The Abortion MYTH

[apple0154]

You claim that the inability to determine at the early stages if a zygote is going to split into twins or more makes them not human. That is patently false.

They are human (ie: living organisms of the specieis homosapiens) at all times from conception to death - regardless of when the death occurs.

They are composed of human material. They are not human beings.

Human beings are individual creatures. Well, unless they're possessed by the Devil, I suppose.

How can one classify something as a human being when we don't know what "being" it is?

Just as our laws are based on an accused being able to confront their accuser if one's life/freedoms are being attacked surely they have a right to know who is confronting them. A male? A female? Two of each? Something that will never be born and have an identity?

It's shocking how someone can think so little of a 20 or 30 year old woman by having her life and freedoms compared to that of a "something".

 

[Good Luck]

Really? Then science can use you because as far as I'm aware they can't tell if a fertilized cell will divide and become two males or two females or one male and one female or simply stop growing and be absorbed by the mother's body.

Don't waste your talents posting here!

I strongly suggest you actually learn what it is you are trying to talk about.

1) A single fertilized ovum (not "Cell", if you want to engag in a debate on the science, at least learn the proper terms) can NEVER split into twins of opposite gender.

2) Not knowing how long a life will last does not change what it is while it is alive. By YOUR definitions, a born infant is a human being, yet infants have been known to die of indeterminate causes within minutes of birth. SIDS is a real phenomenon with no current solution - just a few suggestion how to decrease the chance of some of the known causes. Not knowing, in advance, the time of death is a fantastically stupid reason for denying the unborn their human rights.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Apple says, "Dehumanization is good for human beings. It protects their rights!"

 

[Good Luck]

They are composed of human material. They are not human beings.

They are complete living organisms. That goes way beyond "being composed of human material."

And I already disproved your personalized biggoted definition of human being.

Human beings are individual creatures. Well, unless they're possessed by the Devil, I suppose.

How can one classify something as a human being when we don't know what "being" it is?

Just as our laws are based on an accused being able to confront their accuser if one's life/freedoms are being attacked surely they have a right to know who is confronting them. A male? A female? Two of each? Something that will never be born and have an identity?

It's shocking how someone can think so little of a 20 or 30 year old woman by having her life and freedoms compared to that of a "something".

What is shocking is how someone can deliberately shun known science to maintain their bigotry. "Don't know what being is"? Only because you choose to ignore facts in favor of inhumane opinions.

They are human. Science proves it. So sad you are so intent on your inhumane philosophy you have to deny scientific proof to maintain your prejudices. So sad that someone can cling to the patently false myth that something magical occurs at birth to transform the unborn into a "real" human being.

You are NO different than the racists and despots throughout history that deny human beings their rights by simply making the claim "they are not REAL humans".

 

[Good Luck]

Apple says, "Dehumanization is good for human beings. It protects their rights!"

Well, of course it does. There are numerous examples of historical precedent to choose from proving the concept that the rights of the protected class supercede the rights of the targeted class.

The United States prior to 1860

The United States prior to 1908

Nazi Germany

To name just a few.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Well, of course it does. There are numerous examples of historical precedent to choose from proving the concept that the rights of the protected class supercede the rights of the targeted class.

The United States prior to 1860

The United States prior to 1908

Nazi Germany

To name just a few.

Yeah. Margaret Sanger, founder of planned Parenthood, fraternized with nazis. They're eugenicists who are looking for ways to kill the "unsavory" of society.

 

[apple0154]

One of the largest arguments that is made against the pro-lifer/anti-abortion stance is that many do not believe that rape/incest is reason for abortion. If you note she said "even if we allow for that caveat" not, "we should have that caveat".

As for the life of the mother, it is always our right to protect our lives against danger another brings, even if they don't mean to bring it.

But then we get into how much danger is too much. Once a cell/embryo/fetus is declared a human being does the loss of one of the mother's kidneys, due to uncontrolled blood pressure, justify killing that cell/embryo/fetus? Can a doctor be 100% sure the kidney will not function compared to being 100% sure a death will occur if an abortion takes place?

Do we allow the mother's condition to worsen while the father or other interested parties line up medical and legal "experts" to testify?

Finally, why don't the anti-abortionists come right out and say they will not allow abortion, period? Why do they say rape is an exception when they know damn well no one will have a legal or logical leg to stand on if a cell/embryo/fetus is classified as a human being?

