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

[buttercup]

 

[SweetSue92]

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.

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.

When you have no substance, you rant and insult.

 

[SweetSue92]

We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.

Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?

Will their next attack be directed at:

Gays
blacks
Muslims
Hispanics

We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.

But what group of Americans will they attack next?

No substance, personal attacks.

That's how we know you're losing the debate.

 

[SweetSue92]

Given that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, aka as "miscarriage", all of which was ordained by God when He created women, it appears that God has no problem with abortion. There's also that passage that if a man injures a pregnant woman and she loses the baby she was carrying, the man should pay her husband for the "loss of property". Not for the murder of a baby, but for the "loss of property".

Quoting the Bible or religious reasons for banning abortion is a non-starter. God gave women free will on abortion. You would take away what God gave us.

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.

The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.

Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all. That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.

So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.

So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning). Dead people are DEAD. They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.

A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".

One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.

Life

Definition

noun, plural: lives

noun, plural: lives

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't. (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)

A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.

While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.

I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance). This would be included in adaptation. Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him. The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.

And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.

You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.

 

[SweetSue92]

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?

Obfuscating the really simple stuff is their MO. My youngest students would laugh at the stupid stuff they say, and that's the truth. When you can't even fool young children you should crawl away in shame, knowing you have lost.

But Leftists have no shame.

 

[Leo123]

Obfuscating the really simple stuff is their MO. My youngest students would laugh at the stupid stuff they say, and that's the truth. When you can't even fool young children you should crawl away in shame, knowing you have lost.

But Leftists have no shame.

Yeah, a callous disregard for life....I mean trying to equate a corpse with a fetus......They are certifiably loons. Life is meaningless to them.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.

Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?

Will their next attack be directed at:

Gays
blacks
Muslims
Hispanics

We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.

But what group of Americans will they attack next?

Democrats are killing hundeds of thousands of children every year and you want to know who Republicans are going to attack next?

 

[RealDave]

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.

Great logic. Not

Conception can not take place without a sperm. Therefore, according to you., life begins at sperm production & every time we do not ensure every sperm gets to be part of conception, we are aborting babies.

 

[RealDave]

We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.

Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?

Will their next attack be directed at:

Gays
blacks
Muslims
Hispanics

We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.

But what group of Americans will they attack next?

Democrats are killing hundeds of thousands of children every year and you want to know who Republicans are going to attack next?

What children have the Democrats killed?

 

[RealDave]

Bullshit. A fetus becomes an infant at birth. Nothing to do with age.

 

[RealDave]

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?

Is a cancerous tumor alive? Is my foot alive?

 

[RealDave]

A reminder...

So now you assfucks claim women are getting abortions at 36 weeks.

 

[gipper]

A reminder...

So now you assfucks claim women are getting abortions at 36 weeks.

Abortion is legalized murder. Plain and simple.

Murdering your unborn child for convenience sake, is psychotic.

Remember BO playing to the baby killers with...” i don’t want to penalize them with a baby.” Ugh! Grandpa wants his grandchild murdered. Now that is pathological.

 

[The Purge]

A reminder...

So now you assfucks claim women are getting abortions at 36 weeks.

Yes cocksucker they do you ignorant slut

7 states already allow abortion up to birth — not just New York | The ...
Jan 30, 2019 · New York isn't the only state that allows abortion up to birth. ... at least one clinic in Washington, D.C. offers abortions up to 36 weeks

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.

Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all. That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.

So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.

So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning). Dead people are DEAD. They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.

A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".

One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.

Life

Definition

noun, plural: lives

noun, plural: lives

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't. (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)

A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.

While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.

I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance). This would be included in adaptation. Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him. The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.

And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.

You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.

It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights. Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.

If that’s what you believe, that’s your CHOICE but leave the rest of us out of it.

IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

 

[LilOlLady]

A fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in life-sustaining oxygen and nutrient early in development and is a LIVING BEING. After 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, the umbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen directly to the developing fetus's body.
For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining. Life begins at conception. The embryo protection law in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other law explicitly provides a similar definition of the appearance of early human life.

The fifth-grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."

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.

Is a person who depends on a machine really alive? In most states, you can take such a person off of a machine and allow them to die. Is that murder? Is a fetus that depends on a woman's body really a person? The fact is we should be using persuasion to reduce the number of abortions. The number of abortions has dropped in this country even with no strict abortion laws.

A woman's body is a machine. During the outbreak of Polio in the 50 many children lived in a machine until they were able to breathe on their own but they were still a human being The Iron Lung and Other Equipment. No device is more associated with polio than the tank respirator, better known as the iron lung. Physicians who treated people in the acute, early stage of polio saw that many patients were unable to breathe when the virus's action paralyzed muscle groups in the chest. A woman body is a temporary heart-lung machine for the unborn who is not able to breathe on it's on. That is the way GOD created women. A person with COPD drags an oxygen tank with them in order to live. They continue to live because of that machine. A woman is life support for HER unborn child and only GOD has the right to terminate life. Science cannot change that unless by a freak of nature she is born without a womb and ovaries with eggs that are potential human beings. And she cannot produce without the sperm of a male. GOD make women for men. He called her a companion. And life goes on.

 

[SweetSue92]

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.

The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.

Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all. That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.

So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.

So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning). Dead people are DEAD. They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.

A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".

One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.

Life

Definition

noun, plural: lives

noun, plural: lives

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't. (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)

A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.

While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.

I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance). This would be included in adaptation. Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him. The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.

And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.

You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.

It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights. Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.

If that’s what you believe, that’s your CHOICE but leave the rest of us out of it.

IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights

You realize you're typing word salad here right? What does "not yet living, are alive" mean? Is this how logic works in your brain?

Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.

Yes dear, here's how it works, at least here in the USA: The right to life is primary. So a citizen doesn't get to KILL SOMEONE because they were in their way in line, or cut them off in traffic. Nowhere in law do you get to KILL SOMEONE because "rights"--because the right to life, again, is primary. If you are defending YOUR life, that's another story. But not just for "convenience".

 

[The Purge]

 

[SweetSue92]

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.

The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.

Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all. That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.

So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.

So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning). Dead people are DEAD. They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.

A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".

One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.

Life

Definition

noun, plural: lives

noun, plural: lives

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't. (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)

A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.

While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.

I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance). This would be included in adaptation. Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him. The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.

And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.

You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.

It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights. Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.

If that’s what you believe, that’s your CHOICE but leave the rest of us out of it.

IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

As to your last sentence, imagine a husband who wants to beat his wife senseless on the daily making this argument: IF IT'S NOT YOUR WIFE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

THINK, woman, for pity's sake

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.

Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all. That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.

So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.

So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning). Dead people are DEAD. They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.

A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".

One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.

Life

Definition

noun, plural: lives

noun, plural: lives

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't. (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)

A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.

While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.

I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance). This would be included in adaptation. Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him. The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.

And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.

You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.

It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights. Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.

If that’s what you believe, that’s your CHOICE but leave the rest of us out of it.

IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

As to your last sentence, imagine a husband who wants to beat his wife senseless on the daily making this argument: IF IT'S NOT YOUR WIFE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

THINK, woman, for pity's sake

This thread has some of the most ridiculous reasons and arguments for baby murder I've ever read.

Leftists truly are evil ignorant morons