Abortion discussion: When does life begin?

[Man For All Seasons]

The thread is 3 yrs and 5 months old. It sat for 3 years. When it was revived the numbers were the same as 3 years ago. The minute you and your bodyguard started your meltdown, the 'conception figures started fattening up. Your bodyguard admitted his role. At least he's honest about the cheating.

More proof of your derangement!

 

[Man For All Seasons]

That's a nice story, there are a FEW like that even today but what I said was, do you (or MFAS) know any couples ) Catholic or Christian) who practice ZERO birth control? If they practice any BC ever, they are engaging in sex for reasons other than conception.

PS, I'll bet money that MFAS & Mrs MFAS have domne it a time or two too.

As usual you live in a fog of confusion. The point is not having sex for reasons other than conception it is about the Catholic standard of being open to that possibility regardless of whether you're having sex for pleasure or not. Fun and pleasure are great reasons for a married couple to have sex. It's not all about conception. I'm not Carholic therefore I have no qualms about using birth control as a general rule.

 

[Vagitarian]

As usual you live in a fog of confusion. The point is not having sex for reasons other than conception it is about the Catholic standard of being open to that possibility regardless of whether you're having sex for pleasure or not. Fun and pleasure are great reasons for a married couple to have sex. It's not all about conception. I'm not Carholic therefore I have no qualms about using birth control as a general rule.

Thank you for finally being open and honest about the fact that now & then you fuck Ms MFAS for fun. So as it turns out, restricting sex to purposes of procreation only isn't for either one of us - bueno!

 

[Vagitarian]

As a matter of fact I do. They are Catholic; were friends of my parents since my birth (so I knew them all my life)...they had 9 kids, did very well money wise and have 9 well rounded adult children now (hubby has past, but Mom still around).

Yep and I know a couple with 13 kids - because they didn't practice b/c. Now Feebs, is this the norm where you live? Out of every 100 couples you know, how many do NOT practice birth control? Or - how many have 10 kids or more (out of 100)?

 

[tinkrbelle]

As a matter of fact I do. They are Catholic; were friends of my parents since my birth (so I knew them all my life)...they had 9 kids, did very well money wise and have 9 well rounded adult children now (hubby has past, but Mom still around).

I know many too with very large families. But I think in even Catholic families the number of kids is dwindling with each generation. The young generation catholics use birth control, I know many of them.
I have a family memeber who is 45 with a 12 year old brother.

 

[tinkrbelle]

Yep and I know a couple with 13 kids - because they didn't practice b/c. Now Feebs, is this the norm where you live? Out of every 100 couples you know, how many do NOT practice birth control? Or - how many have 10 kids or more (out of 100)?

I know many in our and our parents generation who have families with many kids. But the younger generation Catholics-- 20 and 30 yrs-- are using birth control, the family sizes are getting smaller with each generation. I think the younger generation follows there own catholic rules.

 

[tinkrbelle]

Thank you for finally being open and honest about the fact that now & then you fuck Ms MFAS for fun. So as it turns out, restricting sex to purposes of procreation only isn't for either one of us - bueno!

I knew he was human and you brought it out

 

[Man For All Seasons]

I knew he was human and you brought it out

You and Vag are both delusional. Apparently you both like to deal I knocking down straw Men instead of dealing with reality. I never said that sex was just for procreation, so actually it is you and Vag who have been exposed.

 

[tinkrbelle]

Oh I tolerate his beliefs, in fact there are others here with similar ones. We discuss, we don't mix it up. I know of 2 people here who have him on ignore because they find his prosthyletizing so caustic. He preaches, prosthylitizes and tells not only me but others we're wrong. I've never say that, I say we're all right. Another example. P Ho has been very open about his beliefes being fundamental and he goes by the bible. Am I intolerant of him? HE's one of my faves and if he were in town, we'd be having a beer or a Crown.

BTW, another non-denominational church that truly is wonderful is the Unitarian chruch. We took our children there and their Sunday scnhool cvlasses taught tem about every religion there is, the puirpose of religion and that we're all probably praying (those who pray) to the same god (or life force if you will). As far as what do adults do? We sing (Morning is broken by Cat Stevens is popular) and we talk about life. It's like a fellowship. We also raise funds for families and charities. The difference is, we agree there is a creative force by which everything got here but we don't think it cares about someone having sex for reasons other than to bring kids into the world. We don't put people down if that's what they do OR if they just enjoy their sex life - that's THEIR business.

