"My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points

[TemplarKormac]

Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her.

Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible.

The act is therefor unethical.

What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical.

you seem to think ethics are written in stone. if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?

next.

Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her.

She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property.

This makes it unethical.

Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual.

her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property. why do you feel entitled to lock up her property?

I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway.

Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it.

Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading.

except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.

next.

but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.

Which begs the question:

Are they children when they are born? They seem to require the same sustenance as when they were in the womb. They are just as dependent on the mother outside of the womb as they were inside.

Yet you argue they are not children while they are forming in the womb.

Curiouser and curiouser...

You never answered my question, by the way.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her.

Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible.

The act is therefor unethical.

What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical.

you seem to think ethics are written in stone. if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?

next.

Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her.

She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property.

This makes it unethical.

Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual.

her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property. why do you feel entitled to lock up her property?

I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway.

Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it.

Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading.

except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.

next.

False, it's a human, as it cannot be any other species, being a stage of human development at the moment of conception, having a unique DNA sequence, as well as containing all of the information determining what kind of human it develops into. It is a separate and complete human being, undergoing the process of development, as is any other living human. Whether or not it cannot sustain itself is totally irrelevant, there are people on life support who are still humans. There are people missing internal organs, and limbs, all of which are still human. Your argument is, once again, nonsensical, and special pleading.

All humans are self-owning agents, and being part of any specific stage of development does not change that it is still human, nor does lacking any one specific feature.

 

[Vandalshandle]

As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!

They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.

They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.

I'm gonna miss them!

Amen. Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless. Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can. As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.

And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.

That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.

No, He didn't. Jesus sacrificed Himself. Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.

But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!

 

[playtime]

what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that. you are trying to compare a gestational non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.

lol... silly you..............

How is a fetus 'non-viable?'

viable adjective
us /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:

VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being. Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs. In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.

Oh look, a 'funnyface!' Looks like I win again!!

The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.

what bullshit.

Why?

i've used the words viability without out medical intervention & viability with it, & post born persons with a history many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.

 

[gipper]

lol... what? she can have all the outside input she wants or have none at all.

That's not what you're saying.

Who is it referring to the unborn child as "her property"?

YOU.

By using that particular phrase, you are suggesting that no outside input is allowed.

Apparently the abortionist believe a woman has the right to determine life and death, without any outside involvement. That is one Hell of a right.

Where is that in the Constitution? Maybe they think it says the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the right to murder my unborn child.

 

[SAYIT]

Here's my review of this thread - NotYourBody Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
So far....no takers. So much Winning!

You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.

So far … no takers … and we all know why.

because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+ gestational fetus is not a baby................. only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............

that's why.

You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.

First trimester development of embryo/fetus. A developing baby is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of pregnancy. ... During the third month of pregnancy, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017

nope. it ain't a baby until it's fully cooked.

Yanno, we disagree on that - obviously - but if you truly believe that which is growing in a woman's womb is just a "glob of cells" (or whatever) and not simply a rationalization, it is a legit excuse for believing it's OK to murder it.

JFTR, I have 3 daughters and a way-too-cute nearly 3 yr old g-daughter. I am as committed to defending their rights and by extension those of all females as anyone on the planet.

 

[gipper]

what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that. you are trying to compare a gestational non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.

lol... silly you..............

How is a fetus 'non-viable?'

viable adjective
us /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:

VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being. Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs. In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.

Oh look, a 'funnyface!' Looks like I win again!!

The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.

what bullshit.

Why?

i've used the words viability without out medical intervention & viability with it, & post born persons with a history many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.

Viability is bs and you know it.

 

[buttercup]

As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!

They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.

They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.

I'm gonna miss them!

Amen. Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless. Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can. As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.

And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.

That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.

No, He didn't. Jesus sacrificed Himself. Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.

But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!

She was correct. Jesus gave His own life willingly.

14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

John 10:14-18


13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. 14 He gave himself for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his, who are eager to do good.

Titus 2:13-14


6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God’s purpose at his appointed time.

1 Timothy 2:6

 

[playtime]

actually, no.... by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut. do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas? who keeps cutting programs like WIC & CHIP?

Sickening, wrong and demonstrably false, as the article below shows. But if you only meant that in a figurative way, because a preborn is dependent on you, well so are your children. Are they parasites?

