The Issue of Abortion

[USFREEDOM911]

It is not egocentrism. It is refusing to bring a child into the world which would end up being neglected.

A human being does count. That's the point. Before bringing one into the world a person has to be sure they will look after it properly. That's the point.

As for proven science remember that DNA is one way to classify something. It can not determine if something is a human being. It can determine if the sample is human material so, please, let's put this nonsense to rest, once and for all. DNA can not determine if something is a human being.

As an example DNA can and would determine a fertilized chicken egg has the same DNA as a hatched chicken. Are they both chickens? Would you consider placing a chick (recently hatched chicken) in a hot skillet and attempt to scramble it? According to those who ramble on about DNA proving something is a human being maybe they would consider throwing a chick on a hot skillet and attempt to scramble it. That I couldn't tell you.

And once more, you appear to be suggesting that every aborted baby would have been neglected.
Your proof please.

 

[apple0154]

and control of our own body is one of the most inalienable freedoms we can have....
UNTIL that control you have over your own body has a profound, final, and sometimes fatal effect on anothers life....

Bravo, human beings do not live inside other human beings. Get real, man.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Of course, there was a time when killing Native Americans

Native Americans can think. They can suffer. They are capable of doing more than reflexively sucking nutrients out of their mothers blood supply.

So can the mothers, who you are forcing to suffer to relive the suffering of something that is incapable of suffering. It is pure evil on your part, with no purpose than the sadistic pleasure you get out of hurting mothers with no purpose.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And once more, you appear to be suggesting that every aborted baby would have been neglected.
Your proof please.

It doesn't matter if it would've been neglected or not. Fetuses are not people and there should be no questions asked about why the mother wants to abort them. I'm pro-abortion. It should be legal, cheap, and frequent.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

(How labeling the unborn as not human is any different than labeling any other group of humans as "not human" based on a selected attribute of the targeted group

Like the ability to do anything other than reflexively suck nutrients out of the mothers blood supply? Again, you are getting worked up over something that is nothing more than a glorified nutrient depleting mechanism. I am more saddened by the destruction of a calculator than the destruction of a fetus.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Keeping the argument in perspective: Less then 3% of all abortions occur due to rape/incest or life risk to the mother. All other abortions, more than 97%, are for convenience.

It's her business, not yours. If she wants to get rid of the glorified nutrient depleting mechanism attached to her because it was a full moon hallow's eve, it's not your fucking business.

 

[apple0154]

How labeling the unborn as not human is any different than labeling any other group of humans as "not human" based on a selected attribute of the targeted group is beyond me, but liberals are experts at double standards and hypocrisy.

Human beings do not live inside other human beings. Hardly a selected attribute.

Our culture and laws, indeed the very foundation of our society, is based on the understanding human beings are individuals. To force a woman to carry a pregnancy means she is obliged to share her body, her blood and organs, against her will.

Using another person's body against their will in such an intimate way is nothing less than vile and obnoxious. I can't even imagine how proponents of such a policy view their wives and sisters and daughters. In contrast, it makes being forced to wear a veil seem like a Sunday in the park.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

There was a time when the majority agreed that enslaving Blacks was acceptable. There was a time when killing my people out-of-hand was supported by the majority. In both cases the courts backed them up.

CLUE: The majority is not always right.

Gee, how profound. Of course it is not murder. Murder is, by definition, unlawful homicide; so since abortion is legal, it cannot be murder.

Of course, there was a time when killing Native Americans was not murder either. Would you have supported that back then, since the majority supported it? The biggest moral coward in existence is one who hides behind majority opinion to support the immoral.

One thing you cannot get away from (unless you lie and ignore established and proven science) abortion IS homicide. To date, it has been kept legal because of lies and a legal system that still claims the immoral right to disassociate desired groups of humans from protection of their human rights. (How labeling the unborn as not human is any different than labeling any other group of humans as "not human" based on a selected attribute of the targeted group is beyond me, but liberals are experts at double standards and hypocrisy.)

