Hello every, this thread is on the topic of abortion and here are my thoughts... All I ask for is no flames, no spam just good discussion. Ok here we go...
Many people say that abortion is ok... many people say that it is wrong. I am steadfast with the people who hate abortion. One of the main reasons is that I am a Christian. Here is something to give you an idea... Note: The following Abortion Advocates and Pro-Life Advocate statements are not my ideas, they were taken from a magazine that had the intent of showing both sides of the story.
Abortion Advocates Say:
"A woman has the right to privacy over her own body. Anti-abortionists tug at our emotions, pointing to ghastly photos of non-breathing fetuses in buckets. Yet abortion is a safe medical procedure that doesn't murder a baby."
Pro-Life Advocates Say:
"Abortion kills a living, functioning human. Abortionists criticize pro-lifers for showing photos of dead babies in buckets, claiming they're didtorting facts with cheap tricks. But the truth is truth: A dead baby who is discarded is exactly what abortion amounts to."
Now here is a little story to get you thinking:
One doctor said to another, "I would like your opinion about the termination of a pregnancy. The father has syphilis. The mother has tuberculosis. Of their first four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, and the fourth also has tuberculosis. What would you have done?" "I would have ended the pregnancy," the second doctor said. "Then you would have murdered Beethoven." replied the first.
Now here are my beliefs:
1. A fetus is NOT just another part of a females body because a body part shares the same genetic code as the rest of the body. The unborn's genetic code differs from it's mother's. Some of them are male, while their moms are female.
2. An unborn human is NOT just a blob of tissue. From the moment of conception it is a living human being, unique. At 6 weeks old you can detect a heartbeat and at 12 weeks, eyes and hands can be seen.
3. Life does NOT begin at birth. Science has proven that it begins at conception. All genetic characteristics of a distinc individual are present from the moment of conception. Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.
4. Since human life IS valuable, every human IS wanted. Just because the woman who is carrying the baby may not want him/her, the list of couples wanting to adopt is millions long. And if we decide to kill or exclude from society anyone "unwanted" we would have to do that to AIDS victims, the elderly, derelicts, and many many others.
That's just a few of my beliefs but I have many more but it would make this thread very long so I will post them if need be.
What are your opinions?
I would like to thank Ryan Dobson, Michael Ross and Breakaway Magazine for helping me in my beliefs on this subject.
I'll take the initiative.
I'm pro-choice, to a point. To me, an organism is only born and thus living when it can survive, ie get fed without a umbilical cord and breathe, by itself. Contradictory as it may seem, however, I believe that abortions should only occur during the first and most of the second trimester when the baby is still much too underdeveloped to be truly considered living. This is personal philosophy and should be taken as little else.
I believe adoptions are unfair to a point, due to the seperation from the parents, who are, genetically speaking, the people most like you and most likely to share in your traits, habits and thoughts. DNA contributes heavily to what you are, mind* and body, simple fact.
Then there's my issue of human stupidity. If a woman regularly has abortions, she's retarded. Use the damn pill at the very least.
We have enough humans already. I know it sounds mean, but it's not meant that way. Although we should certainly continue to have humans, if a child is unwanted, thus the reason for the abortion, I think it's okay in this era, especially with so many bastard children and teen pregnancies.
Also to keep in mind: Hitler's mother was told to get an abortion and didn't.
I won't be reading this thread again, so don't bother quote-arguing me.
*Yes, I realize cloning does not mean the thoughts will be cloned, for example if you clone Hitler, it doesn't mean he'll be like Hitler. However, it can certainly shape his tendencies, just as some people tend to be more prone to violence, crime and trouble and others to intelligence. The same holds true for parents and their children.
Threads merged, apparently you were writing and posted while I was.
i think the woman should be able to do what she wants. but only if they take the proper precausions but something happens and whoops. or if she is raped. i dont like people taking advantage of it though like they just have unprotected sex and say oops im pregnant oh well i can get an abortion. so of course im pro choice and i dont want any flames ok.:D
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
3. Life does NOT begin at birth. Science has proven that it begins at conception. All genetic characteristics of a distinc individual are present from the moment of conception. Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.
You're correct in saying life doesn't begin at birth, but your statement about science proving it begins at conception is quite wrong.
In medicine today, doctors use signals of no EKG activity or a flat EEG to be a very definite sign of when I person has stopped living. If this test for life is used for lack of life, then similarly we should be able to use this method to test for the very first presence of life in a foetus. This constant brainwave activity is not present in the unborn child until approximately the 24th week after conception. This is the beginning of the 3rd trimester, and in most situations, abortion is illegal past this point, unless the baby is confirmed to be detrimental to the mother’s health. In most abortions, which take place in the 1st and 2nd trimesters, we can assume that the foetus is in fact not a human being, but rather a potential human being. Therefore abortion in its most common form (99% of abortions are 1st or 2nd trimester) cannot be classified as murder, because murder, as defined by the Webster dictionary, is “the unlawful killing of one human being by another”, and as we can see, the foetus is not a human being. To cause the death of a living thing is to put an end to its life, but if the object has no life, meaning that it is not living by modern legal and medical standards, then it has not life to have ended, and therefore also cannot be murdered. Dr Garrett Hardin, an American ecologist believes the foetus not to be a person, but a merely a blueprint of DNA of the person-to-be. The following quote is his opinion expressed in the words of Michael Crichton.
“It’s like a blueprint. The blueprint of a building is worthless, only the building has value and significance. The blueprint can be destroyed with impunity, for another can be easily made, but a building cannot be destroyed without careful deliberation.”
As in every medical procedure, there is a finite risk of death resulting from abortion. Many pro-life protestors or anti-abortionists use this as a means of putting across a point about abortion, but unfortunately for them, this argument has been proven useless, as it is now perfectly clear that the procedure has an incredibly low mortality rate.
