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

[RealDave]

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

LYING FUCK.

Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors. Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.

No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.

 

[satrebil]

No one is just deciding to kill babies. .

Kermit Gosnell ring a bell, dickhead?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

We’ve agreed to nothing of the kind. An acorn is NOT an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.

What the fuck do trees have to do with anything? Have you noticed at all that humans are not trees? That we aren't even PLANTS?

It appears that she is....intellectually.

That's pretty insulting to the plants, which at least are useful and serve a purpose.

OK....I'll be going on an apology tour in my garden.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

LYING FUCK.

Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors. Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.

No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.

A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.

 

[RealDave]

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

LYING FUCK.

Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors. Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.

No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.

A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.

I know to whom I am speaking. Ignorant people who whine about me typing "Fuck" who love that orange PIOS who says it all the tine. Fuck you & your fake outrage.

 

[PoliticalChic]

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

LYING FUCK.

Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors. Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.

No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.

A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.

I know to whom I am speaking. Ignorant people who whine about me typing "Fuck" who love that orange PIOS who says it all the tine. Fuck you & your fake outrage.

I'm going to keep forcing the vulgarity out of you because of how you stain the other Leftists.


Bet everyone is proud of your mastery of the language you picked up in the little boy's room.

 

[LilOlLady]

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.

And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.

There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

Since she had unprotected sex, it was an invitation. The guest arrives and then she wants to evict the invited one? Her body was never created to be her own if it had she would not have been told to "mutliple and fill the earth" and given a womb and a supply of eggs. And the necessary organ to engage in sex. And GOD do exist whether you believe it or not..

 

[BWK]

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.

And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.

There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

Since she had unprotected sex, it was an invitation. The guest arrives and then she wants to evict the invited one? Her body was never created to be her own if it had she would not have been told to "mutliple and fill the earth" and given a womb and a supply of eggs. And the necessary organ to engage in sex. And GOD do exist whether you believe it or not..

It was an invitation to her body which is hers that God gave her. You got a problem with that?

 

[SAYIT]

LYING FUCK. Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors. Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival. No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.

So you are saying the 800,000 we abort every year make that decision on their own? Interesting ... typically stupid but interesting.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

LYING FUCK.

Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors. Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.

No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.

A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.

I know to whom I am speaking. Ignorant people who whine about me typing "Fuck" who love that orange PIOS who says it all the tine. Fuck you & your fake outrage.

I'm going to keep forcing the vulgarity out of you because of how you stain the other Leftists.


Bet everyone is proud of your mastery of the language you picked up in the little boy's room.

Put him on ignore. Nobody takes the loon serious anyway. Hate filled and incapable of being civil

 

[Flopper]

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse. However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion. 90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage. At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement. Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring. At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain. In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain. It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body. Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.

 

[Flopper]

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.

And there is no developed brain or fully developed human body that can Biologically experience consciousness or the experience of life.

There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

Since she had unprotected sex, it was an invitation. The guest arrives and then she wants to evict the invited one? Her body was never created to be her own if it had she would not have been told to "mutliple and fill the earth" and given a womb and a supply of eggs. And the necessary organ to engage in sex. And GOD do exist whether you believe it or not..

"her body was never created to be her own" So if she does not own her body she is a slave.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse. However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion. 90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage. At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement. Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring. At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain. In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain. It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body. Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.

Correct.

And that an embryo/fetus might be alive doesn’t mean it’s a person entitled to Constitutional protections – which of course it’s not.

The mistake those hostile to privacy rights make is to venture out of the realm of religion and personal, subjective opinion and enter into the realm of the law when seeking to ‘ban’ abortion and criminalize the procedure, one having nothing to do with the other.

 

[beagle9]

I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.

The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.

But again. Not your body.

Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.

What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?

The radical religious Right in this country have lost their collective minds. I read this OP and these folks think they are God. Who in the f... do you people think you are to tell others it's not their body? Are you out of your friggin mind? What a disgusting bunch of nuts. Have you read the Constitution? Get out of here with your lunatic talk.

