Abortion

apple0154 said:
So your main concern is not human life. It is the "degree" of human life. The "amount" of human life. The quantity. The measure. Pick a word. Human life, to you, has varying degrees of value. Otherwise, you would be equally against an abortion at six days or six weeks or six months.
Click to expand...

Maybe you aren't hearing me, I AM AGAINST ABORTION AT 6 DAYS OR 6 MONTHS, or 6 MINUTES! My personal stance hasn't changed. It's still the taking of innocent human life, and unfortunate. It's still a choice I would never make, that hasn't changed. It still has value and is every bit as much human as any other time, that hasn't changed. The difference, as I said, is stage of development, sentience, awareness, and ability to distinguish pain. I can accept that adult humans should have the right to make their own moral decision regarding a human life that has not developed to a certain point, I don't agree with that option, I wouldn't personally make that decision, but I am tolerant enough to allow the decision for others who may feel differently, in that limited circumstance.



You raise a number of points. First, abortion is not killing a human being.
Click to expand...

Yes, it most certainly IS. You can fool yourself into thinking something else, but the fetus is a living human organism in the state of being, it is a human being. Abortion is the willful termination (killing) of that human being.

It's preventing a potential/possible human being from unnecessary suffering.
Click to expand...

No, it's already a human being at point of conception, nothing else happens to make it human life. There is also absolutely NO WAY to determine the outcome of ANY human life before it is born. Many great and successful people rose from poverty and miserable conditions, overcame all sorts of adversity and hardship. I would say the vast majority of these people are glad they weren't subjected to abortion. "Preventing potential suffering" is a scary and dangerous criteria for ending human life. Civilized people don't do this. It's actually akin to eugenics.

Honestly, I skipped the rest of your long-winded stupidity, you need to learn to distill your idiotic thoughts more, so I can read them without becoming too pissed off to reply.
 
Still waiting! :awesome:


Taichiliberal said:
Bottom line: Are YOU going to raise that kid? Are YOU going to give tax dollars to support orphanages, foster home facilities, day care centers? Are you advocating for free colleges so these kids can get a decent education and be productive members of society? Are YOU advocating to treat birth control and contraception in our educational system and at our local pharmacies with the same reverence this society holds for sports and car ownership? More-to-the-point, are YOU willing to back laws that BAN abortions and prosecute anyone who has one?

Please answer the questions logically and (if possible) based in fact, because philosophical/religious rhetoric doesn't cut it in the real world.
Click to expand...
 
Anti-Party said:
I personally think Abortion is the Left's biggest flaw overall.

But after talking to the Right Wing and telling them they don't have to listen to their media and you CAN be a smart Conservative and getting spit in my face, I'm about to justify Abortion and stand with the Blacks and Gays on the grudge train. Because heaven forbid I disagree with Fox News on a point that specific lighters aren't anything at all like a fkin gun.
Click to expand...

That is so principled of you. You really seem to have a hard on for Fox News. I don't watch them myself, but you seem to have a problem with them. Did they air nekkid pictures of you or something?
 
Dixie said:
Maybe you aren't hearing me, I AM AGAINST ABORTION AT 6 DAYS OR 6 MONTHS, or 6 MINUTES! My personal stance hasn't changed. It's still the taking of innocent human life, and unfortunate. It's still a choice I would never make, that hasn't changed. It still has value and is every bit as much human as any other time, that hasn't changed. The difference, as I said, is stage of development, sentience, awareness, and ability to distinguish pain. I can accept that adult humans should have the right to make their own moral decision regarding a human life that has not developed to a certain point, I don't agree with that option, I wouldn't personally make that decision, but I am tolerant enough to allow the decision for others who may feel differently, in that limited circumstance.

Yes, it most certainly IS. You can fool yourself into thinking something else, but the fetus is a living human organism in the state of being, it is a human being. Abortion is the willful termination (killing) of that human being.

No, it's already a human being at point of conception, nothing else happens to make it human life. There is also absolutely NO WAY to determine the outcome of ANY human life before it is born. Many great and successful people rose from poverty and miserable conditions, overcame all sorts of adversity and hardship. I would say the vast majority of these people are glad they weren't subjected to abortion. "Preventing potential suffering" is a scary and dangerous criteria for ending human life. Civilized people don't do this. It's actually akin to eugenics.

Honestly, I skipped the rest of your long-winded stupidity, you need to learn to distill your idiotic thoughts more, so I can read them without becoming too pissed off to reply.
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't want to piss you off.

If I may make an observation I'd say your pissed off attitude is due to cognitive dissonance: Cognitive dissonance is a state of mental conflict and that's certainly evident in your first paragraph, specifically, "I can accept that adult humans should have the right to make their own moral decision regarding a human life that has not developed to a certain point,..."

