DC Tom Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 The fact that the fertilized egg that, although similar to the mother, still has it's own unique DNA code. So your contention is that life = unique DNA? Because we need to in order to survive. My life is worth more than a plant's, or a cow's. So now we're abandoning cell theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Couldn't be more wrong bro - abortion rates - while higher among minority women - they are pretty much the same against all other demographics: "According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, "Almost three-quarters of women obtaining abortions in 2008 reported a religious affiliation. The largest proportion were Protestant (37 percent), and most of the rest said that they were Catholic (28 percent) or that they had no religious affiliation (27 percent). One in five abortion patients identified themselves as born-again, evangelical, charismatic or fundamentalist; 75 percent of these were Protestant.” That's from a CHRISTIAN website http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/40519-why-do-so-many-churchgoers-have-abortions So - all you men can spout your "ideals" - when it comes down to it - and a young girl gets pregnant - they seem to have a different decision making algorithm. I never mentioned minorities or religion at all, I simply stated and correctly so, that more that vote democrat have abortions or support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 So your contention is that life = unique DNA? So now we're abandoning cell theory? Cell theory defines life. It's proof that life begins at conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Cell theory defines life. It's proof that life begins at conception. So all cells must be protected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 So all cells must be protected? More like, all human cells should be. With preference given to cells that will eventually develop into another being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 More like, all human cells should be. With preference given to cells that will eventually develop into another being. So Henrietta Lacks' cells have less right to life than a human ovum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 So Henrietta Lacks' cells have less right to life than a human ovum? Well she was pretty frumpy looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) So Henrietta Lacks' cells have less right to life than a human ovum?Yes. Hers are cancer cells. They'll never be anything more than a lump. Edited April 20, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted April 20, 2015 Author Share Posted April 20, 2015 So Henrietta Lacks' cells have less right to life than a human ovum? Nobody is trying to take away her right to live though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Nobody is trying to take away her right to live though. HeLa cells are routinely killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) HeLa cells are routinely killed. So some human cells are not protected? Nobody is trying to take away her right to live though. It's already been stipulated that cell theory dictates that cells are alive. And the HeLa line is self-perpetuating and, for all intensive purposes [sic], both immortal and independently alive of any other organism. And they are human cells. By every definition so far put forth, why should it not be immoral to destroy HeLa cells when it's immoral to destroy a human ovum? Edited April 20, 2015 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 So some human cells are not protected? It's already been stipulated that cell theory dictates that cells are alive. And the HeLa line is self-perpetuating and, for all intensive purposes [sic], both immortal and independently alive of any other organism. And they are human cells. By every definition so far put forth, why should it not be immoral to destroy HeLa cells when it's immoral to destroy a human ovum? HeLa cells will never become human beings. Human life begins at the cellular level, due to cell theory, but it is foolhardy to say that each cell should be dictated the same rights as a human life. The answer is that any cell is considered living just like every plant and animal is considered living, but plants and animals (or HeLa cells) don't become humans with sentience and independent thoughts. Now, onto HeLa cells. They may fit the definition of human life, but they violate the spirit of it. The Patriots of life, if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 HeLa cells will never become human beings. Human life begins at the cellular level, due to cell theory, but it is foolhardy to say that each cell should be dictated the same rights as a human life. The answer is that any cell is considered living just like every plant and animal is considered living, but plants and animals (or HeLa cells) don't become humans with sentience and independent thoughts. Now, onto HeLa cells. They may fit the definition of human life, but they violate the spirit of it. The Patriots of life, if you will. So the qualification for "life" isn't cell theory, but sentience and independent thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 So the qualification for "life" isn't cell theory, but sentience and independent thoughts? It's cell theory as exclusively applied to unique DNA with the potential for sapience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 It's cell theory as exclusively applied to unique DNA with the potential for sapience. Potential for sapience, yes. Unique DNA, I don't know. So the qualification for "life" isn't cell theory, but sentience and independent thoughts? You asked for proof that "life" began at an ovum, and I supplied it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion - HRC Over the weekend, NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado weighed in on Colorado SB 268, a fetal homicide bill introduced by state Senate Republicans NARAL Colorado @NARALColorado Follow The bill "Crimes Against Pregnant Women" contains harsh penalties on anyone who ends a pregnancy against mothers wishes #coleg #NoPersonhood 2:04 PM - 20 Apr 2015 So..............they're opposed to that ? I've read this three times trying to figure out whether they mean something other than what they're saying. Apparently they forgot they were supposed to pretend to be "pro-choice"? Again, this bill does nothing to limit or criminalize abortion http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/16/meet-the-real-abortion-extremists/ … But Its just too much for the "Pro-Abortion NARAL crowd. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Potential for sapience, yes. Unique DNA, I don't know. Unique as in, not the DNA of the mother, and not the DNA of the father, but rather a new individual's DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Unique as in, not the DNA of the mother, and not the DNA of the father, but rather a new individual's DNA. I can see that. Is that your stance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 I can see that. Is that your stance? Incomplete, but largely. As human cloning becomes a reality amendments will have to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Incomplete, but largely. As human cloning becomes a reality amendments will have to be made. Would you argue that human clones do or don't have the right to life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts