Why is there a debate about Abortion?

[the_bob_delusion]

Whether you're Pro-choice or Anti-choice. Both sides agree you cannot force someone to donate their body whether you believe a foetus is a human being or not. Doesn't the debate just end there?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

anyway, over to you Bob.

[polksaladallie]

See post 39.  

What do you think the surgeons do, rush in and whisk the pt away before the relatives shed their first tear?  Can't happen.

Why do you think there is such a terrible shortage of donor organs in Australia?  Because of the criteria of brain death, where relatives have minutes or hours to say goodbye.  Other deaths do not qualify.  It is too late.

Artificial respiration and artificial heart pumping might be used, but the brain is still dead.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Your toenails are dead.

---

but Bob said 'any human cells'.

---

Well, that's essentially correct what I said. Your ignorance isn't evidence for facts. 

---

MY ignorance? 

OK, let's leave out toenails. Which other human cells result in a human life - other than a fertilized human egg?

What you also said previously is that 'sperm contains all that is necessary for life' {paraphrased}.

I would say that statement shows a tad of  ignorance too - unless of couse you know something science does not. Putting it bluntly, fill up a 44-gallon drum with human sperm - what human life results? Like it not Bob, we need those woman out there and it's about time you realised / admitted it.

---

Your argument is a bunch of cells is a human, {no, I said an embryo is a human - you called it a bunch of cells} so I used that same argument back against you. Human cells can also make a potential human. Therefore you're causing abortions everytime you wash or sneeze.

I think your parents failed you Bob - sneezing on a lady does not make them pregnant, nor does kissing them - I think there is more to it than that. 

So you're admit that women are important. I agree. Therefore don't you think they deserve the right to do what they want with their body?

Women have every right to do what they want with their body - as long as it's ONLY their body that we are talking about. eg a woman has the right to blow themselves up if that's what they wish, but they don't have the right to take anyone else with them - that would be called murder or even mass murder. You may have read about a few of those suicide bombers - admittedly mostly men but some women to?

---

---

So you agree with me that an Embryo is a bunch of cells but you call it a "human". By that reasoning, other bunch of human cells are also humans because you can make a human from those. Do you not get I'm using your own arguments against you. 

So let me use the same argument as OP. Do you agree with me it's wrong to force anyone to donate their body part to someone else? 

---

 Bob:"an Embryo is a bunch of cells but you call it a "human". By that reasoning, other bunch of human cells are also humans because you can make a human from those".

Once again, what other human cells can you make a human out of except that bunch of cells represented by a fertilized human egg. You are talking in circles.

"donate their body parts to someone else" - that would be after you're dead I presume? No, it's done all the time, but there is no force involved - well, except in China maybe.

---

Before I explain it again how your reasoning fails. Do you first accept that if a cell(not fertilized human egg) can be used to create a human being, killing that cell is not the same as killing a human?

Let me spell it out to you again. Do you think you can force a mum or dad to donate one of their kidney to their child if they needed one? Obviously they're still alive. 

---

"Do you first accept that if a cell(not fertilized human egg) can be used to create a human being"

- so, now we are talking about a non-fertilized egg? Like the millions billions that go unfertilized every year?

"Let me spell it out to you again. Do you think you can force a mum or dad to donate one of their kidney to their child if they needed one?"

- No, you cannot force anyone to give away a kidney - BUT, in MOST CASES if a child needed a kidney to survive, MOST PARENTS would be falling over themselves to give that child a kidney - providing there is a match of course.

- I cannot see where you are going with this. Are you saying that giving away a kidney to a child in need is the same as 'giving away' a uterus?  If so, please try to understand that a mother doesn't 'give away' her uterus to have a child, it's only rented for 40 weeks. Believe it or not, some women have more than one child, so it's not as if they only get one crack at it. With a kidnet, you do only get one crack at it, well two if you count the one after you're dead.

---

Let's go back to basics. Your argument is that an embryo which is a collections of cells is an unborn child because it has the potential to become a human. I'm telling you any human cells with DNA can potentially be a human. And with modern science that is a real possiblity. Before you make your argument, do you want to retract and say that an embryo is not the same as a baby. 

A mother doesn't give away her uterus. She has the right to not allow someone or something use her body without her permission. Do you accept that?

[*pepe]

this thread has gone from stupid to bl oody ridiculous.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Your toenails are dead.

---

but Bob said 'any human cells'.

---

Well, that's essentially correct what I said. Your ignorance isn't evidence for facts. 

---

MY ignorance? 

OK, let's leave out toenails. Which other human cells result in a human life - other than a fertilized human egg?

What you also said previously is that 'sperm contains all that is necessary for life' {paraphrased}.