Activity- Chance of Death in a year
Motorcycling 1 in 1000
Driving a car 1 in 6000
Power Boating 1 in 6000
Rock climbing 1 in 7500
Football 1 in 25000
Canoeing 1 in 100000
Pregnancy prevention-
Birth control pills 1 in 63000 (non-smoker)
1 in 16000 (smoker)
IUDs 1 in 100000
Sterilization 1 in 67000 (tubal ligation)
1 in 1600 (hysterectomy)
1 in 300000 (vasectomy)
Continuing pregnancy 1 in 11000
Terminating pregnancy by legal abortion 1 in 260000 (before 9 wks)
1 in 100000 (between 9 and 12 wks)
1 in 34000 (between 13 and 15 wks)
1 in 10200 (after 15 wks)
The chance of dying from a hospital abortion is incredibly small when compared to things such as driving or even carrying the baby to full term. It is now a well-known fact that properly done abortions can be anywhere down to a 20th as dangerous as keeping the baby. This means it is much safer to have an abortion than carry the child to full term.
“Hospital abortion must now be regarded as a relatively safe procedure, carrying a mortality rate roughly similar to a tooth extraction”
I object to people saying it's murder... and I object to people saying it's dangerous.
If you were to outlaw it totally, that wouldnt stop people, in fact the mortatlity rate or abortions would go up, because people would try and do it themselves with coathangers, like they used to do.
What about women who are raped? You can't expect them to carry their rapist's baby to full term. And you can't just outlaw it and make exceptions for people who are raped. How does one then determine who can have an abortion and who cant? People would just be saying they were raped to get an abortion. It's silly.
Many women also see abortion as a form of birth control, even though it is not advised to be used for this purpose. The point these women seem to make is that there is no essential difference between preventing conception and halting a process which has not resulted in a complete human being. They, along with myself, feel that a woman should not be forced to have a baby is she doesn’t want to, as it is her body and she can decide what she wants to happen with it.
Unless you've been in the situation, you can't say what's right or wrong. One of my best friends has always strongly said that she was a pro lifer since I met her in 98. She felt abortion was wrong and the mother should have to carry the baby to full term because she was foolish enough tog et pregnant in the first place.
Mid last year, she fell pregnant, and changed her whole view rather quickly. Actually being in the situation and having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy puts a whole new perspective on things.
I'm a pro-choice person. Women should be able to do what they want.
What a convenient topic...we just had a discussion about this in history today.
Roe v. Wade, the case that legalized abortion in the States, defined life as beginning the moment an unborn human can live outside the mother's womb. As technology and medicine become advanced enough (if they aren't already) to sustain a being from embryo to a natural time of birth, the time allowed for abortion will decrease and eventually be illegal as the current ruling is...this will of course be challenged many times over, but until it is, it remains the fact of the matter (to the extent of my paying attention in class).
I am personally pro-life, but I really don't think I have a say in the matter. It's really none of my business what a pregnant woman decides to do with her fetus, unless of course I'm the father.
In most cases, adoption is a viable alternative to abortion.
About rape victims: rape victims go to the emergency room and a chemical solution is used to neutralize sperm cells before conception. Side note: A rape issue was at the heart of Roe v. Wade, and 'Roe' later admitted that the rape story was fictional and her chilld was simply unwanted.
Originally posted by GonkH8er
You're correct in saying life doesn't begin at birth, but your statement about science proving it begins at conception is quite wrong.
This constant brainwave activity is not present in the unborn child until approximately the 24th week after conception. This is the beginning of the 3rd trimester, and in most situations, abortion is illegal past this point, unless the baby is confirmed to be detrimental to the mother’s health.
But if a beating heart can be detected at 9 weeks, I belive that having an abortion at 10 weeks kills a living unique human being which is why I think it's wrong.
I don't fully understand waht you said though... did you mean that they DO use it to check on fetus's or they SHOULD use it to search for life. But if you destroy something with any signs of life, heartbeat etc. you are killing something living.
So your saying that the fetus is not living or unique until 24 weeks? I think that since a sperm cell contain different genetic code that the mother of the baby, the fetus also has a different genetic code, making it unique from conception. I will do some more research on the 24 week/ 9 week life thing.
Originally posted by GonkH8er
What about women who are raped? You can't expect them to carry their rapist's baby to full term. And you can't just outlaw it and make exceptions for people who are raped. How does one then determine who can have an abortion and who cant? People would just be saying they were raped to get an abortion. It's silly.
Many women also see abortion as a form of birth control, even though it is not advised to be used for this purpose. The point these women seem to make is that there is no essential difference between preventing conception and halting a process which has not resulted in a complete human being. They, along with myself, feel that a woman should not be forced to have a baby is she doesn’t want to, as it is her body and she can decide what she wants to happen with it.
Like I said, a pregnancy may be "unwanted" but a child NEVER is "unwanted" with the million of couples wanting to adopt. If your second paragraph in this quote is not talking about rape then these women should have been more careful or should not have had sex at all, but they should finish what they got themselves into. No matter how easy the way out looks, its going to have consequences. I say let them have the baby and then put him/her up for adoption because of the many loving people who would take him/her.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
So your saying that the fetus is not living or unique until 24 weeks? I think that since a sperm cell contain different genetic code that the mother of the baby, the fetus also has a different genetic code, making it unique from conception. I will do some more research on the 24 week/ 9 week life thing.
Yes, I'm saying it's not alive, but I'm not saying it's unique. Uniqueness has nothing to do with this. Sure, the foetus is unique, as is any cell from a different person, but it's just a foetus. Not yet a person. It's just a blueprint of the person to be.
Fine, if you want to say that they're alive at 9 weeks because of a heart beat, then so be it... But most abortions still happen prior to 9 weeks, so technically it's not alive in most cases.
People say "It's their own fault. They shouldn't have been so careless. They have to carry out the pregnancy to teach them a lesson."
.... well that's a bit harsh. I mean, that's a big lesson. Having a child is a big thing. A big 9 month long things. Most abortions are teenage pregnancies. Most of these young girls are still studying at high school or university. Carrying a baby to full term is just gonna munt up their whole studies.
"Oh, but they should have thought of that before they went and got knocked up"
Well they didn't, as in most cases.
If abortion is so damn immoral, then why doesn't the majority think so? I mean.... it's legal..... surely if more than half the population of a country thought it was wrong, which you clearly believe, then shouldn't it be outlawed?
