Do you agree that pre-born humans are NOT entitled to any rights or even the right to live?

[progressive hunter]

so then a baby breast feeding is part of the mother? Not an individual because at that moment it is attached to the mother dependent on the mother for its nutrition?

cant believe I need to explain the difference but let’s do it. A fetus is different from a born baby because it is growing inside of the mother, affecting the hormones and health of the mother, and for the first few months incapable of survival outside of the mothers body

THE FIRST FEW MONTHS????

you know nothing about reality and should not degrade yourself further by staying on this thread,,,,

well you could make a point to try and point that out or keep making empty insults that don’t mean anything. I have no faith that you have the intellect or focus to actually make a smart point or explain yourself. #troll

well I am smart enough to know a child needs care for up to 10-14 yrs of age not a few months after birth,,,you on the other hand think a 4 month old can function without it when it cant even walk,,,

Yet again you completely misread my statement. I’m not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and reread

your right I read thaT WRONG,,BUT FUNNY THING IS IT STILL APPLIES,,,

 

[Slade3200]

so then a baby breast feeding is part of the mother? Not an individual because at that moment it is attached to the mother dependent on the mother for its nutrition?

cant believe I need to explain the difference but let’s do it. A fetus is different from a born baby because it is growing inside of the mother, affecting the hormones and health of the mother, and for the first few months incapable of survival outside of the mothers body

THE FIRST FEW MONTHS????

you know nothing about reality and should not degrade yourself further by staying on this thread,,,,

well you could make a point to try and point that out or keep making empty insults that don’t mean anything. I have no faith that you have the intellect or focus to actually make a smart point or explain yourself. #troll

well I am smart enough to know a child needs care for up to 10-14 yrs of age not a few months after birth,,,you on the other hand think a 4 month old can function without it when it cant even walk,,,

Yet again you completely misread my statement. I’m not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and reread

Actually I’ll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.

 

[Unkotare]

What “part of her body” has a distinct DNA?

do you usually answer questions with questions? Is that how we should continue this discussion?

Would you like to save some time and admit now that you were wrong?

Would you care to actually answer a question and have a direct conversation or are we going to just keep responding with questions and go nowhere?

I’ve already refuted your stupid claim.

you call saying “factually untrue” as a refutation? Ok buddy. Well done

Do you know what DNA is?

 

[LaDairis]

Supporters of George W Bush should all be ABORTED

 

[Slade3200]

If you don’t mind another question... I promise not to ask 64 of them

what is your position on abortion in the instance of rape... say a 15 year old is raped and impregnated....
Or in the case of the mothers life being at risk?

I'll answer for me. My answer is consistent with a respect for human rights.

A woman is entitled to kill for self defense, even if the threat isn't intentional. Sad, but true. Just as if a mentally ill person points a gun at you.

Also I wouldn't usually advise, but also would not outlaw abortions from rape pregnancies of any age mother because involuntary servitude (slavery) is unconstitutional, as it should be. If the mother did not choose to have sex, the consequences shouldn't be hers.

Now. Under what circumstances do you support human rights?

Wow, you surprise me with that answer. I have to give you kudos. However, I also have to challenge something. How do you stand up for the right of life but then justify killing an innocent life because of the rape conditions. The baby was not the one who committed the crime so why should it suffer the consequence of death?

 

[Slade3200]

do you usually answer questions with questions? Is that how we should continue this discussion?

Would you like to save some time and admit now that you were wrong?

Would you care to actually answer a question and have a direct conversation or are we going to just keep responding with questions and go nowhere?

I’ve already refuted your stupid claim.

you call saying “factually untrue” as a refutation? Ok buddy. Well done

Do you know what DNA is?

Yes

 

[Slade3200]

uhh people do that kind of stuff all the time. Is that the best point you can come up with?

Sick people.

Actually yes that’s true. Many sick people get pieces of themselves removed in order to get better. That’s part of medicine.

Pregnancy is not a sickness.

No shit. I wasn’t equating the two

You seemed to be equating a pre-born human to a ‘piece’ then you said people cut off pieces of themselves when they are sick.

