Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[Cecilie1200]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

I don't think it's that they consider their real position indefensible. I think it's that it's really hard to say, "I think some lives are unimportant and should be disposable for the convenience of others", and still feel good about yourself as a person.

Why would it be hard to feel good about yourself if saying that's not indefensible? If what they advocate's not wrong, why feel bad about it?

It can be defended - I'm not saying everyone would agree with it, or that I would - but one would still feel like a not-very-nice person for doing it.

Just as an example, and in no way meant to constitute an agreement or endorsement of anything on my part, choosing to allow a person or small group of people to die in order to save many, many more people is a defensible choice. One can make a logical, coherent argument defending that choice. But unless the person making that choice is an amoral sociopath, he's going to feel like a horrible person for doing it.

It is possible to make cogent arguments in favor of abortion even when one DOES admit that the fetus is a living human organism, but they are cold-blooded and while the arguer may feel completely correct and justified in making them, he's not likely to feel all that admirable. Most people like to think of themselves as "the good guy", the hero in their life movie.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So the Law shouldn't exist? We're back to Charles Manson's actions being strictly between him and god?

Most people disagree.

Someone like you would probably laugh and point if you saw some homeless person being teased and poked.
So you believe in a god who, if we had to do what he said, would order us to rape and murder eachother every time we saw one anther?

The god you imagine for yourself tells us what a piece of shit you really are

Way to cherry pick douchebag. You cut out the most important part of the post, which is where I said you are free to shoot me, the people around are free to call the cops (or not), and the cops are free to track you down and take you to trial.

So abortion should be illegal? The police should arrest women who kill their unborn child and they should be taken to rial and sent to prison when found guilty? Will you please make up your mind?

We have free will because if we didn't we'd end up doing more damage to each other and the planet.

You must believe in a truly evil god

You must have me confused with someone else, because I haven't said anything about the legality of abortion on this entire thread. However.....I have given my views and yeah, in certain cases like rape (she didn't ask for it and shouldn't have to pay the price), incest (very high incidence of birth defects, that's why you can't marry your sister, and besides, something like that could be a burden on the health care system). However, based on what the current laws state, I think we should keep things as they are, otherwise you'd end up with the coathanger back alley abortions being botched (which would increase the death rates of women seeking abortions as well as possibly have them end up being a burden on the health care system). It's only self righteouse religious dirtbags whose interpretation of the Bible is very twisted, almost to the point of being wrong, does this issue have any weight. I bet putting something like abortion or gay rights is the main thing that gets you to slither out from under your rock on voting day.

 

[Cecilie1200]

if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)

What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her exact same DNA?

You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.

If I'm not mistaken, identical twins have the same DNA structure, but obviously, they're still separate individuals.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The one thing I'm certain of, is everyone on here pretending they're on a moral highground because of a political opinion, is that they have each adopted multiple children. So many women made the moral choice of not have an abortion and going through with the birth, and since pro-lifers think this is such a good thing and want this done in all cases they've made a point to go around adopting up all the children who would've otherwise been aborted.

I mean it's all about the eventual life the pregnancy brings, so those so overly concerned with it do their best to make sure that life is made as good as possible.

Has nothing to do with religion and forcing those views on others, it's solely about the life of the eventual child...................................................

 

[JBeukema]

We don't get to kill off people we don't want around us.

Is it any surprise PP was founded by a eugenicist?

 

[AllieBaba]

Way to cherry pick douchebag. You cut out the most important part of the post, which is where I said you are free to shoot me, the people around are free to call the cops (or not), and the cops are free to track you down and take you to trial.

So abortion should be illegal? The police should arrest women who kill their unborn child and they should be taken to rial and sent to prison when found guilty? Will you please make up your mind?

We have free will because if we didn't we'd end up doing more damage to each other and the planet.

You must believe in a truly evil god

You must have me confused with someone else, because I haven't said anything about the legality of abortion on this entire thread. However.....I have given my views and yeah, in certain cases like rape (she didn't ask for it and shouldn't have to pay the price), incest (very high incidence of birth defects, that's why you can't marry your sister, and besides, something like that could be a burden on the health care system). However, based on what the current laws state, I think we should keep things as they are, otherwise you'd end up with the coathanger back alley abortions being botched (which would increase the death rates of women seeking abortions as well as possibly have them end up being a burden on the health care system). It's only self righteouse religious dirtbags whose interpretation of the Bible is very twisted, almost to the point of being wrong, does this issue have any weight. I bet putting something like abortion or gay rights is the main thing that gets you to slither out from under your rock on voting day.

