Supercandy afraid of reality puts those who speak truth on Ignore...zygote not child!

enough said:
can you address the questions in post 33?

i asked YOU because you are the one talking about viability and living without the need for the mother. why can't you answer the question? afraid your morals will be shown to bankrupt and contradictory?
Click to expand...

Is a mother the equivalent of a hospital? Yes or no? You posed the scenario - you finish it.
 
Bijou said:
The issue is choice. The issue of the unborn's personhood is what the christ-y whackjobs use in order to subvert what is obvious: until an unborn child is viable (can live outside the womb) it is 100% the dominion of its mother. 'Viable' is the equivalent to your criteria of autonomous. Sentience isn't a factor; viability is.
Click to expand...

viability, sentience, all the same category. the issue is NOT choice. The issue is personhood. That's why "choice" gives way once the fetus is viable, and why late term abortion is mostly banned. If the issue were actually choice, the level of sentience/viability would be irrelevant. The very fact that the levels of viability and sentience are relevant perfectly illustrates how it is not an issue of choice.
 
Bijou said:
Is a mother the equivalent of a hospital? Yes or no? You posed the scenario - you finish it.
Click to expand...

3 times now and you still run away from the questions in post (reposted) 33. yet you whine about SF doing that. hypocrite much?

i asked you a question, if you're not going to have the stones to answer it, just say so. you're incapable of adding substance to anything on this board. using your logic, yes, they are the same as both cannot live without the support of external sources. now...are you going to step up and start answering questions or are you going to be a two faced whiner?
 
enough said:
no surprise you can't explain what the complexity is. and btw, a complex moral issue or what not can in fact cause anguish.

now, are you going to actually enlighten as how the anguish is not complex and why they go through so much (your words) before making the decision if it is not a complex issue?

nice dodge of my other questions. ironic given you're whining about SF doing the very same thing.
Click to expand...

third time......sound familiar...lol
 
King of Owls said:
viability, sentience, all the same category. the issue is NOT choice. The issue is personhood. That's why "choice" gives way once the fetus is viable, and why late term abortion is mostly banned. If the issue were actually choice, the level of sentience/viability would be irrelevant. The very fact that the levels of viability and sentience are relevant perfectly illustrates how it is not an issue of choice.
Click to expand...

Sentience has no bearing whatsoever on viability. Sentience occurs long before an unborn child is viable, and exists even in severely defective unborn children and fetuses. The issue is choice regardless of viability because the window for abortion is large enough to accommodate that choice, and after that window would include surrendering a born, viable child for adoption. You're woefully unqualified for this discussion for myriad reasons, one being that you're incapable of recognizing the difference between sentience and viability.
 
Bijou said:
Sentience has no bearing whatsoever on viability. Sentience occurs long before an unborn child is viable, and exists even in severely defective unborn children and fetuses. The issue is choice regardless of viability because the window for abortion is large enough to accommodate that choice, and after that window would include surrendering a born, viable child for adoption. You're woefully unqualified for this discussion for myriad reasons, one being that you're incapable of recognizing the difference between sentience and viability.
Click to expand...

Viability starts around 22 weeks and sentience around 26 weeks.
 
enough said:
3 times now and you still run away from the questions in post (reposted) 33. yet you whine about SF doing that. hypocrite much?

i asked you a question, if you're not going to have the stones to answer it, just say so. you're incapable of adding substance to anything on this board. using your logic, yes, they are the same as both cannot live without the support of external sources. now...are you going to step up and start answering questions or are you going to be a two faced whiner?
Click to expand...

enough said:
third time......sound familiar...lol
Click to expand...

hilarious....after whining about others running away....bijou once again runs away when it gets too tough for her
 
Bijou said:
Sentience has no bearing whatsoever on viability. Sentience occurs long before an unborn child is viable, and exists even in severely defective unborn children and fetuses. The issue is choice regardless of viability because the window for abortion is large enough to accommodate that choice, and after that window would include surrendering a born, viable child for adoption. You're woefully unqualified for this discussion for myriad reasons, one being that you're incapable of recognizing the difference between sentience and viability.
Click to expand...

oh jesssus christ you are insufferable. Whether we are talking about sentience or viability, it doesn't fucking matter, that's not the context of which my argument hinges on. The context is that it does not boil down to choice, because viability is the ULTIMATE determining factor. NOT the womens choice. This is evident by the fact that it's illegal to abort when a fetus is viable. Regardless of what the women would want to choose.

If the ENTIRE argument boiled down to choice, the above would be irrelevant.
 
King of Owls said:
oh jesssus christ you are insufferable. Whether we are talking about sentience or viability, it doesn't fucking matter, that's not the context of which my argument hinges on. The context is that it does not boil down to choice, because viability is the ULTIMATE determining factor. NOT the womens choice. This is evident by the fact that it's illegal to abort when a fetus is viable. Regardless of what the women would want to choose.

If the ENTIRE argument boiled down to choice, the above would be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Only in your warped perspective. It was explained to you why you're wrong. And the fact that you're wrong is why it doesn't matter what your argument hinges on. Stomping your feet and insisting you're right doesn't change reality. It's about choice - the mother's - always has been.
 
The rightie's response when they're wrong is to use "ignore"...


head-in-sand.jpg
 
\\((|))// said:
The rightie's response when they're wrong is to use "ignore"...


head-in-sand.jpg
Click to expand...

The assertion that viability is the 'ultimate' factor is ludicrous, because only 1.5 percent of abortions performed are late-term (post 20 weeks) and often due to medical emergencies. The 20-week window is ample time to CHOOSE, and if abortion is their choice, it's performed prior to 20 weeks in 98.5 percent of instances.
 
Superfreak said:
Would it help if I said progeny? A zygote is a stage of development. A 'child' is not. You will always be your parents child. Always. It never changes. You can have zygote, blastocyst, embryo, infant, toddler, pre teen, teen, young adult etc.... of which all are still the child of the parent.

Calling it a zygote is simply a feeble attempt to dehumanize the child. It is especially retarded given the length of time it is actually a zygote. It is past that stage long before a woman will even realize she has missed a period, let alone know she is pregnant.
Click to expand...
I think it would be more accurate to say that, "regardless of the stage of development you are talking about human life." As for the term zygote, no, it is not an attempt to dehumanize life. It is an important developmental stage, from an embrylogical point of view, in which we start with a simple undiferentiated cell which, over time, begins differentiating into a mind boggling array of complexity and specificity until a viable living organism has developed and continues to develop.
 
King of Owls said:
oh jesssus christ you are insufferable. Whether we are talking about sentience or viability, it doesn't fucking matter, that's not the context of which my argument hinges on. The context is that it does not boil down to choice, because viability is the ULTIMATE determining factor. NOT the womens choice. This is evident by the fact that it's illegal to abort when a fetus is viable. Regardless of what the women would want to choose.

If the ENTIRE argument boiled down to choice, the above would be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

i don't think she is worth the effort. notice she has completely run away from our discussion and look at her response to yours. absolute zero content, just whining and ignoring the actual issues being discussed.
 
enough said:
that is why the issue is not cut and dry and is in fact complex despite what some rabid left wingers on this site claim.
Click to expand...
or right wingers. What makes abortion really complex is that both extremes of the argument, abortion for any reason what so ever and abortion for no reason what so ever are both morally objectionable. What is morally permissable is somewhere in the grey area between these two extremes. Then throw in the fact that it's also a very emotional issue and things really get complicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top