I am just curious, does the Unitarian church take up a collection basket during the sermon? The church seems to teach a very nice philosophy.

 

[tinkrbelle]

You and Vag are both delusional. Apparently you both like to deal I knocking down straw Men instead of dealing with reality. I never said that sex was just for procreation, so actually it is you and Vag who have been exposed.

Just can't take it when you have been called out.

 

[AnswerMan4Ever!]

The thread is 3 yrs and 5 months old. It sat for 3 years. When it was revived the numbers were the same as 3 years ago. The minute you and your bodyguard started your meltdown, the 'conception figures started fattening up. Your bodyguard admitted his role. At least he's honest about the cheating.

I did no such things-there was no meltdown on my part-just because I defended MFAS and pointed out what a jackass is I melted down? And admitted what role? I went back and voted after you mentioned the counts. Did you vote recently Vag? Hmmmmm? Hell I don't know if I voted or not back then, and I surely didn't admit to cheating.

 

[AnswerMan4Ever!]

When does science say Human Life begins?



Pro-lifers are often criticized for their position that a new, human life begins at conception. Many incorrectly think that this belief is based on some blind religious dogma, a scripture passage somewhere, or some stubborn need to tell women what to do with their bodies. All the while, this same opposition likes to pretend that they are the scientific, logical ones – obviously not blinded by religion or some judgmental God.
Of course, this is exactly backwards from reality. The entire basis for a new, human life beginning at conception stems from well documented, universally recognized scientific fact. The only ones who deny this are those blinded by their own religious dogma of so-called “choice” who have a stubborn need to deny scientific fact in order to stay faithful to their own ideology.
If science had proven that human life actually began at implantation or at nine weeks or whenever, then that’s precisely when we (Catholics and any other reasonable belief system) would believe that human life began. Simple. And, logically, it would be from that moment when this human being should be treated with the rights and dignities that come with being a human being.
But that’s not what science has told us. Science has quite clearly and decidedly proven that a new, human life begins at conception (i.e. fertilization. AKA the moment sperm and ovum meet and form an entirely new, self-directing living organism of the human species with its own individual DNA distinct from both mother and father.).
At this point in the debate, some try and introduce a separate distinction and question of “personhood.” Aside from this usually being a convoluted way to try and create classes of human beings and that it doesn’t hold up to any consistently logical scrutiny, it’s also not at all a scientific argument. It’s a philosophical one. So it is totally irrelevant to the scientific question of when human life begins.
Recently, Dr. Robert George wrote an article outlining this whole topic in more detail. And if you want to really learn your stuff, pick up his excellent book entitled Embryo (I’m in the middle of reading it right now). In his words:

“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George
​

“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George
​

Did we catch that? Human embryos only need a suitable environment and nutrition to become more mature human beings. Hey, that’s kind of like humans at any stage – at least for our biological maturity. Unfortunately, the culture outside of the womb is seemingly a less and less “suitable environment” for bringing about other kinds of maturity. But that’s another issue entirely.

 

[Man For All Seasons]

Just can't take it when you have been called out.

Not by people who are clearly delusional like you and Vag.

 

[Man For All Seasons]

When does science say Human Life begins?



Pro-lifers are often criticized for their position that a new, human life begins at conception. Many incorrectly think that this belief is based on some blind religious dogma, a scripture passage somewhere, or some stubborn need to tell women what to do with their bodies. All the while, this same opposition likes to pretend that they are the scientific, logical ones – obviously not blinded by religion or some judgmental God.
Of course, this is exactly backwards from reality. The entire basis for a new, human life beginning at conception stems from well documented, universally recognized scientific fact. The only ones who deny this are those blinded by their own religious dogma of so-called “choice” who have a stubborn need to deny scientific fact in order to stay faithful to their own ideology.
If science had proven that human life actually began at implantation or at nine weeks or whenever, then that’s precisely when we (Catholics and any other reasonable belief system) would believe that human life began. Simple. And, logically, it would be from that moment when this human being should be treated with the rights and dignities that come with being a human being.
But that’s not what science has told us. Science has quite clearly and decidedly proven that a new, human life begins at conception (i.e. fertilization. AKA the moment sperm and ovum meet and form an entirely new, self-directing living organism of the human species with its own individual DNA distinct from both mother and father.).
At this point in the debate, some try and introduce a separate distinction and question of “personhood.” Aside from this usually being a convoluted way to try and create classes of human beings and that it doesn’t hold up to any consistently logical scrutiny, it’s also not at all a scientific argument. It’s a philosophical one. So it is totally irrelevant to the scientific question of when human life begins.
Recently, Dr. Robert George wrote an article outlining this whole topic in more detail. And if you want to really learn your stuff, pick up his excellent book entitled Embryo (I’m in the middle of reading it right now). In his words:

“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George
​

“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George
​

Did we catch that? Human embryos only need a suitable environment and nutrition to become more mature human beings. Hey, that’s kind of like humans at any stage – at least for our biological maturity. Unfortunately, the culture outside of the womb is seemingly a less and less “suitable environment” for bringing about other kinds of maturity. But that’s another issue entirely.

