The Personhood of the unborn needs to be settled

[AntonToo]

Doesn't look like a person to me.

Looks to me like a bunch of cells with ZERO capacity for relatable experience of the world that we associate with personhood. It has no capacity for tactile response, pain, desire - NOTHING.

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

Please link to a single scientific reference to the word "being"

You are just playing symantics.

Embryo is no more "a being" than a few skin cells.

Definition of BEING

 

[Cecilie1200]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

Why do you insist on thinking that WE are forcing them to do anything? They forced THEMSELVES into that position by engaging in an act designed to produce the result they just said they don't want. I for one neither plan to feel guilty, nor to endorse infanticide, because some dumbass indulged in self-destructive behavior, got the obvious result, and is now whining to me because it's "unfair" that nature didn't reverse its rules for her "specialness".

Not sure I'm interested in your idea of "practical", which looks remarkably like the "practicality" shown by every evil dictator in human history: these people are inconvenient, so the "practical" thing to do is kill them. Pass.

Sex is not "self-destructive behavior." LOL It is one of the fundamental urges hardwired into our brains and people will NOT stop participating in it, no matter how much you scowl at them or wag your finger.

Of course you call it evil; what a shocker.

Poverty breeds all kinds of negative behaviors and poor outcomes that cost our government much more in the long run than a $600 termination of pregnancy. That is known, settled fact. If parents can't afford a child, why you are championing more of that, I am not sure.

Sex is frequently self-destructive behavior. "LOL" That you don't know this tells me everything I need to know about your life. Look at people who cheat on their spouses; people who get drunk and wake up next to a total stranger; people who wind up in therapy for sex addiction. Just because something is a fundamental urge doesn't mean that any and every expression of that urge is a good and positive thing for you. Eating is a whole lot more fundamental and necessary than sex, but I dare you to walk into a Weight Watchers and tell those people that that means eating can't ever be self-destructive.

Of course you think acknowledging that people should control and channel their urges is "calling it evil". Nothing shocking about a leftist being amoral and illogical at the same time.

Do not fucking start lecturing me on "If we just had more government giveaway programs, all problems would be solved, and we wouldn't have to stop fucking like crazed weasels."

I'm not championing parents having children they can't afford, you obtuse twat. I champion them not making extra children in the first place. But I don't think killing a child once you HAVE made it is any kind of solution. I'm afraid I just can't muster your level of soulless, cold-blooded evil.

 

[AntonToo]

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

it is human 'life' but a post born PERSON is a human being.

 

[buttercup]

Embryo however is no more an actual being than a strand of hair.

That is laughably and demonstrably incorrect. An embryo, whether you like it or not, is a brand new, genetically unique individual, whole living human being. You're the one playing with semantics by focusing on the word "being" while missing the important point that whatever word we use, the fact remains that the z/e/f is a brand new human (the word human as a noun, not an adjective as you would describe a strand of hair.)

That's exactly why I posted that meme, which you are now denying, but the sad reality is, many people seem to be woefully ignorant of basic biology.

 

[anynameyouwish]

There is no right to kill an innocent.

For any reason!

Rape, incest, health of the mother. None of those matter as long as that innocent little baby is born.

but....but.....but....what if the baby grows up to be an America hating atheist liberal?

 

[Cecilie1200]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

There is no such thing as an unwanted child. Didn’t read the rest of your post, because that first statement was wrong.

Explain that.

I meant exactly what I said. Just because a mother doesn't want her own baby doesn't mean that the baby is unwanted – it's only unwanted by her. There is ALWAYS someone who wants to adopt a baby or child. There are even people who specifically want to take in special needs children, or children who (for whatever reason) are not as 'in demand.'

In addition to that, even if every human in the entire world died, except for one baby, that baby would STILL be wanted / loved. I think you know what I mean, but I'm not going to get into that, because in abortion debates, it is completely unnecessary to go there, and since many proaborts are nonbelievers, I wouldn't expect them to accept or agree with that.

I guess I have looked at adoption from the "glass half empty" perspective because I used to work in Children's Services and the entire system, including adoption, was a wreck. Perhaps it goes much better among private adoption agencies. We had a lot of kids who were never adopted because they had problems of one sort or another. The regulations for being an adoptive parent--even including how big the windows are in the bedrooms--are exhaustive and expensive. I am sure the families you describe are out there, buttercup, but there aren't enough of them to handle the huge number of kids that would be showing up on the adoption agency's steps if abortion in this country were banned.

I'm not hearing "better off dead" here, but I've never been a sociopath.

 

[anynameyouwish]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

There is no such thing as an unwanted child. Didn’t read the rest of your post, because that first statement was wrong.

Explain that.

I meant exactly what I said. Just because a mother doesn't want her own baby doesn't mean that the baby is unwanted – it's only unwanted by her. There is ALWAYS someone who wants to adopt a baby or child. There are even people who specifically want to take in special needs children, or children who (for whatever reason) are not as 'in demand.'

