Abortion....According to KingRaw

[Good Luck]

Somewhere around the 7 month age of the fetus, I'd say it's valued life. From that point on, it should be just as much valued as any other human being whether it's a 3 year old or a 30 year old. FROM THE POINT I LISTED, IT BECOMES VALUED LIFE AND REMAINS VALUED LIFE! STOP GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES WITH THAT LAME ARGUMENT BECAUSE I ALREADY TOLD YOU WHERE I THINK VALUED LIFE BEGINS!

The problem is you use that opinion to defend legalized abortion. Stress the word "OPINION". Since when is opinion a valid measure of whom should be allowed basic human rights, and whom should not? There are those, even today, who hold to the OPINION that blacks should not have human rights. If your opinion is valid for supporting legal abortion, why is their opinion not valid for supporting slavery?

Human history is chock full of examples of social opinion being used as justification for denying basic human rights to specified groups or classes of humans. How is the abortion debate different? It is the OPINION of pro-choice advocates that the unborn do not deserve human rights. (that is in those rare cases when they actually acknowledge scientific fact that a human zygote is human.) And the only defense for that opinion is based on developmental level. Yet there are multiple developmental levels recognized by biological science.

The brain of a newborn infant is NOT fully developed. It has a LONG way to go, as is evidenced by its lack of motor control among other traits. The brain of a toddler has gone a long way in developing, but still has lacking traits that cannot be simply attributed to lack of knowledge - it is the fact that the brain is still developing its physical structure.

The bottom line is pro-choice advocates (at least those who don't stubbornly cling to the common lies about the unborn not being human) place an arbitrary line in the sand and state, as if it were TRUTH handed them by some divine being "these humans do not deserve human rights." But that statement itself is opinion. When it comes to opinion about who deserves human rights, what makes pro-choice opinion correct, and pro-life opinion incorrect?

 

[Battleborne]

Here we go again...!

When all else fails bring in the Gay Marriage,abortion and racism arguments to distract from National Security issue! How so Liberal!

 

[KingRaw!]

The problem is you use that opinion to defend legalized abortion. Stress the word "OPINION". Since when is opinion a valid measure of whom should be allowed basic human rights, and whom should not? There are those, even today, who hold to the OPINION that blacks should not have human rights. If your opinion is valid for supporting legal abortion, why is their opinion not valid for supporting slavery?

Human history is chock full of examples of social opinion being used as justification for denying basic human rights to specified groups or classes of humans. How is the abortion debate different? It is the OPINION of pro-choice advocates that the unborn do not deserve human rights. (that is in those rare cases when they actually acknowledge scientific fact that a human zygote is human.) And the only defense for that opinion is based on developmental level. Yet there are multiple developmental levels recognized by biological science.

The brain of a newborn infant is NOT fully developed. It has a LONG way to go, as is evidenced by its lack of motor control among other traits. The brain of a toddler has gone a long way in developing, but still has lacking traits that cannot be simply attributed to lack of knowledge - it is the fact that the brain is still developing its physical structure.

The bottom line is pro-choice advocates (at least those who don't stubbornly cling to the common lies about the unborn not being human) place an arbitrary line in the sand and state, as if it were TRUTH handed them by some divine being "these humans do not deserve human rights." But that statement itself is opinion. When it comes to opinion about who deserves human rights, what makes pro-choice opinion correct, and pro-life opinion incorrect?

You're right, this is a moral opinion to me. I value the well being of the mother more than a 2 week old fetus. And where would you draw the line at where human life becomes valuable? The moment of conception or even earlier?

 

[Good Luck]

You keep throwing in all these strawmen. Four year olds, Fourteen year olds and those with Alzheimer's are all Born and therefore get the protection of the laws through the 14th amendment. If you don't like that get 2/3's of the congress and 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.

The term "born" is only used to define a citizen.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

The term "born" is never used once to define the word "person". Yet the 14th amendment does provide for constituional protections of all PERSONS, not just citizens.

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

No where in the Constitution does it claim a human being must be born to be considered a person. Conversely, the most common use of the word "person" is defined as "a living human".


The whole "constitution does not protect the unborn" claim is among the more lame excuses for supporting legal abortion.

 

[KingRaw!]

The whole "constitution does not protect the unborn" claim is among the more lame excuses for supporting legal abortion.


I agree with that.

