Is it a sin??????

[adam&chryss]

You can ask and i`ll answer after you give me your answer, or maybe you have.

[joebloggs]

May I ask how the number of children someone has has any relevance upon an objective ethical discussion?

i'm still waiting for a mother who calls a baby a foetus

still no takers...

i'll have a wild guess and say your not a parent, or never have given birth.. maybe your view will change when you have, i hope so, because i'm sure when you tell your family and friends your pregnant with a foetus, they will think your

If a foetus does not have a right to life then why aren't all foetus's killed? Also, if a foetus is not a living human being then why does one have to kill it? Why not wait for the foetus to be born and then find out if it really is a living human being?

also are we not all dependant on our environment to sustain our lives? A pre-born baby requires the womb for life. Babies require food and care from others, or they will die. Even adults require air, water, and food from a source outside of themselves.

you keep mentioning 'potential', true we all have the potential to be a millionaire, but also true is that most pregnancies that go full term, will result in the birth of a baby, its more than a 'potential' is it an also certainty that a baby will be born. you may have the potential that you could be PM, but Cameron will almost certainly be MP soon, as a foetus will almost certainly become a baby

not being a mother, i have a good idea thou, of a bond btw a mother and child, and the price and sacrifices a mother will do for their child. no matter what the cost. Nobody or nothing can even come close to the bond a mother and child have, and that bond for many starts the day she finds out she is pregnant

peace to you all. life is too short and precious to waste

[David House]

Anyone who knows about basic biology will know that the post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being. Should we save them all too? This line in the sand is arbitrary.

A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being. Even you indicated in your initial post that it was a ‘potential being’. I am a potential millionaire, but unfortunately I won’t be making a down payment on that Sunseeker just yet. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’. Therefore to apply principles accepted for human beings to the blastocyst is a logical fallacy.

Far from the suggestion that ‘ I suspect that the notion that what is effectively murder is misplaced, stems from a desire to tone down the truth. What I have said is correct both legally and morally as any review of the extant literature will reveal.’ This is plain wrong. The dictionary definition of ‘murder’ also refers to killing of a human being. So you are the one with terminology issues. Unless you really believe that week one embryo is a human being. That to me is extreme.

And to cherry-pick legislation to support an argument will not achieve much when it is the exception. That one US state takes such an interpretation does not make it more than an aberration. Even the legislation quoted refers separately to a human being or a foetus. Most in the US and Western Europe do not take this view.

If we are to speak on legality, then I am glad the UK is enlightened enough to enshrine a woman’s rights over her body until the foetus can reasonably survive to become a viable human being without her body. I can’t see it changing any time soon, thank goodness.

This is a deeply personal decision for the mother and to a lesser extent the father. She has the most invested, the most to gain or lose from her decision. Personally, I think anyone else has zero right to comment. A friend should support her, or stop being her friend. Advice is fine if it is based on experience or expertise, but not from personal beliefs. They are called ‘personal’ for a reason.

It will come as no surprise to anyone following this debate that I agree 100% with this and think it is very well expressed.
I have two children and four grandchildren but fail to see what relevance that has to this discussion.

[JudyHon]

You can ask and i`ll answer after you give me your answer, or maybe you have.

It seems a pity that people views are not considered objectively, and on their merits. When arguments are not rebutted, but summarily dismissed due to the situation of the person holding views, it's a bit sad.

Some could argue that parents are particularly ill-suited to advise in this area as their judgements will be necessarily clouded by their personal experience that would most likely be a world away from the terrible circumstances that some pregnant women find themselves in. Perhaps the only people who's views should really stand apart from other's are those who have had to make this terrible decision themselves? Not friends, not doctors, not parents, not religious speakers, not forum posters.

I did not intend to post at all on this personal and contentious issue. Judy wanted to give some advice to MrsDaddy and asked me to type her view, which I did. It was one I support - that this is a very personal choice, and any friend should support unconditionally and not advise or judge.

When her post was then undermined in what I think was a somewhat dismissive manner with a for good measure, let’s say I got a bit irritated, and then pursued an ethical debate at some tangent to the start of the thread. Seems however my views are void due to my circumstances.

