- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Abortion according to medical science is a living human being. You have no clue what you are talking about.
"As early as 21 days after conception, the baby's heart has begun to beat his or her own unique blood-type, often different than the mother's. (Moore & Persaud, The Developing Human, p.310; Nilsson & Hamberger, A Child is Born, p.86; Rugh & Shettles, From Conception to Birth, p.217.)
At 40 days after conception, brain waves can be read on an EEG, or an electroencephalogram. (Dr. H. Hamlin, Life or Death by EEG, JAMA, Oct.12, 1964, p.113.)"
""By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
And here are a lot of different statements backing up life starting at conception.
"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.
This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
And here is more.
Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:
A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1
Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”
A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”2
Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:
HARVARD, YALE, MAYO CLINIC, MEDICAL TEXTBOOKS, WELL KNOWN SCIENTISTS TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS....I mean what more do you want?
And this one... from
Nucleus Medical Media
As I showed you slaves were different back then…than what happened in our country.
I will go read the scriptures you have shown here in the context and get back with you.
Was Gods name attacked to any of these…or were these man made rules regarding slaves?
Will get back to you.
How can you deal with likelihood when you are talking about killing a living human being? I think the likelihood of most fetus's in the womb being born are pretty good. Abortion changes all that. You either believe that personhood starts at conception when the the new human life has started or you don't. REally all the statistics in the world…don't address the personhood that even science gives the life in the womb.
I do not believe it is sound reasoning to kill a living human person in a womb for any reason unless that life will result in ENDING the life of the one carrying it.
You don't find killing an innocent life vile…I do. You hide behind the statistics…and viability…and whatever you can think of to diminish personhood…in order to make your position more acceptable. You don't see the life as valuable or protectable.
Most women get abortions on healthy babies. So when you say.."If a fetus is insufficiently developed to continue to survive and continue to grow on its own without the mothers blood supply et al, what is the womb, really, other than a biological version of life support?" you are not talking about the 99% of babies who are killed for no reason. It is not like life support…it is murder.
The thing of it is…this is about not only killing unborn people…its an economic issue for you or you would not bring it up. You said this…"Would pro-lifers be happier if, instead of abortion, the fetuses were removed from the womb and all efforts were made to keep them alive? Would they be willing to cover the difference between the cost of an abortion and the cost of this care via taxes? Burial for those that don't make it? The extra funds needed for the organizations in charge of the adoption and foster care systems?
Sure I would love it if the unborn could be taken and allowed to live…rather than face your firing squad. What a stupid question. LMAO But your last sentence you imply that saving a life would come with a cost…and your not willing to play a part. It should only be the responsibility of those who value and want to save the life. How cruel…a position is that? Because people are against killing unborn babies…they should foot the bill for everything…which lets you humanists who don't give a rip about the life (don't pretend you do…) off the hook. I would much rather help support the life of an innocent child than those in our prison systems…or the illegals mooching off our system…or our government programs that are a complete waste.
You are making any excuse you can think of to justify killing the life in the womb….anything. You said…"I think it more likely that women would be villified every bit as much for having a fetus removed prematurely as they would for having an abortion, and I think it more likely that the pro-lifers would not be willing to cough up the extra taxes to cover the costs either- but who am I to say?" It is all about the woman for you…you don't see a value to the unborn.
Why would you not help a life be saved? What is it with people like you…you want to pass the buck…? You probably no doubt think that the world would be better off without the children who are without homes. KIll…that is your solution. We know who in Germany had those thoughts too didn't we?
You support unnecessary killing..you do.
Your last statement is the most hypocritical of any you have made.
"It's one thing to be opposed to unnecessary killing, but it's entirely another to claim you have jurisdiction over somebody else's body. There is certainly a good case for banning abortion, but there is zero case for requiring a woman to keep an unwanted child in her body. If a fetus is sufficiently developed to be considered a person, then it should be able to survive independently of the mothers blood supply, even if some medical assistance is needed."
You say I have no right to claim jurisdiction over any woman's body. But you do it when you say…that abortion should only be allowed up until a certain time in the pregnancy. LMAO If your position was sound…you would allow the right of any woman to kill on demand, BECAUSE IT IS HER BODY. But ya get a little squeamish about abortion when the little one starts looking more like a baby. So with you…the baby has to look like a baby to be valuable…worth saving.
Sorry I missed your post....
About pain....you are pro-abortion. So I would think since you are pro-killing them you would know the exact time in each one of their lives that they would feel pain. So when is it?
Lets pretend you are the abortionist and you are getting ready to stick that vacuum into the woman to kill it...do you think you could be sure it would feel no pain?