There is no logical or ethical argument to be made. The idea of killing someone because of how they were conceived is absurd.

Suppose a woman becomes pregnant and bears a child. She believes her boyfriend is the father. It is later discovered that one night while her boyfriend was on a business trip she went out with her girlfriends to have a few drinks. She ran into a guy friend and after he joined the table for a while she complained of being tired and her guy friend drove her home.

The guy friend had drugged her drink resulting in her passing out shortly after arriving home and he raped her. She had no recollection of the events and thought the resulting pregnancy was the result of her and her boyfriend having relations.

When a medical problem arises and the baby is tested it's shown the boyfriend is not the father. If she had the right to kill the "human being" while in utero why doesn't she have the same right now that the "human being" has been born? Why did birth make a difference?

It's easy to say there will be exceptions but, sooner or later, a court will acknowledge such exceptions are not logical. There will always be someone pushing the envelop until women lose all rights.

I always think of the smoking ban. Imagine if someone walked into a bar in 1960 and said that in the future smoking would be banned and anyone caught smoking in a bar would be fined and if they didn't pay the fine they would be imprisoned.

The point of mentioning that is to show laws can be changed and changed drastically. Bit by bit, one law at a time.

Once a cell/embryo/fetus is classified a human being there will be little, if any, justification to kill it. Women will have a legal nightmare on their hands.

 

[apple0154]

They can indeed tell that a fertilized cell will not split and become one of each sex. That is just wrong, like 2+2 is 5 is wrong. They can also tell what sex it will be and that it is human. Not knowing if it will split and become twins is definitely not something that means it isn't human life at its earliest stages.

It isn't a "talent" to recognize that genetics tell us that the fertilized egg can only be one sex. Fraternal twins are from separate eggs, two different sperm fertilize them. Nor is it a talent to understand that if it implants and grows it will become nothing other than the human life it began as.

Sure, they can tell if it's in a perti dish but not when it's inside the woman and that's the point. We don't know what's there in the sense if it's one or more or ends up being nothing.

As I keep saying we don't know and to classify something as a human being when we don't know what it is doesn't make any sense.

 

[apple0154]

Once, again, you miss the point. A human being is an individual being. A fertilized cell may or may not be an individual being. It may or may not develop into a human being. We don't know. There is no available test to say a specific fertilized cell inside a woman will become anything.

You want to grant human rights to things we have no idea will ever become a human being and thereby diminish the rights of all human beings.

Wrong. Your insistence is based on continuing to deny a targeted class of human being their rights.

You fill your posts with diatribes of false conclusions and pseudo science.

What we do not know does not change what we DO know. What we DO know, one more time, is the definition of living organism. The unborn meet that definition. We DO know the definition of species differentiation. The unborn meet the definition of homosapiens - HUMAN. Just because we have to wait for the embryo stage of development to know whether we want to paint the room blue, pink, or some gender neutral color does not make them less than human. There was a time we didn't know boy or girl or both or two (or three) of each until the day of delivery. Not knowing does not change what we do know.

The embryo stage of development, BTW, occurs at the approximately the 2nd week of gestation, after which none of these changes you describe can take place (except one fetus absorbing their dead sibling), AND often before the woman is even aware of the pregnancy. Your continued insistence that not knowing the gender makes them not human is absolutely ludicrous.

We do not know what causes dememtia - we just have the ability to describe it. We can't even tell for certain if dementia is alzheimers or another type of dementia without an autopsy of the brain. Does that make dementia patients less human? We are still in the dark about the actual causes of cancer. We do know a lot about various triggers (smoking, bad eating habits, too much sun, etc.), but we do NOT know the mechanism, nor can we accurately predict on an individual basis who will get cancer. We do not even know for certain what factor inside our brains yields self awareness or intelligence - strong factors of the human race. NONE of that lack of knowledge makes a whit of difference with the scientific facts that we DO know.

The facts we DO know prove definitively is that the unborn meet the scientific definition of human - making them human beings (as per the definition of the term human being).

All your claims are false conclusions for the PURPOSE of denying the unborn their human rights. There is ZERO difference between pointing out the developmental differences and pointing out racial differences as an excuse to say "this group of humans do not deserve human rights."

 

[Damocles]

But then we get into how much danger is too much. Once a cell/embryo/fetus is declared a human being does the loss of one of the mother's kidneys, due to uncontrolled blood pressure, justify killing that cell/embryo/fetus? Can a doctor be 100% sure the kidney will not function compared to being 100% sure a death will occur if an abortion takes place?