I still believe a world without abortion would be a dystopia awash with unwanted and maltreated children and dangerous backstreet abortion practices. Perhaps the Catholic Church could step in to take care of these children? Pro-life could work in a perfect world. Unfortunately not in this one.

Actually the answer to the question is that it is a ‘sin’ if you are a true believer, but this should have no bearing on being a friend.

Thnaks

[Mrs.JMajor]

Shawn I find you very smart on debate hahaha
Peace !!!

[JudyHon]

i'll have a wild guess and say your not a parent, or never have given birth.. maybe your view will change when you have, i hope so, because i'm sure when you tell your family and friends your pregnant with a foetus, they will think your

Context is everything. In an ethical debate, emotive terms are unsuitable for objective discussion. I suspect I will succumb to convention, but that does not mean I will be unaware of the misuse of the word. We misuse words in colloquial speech every day.

If a foetus does not have a right to life then why aren't all foetus's killed? Also, if a foetus is not a living human being then why does one have to kill it? Why not wait for the foetus to be born and then find out if it really is a living human being?

I never said all foetuses should be killed. This does not detract from the fact that to equate foetuses with human beings or entitle them to equal rights is a deceit.

also are we not all dependant on our environment to sustain our lives? A pre-born baby requires the womb for life. Babies require food and care from others, or they will die. Even adults require air, water, and food from a source outside of themselves.

This a biological dependence, not an environmental dependence. This is an almost unique situation where two living organisms spare one body, and one is entirely dependent on the other – effectively a ‘host’. Once born babies and adults gain a degree of autonomy where they are not dependent entirely on one individual. Therefore this ‘one individual’ to me must have the casting vote.

you keep mentioning 'potential', true we all have the potential to be a millionaire, but also true is that most pregnancies that go full term, will result in the birth of a baby, its more than a 'potential' is it an also certainty that a baby will be born. you may have the potential that you could be PM, but Cameron will almost certainly be MP soon, as a foetus will almost certainly become a baby

The ‘millionaire’ example was for levity. The point remains that potential is a world away from actual, and so the treat as the same is false. To treat Cameron as MP now and give him the nuclear codes does not make sense. And probability is not the issue.

not being a mother, i have a good idea thou, of a bond btw a mother and child, and the price and sacrifices a mother will do for their child. no matter what the cost. Nobody or nothing can even come close to the bond a mother and child have, and that bond for many starts the day she finds out she is pregnant

Exactly, so why would you second guess her? If despite all you say above about the bond, and the limitless sacrifices a mother will make, she still decides she is determined to get rid of the life inside of her, who are we to deny her? Better under medical supervision than in a backstreet at great personal danger.

We will never agree on this subject, because so little is known about the foetal development, and 'life' and 'human being' mean different things to different people. The greatest minds and philosophers have failed to come up with a clear answer, and no answer will please everyone.

[David House]

i'm still waiting for a mother who calls a baby a foetus

still no takers...

i'll have a wild guess and say your not a parent, or never have given birth.. maybe your view will change when you have, i hope so, because i'm sure when you tell your family and friends your pregnant with a foetus, they will think your

If a foetus does not have a right to life then why aren't all foetus's killed? Also, if a foetus is not a living human being then why does one have to kill it? Why not wait for the foetus to be born and then find out if it really is a living human being?

also are we not all dependant on our environment to sustain our lives? A pre-born baby requires the womb for life. Babies require food and care from others, or they will die. Even adults require air, water, and food from a source outside of themselves.