 

[Good Luck]

You're right, this is a moral opinion to me. I value the well being of the mother more than a 2 week old fetus. And where would you draw the line at where human life becomes valuable? The moment of conception or even earlier?

My opinion does not matter - that is the point I am making. Opinions have been used all too often in history to defend removing basic human rights from a targeted class of human beings. Therefore using opinion is suspect at best.

We have scientific proof that a unique human life begins with conception. All else is opinion and should be disregarded when assigning basic human rights.

You did not answer my other question. How is your opinion that a less-than-7-month-old human fetus does not deserve basic human rights any more valid than those whose opinion is that blacks do not deserve basic human rights?

 

[KingRaw!]

My opinion does not matter - that is the point I am making. Opinions have been used all too often in history to defend removing basic human rights from a targeted class of human beings. Therefore using opinion is suspect at best.


Then couldn't the exact same thing be said about giving people human rights?


We have scientific proof that a unique human life begins with conception. All else is opinion and should be disregarded when assigning basic human rights.


Why just unique human life? Why not the sperm cell or a white blood cell? Those are life and shouldn't they be given basic rights too?


You did not answer my other question. How is your opinion that a less-than-7-month-old human fetus does not deserve basic human rights any more valid than those whose opinion is that blacks do not deserve basic human rights?


Well a fetus under that age isn't fully developed yet. If it were then it would be common for a woman to give birth to a 5 month old fetus or a 4 week old one. They aren't developed enough. It's not a born human being like a 29 year old black person.

 

[Battleborne]

LMAO..............

My opinion does not matter - that is the point I am making. Opinions have been used all too often in history to defend removing basic human rights from a targeted class of human beings. Therefore using opinion is suspect at best.

We have scientific proof that a unique human life begins with conception. All else is opinion and should be disregarded when assigning basic human rights.

You did not answer my other question. How is your opinion that a less-than-7-month-old human fetus does not deserve basic human rights any more valid than those whose opinion is that blacks do not deserve basic human rights?

Relax Gunny...you are arguing with a troll wannabee...his Momma thru away the baby and kept the afterbirth...he is a bitter troll!

 

[KingRaw!]

Relax Gunny...you are arguing with a troll wannabee...his Momma thru away the baby and kept the afterbirth...he is a bitter troll!

How am I trolling here?

 

[Care4all]

And yet John the Baptist celebrated upon meeting Jesus while both were in the womb...

Hmmm... recognition and excitement all while still in the womb... It doesn't seem as if the Bible rejects life in the womb.

Yes, I do recognize such, but John the Baptist was a destined prophet and Jesus Christ was God made man, this does not necessarily depict all human beings....

Under Common Law, it was thought that a fetus has its soul upon quickening.... about 3-4 months...early fetus stage and abortions were permitted and fairly common, though private and usually done with a mixture of medicines or elixers. Even in our country for the near first 100 years we followed this common law thinking and early abortion was permitted while abortion was illegal after quickening and later made a felony after quickening

Of course i realize this was in the day that we did not have good survival rates of the born or good survival rates of the pregnant mothers and also in the day where science was not so advanced in the understanding of when life really begins for human beings and this process begins at conception.

Many believe that we do not have our "souls" until we take our first breath too....there are many different religious aspects to when life begins "spiritually" for us...

this does not take away from what science has proven and I believe, which is....human life begins at conception and if it is permitted to continue on, it will be a born, person...it is no less human from the beginning....to when it is born....to when it is a senior or dead.

I just don't know if I have the right to force my belief on to another....

Care

 

[Battleborne]

Here we go again...!

How am I trolling here?

Did you not say and admit in another thread that you were a troll?>>>

 

[KingRaw!]

Yeah on the votingforsatan.com website and www.gametalk.com where idiots roam. How do I troll here?

 

[Good Luck]

My opinion does not matter - that is the point I am making. Opinions have been used all too often in history to defend removing basic human rights from a targeted class of human beings. Therefore using opinion is suspect at best.


Then couldn't the exact same thing be said about giving people human rights?


We have scientific proof that a unique human life begins with conception. All else is opinion and should be disregarded when assigning basic human rights.


Why just unique human life? Why not the sperm cell or a white blood cell? Those are life and shouldn't they be given basic rights too?


You did not answer my other question. How is your opinion that a less-than-7-month-old human fetus does not deserve basic human rights any more valid than those whose opinion is that blacks do not deserve basic human rights?


