't win" then all that is left is to lose. However, in reality, facts do win, and it is only at your own peril that you ignore them. I find this amusing as you have NEVER PRESENTED ANY FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENTS!

Only an idiot maintains a definition of life which is not supported by scientific evidence. Only an exceptional idiot maintains a definition of life which has been proven incorrect and defies all evidence in favor of his own vacuous opinion.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:12 PM
sorry I did present facts, but you dismissed them....you only presented theories, those are based on observations but can be proven wrong.......you attack me for not having facts, but you do not have any either.....like I have been saying all along, I THINK and its MY PERSONAL BELIEF that life starts at contraception, but I can be wrong....you are in the same position as me, you just cannot admit it......it must really hurt inside to know that you can't really prove anything.....
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:24 PM
What facts have you presented? That "someone" disagrees with me? That is not a scientific fact pertinent to this debate, as that is simply someone else's opinion! Hell's bells, you fool! You can't even get it right that life begins at CONCEPTION! Life ends at CONTRACEPTION!
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:38 PM
do you understand how contraception works? a sperm and egg combine, means that one of the things that was "alive" is gone. so technically one life ends at contraception....you really need to advance you thought process....
DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:49 PM
"have no right to tell people what to do with their bodies and their belief system"

That's a cop-out. There's no "belief" as to when life begins. It's known for certain, no matter how much it's denied or ignored.

P.S.: "Life begins at contraception" is an interesting malapropism.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:54 PM
no, you and I believe its starts at contraception......

I can't make someone else believe that....what is your definition of life? is single cell life? what if a mother doesn't take care of herself and has a miscarriage, is that murder?

Like I said I 100% agree with you but there are many people who disagree, and we have no right to tell them what they can or cannot do.
liberty not license Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:57 PM
DCM:

Great word, malapropism, and great call by you. Seeing indy's response, though, I am really thinking this is a demonstration of the serious issues we have in the education system. :-/
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:02 PM
sry you feel that way, I just cannot push my beliefs on someone else.....some people do not have any problem with that.....
GodsLaws Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:47 PM
They...and their unborn, innocent, helpless children..."are the ones that have to live with the consequences of their actions..."

Yet all of us are diminished by blithely accepting infanticide as a "legal" form of murder. Your cowardly "open-minded" ambivilence is tacit approval of murder.

Take a stand or shut up.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:51 PM
I agree its horrible, but its not my place to tell someone to do with their beliefs and body....
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:59 PM
Then perhaps the only response you merit is: Who are you to tell us that we shouldn't tell someone else what to do with his or her body? It's not your place!
GodsLaws Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:05 PM
Do you have an opinion on this topic?

You say "...its horrible, but its not your place to tell someone what to do with their beliefs and their body..."

Well, I believe that I should pump a whole 15 round clip of .45 APC rounds into your skull with my body.

Do you have an opinion about that?

Your ambivelence is incomprehensible. You come to this site and go to the trouble to make comments all to convince us that you have no opinion and nothing to contribute to the debate.

When people are being slaughtered silent acceptance is tacit support for the crime.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:06 PM
it just seems that its more control to me, I would never allow anyone to have the right to control me.....we just have different view points
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:15 PM
No, we have someone who holds his / her personal beliefs above reality - in other words a simple fool - who is unwilling to educate himself and refuses all information which conflicts with his own relative morality.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:15 PM
Gods, you talk big, but you resort to threats of violence when you opinion is challenged, and you are suppose to be for against abortion??? your opinion is as relevant as a the opinion of a dog...keep barking....
GodsLaws Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:20 PM
The preservation of life, liberty and property are the sole moral and practical basis for government.

And while our borders have become a sieve for drug cartels and illegal aliens, our dipolomats are murdered without a shread of protection, our soldiers die due to impossible rules of engagement based on twisted political correctness, we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, our schools are failing while teachers are better paid than most private sector employees and entrepreneurs can't start a business because of government regulations and taxes -- but YOU think that protection the lives of helpless, innocent children is TOO MUCH CONTROL!!!!

Yeah...we have different views.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:21 PM
Anominus, i actually accept your viewpoint, I believe in the same thing you do. I just do not force what I believe on anyone else
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:30 PM
Once again, mine is not a simple viewpoint or belief to be so casually accepted and discarded - it is scientific fact. If you have some factual evidence against it, then present it. Otherwise, stop wasting our time with your willfully ignorant drivel.

As best I can tell, you would stand aside and let your neighbor murder his wife and kids rather than try to "force" your belief that "murder is wrong" on him.
GodsLaws Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:36 PM
indy; you don't tak at all. You offer drivel, ambivilence and apathy in a discussion thread about life and death of innocent, helpless people.