I would say that statement shows a tad of  ignorance too - unless of couse you know something science does not. Putting it bluntly, fill up a 44-gallon drum with human sperm - what human life results? Like it not Bob, we need those woman out there and it's about time you realised / admitted it.

---

Your argument is a bunch of cells is a human, {no, I said an embryo is a human - you called it a bunch of cells} so I used that same argument back against you. Human cells can also make a potential human. Therefore you're causing abortions everytime you wash or sneeze.

I think your parents failed you Bob - sneezing on a lady does not make them pregnant, nor does kissing them - I think there is more to it than that. 

So you're admit that women are important. I agree. Therefore don't you think they deserve the right to do what they want with their body?

Women have every right to do what they want with their body - as long as it's ONLY their body that we are talking about. eg a woman has the right to blow themselves up if that's what they wish, but they don't have the right to take anyone else with them - that would be called murder or even mass murder. You may have read about a few of those suicide bombers - admittedly mostly men but some women to?

---

---

So you agree with me that an Embryo is a bunch of cells but you call it a "human". By that reasoning, other bunch of human cells are also humans because you can make a human from those. Do you not get I'm using your own arguments against you. 

So let me use the same argument as OP. Do you agree with me it's wrong to force anyone to donate their body part to someone else? 

---

 Bob:"an Embryo is a bunch of cells but you call it a "human". By that reasoning, other bunch of human cells are also humans because you can make a human from those".

Once again, what other human cells can you make a human out of except that bunch of cells represented by a fertilized human egg. You are talking in circles.

"donate their body parts to someone else" - that would be after you're dead I presume? No, it's done all the time, but there is no force involved - well, except in China maybe.

---

Before I explain it again how your reasoning fails. Do you first accept that if a cell(not fertilized human egg) can be used to create a human being, killing that cell is not the same as killing a human?

Let me spell it out to you again. Do you think you can force a mum or dad to donate one of their kidney to their child if they needed one? Obviously they're still alive. 

---

"Do you first accept that if a cell(not fertilized human egg) can be used to create a human being"

- so, now we are talking about a non-fertilized egg? Like the millions billions that go unfertilized every year?

"Let me spell it out to you again. Do you think you can force a mum or dad to donate one of their kidney to their child if they needed one?"

- No, you cannot force anyone to give away a kidney - BUT, in MOST CASES if a child needed a kidney to survive, MOST PARENTS would be falling over themselves to give that child a kidney - providing there is a match of course.

- I cannot see where you are going with this. Are you saying that giving away a kidney to a child in need is the same as 'giving away' a uterus?  If so, please try to understand that a mother doesn't 'give away' her uterus to have a child, it's only rented for 40 weeks. Believe it or not, some women have more than one child, so it's not as if they only get one crack at it. With a kidnet, you do only get one crack at it, well two if you count the one after you're dead.

---

Let's go back to basics. Your argument is that an embryo which is a collections of cells is an unborn child because it has the potential to become a human. I'm telling you any human cells with DNA can potentially be a human. And with modern science that is a real possiblity. Before you make your argument, do you want to retract and say that an embryo is not the same as a baby. 

A mother doesn't give away her uterus. She has the right to not allow someone or something use her body without her permission. Do you accept that?

---

"an embryo which is a collections of cells is an unborn child because it has the potential to become a human." 

No, it's an unborn child BECAUSE it IS a human embryo (the result of a HUMAN EGG fertilized by a HUMAN SPERM), which given the alotted time WILL become a newborn baby - that is except if there is intervention - either medical accident or deliberate abortion.

Despite what you say about 'any human cells with DNA can potentially become a human'  - you cannot implant just any human cell into a uterus and expect a baby to be born. Even IVF has to start with an egg and sperm - not just any old cell with DNA.

Anyway, I am tired of arguing with you.  You sound more and more like my eldest son. PEACE.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

See post 39.  

What do you think the surgeons do, rush in and whisk the pt away before the relatives shed their first tear?  Can't happen.

Why do you think there is such a terrible shortage of donor organs in Australia?  Because of the criteria of brain death, where relatives have minutes or hours to say goodbye.  Other deaths do not qualify.  It is too late.

Artificial respiration and artificial heart pumping might be used, but the brain is still dead.

---

I'll repost the excerpt from wiki for you, since you place so much store on wiki, and as you obviously missed it the first time:

"Therefore, the majority of human organ sources are post cardiac death."

{edit: if you want to argue any further, argue with wiki}

[polksaladallie]

Continue to believe in the tooth fairy, but think it through if you want to be a donor.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Your toenails are dead.

---

but Bob said 'any human cells'.

---

Well, that's essentially correct what I said. Your ignorance isn't evidence for facts. 

---

MY ignorance? 

