Abortion

Dixie said:
You're wrong, Apple. And I don't believe your story.

Biology defines what an organism is, and when it begins being an organism. We have no scientific debate or question regarding this. When a cell is reproduced, the process of life has been carried on. From that moment, a living organism exists. The organism may cease to carry on the process at any time after this, and it will never change the fact it was a living organism until it died. If it was a living organism, it can't be anything other than a living human organism. No one has made the argument that it is "equivalent to" any other living human organism, just that it is, in fact, a living human organism in the state of being. Or, a human being.

You can pretend that it's NOT a human being. You can redefine "being" to include sentience or brain function, or the ever-popular "personhood," but you can't say that science and biology support that it's not a living human organism. If it weren't a living human organism, there would be no need to "abort" it, there would be nothing to "abort" from. The fact that you advocate a process of "abortion" indicates something is in process, in this case, the process of life is happening. The organism exists and is carrying on the process, and you wish to "abort" that process.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised you don't believe my story. People have difficulty believing things that are alien to their way of thinking. High school biology requires nothing more than the ability to memorize which is why sitting in the library rather than in a class with people talking enabled me to study more efficiently.

As for, "The organism exists and is carrying on the process, and you wish to "abort" that process", the only process a woman wishes to abort (stop) is her involvement, her process. As I said before the woman wishes to have something removed from her body. If what is removed continues the process on it's own or through the help of others, fine. The woman simply wants the right to stop her involvement in the process.

It's like saying if you won't pay my monthly car lease that means you are stopping me from having a car. The point is you don't want to be involved in the process. You are not concerned with whether or not I have a car. The same applies to abortion. The woman has no animosity towards the fetus. She simply does not wish to contribute to the process and it's her body and her decision. If the "organism" or "human being" can not continue the process without the woman contributing the major effort (supplying nutrition, removing waste, her liver and kidneys and heart and blood all involved in the process including her most basic body metabolism) where the hell is the justice not to mention basic common sense?

Science can define anything any way it wishes. To say a dividing cell is a human being without knowing the contents of the cell and whether or not it contains the necessary material not to mention the ability to use those contents....it's silly. Really silly and devalues every other human being. Placing equal value on a clump of cells invisible to the naked eye to that of a twenty-something woman goes way beyond an insult. It is nothing short of vile regardless of what science wants to call it.
 
apple0154 said:
I'm not surprised you don't believe my story. People have difficulty believing things that are alien to their way of thinking. High school biology requires nothing more than the ability to memorize which is why sitting in the library rather than in a class with people talking enabled me to study more efficiently.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it because you seem to be completely clueless when it comes to basic biology.

As for, "The organism exists and is carrying on the process, and you wish to "abort" that process", the only process a woman wishes to abort (stop) is her involvement, her process. As I said before the woman wishes to have something removed from her body. If what is removed continues the process on it's own or through the help of others, fine. The woman simply wants the right to stop her involvement in the process.
Click to expand...

Can a woman also stop her involvement in the process when the baby is 3 months old and crying all night? No, she is obligated to care for the life she helped to create, and for her to neglect to do so, is a criminal offense.

It's like saying if you won't pay my monthly car lease that means you are stopping me from having a car.
Click to expand...

It's like that if stopping you from having a car stops you from living. However, most humans find they can live without a car.

The point is you don't want to be involved in the process. You are not concerned with whether or not I have a car. The same applies to abortion.
Click to expand...

Again, it WOULD apply, if abortion simply meant an unfortunate setback for the fetus, to which it likely would recover.

The woman has no animosity towards the fetus.
Click to expand...

nah... she just wants it to die.

She simply does not wish to contribute to the process and it's her body and her decision.
Click to expand...

She doesn't want it to continue living! Got it! Human rights only apply after you've lived past a certain stage of development, and before that arbitrary point, you have no human rights.

If the "organism" or "human being" can not continue the process without the woman contributing the major effort (supplying nutrition, removing waste, her liver and kidneys and heart and blood all involved in the process including her most basic body metabolism) where the hell is the justice not to mention basic common sense?
Click to expand...

Again, after a baby is born, it will require nutrition, waste removal, and physical attributes from other humans to care for it until it can care for itself. This may take years, but it's never considered okay to kill these humans.

Science can define anything any way it wishes.
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose it can, but it has defined a living organism and when one exists, and that is what is being debated here.