I have not threatened you once. I have demonstrated the lunacy of your own ideals by applying them to you instead of the innocent children whose lives you are so willing to cast aside for the good feeling of being "open-minded."

In the realm of morality, your refusal to stand clearly for the protection of innocent life is identical to a refusal to protect your own life or anyone's for that matter. You have reduced the right to life to a worthless commodity.

All I have done is to point out that your right-to-life ideals will have a very different result when applied to your life instead.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:36 PM
You are just giving another thing that you can compare to abortion.....there is nothing you can compare to it, because you do not know if the fetus is alive or not..i think it is, but someone else might not..... wife and kids are obviously alive...here is a simple list:

baby : alive
dog : alive
car : not alive
tree : alive
door : not alive
fetus : not sure

do you understand that....do not compare things to abortion, if it was that easy this would not be a debate...and do not try to dismiss me by saying I do not have an argument, there are obvioulsy plenty of people on both sides that agree with me as they do with you.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:41 PM
"fetus : not sure"

Based on what facts? So far all you have given us is your opinion without ever refuting the facts we present which irrefutably prove that a fetus is both alive and human.
GodsLaws Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:42 PM
You are forcing your beliefs on others --namely the innocent chilldren that you "believe" are not protected under the Constitution.

Hypocrite.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:45 PM
I guess I am.....I just do not think I can tell others what to do, you think you can...go for it, make it illegal, I am all for it....I doubt you will be able to....also if you ever make it illegal, I am pretty sure you will never be able to control the black market.....but good luck....
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:53 PM
We will never truly be able to wipe out all other criminal behaviors - does that mean we should simply legalize them as well?
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:57 PM
some maybe...drugs for example, legalize them all, tax them, end the black market...if you do drugs just don't expect anyone to help you when you OD.....it would at least help control the problem....
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:04 PM
Your ignorance is astounding. Please stop posting here.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:19 PM
i find you pretty arrogant.....
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:30 PM
I find your ignorance to be arrogant and obnoxious.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:58 PM
i just don't like your name
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:01 PM
Good for you, moron. I don't give a whit.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:08 PM
why are you getting so mad????
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:15 PM
Because I despise ignorant fools like yourself.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:23 PM
you really have no argument, you are just fooling yourself
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:33 PM
Fooling myself in thinking you actually had some interest in honest debate. You are just here to troll. Good riddance, troll.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:47 PM
Inform yourself the - Science has proven that life does begin at conception:

Genetics proves that the DNA of a newly fertilized egg is unique and 100% human, and therefore at conception a human individual is created. There is no other time such an event takes place that could mark the beginning of life.

According to the biological definition of life, the individual formed at conception is absolutely alive.

US law according to the 14th Amendment requires that no human is deprived of life without due process, and as such, abortion is a violation of the 14th Amendment, as well as the inalienable right to life. We are obliged to protect life whereever we find it, even if that means "telling other people what they can do with their bodies."
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:51 PM
Alive? its a single cell at contraception, a skin cell has full human DNA.....I do agree with you that life starts at contraception, but I can not push my beliefs on someone else, its against everything this country stands for.....this country is based on being able to have your own set of beliefs, and the govt. cannot get involved.....
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:57 PM
There are many single-celled organisms which are alive, including all forms of life at their beginnings.

A skin cell will have matching DNA to the organism it grew from - a newly fertilized egg has unique DNA.

Once again, this is not based on personal belief, but scientific fact, so you can stop making such a foolish statement in defense of your ambivalence. Everyone is free to their own beliefs, but not their own "facts" when they come in conflict with reality.
IsraelFirsterSecond Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:59 PM
Its not a belief. Its the truth.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:01 PM
I agree with you, but like I said you don't know for sure, its an opinion. Just because it has a unique DNA does not mean its alive.....I guess we have to agree to disagree....
IsraelFirsterSecond Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:05 PM
Its not an opinion. Its science. How can something grow that isn't alive.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:06 PM
There's also the issue of identical twins. Both individuals have the same DNA and are present in the womb at the same time. Are they one life or two?

In addition, DNA is merely information in the same way a blueprint is information for contructing a building. But we dont' call the blueprint the building. So why would we call DNA a human being? Many other animals have DNA, organs, blood, etc. So why is DNA a viable standard for what makes someone a human person?
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:13 PM
The issue of identical twins is irrelevent because, they both still come from the single fertilized egg. While some of their DNA is identical, the mitochondrial DNA is not - so even "identical twins" aren't actually identical and are genetically distinguishable.