you keep mentioning 'potential', true we all have the potential to be a millionaire, but also true is that most pregnancies that go full term, will result in the birth of a baby, its more than a 'potential' is it an also certainty that a baby will be born. you may have the potential that you could be PM, but Cameron will almost certainly be MP soon, as a foetus will almost certainly become a baby

not being a mother, i have a good idea thou, of a bond btw a mother and child, and the price and sacrifices a mother will do for their child. no matter what the cost. Nobody or nothing can even come close to the bond a mother and child have, and that bond for many starts the day she finds out she is pregnant

peace to you all. life is too short and precious to waste

I don't think anyone under-estimates the emotional tie that a woman feels when she knows she is pregnant, or the stress she feels if she then considers, for whatever reason, having an abortion. I think therefore that we can all agree on this. However, with respect, that is not the point.
The point at issue is the additional guilt which is being laid on her by describing an abortion as taking a "life" or "murder" when it is clear to many of us that it is no such thing. A woman undergoing an abortion is likely to suffer enormous emotional problems, and in my experience they can last for a very long time. For the pro-life lobby to make things worse for her just seems so cruel. What I would like to see is understanding and support given to ease the pain. This is a difficult ethical matter for many people but I think the UK position is about right. When I read some of the extreme views expressed in the USA by the pro-life lobby I shudder at the thinking and am so glad we live in a more liberal country.

[Sophie]

mrs daddy, its on page 7 now, more pints to go

[joebloggs]

I have two children and four grandchildren but fail to see what relevance that has to this discussion.

and when your wife was pregnant, did she consider it to be a foetus or a baby, and what did you think ?

relevance is, if you've been pregnant you have a better idea of what your talking about than if you haven't.

i'll sum up my case..

The NHS abortion service is heading for a crisis because increasing numbers of doctors refuse to carry out terminations.There has been a big rise in young medics with 'conscientious objections' to abortion.

Science tells us that human life begins at the time of conception. From the moment fertilization takes place, the child's genetic makeup is already complete. Its gender has already been determined, along with its height and hair, eye and skin color. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully-functioning being is the time to grow and develop.

why is there a 24wk limit on abortions in the uk, if it is not a baby until its breathes its first breathe ?

there are many risks from having a abortion. higher risk of suicide, cancer, increased risk to later pregnancies, link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems.

93% of abortions are for social reasons, not medical reasons.

that's my views on this and none of my views have got anything to do with religion, but are to preserve life.

[Mrs Daddy]

mrs daddy, its on page 7 now, more pints to go

golly gush I have to save up for it now sophie I think they`re trying to do it now intentionally they`re getting serious I dont have any intention of any misjudgement and misunderstanding for each and every individual here afterall we were ex foetus many years ago

[Jamesey]

Anyone who knows about basic biology will know that the post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being. Should we save them all too? This line in the sand is arbitrary.

A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being. Even you indicated in your initial post that it was a ‘potential being’. I am a potential millionaire, but unfortunately I won’t be making a down payment on that Sunseeker just yet. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’. Therefore to apply principles accepted for human beings to the blastocyst is a logical fallacy.

Far from the suggestion that ‘ I suspect that the notion that what is effectively murder is misplaced, stems from a desire to tone down the truth. What I have said is correct both legally and morally as any review of the extant literature will reveal.’ This is plain wrong. The dictionary definition of ‘murder’ also refers to killing of a human being. So you are the one with terminology issues. Unless you really believe that week one embryo is a human being. That to me is extreme.

And to cherry-pick legislation to support an argument will not achieve much when it is the exception. That one US state takes such an interpretation does not make it more than an aberration. Even the legislation quoted refers separately to a human being or a foetus. Most in the US and Western Europe do not take this view.

If we are to speak on legality, then I am glad the UK is enlightened enough to enshrine a woman’s rights over her body until the foetus can reasonably survive to become a viable human being without her body. I can’t see it changing any time soon, thank goodness.

This is a deeply personal decision for the mother and to a lesser extent the father. She has the most invested, the most to gain or lose from her decision. Personally, I think anyone else has zero right to comment. A friend should support her, or stop being her friend. Advice is fine if it is based on experience or expertise, but not from personal beliefs. They are called ‘personal’ for a reason.

Along with David House, I'm a parent and agree 100% with the quote above.

But I don't see what relevance one's personal situation has. This subject needs to be debated by looking at the facts, without judgment being clouded my emotion or religion.

