Do you believe in your opinion that in the topic of abortion, the US Government should regulate the procedure or should it be a left to the discretion of the individuals involved? (Please keep it civil and clean guys.)
Our tax dollars should not be spent in the killing of innocent babies. The mothers womb is supposed to be the safest environment for a fetus to grow and develop, rather than being a potential death chamber.
We live in a supply and demand culture. If there were such a high demand for abortion, the industry would not need our tax dollars to support it. If we simply allowed abortion clinics to stand on their own without government aid, the American family would be much stronger, abortion would not be as common place, and people would actually think before they act irresponsibly.
Making a law against abortion won't work; people will only find unsafe underground way of having an abortion..
What the Bible says about Abortion
Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.
Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16
If by your logic that passage supports abortion then you are implying that the Bible says it's okay to kill a one month old child. It should be pretty obvious that Moses had a different idea in mind. Not so obvious if you are a liberal history revisionist.
And the Bible says something quite the opposite concerning abortion; "Thou shalt not kill"
I have yet to see a good reason for abortion. With the exception of severe medical complications, there is simply no need for it. Adoption is available. These women who have abortions are doing so because they don't want to deal with morning sickness, stretch marks etc. that is NOT a reason to kill a child. It is selfish and despicable. No ifs ands or buts about it. Simply immature women who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
Fair enough - no good reason for an abortion.
But neither is there a good reason NOT to remove a clearly non-human parasitic collection of cells. That leaves us with the group of folks demanding that everyone else agree with their opinion and/or religious views. Selfish, despicable and very much against the foundations of our country. No ifs ands or buts about it. Simply immature people who expect their views and prejudices to be shared by all.
A parasitic collection of cells that was initiated by the union of human sperm and human egg.
...its the luck of the draw as far as what is in the genetic compilation.
Who wouldn't be absolutely curious as to WHAT it will become?
Everyone knows "what" it will become..., exactly what it already is; a person who will likely grow and develop for about 20 years, then live another 60 or so unless interfered with by violence or disease. So do you mean wondering "who they" will become if nobody takes action against them?
Or with a genetic malformation severe enough to take it out of the "human" category completely.
Genetic malformation does not negate the humanity. What does that have to do with people mutilating the growing person at whatever interval their conscience allows? If it is going to fail genetically prior to birth, or at 2 or 5 or 50 or 90, that is a totally separate matter.
Really? How far will you take that statement? A thing with no forebrain? No limbs OR brain? That never grows beyond a few hundred cells?
Do you claim a zygote, from human gametes, is automatically a person? If so, can you defend that position regardless of what mutations might have taken place in either sperm or egg?
Seems a bit of a straw man, as you seek to determine at what point of the process to allow destruction of what, (regardless of when you attribute the term human), will likely be a person who will live for approximately 80 years unless attacked. Was the topic abortion of perfectly normally developing humans, or does your genetic malformation angle have merit here?
Isn't the whole point of abortion to stop the progress of a human life that has been initiated, lest they become a further inconvenience? Isn't choosing a point to call that developing person, a human or person, simply a way of assuaging the guilt that should properly be felt for killing them? If the biology fails on it's own, nobody has responsibility for that failure, but if someone sets out to destroy that developing human it matters not when they chose to do it, the result is the same.
To me your taking solace in semantics, but I am curious, at what point can you no longer deny acknowledging the humanity of those "growing cells"?
Not a straw man at all. From your post: "...people mutilating the growing person...", which is (IMO) the crux of the abortion question. When is that collection of cells a person, a human being? It's not at conception - I reject that - and it IS at birth. Somewhere in between it gains enough attributes of homo sapiens and becomes a person.
You seem to claim that a zygote (fertilized egg) is a human being. Can you back your stance with biological facts? How can you define humanity to show that but also show that a genetically malformed thing that can never be born is not? Again, this is the hinge that few will disagree with - can you define human?
(And no, abortion isn't to stop a human life; it is to stop an organism that might one day become a human life. The first is legally murder; the second is not.)
You say it is not at conception, yet that is the qualifying event. Nobody I am aware of has claimed an egg or a sperm are humans. After conception it is commonly believed to be human.
Biological facts? Okay, how about this: If you analyze a human zygote can it be determined it is such? Is it biologically, (with DNA for example), indiscernible for any other life form? If it can be identified as human then you have your answer, which would also apply if it were genetically malformed, (again a straw man for this conversation, but I am indulging you).
Have you allowed laws to determine your morality? If so, whose laws? What country, city, state or municipality holds your proxy?
I might add, that just because it is tiny, and unrecognizable doesn't make it any less human than we are
It's like saying because a fly is tiny, and doesn't look human, it deserves to be swatted, and nothing, and no one cares. I do, I won't kill anything, but mosquitoes (but they always attack first)
I think life begins at conception, but that's just my opinion
Good! You at least gave an opinion, which is more that we have so far.
I don't think size has much to do with anything, but surely there are attributes to being "human" that other animals don't have - what are they?
But you failed to address mutations and hybrids as well as severe deformities - can you expand your definition to include those while keeping the idea that humanity begins at conception, and that the zygote has the necessary attributes that make us human rather than animal?
The definition of what is human is based on what the necessary BUILDING BLOCKS are. Mistakes can occur during construction, resulting in deformities, but the resulting individual is STILL HUMAN and cannot be anything else, based on genetic codes and DNA, RNA etc., (all which guide the process of Replication / Creation. (Furthermore, only a soul destined to be a human would merge into a human union of egg and sperm.)
If you have knowledge of a non-human creature that came out of a human/female womb, (at ANY stage), please reveal.
I think it is really chicken to say it is not killing human life before such and such a time.
It is killing human life.
If one must kill human life because of this and that reason, one should acknowledge the truth of the matter. What is wrong with that?
Killing or halting the beginnings of human life should be personal choice.
...better avoided in the first place.
Back again, Kathryn? Are you ready to define "human" to go along with your declaration that anything in a woman's womb is a human being?
About one out of five pregnancies are miscarried; something was growing that the body could not tolerate. As women's bodies tolerate a human being growing inside just fine, we can conclude that at least some of these are then not human (the rest perhaps an incorrect positioning in the uterine wall, bad blood type, etc.).
In addition, many miscarriages flush out a zygote composed of only a few cells; plainly not human in spite of your claiming differently (unless you wish to define "human"?).
You and I have already discussed a human/animal hybrid - these are known to have come out of a human womb but no indication of whether you consider them human. Can you extend your definition ("Because I say it is") to cover those hybrids?
As a proper abortion is not killing human life, there is no reason to lie and say it is. Better, as always, to stick to the truth and say that it isn't in spite of the opinion of a few that disagree but refuse to truly examine their statements for reason and truth.
You talk with such authority.
It is quite a talent you have.
Answer this with all your authority:
< "If you have knowledge of a non-human creature that came out of a human/female womb, (at ANY stage), please reveal.">
<<< (whispering: In my estimation, mistakes can happen. Esoterically speaking, for those who are open to possibilities: Even these "mistakes" were probably the result of the soul's actual Karma. Just makes sense to me...>>>
See the post you replied to; the answer is there with the exact same authority you used to declare that anything inside a woman's womb is a human being.
But you didn't answer (again) - are you ready to define "human"? To list attributes common to all humans but no other animal?
It is constructed with ONLY human genetic code.
A humanly constructed zygote cannot become ANYTHING but human.
This conclusion is both logical and scientific.
Good. Now define "human genetic code", listing all the possibilities with a precise requirement of how many differences is permissible before a DNA strand is no longer "human". An explanation of why 98.0001% different is OK but 98.0000% is not would be very helpful, as would a complete list of permissible mutations.
Don't forget to include the millions of differences that we include as all being "homo sapiens". Short/tall (is 9' not human?), hairy/smooth (is covered in coarse long hair not human?), wide range of colors (is green still human, and how red can it get?), eye color (is yellow all right?) and shape (is 5 arms OK, or 20 legs?). As some animal DNA is extremely close to human, this will have to be a rather exhaustive list, don't you think?
The point being that defining "human" as "human" doesn't mean much. Which is what you did when you defined human as having human DNA. bBerean tried the same thing when his dictionary definition was "People, distinguished as different from other animals or representing human".
<"As some animal DNA is extremely close to human, this will have to be a rather exhaustive list, don't you think?">
How is this influential. I don't get it.
Animal DNA is not included in Human DNA.
End of story.
No matter what some references say about chimeras or hybrids,
I need to see a chimera or see proof of a hybrid born to a human mother.
But you are the product of just such a hybrid - we discussed this earlier. That you choose to ignore it, or pretend it didn't happen doesn't mean that it is not true.
No, I don't need to see something to accept the truth of it. Do you? Or do you claim that the sun is a big campfire instead of nuclear fusion because you can't tell the difference at this distance?
So this is what it boils down to? Somehow the OP has resulted in an evolution debate, (because that is your premise it seems...everything is in a constant state of evolution so what is human?). I was trying to figure out where all this looking for fly poop in the pepper was coming from.
Nothing to do with evolution - the discussion was that much of humanity is descended from a hybrid human/animal cross that occurred some thousands of years ago. A known one - we carry neanderthal genes in us, as pretty definitive proof that it happened.
As we are a hybrid, are all hybrids human as well? Or just this one somehow. Still trying, you see, to get a definition of what "human" means and still getting the same answer that "It is what I say it is" or that "human" means "human".
How about you - ready to give that definition so we can determine whether abortion is murder or just killing a few cells of an unwanted organism that is not human?
Evolution has brought us the present state of evolution. It is not arguable yet you argue...
I believe there are no longer any animal chromosomes in either sperm or egg whatsoever based on the EVIDENCE.
Have a good day.
You have a good one, too, Kathryn. It's always fascinating to see the logic and thought processes of someone who holds a cherished belief or opinion so tightly that facts are not allowed to intrude at any cost.
Ah yes...your "facts" again. Consistently your facts, (at least those that you purport would sway the tide of discussions), have been your beliefs, as illustrated in previous conversations.
http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2691754 (but one of many examples).
If you don't like mine, produce your own. Show facts that define a human life as anything in a woman's womb. Not opinions that a murder is anything you have decided it is but facts showing your opinion to be true. So far I haven't seen a single fact from either you or Kathryn - just opinions that a human being is whatever you say it is.