DNA proves that an organism is what it is (human) and what it isn't (not a plant, fish, frog, bird, etc). What other organism, aside from a human, possesses human DNA?
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:19 PM
a egg fertilized in a test tube, would have all the characteristics that you just mentioned...is it alive? If so, when they put it in the womb there is a chance the egg dies, is that murder?
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:23 PM
A fertilized egg is indeed alive. If it does of natural causes, it would be a miscarriage. Do you consider natural death to be murder?

I'm having doubts as to your interest in honest debate here. So far, all you are doing is babbling on about your personal beliefs on relative morality - which have been proven wrong - while denying / ignoring the evidence presented to you without making any real argument in return.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:28 PM
how have I been proven wrong, you are just saying that so that you can stop the argument....

what would you say when scientists exam fertilized eggs outside the body, they will die, so that is technically murder in your viewpoint?

You are saying you are 100% sure when life starts, I am saying I am 99.9% sure, that is why you can never win this argument, you will always be stuck with the fact you think you are right and no one else can ever challenge you...I am saying I think I am right, but I really can't be sure.....
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:37 PM
You have been proven wrong on your moral relativity concept because you, yourself are trying to force your morality on everyone else by saying that we have no right to tell others what to do. Your moral relativity has been proven wrong in practice because the law is a form of forced morality.

Creating fertilized eggs for the sake of study which puts those new humans at risk would indeed be murder.

Once again, this is not an issue of belief, but of fact. I have presented my facts, you have presented no facts, which is why you have lost this debate.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:42 PM
anominus, sry, you are saying so many researchers are murders..... fertilizing eggs in the lab happens all the time, we have learned a lot from it.......

also me saying that we should not tell others what to do is pushing my morals on people? I guess it could be seen like that, and you are right its all relative.

But you cant say I have lost, if it was this easy this debate would have been done a long time ago.

You still cannot prove when life starts, what you say is a fact is a belief. if you are religious then you would believe in a soul/aura/spirit...that would mean you know for sure that a soul is present in the egg....please prove it to me
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:50 PM
We also learned a great deal from the vivisections of the Middle Ages - does that mean it was the right thing to do if it ended in death for the "human specimen"?

This debate really is that easy. The problem is that you, and those like you, are willfully ignorant of the facts because you have some foolish political agenda you must preserve.

A religious argument is not suitable for a debate on this issue because it is a fundamental legal issue. I have already given my evidence that a fertilized egg is both alive and human, and as such is worthy of protection under the law - prove to me that it isn't.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:52 PM
a fertilized egg does not have a brain, cannot feel pain...it does not have a though process or a heartbeat......to me its ALIVE...to you its ALIVE.....but to others it might not be, and sry if that bothers you but its the truth.....
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:59 PM
The following is the biological definition (requirements) for determining whether something is a living organism:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:00 PM
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:01 PM
A brain, the ability to feel pain, possessing a thought process or a heartbeat - none of those determine life or species, and therefore none of them are relevent in this discussion. Sorry, but you lose again!
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:03 PM
to you it doesn't...to others it does.
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:09 PM
Which is once again, irrelevent if they have no facts to back up their beliefs.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:19 PM
its pretty relevant to someone who has a certain belief....Are you saying that if you have no facts to back up your beliefs they are irrelevant?
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:30 PM
Once again, stop equating beliefs to facts. They are not the same. I am presenting facts to you - observable evidence - you continue to bring up personal beliefs (opinion). Facts win, every time there is a conflict.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:57 PM
you don't understand that this is argument is more about beliefs then anything else...
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:01 PM
Our laws are based on facts, not personal belief. As this is a debate about a legal issue, the basis of the argument is the law, and therefore the medium is fact, rather than opinion.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:07 PM
Our laws are based on morals and ethics, those come from beliefs....in fact murder is wrong is a belief, freedom of speech?, that is also a belief....slavery was believed to be the right thing to do......
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:14 PM
Morals and ethics are also based on fact, not simply belief. From a legal standpoint, murder is wrong because it is in violation of the rights of the victim (ie. a violation of the law). This is an observable fact.

Slavery was believed to be legally permissable for the same reasons as abortion - a group of individuals determined that another group is not equally "human," and therefore had no rights. If someone possessed a slave today in our country, you stand aside, saying "slavery is wrong, but I'm not going to stop you," like the limp-wristed buffoon that you are.
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:22 PM
morals and ethics based on fact????/ wtf are you talking about.....they are based on beliefs....murdering someone is wrong, not because its illegal, but because its immoral...its immoral because people believe it is....

Do you really not understand the difference between laws and beliefs? You insult me but then you don't understand a simple concept. Let me make this clear, murder is illegal, it was made illegal by laws, those laws were made by the BELIEF that murder was wrong.