Well I wasn’t equating the two, just responding to your statement

 

[progressive hunter]

cant believe I need to explain the difference but let’s do it. A fetus is different from a born baby because it is growing inside of the mother, affecting the hormones and health of the mother, and for the first few months incapable of survival outside of the mothers body

THE FIRST FEW MONTHS????

you know nothing about reality and should not degrade yourself further by staying on this thread,,,,

well you could make a point to try and point that out or keep making empty insults that don’t mean anything. I have no faith that you have the intellect or focus to actually make a smart point or explain yourself. #troll

well I am smart enough to know a child needs care for up to 10-14 yrs of age not a few months after birth,,,you on the other hand think a 4 month old can function without it when it cant even walk,,,

Yet again you completely misread my statement. I’m not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and reread

Actually I’ll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

 

[Slade3200]

THE FIRST FEW MONTHS????

you know nothing about reality and should not degrade yourself further by staying on this thread,,,,

well you could make a point to try and point that out or keep making empty insults that don’t mean anything. I have no faith that you have the intellect or focus to actually make a smart point or explain yourself. #troll

well I am smart enough to know a child needs care for up to 10-14 yrs of age not a few months after birth,,,you on the other hand think a 4 month old can function without it when it cant even walk,,,

Yet again you completely misread my statement. I’m not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and reread

Actually I’ll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

 

[progressive hunter]

well you could make a point to try and point that out or keep making empty insults that don’t mean anything. I have no faith that you have the intellect or focus to actually make a smart point or explain yourself. #troll

well I am smart enough to know a child needs care for up to 10-14 yrs of age not a few months after birth,,,you on the other hand think a 4 month old can function without it when it cant even walk,,,

Yet again you completely misread my statement. I’m not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and reread

Actually I’ll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

not for very long,,,in a lot of cases it needs help to take the first breath,,,

and you said MOTHER,, I would say outside intervention meaning another person has to be there to provide all the needs of life for many yrs,,,

so yes a child can survive for a few minutes to hours after birth, but thats strictly survival not living,,,or semantics that have nothng to do with abortion verses life

 

[Slade3200]

well I am smart enough to know a child needs care for up to 10-14 yrs of age not a few months after birth,,,you on the other hand think a 4 month old can function without it when it cant even walk,,,

Yet again you completely misread my statement. I’m not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and reread

Actually I’ll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

not for very long,,,in a lot of cases it needs help to take the first breath,,,

and you said MOTHER,, I would say outside intervention meaning another person has to be there to provide all the needs of life for many yrs,,,

so yes a child can survive for a few minutes to hours after birth, but thats strictly survival not living,,,or semantics that have nothng to do with abortion verses life

yes this is true, I never claimed otherwise... A baby can not survive at all outside the mother after conception till about 6 months, which was my point

 

[buttercup]

A person is simply human being. (Even the dictionary will tell you that.)

It is an undeniable scientific fact that the pre-born baby is a human being, with a unique set of DNA from the start. An individual person who has never existed before and never will again.

So to add on all sorts of extra qualifications to deny the humanity of an innocent person is either ignorant or immoral, take your pick.

I dont think they are a person. They are not an individual.
I bet you had scrambled chicken this morning too huh?

What you THINK doesn’t matter. As I stated, a person is simply a human being, and it is a scientific FACT that the pre-born baby is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and me.

Your analogy is silly, because the eggs that people eat are unfertilized eggs, so to try to equate that with an embryo or fetus is asinine, as obviously fertilization already took place or else the baby wouldn’t exist. And since you asked, no, I don’t eat eggs or scrambled chicken, I’m a vegan. ​

Them being an individual isnt subjective.
Not everyone buys their eggs at the store. So no it isnt asinine. It was a perfectly acceptable analogy.
I didnt say they weren't humans. I said they were not a person. A person implies independence. Individuality.
Different words, my dear. Different meanings.

OK well you’re almost there, but you seem to be coming up with your own definition of person (which you never actually stated, you are keeping that vague.) But that is your opinion.

The commonly accepted definition of person which you can see in the dictionary is simply a human being. But even if the dictionary said something different, the fact would remain that the pre-born baby is a human being and all human beings have the most basic human right of all, the right to life, the right to not be unjustly killed, the right to not be unjustly aggressed against, dismembered and thrown in like garbage, for someone else’s convenience.

Post 160

I just read it, nice try but that’s not the way reality works. We don’t get to arbitrarily decide who is and who isn’t a person based on nothing but what is more convenient for us.

You claim a person is an individual and an individual is someone “separate” which is still vague and arbitrary. It sounds like you’re just rephrasing the old viability argument, which basically states that until the baby can survive on his own, he’s not a person. That is still arbitrary, as technology is changing all the time and babies can survive outside of the womb earlier now than they did in the past. It’s silly to make personhood determined by location, that is not scientific at all and again it’s just an opinion.

Getting back to reality, when speaking about human beings, the word “individual” is commonly understood as a distinct human life, or human entity. As we established, the pre-born baby has a unique set of DNA, the pre-born is a distinct human individual, a brand new human being.