Simple logic, which you can't refute, says the life initiated by the joining of human sperm and egg is of course, a human, (albeit in the earliest stages of their development). I have said it a few times. You say a person is human at birth, so at least we agree there. Now work your way backward. You can't pick a spot to call it human because you can't make a case for why one moment it isn't and then it is during their gestation. Why can't you? Because there is no place it makes sense to do so. Where then does logic force a reasonable person to go? Back to when it is clear no human life has been initiated, which would be prior to the point of conception. This seems quite obvious to me, based on logical reasoning. You have no facts, so don't even go there, use logic and reason. If you feel that point of the establishment of this life as a human belongs elsewhere, explain your logic. Why not one moment, then yes the next? Kathryn, others and I have expressed our views and I have once again, clearly explained why. Your turn.
OK - my turn. I'll use the exact same logic.
A mechanic is going to build a car. He assembles all the parts into a big pile (which that embryo does not have in place yet), takes two bolts in hand, connects them to a piece of iron and exclaims that "This is a car!" because he has begun the process of building one. It won't move, you can't get into it and it has no motive power but it is a car because it might become one one day. If you or I dispose of those two bolts we should be legally (and morally) responsible for the cost of a new car for that mechanic.
Same logic, same reasoning, but no one would accept that two bolts and a chunk of steel is a car. So how does identical "logic" indicate that two connected cells is a human life? That disposing of those cells is murder and we should be punished for murdering a person?
My own definition of when human life begins? I don't have one. It isn't human here, it is human there, but I can no more provide a definitive spot on the timeline than you can. The difference is that I won't try to force my (unsupported) definition onto anyone else while you are most happy to.
So, back to you. Where on the timeline, using your logic presented here, has that mechanic formed a "car"? With the two bolts? When the seats go in? The engine? Wheels? Steering wheel? At what point in construction is that collection of bolts and steel properly considered a "car"? Your "logic" proclaims that it is when the two bolts are connected...
*edit* Let me add that you are correct (as far as I can see) that there ARE no "facts" which fit this problem. But that's not a reason to make up a definition of your own and declare that it has to be right so 350 million other people have to accept it because you say so. Unless you can logically show differently, using a better logical sequence that "it will become human one day and therefore it is human right now" I just don't see that your opinion is better than anyone else's. That you have the moral right to force that opinion onto others in defiance of their own, equally unsupported and illogical, opinion.
<" So how does identical "logic" indicate that two connected cells is a human life?">
Because you have intention of an in-place spirit within the cells.
Not within a couple of bolts.
Take a robot.
If you pick up wires, connectors, batteries and components with which a scientist wanted to create a functioning robot, and put them in the trash…the scientist will be quite miffed. The creation of the robot was dependent upon the intention/spirit of the scientist.
A zygote, however, has an intention residing within it and this intention is revealed through the genetic process governed by life.
We are not talking about the creation of inanimate objects where there is no inner life force.
Instead, take a seed. A life force within it is activated by soil and water.
The seed's life force is destined to follow a certain course of developmental events based on it's genetic codes.
Where did the genetic codes come from? That is the real question.
We really have to stick to the replicating process of DNA and RNA.
Nope. Logic does not indicate a spirit at all - only human imagination does that. Or a "life force", for that matter - that's merely made up terminology that sounds pretty but cannot be shown to exist (partly because it isn't defined either! ). What you seem to refer to here is merely chemical reactions going on, no different than any other such throughout the world. Salt crystals, forming, perhaps, or rust. Chemistry in action, without need for a mythical "life force".
Or do you have those rare "facts" in the matter to present?
Likewise for the "intention" you claim is built into a zygote, without ever presenting the "intendor". No evidence there is such, so it must be more unsupported opinion.
As far as the replicating process of DNA, it might not be wise to stick with that. Humanity has been creating new forms of DNA for some time now, and there is a great flap going on over it. Some wish it stopped, some want it continued but all agree that man is creating DNA that did not exist without his efforts. Plus, of course, we know that the self-replicating process is not foolproof - that errors creep in and "self create" DNA that had never existed before. It's a part of that "mutation" thing mentioned before, where you declined to indicate whether all mutations were automatically considered human or not.
Or will you deny that the replication process can have errors, or that man changes DNA by intent, because it hasn't been seen with your eyes?
Wilderness, life force is within the process. There is order to the unfolding of things life creates.
Thats all I know.
Why you want to take away the killing aspect of abortion I do not know.
But, if you squash a seed that has already got a root on it, (a sprout,) or pull it out of the ground, you are stopping life force.
Whether that is good or bad, I am not saying. I have no idea. How could I?
But we should call abortion what it is:
Stopping the life force of a potential human.
Maybe it is justified in many cases.
That would be a more interesting discussion...
For me, anyway.
No question that we are stopping the chemical reactions that might, one day, create a human being. But that's not murder any more than stepping on an ant or beetle is - neither our legal system or morality (for most people) have any such prohibition. Murder is the act of killing a person, not some other organism.
But a question for you - the "plan B" ("morning after pill")...is that murder? It can act by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterine wall, thus killing that same potential human being. Or how about any birth control as it all acts by preventing the potential formation of a person? Are they murder as well?
As far as killing a person being justified, I can think of only a handful of acceptable reasons and none apply to the common abortion. Life of the mother, perhaps, but what other reason for the murder of an infant could possibly be justified?
Very good question, especially when you consider that abortion is very bad for the mother's body.
It might be healthier to just allow the body, (of a sound host,) to produce the baby.
Then the baby could go to the loving arms of those not able to produce offspring.
Now when you consider the process of development and what could cause it to go wrong…
I would actually consider drug use a reason to abort.
Or psychological circumstances in which the mother is under huge stress or is homeless.
…Say, a drug-addicted homeless prostitute who forgot to take her pill.
Even then, having the baby, (special needs or not,) could cause her to turn her life around.
And this is a true story which I am currently witnessing.
- as far as the morning after pill, like say after a rape…
I would guess its okay…
but confusing to the soul which entered at the moment of conception.
In this case, the soul returns to the astral world whence it came... it just has to wait for a better earthly circumstance, one would surmise and assume.
Contraceptives prevent life and do not halt the process once it has begun. They keep the seeds in the packet.
They are FINE... when they work!
According To Me
I don't know that plan B is worse, or even has bad, as a pregnancy is for the "mother to be". Do you? And a well performed abortion may not be as bad as a pregnancy; my wife has had two C sections and many years of additional pain and surgeries as a result of them.
You appear inconsistent to me. I can't imagine mental stress, regardless of how bad (rape, incest), to be an acceptable reason for murder of a third person. Of the rapist perhaps, but murder of a third person innocent of any wrongdoing? How could that ever be an acceptably moral thing to do simply because we're upset?
One can surmise and assume that a "soul" will simply return to a "void" when denied a spot here, but again that seems like a major cop out as we do not and cannot know that it will happen or even that it can happen. I know you like to present these ideas as truth, but I also know that you are intelligent enough to know that you don't actually know if they are true or not; that leaves the cop out as the driving force to saying them. Guessing that they are hardly seems motive enough to perform or allow a murder of innocent people.
Huge Stress could impact the development of the child. Is it fair that the psychological condition of the mother should negatively impact the soundness of the soul's body?
Is it fair that a heroin or speed addicted mother produces an offspring now also addicted?
Do you think an undernourished, homeless woman could produce a healthy fit-for-survival infant?
I just don't think it is fair, in those instances, to the incoming soul, which, BTW, I do absolutely believe in.
Whether you believe in it or not, you also know that you cannot prove it and thus don't know it to be true. Belief is not knowledge and while it is fine to run your own life on belief, when it is used to determine whether another life can be terminated without prejudice it is completely unacceptable. I do think you will even agree with me here, or do you find it right and proper that the Taliban murder school girls because they believe their god told them to?
But are these things (drugs, stress, etc.) "fair"? No, of course not. Does the "unfairness" give an excuse to murder innocent people? No, of course not. It never has, and that the person is in the womb is no different than being 10,13 or 15 years old - that life is unfair to them is never an excuse to simply murder them. I speak, of course, of aborting a late term fetus - aborting that early growth of parasitic cells is another matter.
We ourselves are proof of souls.
The soul enters at the time of conception otherwise there would be no cell growth.
Soul = life.
"Does the "unfairness" give an excuse to murder innocent people? No, of course not."
These two understandings together produce this precept:
No stopping of human life-infused unborn matter < EDIT once it has begun >, is justified unless the life of the mother is at risk.
Without the understanding of the former, we will be killing the orderly unfolding of a human being, as far as abortion.
What proof do the Taliban have?
The Taliban has the exact same proof you do; a belief - an "understanding" - with nothing to back it up. That you reject their proof while accepting your own does not mean theirs is actually wrong. It just means that you find your own belief right and theirs wrong; the same thing they will say about yours.
Sounds, though, as you are now saying that any abortion and any form of birth control is wrong and should be prohibited. If so, do you feel that your belief is sufficient to declare others are wrong and gives you the moral right to decide how they should live? Recognizing that you voluntarily live in a country where that very concept is wrong down to the root, how can you justify it?
Recognize, please, that I am not questioning whether your beliefs on a soul are right or wrong; just your willingness to force others to abide by those very personal beliefs.
<"Contraceptives prevent life and do not halt the process once it has begun. They keep the seeds in the packet. They are FINE... when they work!">
Therefore this would be true: < "No stopping of human life-infused unborn matter < EDIT once it has begun, > is justified unless the life of the mother is at risk.">
We are arguing by utilizing known facts and logic to determine truth.
My beliefs, (and yours,) are based on facts and sound reasoning to determine the truth. The Taliban are making it up as they go along based on wishful thinking to justify the thrill of wimpy power and cruelty. What else could their beliefs be based on? facts? sound reasoning?
...anyway, lets just assume everyone else is crazy except you and me…
and I'm not so sure about you.
( Sorry, that always cracks me up.)
Once more it rather sounds like splitting hairs to make what you want to happen be true. Whether gametes have met or not does not seem to be a game changer when considering what might happen. The pill prevents a possible person from forming just as an early abortion does (there might always be a miscarriage or something). Why the insistence that the soul has not actually entered it's future home, then, and therefore that it's different than if it HAD entered that same future home and has to be recycled? Either way it's still in the future - a future that could always go either way.
The Talibans beliefs are founded most solidly by what their prophet told them was the word of god. Just ask them. No reasoning necessary - that word is in their hands every time they open a Quran.