To say a dividing cell is a human being without knowing the contents of the cell and whether or not it contains the necessary material not to mention the ability to use those contents....it's silly.
Click to expand...

No, it's silly to use terms like "dividing cell" to describe cells that are reproducing and in the process of life. It's silly to try and construct impossible criteria from manipulating the definitions, in order to prop up what you want to do. Science and biology know, a fetus is a living human organism, in the process of living.

Really silly and devalues every other human being. Placing equal value on a clump of cells invisible to the naked eye to that of a twenty-something woman goes way beyond an insult. It is nothing short of vile regardless of what science wants to call it.
Click to expand...

You are the only one who keeps talking about "equal value" here. It is a human life, regardless of perception of value.
 
apple0154 said:
As you've stated we've been over this many times so I'll spare you a lengthy reply. If science wants to classify a reproducing cell or two cells, if you will, as a living organism and anti-abortionists want to run with that and claim it's a human being there's no hope for an intelligent conversation. As for ignorantly rejecting physics and biology I reject the absurd notion two cells or a reproducing cell is a human being. The average human being is composed of 10 trillion to 100 trillion cells (http://ask.yahoo.com/20020625.html) so to say 2 cells are equivalent morally, spiritually, physics-ly or biologically to a human being really doesn't deserve consideration. People, human beings, can classify anything any way they want and we've been over that before. (Recall the Grand Jury/ham sandwich era?)
Click to expand...

You may find it hard to believe that a one/two celled organism is a human being, but that does not change the fact that it is. It is simply at a lesser stage of maturity. Your own chimera example has provided evidence against your argument. It's obvious that your argument is faith-driven when you say that there's 'no hope for intelligent conversation' if your opponent makes a claim backed by every piece of credible science ever written on the subject in the history of the U.S. The Chimera argument is the only legitimate argument you've made, and it clearly does not prove that an unborn is not a person. The rest of your arguments amount to covering your ears and saying 'It's not a Human being' over and over.
 
Dixie said:
Can a woman also stop her involvement in the process when the baby is 3 months old and crying all night? No, she is obligated to care for the life she helped to create, and for her to neglect to do so, is a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

She most certainly can. She can take the baby to a government place and tell them she doesn’t want to look after it anymore. You actually think a woman would be forced to look after a child she didn’t want? Well, except for the weird ideas of anti-abortionists who insist a fetus is a baby and a woman should be forced to have it live inside her body.

She doesn't want it to continue living! Got it! Human rights only apply after you've lived past a certain stage of development, and before that arbitrary point, you have no human rights.
Click to expand...

Human rights apply to human beings. They aren’t just handed out to anything.

Again, after a baby is born, it will require nutrition, waste removal, and physical attributes from other humans to care for it until it can care for itself. This may take years, but it's never considered okay to kill these humans.
Click to expand...

There’s a difference between changing a diaper and having something hooked up to one’s body where the waste is filtered through their kidneys.

You are the only one who keeps talking about "equal value" here. It is a human life, regardless of perception of value.
Click to expand...

I’m the only one? Anti-abortionists have been talking about it for 40 years! Talking about how a clump of cells have a right to live inside a woman’s body against her will. Rather disgusting when one thinks about it. If government had the power to decide on what can live inside a woman’s body what else can they decide concerning a woman’s body?

Well, we know the answer to that, don’t we? And if you don’t pick up a history book.
 
WoLong said:
You may find it hard to believe that a one/two celled organism is a human being, but that does not change the fact that it is. It is simply at a lesser stage of maturity. Your own chimera example has provided evidence against your argument. It's obvious that your argument is faith-driven when you say that there's 'no hope for intelligent conversation' if your opponent makes a claim backed by every piece of credible science ever written on the subject in the history of the U.S. The Chimera argument is the only legitimate argument you've made, and it clearly does not prove that an unborn is not a person. The rest of your arguments amount to covering your ears and saying 'It's not a Human being' over and over.
Click to expand...

Regarding chimeras who can prove the liver with differing DNA came from a cell or cells that had the ability to become a human being? Why are there babies born with parts missing? If one fertilized cell can develp into a baby with parts missing it's reasonable to conclude there are other fertilized cells that don't develop at all due to too many missing parts. The point being until we know for sure we have no business messing with a woman's rights, assuming we have any business anyway.

Then there's the 50% of fertilized cells that we know spontaneously abort. Surely the most optimistic among us can conclude that maybe, just maybe, all fertilized cells are not human beings. Again, who knows?