As Natural Citizen said early in the thread, when an obstetrician is treating a pregnant mother, he considers it treating two patients, not one. There are two lives, not one. That is what the word individual means, in this context, in these types of discussions.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yet again you completely misread my statement. I’m not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and reread

Actually I’ll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

not for very long,,,in a lot of cases it needs help to take the first breath,,,

and you said MOTHER,, I would say outside intervention meaning another person has to be there to provide all the needs of life for many yrs,,,

so yes a child can survive for a few minutes to hours after birth, but thats strictly survival not living,,,or semantics that have nothng to do with abortion verses life

yes this is true, I never claimed otherwise... A baby can not survive at all outside the mother after conception till about 6 months, which was my point

I dont see why thats relevant,,

 

[Slade3200]

Actually I’ll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

not for very long,,,in a lot of cases it needs help to take the first breath,,,

and you said MOTHER,, I would say outside intervention meaning another person has to be there to provide all the needs of life for many yrs,,,

so yes a child can survive for a few minutes to hours after birth, but thats strictly survival not living,,,or semantics that have nothng to do with abortion verses life

yes this is true, I never claimed otherwise... A baby can not survive at all outside the mother after conception till about 6 months, which was my point

I dont see why thats relevant,,

I’m not surprised

 

[TNHarley]

I dont think they are a person. They are not an individual.
I bet you had scrambled chicken this morning too huh?

What you THINK doesn’t matter. As I stated, a person is simply a human being, and it is a scientific FACT that the pre-born baby is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and me.

Your analogy is silly, because the eggs that people eat are unfertilized eggs, so to try to equate that with an embryo or fetus is asinine, as obviously fertilization already took place or else the baby wouldn’t exist. And since you asked, no, I don’t eat eggs or scrambled chicken, I’m a vegan. ​

Them being an individual isnt subjective.
Not everyone buys their eggs at the store. So no it isnt asinine. It was a perfectly acceptable analogy.
I didnt say they weren't humans. I said they were not a person. A person implies independence. Individuality.
Different words, my dear. Different meanings.

OK well you’re almost there, but you seem to be coming up with your own definition of person (which you never actually stated, you are keeping that vague.) But that is your opinion.

The commonly accepted definition of person which you can see in the dictionary is simply a human being. But even if the dictionary said something different, the fact would remain that the pre-born baby is a human being and all human beings have the most basic human right of all, the right to life, the right to not be unjustly killed, the right to not be unjustly aggressed against, dismembered and thrown in like garbage, for someone else’s convenience.

Post 160

I just read it, nice try but that’s not the way reality works. We don’t get to arbitrarily decide who is and who isn’t a person based on nothing but what is more convenient for us.

You claim a person is an individual and an individual is someone “separate” which is still vague and arbitrary. It sounds like you’re just rephrasing the old viability argument, which basically states that until the baby can survive on his own, he’s not a person. That is still arbitrary, as technology is changing all the time and babies can survive outside of the womb earlier now than they did in the past. It’s silly to make personhood determined by location, that is not scientific at all and again it’s just an opinion.

Getting back to reality, when speaking about human beings, the word “individual” is commonly understood as a distinct human life, or human entity. As we established, the pre-born baby has a unique set of DNA, the pre-born is a distinct human individual, a brand new human being.

As Natural Citizen said early in the thread, when an obstetrician is treating a pregnant mother, he considers it treating two patients, not one. There are two lives, not one. That is what the word individual means, in this context, in these types of discussions.

Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.

 

[TRFjr]

well you could make a point to try and point that out or keep making empty insults that don’t mean anything. I have no faith that you have the intellect or focus to actually make a smart point or explain yourself. #troll

well I am smart enough to know a child needs care for up to 10-14 yrs of age not a few months after birth,,,you on the other hand think a 4 month old can function without it when it cant even walk,,,

Yet again you completely misread my statement. I’m not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and reread

Actually I’ll cut you some slack because my use of fetus may have confused things. For the first few months (I believe the line is at 23 weeks) after conception the embryo/fetus is not capable of survival outside of the mothers body.

iM NOT SURE WHY THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE FACT IS it cant survive outside the womb until about 10 yrs old after long yrs of training to find and prepare food to eat and survive,,,

in other words the survival argument is a fallacy/strawman used to justify murder

of course it can survive without the mother after it’s born... happens all the time

the new born is still dependent on others for survival as dependent as the unborn is inside the womb
so the argument your using to deny basic human rights to the unborn can be applied to the newly born making it a losing argument

 

[Penelope]

When I jump in front of a bus I have the right to decide whether I get injured or not.
No, fuck them. Fat people and smokers get criticized because they are a burden for the health system but drunken sluts can get rid of their responsibility by having a human being murdered.