Nice rant, but you are the one who has lost your mind. The lunatic talk is the justification of killing human beings forming in the womb or have formed in the womb. The lunatic action is using abortion to kill something because a woman decides she had sex but regretted it, and then decides to abort because of her wrecklace actions in life.

People want to talk about "when does life start", but I ask when does very important individual responsibility start ???

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

There will be if you leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.

Exactly, "there will be." In the mean time why the impregnated woman contemplates a "there will be", she has a right to her own body, and you do not have the right to tell her otherwise. And your radicalism is not invited into her body. You have received no invitations. Get it.

First of all, what gave you the idea that I’m a radical? It was a simple observation that you even acknowledged to be true. I said nothing about the woman’s rights.

Having said that, I don’t claim to have the answers as to how to reconcile a woman’s rights with the taking of a life.

How do you know it is life? Did God tell you it was?

However, I think pro-choice advocates should stop playing semantics with prenatal terms like “fetus” and “zygote” and whatnot and stop pretending that they are not essentially interrupting the course of nature and taking the life of a child.

Got it. Again, so when did you have thi9s conversation with God that someone was taking a life? Because, I know of no known definition in the womb, other than one's own philosophical or religious views. Life - Wikipedia

The pro-choice argument is akin to ripping a sapling out of the ground and saying it’s not a tree.

Is it? I seem to recall the sapling was already out of the ground? I'm not sure you can say the same for a fetus?

Don’t be an idiot. The point is, it’s not a tree yet but if you interrupt the course of nature, it never will be. And natural complications such as miscarriage notwithstanding, the ONLY reason it will never be a child is because you ripped it from the womb.

And if I cut the tree before it is a hundred years old before it matures, and use the lumber to build a house, I just interrupted nature in order to build a house. Man has been interrupting nature, since man walked this planet. Had man not interrupted nature, man would not be walking this planet.

If you think that cutting down a tree (that will never be sentient) is morally equivalent to ending the life of a child, well, therein lies your problem.

So save the bs about the "interruption." It insults my intelligence.

I certainly hope so.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Abortion is the killing of another human being.
98.5% of all abortions don't involve rape or incest.
Nearly all abortions are for convenience.
The unborn is not part of her body any more than a 6-month old breast feeding is.
There is no way to separate late term abortion from infanticide.
Government funding for abortion...Planned Parenthood gets over half a billion dollars....is illegal.


At the heart of Liberalism is the view that they, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, are God.

Killing another human being is, it appears, their prerogative.


Here's what Virginia [Democrat] Gov. Ralph Northam said: “I can tell you exactly what happens: If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”


So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.




Oh...and this fact: you are a savage.

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

When is that?

As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.

No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."

The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.

Since life can’t begin at any point without conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.

 

[buttercup]

a zygote is not a human being.

Ya know, I'm just going to keep posting this, because you guys are akin to a 3 year old holding her fingers in her ears going "la la la la la."

“...it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

*********

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization. From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

*********

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

*********

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

*********

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

*********

National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”

Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13

*********

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

*********

“In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”

Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144

*********

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

*********

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3

“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”

*********

Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943

“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun. ”

*********

Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986

“but the whole story does not begin with delivery. The baby has existed for months before – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”


*********

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

*********

Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

*********

Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

*********

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”​

 

[The Purge]

A reminder...

 

[Leo123]

Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse. However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion. 90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage. At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement. Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring. At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain. In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain. It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body. Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.

That in red.....A human fetus is alive and developing......a human corpse is dead and has no life. A human corpse is not a 'being' because it is no longer living. A human fetus IS a being because it is alive and has human DNA and.....will MOST LIKELY develop into a human infant and eventually a separate Human being with the parents' DNA. Do I have to really explain this basic stuff to you dunder heads?

 

[buttercup]