The Great Abortion Debate

[cc]

bull rot!!! That said absolutely nothing about the heart of the issue.



Well, I've watched many people blabber about this over the years ...  



Some say it's absolutely a baby / human life / or whatever they wish to call it



Some say it's absolutely NOT a baby / human life / or whatever they wish to call it



Everyone is sooooo sure  ... and most always in absolute terms one way or the other



Well, let me weigh in ... how about "we have no way to know scientifically if it is or is not".



As in "Scientifically I don't know" one way or the other .. cause I don't ....and scientifically speaking, NO ONE else does



As to proof of that, if science knew there would be no issue on it

[asal]

Scientifically we do know that dividing cells without a brain have no consciousness.

[Anonymous]

I won this debate with a knock out on page 4.  Why are posters still discussing it?

Liker hell you have. Have I missed something or did Dove and Fash suddenly believe life does not begin at conception. You and Romero have your heads so far up your asses, you can't read. Those two see abortion as legally sanctioned murder, not a basic human right. I disagree with them, but unlike you and Romero I know how futile it is to argue the point with someone who thinks an unborn baby is fully human.

 We don't "think" an unborn baby is fully human. An unborn baby IS fully human....and it's sociopathic to think otherwise. In fact, abortion being so readily available has done nothing but degrade society to the level of rutting sociopathic beasts who believe their personal happiness and choices trump everything else. We are calloused, not enlightened.

An unborn baby is not a human before it has developed into one.  It is not a human at the beginning of the pregnancy - at that point it's a mass of dividing cells without any brain development.  Less intelligence than a tasty lobster.



Pretty sure I won this debate on page 4.

I strongly disagree asal..



You are not married nor do you have children do you?

[cc]

Further, science does not know at what point , initally? ...  after x number of days?, after xx number of days? it is a baby / human life / or whatever they wish to call it



I admit that I don't know ... Everyone seems to think they know, but I have never heard any of them  scientifically establish when.

Why? Because science cannot ... at least to date it cannot



"Science as a whole" does not even know the criterion to use, let alone know

[Anonymous]

Further, science does not know at what point , initally? ...  after x number of days?, after xx number of days? it is a baby / human life / or whatever they wish to call it



I admit that I don't know ... Everyone seems to think they know, but I have never heard any of them  scientifically establish when.

Why? Because science cannot ... at least to date it cannot



"Science as a whole" does not even know the criterion to use, let alone know

Life begins at conception..



Ant attempt to stop it after that is murder.

[cc]

Further, science does not know at what point , initally? ...  after x number of days?, after xx number of days? it is a baby / human life / or whatever they wish to call it



I admit that I don't know ... Everyone seems to think they know, but I have never heard any of them  scientifically establish when.

Why? Because science cannot ... at least to date it cannot



"Science as a whole" does not even know the criterion to use, let alone know

Life begins at conception..



Ant attempt to stop it after that is murder.

I understand why you say that and respect that. And your reason works for you.



however, I'm asking in scientific terms only



If anyone can tell me "when" ... "in absolute scientific terms", please do so now.

[asal]

Do I have to google?



There is no thought in the early stages.  It is dividing cells.  The cells could become anything - they might not even form a human, the whole mess could abandon division and just die on its own and get absorbed into the uterine lining.

[cc]

hmm m. OK. Partial answer's don't count



I've been politely asking  ...."when"?  ...in absolute scientific terms ... does it become a baby / human life

[Anonymous]

Do I have to google?



There is no thought in the early stages.  It is dividing cells.  The cells could become anything - they might not even form a human, the whole mess could abandon division and just die on its own and get absorbed into the uterine lining.

Killing unborn babies asal?

[asal]

Answer to cc:  Five (5) months.  I googled:  http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html">//http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

On the twenty-second day after fertilization, a simple tubelike heart begins to beat. The embryo has no other working organs: the first brain activity will not begin for five more months. But in just one more month, all the major organs will have formed in miniature, including tiny eyes and ears, liver, and kidneys. These organs do not work, but they are there. Once all the organs have formed, the individual is called a fetus.



Read more: http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html#ixzz3iBw4u9yC">http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/L ... z3iBw4u9yC">http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html#ixzz3iBw4u9yC

[Anonymous]

Five (5) months.  I googled:  http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html">//http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

You like murdering unborn babies?

[asal]

1.Abortion is moral - it is the destruction of developing cells without consciousness or any form of brain.  

2.Abortion is the socially responsible choice that we all benefit from - less unwed mothers being a social financial burden.  Less children born into poverty.  Less young women being unable to achieve financial stability - or at least postponing being a financial burden on society.  Less burden on men that also need time to achieve financial stability.

3.Developing cells do not have brains or any form of consciousness.  

4.The body might decide on its own to terminate a pregnancy if the conditions of the pregnancy or genetic development are unfit.



What is the problem?  I already won this debate on page four (4) when there were 12 minutes of silence at which point I declared a knock out.

[Anonymous]

Do I have to google?



There is no thought in the early stages.  It is dividing cells.  The cells could become anything - they might not even form a human, the whole mess could abandon division and just die on its own and get absorbed into the uterine lining.

 so based on this, abortion of a life with a heartbeat is justifiable? I'm not seeing your point. No one even knows they are pregnant in the zygote stage.

[Anonymous]

Your first point is utter bullshit.  And I want you to consider a world devoid of morals, with subjective truth.  Yanno....download the tor browser and enjoy a moraless world if subjective truth and ask yourself if you want to live in that world. That's where we are headed, BTW.

[asal]

Do I have to google?



There is no thought in the early stages.  It is dividing cells.  The cells could become anything - they might not even form a human, the whole mess could abandon division and just die on its own and get absorbed into the uterine lining.

 so based on this, abortion of a life with a heartbeat is justifiable? I'm not seeing your point. No one even knows they are pregnant in the zygote stage.

Now I have to google when the body starts to secrete growth hormone  



Abortions are illegal after 20 weeks anyways except in dire circumstances.  At 20 weeks there is no brain activity.  It's still moral.  Why would anyone want to impose the belief that they are hurting a baby via abortion.  All evidence points to the object being a developing mass of cells.  People should take comfort in that.  We live in a moral society - finally, in some ways it is moral.