OK, let's leave out toenails. Which other human cells result in a human life - other than a fertilized human egg?

What you also said previously is that 'sperm contains all that is necessary for life' {paraphrased}.

I would say that statement shows a tad of  ignorance too - unless of couse you know something science does not. Putting it bluntly, fill up a 44-gallon drum with human sperm - what human life results? Like it not Bob, we need those woman out there and it's about time you realised / admitted it.

---

Your argument is a bunch of cells is a human, {no, I said an embryo is a human - you called it a bunch of cells} so I used that same argument back against you. Human cells can also make a potential human. Therefore you're causing abortions everytime you wash or sneeze.

I think your parents failed you Bob - sneezing on a lady does not make them pregnant, nor does kissing them - I think there is more to it than that. 

So you're admit that women are important. I agree. Therefore don't you think they deserve the right to do what they want with their body?

Women have every right to do what they want with their body - as long as it's ONLY their body that we are talking about. eg a woman has the right to blow themselves up if that's what they wish, but they don't have the right to take anyone else with them - that would be called murder or even mass murder. You may have read about a few of those suicide bombers - admittedly mostly men but some women to?

---

---

So you agree with me that an Embryo is a bunch of cells but you call it a "human". By that reasoning, other bunch of human cells are also humans because you can make a human from those. Do you not get I'm using your own arguments against you. 

So let me use the same argument as OP. Do you agree with me it's wrong to force anyone to donate their body part to someone else? 

---

 Bob:"an Embryo is a bunch of cells but you call it a "human". By that reasoning, other bunch of human cells are also humans because you can make a human from those".

Once again, what other human cells can you make a human out of except that bunch of cells represented by a fertilized human egg. You are talking in circles.

"donate their body parts to someone else" - that would be after you're dead I presume? No, it's done all the time, but there is no force involved - well, except in China maybe.

---

Before I explain it again how your reasoning fails. Do you first accept that if a cell(not fertilized human egg) can be used to create a human being, killing that cell is not the same as killing a human?

Let me spell it out to you again. Do you think you can force a mum or dad to donate one of their kidney to their child if they needed one? Obviously they're still alive. 

---

"Do you first accept that if a cell(not fertilized human egg) can be used to create a human being"

- so, now we are talking about a non-fertilized egg? Like the millions billions that go unfertilized every year?

"Let me spell it out to you again. Do you think you can force a mum or dad to donate one of their kidney to their child if they needed one?"

- No, you cannot force anyone to give away a kidney - BUT, in MOST CASES if a child needed a kidney to survive, MOST PARENTS would be falling over themselves to give that child a kidney - providing there is a match of course.

- I cannot see where you are going with this. Are you saying that giving away a kidney to a child in need is the same as 'giving away' a uterus?  If so, please try to understand that a mother doesn't 'give away' her uterus to have a child, it's only rented for 40 weeks. Believe it or not, some women have more than one child, so it's not as if they only get one crack at it. With a kidnet, you do only get one crack at it, well two if you count the one after you're dead.

---

Let's go back to basics. Your argument is that an embryo which is a collections of cells is an unborn child because it has the potential to become a human. I'm telling you any human cells with DNA can potentially be a human. And with modern science that is a real possiblity. Before you make your argument, do you want to retract and say that an embryo is not the same as a baby. 

A mother doesn't give away her uterus. She has the right to not allow someone or something use her body without her permission. Do you accept that?

---

"an embryo which is a collections of cells is an unborn child because it has the potential to become a human." 

No, it's an unborn child BECAUSE it IS a human embryo (the result of a HUMAN EGG fertilized by a HUMAN SPERM), which given the alotted time WILL become a newborn baby - that is except if there is intervention - either medical accident or deliberate abortion.

Despite what you say about 'any human cells with DNA can potentially become a human'  - you cannot implant just any human cell into a uterus and expect a baby to be born. Even IVF has to start with an egg and sperm - not just any old cell with DNA.

---

Again your ignorance isn't evidence of what can or can't be done. We currently have the medical capability to create human egg and sperm from hair cells and possibly from every other cells. So all human cells are potentially human. Your argument has just crumbled. With further knowledge, in a few years we'll be arguing if masterbation is murder. 

[lloydslights]

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Your toenails are dead.

---

but Bob said 'any human cells'.

---

Well, that's essentially correct what I said. Your ignorance isn't evidence for facts. 

---

MY ignorance? 

OK, let's leave out toenails. Which other human cells result in a human life - other than a fertilized human egg?

What you also said previously is that 'sperm contains all that is necessary for life' {paraphrased}.

I would say that statement shows a tad of  ignorance too - unless of couse you know something science does not. Putting it bluntly, fill up a 44-gallon drum with human sperm - what human life results? Like it not Bob, we need those woman out there and it's about time you realised / admitted it.