Tell me, those of you who have girlfriends at the moment, the younger ones among you.... what if you were to accidentely get your girlfriend pregnant? What if, even though you used condoms, the pill, whatever..... what if she got pregnant... are you prepared for fatherhood? Are you prepared to begin working full time to support your child, at your current age? Once you have a child to support, your life changed forever. It's a big step. Abortion just helps delay that step until a time when you wish to have a family. As glib as it sounds, abortion is just another form of contraception, albeit a little later in the process.
I'm going to spare the quotes and stuff.
Me being pregnant - I think I am a little bit partial to all of this. I am pro-choice. I got pregnant unexpectidly and for those of you who say "use the damn pill for crying out loud" well, heh....that doesn't always work. Nothing is 100% preventative EXcept abstainance. So here's my story...
I'm 23 and in the middle of college. I have a full time job and at the time I got pregnant I was living on my own and supporting myself. My fiance (was my boyfriend then) and I have been together for 3 years. He just graduated college and we had planned on moving in together B4 we found out about the baby. It was a very scarey time, let me tell you. Many, many things run through your mind. Can you support the baby? Will I be a good parent? Is it fair to the baby to not be born in a marriage? Can I handle it emotionally? Will I be willing to make all the sacrifises bringing a child into the world takes? I wrestled with all these things. I could not support the baby on my own. I would need the support of my boyfriend, friends and family. Then that brought on other questions. Would they support me? I thought I'd be a good parent or at least I'd learn to be. I know that I would love my baby, but I would have to work full time - will it be fair to the baby? Emotionally could I handle it? I was definatly not sure. If my boyfriend had bailed...I would have had a problem. I was already emotional as far as being a single parent and being so young. And the sacrifices?? College was my main concern. While all my friends were graduating...I wouldn't be able to go to school in the Spring. I'd be stuck at my graveyard job! I wouldn't be able to go out and be just me. I'd always have this responsibilty at home. I wouldn't be able to drink like I used to (not bad or anything) but still a sacrifice. I wouldn't be the fun-loving 20 year old...I'd be the mommy 20 yearold. The one who had to find a babysitter for her baby or take him along. AHHHH.
So then I started thinking...abortion? adoption? raise him/her myself?? And all this happened within minutes of getting the plus sign right? It just rushes in your mind. You are a parent now? So I called my boyfriend we cried because it was a complete surprise. We both hadn't reached a point where we were really thinking about marriage and both of us had always held the ideal that you should only have children when your married. Here we had violated our own belief. We talked about abortion but got a resounding No definatly not. This was our baby, we would have to make sacrifices, it wasn't his fault he came a little early.
Then came telling our parents. I told mine first. I cried, I was afraid. What will they say??? Will they be upset about not being married?? No they were not. My mom was so happy she cried. She was excited. She knew my boyfriend and I had a strong relationship and had confidence in both of us. She is very religious and said that she was VERY happy we were choosing to have the baby rather than abort. I didn't tell her we had considered...but she just thought maybe that was running through our minds. It was the easy way out...you know.
Now his parents....oh my god. You could cut the silence with a knife. They were pissed to say the least. We were told to give the baby up for adoption. If we weren't going to get married. The baby deserved to be in a family. A married Family. We tried explaining that we were going to get married...but not for the baby, but for us and we wanted to do it when we were ready. Too many couples get married and it turns out badly. I did not want to put my child through that. It took a long time for his parents to calm down. We got screamed at for not being careful. Hello...like I told you all we were very responsible. We told them this and they didn't believe us. Okay how have we been together 3 years and this has never happened before? My dad explains it as well..."if you drive 90 miles an hour in a 45 mile an hour zone, eventually you will get caught, maybe not right away...but just once". I got called everything in the book and accused for "trapping" my boyfriend. As you can imagine...abortion looked like a pretty easy solution.
But we held firm. Here I am 8 months pregnant. I had to give up school but I am determined to be able to go back to school. My boyfriend and I got engaged. Not because of the baby, but because we do love eachother and feel that it is time. I have the full support of my parents, so that I can still work full time and they will watch my baby. My fiance is going for an interview for Edison in a couple days. He's trying to get a better job to support us. And we are doing just fine. I wouldn't trade my son for the world.
Now as far as my feelings on abortion. I am pro-choice for the simple reason that it should be every womans personal choice to have a baby or not. Even the boyfriends to - if he is commited to a child. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent. Maybe people are not willing to make the commitments and sacrifices like my boyfriend and I have and are going to have to make. There are women out there who are just like me, young and going to school that have that one "oops" and maybe they need to make the choice to abort. For financial reasons, maybe family reasons. I guess my main point is. There is so much to consider - it is not a light-heartedly made decision like some "pro-lifers" are making it out to be. It would be the hardest decision in the world!!! It was for me and I didn't even choose to do that. But then you say...why not let another person adopt the child. Well...there are a lot of orphans out there waiting to be adopted and no one has adopted them...what make syou think this baby will be different? Can I sit there and wonder if he has a home? Its just so hard. I just can't imagine.
Even if I do not choose to abort myself - I believe others should have the right to consider it.
And look at what happens when people make it illegal...people do it anyways...or they leave their babies in trashcans. That is horrible.
Gonk, you have raised an interesting issue there, when does life start....
If they use the term legally dead as having no brain activity, ie the EKG/EEG flatlines, why can't the same test be applied to begin it.
What I think Gonk is trying to get at is at what stage should we really considere a fetus to be more than just a developing embryo, and consider it something that is alive. Some people say conception, some say not until birth, and others somewhere in the 9 month period between.
Legally I think it is not exactly the clearest of situations, and nor has it probably been approached in a proper scientific manner, such as with Legally Dead, as to when someone is really not alive...
It seems like a valid arguement. Without the brain that provides the ability to do voluntary actions, is a fetus really considered alive, and able to function outside of the womb BEFORE the brain is properly developed?
I would tend not to think so, that until that fetus has brain activity, then it really is legally no different to someone with horrific head injuries. At no stage could either of them actually control their bodies major functions, including some of the involuntary ones most important to life.
Uniqueness has nothing to do as to when the fetus should be considered LEGALLY alive, and LEGALLY not alive. Then again, when does the fetus become legally a person, and gain all the legal rights assigned to being a person? Is it whilst still in the womb, at conception, or not until birth?