You said a child in the womb has no goal. So because he/she can't speak it the goal does not exist? Does a newborn have a goal? Does a toddler have a goal? Sure they do....just because they can't express themselves does not mean the goal is not there.
You said this...You're saying that because I believe abortion should be a choice that I shouldn't be able to define any restriction on that choice. That's ridiculous. That's no different than saying if someone believes that people should be allowed to choose whether to own an gun or not, then they can't put any restrictions on who they can shoot."
Not really. You want abortion legal. You probably fault me for wanting it banned and think I have no right to dictate to others what they can do. But you do the same thing by placing restrictions on abortion. Does the woman or should she have the final say when it comes to her body....yes or no? I say....no not when it comes to killing another human life. What say you?
If you say she should...then you can't put restrictions on her. How can you do that, and subject your morality on her. What if she says she does not care if the unborn can feel pain? What if she says....she doesn't think its a life until it takes its first breath? What would you say to her...if she asked you if you thought she should make the decisions about her body?
You have this list of when killing is wrong...and it is not consistent. Pain should not matter...we should respect all life and treat it with respect. Abortion does not do that.
You said, Instead of being smug and dancing around the question how about you actually answer it? How about you actually explain the logic behind your position instead of just asserting it? Do you really think you're going to win people over to your side by being condescending?"
I shouldn't be. But the idea of what you suggest is morally repugnant. I find it repulsive, sad and vile. I have explained the logic behind my position. Science confirms that at conception a new human life is started. I believe it is a person...and should be allowed to be born. This is the right thing to do. This is the moral thing to do.
The only thing you have done is get yourself in more hot water....because your position is immoral...and not logical...and does not confirm what science states about life.
You are pro-abortion...don't care about the life in the womb and you help to put a bulls eye on every life in the womb. You want and are trying to desperately make your position to be moral...so it does not sound so bad...and you have failed. You don't want to discuss it because you have nothing more that could make your position any worse than it is. Usually people run when their backs are against the wall....and clearly yours is.
Ya know we don't need to bring God into this...even atheists can know abortion is wrong. But you have to fling the....gee your a Christian and a terrible one at that at me. I would imagine Christ...telling you how immoral and vile your abortion position actually is....but to the pro-abort...would it matter? Not really.
So go ahead and run.....I probably would to...you won't win here...not with a "killing unborn children in the womb is moral" stance....not at all.
Being a Christian is not about religion...it is about the relationship one has with Christ.
Religion can fade away but a relationship with God will not if you follow what He has told you. Also people can take religion away...they can't take a relationship away. They can take your Bible away, prohibit you from going to church or to pray in public. They can prohibit any public display of your faith...jewelry, bumper stickers, reading materials, magazines...etc.
BUT THEY CAN NOT TAKE AWAY YOUR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP.
If you let that go then you didn't want it bad enough...the blame is on you.
If you are in a relationship with God it requires work on both sides. I know a lot of people who say...God won't do this, won't do that, He didn't answer my prayer. They said this while they were intentionally sinning and doing wrong. If you claim Christ then responsibility comes with it. Funny how hard people work on their relationships with people and they don't with God.
The fact is we want to spend time with the ones we love and cherish. And if you claim Christ...you should want do the same with Him.
if you want to be blessed by God then you need to be aggressively blessing other people.
(v.8)But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners. (v.9)And since we have been made right in God’s sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God’s condemnation. (v.10)For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son. (v.11)So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God.
You didn't answer my question you avoided it.
First of all where does it say in the Bible that God approves of slavery?
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) What does this scripture say?
Slavery was completely different in Old Testament times...and there were specific rules as the Word states on slaves. No sex with slaves, they can't work on the sabbath, hurting or injuring a slave was punishable by death.
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished." (Exodus 21:20)
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)
"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:12)
"Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves. (Exodus 23:12)
Do not slander a slave to his master, Or he will curse you and you will be found guilty. (Proverbs 30:10)
'Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. (Leviticus 19:20)
"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. (Deuteronomy 23:15)
'If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. (Leviticus 25:39-43)
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." (Exodus 21:2)
He who pampers his slave from childhood Will in the end find him to be a son. (Proverbs 29:21)
All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)
And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)
It is false to say a Christian would condone slavery. The fact is in biblical times people volunteered to be slaves.
No reason we are here....all this just came about by random chance? Why didn't what we know happen on other planets? We are using iPads, pods on our planet and life is not sustainable on other planets? Odd isn't it?
So your world...says, no right or wrong. Rape can be good as can pedophelia as can murder. No afterlife on penalties for actions. Everything should be allowed then in your world...because there is no real meaning...no goodness.
You keep mentioning genetically predisposed.....who set us up to work that way?