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite

1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
   
   
2. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
   
   
3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite
   .
   b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
   
   
4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.)
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
   
   
5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
   
   b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
   
   
6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
   
   
7. b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
   
   
8. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
   
   
9. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

(This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.)​

Source: http://www.l4l.org/l

uh-huh. different species being the distinction without a difference. if it feeds on the host to survive & cannot live with out that host then yep - it's parasitic.

 

[playtime]

you seem to think ethics are written in stone. if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?

next.

Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her.

She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property.

This makes it unethical.

Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual.

her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property. why do you feel entitled to lock up her property?

I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway.

Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it.

Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading.

except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.

next.

False, it's a human, as it cannot be any other species, being a stage of human development at the moment of conception, having a unique DNA sequence, as well as containing all of the information determining what kind of human it develops into. It is a separate and complete human being, undergoing the process of development, as is any other living human. Whether or not it cannot sustain itself is totally irrelevant, there are people on life support who are still humans. There are people missing internal organs, and limbs, all of which are still human. Your argument is, once again, nonsensical, and special pleading.

All humans are self-owning agents, and being part of any specific stage of development does not change that it is still human, nor does lacking any one specific feature.

what should happen to females that try to abort if roe v wade is overturned?

 

[buttercup]

actually, no.... by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut. do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas? who keeps cutting programs like WIC & CHIP?

Sickening, wrong and demonstrably false, as the article below shows. But if you only meant that in a figurative way, because a preborn is dependent on you, well so are your children. Are they parasites?

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite

1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
   
   
2. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
   
   
3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite
   .
   b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
   
   
4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.)
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
   
   
5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
   
   b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
   
   
6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
   
   
7. b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
   
   
8. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
   
   
9. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

(This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.)​

Source: http://www.l4l.org/l

uh-huh. different species being the distinction without a difference. if it feeds on the host to survive & cannot live with out that host then yep - it's parasitic.

You're joking, right? You actually believe the preborn baby is a different species?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Here's my review of this thread - NotYourBody Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
So far....no takers. So much Winning!

You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.

So far … no takers … and we all know why.

because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+ gestational fetus is not a baby................. only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............

that's why.

You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.

First trimester development of embryo/fetus. A developing baby is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of pregnancy. ... During the third month of pregnancy, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017

nope. it ain't a baby until it's fully cooked.

Yanno, we disagree on that - obviously - but if you truly believe that which is growing in a woman's womb is just a "glob of cells" (or whatever) and not simply a rationalization, it is a legit excuse for believing it's OK to murder it.

JFTR, I have 3 daughters and a way-too-cute nearly 3 yr old g-daughter. I am as committed to defending their rights and by extension those of all females as anyone on the planet.

Every human is made up of cells, claiming that a child is "just" that doesn't excuse his position on murdering it. Even if we assume that at any point, it's truly dead, before it would supposedly hypothetically 'come to life', that would still be murder. At the moment of conception, the information contained within what was just murdered would have still contained the information on what kind of person it would be, that person is therefor still murdered. This means that even if it's killed a second before he would consider it alive, it's still murder, and this applies to any point.

 

[playtime]

How is a fetus 'non-viable?'

viable adjective
us /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:

VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being. Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs. In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.

Oh look, a 'funnyface!' Looks like I win again!!

The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.

what bullshit.

Why?

i've used the words viability without out medical intervention & viability with it, & post born persons with a history many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.

Viability is bs and you know it.

nope it's not.

 

[gipper]

The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.

what bullshit.

Why?

i've used the words viability without out medical intervention & viability with it, & post born persons with a history many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.

Viability is bs and you know it.

nope it's not.

Yes it is.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Amen. Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless. Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can. As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.

And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.

That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.

No, He didn't. Jesus sacrificed Himself. Do not attempt to cite the Bible when what you actually know about it would fit in a gnat's ear.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...." Jesus, Cec. I am an atheist and I know the Bible better than you.

But, what really amuses me is that you have posted 17 anti-choice posts in 2 hours, with no replies from me, and virtually every one of them is an insult to me, as if it made the slightest difference, either about abortions, or to me personally. Really, Cec. Get a life!

She was correct. Jesus gave His own life willingly.

14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

John 10:14-18

Demand a refund for your Bible. They obviously left out John 3.16 in the printing.

 

[gipper]

Here's my review of this thread - NotYourBody Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
So far....no takers. So much Winning!