Well a fetus under that age isn't fully developed yet. If it were then it would be common for a woman to give birth to a 5 month old fetus or a 4 week old one. They aren't developed enough. It's not a born human being like a 29 year old black person.

The point is opinion should NOT be used to determine who and who does not deserve human rights. Histroy is full of examples where opinion was used, and in all cases (except the current debate of abortion) history has determined the opinion used to limit human rights was WRONG.

Human gametes are not life. They do not, by themselves, constitute a biologically living organism. They do not reproduce - they are simply part of the reproduction system. By itself, a human gamete is not a living human. Gametes are not humans. But when the genetic material from two gametes from humans of opposite gender combine, the result IS a living human. Again, we are talking the basics of biological science. These are proven facts, not opinion nor conjecture.

And you keep going back to the developmental stage of the unborn. The developmental stage is irrelevant. A newborn infant is not fully developed either. It needs significant life support - just not the same type life support as received in the mother's uterus. A sick or injured person also may require life support - does that make them less human?

No matter where you go with describing the unborn, you end up with the basic statement that unborn children do not deserve human rights because they are different. (Different mental capacity, different stage of development, different this, different that.) They are human, you admit, but DIFFERENT than us REAL humans.

In the opinion of certain individuals I have met, I am different also (skin color, heritage, etc.) and therefore in their opinion, I do not deserve human rights. I may be human, but I am DIFFERENT than REAL humans.

How is their opinion less valid than yours?

 

[Good Luck]

Yes, I do recognize such, but John the Baptist was a destined prophet and Jesus Christ was God made man, this does not necessarily depict all human beings....

Under Common Law, it was thought that a fetus has its soul upon quickening.... about 3-4 months...early fetus stage and abortions were permitted and fairly common, though private and usually done with a mixture of medicines or elixers. Even in our country for the near first 100 years we followed this common law thinking and early abortion was permitted while abortion was illegal after quickening and later made a felony after quickening

Of course i realize this was in the day that we did not have good survival rates of the born or good survival rates of the pregnant mothers and also in the day where science was not so advanced in the understanding of when life really begins for human beings and this process begins at conception.

Many believe that we do not have our "souls" until we take our first breath too....there are many different religious aspects to when life begins "spiritually" for us...

this does not take away from what science has proven and I believe, which is....human life begins at conception and if it is permitted to continue on, it will be a born, person...it is no less human from the beginning....to when it is born....to when it is a senior or dead.

I just don't know if I have the right to force my belief on to another....

Care

In the first place, did you notice it was a pro-choice advocate, not a pro-life advocate, who first tried to bring religious belief into the debate? While a poll would undoubtedly show the vast majority of pro-life advocates are also religious, the argument for granting basic human rights to the unborn does not in any way rely on religious beliefs. It is hard science that states an unborn human child is a living human from the point of conception. It is the pro-choice advocates who (erroneously) try to defend their view of the unborn using the Bible.

As for forcing belief, are not the pro-choice advocates forcing THEIR belief of who deserves human rights, (fatally, I might add), on the living humans they claim the right to kill at will?

Additionally, is not government (thank goodness!) forcing beliefs of racial equality on people who harbor racial prejudice when it comes to things like who may sit where, and who is hired for a job?

 

[KingRaw!]

The point is opinion should NOT be used to determine who and who does not deserve human rights. Histroy is full of examples where opinion was used, and in all cases (except the current debate of abortion) history has determined the opinion used to limit human rights was WRONG.


Now you are giving the ok for opinion to determine who all has human rights. My opinion does not matter - that is the point I am making. Therefore using opinion is suspect at best. You said so yourself.


Human gametes are not life. They do not, by themselves, constitute a biologically living organism. They do not reproduce - they are simply part of the reproduction system. By itself, a human gamete is not a living human. Gametes are not humans. But when the genetic material from two gametes from humans of opposite gender combine, the result IS a living human. Again, we are talking the basics of biological science. These are proven facts, not opinion nor conjecture.


Ok fair enough but what about animals? Don't they deserve the right to life?


And you keep going back to the developmental stage of the unborn. The developmental stage is irrelevant. A newborn infant is not fully developed either. It needs significant life support - just not the same type life support as received in the mother's uterus. A sick or injured person also may require life support - does that make them less human?