[Sophie]

golly gush I have to save up for it now sophie I think they`re trying to do it now intentionally they`re getting serious I dont have any intention of any misjudgement and misunderstanding for each and every individual here afterall we were ex foetus many years ago

korek, hahahaha

[joebloggs]

debated by looking at the facts, without judgment being clouded my emotion or religion.

I'm not religious, so no clouds there..

fact most doctors do not want to perform abortions

fact 93% are for social reasons

fact some woman who have abortions face medical and psychological problems.


the only thing i think were disagreeing on, is a foetus 'alive' and whether it is a baby or not

and should a woman be able to decide if and when she can have an abortion.


i find it sad that there are 200,000 abortions in the uk a year for social reasons, you may call these 'mistakes', but is anyone learning from these 'mistakes' ?

there should be no excuse for it in the uk (phils where the lady is from, is a different story), when contraception is sold in many places, and is given freely in some places, wether condom, pill or implant or other methods, the only reason i can think why people dont take them, is that people can not be bothered , and a 'mistake' is made, and ending up in the death of a life. maybe 'potenital' life to you, fact is most would be born if not aborted.

you all talk of facts, well if you have any facts or evidence to show that the vast majority of these 'potential' life's or foetus's would not become normal babies when born, please send me a link. I'm more than willing to read it. if you can't, I take it these 'potential' life's you talk of, are more than a potential, but is a certainty, they would be in the vast majority healthy babies.

were not going to get 10 pages out of this mrs daddy, as we've gone as far as we can get i think . and you owe enough drinks now

[Mrs Daddy]

were not going to get 10 pages out of this mrs daddy, as we've gone as far as we can get i think . and you owe enough drinks now

thats problem solve Mr.Bloggsthanks a lot

[David House]

and when your wife was pregnant, did she consider it to be a foetus or a baby, and what did you think ?

It is too long ago for me to remember and we were both young and immature anyway. Whatever emotional response anyone has does not change the biological facts. We must take decisions on facts and not on emotions.

relevance is, if you've been pregnant you have a better idea of what your talking about than if you haven't.

Why? You only have a better idea of what it is like to be pregnant, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about when "life" exists.

i'll sum up my case..

The NHS abortion service is heading for a crisis because increasing numbers of doctors refuse to carry out terminations.There has been a big rise in young medics with 'conscientious objections' to abortion.

I will take your word on this, although I have seen no such evidence myself. I trust as they get older they might become wiser.

Science tells us that human life begins at the time of conception.

I cannot see any justification for such a statement. In fact I think that "science" actually says rather the opposite. The key word is "human". An fertilised egg is not a "human".

From the moment fertilization takes place, the child's genetic makeup is already complete. Its gender has already been determined, along with its height and hair, eye and skin color. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully-functioning being is the time to grow and develop.

And your point is? No doubt you could extract DNA from an egg and a sperm and calculate what the resultant human would be, but that does not make a human exist. The point is that the fertilised egg/embryo has not yet developed but merely has the potential to do so.

why is there a 24wk limit on abortions in the uk, if it is not a baby until its breathes its first breathe ?

I am no expert but surely that is the very earliest time when it is theoretically possible for a live birth to occur.

there are many risks from having a abortion. higher risk of suicide, cancer, increased risk to later pregnancies, link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems.

Which is why it should be an act of last resort and why any women having to face it deserves as much support and understanding as possible, and not an additional layer of guilt.

93% of abortions are for social reasons, not medical reasons.

I too am not comfortable with any abortion carried out as an alternative to contraception.

that's my views on this and none of my views have got anything to do with religion, but are to preserve life.

I have no argument at all about wishing to preserve life. My argument is about when life really starts and about making already stressed women feel guilty.

[joebloggs]

and when your wife was pregnant, did she consider it to be a foetus or a baby, and what did you think ?