You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.

So far … no takers … and we all know why.

because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+ gestational fetus is not a baby................. only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............

that's why.

You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.

First trimester development of embryo/fetus. A developing baby is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of pregnancy. ... During the third month of pregnancy, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017

nope. it ain't a baby until it's fully cooked.

Yanno, we disagree on that - obviously - but if you truly believe that which is growing in a woman's womb is just a "glob of cells" (or whatever) and not simply a rationalization, it is a legit excuse for believing it's OK to murder it.

JFTR, I have 3 daughters and a way-too-cute nearly 3 yr old g-daughter. I am as committed to defending their rights and by extension those of all females as anyone on the planet.

He gave up on the “glob of cells” fallacious argument several pages back, when I blew it up.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her.

She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property.

This makes it unethical.

Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual.

her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property. why do you feel entitled to lock up her property?

I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway.

Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it.

Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading.

except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.

next.

False, it's a human, as it cannot be any other species, being a stage of human development at the moment of conception, having a unique DNA sequence, as well as containing all of the information determining what kind of human it develops into. It is a separate and complete human being, undergoing the process of development, as is any other living human. Whether or not it cannot sustain itself is totally irrelevant, there are people on life support who are still humans. There are people missing internal organs, and limbs, all of which are still human. Your argument is, once again, nonsensical, and special pleading.

All humans are self-owning agents, and being part of any specific stage of development does not change that it is still human, nor does lacking any one specific feature.

what should happen to females that try to abort if roe v wade is overturned?

Since the Government will never overturn Roe V. Wade, as it helps them control the population, decreasing the size it would be, allowing it to sustain itself for a longer duration, by reducing cost of Social Programs, I'll assume you're being hypothetical.

Nothing the Government does is ever ethical in any way, therefor I don't advocate that they do anything. In the absence of Government force, however, I'd think that knowing someone murdered a child would cause some people to feel strongly about it, so that person would likely be brought to Private Arbiters by many people.

 

[playtime]

actually, no.... by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut. do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas? who keeps cutting programs like WIC & CHIP?

Sickening, wrong and demonstrably false, as the article below shows. But if you only meant that in a figurative way, because a preborn is dependent on you, well so are your children. Are they parasites?

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite

1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
   
   
2. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
   
   
3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite
   .
   b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
   
   
4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.)
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
   
   
5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
   
   b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
   
   
6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
   
   
7. b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
   
   
8. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
   
   
9. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

(This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.)​

Source: http://www.l4l.org/l

uh-huh. different species being the distinction without a difference. if it feeds on the host to survive & cannot live with out that host then yep - it's parasitic.

You're joking, right? You actually believe the preborn baby is a different species?

oh holy cow i said that is the DISTINCTION without a DIFFERENCE. meaning that 'just because' the zygote/embryo/unviable fetus has human DNA... does not make it any less parasitic because a definition says that it needs to be of a different species. the resulting mannerisms is still all the same when it's weeks or a few months in gestation.

 

[Vandalshandle]

what bullshit.

Why?

i've used the words viability without out medical intervention & viability with it, & post born persons with a history many times on this thread when distinguishing the difference about abortion.

Viability is bs and you know it.

nope it's not.

Yes it is.

I really would like to know exactly what you guys are advocating. Is it to overturn Roe? It has already been demonstrated that this would not stop abortions. Is it to convince people that they are evil? Good luck with that! Is it just a general condemnation? Well, fine, if it makes you feel better, but it does not change anything.

What?

 

[playtime]

You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.

So far … no takers … and we all know why.

because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+ gestational fetus is not a baby................. only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............

that's why.

You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.

First trimester development of embryo/fetus. A developing baby is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of pregnancy. ... During the third month of pregnancy, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017

nope. it ain't a baby until it's fully cooked.

Yanno, we disagree on that - obviously - but if you truly believe that which is growing in a woman's womb is just a "glob of cells" (or whatever) and not simply a rationalization, it is a legit excuse for believing it's OK to murder it.

JFTR, I have 3 daughters and a way-too-cute nearly 3 yr old g-daughter. I am as committed to defending their rights and by extension those of all females as anyone on the planet.

He gave up on the “glob of cells” fallacious argument several pages back, when I blew it up.

lol..no not really. & i am a she.