But you never commented on your willingness to force others to follow the tenets of your beliefs, and you don't even have a Quran to support them with!
Personally, I think most of us are crazy, so that isn't a deterrent to anything. And sometimes I think I sit on the throne there, too! Crazy is what keeps us from dying of boredom anyway.
Boredom!? Not when you are attempting to change the world so that it is the way you think it should be!
I do not want souls happily merging into a potential body and then sent away.
I feel sorry for the poor rejected souls.
I am fighting for peace on both sides of the curtain.
The earthling will suffer, the soul will suffer.
But alas… You are right.
it is just my imagination.
Am I really the same as a Taliban?
But, to be on the safe side:
No sex before menopause if you do not want to suffer through an abortion and cannot welcome a soul...
A soul who is now blissfully sleeping in the arms of the angels.
But of course, each to their own.
This is just the way I see it and imagine it.
You win again, wilderness.
Our ignorance is what is not fair.
No sex before menopause...glad I'm male!
It's been interesting, Kathryn, but past my bedtime. Till next time, then...
Actually your perspective appears to be all about evolution, as I alleged. You've further confirmed it in your response, and evolution is about undermining humanity. From that perspective, why bother defining it, as it is of no significance. Just a curio along the imaginary evolutionary chain. Again, nothing to do with the OP, unless to depict a human early in development as not human and therefore disposable and their life of no consequence. We disagree.
If you find a request for a definition of "human" to be all about evolution it can only be because you don't want to discuss it further. (The discussion on hybridization of people is nothing more than to point that it has already happened and could happen again in the future.)
OK - that's pretty much how Kathryn left it too; "I can't justify my position logically so don't want to talk any more". Hopefully both of you realize that your position on abortion isn't really tenable - that insisting abortion is murder can only come from personal opinion with zero facts or reasoning to back it and, maybe, that it should be left to every person to make their own decision rather than forcing yours onto people with differing, but just as valuable and correct, opinions.
Are you a qualified geneticist to make such a claim? Because every one I've ever heard of reports that most human DNA is the same as in all animals and a very high percentage is the same as some animals. Or do you qualify a chimpanzee as a human?
Are you including every possible mutation that could occur to still be human DNA? because that could mean that human gametes produced a possum...
Good question, I don’t really know what it is that separates us from animals except logic, but I’ve watched animals who had to decide between two things, it seemed that even they thought and reasoned, then decided. I’ve thought about it many times but can’t decide what it is. Maybe the other thing is love that we have
The definition of an embryo
1 an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development.
• an unborn human, especially in the first eight weeks from conception, after implantation but before all the organs are developed. Compare with fetus
I struggle with this, too. What defines us as human? What attributes do we have that no other animal does?
Intelligence? Is a child with severe Downs syndrome a person? There are animals that are smarter, defined as their ability to learn (think of the gorilla Koko that uses sign language because it doesn't have the speech organs we do). I've seen a study where a chimp and a baby were raised together - the chimp learned far more far faster than the baby could...until the baby learned to talk. Was the chimp smarter in the early years?
So yes, intelligence plays a part, but it's not the whole answer. Love? Most pet owners (including me) will swear their pet loves them. Elephants are well known to exhibit the trait to each other and many animals will risk nearly sure death to protect their infant.
Empathy? The ability to construct more complex things? Use of fire? A hundred or a thousands times the imagination? Animals use tools - tools that don't seem to change over long, long periods, but then so did we only a few thousand years ago.
Maybe it's just a specific conglomeration of attributes rather than one or a few. The unique collection all put together in one species maybe including hands that can manipulate well and, certainly, both mental and physical speech center. Animals talk to each other, but vocabulary seems (seems because we don't really know) extremely limited either because of mental or physical incapacity.
There's nothing I can think of that we have that the animals don't, except these
Keep trying. All the great apes and old world monkeys have opposable thumbs while the lesser apes have an extra long opposable thumb. Most birds have an opposable digit, and some reptiles as well. Opossums have an opposable toe. Even some dinosaurs had an opposable digit on their limbs, and bambiraptor had both first and third digits opposable (wouldn't that work great for grasping things?).
No, it's more than that.
From Live Science
Top 10 Things that Make Humans Special
Humans are unusual animals by any stretch of the imagination, ones that have changed the face of the world around us. What makes us so special when compared to the rest of the animal kingdom? Some things we take completely for granted might surprise you.
The larynx, or voice box, sits lower in the throat in humans than in chimps, one of several features that enable human speech. This horseshoe-shaped bone below the tongue, unique in that it is not attached to any other bones in the body, allows us to articulate words when speaking.
Humans are unique among the primates in how walking fully upright is our chief mode of locomotion.
We look naked compared to our hairier ape cousins. Surprisingly, however, a square inch of human skin on average possesses as much hair-producing follicles as other primates, or more — humans often just have thinner, shorter, lighter hairs.
(MY NOTE: I stand corrected by this and Wilderness)
Contrary to popular misconceptions, humans are not the only animals to possess opposable thumbs — most primates do. (Unlike the rest of the great apes, we don't have opposable big toes on our feet.) What makes humans unique is how we can bring our thumbs all the way across the hand to our ring and little fingers. We can also flex the ring and little fingers toward the base of our thumb. This gives humans a powerful grip and exceptional dexterity to hold and manipulate tools with.
Without a doubt, the human trait that sets us apart the most from the animal kingdom is our extraordinary brain. Humans don't have the largest brains in the world — those belong to sperm whales. We don't even have the largest brains relative to body size — many birds have brains that make up more than 8 percent of their body weight, compared to only 2.5 percent for humans. Yet the human brain, weighing only about 3 pounds when fully grown, give us the ability to reason and think on our feet beyond the capabilities of the rest of the animal kingdom, and provided the works of Mozart, Einstein and many other geniuses.
Humans may be called "naked apes," but most of us wear clothing, a fact that makes us unique in the animal kingdom, save for the clothing we make for other animals. The development of clothing has even influenced the evolution of other species — the body louse, unlike all other kinds, clings to clothing, not hair.
The human ability to control fire would have brought a semblance of day to night, helping our ancestors to see in an otherwise dark world and keep nocturnal predators at bay. The warmth of the flames also helped people stay warm in cold weather, enabling us to live in cooler areas. And of course it gave us cooking, which some researchers suggest influenced human evolution — cooked foods are easier to chew and digest, perhaps contributing to human reductions in tooth and gut size.
Humans are the only species known to blush.
Humans must remain in the care of their parents for much longer than other living primates. The question then becomes why, when it might make more evolutionary sense to grow as fast as possible to have more offspring. The explanation may be our large brains, which presumably require a long time to grow and learn.
Most animals reproduce until they die, but in humans, females can survive long after ceasing reproduction.
Several of these seem important to me:
The larynx, coupled with a brain that can use it to full effectiveness (although you won't want to hear me sing! ). Communication, and the ability to pass on knowledge is a huge asset.
Use of fire. Again, a huge asset that enables us to survive where we otherwise could not as well as build things.
Upright posture, coupled with the hands. This frees those hands to do things, while most animals use their "hands" to walk with.
And of course the uniquely effective brain we have.
And perhaps it is the combination of these (and others not thought of) that makes us "human". A dolphin may be as intelligent (or not - we don't really know) and appears to have a developed language but will never use fire or have hands to manipulate the environment with. A gorilla or chimp can use their hands but lacks the brain power and communication ability. And so on - it seems to be a unique combination of traits that separates us rather than a single characteristic.
The downside is that the human mind feels shame, some kill for pleasure, and I THINK these trait are unique to Humans
Something else unique to humans is the ability to have self control, and not act on the animal instinct ID part of the personality
I don't know; many cats just HATE to be laughed at. Shame? Don't know.
But some other animals kill for pleasure as well. Have you seen the video of a killer whale pod killing a gray whale baby? It took then a long time (hours, I think) and when they finally drowned it they ate the lips and left. All just for fun.
Nor do I agree that only people have self control. Carnivores particularly may leave without a kill because it seems too dangerous. Hungry, wanting to attack, but finally just back off. Or a wolf pack with a new kill, but are required to eat in sequence and the last one may go without but won't jump in out of turn. So, given a reason, animals can and do exhibit that control. They just don't usually have any reason to do so.
Well maybe, but I think we may have those traits to a greater degree, along with our dominance
Humans often think pets are showing traits that they aren't, like love. The animals may feel safer with some people more than others, but "I" doubt it is love
I don't know, MS. I certainly agree that we have the attributes to a stronger degree (much of it because of the smarter brain), the love thing I disagree with.
When my cat isn't satisfied to sleep a foot away, but demands that it be touching me...well, that sounds more like love than safety. If I won't let him on my lap, he'll curl up across my feet (preventing me from protecting him, incidentally) or just push up against me on the couch. Wants to be in contact, that's all.
And watching two elephants, separated for years, come together again was instructive; rubbing each other with body and trunk, ignoring the rest of the world while doing so. That's more than just a greeting. Or an elephant seeing a person they had lived with but not for several years and with similar happiness.
Animals may not exhibit their love as we do, but I do think it is there. And maybe the degree of love comes into it, with animal affection but short of what we would call love.
Our black and white tuxedo cat is the same way. He's one that has to around someone, and always wants to be touched, but he'll snub everyone when my brother is home, and he follows him like a little dog. My brother has to give him his medicine (antibiotics), because he'll take them only for him
Interestingly, I've read that man is causing/helping this behavior, and that agrees with my own observations. I've owned (shared residence!) with cats for 50 years, but it has only been the past two or three that exhibited this kind of "doggie" behavior. Theory is that we are liking/wanting more doglike behavior in our pets, and thus causing them to evolve down that path. Makes sense, too - when our last friend left us last year there were more tears shed than all the rest put together. He was just so much more loving than any from the past, though they all seemed to have the trait to some degree.
I love dogs but regardless of how many times you send them to be groomed, they still have an unpleasant odor to ME".
I've spent more time crying over the loss of our cats than I care to. I get too involved, and fall too deep.
The fact you love your cats shows you have a good heart.
Animals are so innocent and deserve to be loved (my opinion)
Perhaps a zygote could be identified as human...if we had a reasonable definition of human. I've asked you several times now for one and you've sidestepped each time, merely saying we all know what a human is. That a zygote is "commonly" accepted as human even as we kill them without calling it murder. It should be obvious that a zygote is NOT "commonly" accepted as human, which makes that definition not only incomplete but unacceptable as well.
