Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And here we all assumed us right winger's were the religious nuts!
The abortion issue...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
No...I don't assume that at all. You've got some in your party, but most of them are just like you. Self-satisfied, self-satisfying, hedonistic, holier-than-thou, judgemental, hypocritical, jerk-offs.
Which I think Care did a good job of showing in this thread.
I've quite enjoyed it! And thanks for your part in it Dixie, because as Care points out, it does take two.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
no one arguing with you on this thread has said they are not human but you keep trying to say they are denying this...so why do you keep stressing this point?
Ahemmm!!! Excuse me???
"On the other hand, the notion that a 10 week fetus isn't a fully developed human being is not absurd on its face. Indeed, many of us find the position that it is so to be absurd." --Ornut
"Perhaps some of us never fully achieved humanity Ornot ?" --uscidiot
"My position is that there is a clearly and easily defined destinction between a fetus and a baby." --Ornut
"Yes. That's right. A fetus is not a human being with rights." --Lady T
(which you responded to with the eagle egg example, yesterday when you were speaking out of the other side of your mouth, against abortion.)
"As far as I know people/citizens don't require the host body of another human being to live."-- LadyT
"Not every living organism of the species homo sapiens sapien is a person. Witness Terri Schiavo, for example. Similarly, a fetus is not a fully developed, complete individual person."-- Ornut
"There are distinct differences between a zygote, an embryo, a fetus and a baby."--Ornut
"Because the putative rights of a clump of cells are more important than the freedom and happiness of a living woman."--- Ornut
"It seems to me that you want to treat a fetus as an unborn child."-- Ornut
Now Care, I know you are intelligent enough to read these comments in this thread and understand what was said. Let's not try to defend the indefensible, or play it off as if they never said these things, okay? This is the same twisted logic and perspective we always hear from pro-abortionists like Ornut... it's just a clump of cells... it's not a human yet... it hasn't obtained 'personhood'! It is the paramount example of denial and refusal to accept science and biological fact.
At least you were honest enough to admit you find no value in the most innocent human lives among us. And I am sure God is proud of you for that....(not)
And what I was trying to say on the religious realm of this subject...
I've already told you, there can't be a religious argument with this issue, your religious beliefs vary from others, and you interpret the Bible completely different than I do, so there is no room for religion in this debate, let's stick to science and general moral ethics, and leave religion out of it. My personal belief, and the belief of many others who oppose abortion on religious grounds, is that God made it very concise and clear about respecting human life He created, and there is no exception. But like I said, that is a religious argument, and you are welcome to start a religious debate about abortion, where the parameters of argument can center around various interpretations of the Scripture, what you think the Bible says, or whatever. This thread is not dealing with religion, or religious belief, and I have posed no argument here on the basis of my personal religious beliefs, I would appreciate it if you would respect that and do the same, and save your Biblical lectures.
I am speaking strictly from a scientific and moral standpoint, a fetus is a human being, and deserves some level of human rights, regardless of your ordained importance and worth of said human.
Ahemmm!!! Excuse me???
"On the other hand, the notion that a 10 week fetus isn't a fully developed human being is not absurd on its face. Indeed, many of us find the position that it is so to be absurd." --Ornut
"Perhaps some of us never fully achieved humanity Ornot ?" --uscidiot
"My position is that there is a clearly and easily defined destinction between a fetus and a baby." --Ornut
"Yes. That's right. A fetus is not a human being with rights." --Lady T
(which you responded to with the eagle egg example, yesterday when you were speaking out of the other side of your mouth, against abortion.)
"As far as I know people/citizens don't require the host body of another human being to live."-- LadyT
"Not every living organism of the species homo sapiens sapien is a person. Witness Terri Schiavo, for example. Similarly, a fetus is not a fully developed, complete individual person."-- Ornut
"There are distinct differences between a zygote, an embryo, a fetus and a baby."--Ornut
"Because the putative rights of a clump of cells are more important than the freedom and happiness of a living woman."--- Ornut
"It seems to me that you want to treat a fetus as an unborn child."-- Ornut
Now Care, I know you are intelligent enough to read these comments in this thread and understand what was said. Let's not try to defend the indefensible, or play it off as if they never said these things, okay? This is the same twisted logic and perspective we always hear from pro-abortionists like Ornut... it's just a clump of cells... it's not a human yet... it hasn't obtained 'personhood'! It is the paramount example of denial and refusal to accept science and biological fact.