People who are savages and do not have no moral compass do bad things, they do not believe in the "rights of a victim" or in laws....they have no beliefs

so once again, you are completely wrong, actually more wrong then before.....
Anominus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:32 PM
It's clearly pointless to continue this "discussion" with you.

I can only hope for the sake of justice that someday the only person standing between you and a violent death is someone who embraces the same relativistic view that you hold on abortion: Murder is wrong, but who am I to stop you?
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:41 PM
once again, its a belief. murder is wrong because you believe its wrong...not because a law says its wrong.....you do not even understand the basic reasoning behind laws so why would you be able to understand the reason there is a debate about abortion...its really unfortunate you are probably conservative....people wonder how Obama won, look in the mirror you are the reason....
IsraelFirsterSecond Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:40 PM
Why don't you have that right? People define murder don't they?
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:44 PM
because people define life differently....I say its at contraception, others might say 3rd trimester, some might say when the baby leaves the body.....you can define murder of a living thing, if you don't believe its alive then you really aren't committing murder......
liberty not license Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:52 PM
Dear Indy2012,
I gently ask: are you a twenty-something -year old? Because your heart is in the right place, but you have obviously never been taught that there is such a thing as objective truth. You have been infected with the illogical thinking of moral relativism, that every opinion is as valid as another and you have no "right" to impose your opinion on another. You may actually find it refreshing and freeing to discover that some things are true and knowable; if they were not, actually society could not function. For example, using your "logic:" why do I have to stop at red lights if that is not my belief system? What right does a cop have to "impose" that on me? Without objective traffic laws, though, there is no transportation syste
liberty not license Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:52 PM
*system. Sorry, ran out of room.
IsraelFirsterSecond Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:58 PM
To say a baby isn't alive at conception is anti-science!
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:58 PM
far from a 20 something, I have kids, and the second I found out my wife was pregnant was the second my kids were alive to me....

You are comparing traffic rules to life, You cannot just compare to things and say because we follow traffic laws we should follow these laws.

There are somethings deeper, and that will always be debated....we do not know when a life begins, we think we do....if you believe in a soul, then you can't really say when a soul comes to the body, you think it comes at contraception, but that is what you THINK, not what you know......
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:59 PM
Israel, prove it, show me the babies soul....show me how you consider a single cell the same thing as a whole human....i can't, I believe it, but I really can't show or prove it to anyone
IsraelFirsterSecond Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:03 PM
No one is talking about a soul. We are talking science at this point. No religious tendencies need even be discussed.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:04 PM
I agree that there is such a thing as objective truth. However, I don't think there has been definitive objective truth when it comes to when life begins. It has nothing to do with moral relativism and more to do with the vaguness of the question and our poor understanding of what defines life. There is still a lot to learn and until we understand the nature of consciousness better, I don't think we can make an objective determination about when life begins.
liberty not license Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:06 PM
Indy2012,
You prove my point!
Life IS deeper than traffic laws, but the logic still applies. If you CAN impose your beliefs on something as trivial as traffic laws upon me, a non-red light believer, why can't others "impose" their deeply held beliefs on something as significant as protecting human life in the womb?
GodsLaws Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:09 PM
My definition of a living thing is someone who actually demonstrates the existence of a spine and a mind by defendning the helpless against murders.

Based on what you have said on this site today, you don't qualify. So by your standards I can morally kill you.
liberty not license Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:11 PM
Well, Herald, I think to take that stand is to ignore the excellent information in the other posts here about how science definitively shows life begins at fertilization, because that is the origin of the living being with unique DNA, and when else could "life" begin? For pity's sake, a female can carry a male child. How could that child be anything but a new and different life? But even if it were not so, we must err on the side of caution on such a serious issue. Do you really want to be the one to advocate the destruction of millions of lives if you are wrong?
indy2012 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:12 PM
It does not compromise anyone's beliefs, if you want to live in society, you stop at a red light.......for something like life, you are saying that at contraception there is life, I am saying you are right....but someone else can say no, life begins when there is brain activity, or a nervous system, heart beat.....you and I agree, but someone else can disagree, and that one person might actually be correct.......that is why I believe we cannot impose our beliefs one someone else, because you and I might be wrong...

also on another side of things, you make something illegal, it goes into the black market, drugs are just an example.....

Planned Parenthood has released it's annual report for fiscal year 2011-2012. The taxpayer funded organization performed a record 333,964 abortions in 2011 alone and received 45 percent of its annual revenue from taxpayers. Over the past three years, Planned Parenthood performed nearly a million abortions.

Although the abortion giant markets itself as a women's health organization simply providing cancer screenings and contraception, those services continue to decrease at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. Since 2009, contraceptive services have dropped by 12 percent while cancer screening services have decreased by 29 percent.

Pro-life Susan B. Anthony List...