bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Rudimentary is the perfect term. I see what you mean now.
Welcome Guest!
Leading atheist defends aborting babies with Down's syndrome
- Thread starter SemperFiDawg
- Start date
Israel
BANNED
There you go!
See how simple!
Welcome to the school of Christ!
"If you know these things...happy are you if you do them"
Israel
BANNED
Yikes...does that make me crazy for thinking sanity had gripped you in such eloquence?
If that was the start of a book...I'd find it a real page turner!
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Israel
BANNED
Huh? Not a RONCO slicer/dicer/mincer/choppermatic with chrome wheels and AM/FM stereo receiver built in too? With the manicure and pedicure attachments?
And just in time for the holidays!
Put me down for 3!
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
How?
Israel
BANNED
and here I am preparing a special place for it!
Last edited:
ambush80
Senior Member
By being more vocal about one kind of sin (homosexuality) than you are about another kind of sin (killing embryos for invitro fertilization).
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
Embryo??? You mean the “baby” that is like a couple of weeks after fertilization??
No, we don’t promote abortion.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Will do buddy!
ambush80
Senior Member
Do you think that destroying extra embryos produced form the process of invitro or experimenting on them in a way that results in their death should be called abortion?
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Honest, I am rolling! Great one Izzy
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
I don’t claim to be a reproductive expert by any means, but based on my understanding, you don’t have an embryo until after fertilization?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo
In vitro is the process of fertilization in a tube, etc.?
Based on my understanding of this, yes I feel that destroying an embryo is the same as abortion. If I am misunderstanding, I’m willing to listen and then decide.
ambush80
Senior Member
I have no argument against calling a fertilized egg "alive", or "a person". In that sense we are in complete agreement about what it is. My argument is about what kind of rights it has.
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
Gotcha. It is my opinion that if it’s alive, it has a right to live.
If we based it on evolution; the process in which a living thing reproduces another living thing, there isn’t a space or gap of “not living” in that process?
ambush80
Senior Member
That principle isn't linked to evolution specifically. It's linked to biology, which evolution draws heavily from, but I'll not quibble on a point that we agree on.
Are you interested in discussing what kinds of rights patents have in regards to their children or what kinds of rights children have at different ages?
Last edited:
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
I’m just generally speaking in terms of life reproducing life. I realize the egg / sperm soon dies without fertilization, but once fertilization happens, it’s then a beginning.
As far as rights at different stages, they can be very opinionated. It’s my opinion that the right to live begins when life begins. for me it’s fertilization.
Israel
BANNED
Discussing what a right is could be first necessary.
WaltL1
Senior Member
That's a pretty solid position to take. It eliminates all the technical questions that I wrestle with concerning abortion.
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
I agree, Walt. I once got caught up in the tangled jungle of technical questions and realized that the only thing that was solid is if we leave this fertilized cell alone it will continue to develop through time to become a senior citizen. The second we destroy it, or nature itself ends it, it is no longer “living” at whatever stage it’s in and the development process is over.
Similar threads