 

[apple0154]

your posts are idiocy....

That's a compliment when coming from you.

 

[apple0154]

And once more, you appear to be suggesting that every aborted baby would have been neglected.
Your proof please.

If someone does not want a child it's natural they are not going to look after it properly. Whether due to resentment or missed opportunities or whatever reason it has to affect how the child is raised.

Maybe the neglect isn't apparent. Maybe it doesn't happen 100% of the time but when it does it has a lasting effect on the child and the adult the child eventually becomes.

The point is there's no reason for it. Life is tough enough without bringing a child into the world and neglecting it in any fashion. Parenthood is difficult enough without having to deal with a child that is not 100% wanted.

Haven't we seen enough kids who were neglected/ignored? Why would anyone want to add to that?

 

[NOVA]

Bravo, human beings do not live inside other human beings. Get real, man.

In the case of your birth, I can believe that....Thats a post I can live with...You finally make a statement that undeniably confirms you're as stupid as a rock.

So thats the latest from the Apple Science School of Advanced Moronism....

 

[apple0154]

In the case of your birth, I can believe that....

So thats the latest from the Apple Science School of Advanced Moronism....

I'm sure you'll feel better after a breakfast of scrambled chickens.

 

[Good Luck]

Human beings do not live inside other human beings. Hardly a selected attribute.

Yes, they do, for a short while. Your continued denial of the biological facts of basic reproduction in mammals just continues to demonstrate what a lying, willfully stupid hypocrite you are. As for "selected attribute" that is EXACTLY what you are doing: selecting an attribute unique to the unborn and using that attribute to lie about their humanity. It is functionally no different than using skin color, which is also a demonstrable difference between races - and which WAS used, quite successfully, for a large number of years.

Our culture and laws, indeed the very foundation of our society, is based on the understanding human beings are individuals.

And history shows that those who enjoy the benefits of this philosophy have always been limited to those whom society approves of as being "real" humans, no matter what lies the people have to tell themselves and others to justify excluding their targeted group. You are doing nothing less than continuing the injustice of selecting which humans enjoy their rights according to opinion of who deserves them more. LIFE is, by far, the most important of basic unalienable rights. Pregnancy lasts approximately 9 months. Death lasts forever. Yet you support giving the unborn a death penalty for their "crime" of existing.

Using another person's body against their will in such an intimate way is nothing less than vile and obnoxious.

The unborn exist not because of THEIR choice, but because of the choices made by their parent(s). To attribute their existence as "vile and obnoxious" because the mother is so subhuman as to not want the life growing inside her is, itself, vile and disgusting beyond comprehension.

As for my wife and daughter, both of them being mothers, oppose legal abortion at least as passionately, if not more so, than I do. Your insinuation, as well as the outright claims from others, that men are happily engaging in the subjugation of women by opposing legal abortion is but one more pro-abortionist lie.

But then, all pro-abortionists have is lies.

 

[Good Luck]

I'm sure you'll feel better after a breakfast of scrambled chickens.

Anyone who continues to insist on equating avian reproduction with mammalian reproduction go beyond willful ignorance into the realm of outright deliberate dishonesty. ie: NOONE is so outright STUPID as to believe two completely different forms of reproduction can be used as analogy to support their claims that the unborn are not human. Yet such arguments, based on the absolute denial of basic biological science is a large part of the foundation on which the defense of legal abortion rests.

It is sadly pathetic how our society continues to embrace injustice in the name of personal rights, disregarding the rights of those we literally kill to advance our own selfish (or worse, self-righteous) agenda.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, they do, for a short while. Your continued denial of the biological facts of basic reproduction in mammals just continues to demonstrate what a lying, willfully stupid hypocrite you are. As for "selected attribute" that is EXACTLY what you are doing: selecting an attribute unique to the unborn and using that attribute to lie about their humanity. It is functionally no different than using skin color, which is also a demonstrable difference between races - and which WAS used, quite successfully, for a large number of years.