A human life that's just a little bit less human is what you're implying. You think you're taking the moral high road by saying there is a human being at conception and then negating or qualifying that by stipulating a certain point.

I hope this reply wasn't too long-winded for you. :)
 
apple0154 said:
A human life that's just a little bit less human is what you're implying. You think you're taking the moral high road by saying there is a human being at conception and then negating or qualifying that by stipulating a certain point.
Click to expand...

No, I am implying no such thing, and repeatedly telling you straight up, that this is not what I am implying, while explaining in great detail why this is not what I am implying, and you just keep on claiming this is what I am implying. I've said not one single solitary word about the human life being "less human." You'll not find that in my remarks. I've continually pointed out that the life is always human and doesn't change from point of conception, and that my personal moral view is opposed to ANY abortion for ANY reason.

I've also noted that I am tolerant enough to understand I live in a society where everyone doesn't agree with my personal moral view, nor should I expect them to. In that regard, I am willing to accept, in society, abortion on a very limited scale, when the human organism has not developed to a certain stage. My acceptance of this, does not mean I advocate it or support it, but rather, I am tolerant of it for the sake of accommodating others who don't share my personal moral view. I'm still opposed personally, to first trimester abortion, it's still a human life. I still believe it is morally wrong to have an abortion, even in the first trimester, even in the case of rape or incest. I still believe it is the taking of innocent human life, that hasn't changed.
 
007 said:
If the fanatical left would agree on a specific point where life begins, the abortion issue could easily be resolved.

With beliefs ranging from 12 weeks pregnant until 3 or more days after the infant is fully delivered and no liberal prepared to draw a line and say, here! This is where life begins.
Clarity is needed!
Click to expand...


Birth. It's as clear as that. The only reason for the "confusion" is people trying to do what Santorum tried when debating Ms. Boxer and making a complete ass of himself when trying to define the exact moment a birth takes place. When addressing partial birth abortion he wanted to know if/when the entire body of the fetus is outside the mother except for a toe being caught if that would be considered a birth. Of course such a question is nonsense as when a partial birth abortion takes place the fetus exits the vagina feet first. A toe can't get caught when the rest of the body is outside the woman's body because the toes are the first thing to come out when a partial birth abortion takes place.

You see, it's crap like that that's meant to confuse the issue. It asks a question based on a faulty premise. It assumes something that is impossible and then questions it. People like Santorum deliberately confound the issue by presenting scenarios that aren't possible. They deliberately put ideas in the minds of people who don't know the facts. A person unfamiliar with partial birth abortion may go away wondering, "Yea, what about that? What if only the toe is still inside the woman/vagina?"

If anyone ever had an elderly family member die in hospital they know the doctors didn't do an EEG before pronouncing death. The doctor didn't write "breathing stopped at 10:15 pm, the heart stopped at 10:17 pm, the brain showed no activity after..... The time of death is written somewhere between 10:15 and 10:17. Most likely 10:15 if the doctor was present at that time.

Birth, death, everything is a process or a progression, be it a few seconds or a few minutes. Even when things that happen in an "instant", such as a car accident, if it was on video it can be played in slow motion showing one event follows another. Events that happen fairly rapidly are classified together. We say lightening struck a building. We do not detail the electrical charge, the current traveling through the air, etc., etc. but people like Santorum badger others with nonsense and, in this case, merely highlight their ignorance.

People will say, "There's a new addition to the family. My daughter had a baby." They do NOT say, "There's a new addition to the family. My daughter is 3 months pregnant."

What needs to be clarified is the language on the side of the anti-abortionists. A conception is no more a human being than a egg is a chicken or an acorn is an oak tree. DNA is ONE way to define/classify something, certainly not the only way. To paraphrase Eddie Albert in "The Longest Yard", "What we have here is a problem to communicate." Is it any wonder pro-choice folks have difficulty communicating with those who insist squirrels bury oak trees?
 
A conception is no more a human being than a egg is a chicken or an acorn is an oak tree.
Click to expand...

This is where you are absolutely wrong, incorrect, inaccurate, and have no scientific, biological, or logical support for your argument. Eggs and acorns are not unique living organisms, unless the egg was fertilized and begins growing into a chicken, or the acorn falls from the tree and begins growing into an oak tree. At that point, these are unique living organisms. A human liver is not a unique living organism, and it will never be one, it's biologically impossible for this to happen. A fetus is a unique living human organism in the state of being, or a "human being." It is at the earliest stage of development and will continue to develop and grow until such time it ceases to be a living organism.

