Superman's quote 'bout JW's

by orphanannie 51 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  New Eyes

  are old wimen in comas alive? Lets check shall we.

  SO, with that in mind:

  1) Can they grow? (NO) reproduce? (NO) Oops - already it doesn't meet the scientific definition of life. Well, let's keep going..
  2) Do they ingest resources for their own use? (NO)
  3) Respond to stimuli? (NO)
  4) Acts in a way to ensure self-preservation? (NO)
  5) Significantly different from surrounding environment? (a YES here)
  So, of the 5 'yes' needed to identify them as a SEPARATE LIVING ORGANISM....an old ladies in comas gets 1.
  

  There you have it she is not alive. proof positive.
• 

  funkyderek

  Witness a partial birth abortion though gang, and then tell me that is not a human life being killed

  What percentage of abortions performed are partial-birth abortions, Yeru?

  The morning-after pill prevents implantation of a zygote. Is there any ethical difference between that and the partial-birth abortions you described?
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Several thousand partial birth abortions each year are performed. The "Mornng After" pill was rushed into the market here without adequate testing, many cases of hemoraging and several deaths have been reported in connection with this. I am opposed to the "Morning After" pill for several reasons.

  A) It, in my opinion, destroys life.

  B) what's to prevent some body from "slipping a mickey" to his girlfriend, wife, etc?

  C) It places the wrong emphasis and takes away responsibility for the sex act. BEFORE sex occurs is the right time to make reproductive choices.

  To my mind, NO, there is NO difference between the two morally, only in partial birth abortion the grim reality of a life being destroyed is more evident.
• 

  patio34

  Even tho this thread seems to have turned into an abortion thread, I have a question about stem cells. Scully made the point that umbilical cords and placentas are also rich sources of stem cells. Why aren't they harvested widely from this source only? Why even bring aborted fetuses into the question. It seems to distract the real issue. The stem cells are widely available and the sources are thrown away: placentas and umbilical cords.

  Pat
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Patio,

  Good point! I'm not opposed to stem cell research, just the preffered method for getting them, which is how this thread was drawn into the abortion arena. Reeves was addressing abortion when he made his comments.
• 

  Xander

  A) It, in my opinion, destroys life.

  How do you reconcile that with the fact that MOST of those very same fertilized eggs this pill causes the excise of would, in fact, have been lost anyway? Remember the figure? It's been quoted as high as 80% lost naturally?

  There you have it she is not alive. proof positive.

  This is exactly what I meant by ALL examples of something must be considered. Do ANY, say, 80 year old women meet those critera? Yes, of course.

  Do ANY, say, 4 week old fetuses? NO!

  That's the difference.

  In any case, the argument was whether they were a seperate living organism from it's mother or not. I provided the definition of said - you can see clearly it does not meet the criteria.

  If your invisible friend tells you otherwise, well, that's not my problem, is it?

  Edited by - Xander on 20 September 2002 13:11:9
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Xander,

  The difference is, One is Natural, and one is artificial.
• 

  patio34

  Thanks, Yeru, for your reply. Another point is that Christopher Reeves stated that the eggs used were UNfertilized, again removing abortion from being needed.

  It's puzzling why there's such a holdup on this vital resource when so much quantity seems to be available. Is it deliberate obfuscation by some groups? I know I probably don't have a grasp on all the issues, but it seems incredibly wasteful to toss all the millions of placentas and umbilical cords out every day, whilst there's such an embroglio about abortion.

  Pat
• 

  funkyderek

  The "Mornng After" pill was rushed into the market here without adequate testing, many cases of hemoraging and several deaths have been reported in connection with this.

  It's been available in Europe for years, and is available over the counter in many countries. It's considered safe by the medical community here. Few, if any, deaths have been reported from its use. The only objections to its use are "moral" ones.

  A) It, in my opinion, destroys life.

  So do antibiotics.

  B) what's to prevent some body from "slipping a mickey" to his girlfriend, wife, etc?

  Nothing. The same is true of any medicine.

  C) It places the wrong emphasis and takes away responsibility for the sex act. BEFORE sex occurs is the right time to make reproductive choices.

  Perhaps. That's why it's called emergency contraception. It's also useful for rape victims who don't want to become pregnant with their rapist's child.

  Edited by - funkyderek on 20 September 2002 13:19:52
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Generally speaking, antibiotics don't destroy HUMAN LIFE, which is the main goal of the "morning after pill." I have all the sympathy in the world for a woman who is raped. Can we limit abortion to only those who are raped? Still, it's not the baby that committed the rape, so we create two victims instead of one?

  "If we'd had full government support, full government funding for aggressive research using embryonic stem cells from the moment they were first isolated, at the University of Wisconsin in the winter of 1998 -- I don't think it unreasonable to speculate that we might be in human trials by now."

  That is Reeves' quote. Can't have embroys without having fertilized eggs now, can we.

  Edited by - Yerusalyim on 20 September 2002 13:27:27