Are you allowing your concept of morality, based on what the preacher or bible tells you, to slop over into laws? Making everyone in the country conform to your religious beliefs?
C'mon, bBerean, step up to the plate. We both agree that killing humans is unacceptable; define "human" then. Do it such a way that clones are defined, that mutations both minor and severe are addressed and that hybrids are covered one way or the other. Realizing that it is for purposes of abortion laws, and not religious reasons, give a definition.
1.any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2.a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:
living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being."
Seems pretty basic to me. When do they qualify as human? Work backwards to where they do not. Eggs and sperm individually are not a human being. After that, it appears even you can't say where the line is, so why would that not be the line?
If considering it globally, then yes, after conception it is commonly considered a human life by people personally, (even if not by the courts). Even in liberal Europe and the US, it is not an uncommon belief, but worldwide, "commonly" is apropos.
My morality does not come from a preacher or book, but from spiritual discernment, which to you means nothing. Fair enough in terms of your perception, but still my source. You've been skirting my queries, btw.
For some reason I can't reply to your post in either threaded or chronological; hopefully you will see this.
So you are willing to let an outdated, simplistic internet dictionary definition determine what is human and what is not. OK - let's look at it.
Consider a hybrid (we know it happens - most descendents out of Europe are a hybrid of two different species). Are all hybrids then considered Homo Sapien regardless of which species they most resemble? They aren't in other species' hybrids... As you have already said that a human comes from a zygote (formed of two gametes) a clone can never be a human. Can you say why not? What is different in a clone that makes it inhuman?
Your definition also includes any other potential organisms that biologists deem to put into the genus "homo". Would you accept a mutated/evolved chimpanzee or gorilla as a "human"? We know organisms evolve; such a step is quite possible, or even deliberate genetic manipulation of such animals - I would expect such action to be quite possible in the next few decades.
Would you call a brainless lump of flesh, unable to live outside a womb, a human? If so, why? It obviously won't carry much human DNA (less than a chimp will) as it does not have the primary attributes of being a human so why is it still human outside of an artificial definition that doesn't match reality?
Your second definition is no more than a play on words: a person that is distinguished from other animals (without saying how) is a human. Worthless as a definition for any purpose, let alone making the laws of a nation.
No, a zygote is not commonly considered human life all over the globe. As the developed nations are the only ones that commonly practice abortion it is there we have to look rather than a third world village where no one even knows what a zygote is, let alone debates whether it is human. And while people may state that they believe that, when the chips are down the large majority seem to prefer killing it but refuse to accept they are a murderess. Their opinion, then, depends on the circumstances they find themselves in.
Finally, you're right - your "spiritual enlightment" means nothing to me or to anyone that isn't you. As such it doesn't seem a reasonable basis for makings laws for the country as a whole. When you decide that your morals are superior, AND that they define the beginning of human life and therefore all people should conform to the you've crossed the line into immorality yourself.
It won't become anything if aborted. If not, the easy road is to assume it will become a person although we know it isn't always true. Besides, it makes a better argument if we don't admit it may never survive till birth.
Oh My God you make having an abortion sound like a walk in the park. For some women this decision may be an easy one to make but for the majority it is a horrendous, painful, stressful, sole-destroying situation to have to go through and one that stays with them for life and changes them in way you will never understand. A women doesn't choose to kill her baby for fun and no one has the right to judge her decision until they have walked a mile in her shoes.
I don't like the idea of government deciding everything, but if they left such things up to the discretion of the people, it could become a big mess
The Government is a much greater. They should stick to health care, highways, schools and small things. Not running our lives in life or death, we are the big boss, not them. No better person to decides ones body is thou self.
The Government is a much greater. They should stick to health care, highways, schools and small things. Not running our lives in life or death, we are the big boss, not them. No better person to decides ones body is thou self.
This is a classical chicken vs. the egg discussion. The question has evolved into a reactionary rather than a preventative discussion. Is a fetus a human being? Who knows? Does a fetus evolve into a human being? Absolutely! So the question isn't one of is it but of when is it? So if we decide we don't want the child we abort the fetus? It's kind of choosing when we should care rather than what we should care. The big when we should care is now behind the question rather than prevention which is before the question. When should we care? When we choose to have sex should be the question and preventative action. All the posturing and blaming is not going to change anything. Women who want to have an abortion will find a way to have one. Should we force them in this direction because of what should be? The deciding factor of when is it a fetus or a baby should be on the shoulders of the mother as the difference between a fetus and a baby should be based on her feelings.
For me it comes down to 1 question. Is the fetus a human being. If the answer is no, then it seems like there is nothing wrong with abortions. It's a simple medical procedure. If the answer is yes, then you are ending a human life without just cause. That's called murder and should be prevented. I have never heard a rational argument as to how that isn't a growing person.
Fair enough. I've never heard a rational argument as to how a couple of cells (or a hundred or thousand) is a human being.
Which would seem to indicate that it is a personal call and definition - that govt. should keep it's nose out of it.
Most women dont know they are pregnant util the 3rd or 4th week of pregnancy. By then there is measurable brain activity. When women have abortions are they aborting cells? I have never heard of that. Isn't it a fetus? Which seems to clearly be more than just a few cells. Even if aborted cells was the case, what are those growing and developing in to?
Putting aside my own perspective I notice that people want to use the law in an absolute ways against poorer people by cutting off their access to both birth control and abortion. But those same arguments about life beginning at conception vanish when rich people want in vitro fertilization which comes with the inevitable destruction (one way or another) of many excess embryos. And in fact if the embryo is a person at conception, implanting them in a woman with borderline fertility is probably negligent homicide.
What every position society takes should be free of this kind of hypocrisy.
The issue of whether a fetus is a human being is irrelevant to the legality of abortion.
Abortion needs to be legal so that poor women have the same access to safe medical care that everyone else does. Otherwise, rich and middle class women just go to Canada while poor women go into the back alley. It's really that simple. Anyone who says otherwise isn't informed on the issue.
actually the fetus being a human is very relevant to the issue. because if the fetus is a human, then ending its life without just cause is murder. if you think its not, how is it not? whats irrelevant , if its human, is that a women may or may not have an abortion in a back ally.
You are assuming a universally accepted natural law, thou shalt not kill any living human tissue. Which seems questionable.
You clearly don't understand the reality of abortion nor are you familiar with the history of it. Creating a law banning abortion will just mean that poor women are forced into unsafe medical procedures and those who can afford it, will travel to get their abortions. If it's murder, then what will the penalties be? Are you willing to prosecute any woman who has an abortion for murder? And should they be given the death penalty?
The best way to reduce abortions is free birth control. Any person concerned about abortion should also be an advocate of free birth control.
if its murder, then i dont know what penalties should be. but they should be prosecuted to some degree. also if its murder, how does any scenerio about women doing it in an ally or not getting it done properly matter? can i just ask, do you think the fetus is a human, and any stage of development. if not, how is it not?
You don't know what the penalties should be? You mean you haven't given that any thought? Shouldn't women who have abortions be put to death - given the electric chair? And shouldn't the men who impregnated them and left be prosecuted? And shouldn't whoever performed the abortion be put in jail for a long time.
I'll answer your question even though you haven't answered mine. A fetus is a living thing. Is it human? Of course. But it's not viable and it's has not consciousness. It doesn't know it's alive. However, that doesn't matter. It's irrelevant because abortions just happen anyway and it's the poor women who end up in the back alleys. Your abortion laws will do nothing to stop middle class and rich women from having them. They'll just go to another country. You act as though human life were sacred. It's not. I think what you mean to say is that innocent life is sacred. It's not. But again, that's all irrelevant. I'm not saying abortions should be done as though they were breast implants. I'm saying the procedure should be available when it's needed.
I answered your question. I said I dont know. You're right though , I haven't given much thought to what the penalties should be. I think the father should only be punished if he paid for or agree to it. A lot of times they don't even get the choice. I think the doctor should be punished. But that's because I believe life is of value. I find it interesting you don't think life is of value or sacred, but you're still for whatever reason concerned for the health and well being of the mother. Can you explain that? And if life is not sacred, and making murder illegal doesn't prevent everyone from doing it, should we just legalize it?
The father is the ultimate cause of the murder of human life because he created it, therefore the father is the cause of the abortion. He should have known the woman would kill it.
Why did he not know?
If a pre-child is allowed to be murdered, why not a child?
Therefore, with this line of reasoning, abortion should be illegal and not left up to personal choice.
I'm for reality. I'm for free birth control. I'm for doing everything we can to make abortion a very rare option, but when that option is needed, then it's done safely for all women regardless of their income level.
Couldn't the same be said for all types of murder and crime? If we ban murder, people will just be sneaky about it. Therefore, we should simply allow it. If we make rape illegal, people will just do it in back alleys when no one is looking. Therefore, rape should be legal.
I believe that there should be some intervention (no late term abortions) but that it should be legal for X amount of weeks. Where I live, 20 weeks is the "cut-off" date. Once the baby is viable outside of the womb is when things get uncomfortable for me, personally.
And it's their body, not the Government's.
I tend to agree, but also tiptoe very quietly and carefully around that term "viable".
"Viable" with massive medical intervention and help? Because one day not too far off we will see babies that never saw the inside of a womb.
"Viable" on their own, without help from anyone? Because that would mean somewhere around 15-20 years of age.
Yeah, it's tricky. I guess for me it comes down to... if a baby can survive with the assistance of something/someone other than the mother, it becomes less about the mother's rights as they could be considered two separate, living beings whose rights both need to be considered. I'm having a really hard time putting this into words for some reason, so I don't know if that makes sense. The question of when abortions should be legal is way harder than if abortions should be legal, for sure.
What is the difference between a baby that is 19 weeks, six days, and 23 hours old, and one that is 20 weeks old?
Not much. But if you're going to draw a line then you have to draw it somewhere. You could make that argument for most things, really.
Well if you are against late term abortions then I think it is important to figure out exactly where that line is that makes the distinction between a living human, and a non living mass of cells.
Right, and I've already said that for me it's when the fetus reaches viability. Though I know the thoughts on that are quite varied. I'm not sure why 20 weeks was the time chosen here but I'm okay with it. It's slightly before viability (which is generally 24 weeks) but it also gives women 20 weeks to make a decision, knowing that they only have 20 weeks to make a decision, which I think is fair.