Perhaps your life experiences have been different than mine but I have to say I've never had another human being insist on using my internal body parts for support. As for 'selected attribute" if I came across another human being whose "attribute" was using the internal body parts of another human being I'd probably treat it the same way as a fetus.

And history shows that those who enjoy the benefits of this philosophy have always been limited to those whom society approves of as being "real" humans, no matter what lies the people have to tell themselves and others to justify excluding their targeted group. You are doing nothing less than continuing the injustice of selecting which humans enjoy their rights according to opinion of who deserves them more. LIFE is, by far, the most important of basic unalienable rights. Pregnancy lasts approximately 9 months. Death lasts forever. Yet you support giving the unborn a death penalty for their "crime" of existing.

Ever heard the saying, "Live free or die"? I have to conclude you are opposed to such sentiment if you believe a woman does not have the ultimate right to her body.

The unborn exist not because of THEIR choice, but because of the choices made by their parent(s). To attribute their existence as "vile and obnoxious" because the mother is so subhuman as to not want the life growing inside her is, itself, vile and disgusting beyond comprehension.

The parent's choice is whether to bring a human being into the world and many make the sensible choice not to do so. Of course there are those who demand pregnancies be brought to term only to turn around and say the human being that results is on their own. They have to make their own way in life. No one owes them anything.

Yep, a real caring attitude.

 

[apple0154]

Anyone who continues to insist on equating avian reproduction with mammalian reproduction go beyond willful ignorance into the realm of outright deliberate dishonesty. ie: NOONE is so outright STUPID as to believe two completely different forms of reproduction can be used as analogy to support their claims that the unborn are not human. Yet such arguments, based on the absolute denial of basic biological science is a large part of the foundation on which the defense of legal abortion rests.

It is sadly pathetic how our society continues to embrace injustice in the name of personal rights, disregarding the rights of those we literally kill to advance our own selfish (or worse, self-righteous) agenda.

To what biological facts/science are you referring? If DNA, then my "equating" was correct. If a fetus is a human being then a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken and a tomato seed is a tomato.

I did a Google in hopes it might help in your understanding.

"Don't count your chickens until they're hatched" means that you can hope certain things happen in the future, but you cannot know for sure that they will happen until they actually do happen. Example: "Do you think that Bill is going to offer you a promotion this month?" Reply: "I won't count my chickens until they have hatched." "Chickens" start out as eggs, and you can count the eggs, but not all of the eggs will hatch to become chickens." Don't count your chickens until they've hatched" means don't make plans based on something happening until that thing has already happened. Example: "Next Friday I will finally be able to pay you back that money I owe you." Reply: "Ha. I won't count my chickens until they have hatched." "Don't count your chickens until they've hatched" means that you should not count on something happening until you are sure that it will happen." (Emphasis added)

Over 50% of fertilized human eggs spontaneously abort so to imply they are all human beings is what's "stupid", to use your term.

Again, read the Google. I can't state it any clearer. As well as the bolded part take special note of "Don't count your chickens until they've hatched" means don't make plans based on something happening until that thing has already happened."

 

[NOVA]

Perhaps your life experiences have been different than mine but I have to say I've never had another human being insist on using my internal body parts for support. As for 'selected attribute" if I came across another human being whose "attribute" was using the internal body parts of another human being I'd probably treat it the same way as a fetus.

You need to take all that up with your God or whoever or whatever you think is responsible for how reproduction works in humans and for that matter in all placental mammal species that give birth to live young. Your life experiences are less than irrelevant.

Ever heard the saying, "Live free or die"? I have to conclude you are opposed to such sentiment if you believe a woman does not have the ultimate right to her body.
The moral question is, does she have the ultimate right to another life even though she has control of that life. and if she does, why rescind that right at birth...she still has control over that life.

But the law has already spoken on that and says she does....that issue is settled.


The parent's choice is whether to bring a human being into the world and many make the sensible choice not to do so. Of course there are those who demand pregnancies be brought to term only to turn around and say the human being that results is on their own. They have to make their own way in life. No one owes them anything.

Yep, a real caring attitude.