But those people you listed are fully developed enough to survive outside the fetus. Development stage is relevant. Up until the 12 week stage,there is no dveloped brain. Not everything is there. Everything is there in a newborn infant or a injured person. Not being fully developed in the fetus does make them less human.


No matter where you go with describing the unborn, you end up with the basic statement that unborn children do not deserve human rights because they are different. (Different mental capacity, different stage of development, different this, different that.) They are human, you admit, but DIFFERENT than us REAL humans.


Differernt as in not developed enough, yes!


In the opinion of certain individuals I have met, I am different also (skin color, heritage, etc.) and therefore in their opinion, I do not deserve human rights. I may be human, but I am DIFFERENT than REAL humans.


Are you a 4 week old pile of tissue that has no developed brain yet?


How is their opinion less valid than yours?


Because they take away rights from people who have different skin colors or religion, not because they are undeveloped and have no awareness whatsoever.

 

[Good Luck]

The point is opinion should NOT be used to determine who and who does not deserve human rights. Histroy is full of examples where opinion was used, and in all cases (except the current debate of abortion) history has determined the opinion used to limit human rights was WRONG.


Now you are giving the ok for opinion to determine who all has human rights. My opinion does not matter - that is the point I am making. Therefore using opinion is suspect at best. You said so yourself.

Yes, using opinion is suspect. Using opinion has throughout history been found at fault. That what what I am saying.

What I am also saying is we should use a proven, unbiased, SCIENTIFIC definition of human to determine who deserves human rights.

All other cases are using opinion to deliberately deny human rights to selected groups of humans. Historically that has been shown to be morally corrupt.

Human gametes are not life. They do not, by themselves, constitute a biologically living organism. They do not reproduce - they are simply part of the reproduction system. By itself, a human gamete is not a living human. Gametes are not humans. But when the genetic material from two gametes from humans of opposite gender combine, the result IS a living human. Again, we are talking the basics of biological science. These are proven facts, not opinion nor conjecture.

Ok fair enough but what about animals? Don't they deserve the right to life?

The topic is who deserves HUMAN rights. Talk about animal rights in a different thread.

And you keep going back to the developmental stage of the unborn. The developmental stage is irrelevant. A newborn infant is not fully developed either. It needs significant life support - just not the same type life support as received in the mother's uterus. A sick or injured person also may require life support - does that make them less human?


But those people you listed are fully developed enough to survive outside the fetus. Development stage is relevant. Up until the 12 week stage,there is no dveloped brain. Not everything is there. Everything is there in a newborn infant or a injured person. Not being fully developed in the fetus does make them less human.

No, being at an earlier stage of development does NOT make them less human. Only by opinion can one claim a 3 week old human fetus is "less human" than a newborn infant. There are many adult humans who are dependent on life support. Are they less human? The uterus is a biological incubation/life support device. The use of life support does not make one less human, regardless of the type of life support device. Agin, you resort to opinion, whereas the claim that the unborn are living humans (without any qualification needed) is based on scientific fact.

No matter where you go with describing the unborn, you end up with the basic statement that unborn children do not deserve human rights because they are different. (Different mental capacity, different stage of development, different this, different that.) They are human, you admit, but DIFFERENT than us REAL humans.

Differerent as in not developed enough, yes!

Define "not developed enough" scientifically. Otherwise, explain in great detail why your opinion is more valid than those who use science to define a human being.

In the opinion of certain individuals I have met, I am different also (skin color, heritage, etc.) and therefore in their opinion, I do not deserve human rights. I may be human, but I am DIFFERENT than REAL humans.
Are you a 4 week old pile of tissue that has no developed brain yet?

I was at one time, early in my development - about 61 years and 16 days ago, give or take a couple days. And I was no less human then than I am now. That is scientific fact, no matter how dehumanizing you wish to describe my status at the time.

How is their opinion less valid than yours?


Because they take away rights from people who have different skin colors or religion, not because they are undeveloped and have no awareness whatsoever.

So, YOUR difference, based on developmental stage counts and is valid because, umm, you say so? Or did you provide a proof in there that I missed?

 

[KingRaw!]

Yes, using opinion is suspect. Using opinion has throughout history been found at fault. That what what I am saying.

What I am also saying is we should use a proven, unbiased, SCIENTIFIC definition of human to determine who deserves human rights.