Now, if we are having an argument over what is currently legal in America, and allowed by the Courts as a matter of Constitutional Law, then it's a nonsensical argument, because the law is verifiable by everyone. You continue to think parading this around is "proof" of something, and it's not, it's just what the law currently says. The Court and the Law have been historically wrong a number of times, like when they deemed black people were property and not people, or when they relegated women to sub-human status. The same can be said for the rights of the unborn. What is fascinating to me, is how LIBERALS (of all people) can't find the balls to stand up for the most innocent and precious human lives of all. You'll defiantly stand up for the rights of gays, blacks, women, Hispanics, illegal aliens, terrorists, but not the unborn.
 
Dixie said:
This is where you are absolutely wrong, incorrect, inaccurate, and have no scientific, biological, or logical support for your argument. Eggs and acorns are not unique living organisms, unless the egg was fertilized and begins growing into a chicken, or the acorn falls from the tree and begins growing into an oak tree. At that point, these are unique living organisms.
Click to expand...

People who live on family farms eat fertilized chicken eggs. We've been over this before. They virtually all have a rooster to keep the chickens happy. (I hope I don't have to explain the rationale behind that!) In those cases one does not say they had scrambled chickens for breakfast. A squirrel will still eat/store a recently germinated acorn. We do not say the squirrel is eating an oak tree.

A human liver is not a unique living organism, and it will never be one, it's biologically impossible for this to happen. A fetus is a unique living human organism in the state of being, or a "human being." It is at the earliest stage of development and will continue to develop and grow until such time it ceases to be a living organism.
Click to expand...

As for a human liver it has the same DNA as the unique living organism. Exactly the same. Obviously, you never watched or understood the video I posted in Msg. #366. On top of the DNA there sits small chemical tags that instruct the gene/DNA to do certain things AND the mother can send signals that tell the chemical tag to activate the gene. Do you understand what is being said and implied here? The mother can send signals to tell a cell to grow a certain way. Every cell has the necessary DNA to be any part of the human body. That means, in theory and with the right instructions, a liver cell could “build” a human body.

Do you understand what I’m saying? There is no magic cell that makes a human body a human being. Whatever it takes to make something a human being is present in the DNA of every cell. Something turns the cell on (no, I’m not talking about that kind of “turn-on”) and we know the mother can turn on certain cells by turning on certain genes. Taking that into consideration just how independent and separate is a fetus?

Now, if we are having an argument over what is currently legal in America, and allowed by the Courts as a matter of Constitutional Law, then it's a nonsensical argument, because the law is verifiable by everyone. You continue to think parading this around is "proof" of something, and it's not, it's just what the law currently says. The Court and the Law have been historically wrong a number of times, like when they deemed black people were property and not people, or when they relegated women to sub-human status. The same can be said for the rights of the unborn. What is fascinating to me, is how LIBERALS (of all people) can't find the balls to stand up for the most innocent and precious human lives of all. You'll defiantly stand up for the rights of gays, blacks, women, Hispanics, illegal aliens, terrorists, but not the unborn.
Click to expand...

I’m not arguing what’s legal. What I am arguing is you want to take a classification system/procedure, one that 10 short years ago was used to justify taking a woman’s biological children “proving” they were not her children, and using that same classification system/procedure to strip a woman of her most basic right. That clearly shows the complete and utter disregard, if not contempt, you have for women. And children.

As for standing up for people’s rights that’s exactly what I’m doing. I’m standing against the absurd idea, the nothing short of vile suggestion, that a clump of human material has any right or authority to challenge a woman’s rights. I’m standing up (well, actually sitting down right now) against people who despise women to such a degree they not only want to shove probes in their vaginas but devalue their life to that of a clump of cells the contents and capabilities of which science knows so little using a form of classification that has resulted in a woman having to have witnesses in the delivery room when she gave birth so as to prove the conclusion arrived at by using said classification was wrong. That may be a run-on sentence but no sentence can run on long enough to adequately express my outrage at such an atrocity. Vile, disgusting. An act of barbarism committed by one sex against another and the Governor of New York is trying his best to prevent such hideous practices and other perverted ideas from taking root by leaving abortion decisions solely up to the woman and her doctor.

Now there’s a man we can all be proud of.
 
apple0154 said:
People who live on family farms eat fertilized chicken eggs. We've been over this before. They virtually all have a rooster to keep the chickens happy. (I hope I don't have to explain the rationale behind that!) In those cases one does not say they had scrambled chickens for breakfast. A squirrel will still eat/store a recently germinated acorn. We do not say the squirrel is eating an oak tree.



As for a human liver it has the same DNA as the unique living organism. Exactly the same. Obviously, you never watched or understood the video I posted in Msg. #366. On top of the DNA there sits small chemical tags that instruct the gene/DNA to do certain things AND the mother can send signals that tell the chemical tag to activate the gene. Do you understand what is being said and implied here? The mother can send signals to tell a cell to grow a certain way. Every cell has the necessary DNA to be any part of the human body. That means, in theory and with the right instructions, a liver cell could “build” a human body.