Way too much scientific fact for the likes of Vag and some others around here. They can only cling to their positions by denying reality.

 

[AnswerMan4Ever!]

From a religious or spiritual tangent, life begins at conception which is what I believe. Babies/children are a miracle. That being said, I AM pro-choice and always have been. The harsh realities of raising children in a loving environment should allow a 'choice' to be made by a woman...if they can and want to do so.

On the other hand, if one chooses to have the child adopted, that's an even greater blessing to a couple who could not have children. A gift.

Bottom line: children should be raised with love and happiness. If someone can't do it...give someone else the gift of that child.

Once again ma'am - Exactly !

http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/showpost.php?p=3137000&postcount=8

Hey Vag, apparently back then you believed at conception.what happened?

 

[Vagitarian]

http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/showpost.php?p=3137000&postcount=8

Hey Vag, apparently back then you believed at conception.what happened?

The post was 3 years old I don't remember it verbatim but if I were answering it today, I'd have elaborated: 1) she says, "which is what I believe," which is a lot different than the pontification of a certain other RP here. And 2) That being said, I AM pro-choice and always have been. The harsh realities of raising children in a loving environment should allow a 'choice' to be made by a woman...if they can and want to do so.


That's what I was referring to - no matter when it begins, the harsh realities lead her to a pro-choice (vs no abortion allowed) position.
In other words, it's a moot point.

 

[Man For All Seasons]

The post was 3 years old I don't remember it verbatim but if I were answering it today, I'd have elaborated: 1) she says, "which is what I believe," which is a lot different than the pontification of a certain other RP here. And 2) That being said, I AM pro-choice and always have been. The harsh realities of raising children in a loving environment should allow a 'choice' to be made by a woman...if they can and want to do so.


That's what I was referring to - no matter when it begins, the harsh realities lead her to a pro-choice (vs no abortion allowed) position.
In other words, it's a moot point.

There is fact and them there is opinion. The fact is that life begins at conception. If you believe a fact or not doesn't affect the reality that it's a fact.

 

[Vagitarian]

There is fact and them there is opinion. The fact is that life begins at conception. If you believe a fact or not doesn't affect the reality that it's a fact.

So why is this topic even discussed? We've already established a pretty even division of opinion. It's being discussed so that 'pro-lifers' (who believe life begins at conception) can segue to their argument on outlawing abortion based on that.

But I'm saying it really is a moot point becase there are 2 other groups: 1) those who believe life begins at conception yet remain pro-choice and 2) those who do NOT believe life begins at conception and thus are pro-choice. So all this arguing is just pissing in the wind and I'm dropping out of the argument on when life begins. I don't agree with Scarlett and SPN on when it begins but I DO agree with them on their conclusion that women should have the right to be pro-choice.

What I liked and respected about Scarlett's post was the way she said, "I believe," instead of propping herself up with 3rd party support (ie, the bible). The woman can clearly think for herself and I respect that. That was the reason I replied to her the way I did.

 

[Vagitarian]

I am just curious, does the Unitarian church take up a collection basket during the sermon? The church seems to teach a very nice philosophy.

Sorry for not answering. As I mentioned, we took our daughters there which was 20 years ago and to be honest, I can't remember how they collected tithes. I seem to recollect some sort of container, maybe in the welcome line outside or maybe it was a plate. There cetrtainly was never any pressure though, we were just starting out and didn't have a lot of money.

 

[Breakingnews]

Could this book answer the ongoing debate?

17th-Century 'Aristotle' Sex Manual Goes Up For Auction

In a section of one edition of the book explaining "what conception is," the author writes, "The first day after the conception she feels a slight quivering or illness running through the whole body; a tickling in the womb, a little pain in the lower parts of the belly." That passage goes on to describe the "giddiness" felt and "pimples in the face" that apparently were thought to occur days after conception.

http://news.yahoo.com/17th-century-aristotle-sex-manual-goes-auction-164444364.html