All other cases are using opinion to deliberately deny human rights to selected groups of humans. Historically that has been shown to be morally corrupt.


And what exactly is it that determines who deserves human rights? Science only says we are all humans and skin color doesn't affect that. What determines if it's right or wrong to deny a certain group of people their equal rights? Moral opinion. Science doesn't say murder is wrong, it doesn't say it's right but we use our moral opinion to say it is wrong. Opinion has done both good and bad things and you shouldn't cast it out because some people make bad choices with them.


The topic is who deserves HUMAN rights. Talk about animal rights in a different thread.


YOU COMPARED ABORTION TO SLAVERY! Human rights and animal rights are a lot more alike than abortion/slavery. I have every right to compare animal life to human life! Animals are life too just like you or I. What gives us the right to kill them?!


No, being at an earlier stage of development does NOT make them less human. Only by opinion can one claim a 3 week old human fetus is "less human" than a newborn infant.


Actually science will tell you that a 3 week old fetus is less of a human than a baby due to a little thing called development.


There are many adult humans who are dependent on life support. Are they less human?


But they are already developed.


Define "not developed enough" scientifically. Otherwise, explain in great detail why your opinion is more valid than those who use science to define a human being.


Not Developed Enough- No fully funtional brain, heart, lungs, skin, liver, kidneys yet. No awareness and no previous awareness of existance.


I was at one time, early in my development - about 61 years and 16 days ago, give or take a couple days. And I was no less human then than I am now. That is scientific fact, no matter how dehumanizing you wish to describe my status at the time.


So no matter what I say, you have the facts on your side and you are right? Period, end of debate? That sounds like someone who isn't clinging to technicallities and won't consider the other reasons to why people have abortions. I mean you already ignored the animal right thing I brought up and said it was off topic even though you compared abortion to slavery. Yeah, those are the same thing!


Whether you want to admit that development is an important factor or not doesn't matter. A 3 month old fetus or a 4 week old fetus or a pea size fetus or a 2 second old fetus are not the same thing as a 7 month or older fetus. Development in the womb is not the same thing as race(As much as your obvious non-opinion claims) If you aren't fully developed as a fetus then you are not a fully developed human. That makes you less of a human. And I consider the physical, mental, and finacial well-being of the mother a hell of a lot more than a 3 week old blob of undeveloped tissue that isn't aware of it's existance. And I don't give a damn about "oh it's technically life so ha ha" There's a website I'd like you to visit.

http://www.gametalk.com/talk/spirituality/

Maybe someone else can get through that thick skull of yours.

 

[Good Luck]

Yes, using opinion is suspect. Using opinion has throughout history been found at fault. That what what I am saying.

What I am also saying is we should use a proven, unbiased, SCIENTIFIC definition of human to determine who deserves human rights.

All other cases are using opinion to deliberately deny human rights to selected groups of humans. Historically that has been shown to be morally corrupt.


And what exactly is it that determines who deserves human rights? Science only says we are all humans and skin color doesn't affect that. What determines if it's right or wrong to deny a certain group of people their equal rights? Moral opinion. Science doesn't say murder is wrong, it doesn't say it's right but we use our moral opinion to say it is wrong. Opinion has done both good and bad things and you shouldn't cast it out because some people make bad choices with them.

What gives a HUMAN the rights of a HUMAN is being HUMAN. Anything else is dependent on opinion. Opinion, as I keep pointing out, has been too often used to deprive humans of human rights. An unbiased approach - that all living humans deserve human rights - would avoid opinion being use to deprive human rights from human beings.

The topic is who deserves HUMAN rights. Talk about animal rights in a different thread.


YOU COMPARED ABORTION TO SLAVERY! Human rights and animal rights are a lot more alike than abortion/slavery. I have every right to compare animal life to human life! Animals are life too just like you or I. What gives us the right to kill them?!

No, I did not compare abortion to slavery. I pointed out that using opinion to determine who does and does not deserve human rights has led to things like slavery.

No, being at an earlier stage of development does NOT make them less human. Only by opinion can one claim a 3 week old human fetus is "less human" than a newborn infant.


Actually science will tell you that a 3 week old fetus is less of a human than a baby due to a little thing called development.

Read a biology text and get back to me on that. Species is determined by genetic heritage. A 2 week old fetus has a complete set of human chromosomes, and is therefore 100% human.