It is too long ago for me to remember and we were both young and immature anyway. Whatever emotional response anyone has does not change the biological facts. We must take decisions on facts and not on emotions.

as i said before, i don't know anyone who has said, "I'm pregnant and my foetus is going to be a potential life"

The NHS abortion service is heading for a crisis because increasing numbers of doctors refuse to carry out terminations.There has been a big rise in young medics with 'conscientious objections' to abortion. [/I][/COLOR]

I will take your word on this, although I have seen no such evidence myself. I trust as they get older they might become wiser.

don't take my word, look at the links i posted b4 and search goggle, young or old, many doctors are against abortion and many abortions are carried out by private clinics because many NHS doctors are against it.

you all keep talking about evidence, then show me a link where most doctors are in favour of abortion .

why is there a 24wk limit on abortions in the uk, if it is not a baby until its breathes its first breathe ?

I am no expert but surely that is the very earliest time when it is theoretically possible for a live birth to occur.

if so why is it 12 or 13wks in many parts of Europe ?

there are many risks from having a abortion. higher risk of suicide, cancer, increased risk to later pregnancies, link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems.

Which is why it should be an act of last resort and why any women having to face it deserves as much support and understanding as possible, and not an additional layer of guilt.

maybe guilt is the last thing on some women's minds Conservative MP Philip Hollobone said it was "truly appalling" that in England in 2006, there were 59,687 abortions by women who had already had at least one abortion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7385099.stm

93% of abortions are for social reasons, not medical reasons.

I too am not comfortable with any abortion carried out as an alternative to contraception.

again some people are not hearing the message of contraception or don't give a and why should the NHS and doctors have to sort their 'mistake' out


good we agree on some things , but looks like never of the other thnigs

[bornatbirth]

being bornatbirth im glad i wasnt terminated or i couldnt post here?

btw where do babies come from?

[Tawi2]

its coming Hope you dont mind if i sit on the fence

Never sit on the fence,your only going to get splinters in your bum

[Piamed]

Anyone who knows about basic biology will know that the post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being. Should we save them all too? This line in the sand is arbitrary.

A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being. Even you indicated in your initial post that it was a ‘potential being’. I am a potential millionaire, but unfortunately I won’t be making a down payment on that Sunseeker just yet. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’. Therefore to apply principles accepted for human beings to the blastocyst is a logical fallacy.

Far from the suggestion that ‘ I suspect that the notion that what is effectively murder is misplaced, stems from a desire to tone down the truth. What I have said is correct both legally and morally as any review of the extant literature will reveal.’ This is plain wrong. The dictionary definition of ‘murder’ also refers to killing of a human being. So you are the one with terminology issues. Unless you really believe that week one embryo is a human being. That to me is extreme.

And to cherry-pick legislation to support an argument will not achieve much when it is the exception. That one US state takes such an interpretation does not make it more than an aberration. Even the legislation quoted refers separately to a human being or a foetus. Most in the US and Western Europe do not take this view.

If we are to speak on legality, then I am glad the UK is enlightened enough to enshrine a woman’s rights over her body until the foetus can reasonably survive to become a viable human being without her body. I can’t see it changing any time soon, thank goodness.

This is a deeply personal decision for the mother and to a lesser extent the father. She has the most invested, the most to gain or lose from her decision. Personally, I think anyone else has zero right to comment. A friend should support her, or stop being her friend. Advice is fine if it is based on experience or expertise, but not from personal beliefs. They are called ‘personal’ for a reason.

Sir, are you aware of the basic tenets of life are? Additionally, I refer to extant literature and you respond by saying you have looked at a dictionary.

I understand why you might believe that particular legislation was cherry-picked. Actually, I came across it by accident but it was relevant so it was included. I'm sure you appreciate my position is clearly not based upon that 1 piece of legislation. There are other references to be found; I just dont have the time to pull them out. That you do not think an unborn baby is a human is beyond words and takes you into a realm of incredulity.

I've stated some of my experience and alluded to my expertise. If you believe others without both of these determinants have no right to comment, why are you doing so? It appears as though in your haste to be part of a discussion you've again tripped over your own exuberance.