The wealthy women will still get abortions if illegal. They go into a hosp. and get a D & C.

And they get jailed when caught, right?

NO.

What then? A fine?

The abortionist goes to prison.

Its called a surgery and they have it get paid for via ins, and they (the obstetrician) do not go to jail.

 

[g5000]

The wealthy women will still get abortions if illegal. They go into a hosp. and get a D & C.

And they get jailed when caught, right?

NO.

What then? A fine?

The abortionist goes to prison.

Its call a surgeon, and they do not go to jail.

What part of "if illegal" did you not understand? You set those terms yourself!

Abortionists would go to jail if abortion was illegal.

They did before Roe v. Wade in those states where abortion was illegal, and would again if Roe v. Wade were repealed.

 

[Penelope]

And they get jailed when caught, right?

NO.

What then? A fine?

The abortionist goes to prison.

Its call a surgeon, and they do not go to jail.

What part of "if illegal" did you not understand?

Abortionists would go to jail if abortion was illegal.

They did before Roe v. Wade in those states where abortion was illegal, and would again if Roe v. Wade were repealed.

Once again they go in and have a D & C , a surgery and they do not go to jail. Wealthy women get away with it all the time, its the poor ones they don't get the Title X, and tramp is probably pocketing the money going to title X, seems like he is in control of all money the gov takes in. that frickin crook.

 

[buttercup]

What you THINK doesn’t matter. As I stated, a person is simply a human being, and it is a scientific FACT that the pre-born baby is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and me.

Your analogy is silly, because the eggs that people eat are unfertilized eggs, so to try to equate that with an embryo or fetus is asinine, as obviously fertilization already took place or else the baby wouldn’t exist. And since you asked, no, I don’t eat eggs or scrambled chicken, I’m a vegan. ​

Them being an individual isnt subjective.
Not everyone buys their eggs at the store. So no it isnt asinine. It was a perfectly acceptable analogy.
I didnt say they weren't humans. I said they were not a person. A person implies independence. Individuality.
Different words, my dear. Different meanings.

OK well you’re almost there, but you seem to be coming up with your own definition of person (which you never actually stated, you are keeping that vague.) But that is your opinion.

The commonly accepted definition of person which you can see in the dictionary is simply a human being. But even if the dictionary said something different, the fact would remain that the pre-born baby is a human being and all human beings have the most basic human right of all, the right to life, the right to not be unjustly killed, the right to not be unjustly aggressed against, dismembered and thrown in like garbage, for someone else’s convenience.

Post 160

I just read it, nice try but that’s not the way reality works. We don’t get to arbitrarily decide who is and who isn’t a person based on nothing but what is more convenient for us.

You claim a person is an individual and an individual is someone “separate” which is still vague and arbitrary. It sounds like you’re just rephrasing the old viability argument, which basically states that until the baby can survive on his own, he’s not a person. That is still arbitrary, as technology is changing all the time and babies can survive outside of the womb earlier now than they did in the past. It’s silly to make personhood determined by location, that is not scientific at all and again it’s just an opinion.

Getting back to reality, when speaking about human beings, the word “individual” is commonly understood as a distinct human life, or human entity. As we established, the pre-born baby has a unique set of DNA, the pre-born is a distinct human individual, a brand new human being.

As Natural Citizen said early in the thread, when an obstetrician is treating a pregnant mother, he considers it treating two patients, not one. There are two lives, not one. That is what the word individual means, in this context, in these types of discussions.

Yes! Survive OUTSIDE the womb!
You are getting it!
I'm not merriam Webster my dear. I dont make up definitions. I just go by them.

You’re not going by any dictionary definition. Also, now you’re saying that you’re going by the viability argument, but that contradicts something you said earlier. Because I’m pretty sure earlier on the thread you said that you support abortion up until the time of birth, just minutes before birth. Well that is far BEYOND the point of viability.

Premature babies have been born and survived as early as 21 or 22 weeks. Now think about how illogical your position is. According to you, a premature baby at 22 weeks outside the womb IS a person, but a full-term baby who is minutes away from delivery, at 40 weeks is NOT a person.

Apart from the fact that the second baby, the one you think is OK to kill, is older and fully developed, the only difference between those two babies is location. So according to you personhood is determined by location… Do you see how idiotic that is? That’s not scientific at all, it’s completely subjective, just an opinion and an opinion based on nothing but a selfish desire for convenience.