In addition to that, even if every human in the entire world died, except for one baby, that baby would STILL be wanted / loved. I think you know what I mean, but I'm not going to get into that, because in abortion debates, it is completely unnecessary to go there, and since many proaborts are nonbelievers, I wouldn't expect them to accept or agree with that.

I guess I have looked at adoption from the "glass half empty" perspective because I used to work in Children's Services and the entire system, including adoption, was a wreck. Perhaps it goes much better among private adoption agencies. We had a lot of kids who were never adopted because they had problems of one sort or another. The regulations for being an adoptive parent--even including how big the windows are in the bedrooms--are exhaustive and expensive. I am sure the families you describe are out there, buttercup, but there aren't enough of them to handle the huge number of kids that would be showing up on the adoption agency's steps if abortion in this country were banned.

I'm not hearing "better off dead" here, but I've never been a sociopath.

actually.....ALL conservatives are sociopaths.....to one degree or another....

 

[night_son]

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

Please link to a single scientific reference to the word "being"

You are just playing symantics.

Embryo is no more "a being" than a few skin cells.

Definition of BEING

You're just another trickle down postmodernist repeating what the intelligentsia tell you to say and do. Like them, you would preach that life itself, or human "being-ness" is nothing more than a social construct to be redefined at will to fit your ideology. That old black magic hasn't been worth a shit for some time now. Try to originate an unique thought of your own.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Abortion was never presented in Roe as a method of birth control. That’s really what the debate is. When Row was argued no on was talking about birthing just the head, shoving a probe or forceps in its head, dismembering the corps and sucking it out with a vacuum pump. There also wasn’t a morning after pill you could buy at Walmart. There is zero need for abortion as it’s pushed now. None.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Plan-B-O...-Emergency-Contraceptive-Tablet-1-Ea/29131740

Morning after pill isn't always effective. And most women don't use abortion as birth control. Accidents happen. Many women who have gotten pregnant by accident were taking precautions. Then you have rape victims.

If abortion is overturned we risk going back tot he days of coat hangers

You’re going to do what LefTards do...hide behind the one percentile to justify your filth?
Hmm..I wonder how many abortions you’ve had performed?

Birth control failing is more than 1%. And especially with put the obesity rates, birth control failure is higher. Birth control methods like the pill are less effective on overweight women, along with the morning after pill.

Then there are medical conditions that call for it.

I did have to have an abortion one time, because I had an ectopic pregnancy. So am I a murderer too?

What you are is willfully stupid, if you really can't tell the difference between ending an ectopic pregnancy and having an abortion because motherhood would interfere with your promotion at work.

For one who brags what a good Christian they are, you sure talk like a stupid white trash bitch. Fake Christian says what?

Ooh, I see a red herring twitting about. A non Christian trying to identify real Christians. Cute. Moving on.



Did it ever occur to any of you far leftists that as a woman, Cecilie is just as qualified to speak on abortion rights as any woman to the far left of her?

The idea that she isn't qualified to speak on the issue due to her political opinion on abortion is uh... how can I say this? Sexist. Discriminatory. Nothing about her opinion disqualifies her from speaking on abortion or the ethics thereof. I can't speak to whether she has had children or not, but if she has, she would have far more experience on the issue of the humanity of a child than some people trying to pass off "a fetus isn't human" as scientific fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

A zygote is not a person.

Well, since you're so certain of this, you should have no trouble explaining the logic and evidence supporting your assertion.

Please proceed.

Well, I'm very glad you've figured out how sperm and ova work. And?

 

[TemplarKormac]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say.

Curious, do we try to prevent children in the third trimester?

I think we have a eugenicist on our hands here.

 

[anynameyouwish]

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

Please link to a single scientific reference to the word "being"

You are just playing symantics.

Embryo is no more "a being" than a few skin cells.

Definition of BEING

You're just another trickle down postmodernist repeating what the intelligentsia tell you to say and do. Like them, you would preach that life itself, or human "being-ness" is nothing more than a social construct to be redefined at will to fit your ideology. That old black magic hasn't been worth a shit for some time now. Try to originate an unique thought of your own.

"You're just another trickle down postmodernist repeating what the intelligentsia tell you to say and do. Like them, you would preach that life itself, or human "being-ness" is nothing more than a social construct to be redefined at will to fit your ideology."



I'd say this is irritatingly ironic since conservatives believe that blacks are SUBhuman and liberals and gays are worthless scum who deserve death........


so all life is precious but blacks are subhumans

all life is precious but gays are perverts and defective

alll life is precious but liberals are terrorist loving god hating america hating scum bags....

seems to me conservatives preach that life itself, or human "being-ness" is nothing more than a social construct to be redefined at will to fit their ideology.....


cons GOOD = deserve life

fetuses GOOD = deserve life

gays BAD = deserve death

liberals BAD = deserve death

What if a woman is forced to have a child that she would have aborted and the child grows up to be a gay, atheist, liberal democrat?

do you want to kill it THEN?