---

Your argument is a bunch of cells is a human, {no, I said an embryo is a human - you called it a bunch of cells} so I used that same argument back against you. Human cells can also make a potential human. Therefore you're causing abortions everytime you wash or sneeze.

I think your parents failed you Bob - sneezing on a lady does not make them pregnant, nor does kissing them - I think there is more to it than that. 

So you're admit that women are important. I agree. Therefore don't you think they deserve the right to do what they want with their body?

Women have every right to do what they want with their body - as long as it's ONLY their body that we are talking about. eg a woman has the right to blow themselves up if that's what they wish, but they don't have the right to take anyone else with them - that would be called murder or even mass murder. You may have read about a few of those suicide bombers - admittedly mostly men but some women to?

---

---

So you agree with me that an Embryo is a bunch of cells but you call it a "human". By that reasoning, other bunch of human cells are also humans because you can make a human from those. Do you not get I'm using your own arguments against you. 

So let me use the same argument as OP. Do you agree with me it's wrong to force anyone to donate their body part to someone else? 

---

 Bob:"an Embryo is a bunch of cells but you call it a "human". By that reasoning, other bunch of human cells are also humans because you can make a human from those".

Once again, what other human cells can you make a human out of except that bunch of cells represented by a fertilized human egg. You are talking in circles.

"donate their body parts to someone else" - that would be after you're dead I presume? No, it's done all the time, but there is no force involved - well, except in China maybe.

---

Before I explain it again how your reasoning fails. Do you first accept that if a cell(not fertilized human egg) can be used to create a human being, killing that cell is not the same as killing a human?

Let me spell it out to you again. Do you think you can force a mum or dad to donate one of their kidney to their child if they needed one? Obviously they're still alive. 

---

"Do you first accept that if a cell(not fertilized human egg) can be used to create a human being"

- so, now we are talking about a non-fertilized egg? Like the millions billions that go unfertilized every year?

"Let me spell it out to you again. Do you think you can force a mum or dad to donate one of their kidney to their child if they needed one?"

- No, you cannot force anyone to give away a kidney - BUT, in MOST CASES if a child needed a kidney to survive, MOST PARENTS would be falling over themselves to give that child a kidney - providing there is a match of course.

- I cannot see where you are going with this. Are you saying that giving away a kidney to a child in need is the same as 'giving away' a uterus?  If so, please try to understand that a mother doesn't 'give away' her uterus to have a child, it's only rented for 40 weeks. Believe it or not, some women have more than one child, so it's not as if they only get one crack at it. With a kidnet, you do only get one crack at it, well two if you count the one after you're dead.

---

Let's go back to basics. Your argument is that an embryo which is a collections of cells is an unborn child because it has the potential to become a human. I'm telling you any human cells with DNA can potentially be a human. And with modern science that is a real possiblity. Before you make your argument, do you want to retract and say that an embryo is not the same as a baby. 

A mother doesn't give away her uterus. She has the right to not allow someone or something use her body without her permission. Do you accept that?

---

"an embryo which is a collections of cells is an unborn child because it has the potential to become a human." 

No, it's an unborn child BECAUSE it IS a human embryo (the result of a HUMAN EGG fertilized by a HUMAN SPERM), which given the alotted time WILL become a newborn baby - that is except if there is intervention - either medical accident or deliberate abortion.

Despite what you say about 'any human cells with DNA can potentially become a human'  - you cannot implant just any human cell into a uterus and expect a baby to be born. Even IVF has to start with an egg and sperm - not just any old cell with DNA.

---

Again your ignorance isn't evidence of what can or can't be done. We currently have the medical capability to create human egg and sperm from hair cells and possibly from every other cells. So all human cells are potentially human. Your argument has just crumbled. With further knowledge, in a few years we'll be arguing if masterbation is murder. 

---

MY ignorance? 

My argument has crumbled ONLY in YOUR MIND.  Regardless of what you claim can be done by science, the one FACT remains - a human baby - no matter at what stage of it's development - IS A HUMAN LIFE. It is formed by having a fertilized human egg in an environment suitable for that HUMAN BABY to develop,

An unfertilized egg is NOT a HUMAN life. A sperm is NOT a HUMAN life. Cells other than a fertilized HUMAN egg are NOT a HUMAN LIFE.

 This thread is about Abortion. Abortion is the termination of a life inside a mother's womb. Wasted sperm is NOT an abortion. Unfertilized eggs are NOT an abortion. Sneezing is NOT an abortion. Killing a cell in a dish is NOT an abortion. Implanting a fertilized egg during IVF which then fails - IS NOT AN ABORTION.