True. I have too much emotional involvement in this subject.
I just can't for the life of me understand or condone abortion.
I've seen to many wasted lives. I've seen too many women that have to live with their "choice". Some can't. It affects everyone, our families, our society, our end result.
Life IS prescious. Pregnancy is a gift! Babies are a blessing! Children are to be cherished!!! Stop the killing!
You see, I agree 100% with this. I have 2 children and 5 grandchildren.
The only difference is you see a baby at conception, I see a baby at 23 to 24 weeks. To me it's simply not a baby before then. It is a fetus which is not the same thing.
Throwing terms like genocide and murder around do not facilitate debate or understanding.
I condone abortion in the second sense of that word rather than he first.
1: Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
2: Approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance.
The reluctance is important. I'd love to live in a world where all people took responsibility for reproduction before an abortion was ever needed. A world where a simple 100% effective contraceptive was available.
But I do not live in that world.
As such I reluctantly condone abortion but I do some very reluctantly.
If someone believes that life begins at conception then such a staunch anti-abortion position is understandable
But the problem is that life as we define it does NOT begin at conception; a fertilized egg is not so much life as it is potential to become life...one could make the same argument for sperm.
When belief in something that is not supported by the evidence is in place then the conclusion drawn off it will be emotional and unassailable - and it seems you cannot debate the issue without it becoming a clash of personalities.
Person 1: I believe life begins at conception
Person 2: I don't
Person 1: Who are we to play God?
Person 2: There is no God so we are all there is
Two viewpoints that cannot be reconciled have to focus instead on the genesis of the belief system; hence SiB being probed ad asked about his religion as it is germaine to the issue. He found being questioned upsetting for some reason but once again that was NOT the aim. I disagree with him but wanted to know WHY he thinks that way
PASmith hit the nail on the head earlier - it is NOT a "B&W" issue....and those who paint it is as such as both ends of the scale are wrong.
I agree with Hannibal. But, and there's always a but, if you look at the 2 pictures I posted of a fetus at 2 weeks. One is human and one is a dog. At 2 weeks, unless you are well trained, it is almost impossible to be able to tell one species from another. At some point in the process humanity starts to appear but in the beginning it is more or less just another generic maofftopicl fetus.
Yeah..I'm reading "Why evolution is true" and that goes into how our evolutionary past is seen in our foetal development as we go through (roughly) fish, amphibian, reptile and maofftopicl stages. It's not as clear as that but there are certainly aspects that aren't what people would think of as human right from the start (like a tail and a covering of hair).
I'm sure there has been several. They go to prison.
There was a recent incident where an abortion "doctor" was killing babies born from his botched abortions even when they could have lived. He went to prison.
Addicts have a history of being awesome. Lewis Carroll, Hunter S. Thompson, Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, William S. Burroughs, Coleridge, Isadora Duncan, Carrie Fisher, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain, I mean good God, I think as a group their credibility has been established.
Compared to the millions that don't achieve a mere fraction of what life has to offer? Maybe addiction was a coincidence of their lifestyle. Either was its never to be applauded
No, but it certainly doesn't discredit a person or their contributions. While their addictions may have been darker parts of their life, symptoms of human weakness, whatever, it certainly didn't affect their output or contribution to society. Dismissing someone because he died an addict seems like a bad argument when addicts have been able to achieve such remarkable things. Note that I am not implying that they achieved their successes because of their addition, nor am I denying that they may have reached greater heights without their substance abusery.
The whole argument is based on when life begins. I will solve this once and for all. Single cell life evolved around 3.6 billion years ago. Everything that lives today is a direct descendant from that life. Since it is well known that human life begins with the merging of two already living cells. Those cells can trace their ancestry from the original single cell life on the planet. So everything that is alive today came from something that was alive in the past.
So, Life began 3.6 billion years ago. Everything else is just a continuum of that original life as shaped by it's environment and evolution. Therefore the only way to have a true abortion would be to go back in time and kill those original single cell creatures.