I do not understand, how that there are different ways to determine the beginning and ending of life, in a legal sense anyway. It would make more sense that they both have the same test, to make it less open to interpretation...
Originally posted by InsaneSith
i think the woman should be able to do what she wants. but only if they take the proper precausions but something happens and whoops. or if she is raped. i dont like people taking advantage of it though like they just have unprotected sex and say oops im pregnant oh well i can get an abortion. so of course im pro choice and i dont want any flames ok.:D
Saying a woman should be able to do what she wants makes it too easy to not have to take responsibility for decisions and actions. If you decide to have sexual relations, you should be prepared for anything that could happen. Even protection is not always a fail safe way to prevent pregnancy. Therefore, if you know you DON'T want a baby, don't take the risk that you may get pregnant. Today's society has made it far to easy for people to not have to be responsible for their actions. A baby is not disposable. A developing baby is most definately a living person, with a heartbeat. There are always millions of people waiting for a baby to adopt.
I understand there are circumstances you can't control, such as rape. But even if you get pregnant from rape, it is not the baby's fault. I know it might be hard for some women to raise a child who was conceived from a rape, but again, there is adoption.
But in normal circumstances, a woman (and men) should take precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Especially in this day and age!! With all the sexually transmitted diseases that you could get, casual encounters should be a thing of the past.
A child does not have legal rights until birth. That's my understanding anyway...
You can say all you like that it has legal rights as soon as it's conceived, but honestly, it doesn't know that, it can't do anything with those legal rights. Techinally, as long as the child is within the mother's womb, it is classified as a parasite in ways. It's not exactly a symbiotic relationship.... it's detremental to the mother's physical wellbeing and only the foetus is gaining from the situation... sounds quite parasitic to me :)
And please don't tell me the foetus has a personality. It has the potential to have a personality. Personalities are shaped from birth. We learn to be the person we are. Some of it is genetically determined, but most isn't. The foetus hasn't shown any personality, not that its had the chance to :) and kicking is NOT a personality trait....
So, look at the facts....
Carrying the baby to full term is more dangerous than an abortion.
The foetus ISN'T alive at the time of abortion, in almost all cases...
It stops an unwanted child being brought into the world.
It's all there..... even the unwanted child part....
sure, theres millions of families who want to adopt.... but adoption is hard on both the biological parents and the child.
Giving up your own child, possibly to never see it again isnt a nice thought.
And it's ahrd on this child, not knowing who their parents were. A good friend of mine, who i used to date, is adopted. The law here says she can't find out who her biological mother is until she's 18, and that's if they kept the records, which they probably didnt. She desperately wants to know.
The feeling of being rejected by your real parents and shoved onto another 2 people..... being unloved.... given up becaus eyou were unwanted.... its not a nice thought, and it plagues her day in day out.
Luckily, she can find out this year.
I agree with Gonk. Adoption is a hard choice. You guys are saying that there are millions of families out there that want to adopt. And then there are millions of families who would rather have their own children. A lot of people don't even want to consider adopting. Some people feel that can't love a child that's not theirs. Or that the child will be a behavior problem. Most of these un-wanted children end up in foster homes or orphanages. Then also, how is this child going to feel - its a poor excuse to tell them "well I was young..and thought you would be better off with other people" and what are the usual responces to this??? So it isn't really selfish to have an abortion, if you take into consideration how this person would feel without a family. You take a chance with adoption. Is it a safe home? A good family? Will they even have a family?? Are they emotionally going to be able to handle being adopted??
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
I understand there are circumstances you can't control, such as rape. But even if you get pregnant from rape, it is not the baby's fault. I know it might be hard for some women to raise a child who was conceived from a rape, but again, there is adoption.
Not only is it hard for women to raise a rape-child, its downright disgusting for them to have to... Having to carry the child of the man who sexually assaulted them to term? True, it's not the baby's fault, but the baby wont know. It won't feel it, as pain senses wont have developed yet. It wont even know. From my knowledge of embryotic development, pain receptors, conscious thought and memory cell development dont come about until late in the foetal stages, afaik. It's not exactly my field of expertise, but I'm quite certain the unborn 'child' is completely unaware of an abortion happening. It's just a bunch of human cells undergoing mitotic/meiotic reproduction with some cell differentiation here and there.
But in normal circumstances, a woman (and men) should take precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Especially in this day and age!! With all the sexually transmitted diseases that you could get, casual encounters should be a thing of the past.
As stupid as it is, casual encounters are quickly becoming a thing of the here and now, and the future (excluding the promiscuous free love in the 60's). More people are just getting drunk and parties and having sex. Sex is enjoyable... that's why we do it, there's no question about it. Sure there's the occasional "We want to share our love with eachother and be physically close"..... but most of the time it's just "Oh yeah.... I'd go her.... she's a bit of alright, ay". It's true. The attitude towards sex these days is that it's the thing to do. It's no longer a special thing, which is a shame. We're being desensitized to it. Kids are having sex younger and younger. There's nothing we can do about it.
You can tell them to abstain from sex all you like, but most of the kids running round getting laid these days are too young to even know what abstain means... I admit, they're not as careful as they could be, but they ARE careful. Sometimes is just goes wrong, and the unfortunate outcome occurs. Sure, the morning after pill is more desirable than an abortion, but sometimes a girl can't get to the morning after pill within 72 hours, so she has an abortion that week, or the next week, or the next if she didn't yet know.
It's not desirable to terminate the pregnancy, but it's MORE desirable than screwing up your whole life. 1 silly mistake shouldn't cost you every opportunity you have on this earth. People deserve to try and get it right again.
actually - u can order the morning after pill online or go to a clinic and its really easy...
some people just are stupid and don't take advantage of things like that.