There are many adult humans who are dependent on life support. Are they less human?


But they are already developed.

Your defined "not developed enough" to be based on being dependent on life support.

Define "not developed enough" scientifically. Otherwise, explain in great detail why your opinion is more valid than those who use science to define a human being.


Not Developed Enough- No fully funtional brain, heart, lungs, skin, liver, kidneys yet. No awareness and no previous awareness of existance.

All of which occurs well before your arbitrary cut off of 7 months.

I was at one time, early in my development - about 61 years and 16 days ago, give or take a couple days. And I was no less human then than I am now. That is scientific fact, no matter how dehumanizing you wish to describe my status at the time.


So no matter what I say, you have the facts on your side and you are right? Period, end of debate? That sounds like someone who isn't clinging to technicallities and won't consider the other reasons to why people have abortions. I mean you already ignored the animal right thing I brought up and said it was off topic even though you compared abortion to slavery. Yeah, those are the same thing!

I ignored the animal thing because the topic is human rights. Other animals are NOT humans. Therefore do not deserve human rights. Want to argue we come out with some sort of "living things rights" we can debate that, too. But please use another thread, to keep this on on topic.

Whether you want to admit that development is an important factor or not doesn't matter. A 3 month old fetus or a 4 week old fetus or a pea size fetus or a 2 second old fetus are not the same thing as a 7 month or older fetus. Development in the womb is not the same thing as race(As much as your obvious non-opinion claims) If you aren't fully developed as a fetus then you are not a fully developed human. That makes you less of a human. And I consider the physical, mental, and finacial well-being of the mother a hell of a lot more than a 3 week old blob of undeveloped tissue that isn't aware of it's existance.

I understand fully. Scientific fact is not good enough for defining who gets human rights. Why? Because a definition based entirely on pure science does not allow us to exclude those we wish to exclude. You have every right to opine - in spite of scientific fact - that "undeveloped" humans are "less than human". (and, of course, let us also completely ignore the fact that the condition used to dehumanize the unborn are temporary.)

And I don't give a damn about "oh it's technically life so ha ha"

And there in lies the crux of the matter. Scientific fact is not good enough for you because it does not allow you to dehumanize the unborn. Your mind is made up, and no facts in the world are going to change it.

But I am the one with the "thick skull"?

RIIIGGGHHHT

 

[KingRaw!]

What gives a HUMAN the rights of a HUMAN is being HUMAN. Anything else is dependent on opinion. Opinion, as I keep pointing out, has been too often used to deprive humans of human rights. An unbiased approach - that all living humans deserve human rights - would avoid opinion being use to deprive human rights from human beings.


You are wrong. Being human only means you are a human. It doesn't mean you deserve human rights. It only means you are a human. It's moral opinion that decides whether or not all humans deserve rights not science. Science will only tell you that there's no physical or mental difference between whites and blacks. It's moral opinion that decides that. Opinion must be taken under as much importance as science or else we end up in the Twilight Zone. Your take is like the episode where the factory owner buys a super efficiant machine that replaces 60,000 jobs. It's a smart move logically because it makes more money for the company but there is no moral judgment whatsoever and you end up with 60,000 workers without a job. Science and business will make the owner look in the right because from a non-opinion stand, it's the smart thing to do. Now a world with no science and all opinion will lead to President Falwell and VP Coulter. There must be a healthy, responcible balance. Abortion is a morally tough standpoint especially for pro-lifers. We all agree with science that life technically begins at conception. There's no dispute with that. Science will also tell you that a 4 week old fetus is not fully developed enough to put in the same category as a 9 month old fetus. Yes both are human life but this is where the two sides differ. Pro-lifers use their moral opinion to judge that a 4 week old feutus is not the same thing as a newborn baby mainly because they have no fully developed brain or organs or any awareness whatsoever and they think in some cases that it is more responsible to have an abortion than keep it in an unready household or a finacial troublesome situation.



No, I did not compare abortion to slavery. I pointed out that using opinion to determine who does and does not deserve human rights has led to things like slavery.


Meaning you did compare abortion to slavery! And I'm pointing out that not granting animals the same right to life as we do other humans is the same attitude that the pro-slavery people had. What is the difference between animals and humans? We are different than them? We are superior to them? There you go! That's the same logic the pro-slavery people used so yes, I am comparing human life to animal life. Science will tell you that animals are living creatures that fell pain and fear just like us. Most of them are made up of the same things as us so I fail to see any real differernce between us that determines whether or not we should kill them.