Do we allow the mother's condition to worsen while the father or other interested parties line up medical and legal "experts" to testify?

Finally, why don't the anti-abortionists come right out and say they will not allow abortion, period? Why do they say rape is an exception when they know damn well no one will have a legal or logical leg to stand on if a cell/embryo/fetus is classified as a human being?

There is no logical or ethical argument to be made. The idea of killing someone because of how they were conceived is absurd.

Suppose a woman becomes pregnant and bears a child. She believes her boyfriend is the father. It is later discovered that one night while her boyfriend was on a business trip she went out with her girlfriends to have a few drinks. She ran into a guy friend and after he joined the table for a while she complained of being tired and her guy friend drove her home.

The guy friend had drugged her drink resulting in her passing out shortly after arriving home and he raped her. She had no recollection of the events and thought the resulting pregnancy was the result of her and her boyfriend having relations.

When a medical problem arises and the baby is tested it's shown the boyfriend is not the father. If she had the right to kill the "human being" while in utero why doesn't she have the same right now that the "human being" has been born? Why did birth make a difference?

It's easy to say there will be exceptions but, sooner or later, a court will acknowledge such exceptions are not logical. There will always be someone pushing the envelop until women lose all rights.

I always think of the smoking ban. Imagine if someone walked into a bar in 1960 and said that in the future smoking would be banned and anyone caught smoking in a bar would be fined and if they didn't pay the fine they would be imprisoned.

The point of mentioning that is to show laws can be changed and changed drastically. Bit by bit, one law at a time.

Once a cell/embryo/fetus is classified a human being there will be little, if any, justification to kill it. Women will have a legal nightmare on their hands.

Not necessarily. I propose we treat them as separate beings, to the point of allowing the woman to choose to gestate. If she chooses not to gestate we remove the fetus and attempt to gestate ex-utero. There is a very large difference between directly killing with purpose and being unable to save a life. Over time we would gain the knowledge to be able to save these young lives, and give women real choices that allow them to choose to be an incubator or not without the only choices being to kill or to incubate.

 

[Socrtease]

Soon schools will asert full dominance over the bodies of their students. Then the government will get them pregnant, send them to the clinic and then use the fetus in a massive government run biomedical tissue business. For the people.

All under the orders of ZOG

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

All under the orders of ZOG

Um... who is ZOG?

 

[Good Luck]

Once, again, you miss the point. A human being is an individual being. A fertilized cell may or may not be an individual being. It may or may not develop into a human being. We don't know. There is no available test to say a specific fertilized cell inside a woman will become anything.

You want to grant human rights to things we have no idea will ever become a human being and thereby diminish the rights of all human beings.

You are the one missing the point. Until/unless the zygote splits, it is a single human. IF it splits, then there are two (or more) humans. At no time is it NOT human. It STARTS OUT human: a living organism of the species homosapiens. Your concept of "may not become human" implies it is not human from the beginning. That is a lie.

And quit referring to them a "fertilized cell" you ignorant twit. The proper term, if you want to use the scientific label for their stage of development is fertilized ovum. Cells cannot become fertilized, only ova have that ability. Also, by thje 2nd day they are no longer a fertilized ovum, but rather a blastocyst. Like I said before, if you want to argue the science of it, at least learn the science of it. Right now you're spouting nonsense and lies and parading your ignorance around like it is some sort of award.

If you want to actually learn about the subject, a goos place to start is with this book:
Reproduction in mammals
edited by C. R. Austin and R. V. Short; ill. by John R. Fuller
Publisher: Cambridge [etc.] : Cambridge University Press, 1976.

This is another good one, but assumes an advanced knowledge of general biology and biochemistry:
Mammalian reproductive biology
F. H. Bronson
Publisher: Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Of course, any reasonably comprehensive text on general biology found in most public libraries will have a section on mammalian reproduction, with enough detail to confirm that unborn are, indeed, human no matter how you personally feel about it.

Then again, if all you are interested in is continuing your lies and promoting killing innocent humans just because you can, don't read anything. Most proponents of abortion choose to live in ignorance.

But as an aside, lets look closely at your claims from a "what if you're right" POV. The only time a developing human can split into two identical twins is prior to the embryo stage of development. After that point, they have stabilized into the single human, set of twins, or triplets. IF your objection is "we don't know what they're going to become." then that lack of knowledge ENDS when they enter the embryo stage of development.

