My stance on abortion

My stance on abortion

Like all the anti-Obama hate and lying myths the Republicans drummed up, I also happen on anti-abortionists. My stance is simple: I support abortion within the first three weeks after the egg is fertilized. That gives ample time for the mother or the parents to decide whether to go through with the pregnancy or not. Beyond the three weeks, I believe the parents/mother should continue the pregnancy as the organs have already started to form, therefore giving living life to the embryo. Before the 4th week, all it is, is a cluster of living cells – the bastula with no organs. It has no eyes, no heart, no brains, no legs, no nerves, no feelings, nothing.

I engaged in a recent ‘debate’ with someone who is an anti-abortionist. Two people actually, but the first person completely ignored my objectivity and science and continued to spout her “abortion is murder” crap.

There is a member at YouTube named “memama2” who deafeningly and blindly goes against abortion. I responded to her with:

Me: You most likely don’t know this, but a living, breathing, brain-functioning fetus/baby/embryo is not formed in the first 5-ish weeks after fertilization. Therefore, mothers who abort a mass of cells is hardly murdering a child. In other words, a 5-ish week ‘baby’ is nothing more than a bunch of flesh and cells. No heart and no brain. Don’t mistake a lump of flesh for a living human.

Then someone else tried rebutal me:

Micsints: You can hardly draw a line toward this kind of stuff, especially when you are talking about the emergence of life. Can you draw a line as to how much hair you have to lose in order for you to be called a bald? There is no line to be drawn, yet there is an obvious difference between a person that is bald and a person that isn’t.

And besides, who has to right to say that bunch of flesh and cells that are being formed on the 5ish week are bound to be extrinsic to the defination of life? The stem-cells are way undergoing all sort of biological transformation even before these event can take place. Even a cell is considered a living organism, so how can you conclude that flesh and tissues that are formed on the 5th week, which are made up of cells, non-living?

FAILED !

I love it when they take the bait.

Me: And thanks for taking my bait on this exact same point. You equate the living cells of a blastula as life, yet you would gladly shave off living cells from your face when your face gets too hairy, or allow yourself to play sports and cut and bruise yourself, killing off living cells on your knees and elbows. Get where I’m going with this? A cluster of cells, even if they are ‘living cells’ do not equate to a living, breathing, brain-functioning human. /golfclaps

Alas and quite unfortunately, there are people in this world who still believes ‘potential life’ is feeling, thinking, breathing life regardless of the logic and reasoning. It’s no wonder the world is so pathetically slow in advancement.

Oddly, his last comment was delete somehow, but he continued…

Micsints:You can hardly draw a line toward this kind of stuff, especially when you are talking about the emergence of life. Can you draw a line as to how much hair you have to lose in order for you to be called a bald? There is no line to be drawn, yet there is an obvious difference between a person that is bald and a person that isn’t.

Me: You have no case against abortion no matter the “lines you try to draw”. I agree that people that go through abortion beyond the 5th week after fertilization can be considered ‘killers’, but before that, a cluster of living cells is NOT a human baby. There is no brain, no heart, not lungs, no anything. ‘Potential life’ is NOT life. Just as a cluster of cells, the bastula is NOT life. The line is clear: a cluster of cells that has no functioning organs, it is not human.

Micsints:But these series of event, even if it happens before the 5th week, are the result of sperm cells and egg cells being merged. Sperm and egg cells are considered the sex cells that have the capacity to give life, while your skin cells do not. On top of that the opportrunity of an egg and sperm cell can only come together during sexual activity, and it will not happen just by putting some scraped cells together in a jar. Note the differences!

Me:I understand the difference, but potential life is not life. I think at this moment in time, you and I have differing views with what ‘living life’ is. You believe that cells that have the potential to evolve into living life, is ‘life’, where as I believe cells combined together to create a breathing, heart-pumping, brain functioning ‘being’ is considered life. There is no way you and I can see eye to eye on this specific issue, but I thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.

Then he brings in the Big Bang Theory… o_O

Micsints:Following your trend of thoughts, then how would you explain the big bang theory? For without big bang, all of the components essential for life would not have existed. Then there would not be ANY possibility that You, as a human being, can ever come into the picture. Were these elements produced in the big bang potentials for life? Of course they were!

Me:I know you want to win in your argument against me. However, bringing the ‘the big bang’ into your argument is not helping you. In fact, it’s making your statement even less credible. Potential life is NOT living life no matter how you try to twist and curve your words around. “Potential” means achievable, but it’s not an achievement. Having goals is a potential, but does not mean it has been achieved. Potential life is NOT living life. Don’t confuse “what could be” with “what is”.

Leave a Reply