At least you were honest enough to admit you find no value in the most innocent human lives among us. And I am sure God is proud of you for that....(not)
And what I was trying to say on the religious realm of this subject...
I've already told you, there can't be a religious argument with this issue, your religious beliefs vary from others, and you interpret the Bible completely different than I do, so there is no room for religion in this debate, let's stick to science and general moral ethics, and leave religion out of it. My personal belief, and the belief of many others who oppose abortion on religious grounds, is that God made it very concise and clear about respecting human life He created, and there is no exception. But like I said, that is a religious argument, and you are welcome to start a religious debate about abortion, where the parameters of argument can center around various interpretations of the Scripture, what you think the Bible says, or whatever. This thread is not dealing with religion, or religious belief, and I have posed no argument here on the basis of my personal religious beliefs, I would appreciate it if you would respect that and do the same, and save your Biblical lectures.
I am speaking strictly from a scientific and moral standpoint, a fetus is a human being, and deserves some level of human rights, regardless of your ordained importance and worth of said human.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Darla, it must be sad to not be able to intellectually make your points, and have to spend all your time here trashing and bashing others. Apparently, you get some sick perverted pleasure out of it, and it never even occurs to you that others see you do this and realize it's obvious you can't refute the points made, and have no other option except to lash out in anger and hate at those you disagree with.
It doesn't bother me in the least, you can't call me a name I haven't been called on a message board before. I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to the put downs and insults, and I am quite used to it here. I am just amazed at how shallow minded people are sometimes, they don't even comprehend their little 'insult-fests' are showing them to be totally void of substance, and illustrates their complete lack of ability to engage in reasonable dialogue with others. But hey... whataya gunna do?
It doesn't bother me in the least, you can't call me a name I haven't been called on a message board before. I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to the put downs and insults, and I am quite used to it here. I am just amazed at how shallow minded people are sometimes, they don't even comprehend their little 'insult-fests' are showing them to be totally void of substance, and illustrates their complete lack of ability to engage in reasonable dialogue with others. But hey... whataya gunna do?
I think it's a very healthy pleasure! Especially compared to writing pedophilic fantasies about others on message boards.
But hey, to each their own Dix. That's why I'm a liberal!
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Possibly, but possibly not.
First, you assume that extra-uteral gestation of a fetus to full term will be possible. That's likely but not certain. It may well prove that the delicate balancing act simply can't be reproduced artificially. We still can't make honey, after all, and that's far simpler.
Second, you assume that, if such gestation is possible, all women will want to take advantage of it. I suspect that most will, pregnancy being one of the most taxing things a human body can go through. I'm certain, though, that there will always be a minority who prefer to do it the "old fashioned way" as it were.
Third, and perhaps most significantly, while 150 years is nothing in the long term, it represents several generations of women who are still going to be faced with the ancient problem. My own concern, here and now, is for those 5 or 6 generations.
When -- and if -- the point becomes moot, well, good. Until then the issue will be with us.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"My position is that there is a clearly and easily defined destinction between a fetus and a baby. One has but to look at them to make it obvious. It is as easy a distinction as the one between an acorn and an oak tree, as I often put it.
Now, one CAN talk about at what point a developing fetus should be presumed to be an "unborn baby" to borrow the anti-abortionists' term. If you want to talk about stages of development that's fine with me. That is, however, exactly the basis of the Roe v. Wade compromise."
That is completely false. A "Fetus" is a STAGE of the baby's development. At no time is it NOT a baby. There is NO presumption except by those that wish to have the right to end the childs life. At no time is it anything other than human. Because it is the offspring of two adult humans, it is their CHILD. There is no point in time after the fertilization and implantation of the egg that this isn't true.