The embryo stage of development begins about the 2nd week of gestation.

So what excuse are you going to come up with for killing those unborn which ARE stable, unique individuals as of the 2nd week of gestation?

 

[apple0154]

Not necessarily. I propose we treat them as separate beings, to the point of allowing the woman to choose to gestate. If she chooses not to gestate we remove the fetus and attempt to gestate ex-utero. There is a very large difference between directly killing with purpose and being unable to save a life. Over time we would gain the knowledge to be able to save these young lives, and give women real choices that allow them to choose to be an incubator or not without the only choices being to kill or to incubate.

Well, just to show I'm a reasonable guy I think your idea has value, however, once again we would be taking away the right of the woman to control her own body by not having the right to refuse the operation.

Personally, I could accept that as an amicable solution but I'm not a woman.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, that are human but they are not human beings. They require the body parts of other human beings in order to survive. As Damocles suggests get them out of the woman's body. If they are individual human beings they will survive. No human being has a right to another human being's body. The closest thing to having control of another person's body is known as slavery.

As to ignorance read the links I posted.

As for showing you know the scientific term it does not impress. I suppose if someone mentioned they had a blood clot you would impress them by referring to it as a thrombus. You must have fun trying to narrow down the list of viruses when someone says they have a cold.

BTW, you never did supply an answer or solution to my previous hypothetical situations. Typical anti-abortionist behavior. Bellowing about classifying a fertilized ovum (happy now?) as a human being but when scenarios are posed they stand there like a deer in the headlights.

Their platform varies between hypocrisy to outright lies. Either they sanction the killing of something they say is an innocent human being or they try to placate the unsuspecting by saying abortions will be allowed in certain cases so not to worry.

Well, people have a damn good reason to worry because we know how many women died from botched abortions in the past. We know how many suffered sterilization. We know how many suffered from infections. Last, but certainly not least, we know how many lives were destroyed because young people had children they couldn't afford. The child grew up neglected and the woman lived in poverty.

You see, my Dear, we've been your road before when people just like you were in positions of authority and others, in their ignorance, suffered. Times have changed. The statistics are there for everyone to see.

There's an expression, "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" and anti-abortionists have arrived at the end.

So bellow from your soap box and throw around a few scientific terms but you're not dealing with superstitious, uneducated masses. The people know the truth. It's history. They will not return to those barbaric ways.

BTW, tonight on CNN, at 10pm, there is an abortion program. I think I'll tune in. Catch you later.

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

You are the one missing the point. Until/unless the zygote splits, it is a single human. IF it splits, then there are two (or more) humans. At no time is it NOT human. It STARTS OUT human: a living organism of the species homosapiens. Your concept of "may not become human" implies it is not human from the beginning. That is a lie.

And quit referring to them a "fertilized cell" you ignorant twit. The proper term, if you want to use the scientific label for their stage of development is fertilized ovum. Cells cannot become fertilized, only ova have that ability. Also, by thje 2nd day they are no longer a fertilized ovum, but rather a blastocyst. Like I said before, if you want to argue the science of it, at least learn the science of it. Right now you're spouting nonsense and lies and parading your ignorance around like it is some sort of award.

If you want to actually learn about the subject, a goos place to start is with this book:
Reproduction in mammals
edited by C. R. Austin and R. V. Short; ill. by John R. Fuller
Publisher: Cambridge [etc.] : Cambridge University Press, 1976.

This is another good one, but assumes an advanced knowledge of general biology and biochemistry:
Mammalian reproductive biology
F. H. Bronson
Publisher: Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Of course, any reasonably comprehensive text on general biology found in most public libraries will have a section on mammalian reproduction, with enough detail to confirm that unborn are, indeed, human no matter how you personally feel about it.

Then again, if all you are interested in is continuing your lies and promoting killing innocent humans just because you can, don't read anything. Most proponents of abortion choose to live in ignorance.

But as an aside, lets look closely at your claims from a "what if you're right" POV. The only time a developing human can split into two identical twins is prior to the embryo stage of development. After that point, they have stabilized into the single human, set of twins, or triplets. IF your objection is "we don't know what they're going to become." then that lack of knowledge ENDS when they enter the embryo stage of development.

The embryo stage of development begins about the 2nd week of gestation.

So what excuse are you going to come up with for killing those unborn which ARE stable, unique individuals as of the 2nd week of gestation?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What did I say in the corresponding post that wasn't true?