Read a biology text and get back to me on that. Species is determined by genetic heritage. A 2 week old fetus has a complete set of human chromosomes, and is therefore 100% human.


If it were 100% human, then it would have a developed heart and brain.


Your defined "not developed enough" to be based on being dependent on life support.


No, if you read my definition then you will see that I said no such thing.


Not Developed Enough- No fully funtional brain, heart, lungs, skin, liver, kidneys yet. No awareness and no previous awareness of existance.


Hints the word yet and previous awareness of existance. I said no fully functional organs yet. That is a big difference. Previous awareness is also a big difference. For someone who has no opinion that matters, you sure do put the spin on what I say.


All of which occurs well before your arbitrary cut off of 7 months.


Point well made about the organs, but not about the awareness and previous awareness part. How does a 5 month old fetus have a pevious awareness of it's existance? Or any awareness whatsoever? The kicking thing is an involuntary thing. The fetus isn't awake inside the womb thinking to itself "Hey, I'm in something. Better try to kick myself out."


I ignored the animal thing because the topic is human rights. Other animals are NOT humans. Therefore do not deserve human rights. Want to argue we come out with some sort of "living things rights" we can debate that, too. But please use another thread, to keep this on on topic.


You just got down pro-choicers cases for not granting rights, but you are doing the exact same thing! Animals don't deserve rights because they are not human? You are doing the same thing as pro-slavery people did. Animals are different so they don't deserve any rights? You are a hypocrite for saying that.


And there in lies the crux of the matter. Scientific fact is not good enough for you because it does not allow you to dehumanize the unborn. Your mind is made up, and no facts in the world are going to change it.

But I am the one with the "thick skull"?

RIIIGGGHHHT


Again with the "Technically it's life" claim. 15 year old girls can get pregnant says science, but does that mean 15 year old girls should go get pregnant? No. Moral opinion will most likely tell you that it would be a very dumb idea and anyone who says "Hey, science says it's natural for girls that age to get pregnant so it's ok." isn't very smart. And it's obvious that your mind is made up no matter what other science I show you so yes,you do have a thick skull. Why else would you completely ignore my challenge to debate with other logical pro-choicers? Here's the site again.


http://www.gametalk.com/talk/spirituality/

 

[Good Luck]

You slide away from the argument with bullshit taken from your twilight zone.

Not once did I say morality has nothing to do with the decision. In fact, I am staing the exact opposite. It is IMMORAL to purposely exclude a class of humans from human rights based on the OPINION that they are "not human enough" to deserve those rights.

It was not moral to exclude blacks from human rights because of the OPINION that blacks are "not human enough". It was wrong to exclude Jews from human rights because of the opinion they were "not human enough". It was wrong to exclude Native Americans from human rights because of the OPINION that they were "not human enough."

Every time through human history, we have come to the AGREEMENT that ALL of those cases it was WRONG (ie IMMORAL) to exclude a class of human beings from basic human rights BASED ON OPINION. The LOGICAL conclusion is it is ALSO not MORAL to exclude the unborn from basic human rights based on the OPINION they are not human enough.


Again, animal rights have nothing to do with HUMAN rights. Ever wonder why they are called "HUMAN rights", as opposed to "living animal rights"? You want to talk about the moral principle of putting all animals on the same level as humans with regard to p[rotected basic rights, go ahead and start a thread on the topic. But trying to add animal rights to human rights as some kind of ridiculous extension of extending basic human rights to all living humans is pure unadulterated bullshit and you fucking well know it is pure bullshit. But pro-choicers always end up in the bullshit arena because they always run out of valid excuses for promoting the legal killing of unborn human children.

As to the rest of your diatribe, it is all pure strawman, I have never argued against the concept of morality. I am arguing against the IMMORALITY of deliberately excluding living humans from basic human rights based on opinion - especially when the opinion is controversial. Nor have you shown me any "other" science. You simply make false claims about "being less human" based on your own preconceptions which are at variance with what th science of biology says.

As for debating on other sites, I choose the sites I wish to debate on. Ignoring the other site you posted in no way indicates my willingness to debate a topic. It simply means I do not wish to spend the time to debate the same topic all over the web.