Now, one CAN talk about at what point a developing fetus should be presumed to be an "unborn baby" to borrow the anti-abortionists' term. If you want to talk about stages of development that's fine with me. That is, however, exactly the basis of the Roe v. Wade compromise."
That is completely false. A "Fetus" is a STAGE of the baby's development. At no time is it NOT a baby. There is NO presumption except by those that wish to have the right to end the childs life. At no time is it anything other than human. Because it is the offspring of two adult humans, it is their CHILD. There is no point in time after the fertilization and implantation of the egg that this isn't true.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"One last question or two...
you said you were not married yet, are you a virgin? Are you celibut, saving yourself for marriage?"
Care.... the answer is no, I am not. I am also do not attend any type of religious services (other than the occassional wedding/funeral). My belief on abortion stems from a human rights issue... not a religious point of view.
Men and women have the right to CHOOSE to have sex or not. They have the right to CHOOSE to use protection or not. The vast majority of abortions are done for convenience, not due to rape. They are wrong as they are putting the ability to avoid responsibility for the man and womans actions ahead of the human rights of the unborn child.
you said you were not married yet, are you a virgin? Are you celibut, saving yourself for marriage?"
Care.... the answer is no, I am not. I am also do not attend any type of religious services (other than the occassional wedding/funeral). My belief on abortion stems from a human rights issue... not a religious point of view.
Men and women have the right to CHOOSE to have sex or not. They have the right to CHOOSE to use protection or not. The vast majority of abortions are done for convenience, not due to rape. They are wrong as they are putting the ability to avoid responsibility for the man and womans actions ahead of the human rights of the unborn child.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Jarod... the answer to your question is yes. You have the ability to be personally against abortion and also be FOR it being legal. To me it is just hypocritical.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
My own concern, here and now, is for those 5 or 6 generations.
Yeah, that's at least another 100 million babies you can kill between now and then, huh?
Yeah, that's at least another 100 million babies you can kill between now and then, huh?
I knew you possessed enough intelect to understand my point. Thank you!
as long as YOU don't speak out vehemently against both MEN and women having sex outside of marriage, and keep your dick in your own hand or trousers....those unwanted pregnancies and abortions will continue!!!
what's the matter, you don't want to look like some sort of religious nut?
so, it is YOU that allows those 100 million MORE babies to be, die! you should be ashamed of yourself, and your hypocrisy!
good job Dix!
I had a lot of sex for almost 20 years before I wanted to have a babby... As soon as I wanted a child, my wife got pregnant. THe first time I ever got a woman pregnant. Its amazing how much control someone who puts forth just a little effort has over such a big thing.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
It is not false at all. A "fetus" is just a stage in the development of a "human corpse", if you want to take your reductionism to its conclusion.
A "baby" is distinct from a "fetus." That's why there are two different words for them. A fetus will eventually become a baby, just as an embryo will become a fetus or a toddler will become a teenager (yuck). Some fetuses never become babies, however. Lots of things can go wrong.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"It is not false at all. A "fetus" is just a stage in the development of a "human corpse", if you want to take your reductionism to its conclusion."
Wrong. A Corpse is DEAD, not alive.
"A "baby" is distinct from a "fetus." That's why there are two different words for them. A fetus will eventually become a baby, just as an embryo will become a fetus or a toddler will become a teenager (yuck). Some fetuses never become babies, however. Lots of things can go wrong."
No it is not distinct. A fetus is a stage of the babies development. As is the embryonic stage. As is infancy, toddler, teenager etc... There is NO magic baby fairy that turns it into a baby.
Wrong. A Corpse is DEAD, not alive.
"A "baby" is distinct from a "fetus." That's why there are two different words for them. A fetus will eventually become a baby, just as an embryo will become a fetus or a toddler will become a teenager (yuck). Some fetuses never become babies, however. Lots of things can go wrong."
No it is not distinct. A fetus is a stage of the babies development. As is the embryonic stage. As is infancy, toddler, teenager etc... There is NO magic baby fairy that turns it into a baby.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php
Just so you can brush up on how the child develops.
Just so you can brush up on how the child develops.