The people covering their ears are the ones who insist every fertilized cell is a human being in the face of such contradictory evidence.
 
apple0154 said:
She most certainly can. She can take the baby to a government place and tell them she doesn’t want to look after it anymore. You actually think a woman would be forced to look after a child she didn’t want? Well, except for the weird ideas of anti-abortionists who insist a fetus is a baby and a woman should be forced to have it live inside her body.
Click to expand...

Why should she be obligated to take the baby to a government place? Can't she just dump it in a trash bin? She shouldn't be forced to look after a child she didn't want, right? No, you understand perfectly, after the baby is born and here, it IS a human being with human rights, it's just that you can't comprehend the organism is no different before it exits the womb, it's still a human being.

Human rights apply to human beings. They aren’t just handed out to anything.
Click to expand...

Again, if a fetus was "just anything" and not a living human organism, you'd have yourself a point here. The biological fact is, the fetus is a human being in the earliest stages of development. Facts don't care if you deny them.

There’s a difference between changing a diaper and having something hooked up to one’s body where the waste is filtered through their kidneys.
Click to expand...

No difference in the function of removing the waste, it is not done by the fetus just as it's not done by the baby. In both cases, another human has to be responsible for this, until the young human learns to do this on its own. Your argument falls apart here, because we can't say that having to discard its waste makes it not a human being. Not being able to care for itself, feed itself, sustain its own life, etc. None of this determines what it is. With all the people in the world who, as adults, are unable to care for themselves, your criteria sounds really frightening.

I’m the only one? Anti-abortionists have been talking about it for 40 years! Talking about how a clump of cells have a right to live inside a woman’s body against her will.
Click to expand...

Hold on a second... it's a living organism, not a clump of cells. And it exists inside the womb of a woman who, of her own free will, decided to engage in a particular activity which made this event possible. The fetus didn't arbitrarily select her womb to attach itself, against her will or regardless of her actions.

Rather disgusting when one thinks about it. If government had the power to decide on what can live inside a woman’s body what else can they decide concerning a woman’s body?
Click to expand...

Again, the woman made this decision when she engaged in the activity which caused the creation of a living organism inside her body. The government and anti-abortionists didn't make her have unprotected sex or not use birth control. The results of her choices resulted in a living human organism being created, and she should bear responsibility for that life.

Well, we know the answer to that, don’t we? And if you don’t pick up a history book.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of history. I am most concerned with history that involves denying human rights to human beings. Through the years, some people have used semantics and denial of science to render humans as "sub-human" in the same way you are rendering fetuses to this status. Blacks and women were not considered "equivalent" human beings, they were denied basic human rights, on the same criteria as you have established for fetuses.

A fetus is an unborn human being, it can't talk or speak out, it doesn't have a political voice. Yet it is the most innocent and precious life of all, completely free of sin or wrongdoing. It doesn't hate anybody, it doesn't know what hate is. All it requires, just as any newborn baby, is time, nutrition and environment, to develop into an adult human who can defend it's rights and speak out for itself. We have an obligation to defend it's rights before this, because we share species, and because we are moral and ethical creatures. Most of us are, anyway.
 
The Dude said:
Still only fat old white hillbillies against abortion!
Shocking
Click to expand...

I am not fat. 185 lbs. 5'11" and 6.25 inches = average.
I'm not old. I am actually 10 years younger than Jeff Bridges (The Dude)
I am not white. I am less "white" (European) than anything. I am Choctaw, Cherokee, Creole, Asian, Black Dutch.
I am not a hillbilly. I am a redneck. Hillbillies are from the Carolina's and West Virginia, in Alabama, we're Rednecks.

And I've not said that I am "against abortion." No debate has been engaged about that. We're still working on educating Apple in basic biology and science. I am on record as saying, we need to have this discussion as a society, we need to come together on what is "acceptable" and what is not, in how we live our daily lives, but we can't get to that reasoned discussion when we have to educate morons first. There are going to have to be some basic understandings on the table, when we have this discussion, because we can't have a reasonable discussion otherwise.

Women shouldn't have the "right" to kill their babies, but "rednecks" shouldn't have the right to protect every living human organism ever created 'cuz of gawd.' There IS a reasonable and ethical middle ground to this. But before we can have this debate, we have to come to the understanding we are discussing human life, and our justifications for terminating it should be compelling, because human life is important. As long as our society is filled with mindless nitwits like Apple, who refuse to acknowledge basic biological facts, and recognize the fetus as a living human organism, we can't have any kind of further debate about this.
 