In cases of women raising children after being pregnant because of rape... since the child is unwanted and brings back such painful memories, the child may not get the attention he/she needs. The mothers may feel resentful, as well as the fathers. The baby may be rejected or a constant reminder of the rape! The baby could then become a victim of abuse or raised feeling like "something" is not quite right, he doesn't feel as loved as his brothers and sisters. And Carrying a baby is a LOT of hard work. You are asking a woman to give up school or pay for the baby. What if you don't have medical coverage? The state only pays so much...what if you do...and its not enough? I was sick throughout most of my pregnancy - to the point I couldn't go to school. Some people may not be able to do this. Some people get put on bed-rest and can't work. Maybe they can't afford to financially do this. State Disability only pays somewhere in the figure of 60% of your pay. It could jeoperdize your job. What if this guy is out there somewhere..the guy who raped the woman?? What if this man wants paternity rights?? or something crazy like that?? And adoption...just another un-wanted baby and if you think that a family is just going to open there arms to a baby with a history of his mom was a victim of rape by a mad-man. Or what if it was like...a rape of a white woman and a black man? I'm not against mixed babies...but....maybe this woman would have a hard time explaining a mixed race baby!
I could go on....and on...
Some people can't get to a clinic within 72 hours, eg- camping trip, school trip (yes, people have sex on school trips :)), remote community, etc. They should try, but it's not always possible.
And with the cases where they've been careful, they won't even know they're pregnant until
A) They miss their period
or
B) Morning sickness comes
ya I guess I can't imagine a mom sending a care package of EC pills to her daughter's camp. ;)
I hold the belief that you cannot possibly be taken completely serious on the "pro-life" stance, until you have tried a pregnancy yourself. Like STTCT said, every woman should have the right to decide on this. If a person decided that you should run the whole thing for 9 months, even if you desperately didn't want to, it'd severely think about hurting that person. It's called lack of empathy.
Now comes the question of morals regarding flings and marriage. The world is changed. Casual sex, skitzo, is not a thing of the past. It is a thing of the present, and I'd like to see you stop the current evolution of people's views regarding sex and love.
Marriage is a signed piece of paper for most. There is no "holyness" in any of it, to many in the western world. It's a social institution that's practical for many purposes, but I think the idea of waiting to have sex till after marriage is very skewed. It has its basis in religious dogmas, not common sense.
Now, for the so-called "pro-lifers":
You are not "pro-life". You are pro-human life and consciousness. Stress the part about human life. In the biological sense of things, life begins at conception. But then again, sperm and egg cells are alive as well, no? A fetus 3 weeks old is not human, unique or individual no more than a stone is unique from a different stone, and a plant is individual because they have a DNA code. It is not a seperate entity because it has no self, no human consciousness and is not unique. It is a piece of flesh. Everything is unique if you want to take it down that road. In my view, a human person is only unique once it is born, once it has thoughts that it can use outside a mother's womb. You are using the argument that one is killing the person it is going to develop into. Fact is, it is not yet a person, so there's no sense in talking about murder, just as there's no sense in talking about murdering an extracted DNA string.
And don't give me any crap about pro-"life" and showing disturbing footage of dead fetuses. Humans need to kill in order to survive. If we didn't kill anything, we wouldn't survive. I can accept the pro-human life, since that is what it really is. And showing very graphic images of dead fetuses is just cheap. It has nothing to do with anything, it's only reason is to instill a sense of sympathy in the observer. Heck, I could do the so to people who smoke, or eat roasted beef. Think of all the animals you're theoretically killing by consuming this!
Adoptation, though a good idea, doesn't appeal to as many as you think. It's not your genetic baby, it becomes devoid of any "holy connection" it once had. It becomes a signed piece of paper for the new parents.
I like the blueprint analogy very much.
Okay - Don't know if this has to do with the discussion but hear me out before you start saying it has nothing to do with it.
Have you read the news...if not read this article Missing Pregnant Woman (
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/01/09/missing.woman/index.html) If you want a summary...
A pregnant woman about 8 months pregnant due Feb 10th is missing. Her husband is a suspect. He claims he went fishing the day she was missing...the day before christmas. Using sophisticated sonar the police believe they have found her body at the bottom of the lake that the man said he went fishing on. They just can't recover it because of bad weather.
So I guess he killed his wife and gave his son an abortion...the hard way. Pretty fricken sad if you ask me. I am curious to know if he will be charged on two counts of murder or just one. Considering the current skeptisism and etc about whether a fetus is living or not. I think that once a baby is able to kick and move...you should not be able to abort because it is considered a living thing now. A fetus....you can't feel...its nothing more than a little egg thing or a bunch of cells. But when you feel the baby swimming around in your stomach..that's a whole nother ball game. I forgot to mention before that I was against abortions after the 3rd month.
I thought this article was related because it just shows that this guy (if he did it) was obviously not fit to be a parent. He probably freeked out about the baby etc. This could happen to other woman and babies if the husband or man didn't want the baby or is pressured into something he isn't ready for.
Originally posted by GonkH8er
As stupid as it is, casual encounters are quickly becoming a thing of the here and now, and the future (excluding the promiscuous free love in the 60's).
Casual sex, skitzo, is not a thing of the past. It is a thing of the present, and I'd like to see you stop the current evolution of people's views regarding sex and love.
you guys got me a all wrong. i didn't say casual sex is the thing of the past i said it should be. i'm implying that we need think more clearly before we get into sexual relationships.
i'm very aware of casual sex being an epidemic in today's society. i'm just saying for us to solve this problem we need to take responsibility of our own actions.
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
you guys got me a all wrong. i didn't say casual sex is the thing of the past i said it should be. i'm implying that we need think more clearly before we get into sexual relationships.
Ahh, I got you wrong - sorry!
What I meant to mean is that you can't stop this "trend".
When your beliefs become a minority in today's society, it's easier for everyone if you change yours, than trying to change everyone's elses.
its not actually my belief, its simply a solution (big difference).
heck i can even say i'm for abortion just because it is a person right, its what they are in title to.
it can't always be black and white when you're talking about controversial issues. the answers doesn't always have to be broad because to some extent you can agree and not agree in the same time.
Well, people just don't think things thru. We've wired for sex, period. Excepting most people to be able to resist is like expecting people not to eat. I don't like it ether, but it's the way it is.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Note: The following Abortion Advocates and Pro-Life Advocate statements are not my ideas, they were taken from a magazine that had the intent of showing both sides of the story.