Your entire premise.
But since it makes you feel comfortable, it looks like you'll just keep repeating the same old stuff and completely ignore anything but that which keeps you in that comfortable place.

 

[apple0154]

Your entire premise.
But since it makes you feel comfortable, it looks like you'll just keep repeating the same old stuff and completely ignore anything but that which keeps you in that comfortable place.

Good answer when you can't point to anything specific.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Good answer when you can't point to anything specific.

There is no need to point to anything "specific", when the entire thing is wrong from the beginning; but you go ahead and continue to show your lack of humanity.

 

[Good Luck]

Yes, that are human but they are not human beings. They require the body parts of other human beings in order to survive. As Damocles suggests get them out of the woman's body. If they are individual human beings they will survive. No human being has a right to another human being's body. The closest thing to having control of another person's body is known as slavery.

As to ignorance read the links I posted.

As for showing you know the scientific term it does not impress. I suppose if someone mentioned they had a blood clot you would impress them by referring to it as a thrombus. You must have fun trying to narrow down the list of viruses when someone says they have a cold.

BTW, you never did supply an answer or solution to my previous hypothetical situations. Typical anti-abortionist behavior. Bellowing about classifying a fertilized ovum (happy now?) as a human being but when scenarios are posed they stand there like a deer in the headlights.

Their platform varies between hypocrisy to outright lies. Either they sanction the killing of something they say is an innocent human being or they try to placate the unsuspecting by saying abortions will be allowed in certain cases so not to worry.

Well, people have a damn good reason to worry because we know how many women died from botched abortions in the past. We know how many suffered sterilization. We know how many suffered from infections. Last, but certainly not least, we know how many lives were destroyed because young people had children they couldn't afford. The child grew up neglected and the woman lived in poverty.

You see, my Dear, we've been your road before when people just like you were in positions of authority and others, in their ignorance, suffered. Times have changed. The statistics are there for everyone to see.

There's an expression, "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" and anti-abortionists have arrived at the end.

So bellow from your soap box and throw around a few scientific terms but you're not dealing with superstitious, uneducated masses. The people know the truth. It's history. They will not return to those barbaric ways.

BTW, tonight on CNN, at 10pm, there is an abortion program. I think I'll tune in. Catch you later.

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

Yes, and there were other times when totalitarian murderous fucks like your kind were in charge, claiming to know the truth, when their "truth" was in defiance of every fact available to them. Hitler, slavers, Romans, etc. Holocaust, slavery, slavery and death for sport, those are the legacy of your type.

Go watch your program. Enjoy the support of murder. Maybe you can catch a juicy late term abortion where they suck out the brains of a viable human being.

You are the lowest of scum on the face of this planet. Just remember, what goes around, comes around. Karma gets its own back. May you enjoy the fruits of what your inhumanity deserves.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, and there were other times when totalitarian murderous fucks like your kind were in charge, claiming to know the truth, when their "truth" was in defiance of every fact available to them. Hitler, slavers, Romans, etc. Holocaust, slavery, slavery and death for sport, those are the legacy of your type.

But, Sweety, it is you who insists on interfering in other people's lives. It is you and your ilk who are the would-be totalitarians. The only difference between you and the people you mentioned is they dehumanized specific groups of people while you wish to elevate something that is not a human being to the status of one thereby debasing all human beings.

Go watch your program. Enjoy the support of murder. Maybe you can catch a juicy late term abortion where they suck out the brains of a viable human being.

I did watch the program. One woman was aware her fetus was grossly malformed and the doctor recommended abortion. She refused and had a natural birth. The result was a baby with part of the scalp and brain missing and it died 12 hours later.

My question is what animal would deliberately bring a child into the world to suffer in that fashion? And you know the most revolting part? She said she felt better having the birth because it brought closure.

She felt better! Can you imagine a more sick, perverted, abhorrent thing to say or do?

You are the lowest of scum on the face of this planet. Just remember, what goes around, comes around. Karma gets its own back. May you enjoy the fruits of what your inhumanity deserves.

Ah, yes. The old fear and intimidation tactic. First it was religion. Then governments. Now it's karma. Even feeling as I do about the woman who brought that grossly malformed baby into the world I would never wish for her to live for 12 hours missing part of her scalp and brain.

On the other hand it's reasonable to conclude part of her brain isn't functioning properly anyway. Could that be your problem, as well?