Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sarah Palin is a FOX

A good candidate would be an awesome place to start!

Peace of mind as opposed to wonder would be nice.

Prevention sounds so much cleaner, how about spermicide which murders sperm meant to fertilize an egg to create life?

Works for me!

One of my life's biggest mysteries is how so many can have total belief and faith in what I can't find.
You said "needs to decide", no, it isn't just a decision one can make. I can state I have made a decision, that's easy, but really having the faith is not something one can just decide to have.

From a google:
There are two basic kinds of hormonal birth control pills: (1) the combination pill which is made up of two synthetic hormones (estrogen and progestin) and (2) the progestin-only pill (sometimes called the minipill). The synthetic estrogen in the combination pill works to prevent the ovaries from releasing an egg. If no egg is released, there is nothing to be fertilized by sperm and the woman cannot get pregnant. In addition, the synthetic estrogen works by suppressing the body's normal hormonal pattern (which involves one egg being developed per menstrual cycle and released for possible fertilization).

The synthetic progestin (present in both types of pills) works to:

thicken the cervical mucus, which hinders the movement of sperm,
inhibit the egg's ability to travel through the fallopian tubes,
partially suppress the sperm's ability to unite with (and thereby fertilize) the egg, and
alter the uterine lining so (in the event that an egg is released and fertilized) the egg will likely not be able to implant into the uterine wall. (A fertilized egg would then be discharged with the rest of the menstrual blood.)
Although there are only two basic kinds of hormonal birth control pills, there are many different brands to choose from! The only difference between different brands of birth control pills is that they use different synthetic estrogens or progestin hormones and/or different proportions of the hormones

As soon as the egg and sperm is fertilized is changes to something different, it is no longer two seperate existances. There is no other way that a fetus starts in nature, this is the process. Is there another transformation that changes this product to a viable fetus. No, there is only the continued progression until death. That death may be 1 second or until 100 yrs later or more and any time between.

Homocide is one of the ways to stop whatever natural life that creation would have had, abortion falls under homocide and from that base should the moral justification be argued, not if it's opinion whether or not there is even a human in the womb.

Just because we celebrate birthdays as the start of existance doesn't make it fact, our existance started the moment we were fertilized.

Kent

OK, everyone would agree with this, buy some will believe it as human, others a fertile egg that will become human. Some believe it is the killing of a fertile egg, others believe it is the killing of a human child.

The outcome of this debate is belief, not fact.

Show where it makes another transformation. Show where the path of life starts as one thing and changes completely into another existance after the start. It's a continual progression from the start of life till death. Saying it's only opinion doesn't divert the facts.

kent

Never said it changes, it develops. A developed human or an undeveloped human. Is an undeveloped human capable of thought or feeling? Does it even know it is alive or exists?

While I agree that it does not make another transformation, it only grows from that point. However, a question that arises is at what point does consciousness begin? And on that note, should a brain dead or comatose person still be treated as a conscious being? I'm not saying I advocate this position, though it is a certainly viable one, not just from a fetal standpoint but from those that may be in a Persistent Vegetative State.

Most religious folks state or believe that the human body is merely a physical vehicle for our souls on this earth before we enter the afterlife. So, if consciousness is not present, is the "human" portion still there? I say no, as it is not just the physical being that makes us human, the addition of the mind and cognitive abilities is what makes a human, human. And from that the next logical progression would be, at what point does consciousness occur?

With that thought I guess we can pro choice a week old baby, it can't think for itself, exist by itself. Why are we concerned if a mother pro choices her baby in a dumpster. If it can't get out by itself and exist, is it human? That's not a moral judgment, looking to clarify the moment of humanity.

So when is a human's existance start if not at fertilization?

Kent

I'm not questioning whether a human existence starts at fertilization, as I essentially agree with that. I'm questioning, does one have to be conscious to be "human"? While my previous post is close to an apples-to-oranges comparison, I think it may add a bit of complexity to the problem. I agree the fetus is human per se, but at what point does "consciousness" as we tend to define it actually begin?

If it does not start at the absolute moment of fertilization, say 6-8 weeks later, then I think there is a very gray area to which both sides of this argument could vehemently disagree over. Also, the other question would be, can we with modern medicine determine precisely at which point consciousness begins?

I can accept the fact that life begins at inception, and that terminating a fetus is a form of murder. I also accept the fact that war and the knowledge it will cause the death of innocent civilians is also murder. Are there any here that are against taking a human life under all circumstances?

A week old baby is capable of thought and feeling, no?

So when is a human's existance start if not at fertilization?

This is my point, it becomes opinion; this has to be reasoned in one's own heart and mind.

Today we are debating fertile eggs and embryos in the first trimester, I don't think anyone in this argument today thinks we are equating one year old babies, or living babies thrown into dumpsters in this debate. I do not believe I have heard one person on this board support late term abortion.

True - what does your conscious tell you?

In the first trimester the heart begins pumping blood, the head, brain and face develop, the arms develop and movement begins, the neck developes, the genitals develop, even the fingernails develop. There is really no debate: only excuses.

Since I have never been raised around the lord, or had the lord reach out to me, I am inclined to believe religion is a vehicle created by man to help deal with the fears of life.

I believe those who do have the faith are very lucky to have that piece of mind.

I'm fascinated that so many know to be true, what they cannot see, smell, or hear.

I hope that I am wrong, and hope someday to realize so.

That is why I asked Kent about the "quickening" and how it figured into his views. I brought up Thomas Aquinas view that life is defined by having both "knowledge" and "animation" (movement). It might be thirteenth century thought but it still worthy of discussing today. At what point does the soul enter the body?

BTW Kent, just because I am from Nebraska doesn't mean I believe the world is flat, I have to admit though that it seems that way when driving through Nebraska on I-80.

My point is that you are putting a time limit, but yet won't commit to when abortion of life is homocide or just exterminating a substance.

I never called homocide murder, though it can be, that's a moral judgment. Homocide is one human killing another for whatever reason, even justified.

The life started with that one sperm and one egg, is unique and can never be duplicated. It started in a specific biological act and didn't just appear out of nothing. Opinion played no role in it's existance and can't be used to catagorize it no matter how it's tried.

Kent