Bull****. It is immidiately appearant from the examples that they give that they let their own (anti-choice) opinion shine through.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Abortion Advocates Say:
"A woman has the right to privacy over her own body. Anti-abortionists tug at our emotions, pointing to ghastly photos of non-breathing fetuses in buckets. Yet abortion is a safe medical procedure that doesn't murder a baby."
Pro-Life Advocates Say:
"Abortion kills a living, functioning human. Abortionists criticize pro-lifers for showing photos of dead babies in buckets, claiming they're didtorting facts with cheap tricks. But the truth is truth: A dead baby who is discarded is exactly what abortion amounts to."
I have major points of criticism against that:
1) They name the pro-choice side "Abortion Advocates", while they label the anti-choice side "Pro-Life Advocates". That is BS. Pro-Life is an oxymoron, in terms of humans.
2) The pro-choice side is quoted while on the defensive, while the anti-choice side is quoted while on the offensive.
3) The exerp deliberately uses paragraphs where the pro-choice side uses more populistic BS than the anti-choice side, though in reality it is the other way about.
4) The anti-choice side is allowed to present false facts. Abortion does not kill a "living functioning human", and the anti-choice camp is allowed to use "who" on a fetus, thereby implying that it is an individual, which it is clearly not. What bull**** is that?
Now here is a little story to get you thinking:
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
One doctor said to another, "I would like your opinion about the termination of a pregnancy. The father has syphilis. The mother has tuberculosis. Of their first four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, and the fourth also has tuberculosis. What would you have done?"
"I would have ended the pregnancy," the second doctor said. "Then you would have murdered Beethoven." replied the first.
1) No, he would not have "murdered" anyone. A fetus is not a human yet.
2) If the parents didn't want the baby, then, well, too bad for Beethoven. It's their choice. This is what I don't like about anti-choice BS. It removes the choice.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Now here are my beliefs:
1. A fetus is NOT just another part of a females body because a body part shares the same genetic code as the rest of the body. The unborn's genetic code differs from it's mother's. Some of them are male, while their moms are female.
Medically speaking, you are wrong. It is a part of the mother. Ask GonkHater for details.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
2. An unborn human is NOT just a blob of tissue. From the moment of conception it is a living human being, unique. At 6 weeks old you can detect a heartbeat and at 12 weeks, eyes and hands can be seen.
Wrong again. Not human until birth. Parasite up to that point. Heartbeat does not make living. The braindead criteria leave the heart beating.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
3. Life does NOT begin at birth. Science has proven that it begins at conception. All genetic characteristics of a distinc individual are present from the moment of conception. Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.
Life does NOT begin at conception. You are wrong. DON'T SAY THAT SOMETHING IS PROVEN BY SCIENCE UNLESS YOU HAVE AT THE VERY LEAST HAD THE COURTESY OF CHECKING. I am a little touchy about that last part. The sperm is alive. The egg is certainly alive. Thus life begins not at conception, but some 4 billion years ago.
While all genetic characteristics of the individual are present, it is by no means an individual yet. Since the conciousness is in the central nervous system, which is not even remotely funktional before long into pregnancy, it is not an individual yet.
What does birthdays have to do with this?
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
4. Since human life IS valuable, every human IS wanted. Just because the woman who is carrying the baby may not want him/her, the list of couples wanting to adopt is millions long. And if we decide to kill or exclude from society anyone "unwanted" we would have to do that to AIDS victims, the elderly, derelicts, and many many others.
False. On all counts. If people wish to adopt then they could adopt a child from a third world country where barbaric laws forbid abortion. Then they would truely save a child, as this child would most likely be gotten rid off in another way. Unless they don't like the colour black.
About killing derelicts, AIDS-patients, ect.: They are human. The fetus is not. End of story.
Originally posted by mercatfat
Then there's my issue of human stupidity. If a woman regularly has abortions, she's retarded. Use the damn pill at the very least.
P-pills have severe side-effects. Rather use condoms. Then there is also much less risk of contracting infectous diseases.
i dont like people taking advantage of it though like they just have unprotected sex and say oops im pregnant oh well i can get an abortion.
Trust me: That doesn't happen. Not in these AIDS-times... Babies aren't the worst thing that unsafe sex brings along. Oh, of course it could happen, I'm not naive enough to claim otherwise, but that problem usually solves itself.
What about women who are raped? You can't expect them to carry their rapist's baby to full term. And you can't just outlaw it and make exceptions for people who are raped. How does one then determine who can have an abortion and who cant? People would just be saying they were raped to get an abortion. It's silly.
And would bring eerie reminders of uncivilized places, where theocratic law is still in function (women are muredered for having unmarital sex, unless they can prove that it was rape, and that's almost impossible, due to gender-biased laws: One rule for those who have pull in the "justice" system, another for those who have not).
One of my best friends has always strongly said that she was a pro lifer since I met her in 98.
There is no such thing as "pro-life". There is only "anti-choice".
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
Therefore, if you know you DON'T want a baby, don't take the risk that you may get pregnant. Today's society has made it far to easy for people to not have to be responsible for their actions.
You could say LITTERALLY the same thing about antibiotics. Or refrigerators. Or, for that matter, any technology at all. Because technology is there to make life easier. So I would ask you to think through the logical conclusions that follow your statement, before ever stating it again... Just sound advice, someone may recognise you. Fail once: Get a reminder. Fail twice: Look like a fool.
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
A developing baby is most definately a living person, with a heartbeat.
Have you failed to read any of GonkHater's posts on the subject. They are pretty hard to overlook...
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
There are always millions of people waiting for a baby to adopt.
*points up to the passage about third-world babies*
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
But in normal circumstances, a woman (and men) should take precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Especially in this day and age!! With all the sexually transmitted diseases that you could get, casual encounters should be a thing of the past.
Condoms are a good thing, yes. Use them. But if people like "casual encounters", then by all means, let them have their fun. That lust usually goes away with time.
Originally posted by GonkH8er
It stops an unwanted child being brought into the world.
It's all there..... even the unwanted child part....
sure, theres millions of families who want to adopt.... but adoption is hard on both the biological parents and the child.
Giving up your own child, possibly to never see it again isnt a nice thought.
Just wondering but how, if giving up a child you have seen at birth is hard, how is it any less hard than knowing that that child could have been the greatest person to know? You could of just cancelled the birth of a "great leader", "superstar" "nobel prize winner". How is, knowing that you could have done that and will olny be able to see the "child" as a fetus, any less hard than letting it go after birth. If your saying it's easy to have an abortion I strongly disagree. To sum it all up...
If you have an "unwanted" pregnancy but you go through with letting the baby be born, have a family ready to take the baby in less than 2 weeks after birth, all the legalities are set and the baby is gone. Are you saying that the person who has had the baby, has seen him/her for a very short period of time and has just let him/her go that they're going to take it hard? I agree they will take it hard BUT... how is it any different from seeing a fetus on a sonogram for 10 minutes and knowing that that will be your child but then having an abortion and knowing that you will never see that "child" that you saw on the sonogram, in the flesh.
Reborn: Point is, you could say the same about any sperm and egg cell wasted: they had the potential to grow into something meaningful. But they didn't. It's just like the blueprint analogy presented by GonkH8er - You can only feel sorry for destroying something after it's been built.
I think it's pretty hard just to dismiss your child after carrying it around for 9 months. It must be hell. What's not very hard is seeing the fetus as what it really is - a lump of non-conscious cells. Dead in the human sense of it. It cannot live besides being a parasite.
If a fetus is a parasite because it can't survive without help... then how is it any different from an infant who has to survive off his/her mother... is it a parasite also? Just wondering... :)
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
You could say LITTERALLY the same thing about antibiotics. Or refrigerators. Or, for that matter, any technology at all. Because technology is there to make life easier. So I would ask you to think through the logical conclusions that follow your statement, before ever stating it again... Just sound advice, someone may recognise you. Fail once: Get a reminder. Fail twice: Look like a fool.
that's just absurd. how can you compare antibiotics, technology, etc... with abortion. just because it makes life easier it doesn't mean it has the same concept.
in the process of abortion we are removing a fetus not a disease.
and when did i say i totaly disaprove abortion. i just have combining taughts about it. i clearly mention that in my previous posts.
to me some women, they look for abortion as a way out. without thinking about consiquences, they make foolish decisions.
Have you failed to read any of GonkHater's posts on the subject. They are pretty hard to overlook...
how do you know for sure? you can't always go by what others said simply because they're not professionals in the field. therefore the information may not be 100% reliable. but if you can be more specific on that matter, then i'll reconsider. but till then you don't have the real facts to back that up so your opinion can't be held accountable.
*points up to the passage about third-world babies*
exactly third world.
simply because they can't afford it. if you think about it most likely rich, upper class parents from other countries will adopt a baby from a third world country.
Condoms are a good thing, yes. Use them. But if people like "casual encounters", then by all means, let them have their fun. That lust usually goes away with time.
i'm just saying think more clearly before what you're getting yourself into. think about the consiquences and take responsiblity especially if you're young. if you do get an unwanted pregnancy, you can't blame anybody else but yourself.
its like the old saying:
"If you can't do the time...
don't do the crime."
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
If a fetus is a parasite because it can't survive without help... then how is it any different from an infant who has to survive off his/her mother... is it a parasite also? Just wondering... :)
The baby can theoretically still survive without it's biological mother. A fetus cannot. But that's beside the point, your argument is that it's just as easy to give your child away for adoption as seeing it as a lump of emotionally, spiritually, humanly and consciously dead cells. It is not human. It is a blueprint - to be discarded at the will of the mother, since she's the one who's going to "build" it.
Look at cancer cells. They're normal cells who are mutated to multiply at a dangerously fast rate. Once the lump of cancer cells have multiplied sizably, it's called a cancer tumor(sp?). Now this tumor is also a parasite. It feeds off the other cells, without them it would die. It is human in a twisted way; it bears much the same genetic code. Would you kill such an entity?
Getting off on a tangent here. - C'jais
With few exceptions, those who oppose abortion rights are Christians, Jews & Muslims. (don't freak, i said there were exceptions). Opposition to abortion rights is directly related to how zealous you are about your beliefs.
I think the problem is, zealous orthodoxy does not allow any exceptions to their rules. This is foolish and destructive. There are always exceptions and variables to every rule or law humans have ever percieved.
Life is not precious, especially human life. We are 1 of the most abundant lifeforms alive today. In a world of limited resources and billions of people, perhaps we should place our energies into quality of life instead of quanity of life.
you know what really bugs me, are those pro-life advocates who disaprove abortion so much that they'll go to the measures of threats, murder, bombing, etc...
to me it seems so hypocritical.
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
you know what really bugs me, are those pro-life advocates who disaprove abortion so much that they'll go to the measures of threats, murder, bombing, etc...
to me it seems so hypocritical.
YES, I think that's what they call "Not being able to see the forest because all those trees are in the way."
What I find hypocritical are those who are Pro-Abortion being against the Death Penalty, or those who are Pro-Life being for the Death Penalty. The taking of a human life is murder any way you slant it. Rationalise it anyway you like, but I beleive life IS a precious thing
I'm not a Religious person, I'm a Moral person
Yes Toonces, life is precious.
But so precious as to take away freedom from the mother?
What bugs me the most is that the pro-lifers can't seem to get that plants and cows are life too. Don't kill them either.
Is scientists artifically created a human DNA nucleus, would you advocate that it should live as well? If it was encased in a cell membrane? If it was able to multiply?
I'm too lazy to use [quote]s, so bear with me.
-- Not human until birth. Parasite up to that point. Heartbeat does not make living. --
Ability to live outside the mother makes it legally alive.
-- Life does NOT begin at conception. You are wrong. DON'T SAY THAT SOMETHING IS PROVEN BY SCIENCE UNLESS YOU HAVE AT THE VERY LEAST HAD THE COURTESY OF CHECKING. I am a little touchy about that last part. The sperm is alive. The egg is certainly alive. Thus life begins not at conception, but some 4 billion years ago. --
Sperm and egg cells, nor the beings that produce them are alive 4 billion years. "Life" here obviously refers to the genetically unique cell that is a result of the union of sperm and egg.