The bottom line is that you speak of facts without emotion, religion and emotional bias, yet have presented no facts. Whether 100 people agree with you or not is irrelevant. You have said stick to the facts so please provide the facts/evidence underpinning your statements below:

1. Post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being
2. A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being
3. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’

[bornatbirth]

then stick to the facts!

when does a babies life begin?

its seems no proof of fact as been presented by either argument

and saying you havent given birth or not being a mother isnt one! it just means you was horny?

[joebloggs]

then stick to the facts!

when does a babies life begin?

its seems no proof of fact as been presented by either argument

and saying you havent given birth or not being a mother isnt one! it just means you was horny?

fact - my misses who has a degree in biology and medicine , and she says that life begins at conception, something many doctors agree with.

if it doesn't then when does it ? 38wks, 26wks, 24 wks, 12 wks ?? take your pick. but your just playing with numbers, it has to start somewhere, and to many that's at the point of conception.

everythnig has a start and end, and this post has reached the end for me ...

[bornatbirth]

exactly no facts!

just guessing?

[joebloggs]

exactly no facts!

just guessing?

an educated guess, based on a biology degree, degree in medicine and more than 10yrs at uni.

anyone else got a better educated guess ???

[Piamed]

[QUOTE=bornatbirth;138127]then stick to the facts!

when does a babies life begin?

its seems no proof of fact as been presented by either argument
QUOTE]

A clue: the answer to your question is inherent in itself.

I stated my position clearly many times and have referenced my statements when I felt it pertinent. Because some cannot abide by religious principles, let's stick to science. Life begins when the tenets of biology say it does. It seems that some are arguing that there is no life in an unborn as they do not know how life is defined in biology. They are coming up with personal definitions even though they say that personal insight is invalid. Hmmn! In anticipation that someone will yet again repeat what I say and naievly try to turn it back to me, I will reiterate that I do not say things I cannot reference to a broad range of informed sources.

Someone challenged the anti-abortionists here on the basis that they wanted to see a debate wrought from facts, without emotion, religion and emotional bias, yet have presented no facts. That is their requirement yet they have not been able to meet their own expectations.

Anyway, I've said my peace. The pro-abortionists can continue but hopefully will provide some evidence for the 3 points I've highlighted from JudyHon's portfolio of unfounded statements. Somehow I doubt it though. I'm on my travels now. Peace.

[Mrs Daddy]

Never sit on the fence,your only going to get splinters in your bum

That`s true

[David House]

[QUOTE=Piamed;138137]

then stick to the facts!

when does a babies life begin?

its seems no proof of fact as been presented by either argument
QUOTE]

A clue: the answer to your question is inherent in itself.

I stated my position clearly many times and have referenced my statements when I felt it pertinent. Because some cannot abide by religious principles, let's stick to science. Life begins when the tenets of biology say it does. It seems that some are arguing that there is no life in an unborn as they do not know how life is defined in biology. They are coming up with personal definitions even though they say that personal insight is invalid. Hmmn! In anticipation that someone will yet again repeat what I say and naievly try to turn it back to me, I will reiterate that I do not say things I cannot reference to a broad range of informed sources.

Someone challenged the anti-abortionists here on the basis that they wanted to see a debate wrought from facts, without emotion, religion and emotional bias, yet have presented no facts. That is their requirement yet they have not been able to meet their own expectations.

Anyway, I've said my peace. The pro-abortionists can continue but hopefully will provide some evidence for the 3 points I've highlighted from JudyHon's portfolio of unfounded statements. Somehow I doubt it though. I'm on my travels now. Peace.

To describe those on the other side of this debate as "pro-abortionists" is inaccurate and as emotionally charged as much of what is said by the "pro-life" lobby. No-one is, I believe, "pro-abortion". The argument is not really about whether you are in favour of abortion, only whether it can ever be acceptable. For some it is, for others it cannot be in any circumstances.
It is the same about trying to define "life". For some, me included, "human life" does not truly exist unless, and until, a baby draws it's first unaided breath. Until then it is an extension of it's mother and totally dependent upon her. Her life exists, but not a new independent one. Others have an alternative view but how far back do you want to go as "life" exists at many levels. In my view the debate needs to concentrate upon when a "human" exists, and that surely cannot be at the moment of conception. The distinction may be a fine line but it is a very important one in an ethical debate. Those who would put women at risk by denying them the opportunity to have a safe abortion, when no other reasonable option is available, have a lot to answer for. This is an imperfect world. Poor people, with too many mouths to feed, may be driven into the hands of dangerous back street abortionists. Practical solutions are required not theoretical concepts.