False premise.
The incidence of abortion committed for incest and rape is MINISCULE.

 

[whitehall]

The pro-abortion crowd cannot even be honest about their agenda or their name. They call it "pro-choice" as if it was about selecting a brand of coffee instead of the termination of a human life. The ironic thing is if they did the same things to animals as the horrific procedure they recommend for late term human babies they would have been indicted.

 

[JBeukema]

It is possible to make cogent arguments in favor of abortion even when one DOES admit that the fetus is a living human organism, but they are cold-blooded

Doesn't that depend on the argument?

I take it I'm on your 'cold-blooded sociopaths' list, then?

Oh well, I don't suppose there's anything to be done about that

 

[manifold]

...I think I will abort myself from this thread.

Doesn't seem to be work'n out so well for you.

Prolly shoulda said partially abort.


But whatcha gonna do?

 

[JBeukema]

if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)

What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her exact same DNA?

You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.

If I'm not mistaken, identical twins have the same DNA structure, but obviously, they're still separate individuals.

Also a fine example, though I felt mine was more relevant to the pregnancy and abortion aspect of the discussion.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Nobody forces you to give birth.

Save in very few extenuating circumstances, women have more than enough time and opportunity to avoid impregnation, avoid implantation, or terminate the pregnancy prior to the creation of a new mind

It is. that is a biological fact

In your opinion.

First you have to prove such a thing exists,

So you believe abortion is OK up to a point and you are an atheist. Did I get that right?

 

[DiamondDave]

What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her exact same DNA?

You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.

Hey stupid.........the child DOES share part of her DNA. It also shares some of the father's DNA as well.

And? What's your point?

Just as a human shares part of it's DNA with a chimp.... does not mean it is the same.. the child has it's own UNIQUE DNA signature.. that is neither the mother's nor the fathers....

 

[DiamondDave]

What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her exact same DNA?

You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.

If I'm not mistaken, identical twins have the same DNA structure, but obviously, they're still separate individuals.

Also a fine example, though I felt mine was more relevant to the pregnancy and abortion aspect of the discussion.

Yet they are individuals with different phenotypes... neither of which are the same as either of the parents

 

[JBeukema]

incest (very high incidence of birth defects, that's why you can't marry your sister,

Really only an issue in the case of multiple generations of inbreeding

CNN.com - FindLaw Forum: A genetic report should cause a rethinking of incest laws - April 9, 2002

Of course, if we're going to control who may marry and reproduce with whom based on whether we think the child will have good DNA, why let those known to carry genetic disease reproduce at all? Or those who simply have inferior genetic lineage?

After all, your entire argument in this regard is a eugenic one. How far are you willing to go?

 

[JBeukema]

So you believe abortion is OK up to a point and you are an atheist. Did I get that right?

That is correct

 

[JBeukema]

Hey stupid.........the child DOES share part of her DNA. It also shares some of the father's DNA as well.

And? What's your point?

Just as a human shares part of it's DNA with a chimp.... does not mean it is the same.. the child has it's own UNIQUE DNA signature.. that is neither the mother's nor the fathers....

The DNA isn't what makes an individual

I believe it was Cecil who brought up identical twins

your premise is fallacious

 

[NYcarbineer]

We don't get to kill off people we don't want around us.

Is it any surprise PP was founded by a eugenicist?

I thought you wanted to make serious arguments.

 

[JBeukema]

If I'm not mistaken, identical twins have the same DNA structure, but obviously, they're still separate individuals.

Also a fine example, though I felt mine was more relevant to the pregnancy and abortion aspect of the discussion.

Yet they are individuals with different phenotypes... neither of which are the same as either of the parents

Again, I ask about the cloning technologies on the horizon

 

[ABikerSailor]

incest (very high incidence of birth defects, that's why you can't marry your sister,

Really only an issue in the case of multiple generations of inbreeding

CNN.com - FindLaw Forum: A genetic report should cause a rethinking of incest laws - April 9, 2002

Of course, if we're going to control who may marry and reproduce with whom based on whether we think the child will have good DNA, why let those known to carry genetic disease reproduce at all? Or those who simply have inferior genetic lineage?

After all, your entire argument in this regard is a eugenic one. How far are you willing to go?

Oh....I see...it's okay if you marry your sister and have kids?

 

[JBeukema]

Depends. Are we going to enforce eugenic standards or not?

That is, after all, the only argument you've put forward for controlling whom someone may marry and reproduce with.