If viability applies to the worth of a human life then where would the inconsistency with killing a one year old child be? Certainly you can not expect babies to maintain themselves alone without outside intervention.
Because a one year old child can easily survive without its mother. Another person can take responsibility for the child if need be. A mother is the only person who can support a fetus before ~24 weeks. Without the mother there is no fetus, it cannot survive as a living human being outside of the womb. Certainly not the case for a one year old.
As technology grows do you see fathers rights as becoming more important? There will come a time when a 1 week old fetus can live; at that point will fathers rights trump those of the mother wanting a simple abortion?
Or are Dads condemned to forever stand by and watch as a woman legally murders their child?
I don't know, honestly. I think it would definitely have to be considered. I might have something more interesting to say after I've given it more thought, it's a tough (and interesting) question.
I am admittedly only completely clear in my stance that it should be legal, the specifics after that can get a bit muddied for me.
Viability is ones ability to maintain its self. A six month old Baby can not do that. It would die without any outside intervention. There are also stories of babies having survived after only 21 weeks of gestation. Are they not viable because of the doctors? And if not then are the elderly not viable either?
The heart is beating, for gosh sakes. Once the heart is beating… a human heart…
Kill it if you must, but … it is a heartless act.
Interesting that heart and love… are synonymous.
Yes, you appear to be missing the part where I'm saying that the mother is literally the only person that can sustain a fetus before a certain point. A ten week old fetus can't just be removed from a woman's uterus and put into someone else's, it can't be kept alive on machines, it can't be born and given to another person to be cared for like a six month old baby can.
Its existence depends on the mother's body and only the mother's body. It cannot survive even with intervention outside the womb, whether it be from a doctor, a machine, the father, or a stranger.
Common sense tells you it is destined to be a child and you are snuffing out its life. That is the definition of murder. Whether vacuum, gun, knife or poison, murder is murder.
Maybe you don't like the term "pre-child." What is the difference between child and pre-child when the heart has already been ignited and formed? (week five)
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-livin … t-20045302
Yes I understand that, however viability is defined in a much broader context when subtracting extreme left leaning rhetoric. Simply put it is ones ability to sustain themselves without outside intervention. However if an individuals viability is based on their ability to survive without the aid of doctors and machines, then there are a lot of sick and elderly people in the hospital that aren't viable enough to keep alive as well.
I would also like to point out the fact that you are still unable to specifically define at what point of gestation a fetus is viable. Is it 20 weeks, 25 weeks, 10 weeks? This should be an easy thing considering all the growth in science and medicine that has been accomplished in our lifetimes.
I've said "approximately 24 weeks" at least twice already.
My idea of viability in this situation is a fetus being viable outside of another living person's body. They are still viable if interventions can keep them alive outside of the womb.
...even a baby born two months ahead of schedule could have serious problems and complications lasting a life time.
...I'm aware of that.
I'm talking about a fetus reaching a stage of development where they actually have a chance of surviving.
Why talk philosophy with the scientific facts staring you in the face?
The baby will not survive or be absolutely healthy if it does not stay in the womb for the prescribed amount of time.
There's a pretty big difference between surviving and being absolutely healthy, don't you think?
You are advocating unpunish-able murder based on what? That the baby would die anyway if it were removed at whatever stage of development?
I'm simply trying to explain why I feel there's a difference between an abortion at, say, 8 weeks, and late term abortions. I feel that there should be a cut-off date, the idea of late term abortions makes me very uncomfortable. I've already thrown my hands up a couple of times and said that I don't know what the exact right answer here is. But in my opinion, making all abortions illegal is a violation of a woman's rights and is just inviting a whole host of problems that people seem to be happily ignoring. On the flip side, I don't think it's okay to abort a baby who very likely would survive outside of its mother's womb. That's how I come to the conclusion that the best option is to provide women with safe, legal abortions but only allow them up until a certain gestation. What is that magical age that a fetus becomes a baby? I don't know. The best I can do is refer to viability. It's not perfect, I know that.
Please refer to this post I made yesterday.
I do not know the exact time when a fetus becomes viable. No one does. So what does that mean? That we have to either assume that a fetus is a baby from the moment of conception, or that the fetus isn't a baby until the mother gives birth to it? Do we have to accept the extremes because we're not 100% sure at what point a fetus is developed enough to be its own person? Why can't we look at the rates of survival when born at X weeks gestation, estimate viability, and then do the best we can with that estimation?
What do you mean by approximately? This is not a very scientific conclusion. Exactly at what point in the 24th week does the fetus become viable?
Aime, it's refreshing to see someone with a rational and moderate view on abortion who admits that they don't have all the answers. Stick to your guns.
You are advocating the choice of legally unpunished Murder.
- just so you know.
Wow, quite inflammatory and insulting. The fact is that I oppose all extremists who base their beliefs on mindless ideology. They are the bullies of our society -- both on the left and on the right.
It is a prime example of "My opinion is right, your's is wrong and there is nothing to discuss".
...says another man. At least we should call it what it is: murder… that murder/abortion is allowed and not punished according to legal guidelines should be admitted.
...according to me.
*shrug* My opinion is as valuable and useful as yours is.
Now if you would like to discuss what a "human being" is and what differentiates it from other life, I'm up for it. Just as long as you understand that unsupported opinions aren't worth much - unless you can show and measure that "soul" you claim, it is useless as a definition.
LOL. Wilderness, you certainly are a free thinker.
Please tell us, oh wise one, what you believe the criminal punishment should be for having an abortion. We're talking about changing the law. How should we punish those that disobey it?
By having the father witness the abortion of his child. He should realize that he was a co-conspirator in its murder by allowing it to come into existence in the first place.
Now, I ask... what is wrong with this?
How about both mother and father get the electric chair? Isn't that what murderers get in this country? Or, at least, life in prison?
Apparently the bible has established a pre-child is less important than a fully developed adult:
<" the old testament says that if someone strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to lose the fetus, the striker will be fined. if the woman dies, the striker will be killed. evidently god doesn't put as high a value on a fetus as an adult.">
(Can you provide location references, cathylynn99?)
This seems to be a violent act, however: sucking out a fetus. The fetus surely experiences the trauma... and the mother as well, on many levels.
"Murder" is defined as the killing of a human being. Killing a dog is not murder. Killing a cat or a horse is not murder. Killing a virus or a cancerous growth is neither murder nor any kind of crime at all.
As a very young fetus is in the same category as a virus or other non-human parasitic growth the term "murder" is not applicable.
If a "very young fetus" is not a human being, are you then suggesting that a mature fetus is a human being? And therefore abortion is murder at a certain stage of development?
A fertilized egg is not human. At 9 months is has become human.
The inescapable conclusion is that at some point the fertilized egg becomes a human being; a point I am not qualified to determine. Nor, IMHO, is anyone else, yet for legal purposes it must be. I am then satisfied to take the current legal definition as far as the abortion question goes.
Tell that to the soul already embedded within the aborted fetus on its way out of its mother's womb.
There is a heart beat after five weeks.
wilderness: in what way is a very young fetus is in the same category as a virus or other non-human parasitic growth?
It is a parasite, living off the host whether wanted or not. Without a brain (and the early fetus does not have one) it is not human.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of either a virus or other parasite?
lol. not a bad definition. i have this one from dictionary.com
an organism that lives on or in an organism of ANOTHER SPECIES , known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
i dont agree that the early fetus has no brain. since measurable brain activity can recorded at around 3 weeks. if a brain is what make you human, does that mean the majority of other animals are also human? there is a procedure referred to as a hemispherectomy. when you remove half the brain. does that mean they are only half human?
Early fetus. As in a few hours old, with just a handful of cell splitting under it's belt. A better term might have been embryo.
Nor did I indicate that a brain meant human - only that it was one factor. A human has a brain, but having one does not define human.
A different species - does that mean that human cells gone mad in a cancerous orgy of reproduction is a different species? If so, what species might it be, bearing in mind that it comes from human DNA...
fair enough. as i asked earlier though, do women abort cells( or in this case embryo's)? i havent heard that, as most women dont know they are pregnant that early.
your exact words were " Without a brain (and the early fetus does not have one) it is not human". gotta admit it sound like you were indicating that without one its not human.
not sure what you mean by "does that mean that human cells gone mad in a cancerous orgy of reproduction is a different species?". could you explain? i also simply took that definition from dictionary.com. it wasnt my own.
Spontaneous abortions are common. I'm no doctor, but think that most women will know; after it has attached to the uterine wall there are other signs of an abortion as well.
To be human requires a brain, yes. Without a brain no collection of cells is human. (Having one, however, does not automatically qualify that organism as "human")
I understood it is not yours. I just indicate that a dictionary definition is seldom adequate when the intricacies of biology and life are discussed. Even biologists are having trouble, for instance, in defining what is "alive" and what is not - something a dictionary has to problem with. The dictionary definition of "human" is basically "people" (Mirriam-Webster), which is about as useless here as it could be.
Thank you. I think this is a tricky subject. I'm not sure if anyone who claims to have all the answers has really considered things from every angle.
I keep hoping that truth and reason will win the day. But sometimes I feel quite alone with that thought.
Unfortunately, truth and reason seldom triumph over emotional responses. And virtually never over a religious one.
It's why lawyers try so hard to sway a jury with emotion. It's why our media seldom bothers to report facts, just actions with a high emotional content. It's why our politicians consistently spin their arguments towards the emotional rather than truth and reason.
Sad, but there it is.
some fatal birth defects can't be discovered until after 20 weeks. should a woman have to carry a non-viable fetus for 9 months because of an arbitrary law?
laws against abortion don't prevent abortion. such laws prevent safe abortion. about 40,000 women worldwide die each year from unsafe abortions. those women are definitely people. bad laws killed them.
Sexual intercourse with no regard for the possibility of conception should be considered murder. The male should be held accountable in every case of abortion. The mother should not be penalized for her choice to abort, (she will suffer enough the rest of her natural life,) but the father should do jail time.
So facing these consequences...
yes, it should be Personal Choice/ Independent Decision.
While I agree that it's highly irresponsible to have sex without contraception if you really don't want children...
Why is the man being held accountable? It's ultimately the woman's choice. Putting someone in jail for someone else's choice is wrong on so many levels. If you want someone to be held accountable, it should be the woman. Women are capable of choosing to not have sex with a man if he doesn't put on a condom.