[Mrs Daddy]

This thing freaks me outI dont know if its a coincidence that somebody has put a dead hairless chick (or a foetus chicken) looks like just came out from its egg in our garden post!Oh God!why me This things makes me freak out

[JudyHon]

Sir, are you aware of the basic tenets of life are? Additionally, I refer to extant literature and you respond by saying you have looked at a dictionary.

I understand why you might believe that particular legislation was cherry-picked. Actually, I came across it by accident but it was relevant so it was included. I'm sure you appreciate my position is clearly not based upon that 1 piece of legislation. There are other references to be found; I just dont have the time to pull them out. That you do not think an unborn baby is a human is beyond words and takes you into a realm of incredulity.

I've stated some of my experience and alluded to my expertise. If you believe others without both of these determinants have no right to comment, why are you doing so? It appears as though in your haste to be part of a discussion you've again tripped over your own exuberance.

The bottom line is that you speak of facts without emotion, religion and emotional bias, yet have presented no facts. Whether 100 people agree with you or not is irrelevant. You have said stick to the facts so please provide the facts/evidence underpinning your statements below:

1. Post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being
2. A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being
3. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’

Honestly, there is no need to call me Sir. I know my posts are compelling, but such reverence is excessive. Unless you are being facetious which seems a rather unchristian trait.

I am not limiting my expertise to the Dictionary. Actually, I do have some expertise in the field of biology, but don’t wish to crow about it. Referring to objective definitions to correct obvious misnomers seemed like a reasonable place to start however. I think your experience and expertise count for little as you have never had to take a decision on abortion. I have already indicated the single group whose experience puts them above the rest of us in such a discussion.

I know enough about the issue to be aware that there are myriad theories about when life starts, and no single biological ‘truth’ all accept. None is provable, and people more knowledgeable than you and I cannot agree on a specific ‘moment’. Some argue that life does not begin at all – it is a continuous cycle or continuum – hence my reference to sperm and ovum.

I don’t recall saying an unborn baby is not human. I stand by my assertion that a fertilised egg is not a human being. That there is a difference seems obvious to me and a great many people. Very few people (at least in the UK) equate the two and to say they are the same thing seems to me a fundamentally incredible statement.

Frankly I could argue the toss over this one until doomsday, but what is the point. We are going round in circles already, and life’s too short.

I would however, say that you do seem to have a bad case of double standards. When the discussion was on religion, you emphasised the need to respect believers views when I used the terms ‘brain-washing’, ‘fairy tales’ and ‘irrelevant’ in association with organised religion. But now you wade into this discussion banding around terms such as ‘preposterous, pathetic, myopic, naïve’ to other equally valid dissenting views. You do your argument no favours using such pejorative terms.

Perhaps your religious views are inherently more deserving of respect? Or maybe just your views? I suggest I am not the only one who could be accused of ‘tripping over their exuberance’ whatever that means. Everyone is entitled to express their views here.

Thanks. That’s my lot. Enjoy chasing your tails…

[adam&chryss]

I beleive the thread is "is it a sin? "
Also I beleive if the lady in question wanted facts then i`m sure she could Google the answers like anyone else.
I thought she`d like some advice from people that have been in the situation of expecting a child as part of a family.
How could anyone give advice on any subject if they havnt remotely experienced it?
I can remember my wife telling me she was pregnant and how happy we were.
As far as i`m concerned thats when the life of my son began and you can quote any facts you want, they mean nothing to me.
So, Is It A Sin? I guess you`ll have to beleive in god to judge that.

[David House]

How could anyone give advice on any subject if they havnt remotely experienced it?

Tell that to the Priests and Nuns! They do it all the time, on this subject and many other matters!