Death Penalty v.s. Abortion

[TheHongKongTriad]

scientists have determined that at the moment of conception there is a living being that has come into existence. Therefore if a mother decides to abort her unborn baby she is terminating a living thing whos only fault is original sin. To me this is completley immoral and wrong.
On the other hand you have a person who has lived on this earth for x number of years and has commited something that has deemed him unworthy to live as a punsihment.

How can you see these in hte same area? a baby has no voice, no ability to act. A death row criminal has most likely led a less than perfect life created by the decsions hes made.

[Mark617]

simplybeingloved said:

A pre-fetus was never human becuase like you said it can't survive on it's own and also it never displayed human characteritics. It didn't have a heart, no lungs, didn't look human.

if a fetus isn't human, how does it become one? if something becomes human, it has to be human in the first place. the only difference between a newborn baby and an unborn baby is the physical relationship between the mother. it still is dependant on others for survival.

now, abortion is wrong (except for cases of rape and the mother's health) because its an innocent baby, it has a right to live. when the mother and father had sex, they made an unwritten, unspoken pact to raise a child if their actions resulted in pregnancy.

capital punishment is acceptible in some cases, such as multiple homicides, serial killers, and (in my personal opinion) serial rapists.

[simplybeingloved]

a pre-fetus becomes a fetus which becomes a person because of the human genes. When a baby is a pre-fetus it resembles a lot of animal prefetuses, there is very little difference.

If you were to take human genes and put them into say a rat's prefetus then if the fusion works the rat would have some human characteristics.

Since monkeys or the sort are so close to us, you could probably put human genes in a monkey's embryo and blah blah and get something that could almost if not fully pass for a human, with almost no if not none of the monkey characteristics.

In my opinion, you example of the difference between unborn and newborn babies is wrong. Doesn't the unborn baby hve a physical dependency on the mother as does the newborn? Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

[Mark617]

I think you did misinterpret. my intention was to actually show a connection between a born and unborn child. let me rephrase. they only difference is the physical (as in positional) relationship with the mother (as in the unborn child is "inside the mother, and a born child is "outside")

something cannot be partially human. it is, or it isn't. a "prefetus" is just as human as a "fetus" which is just as human as a "person." since a zygote naturally has everything necessary to become a "person, and will naturally become a "person," it therefore is itself a "person"--and they are both human. bringing in the possibility of human tampering with genes completely nullifies the point

[simplybeingloved]

eh whatever, i don't feel like arguieing with people anymore.

Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion and i'm entitled to mine and we should just leave it at that.

Nice convo though.

[William]

Mark617 said:

I think you did misinterpret. my intention was to actually show a connection between a born and unborn child. let me rephrase. they only difference is the physical (as in positional) relationship with the mother (as in the unborn child is "inside the mother, and a born child is "outside")

something cannot be partially human. it is, or it isn't. a "prefetus" is just as human as a "fetus" which is just as human as a "person." since a zygote naturally has everything necessary to become a "person, and will naturally become a "person," it therefore is itself a "person"--and they are both human. bringing in the possibility of human tampering with genes completely nullifies the point

though i agree with the choice of life, this logic does have a flaw

something can be non human and become human

just as a tad pole becomes a frog

or a catapillar a butterfly

...

for the instance of original sin, the baby is sinful then, not as a quantity but as a state, the state of sin rather than the state of perfect...
just as a criminal is in the state of sin rather than perfect

the wage of being in the state of sin is death

so therefore both deserve to die, but we have no right to take their lives because that is us judging how to alott God's mercy to others, although it has been given to us not of our own actions

so i disagree with us taking any live in almost any situation (in any situation where it is punishment or without absolute need), but i also disagree with the idea of any live being just and any live being more deserving to exist than another, we are all in the boat of mercy and grace, so just live under that and do not worry about wether others shall remain or not in this boat, let God judge his grace...

[BlUeEYEzCHicK69]

Death penalty would win, abortion is a pussy.

[♫MysteriousMan♫]

Gotta love the ice cream

[Mark617]

William said:

something can be non human and become human

just as a tad pole becomes a frog

or a catapillar a butterfly

but a tadpole is still inherently a frog, "tadpole" is simply a stage of government in the life of a frog. same for a catapillar

Nice convo though.

yes, it has been. nice to debate a topic such as this with intelligent people

[William]

well, a tadpole is inherently going to be a frog, but it isnt a frog while its a tadpole, otherwise you could also say we are all inherently dead, while the entire existance of life is the exact oppisite of death...

[♫MysteriousMan♫]

stop babbling

[SockRocker]

I think that they are both lives, and it is wrong to kill either one of them. Granted I think it should be legal, but it is still morally wrong.

[Swanny]

stop babbling

just because you couldn't follow it, doesn't mean it's babble...

[Mark617]

let's try it this way...

take a green tree frog, scientific name Hyla cinerea. the tadpole of this frog is still a Hyla cinerea even though it has not developed into its final form. similarly, a unborn baby is still a homo sapien sapien even though it is not developed into its final form "a person"--also a homo sapien sapien

[♫MysteriousMan♫]

Swanny said:

just because you couldn't follow it, doesn't mean it's babble...

just because you eat dick, doesn't mean you know anything