Either way, I think throwing anyone in jail for an abortion is insane.
Okay, not jail time.
The fathers should be required to be present at the clinic during the operation/procedure of the abortion. They should at least witness the murder of their child.
Actually teens should see these operations on You Tube. They might think twice about getting anywhere near the opposite sex with ulterior motives...
uh, I mean "love."
This 20 year old perceived the significance of her child's heartbeat in a profound way causing deep regret.
Abortions would mostly disappear if the men responsible for the conception were put in jail. Basically throw men in jail who leave their pregnant partners. Again though, free birth control solves most of these problems and anyone who's against abortion who doesn't support free birth control is a colossal hypocrite.
The problem is Birth Control encourages U No What!
A female bird must simply step away from the testosterone until she has a securely built nest with the male bird (with the testosterone) willing to fly out every A.M. and look for worms for her and the baby birds which will eventually hatch, (at that point it is too late for the male bird to step away from the eggs.)
In the human world, the father has the opportunity to step away from the eggs if he is not willing to fly out every morning to search for bugs and worms…
uh, I mean dollar bills....
It does not encourage anything by itself. I didn't know birth control had a mind of its own. Plus, in freedom-loving America, it's none of your business what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Providing birth control is the responsible thing to do. It's simple, free birth control reduces abortion. You're either for abortions or against them. You must be for them.
Is that the answer then? "Give me what I want or I'll kill a baby!" so we give. But when you pay the Danegeld it will never stop; it will only grow until you can no longer pay the price.
Not sure how you're taking what I said. I guess some people believe that if we give out free birth control, people will have sex. I believe that people have sex, so we should give out birth control.
Free birth control is practically guaranteeing incidence of unpunish-able murder!
What birth control method is 100 per-cent effective, pray tell?
You know what's definitely not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy? Not using birth control.
Or are you one of those who thinks that women shouldn't be allowed to have sex until they're ready to have a baby?
whats wrong with that?
...or are you against enlightenment?
Some women never want to have children. Do they have to abstain from having sex for their whole lives?
...well, no! Actually they can have as much fun as they want after menopause is complete!
and observe how attractive and youthful older women are these days!
I'm not saying a child should not be aborted for whatever reason… I'm saying that it should be considered (and avoided) as any Murder.
From where do you get this so-called opinion about when women should be allowed to have sex? The Bible, correct?
no! common sense!
A woman can have sex when she is no longer able to conceive a child…
when she has no more eggs… (after menopause)... that is, if she wants to have sex without conceiving a child…
If she wants to have sex and doesn't mind conceiving a child, she should have a prepared home of some sort or at least a partner or relative willing to help out.
If she wants to have sex and considers abortion a method of birth control, I think that is wrong based on the idea that life is life from the moment of conception.
But, of course, thats just the way I see it.
I was not ready to have a child, but had the child anyway, despite much opposition and pressure from parents, co-workers and friends who urged me to abort.
Everything worked out better than I ever could have dreamed… Miraculously, I might add. (It was more than mere luck.)
What method of anything is 100% effective? That is a fundamentally idiotic rationalization. By that logic, we shouldn't immunize our children either. That is such a stupid response to the advocacy of free birth control it's hard to fathom. It's a scientific fact that birth control reduces pregnancy. You seem to be assuming that offering free birth control will somehow result in billions more incidents of sexual intercourse and therefore, more incidents of pregnancy due to the failure of the birth control and therefore, more abortions. You can't argue with lunacy, so I'll stop.
Only a woman can know the heartache of an abortion. Its effect on even one of us, alive, stomping around on the earth, is traumatic and never recovered from. So, stop with your advocating of free love and loving the one yer with already. Its an ancient mantra and leads to death of spirit and of soul and of heaven on earth which we are supposed to be working toward. Even though it will never happen.
Kathryn, that is a highly sexist statement. Yes, the physical impact of abortion is entirely on the woman, but I have known men who were emotionally distraught and carried guilt about an abortion with them for the rest of their lives.
Not to the extent of a woman. How could they????
You keep saying it's our sperm that caused the pregnancy. If you think we have no emotional connection to a pregnancy, you are quite mistaken.
Going back to the argument that health insurance should include free birth control. I feel that if you want to play, pay for it yourself instead of making me pay for your pleasure.
And when you decide to use blackmail to get your free birth control "Give it to me or I'll kill a baby", I'm not interested as paying the Danegeld is a losing proposition every time.
it's not paying the danegeld. free birth control is a reasonable, scientific, egalitarian solution to the problem of people (many of them married) having a strong drive for sex even when they don't want kids. the world is overpopulated. anything that ameliorates that is good. not everyone has equal ability to pay. the very people who can't afford birth control can't afford kids.
It's not Danegeld? It's about as plain a threat as is possible: as a group, either pay for birth control or we will flood you with unwanted children. Or have abortions, take your choice.
Is there any other way to read such a statement than blackmail? Having a strong sex drive, having too many people already, having no ability to pay for your pleasure, that birth control works - all have nothing to do with the threat being implied (and carried out) every day. They all make an excuse to pay the Dane, but in the final analysis that's exactly what it is; caving in to blackmail and paying Danegeld. Just as paying it in centuries past kept the threatened Viking violence away, this time it keeps the threatened babies away.
I think we've had this argument before, but basically free birth control is a really cheap way of keeping costs down, so to speak. You may not like it morally, but practically it makes complete sense.
No argument there - it makes sense to keep costs down and if that's our only concern we should absolutely do it. We should also provide everything anyone needs, for free, because that, too, will lower total costs the country will pay.
I'm just not sure at all that we should be going down that road. We're already way too far down the freebie trail already, IMO, and this is just another step towards total socialism.
Force two people to marry for life? Without their willing consent?
That hardly seems like a responsible position to take.
Kathryn : Why should the man be punished but not the women?
Whoa there! You're going to penalize someone for the decision/choice of another? How does that work again?
"Or are Dads condemned to forever stand by and watch as a woman legally murders their child?"
If there is no home in place…
what is a woman to do?
It is a given… no home, no marriage, no commitment:
Murder/abortion will be inevitable.
That the woman is NOT willing to...
1. Murder a pre-child she knows she will not be able to take care of by herself...
2. Become a welfare mother...
3. Dump the child on her parents...
...is a rare woman indeed.
And men should realize this before they embark upon a session of loving the random hook-up they're with.
Listen to Love Line on KROQ
Do I believe a fetus can be aborted when it is one day old because the parents are poor, hungry or teenagers? Yes.
Do I believe a fetus can be aborted when it is eight months and 29 days old because the parents changed their minds? No.
Abortion is not black or white, one side or another. Extremists have distorted a complex issue by claiming it has simple answers.
The simple answer is to love the woman enough to support a child caused by YOUR sperm.
I believe that males and females should own up to the facts of science and stop indulging in illusionistic, sentimental nonsense.
What are the facts again?
Males: Your sperm will head for the eggs and you shot them there!!!! !!!
Females: His sperm will head for your eggs and you inspired him to shoot them there!!!! !!!
Why are there any abortions at all if we are so smart these days?
Q. Why is this not a non-issue?
A. The frailties of human nature.
But really, if we would call it what it is: murder, it would could help us humans evolve in awareness and self mastery. Men should be motivated to step away from the eggs until they are certain murder will not be the result.
Thank You for this freedom of creative writing and thinking.
I am finished.
Right, because poverty is a fate worse than death. Good point.
Death is not a fate that a one-day-old fetus experiences or even knows that it is possible to experience.
The scientific community would disagree. Despite the political motivations backing their concept of what is and is not viable, it is still a proven fact that it is alive, and afterwards it is dead.
The scientific community agrees that a one day old fetus knows anything at all, let alone self awareness and the ability to experience?
Come, come Onus - false declarations are hardly conducive to the discussion.
Especially when you consider that the soul (or souls) enters the zygote (or zygotes) at the instant it (they) unites with a single sperm (or two).
Onusonus, please note that I used the word "experiences" on purpose. Otherwise, I agree with the second sentence of your followup. That doesn't change the fact that it has no knowledge of death.
How the heck do you Know???
I would and others disagree!
How do you know that the soul enters the fetus the moment is created? Some beliefs are based on facts and some on opinions. If you know someone who was conscious as a one-day-old fetus, I would love to meet them.
the old testament says that if someone strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to lose the fetus, the striker will be fined. if the woman dies, the striker will be killed. evidently god doesn't put as high a value on a fetus as an adult.
I'll tell you a secret:
A Young Adult female does not really understand the reality of getting pregnant. She doesn't believe it can happen... until it does.
She does not really equate sex with getting pregnant.
It is probably the same for the guy.
He should, as well.
If we called abortion Murder, (or at least remind them it is killing a life,) it would instill a sense of urgency in the awareness of parents and their YA (young adult) aged offspring.
Nowadays, parents just hand them contraception. If there is even one percent chance of getting pregnant with the chosen birth control method...
it is NOT enough.
Come on guys! what is the PURPOSE of sperms?
to poof a baby fully developed into existence?
- to start the process of creation.
That process of creation is
and you want to halt it for whatever reason you so choose…
but at least call it what it is:
Killing Human Life
Simply repeating, time after time, that an unborn fetus is a human being doesn't make it so. Can you support your claim with factual evidence, evidence that does not depend on your concept of spiritual life?
The fetus is on a mysterious path toward becoming a human being.
It is being guided by a mysterious force which we cannot fathom scientifically.
But common sense and typical outcomes reveal that a human fetus will not become anything besides a human being.
What is the mysterious force?
If you do not respect this mysterious force, you will kill it through aborting the fetus and taking away its ability to proceed on its destined course toward full term and existence outside of its mothers body.
Even at that point this life-force is exceedingly dependent upon its mother's assistance in order to develop independent existence for many many years.
Let's just say that once it is born, and you don't particularly like your baby, or you can't afford it or it restricts your social life…. and you want to kill it.
What is the difference?
I'll tell you.
what is your evidence for the existence of a "soul".
It stands to reason that each one of us is a walking, talking, breathing, laughing, crying, dancing, singing, working, playing, fighting, caring, thinking soul!
According To What I Have Read: When we die, the life force or soul, departs to the astral plane. Without the body, the soul waits for another lifetime. We come back to earth because we want to.