-- False. On all counts. If people wish to adopt then they could adopt a child from a third world country where barbaric laws forbid abortion. Then they would truely save a child, as this child would most likely be gotten rid off in another way. Unless they don't like the colour black. --
(from my experience) there are a lot more adoptions involving children outside the country than there are where both the child and adoptive family.
-- You could say LITTERALLY the same thing about antibiotics. Or refrigerators. Or, for that matter, any technology at all. Because technology is there to make life easier. So I would ask you to think through the logical conclusions that follow your statement, before ever stating it again... Just sound advice, someone may recognise you. Fail once: Get a reminder. Fail twice: Look like a fool. --
No, you couldn't. There are viable alternatives to abortion.
What is the alternative to antibiotics? leeches?
What is a non-technological alternative to the refrigerator?
There isn't one.
About the millions of people waiting to adopt...you're wrong...in NJ at least that is...unless they are all adopting outside the US.
Originally posted by Cjais
The baby can theoretically still survive without it's biological mother. A fetus cannot. But that's beside the point, your argument is that it's just as easy to give your child away for adoption as seeing it as a lump of emotionally, spiritually, humanly and consciously dead cells. It is not human. It is a blueprint - to be discarded at the will of the mother, since she's the one who's going to "build" it.[/i]
No, GonkH8er stated in one of his posts... (which I quoted) that it is very hard to give your baby to another family for adoption... I said, why isn't it just as hard to know that you destroyed a (quoting you) "blueprint" (end quote) or living thing that had a lifetime of opportunities ahead of him/her?
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
No, GonkH8er stated in one of his posts... (which I quoted) that it is very hard to give your baby to another family for adoption... I said, why isn't it just as hard to know that you destroyed a (quoting you) "blueprint" (end quote) or living thing that had a lifetime of opportunities ahead of him/her?
The difference is, an adopted child you had the burden of carrying around for 9 months, with it feeding off you. Not something you wish to do every year.
An aborted blueprint has no meaning. You can't refer to "it" much the same as you can't refer to a lump of salt as "it".
Look at the cancer cell. It's a seperate entity as a fetus is. It is alive. It can grow. It has a DNA code sligthly different from your own. Would you remove it?
Scientists can already create small artificial pieces of our DNA code (for genetic engineering). What if they were able to create the entire DNA code? This is essentially a living thing. But it's [b]artificially created[/i]. There's no way to distinguish it from a normal cell, if you put put it into a cell membrane. Would you be able to kill it? It's human, after all.
You speak of you being unable to "kill" a fetus because it had a lifetime of oppurtunities ahead of it. Well, the very same can be said about people who use sexual prevention. They're also preventing a fetus from having it's lifetime of oppurtunities. And what about the people who never have sex? They're brutally "killing" unborn fetuses too.
Think about this: If a sperm cell was altered so the DNA no longer a human's, and inserted into an egg cell - would it be human offspring? What if the egg cell was likewise altered? Would you have any right to end нts life?
Well your comparing cancer cells to a fetus? I don't see any type of comparison there except for people getting rid of both of them sometimes.
Yes, I see what your saying about people using sexual prevention and people that stay away from sex but there is a difference between a fetus that IS there in a woman and a woman not holding a fetus at all.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Well your comparing cancer cells to a fetus? I don't see any type of comparison there except for people getting rid of both of them sometimes.
Tell me the difference between a fetus growing in a womb, and a group of cancer cells.
Here's the deal: A fetus is a blueprint. You don't have sentimental feelings from scrapping a blueprint because you found out you weren't up to the task of actually following the blueprint. You can't relate a blueprint and the finished construction to each other - they have physically, mentally and spiritually nothing to do with each other.
Example: I have a blueprint of the car I wish to design. I realize I can't build the car after all, so I throw the blueprint in the bin. Now, do I start crying over all the mileage that car would never run? Do I weep for it because it didn't get the chance to drive on the alps? No. It is just a template, without any emotional value at all.
Read this site: go to
http://www.abortionfacts.com) then look over at the left of the page at the list of links and click on "Abortion Arguements". Go to the "Medical" section and click on both links and read.
THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE SECTION UNDER "MEDICAL" CALLED "WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?"
Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.
If you read these... you will see that the fetus is NOT a blueprint because That fact right there is part of a field where there is no controversy and no disagreement between scientists. A humans individual life begind at conception. It states it right there.
Once you finish reading that go to the bottom of all their links and read tha page called "Our Mission." The link is
http://www.abortionfacts.com/x_administration/our_mission.asp)
Reborn: Don't get me wrong, the fetus is alive. I'm aware of that. But it is not human life in the sense you and I understand.
It is as much human life as the cancer cell and the artificially created DNA string. Nothing more. You cannot call the fetus an individual, nor conscious.
But thats what I've been trying to say. I said that LIFE begins at conception and that if you destroy a fetus you are destroying an individuals LIFE. (Read my latest post and the website and you will see that)
But what's an individual? At this point in it's development, it has no brain functions to speak of.
i would never have a abortion if i got a girl pregnant
but if a guy just left the girl he got pregnant i dont think its wrong of her to have an abortion
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
if you destroy a fetus you are destroying an individuals LIFE.
You destroy life, yes. But not an individual's life. The fetus cannot be referred to as an individual at that stage, no more than a cancer cell or a DNA string can be referred to as "an individual human."
If you're so panicked about destroying life, know that you do it every day. And not just killing other lifeforms, hundreds of your cells die every day. They're life as well, you know. But an individual human each? Of course not.
basically Cjais is trying to say that the fetus is only a potential human being until it is able to survive outside the womb. until this time the fetus has no legal rights—the rights belong to the woman carrying the fetus, who can decide whether or not to bring the pregnancy to full term.
Originally posted by Cjais
And not just killing other lifeforms, hundreds of your cells die every day. They're life as well, you know. But an individual human each? Of course not.
I do not voluntarily kill my cells. They do it on their own but a woman makes the decision to kill the fetus.
And Cjais did you read the quote I posted from
www.abortionfacts.com?) Here is part of it...
The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation."
Now here is a part before that...
Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school.
That's muttling the point. We go thru a complete cell replacement over a period of 7 years or so. Does that mean I'm not the same person that existed 7 years ago? A bunch of cells do not equal a person.