 

[TemplarKormac]

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

it is human 'life' but a post born PERSON is a human being.

Except the Bird, Reptile, and Pig are recognized for what they are and not classified as a substandard version of their species for the means of setting a political agenda.

 

[TemplarKormac]

cons GOOD = deserve life

fetuses GOOD = deserve life

gays BAD = deserve death

liberals BAD = deserve death

What if a woman is forced to have a child that she would have aborted and the child grows up to be a gay, atheist, liberal democrat?

do you want to kill it THEN?

This is about as narrowminded as anyone can be. Since I came out as bisexual, my devoutly Christian grandmother has not tried to murder me in my sleep.

But since the rest of this assertion is pure and utter garbage, I have little else to say about it.

 

[night_son]

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

Please link to a single scientific reference to the word "being"

You are just playing symantics.

Embryo is no more "a being" than a few skin cells.

Definition of BEING

You're just another trickle down postmodernist repeating what the intelligentsia tell you to say and do. Like them, you would preach that life itself, or human "being-ness" is nothing more than a social construct to be redefined at will to fit your ideology. That old black magic hasn't been worth a shit for some time now. Try to originate an unique thought of your own.

"You're just another trickle down postmodernist repeating what the intelligentsia tell you to say and do. Like them, you would preach that life itself, or human "being-ness" is nothing more than a social construct to be redefined at will to fit your ideology."



I'd say this is irritatingly ironic since conservatives believe that blacks are SUBhuman and liberals and gays are worthless scum who deserve death........


so all life is precious but blacks are subhumans

all life is precious but gays are perverts and defective

alll life is precious but liberals are terrorist loving god hating america hating scum bags....

seems to me conservatives preach that life itself, or human "being-ness" is nothing more than a social construct to be redefined at will to fit their ideology.....


cons GOOD = deserve life

fetuses GOOD = deserve life

gays BAD = deserve death

liberals BAD = deserve death

What if a woman is forced to have a child that she would have aborted and the child grows up to be a gay, atheist, liberal democrat?

do you want to kill it THEN?

Careful there, your skirts are showing, projecting racism and hatred onto the faces of your enemies. Hold a séance, ask the Jacobins how that's been working out for them these last few centuries.

 

[Cecilie1200]

First of all, it is irrelevant because by the time most abortions occur, you have a beating heart, a face, brainwaves, a little body, even little arms and legs.

It is 100% relavant, because we can't even agree that an embryo without everything you just listed is not a person.

First things first.

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

Please link to a single scientific reference to the word "being"

You are just playing symantics.

Embryo is no more "a being" than a few skin cells.

Definition of BEING

That sort of word-parsing probably makes you look brilliant to the other Cro-Mags, but it doesn't fly here.

First of all, from your own link:

: a living thing

Second of all, "human being" is a compound word, Mensa Boy. You might have heard your grammar school teacher mention it before you dropped out.

Definition of HUMAN BEING

Following that hyperlink, you get:

Definition of HUMAN

Maybe you should have learned how to use the dictionary thingie before preening yourself on being smarter than anyone.

Oh, and FYI, the word is "semantics", genius.

 

[BS Filter]

Use some common sense. The fetus is a human being. Duh!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's settle it this way. The fetus is NOT a person. It is a potential person.

While the latter half of that statement is true, the entire gestation process happens in the womb of another person, namely a female of the species homo sapiens.

Given that such gestation is occurring in a female of our species, it stands to reason that any embryo fertilized via sexual reproduction by a male of the species homo sapiens is therefore homo sapiens. Two sets of human DNA meld together to for a new, distinct genome within the dividing cells of the zygote. The moment the two pairs of DNA come together, it forms a new and distinct genome that is neither the mother's nor the fathers, but an amalgam of the two. A singular, distinct human being.

Also, there is always a risk of miscarriage. But that risk does not deny the humanity of what is growing inside the womb.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's settle it this way. The fetus is NOT a person. It is a potential person. It was NOT created or ordained of God. It is the physical product of human biology which makes it both the responsibility and the property of its actual creators - its parents

If it is the physical product of human biology, then why isn't this product also physically human?

Can you answer that for me?

If the fetus isn't human, how can you say two human parents created it? How can you say it is "the property" of the two obviously human creators?

Do you realize how badly this undercuts your entire argument?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't know about Buttercup, but I'm not planning to define reality based on what you or anyone else will agree with, especially since I know you dedicated pro-aborts will disagree until the end of time, based on nothing more than your personal desires.

SCIENCE agrees about what an embryo is. Pick up any embryology textbook from any medical school if you don't believe me. Reality doesn't need your approval.

Again, your science statements are just straight stupid - no one disagrees that it in fact an embryo. Disagreement is over this embryo being or not being A PERSON.

A person is simply a human being. And it is an undeniable scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.

it is human 'life' but a post born PERSON is a human being.

You realize that you yourself have said some variation of most of those right here in this one message thread, right?