pro life ad's in georgia

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

1. If you're going to cite statistics why not just go with the CDC?
2. By your admission ("granted it's not 90%") you can not compare the death of 90% of Americans and the near extinction of human population to a few million abortions.
3. If I have to worry about the death of bunch of cells (that's what a fetus is for the first 4 months, I mean it can't think, it can't talk, it's an attachment to a woman's body that can't do anything) I'd be depressed about all the spermicide I've been committing all these years.

TTL, it's not that I think I'm better than everyone else, it's just that I think you people half-ass everything. With you being at the top of the leader-board of course.

1) OK here is CDC's result:

The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 per 1,000 live births in 1973 (the first year that 52 areas reported) to 358 per 1,000 in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981 (Figure 1; Table 2). The ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline. In 2002, the abortion ratio was 246 per 1,000 in 49 reporting areas (the same as in 2001) and 248 for the same 48 reporting areas for which data were available since 1998 (Table 2).

So, though it was a pro-life site, their stats were correct.

2) Your statement was that you don't care for the one skank, and a life that is formed and will be born barring an abortion, but the thought of unformed uncreated life a billion years from now makes your heart ache. The dichotomy of your position is simple, and shows you to be heartless to those around you who you value as lesser beings.

3) It is a bunch of cells dependent on the host body, the mom, you are correct, but it is living and growing, your example of spermicide is blatantly a false comparison, spermicide acts before the egg has been fertilized and begun to cluster and divide as cells.

rationalize as you will, but before you start commenting about half ass retorts, realize half-ass is better than an empty response like your last one.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

1) OK here is CDC's result:
So, though it was a pro-life site, their stats were correct.

2) Your statement was that you don't care for the one skank, and a life that is formed and will be born barring an abortion, but the thought of unformed uncreated life a billion years from now makes your heart ache. The dichotomy of your position is simple, and shows you to be heartless to those around you who you value as lesser beings.

3) It is a bunch of cells dependent on the host body, the mom, you are correct, but it is living and growing, your example of spermicide is blatantly a false comparison, spermicide acts before the egg has been fertilized and begun to cluster and divide as cells.

rationalize as you will, but before you start commenting about half ass retorts, realize half-ass is better than an empty response like your last one.

1. I posted a link to the CDC site so your stats actually have weight...I do read what I post.

2. It's not that I think they are lesser beings, it's that I don't think they are beings for the first few months. Yes, I am more concerned about the existence of human beings in the future than I am of fetuses getting aborted. There's nothing contradictory between the two positions.

3. Growing? Yes, living? No. Their lives are not discernible from that of the host mothers. She dies, they die...she eats, they eat.

It's not rationalizing, it's simple logic devoid of personal beliefs. And for the record, abortion isn't for me and my wife...and I certainly don't support abortion after 5 months unless there's an extraneous circumstance.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

3. Growing? Yes, living? No. Their lives are not discernible from that of the host mothers. She dies, they die...she eats, they eat.

Their lives are discernible as the "lump of cells" may be destroyed with no harm to the mother's physical well being. If a life form begins its life as a parasite, depending on its host initially but growing to independence, isn't it still a life form? It's not like the woman is growing an extra kidney that will be absorbed into her body as a necessary part of it's function.

Even if it is a "lump of cells" at some point, when does it gain its humanity? To my knowledge their is no agreement on this point. Because of this, the abortion of a fetus raises the possibility, however slight, that a murder is being committed.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Their lives are discernible as the "lump of cells" may be destroyed with no harm to the mother's physical well being. If a life form begins its life as a parasite, depending on its host initially but growing to independence, isn't it still a life form? It's not like the woman is growing an extra kidney that will be absorbed into her body as a necessary part of it's function.

From your link:

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not–either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as "inanimate."

Seeing how they are not self-sustaining I don't see how you can classify them as a life-form when they're in the early stages of development.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Even if it is a "lump of cells" at some point, when does it gain its humanity? To my knowledge their is no agreement on this point. Because of this, the abortion of a fetus raises the possibility, however slight, that a murder is being committed.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by humanity. There's certainly agreement as to when a fetus is not viable. Statistically speaking fetuses don't survive outside the womb before 21.5 weeks of gestation (~5 months). Honestly, if a fetus is not alive, certainly not at the early stages of development, and can't survive on its own I can't see how that can be classified as murder. Most states have similar position as they have a viability clause in their abortion statute. If it's viable it's murder, if it's not viable it isn't murder.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

It's not rationalizing, it's simple logic devoid of personal beliefs.

Logic devoid of personal belief requires uncontroverted facts e.g. "rocks cannot grow or reproduce, therefore rocks are not alive". In the discussion of "when does life begin", please point me to the facts upon which you rely.

I would suggest that, whatever you post as facts will be factual conclusions based on assumptions ultimately derived, in part, from opinion. Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

1. I posted a link to the CDC site so your stats actually have weight...I do read what I post.

2. It's not that I think they are lesser beings, it's that I don't think they are beings for the first few months. Yes, I am more concerned about the existence of human beings in the future than I am of fetuses getting aborted. There's nothing contradictory between the two positions.

3. Growing? Yes, living? No. Their lives are not discernible from that of the host mothers. She dies, they die...she eats, they eat.

It's not rationalizing, it's simple logic devoid of personal beliefs. And for the record, abortion isn't for me and my wife...and I certainly don't support abortion after 5 months unless there's an extraneous circumstance.

1) I assumed you were being argumentative, since I had stated that I was using a biased site. If not then thank you for solidifying those statistics.

2) It is absolutely contradictory, but since that is beyond our ability to come together on, I will drop it.

3) For the point I made about you using a false argument, the fact that it is growing is enough. Spermicide alone will not stop the growth of what will eventually become a living being. Spermicide will kill sperm and prevent the growth from beginning, the 2 points are fundamentally different.



I think you and I are talking two different points; my initial response was to your calling a woman and her fetus a skank and her baby, saying it doesn't affect you, which I say makes you heartless towards humans who are living, compared to false heartache when crying over the possible end of human existence. If you can not ache for this lady and her baby, you can not convince me that whatever you claim to sense about the end of humanity, is more than a selfish claim to immortality through the ongoing existence of the human condition. It is self evident, but you cannot acknowledge it, because it would in the end unravel that truth which you hold dear - that humanity is it's own god and controller of its own destiny. But in fact we are not. and we do not. There is a greater being, a maker who has given you life, and one day will allow this human existence to end.

You on the other hand seem to be claiming that self interest, which has to be based on some personal belief, is a simple logical statement. Which again seems illogical.

But all in all, you prove yourself by your own words. you ache for those who will not be born, but could care less for the lady and baby(your word) who is suffering, or to be aborted, today. I understand your position. Thanks for clarifying.