Eventually, we will want to merge back into the ocean of spirit from whence we came.…
Just Being Open to Possibilities
I take it that you cannot support your claim, so just make it again in the hopes your unsupported opinions will be accepted as factual. With the addition of a new make believe force added in as well.
You're right, wilderness. An unborn human fetus isn't a human being;... it's a dog! Woof!
But enough silliness.
A fertilized human egg is a human being. It's human; not any other kind of animal. It is a being; it lives and grows.
Abortion is murder. The real culprit is self-concern -- ego -- selfishness.
Your kind of logic is what makes pogroms possible. Genocide of the undesirable and useless eaters of the world. With your kind of logic, solid steel offers zero resistance (as you implied in a 9/11 discussion). Frankly, I'm losing respect for your cognitive abilities (or lack of them).
Ouch. Although I'm morally opposed to abortion in most cases, I do believe and the legal system agrees that abortion is tolerable in at least some cases. A fully formed fetus is mostly human when it is has viability outside of the womb, but it lacks all characteristics of a human being when it is a one-day-old fetus.
And what can you produce outside of your own personal opinion that a fetus is a human being? Biological facts, please, not some esoteric decision from the "spiritual world". What attributes does it contain that separates it from any animal fetus (or even a tree seed for that matter) and that does not depend on future growth to obtain "human" status?
While you may have an ego the size of the world, it isn't being translated into thought and reason. Just an exclamation that you are always right and those that disagree are automatically wrong.
Exactly. Some sperms might produce an alien. One with pointed ears and an over-amount of logic.
Due to the strain of Vulcan in the DNA.
Is that your definition of "human"? That everyone classified as human must have the exact chromosomal chart as you do?
I asked you before to define the term, but all you could come up with is that humans have a soul that you can't detect but assume is there. In other words, a definition based on your personal, individual evaluation of every living organism.
Human sperm have human DNA.
" The sperm cell and the egg cell that come together to form the zygote each contain half the normal amount of DNA. There are 46 chromosomes in a typical human cell. The sperm and the egg each contain only 23 - one copy of chromosomes 1 through 22 plus an X or a Y. Egg cells can only contain an X but the sperm can contain an X or a Y."
https://www.genome.gov/DNADay/q.cfm?aid … ;year=2009
How could the union of human sperm and human egg begin anything but Human Life?
"Human sperm have human DNA"
Sorry - you still need to define "human" in order to get an answer. Example: a fetus has no forebrain and no limbs. It is not human regardless of how you choose to define the term, yet has human DNA in it. Such organisms are naturally aborted all the time - if even our own bodies recognize it is not human, how can we define it otherwise?
Similarly, a fetus that can see ultraviolet light IS human even though the DNA is not strictly human as no other humans can do that.
You're going to have to define, biologically, your terms before you can arbitrarily claim the attribute of "human" and simply claiming that the result of a human sperm and egg is automatically human doesn't cut it.
< "if even our own bodies recognize it is not human…">
How can a "body" recognize it one way or another?
…that imaginative reasoning sounds very silly coming from you, wilderness.
A body is only looking out for its own health. A fetus is not rejected or accepted by the BODY!
The body can either handle the state of being pregnant...
Why? Horses give birth to different species, why can't people? Is a cross between a chimp and a human viable? If so, is it human, chimp or other?
We know we carry Neanderthal genes; were the Neanderthal's homo sapiens? Biologically, the answer is "No". Your answer seems insufficient as a definition.
<"Why? Horses give birth to different species, why can't people?">
You mean like a centaur?
No, I mean like a mule. Other examples are ligers, tigons and a dzo. There are dozens of such examples, some fertile, some not.
Mutations also enter the picture, as the mutant DNA is not truly human, yet the result can be.
Typically human DNA contained in Sperm and Human egg create human life.
Why can't we leave it at that.
If a mutation occurs, it is an accident. Accidents in nature do occur… but
name ONE which resulted in a parahuman.
I already did - the homo sapiens called Cro Magnon and the species Homo Neanderthalis.
Abort all you want, people.
Who am I to take away the Joy of Sex from anyone.
Have at It!
Also, it should be personal choice, whether or not to abort.
For instance, no woman should be forced to have an abortion just because without welfare checks she would not be able afford her child.
-so we are a little prehistoric human...
What of it?
Humans have had a known capability of crossbreeding with a different species. Is the result human or other? Your definition (born of human means human) says yes, but the offspring is a different species.
Your definition then is insufficient and needs work. Try again?
President George W. Bush brought up the topic in his 2006 State of the Union Address, in which he called for the prohibition of "human cloning in all its forms", "creating or implanting embryos for experiments", "creating human-animal hybrids", and also "buying, selling, or patenting human embryos". He argued, "A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners and that recognize the matchless value of every life." He also stated that humanity "should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale."
If this prohibition gets a revoked, we will have to be more cautious.
It WILL be revoked, either in the US or somewhere else. Human clones - no egg, no sperm and one day no womb - WILL occur. Will the result be human? Your definition says "No" and yet it will be indistinguishable from any other human.
Your definition needs work.
Wilderness, I admire your patience with this issue. However, in my view, it's pointless. People who don't understand the issue of abortion as it relates to public policy tend to conflate their own, personal moral stance with the reality of public policy. A smart man once said: "you can't legislate morality". That's true here, but fundamentally irrelevant. The only issue is how illegal abortion affects public policy and exists in reality. If it's illegal, abortion simply becomes a back alley practice which only affects a certain class of women. Poor women become subject to unsafe medical procedures while middle class and upper class women aren't affected at all. They simply travel to have their abortions. That's why abortion must be legal. It should be discouraged through education and free birth control. Anyone who doesn't get this doesn't understand the issue. The free birth control doesn't have to be distributed by the government, but it needs to be distributed somehow. The Bible is not an acceptable document for how we should design our public policy. If that were the case, it would be legal to sell our daughters into slavery.
I'm with you, right up to the point that abortion needs to be illegal because some people want it and will violate the law (to their detriment) if it is not legal.
That could be said of every law we have on the books. And is not a reason to make something, anything, legal. While I fully support abortions for those that want them, that they will obtain illegal ones if there are no legal ones available is not even a consideration as far as I'm concerned.
Are we really suggesting that a woman not have sex until she's 50+ just because she doesn't want children?
Yes, if she doesn't want to conceive a child. Every form of birth control has a percentage of failure.
(Of course, if she is creative, she can figure out a way to keep the sperm
v e r y F A R away from her eggs.)
Or tie your tubes … there is another good idea.
Otherwise, you will have a tragedy to contend with.
Unless you think it is great fun to kill life within you or to give it up for adoption.
Or perhaps you think it will really be a trip to have your baby and raise it in your room in your parents house.
My actual advice:
Just WAIT til you find the man of your dreams who loves you enough to marry you and start a family!
Sex is like FIRE! You can't play with FIRE!
I highly doubt anyone thinks having an abortion or giving a baby up for adoption is "fun." But let's be real, most women will use birth control without failure. I think it's a bit oppressive to suggest that all women abstain from sex until they're ready to have a baby (which might be never) on the small chance that their birth control fails.
One can only hope.
Have you NEVER panicked????
Oh, how I hated wondering, dreading, testing for pregnancy! Its enough to make one HATE sex!
Just wait till you have no more eggs. Keep your youth by healthful diet and exercise.
It really is possible! What's a couple of decades!
when i was no longer fertile (by the way, your science is off. women don't run out of eggs.), i also no longer had a sex drive, which is not uncommon. so that means, if i had waited, i never would have enjoyed sex. your solution is unrealistic.
- oh brother!
Not true about the sex drive at all!
The ovaries become hard as nuts and unproductive after menopause… eggs or not…
I never said don't have sex. There is sex with one and very careful creative sex with two where the eggs and sperms do not have the slightest chance of being in the same proximity.
I am saying do what must be done to proactively avoid murder.
Birth control methods can fail, so … watch out.
But, if one does not believe it is murder, than one can follow one's own conscience.
Or the law which deems when it is officially murder.
i am an MD, and low sex drive is a common complaint of menopausal women.
You are a Medical Doctor?
You believe in holistic, healthy practices to maintain health and a youthful body?
You believe in exercise as medicine?
You believe in not over-filling the stomach and not drinking water with meals?
You believe in Yoga and maintaining a supple spine?
You believe in preventing the aging of the body through diet and exercise.
Well, many do and as a result feel physically young and are able to maintain a healthy libido.
Thank you for your input.
i follow a healthy diet and exercise program. however, it does nothing to counteract the lack of libido due to hormone loss due to natural aging. you appear to be promoting a fantasy.
you appear to be closed to possibilities.
Thank you for the link to the New York Times article.
"For some women, the increased ratio of testosterone to estrogen that occurs after menopause gives their sex drive a boost, Ms. Wingart and Ms. Kantrowitz point out."
"And Dr. Potter pointed out that remaining physically fit can also help."
10% get a boost in libdo. 45% get a decrease. you read selectively and quote dishonestly.
Just picking out what is positive, not negative.
The whole article pinpoints the negative.
I picked out what is positive and true for many.
I did not quote dishonestly.
" *Women can achieve orgasm throughout their lives,*
but they typically need more direct, more intense and longer stimulation of the clitoris to reach a climax, Dr. Potter noted.
Another common experience is a diminished intensity of orgasm and painful uterine contractions after orgasm, although the women surveyed by Siecus said over all that
*they remained satisfied with sex.* "
PS I do not believe this for a moment:
< "But let's be real, most women will use birth control without failure.">
I wonder what the true percentage is.
How can this even be proven?
It's a myth.
A Mon Avis
It's not a myth. Most women use birth control without failure. That's a statistical fact. The percentages aren't as high in reality as they are theoretically, but the problem is not enough education regarding birth control methods... not people having sex in general.
"most" is not good enough. To avoid the heartache of unwanted pregnancy just keep the eggs far away from the sperm… using a condom allows the sperm to get too close to the eggs. I know a woman who was on birth control: the pill. She already had two boys and didn't want another child.
AND her husband got a vasectomy.
Well Bucky came along anyway.
I guess he really wanted to be born! He somehow bypassed both birth control methods.
So women who don't want children should only be able to have sex until a) they've reached menopause, or b) we find a method of birth control that's 100% effective.
I already have a child but couldn't handle another one right now (emotionally or financially), so I guess my husband and I would be going on 3 years of no sex! Sounds totally healthy.