Last edited:
The Dude said:
Dixie the racist Indian
As funny as the blind black racist
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not racist or Indian either.. so far you are batting .000

I am Choctaw and Cherokee, tribes of indigenous people.... Indians are from India.

It's not possible for me to have racist views because of my diverse heritage. You see, I can't ever pick a race to be superior, because whatever I pick, I am not 100% of that race. I can't ever pick one to be inferior, because I probably have some in me, so it's quite the dilemma. I've always found it best to avoid racial labels and stereotypes, but I understand your type has to constantly do this to feel adequate.
 
Dixie said:
Why should she be obligated to take the baby to a government place? Can't she just dump it in a trash bin? She shouldn't be forced to look after a child she didn't want, right? No, you understand perfectly, after the baby is born and here, it IS a human being with human rights, it's just that you can't comprehend the organism is no different before it exits the womb, it's still a human being.
Click to expand...

Let’s not go off track here. You wrote, “Can a woman also stop her involvement in the process when the baby is 3 months old and crying all night? No, she is obligated to care for the life she helped to create, and for her to neglect to do so, is a criminal offense.” And I responded, “She most certainly can. She can take the baby to a government place and tell them she doesn’t want to look after it anymore. You actually think a woman would be forced to look after a child she didn’t want? Well, except for the weird ideas of anti-abortionists who insist a fetus is a baby and a woman should be forced to have it live inside her body.”

So, in both cases she doesn’t want what you refer to as a baby and in both cases it is removed from her custody and in neither case does she throw it in a trash can nor insist on its death. It is not the woman’s fault some insist on calling a fetus a baby while knowing that implies the woman must look after it. She wants it removed from her custody and that’s her right.

No difference in the function of removing the waste, it is not done by the fetus just as it's not done by the baby. In both cases, another human has to be responsible for this, until the young human learns to do this on its own. Your argument falls apart here, because we can't say that having to discard its waste makes it not a human being. Not being able to care for itself, feed itself, sustain its own life, etc. None of this determines what it is. With all the people in the world who, as adults, are unable to care for themselves, your criteria sounds really frightening.
Click to expand...

My criteria sound frightening? Suppose you had a parent whose kidneys were failing and you had the same blood type. Would you support a law that insisted you be hooked up to your parent, via tubes, so your kidneys could filter their blood; replace a dialysis session? Say, every second night you and your mother or father were hooked up for the night, by tubes, while your parent’s blood was cleaned by your kidneys? Would a law like that be acceptable to you?

Hold on a second... it's a living organism, not a clump of cells. And it exists inside the womb of a woman who, of her own free will, decided to engage in a particular activity which made this event possible. The fetus didn't arbitrarily select her womb to attach itself, against her will or regardless of her actions.
Click to expand...

Here we go, again. The Right always talk about taking responsibility but when it comes to pregnancy they insist the woman do nothing. Let the chips fall where they may. In most cases it condemns the young woman to a life of poverty not to mention the hell the resulting child will grow up in but, hey, in these cases don’t do anything.

A fetus is an unborn human being, it can't talk or speak out, it doesn't have a political voice. Yet it is the most innocent and precious life of all, completely free of sin or wrongdoing. It doesn't hate anybody, it doesn't know what hate is. All it requires, just as any newborn baby, is time, nutrition and environment, to develop into an adult human who can defend it's rights and speak out for itself. We have an obligation to defend it's rights before this, because we share species, and because we are moral and ethical creatures. Most of us are, anyway.
Click to expand...

In that case let the anti-abortionists be consistent and logical and not support abortion in cases of faulty pregnancy. To agree to the idea a human being with a faulty body, the woman, has the right to kill “the most innocent and precious life of all, completely free of sin or wrongdoing” in order to save her life or avoid serious damage is the height of absurdity. It takes hypocrisy to a whole new level.

So, what gives? Are anti-abortionists really fraudulent hypocrites who believe in killing “the most innocent and precious life of all, completely free of sin or wrongdoing” so that a human being with a faulty body may live or avoid serious damage or are they sneaky, lying, deceitful people who plan on changing that custom/rule/law?

Enlighten us.
 
Darla said:
Brunette with golden highlights. I got it about two minutes after I posted that and was hoping no one would notice it. Yeah, it was pretty stupid...
Click to expand...

They measure, don't they, I always wondered and now we know that some males actually measure. Lmao
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top