Obama goes on the Offensive...

There is no question as to where the candidates stand on the issue of life.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Barack
• Obama
• Hope
• Change
• John
• McCain
• Sarah
• Palin
• Pro
• Choice
• Life
• Abortion
• Rights
• Planned
• Parenthood

[DaOrigTruthSeeker]

Obama is a piece of shit and any Black person who can't see that by now i really feel bad for you. This pimp has played Black people like a skilled violinist and is coming back for a second performance. It is beyond my ability to comprehend how any Black person at this point would even think about voting for him a second time. He has done nothing to improve the Black condition and he supports Black genocide. Obama works for the enemy of Black people. Time to look past his color Black people.

[intercipio]

Umm, at the moment of conception it's not a baby, it's a fetus. If you're going to discuss it, get the terminology right or you're not qualified to discuss it.

[MilitantTVNetwork]

Of a *new* human being, not merely the mother's and father's nature, but a new one.

And so a natural death is God's deliberate act of murder? This premise is false, therefore your assumption fails.

Induced abortion is what's murder, not miscarriage.

Just as euthanasia is seen as perverse and is murder, whereas natural death is not.

And a zygote is a life, which is undeniably human, else it would grow into something other than a human...

[MilitantTVNetwork]

Please see my video "Obama and Abortion: when does life begin? At conception" to see that life begins at conception. We can carry this conversation over there.

Although your point is to show how your terms are clearer, you using "human life" instead of "life"

The fact is, the conversation is not an abstract philosophical one, but a very specific one. No need to pick on little mistakes as those.

Pax Christi.

[AKPhilosopher]

You're arguing with unclear terms. "nature of a human being"? All human cells have the nature of a human being, so you need to be more precise.

By clump of cells I refer to the zygote, not the fetus. The only similarity between a zygote and a human is an autonomous set of DNA - that's it. And if you want to call abortion murder, then I guess God is one hell of a murderer - any idea how many zygotes naturally fail to attach themselves to the uterine wall?

[AKPhilosopher]

Our terms are not different (up to this point, as far as I can tell), mine are a lot more precise - sperm/ovum are living cells. So life beginning at conception is false; life is continuous. However, a human's life begins at conception, in that conception is when a complete set of DNA is formed. It requires additional justification to establish why this entitles an entity to the right to live. After all, consequentially, aborting a zygote is equivalent to using contraception.

[MilitantTVNetwork]

(cont.) water and soil, the seed begins to develop into the tree. It is no longer a mere seed.

Likewise with the sperm and the egg. Once they fertilize, they are no longer a sperm or an egg, but life begins there. The nature of the zygote is now the nature of a human being, not the nature of a sperm cell or an egg cell.

This, at least, following Aristotelian philosophy and the latest biological research.

[MilitantTVNetwork]

Yet the disagreement is because people want to make abortion legal, and if the fetus or zygote is considered human (that is, a human person), then it would be inconsistent with the law, since it prohibits murder, that is, the killing of innocent human person.

So pro-choicers and pro-abortionists only seek to name a fetus a "clamp of cells", even if this is the begining of human life, since they do not want to be aware of the murder they are committing.

Once a seed is mixed with water and

[MilitantTVNetwork]

I'm glad you do not support this. Yet as a philosopher, you either are comitting a fallacy or your terms are different than mine.

Scientists have agreed that life begins at conception.

[Some] Philosophers, anthropologists, abortionists, politicians, however, even if they do not deny this, they deny that the union of the sperm and the egg is a human person.

Certainly it is not a monkey cell, since both come from humans.

So if life begins at conception, then why shouldn't rights be given then?

[AKPhilosopher]

I do not support aborting unborn babies. I'm talking about a clump of cells. Babies are sentient. Has nothing to do with having reason, as I would say animal cruelty is wrong for these reasons as well.

I do not claim to have the exact criteria for what defines a person. But you agree that sperm/ova are not human, yet at conception the zygote is the fusion of these cells - McCain says THIS is the point it gains human rights. This is absurd for the reasons I mentioned.