C. Find creative ways to have sex which keep the sperm very far away from the eggs.
Otherwise, you are risking getting pregnant.
You know that.
You are prepared for it if it should happen.
It could happen.
It will be a happy family if it does.
Having no sex life is healthier that having a sex life.
But, it depends on the people involved. If you really enjoy sex, it 's not a bad thing…
You just have to be careful to control the situation.
According to Moi.
<"Is a cross between a chimp and a human viable?">
NO! it will not live!
Here is what I have to say about YOUR rebuttal:
Not close / No cigar.
"The question of what line exists between a 'human' being and a 'non-human' being has been a difficult one for many scientists to answer. While animals with something like one percent or less of their cells originally coming from humans may clearly appear to be in the same boat as other animals, no consensus exists on how to think about beings in a genetic middle ground that have something like an even mix. "I don't think anyone knows in terms of crude percentages how to differentiate between humans and nonhumans," U.S. patent office official John Doll has remarked."
Stop having babies everyone! We don't know what the heck they will be!
- wilderness wins.
Here is his virtual reward:
A pack of condoms to give to the oldest YA in his family line.
He can say, "Have at it! But, you might accidentally conceive a human or chimera.
Thats okay, you can always abort it, whatever it turns out to be."
You begin to understand the problem when all abortions are banned as murder of a human being. It's not so easy to make a definitive call, is it?
So it comes down to a philosophical and/or religious decision. Neither of which can or should be forced on anyone as being "right", yet detractors are more than happy to do so, simply by making a claim of murder. It's so "obvious" after all, if only we don't actually try to reason our way through the morass.
"<You begin to understand the problem when all abortions are banned as murder of a human being. It's not so easy to make a definitive call, is it?">
I never said the govt. should have anything to do with the issue of abortion.
I do believe in freedom of choice as to whether or not to abort.
I think the real issue is when does it become murder.
God needs to appear and answer this question:
Is pre-human life not as valuable as nearly complete and complete human life?
How the heck are WE supposed to know?
Are the correction of ooopsies permissible in God's sight?
Most people do want God's approval.
Even the law makers, it seems.
Is human life even valuable? That's our perception, but the big ass universe seems to think otherwise. We are insignificant pin pricks.
The abortion topic is one of the most critical because there's two sides the yes an the no,we should all just take this into mind when thinking of abortion every time someone practices abortion it's a life of a kid there killing instead of abortion if people don't want there kid they should just give it to adoption instead of killing that child.
I think that perhaps the point is that most women lose at least some of their sex drive around menopause, and those women would have never had the opportunity to experience a healthy, active sex life if they were expected to wait until then.
...well, at least they didn't kill a potential human being.
Besides, the less sex females have the less they need. If they don't have it all, they don't need it at all.
May not be true for men. But, I've never heard of a nun molesting anyone.
At the end of your life, what would you regret more:
1. Killing your baby.
2. Not having sex with a partner the typical way... before menopause.
Impossible to say, and I'm sure the answer would be different depending on the person. Again, you have to realize that not everyone considers a fetus in its early weeks to be a baby. I have a close friend who had an abortion when she was 19 and while it was a difficult time for her, she doesn't regret it, because she knows it was the right decision for her at the time.
If a woman wants to choose to wait until she's reached menopause to have sex then that is completely fine. The issue is telling women that an active sex life is wrong... for whatever reason. Women's sexuality has been hugely repressed in the past and your ideas just seem like taking a step back to that.
In fact, some religions tell you not to have sex unless it is for the purpose of procreation.
This makes sense to me for many reasons.
http://www.elle.com/beauty/news/a15274/ … -with-age/
Typically in French cinema, sexuality and sex appeal are viewed as an intrinsic quality within women, which evolves with age but doesn't fade.
"Sex appeal doesn't go away because we don't have such a precise definition of beauty. Quirkiness and charm are more valued than a static idea of perfection. In the United States, beauty is almost mathematical and can only be achieved in your 20s," says Laurence Vely, an editor at Vanity Fair France, who feels a lot of women become more attractive with age. "Once you hit 40, you finally know yourself and what suits you. [You] have real confidence."
apples and oranges. sex appeal vs. libido. a fashion magazine opinion piece vs. a factual journalisitic piece. you should really be banned from hubpages for trolling.
-why don't you watch this. I dare you:
- and you should be banned for saying I'm trolling.
again. apples and oranges. btw, the NYT article wasn't negative. it was factual. if you find reality negative, just ignore it, right?
Knowing one's sex appeal is the underlying reason for sexual desire.
I do not agree its apples and oranges.
Finis pour moi.
(PS One more video:
i have plenty of sex appeal, but no desire.
Perhaps some (older) women have plenty of desire but no sex appeal.
The pont is to avoid having to abort ever.
It is also not good for the woman's body to go through the procedure of removing a Fetus.
To avoid the need to have an abortion, avoid allowing sperm anywhere near the eggs.
Since contraceptive methods are not 100 % guaranteed, by using them, one risks pregnancy.
Its not that hard, but it does take effort, to keep the sperm away from the eggs, (when not using contraceptives). You just have to be aware.
If you're lazy, wait till after menopause.
Maybe someday, (as we remain younger/healthier longer and longer,) this concept will be accepted and become the norm…and abortion will be a greatly-reduced or non-issue.
Until that time, of course it should be personal choice.
A choice one must be willing to live with.
No matter what you want to believe about the conglomeration of cells not being directed by a soul... it is the fact of the matter that the soul is directing the course of the body's development from the absolute moment of conception.
In other words, the bunch of so-called parasitic cells is DESTINED to become a human being from the MOMENT of CONCEPTION. Karma and the person's personality pre-exist before birth as the blueprint of the SOUL. Furthermore, the soul evolves lifetime after life-time until true self-realization occurs. You don't have to believe this, but I and many others do. Some know without a doubt and write according to the truth they happen to know, while others do not know the truth and refuse to believe the truth. Some prefer ignorance for whatever strange reason.
What is the proof?
EVERY SINGLE unique and special PERSON stomping around on the earth.
Thank you for this freedom of speech.
A soul is made of million of parts. Like your country, name, thoughts and so on. A soul is developing abilities where 21 weeks is greatly under develope soul. If the
mother did not want the child
in the first place, the child is
likely not to be loved by the
The earth is already 50% over populated in an over ego world. Too much suffering for many unloved persons with
such lack of freedoms to
My sister inlaw came to me
asking if she should abort her
child. I made a pro's and
con's chart for her to decide
for herself. She found more
pro's to keep the child and so far they have been working
If ANYONE has knowledge of a non-human creature that came out of a human/female womb, (at ANY stage), please reveal.
I need proof that contained within human genetic codes are non-human genetic codes.
I need proof.
Where is the proof?
I have proof of God,
but I cannot prove it.
If you have proof of non-human genetic codes, (contained within a human zygote) and cannot prove it, say so.
Then we can drop it.
Sorry, I cannot prove anything to you unless you have a will to understand and are willing to do the necessary work to find out.
If you are, check the DNA records of chimpanzees and human beings. Most of it is identical to a geneticist. You can either become one yourself or take their word for it. Or continue to claim that ignorance prevents you from understanding that they are the same and therefore you will not believe it.
Could you please elucidate?
"...because that could mean that human gametes produced a possum…"
Good. Except that you are still defining "human" as "human". Give a definition of "human sperm" that doesn't simply mean "coming from a human" if you are using it to define "human".
Human egg + human sperm = human zygote.
It is just the way it works unless you have proof otherwise.
The sun is a gaseous ball of hydrogen fusing into helium and other gases.
I know it is not a camp fire because I have seen the ball through the haze in the sky, (just the other day,) and when visiting Griffith Park Observatory where there are views of the sun in real time. Therefore, I know it really is a ball in the sky.
A human made sperm comes squirting out of a human apparatus and swims its way toward an available human egg and then wriggles its teeny weeny little way right into the teeny weeny egg. Both the teeny weeny sperm and the teeny weeny egg contain HUMAN MADE chromosomes. These chromosomes are the result of human made sperm and a human made egg.
There are no animal chromosomes in them whatsoever.
If there is, I need proof I can see.
Ask an abortion Doctor.
Still avoiding the questions, then. Still refusing to acknowledge that mutations occur (some gametes are the product of human DNA coupled with chemicals, X-rays, gamma rays or other things). Or are you claiming that a DNA strand from a human remains human no matter what might happen to it? (That opens the claim that if we genetically modify a DNA strand any amount it remains human. Or that a modified corn DNA is still corn and can be eaten safely no matter what changes were made).
And still absolutely refusing to give any definition except "human" means "human". Is there a reason for that refusal? Maybe because some zygotes aren't human but you don't want to achnowledge it as claims that abortion is murder are thus false?
Calling all abortion doctors:
Did you ever cut up and vacuum out anything other than a human being?
You clearly live in some fantasy world, but I'll live in it for a few minutes.
Again, what's the punishment in this country for murder? Life in jail or death, right? So women who get abortions should either be put in jail for life or given the death penalty, right?
And since this is a Holocaust of sorts, shouldn't we retroactively punish anyone who has received an abortion? Shouldn't we actively hunt down all women who've had an abortion and put them to death or in jail? This has been a Holocaust after all and we have certainly tried to hunt down those who participated in the Jewish Holocaust. Let's hunt down those who participated in the abortion Holocaust and give them the punishment that they deserve.
The words "Jewish Holocaust" were meant to separate the abortion Holocaust from the other. I should have just written "Holocaust" with a capital "H" and the other with a small "h". The words "Jewish Holocaust" shouldn't be taken as me not understanding the Holocaust's full scope. Apologies.
by Jackie Lynnley14 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by LailaK6 years ago
The 2012 presidential election is approaching! Do you think that the new presidential candidates should support or ban abortion for women of all ages? Why?
by Chris Mills4 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a...
by Paul Swendson6 years ago
Is it possible for pro-life and pro-choice people to find any common ground? Too often, the argument becomes fixated on the morality and legality of abortion, which are both worthwhile topics. But in the end, I think...
by AnnCee6 years ago
The House will vote, perhaps today, on Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to the Continuing Resolution which would zero out taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood last year received $363 million in money...
by Judy Specht4 years ago
The president has talked up abortion as a safe choice. Kermit Gosnell has just been indited for 1st degree murder of 3 aborted babies that were killed after they were born alive. He was indited for...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.