Post Reply
Page 79 of 86  •  Prev 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 ... 86 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Is abortion murder?
5 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 3:14PM #781
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Oh, look! Newsjunkie is back. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at the following because, as far as absolute head scratchers go, the following post is it.


Jan 23, 2010 -- 8:30AM, newsjunkie wrote:

Science relies on physical evidence to determine which of its claims are deficient and which are explanations consistent with evidence.



That's one way of putting it.


When asked by amcolph, you have failed to point to any physical evidence to support your claim that the zygote formed at the end of fertilization is a human being as murderable as baby, child or adult human being.



 


Amcolph wrote: "But you did say that a 'murderable entity'* comes into existence at the conclusion of fertilization.


Why just then?  What you have is a single cell with a human genome.  The unfertilized egg is also a single cell with a human genome.  What is the difference?"


I responded: "What's the difference? Well, one is a haploid sex cell, and the other is a gentically complete organism which will develop into what you perceive as a "fully grown himan being", given enough developmental time."


So, please, try again.


When asked directly what it is (and it's quite clear from what amcolph wrote that he was talking about what it is physically) about the cell that forms from the union of sperm and egg that makes it a human being, you gave the nonscientific, non-answer that there isn't anything that makes something a human being.



Anyway, starting from my last response above, amcolph asked where the 'humanity' of the zygote lies, to which I responded that there's no inate or special quality which makes a human being a human being. He then asked if it's not the genome nor the rest of the cellular material which makes the zygote a human being capable of being murdered the same way someone already born could be murdered, then what, to which I ultimately pointed out that, once again, someone who is unborn is as much a genetically complete organism as is someone who is born, the only difference between them being developmental time.


If you take a hair follicle, which has your full complement of DNA, and place it in a hypothetical incubator, it will forever be a hair follicle. If you take a rock and put it in a hypothetical incubator, it will forever be a rock. If you take a human zygote and place it in a hypothetical incubator, it will develop into what you perceive to be a "fully mature human being", and if it's able to develop into what you perceive as a "fully mature human being", then it must be a human being from the time it's a zygote-- Unless, of course, you're going to argue that the zygote has the propensity to "develop" into anything other than a human being or something which isn't a human being can "develop" into one.


(Oh, and please don't use the whole "An acorn isn't a tree!" response to argue that the zygote isn't a human being. It's a red herring, as you're comparing stage of development and stage of development to stage of development and species.)


But, why am I explaining this? I know I've done so time after time after time again, and every single time it gets ignored. Every single time.


Your view is your view, and you are entitled to it, but it isn't scientific.



See, this is what annoys me the most. I've noticed that some people here see only what they want to see, ignore that which they can't refute and blatantly misconstrue that which rebuffs their assertions. You've been a very good example of this in this very thread.


You don't get to hide behind the whole "Those are just your beliefs!" cop-out. You wanting to hold to whatever preconceived notions you have about the unborn not being human beings doesn't make anything I've posted is non-scientific; it means, as I've said about a bajillion times now, that you'd rather hold onto your beliefs then accept a simple fact.


When asked for physical evidence, you can't respond by repeating your claim, or say "there isn't any," and expect a person who is thinking scientifically or critically to accept your claim.



Uh-huh... You might want to try re-reading the dialogue between amcolph and myself. And then, when you're finished, you can go back and read the dialogue between myself and yourself-- Dialogue which you have simply flat out ignored and will more-than-likely continue to do so.


edited by Justme333 to conform to ROC

Moderated by Justme333 on Jan 24, 2010 - 12:30AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 3:58PM #782
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,744

Jan 23, 2010 -- 3:14PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Oh, look! Newsjunkie is back. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at the following because, as far as absolute head scratchers go, the following post is it.


Jan 23, 2010 -- 8:30AM, newsjunkie wrote:

Science relies on physical evidence to determine which of its claims are deficient and which are explanations consistent with evidence.



That's one way of putting it.


When asked by amcolph, you have failed to point to any physical evidence to support your claim that the zygote formed at the end of fertilization is a human being as murderable as baby, child or adult human being.



 


Amcolph wrote: "But you did say that a 'murderable entity'* comes into existence at the conclusion of fertilization.


Why just then?  What you have is a single cell with a human genome.  The unfertilized egg is also a single cell with a human genome.  What is the difference?"


I responded: "What's the difference? Well, one is a haploid sex cell, and the other is a gentically complete organism which will develop into what you perceive as a "fully grown himan being", given enough developmental time."


So, please, try again.


When asked directly what it is (and it's quite clear from what amcolph wrote that he was talking about what it is physically) about the cell that forms from the union of sperm and egg that makes it a human being, you gave the nonscientific, non-answer that there isn't anything that makes something a human being.



 


Anyway, starting from my last response above, amcolph asked where the 'humanity' of the zygote lies, to which I responded that there's no inate or special quality which makes a human being a human being. He then asked if it's not the genome nor the rest of the cellular material which makes the zygote a human being capable of being murdered the same way someone already born could be murdered, then what, to which I ultimately pointed out that, once again, someone who is unborn is as much a genetically complete organism as is someone who is born, the only difference between them being developmental time. It really is that simple.




scratch your head, laugh and cry, get all emotional if you like. Another option is to ignore me if I bother you so much.


What is confusing is that you said to amcolph in post 778


"Human beings aren't human beings because we're born or because we know how to walk or because we can speak or because we can reason or anything else of the like, nor are we human beings because we have the genome of one"


and now you seem to be saying it is the genome of the cell that makes it a murderable entity.


 

Moderated by Justme333 on Jan 24, 2010 - 12:33AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 4:26PM #783
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jan 23, 2010 -- 3:58PM, newsjunkie wrote:

scratch your head, laugh and cry, get all emotional if you like. Another option is to ignore me if I bother you so much.



