I just do not believe that a group of cells inside a womb have the same value as a fully birthed human. I cant really explain why I believe this way, it just makes the most sense to me. As I am sure your opinion makes the most sense to you and your value system.

 

I am proud of that, in reference to your last add on.

 

How is the group of cells in the mother different from a group of cells that makes up the mother's arm?

 

My value system (implication seems to be faith) has minimal to do with it. I value protecting unborn babies. Faith has nothing to do with that. Although it sure adds to the debate.

How is the group of cells in the mother different from a group of cells that makes up the mother's arm?

My value system (implication seems to be faith) has minimal to do with it. I value protecting unborn babies. Faith has nothing to do with that. Although it sure adds to the debate.

 

They aren't different, thats the basis of my argument. The mother has a right to do to the same to the cells in her womb, as she would cells anywhere else in her body. Once those cells leave her body, then she no longer has a right to terminate their function.

I just do not believe that a group of cells inside a womb have the same value as a fully birthed human. I cant really explain why I believe this way, it just makes the most sense to me. As I am sure your opinion makes the most sense to you and your value system.

 

I am proud of that, in reference to your last add on.

Then why do you support making abortions after the first trimester illegal?

They aren't different, thats the basis of my argument. The mother has a right to do to the same to the cells in her womb, as she would cells anywhere else in her body. Once those cells leave her body, then she no longer has a right to terminate their function.

 

But they are.

 

Left alone will the group of cells in the mother's arm grow to be a fully functional human? No.

 

Left alone will the group of cells in the mother's womb grow to be a fully functional human? Yes.

 

There is a difference between the two.

Then why do you support making abortions after the first trimester illegal?

Because he argues in circles. Here's another example. I'll state this and this will be my last post in this thread. I'll give thegooch credit for at least inciting debate. However, my only issue with his stance is that it lacks consistency in areas like above. Nothing wrong with argument/debate. However, lack of consistency in your stance lends to a lack of credibility in my opinion. And that tends to make your stance nothing of substance but rather inflammatory by design. That's what I refer to as arguing in circles.

isn't any kind of birth control in essence killing life. You are denying the sperm and the egg the right to do what it was created to do.

 

Masturbation would then be killing life, too.

 

In which case, I would daresay, all men are murderers.

They aren't different, thats the basis of my argument. The mother has a right to do to the same to the cells in her womb, as she would cells anywhere else in her body. Once those cells leave her body, then she no longer has a right to terminate their function.

 

If a woman voluntarily starts removing body parts she would likely be considered mentally ill. Since an unborn baby is the same as an arm or a leg what you are saying then is that a woman who voluntarily terminates a pregnancy should be considered considered mentally ill?

Then why do you support making abortions after the first trimester illegal?

 

I actually said that I would be for making anything after first trimester illegal. I said that because I felt that at some point a compromise would have to be made, and that compromise would be acceptable to me.

If a woman voluntarily starts removing body parts she would likely be considered mentally ill. Since an unborn baby is the same as an arm or a leg what you are saying then is that a woman who voluntarily terminates a pregnancy should be considered considered mentally ill?

 

Now you are just stretching my words..

Not at all, if a woman started removing body parts she would likely be committed.

 

You said quite clearly that an unborn child is just like an arm or a leg and a woman can do with it as she see fit. So then following that premise if a woman voluntarily removes either wouldn't that be termed at least erratic behavior?

 

Also, if a physician is found to have removed a healthy body part from a woman, at her request, wouldn't that physician be guilty of mutilation and malpractice?

Not at all, if a woman started removing body parts she would likely be committed.

 

You said quite clearly that an unborn child is just like an arm or a leg and a wonam can do with it as she see fit. So then following that premise if a woman voluntarily removes either wouldn't that be termed at least erratic behavior?

 

Also, if a physician is found to have removed a healthy body part from a woman, at her request, wouldn't that physician be guilty of mutilation and malpractice?

 

I am not so sure on this one...would waivers make a difference?

Now that was unnecessary.

ABout 95% of all my debate on abortion has nothing to do with the Bible.

 

You can make a great argument that abortion is a scourge on this society without ever mentioning Scripture.

 

No insult was intended I was merely saying that quoting scripture to me on just abouy any societal issue is not the way to get me to listen. It might work when discussing things with you but not me. I was merely trying to keep him from bothering to go down a route that would have been utterly fruitless in discussing with me.

Not at all, if a woman started removing body parts she would likely be committed.

 

You said quite clearly that an unborn child is just like an arm or a leg and a woman can do with it as she see fit. So then following that premise if a woman voluntarily removes either wouldn't that be termed at least erratic behavior?

 

Also, if a physician is found to have removed a healthy body part from a woman, at her request, wouldn't that physician be guilty of mutilation and malpractice?

Plastic surgeons would be out of business if that was the case.

I am not so sure on this one...would waivers make a difference?

 

 

Tell me the name of a physician that will remove a healthy arm, even with a waiver.

Plastic surgeons would be out of business if that was the case.

 

I was applying it only in the exact instance that was pointed out, that being an unborn child is no different then an arm or a leg.