Do you understand what I’m saying? There is no magic cell that makes a human body a human being. Whatever it takes to make something a human being is present in the DNA of every cell. Something turns the cell on (no, I’m not talking about that kind of “turn-on”) and we know the mother can turn on certain cells by turning on certain genes. Taking that into consideration just how independent and separate is a fetus?



I’m not arguing what’s legal. What I am arguing is you want to take a classification system/procedure, one that 10 short years ago was used to justify taking a woman’s biological children “proving” they were not her children, and using that same classification system/procedure to strip a woman of her most basic right. That clearly shows the complete and utter disregard, if not contempt, you have for women. And children.

As for standing up for people’s rights that’s exactly what I’m doing. I’m standing against the absurd idea, the nothing short of vile suggestion, that a clump of human material has any right or authority to challenge a woman’s rights. I’m standing up (well, actually sitting down right now) against people who despise women to such a degree they not only want to shove probes in their vaginas but devalue their life to that of a clump of cells the contents and capabilities of which science knows so little using a form of classification that has resulted in a woman having to have witnesses in the delivery room when she gave birth so as to prove the conclusion arrived at by using said classification was wrong. That may be a run-on sentence but no sentence can run on long enough to adequately express my outrage at such an atrocity. Vile, disgusting. An act of barbarism committed by one sex against another and the Governor of New York is trying his best to prevent such hideous practices and other perverted ideas from taking root by leaving abortion decisions solely up to the woman and her doctor.

Now there’s a man we can all be proud of.
Click to expand...

Your initial assertion is one of ignorance, so the rest of your diatribe is already stained with your stupidity.

People who live on farms DO NOT eat fertilized chicken eggs.
Eggs are candled and the fertilized ones are not eaten.
 
apple0154 said:
People who live on family farms eat fertilized chicken eggs. We've been over this before. They virtually all have a rooster to keep the chickens happy. (I hope I don't have to explain the rationale behind that!) In those cases one does not say they had scrambled chickens for breakfast. A squirrel will still eat/store a recently germinated acorn. We do not say the squirrel is eating an oak tree.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about what people on farms eat or what squirrels do. We are talking about living organisms and when they exist. Biological facts don't have to make sense to you, they are still biological facts.

As for a human liver it has the same DNA as the unique living organism. Exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, but human life and living organisms are not defined by DNA, you've made this argument yourself. Now you want to run back to DNA to support your argument? Wow, talk about desperation time? DNA is Deoxyribonucleic acid, it is a molecule which contains the genetic coding for every living organism and some viruses. The only thing the presence of DNA signifies, is that something is from a living organism or virus. The liver is from a living organism.

Obviously, you never watched or understood the video I posted in Msg. #366. On top of the DNA there sits small chemical tags that instruct the gene/DNA to do certain things AND the mother can send signals that tell the chemical tag to activate the gene. Do you understand what is being said and implied here? The mother can send signals to tell a cell to grow a certain way. Every cell has the necessary DNA to be any part of the human body. That means, in theory and with the right instructions, a liver cell could “build” a human body.
Click to expand...

No, a human liver could never "build" anything other than more liver cells. In fact, the liver itself, is incapable of doing this without the host organism, because the liver is not a living organism. You are very confused. Stop watching YouTube videos and pick up a Biology book.

Do you understand what I’m saying? There is no magic cell that makes a human body a human being.
Click to expand...

No, there are TWO cells, the egg cell and the sperm sell. When they fuse and begin reproducing cells, they have met the criteria of a unique living organism. That organism is a human being.

I’m not arguing what’s legal. What I am arguing is you want to take a classification system/procedure, one that 10 short years ago was used to justify taking a woman’s biological children “proving” they were not her children, and using that same classification system/procedure to strip a woman of her most basic right. That clearly shows the complete and utter disregard, if not contempt, you have for women. And children.
Click to expand...

I am the one defending the unborn human. I am not taking any "classification system" and doing anything with it. I am taking basic biology and our scientific understanding of living organisms, and trying to educate your stupid ass.

As for standing up for people’s rights that’s exactly what I’m doing.
Click to expand...

No, you simply aren't. You continue to deny the fetus is even a living organism.

I’m standing against the absurd idea, the nothing short of vile suggestion, that a clump of human material has any right or authority to challenge a woman’s rights.
Click to expand...

But it's not an absurd idea or vile suggestion the "clump of human material" is a living human organism in the state of being, or a human being. You want to keep denying this simple biological fact, in order to bestow upon women, the right to take the life of another human being. It's interesting to note, not too long ago, some people made your very same argument against people with black skin, they were not considered to be anything more than clumps of human material, in fact, they weren't even given the dignity of being called "human." They certainly didn't have the same "rights" as white people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top