No one's getting emotional and you don't bother me. It boggles the mind as to how can simply "not get it" after hearing something repeated to them ad nauseum.


What is confusing is that you said to amcolph in post 778


"Human beings aren't human beings because we're born or because we know how to walk or because we can speak or because we can reason or anything else of the like, nor are we human beings because we have the genome of one"


and now you seem to be saying it is the genome of the cell that makes it a murderable entity.



That's exactly what I said, and there's nothing confusing about that. You'll also notice I said, three times now, that hair follicles aren't human beings even though they have the full complement of human DNA. A genetically complete organism capable of developing into what you perceive as a "fully formed human being" =/= have the genome of a human being (Whatever that's supposed to mean). But I type stuff out for my own amusement, so I can't fault you for ignoring that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 5:37PM #784
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,744

Jan 23, 2010 -- 4:26PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Jan 23, 2010 -- 3:58PM, newsjunkie wrote:

scratch your head, laugh and cry, get all emotional if you like. Another option is to ignore me if I bother you so much.



No one's getting emotional and you don't bother me. It boggles the mind as to how can simply "not get it" after hearing something repeated to them ad nauseum.


What is confusing is that you said to amcolph in post 778


"Human beings aren't human beings because we're born or because we know how to walk or because we can speak or because we can reason or anything else of the like, nor are we human beings because we have the genome of one"


and now you seem to be saying it is the genome of the cell that makes it a murderable entity.



That's exactly what I said, and there's nothing confusing about that. You'll also notice I said, three times now, that hair follicles aren't human beings even though they have the full complement of human DNA. A genetically complete organism capable of developing into what you perceive as a "fully formed human being" =/= have the genome of a human being (Whatever that's supposed to mean). But I type stuff out for my own amusement, so I can't fault you for ignoring that.





If you had simply said to amcolph when he asked the first time that you think it's complete DNA and the potential to become a fully developed human being that makes the zygote a murderable human being, it would have been clear.


Under what circumstances, then, is the death of the human cell or human z/e/f that follows from its development, murder?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2010 - 6:16PM #785
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jan 23, 2010 -- 5:37PM, newsjunkie wrote:

If you had simply said to amcolph when he asked the first time that you think it's complete DNA and the potential to become a fully developed human being that makes the zygote a murderable human being, it would have been clear.



...I said what I wrote out to begin with (And, just for the record, the above isn't really what I said, but rather what you think I said. But I'll let it go for argument's sake).


Under what circumstances, then, is the death of the human cell or human z/e/f that follows from its development, murder?



When it's premeditated, otherwise it's either homicide or negligence ;)

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2010 - 12:37AM #786
Justme333
Posts: 1,101

Just a note that two posts were edited by me,  One to remove a couple of sentences that violated the ROC, and the other to remove the same two sentences when the original post was quoted.


Justme333
Beliefnet Community Host
Discuss Christianity Board

"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."  Will Rogers

"Give to those who ask, and don't turn away from those who want to borrow."  Matthew 5:42

"Charity is no substitute for justice withheld."         St. Augustine

"Your love for God is only as great as the love you have for the person you love least."  Dorothy Day

"If you want peace, work for justice." Pope Paul VI
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2010 - 6:12PM #787
Aleksa
Posts: 1,901

"Under what circumstances, then, is the death of the human ...  murder?" (newsjunkie)

"When it's premeditated, otherwise it's either homicide or negligence" (Bei1052)


When it comes to abortions, since spontaneous ones (miscarriages) and induced ones by some quack are indistinguishable, there is no way to determine premeditation. 


- Aleksa

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2010 - 2:42PM #788
Eliascomes
Posts: 900

 Abortion is murder, but this society which we live in is very ruthless, selfish, and etc...  How can a young girl that's naive to life, how can she survive in this world? We pay taxes to help others, but everyone want the free hand out which we give to the welfare programs to help people in these situations. And now the givers want back what they've given. The ones that governs the system want raises to live lavished with their own , but they're not worrying about the ones that are in most need of the money. I know we don't feel like we should be obligated to take care of someone else children. But it take a tribe to raise a child.


 And by us removing the Bibles from our schools, jobs, and justice system. Doesn't make it better. We should be proud to give, but we aren't. We reach out our hands to help someone, but when the load gets too heavy, we let go.


 So I feel that the ones that are aborting their unborn child should be left alone. It should be between them and God. Because we first need to removed the log from our own eyes in order to see how to remove the speck from their eyes.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2010 - 2:15PM #789
Kelly
Posts: 6

Yes it is , As the cells that are splitting  and forming life . It is making a "person " that is breathing , heart beating . It not a "BLOB" of tissue . It is trueley the most amazing thing that only God could have made a human to do . Just think that 2 things that you can not even see with the naked eye can come together and make a complex body with all the internal and external workings that all work together to make a baby that grows into a adult with a brain that is a sponge waiting to be filled up with everything around us.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2010 - 4:56PM #790
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,744

Mar 7, 2010 -- 2:15PM, Kelly wrote:


Yes it is , As the cells that are splitting  and forming life . It is making a "person " that is breathing , heart beating . It not a "BLOB" of tissue . It is trueley the most amazing thing that only God could have made a human to do . Just think that 2 things that you can not even see with the naked eye can come together and make a complex body with all the internal and external workings that all work together to make a baby that grows into a adult with a brain that is a sponge waiting to be filled up with everything around us.





Hi Kelly, you are quite clear in saying that abortion is murder. May I ask what you think the penalty should be for a woman who has an abortion, given you view her as having committed murder? Thank you.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 79 of 86  •  Prev 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 ... 86 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook