who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

If your right there is alot more then 1,300,000 lives being killed every year in the US. You are so set on claiming a fertilized egg is a human life, yet you want to set a double standard on that human life?

I assume you mean because of natural miscarriages and/or lack of implantation? There's a big difference between natural death and surgical death.

A true Christian:

Thinks sex is only for procreation

Do you seriously believe that? Because that's not what the Bible teaches. As a Christian I think you would know that.

A true Christian:

Doesn't believe in invitro

Why?

[gadgetlady 4]

Thats not the only definitions on life and yet all those could explain living tissue.

Are you saying a hunk of skin sitting on a table meets the criteria for life? That it grows and reproduces, matures, etc.?

[snuffy65 1]

Are you saying a hunk of skin sitting on a table meets the criteria for life? That it grows and reproduces, matures, etc.?

Nope, saying a hunk of come human tissue can be kept alive, nourished , and growing for many years. Your right earlier, when you said science changes definitions everyday. And more and more the definition of live needs to change with it.

[snuffy65 1]

Anyways, its obvious prolifers want to except embryos as human life when they talk about abortions and thats it.

I do not know why you folks are so adiment about "life at conception" as being the same as a born baby, teenager, and adult, yet let people destroy those same lives everyday doing other things.

If you truly believe God wants it your way, well may God have mercy on your souls.

Anyways, gadget and I been argueing for this awhile and seems like we just repeat ourselves and was fun and interesting. I am a bit tired of the repetition. CYA!

Stay safe all!

[Jennie1976 1]

I already answered all those.

I must have missed it somewhere. I'll look. Sorry.

Thats not the only definitions on life and yet all those could explain living tissue.

Actually, no it cannot explain living tissue. Living tissue does not follow those guidelines. Living tissue on its own does not have reproduce upon maturity. Living tissue on its own does not grow. These things only happen if that living tissue is attached to an organism that is alive. Heart tissue, while having cells that reproduce, does not reproduce into a new heart. Muscle tissue, again, while having cells that reproduce, does not reproduce into a new biceps.

There is a big difference of living tissue and a human life as we know it to be. As a matter of fact many scientists make this assumption everyday.

The first part is true. The second is not. I know of no scientists (or science teachers...of whom I know quite a few) that cannot tell the difference between tissue and an organism.

I am glad to aswer questions, just not a hundred times. However, becuase of this statment I wont dignify any question from you any further. I have never made those claims and probably never will for arguements for prochoice.

Thanks for trying to pigeon hole me.

I understand not answering questions a hundred times. And, if you read my post again, you will see (hopefully) that I was not trying to make your arguments for you. I was trying to save time as those are the most often made arguments. But I'm glad you did not fall into that category of people who believe that circumstances or other factors that have little to do with the topic are a rebuttal to an argument.

But if you want you can answer me these.

Are you for making in vitro illegal?

I am unclear as to which procedure you are speaking. If you mean implanting the embryo into the womb, I do not have a problem with it. That is to say I do not know much about it. From my small knowledge, I do not see that they are deliberately killing the embryos.

If you are referring to genetic selections, then yes, I am for making it illegal. Anything that destroys a sperm/egg combination, to me, should be illegal.

Are you for making Birth Control pills illegal?

As birth control pills allow the egg and sperm to combine, but prevent implantation, I am also for making them illegal. However, if the birth control pill prevents the egg and sperm from meeting, I am very much for them. I am allergic to all birth control pills and, therefore, have researched them very little. So again, this is from very little background knowledge. I only recently (a few years ago) found out that they DO allow the egg and sperm to meet. Since then, I have spoken out against them as well.

Are you for making embyrionic research illegal?

To simply this, I am for making any deliberate destruction of a joined egg and sperm illegal. Before they are joined, I don't care. After they are joined, it becomes a live human being. And, in my opinion, entitled to the right to life.

[Jennie1976 1]

Nope, saying a hunk of come human tissue can be kept alive, nourished , and growing for many years. Your right earlier, when you said science changes definitions everyday. And more and more the definition of live needs to change with it.

And yet you missed one very important criteria: the ability to reproduce at maturation. As stated before, you can have a "hunk" of heart tissue. It can grow. It needs nutrients. But it will never reproduce. UNLIKE an embryo. And embryo WILL reproduce at maturation. Thus it is a life.

[snuffy65 1]

I am unclear as to which procedure you are speaking. If you mean implanting the embryo into the womb, I do not have a problem with it. That is to say I do not know much about it. From my small knowledge, I do not see that they are deliberately killing the embryos.

In vitro involves inducing the woman to grow many eggs then extracting them. Then those eggs, 10-30 of them are all fertilize, which now in your eyes are human beings. Then the Doctor chooses which favorite two or three and freezes the rest. If the mother gets pregnant then the doctor can either keep the rest frozen or throw them away, or decide to send them out for research purposes

If you are referring to genetic selections, then yes, I am for making it illegal. Anything that destroys a sperm/egg combination, to me, should be illegal.

Its not just for genetic selections but yes it does destroy the sperm/egg.

As birth control pills allow the egg and sperm to combine, but prevent implantation, I am also for making them illegal. However, if the birth control pill prevents the egg and sperm from meeting, I am very much for them. I am allergic to all birth control pills and, therefore, have researched them very little. So again, this is from very little background knowledge. I only recently (a few years ago) found out that they DO allow the egg and sperm to meet. Since then, I have spoken out against them as well.

All known birth controls pills works in preventative ways. Yet they all harden the uterine wall so that the embryo cannot attach.

To simply this, I am for making any deliberate destruction of a joined egg and sperm illegal. Before they are joined, I don't care. After they are joined, it becomes a live human being. And, in my opinion, entitled to the right to life.

And what I am saying its obvious that you didn't know all the different ways that embryos are destroyed everyday. Unfortunately most prolifers do know and try to "rationalize" why they support embryo destruction that way but not in an abortion. This includes people like gadget who say they would be lenient on woman who have abortions, which I have no idea why if they are indeed killing "human beings".

Prolife people can't have it both ways. Either the embryos are humans and we treat them that way, or they are not humans.

Either way, I at least respect the fact that you are firm in the belief that embryos are humans and need to be treated that way.

Edited April 25, 2008 by snuffy65

[BJean 16]

gadget I have no need or desire to get into a p$$$$ing contest with you. That's why I have no need, when stating my beliefs, to call people (including you) out on whatever they have posted. You have your style, I have mine. You can't badger me into turning this into a personality contest. I believe that you should go by the code of not getting so personal, you like getting personal and so that's that. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. Please don't expect anything different from me and then you won't be so upset when you read my posts that do not include quotes by you which I'll admit conveniently allows everyone to read your pearls of wisdom a second time.

I must say I do appreciate your quoting me so often, but please don't expect me to respond in kind.

Stick a fork in me... I'm done. Have a happy weekend ya'll. :thumbup:

[gadgetlady 4]

gadget I have no need or desire to get into a p$$$ contest with you. That's why I have no need, when stating my beliefs, to call people (including you) out on whatever they have posted. You have your style, I have mine. You can't badger me into turning this into a personality contest. I believe that you should go by the code of not getting so personal, you like getting personal and so that's that.

I don't think this is a personality contest, and I absolutely do not like getting personal (sometimes I get drawn in but I do try very hard to avoid it). But I also don't like thinly (or thickly) veiled personal attacks, and when they keep happening I call them as I see them.

You do it your way, I'll do it mine. Please don't expect anything different from me

You got it! I won't -- and don't -- expect anything different from you. I will be very careful in the future to clarify when I quote you why I perceive your nebulous attacks to be personal.

[gadgetlady 4]

In vitro involves inducing the woman to grow many eggs then extracting them. Then those eggs, 10-30 of them are all fertilize, which now in your eyes are human beings. Then the Doctor chooses which favorite two or three and freezes the rest. If the mother gets pregnant then the doctor can either keep the rest frozen or throw them away, or decide to send them out for research purposes

The only thing I have a problem with is the throwing out or sending for research purposes. I don't have a problem with in vitro at all (in fact I have several friends and family members who have done it).

This includes people like gadget who say they would be lenient on woman who have abortions, which I have no idea why if they are indeed killing "human beings".

Don't you remember? You changed my mind on this issue. I agreed with you and said we should throw the book at women who abort. See? This thread DOES change minds!

[snuffy65 1]

The only thing I have a problem with is the throwing out or sending for research purposes. I don't have a problem with in vitro at all (in fact I have several friends and family members who have done it).

The only problem is thats how its done. What they do with the other "babies" that weren't used.

[BJean 16]

Ok, gadget. I appreciate your not getting personal. That's awfully thoughtful and kind of you. Yes, to answer your obvious follow-up question, that was sarcasm.

I'm sorry that you do not understand the value in steering the debate clear from personal accusations when we disagree with someone. You say that you try to not get personal but so far, you have proven nothing but the opposite to be true in your posts.

I call 'em as I see 'em too. Now good night, gracie. :thumbup:

[gadgetlady 4]

The only problem is thats how its done. What they do with the other "babies" that weren't used.

Embryo donations or adoptions. Embryo Adoption & Donation Snowflakes Embryo Adoption Program

[snuffy65 1]

Embryo donations or adoptions. Embryo Adoption & Donation Snowflakes Embryo Adoption Program

Yah, I'm sure all those eggs get through screenings and qualifies. What about the couples that don't qualify?

Oh I forgot this is perfect world.

[gadgetlady 4]

I'm sorry that you do not understand the value in steering the debate clear from personal accusations when we disagree with someone.

LOL! That's like apologizing to someone by saying "I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said." I do believe in steering the debate clear from personal accusations. But I also believe that people* can personally attack someone while simultaneously trying to make it look like they're* not. I'm sorry people"* don't understand (or claim they* don't understand) the subtlety of the matter.

*by people and they, I mean you. Does that make it a little clearer how one can make a personally directed statement while simultaneously trying to maintain the illusion of neutrality?

You say that you try to not get personal but so far, you have proven nothing but the opposite to be true in your posts.

I do try. I also fail sometimes. I apologized last time I allowed someone to drag me into a personal attack, because I believe my response was petty. This time, however, I have tried to direct my response to be more illustrative of veiled attack on me.