Wrong again....
It isn't "the parents choice"....its the womens choice, she is God in this...the father is less than nothing unless it becomes a money issue.

 

[Good Luck]

To what biological facts/science are you referring? If DNA, then my "equating" was correct. If a fetus is a human being then a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken and a tomato seed is a tomato.

I did a Google in hopes it might help in your understanding.

"Don't count your chickens until they're hatched" means that you can hope certain things happen in the future, but you cannot know for sure that they will happen until they actually do happen. Example: "Do you think that Bill is going to offer you a promotion this month?" Reply: "I won't count my chickens until they have hatched." "Chickens" start out as eggs, and you can count the eggs, but not all of the eggs will hatch to become chickens." Don't count your chickens until they've hatched" means don't make plans based on something happening until that thing has already happened. Example: "Next Friday I will finally be able to pay you back that money I owe you." Reply: "Ha. I won't count my chickens until they have hatched." "Don't count your chickens until they've hatched" means that you should not count on something happening until you are sure that it will happen." (Emphasis added)

Over 50% of fertilized human eggs spontaneously abort so to imply they are all human beings is what's "stupid", to use your term.

Again, read the Google. I can't state it any clearer. As well as the bolded part take special note of "Don't count your chickens until they've hatched" means don't make plans based on something happening until that thing has already happened."

LOL What is stupid is your continued abuse of science to support your lies. Want to talk about chickens, start another thread. Chickens are not humans. Sorry to bust your bubble of delusions about that. Nor is an egg a chicken - even a fertilized egg. But the embryo which is attached to the yolk in a fertilized egg IS a chicken - at an early stage of development. Basic biology - of which you are either profoundly ignorant, or a full blown liar. (I have trouble believing anyone can be as totally ignorant of basic science as you purport to be with your various claims and analogies.)

ALL humans die eventually. The fact that many die, NATURALLY, before birth in no way diminishes what they are BEFORE they die: unique, living organisms of the species homo sapiens. That is the scientific fact of it. The use of DNA is but one part of the definition of a living human. Your focus on DNA as if it is the only measure just enhances the scope of your ignorance. (or lies)

Nor does the fact that humans die naturally equate to justification for killing them at will. Over half of those with pancreatic cancer die from it. Does that mean we should just kill them all? While it was essentially predictable this one would surface eventually (it almost always does), this is but one of the pathetic - and frankly quite despicable - pro-abortion arguments.

And I strongly suggest you refrain from expressing your inhuman philosophy near a woman who has miscarried despite trying everything medically possible to keep him - she is liable to rip your black lying heart from your chest and feed it to you.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The only point of banning abortion is to hurt people. It's the same reason Conservative monsters support the death penalty. There's more suffering this way, and that entertains them. Conservatives oppose abortion because the thought of women suffering and hurting entertains them.

 

[Good Luck]

Perhaps your life experiences have been different than mine but I have to say I've never had another human being insist on using my internal body parts for support. As for 'selected attribute" if I came across another human being whose "attribute" was using the internal body parts of another human being I'd probably treat it the same way as a fetus.

Being a man, I am not designed for that job. (Women really have one up on men in that they CAN experience that ultimate act of bringing a new life into being.)

However, YOU existed for 9 months on the biological/reproductive functions of your mother. EVERY HUMAN BEING ON THIS PLANET DID SO. Of course, it is a temporary attribute that never repeats itself in the lifetime of that particular individual, but it is a real attribute, and common to all of us. So why don't you go look in a mirror and treat away?

(Or were you born? Perhaps you developed in the slime under an old toilet?)

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The only point of banning abortion is to hurt people. It's the same reason Conservative monsters support the death penalty. There's more suffering this way, and that entertains them. Conservatives oppose abortion because the thought of women suffering and hurting entertains them.

dude....the only point of aborting a fetus is to kill it.....and while it amused me to see liberals suffer through this month's elections, it wasn't enough to sustain me an entire year......I will admit that watching you struggle to come up with valid arguments helps......