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

[NYcarbineer]

here are reasons that the science of biology has terms of distinction such as zygote, embryo, fetus, for example.

Irrelevant semantics, and thus immaterial in this argument.

Why can't you make up your mind or stick to one story?

I was referring to your semantics not mine.

Do you believe that disposing of fertilized eggs from a fertility clinic is capital murder?

 

[Immanuel]

This is a stupid argument for abortion. Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???

A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.

Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.

Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.

BS, if there ANY complications during labor MOST doctors want to do a cesarean. That decreases their liability if there are problems from waiting on the vaginal delivery.
Chord wrapped around the baby or any lowering of the baby heart rate are the top 2 reasons.

Bullshit. The umbilical cord was around my very neck. They didn't slice my mother open; the nurse manually removed the cord from my neck so the birthing could continue.

I watched the doctor reach down and pull the cord from around my second daughter's neck. I am thoroughly convinced he saved her life then and there.

Immie

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so. I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.

As to answering your question. Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth. And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate. From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human. No one can change that.

Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances. Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.

Immie

Well, then you're as irrational as Beukema.

And there you have it. Carib thinks letting 12-year-old rape victim abort her pregnancy is irrational. And that not letting her get that abortion is also irrational.

Like most adherents of abortionism, he has only emotion guiding him and there is no room for cogent thought

Don't lie about what I said, I was referring to this as irrational:

Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth.

which it is.

 

[JBeukema]

I support the principles established Roe v. Wade

You mean perjury? Norma McCorvey has stated repeatedly that her entire story was bullshit


The case was decided based on perjury and therefore is null and void. If it were any other case, it would have been overturned and re-heard.

support the trimester delineation established by the SCOTUS as reasonable.

Why? Why is killing a woman's baby okay today but not in twelve hours?

Do you have any reason or argument other than that you want to be allowed to kill babies?

You've really begun to embarass yourself.

I guess your desire for cogent reasoned arguments wasn't applicable to you.

So you still can't say shooting you in the face is wrong?

You can't tell me why killing a baby is okay one day and wrong the next?

You can't name a single reason the ruling is good or right? It just happens to suit your needs and your desire to babies?

 

[Cecilie1200]

False premise. An organism is no more a child than an acorn is a tree.

Red is to seven as sky is to waffle?

Speaking of false premises, how about the one that compares the reproductive cycles of two species from COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KINGDOMS? And that's totally aside from the fact that this sentence didn't actually make a whole lot of sense. I think you were going for "a fetus is no more a child".

JB said:

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.

Just because it's an organism doesn't make it a baby. It's a seed, like an acorn is a seed that under the right conditions can become a tree.

If you need another analogy, let me know.

You ARE aware that, as members of the ANIMAL kingdom, rather than the PLANT kingdom, humans don't HAVE seeds, right? This is why I already pointed out that comparing two species from completely different KINGDOMS is a false premise, but you are apparently determined to continue making yourself sound like a fool.

Yes, the fact that a fetus is a human organism makes him a baby, because that is what humans, as mammals, HAVE. We don't have seeds; we don't lay eggs; we don't begin our existences as one creature and then transform into another one in a chrysalis; we produce live young known as "babies".

 

[Cecilie1200]

an unborn child is a seed?


you fail biology forever

Your argument is that these organisms are the beginnings of a baby. Correct?

No, dumbass, that would be Mr. Plant Kingdom's argument. JB's argument was that a fetus is an organism, and thus ALREADY a baby.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Answer my question, please.

It is a human child from the point of fertilization

that is the biological reality

at what point we deem a baby a toddler, a preteen, a teenager, an adult, and an old woman has nothing at all to do with whether it's okay to kill her in cold blood

You got a reading problem?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You mean perjury? Norma McCorvey has stated repeatedly that her entire story was bullshit


The case was decided based on perjury and therefore is null and void. If it were any other case, it would have been overturned and re-heard. Why? Why is killing a woman's baby okay today but not in twelve hours?

Do you have any reason or argument other than that you want to be allowed to kill babies?

You've really begun to embarass yourself.

I guess your desire for cogent reasoned arguments wasn't applicable to you.

So you still can't say shooting you in the face is wrong?

You can't tell me why killing a baby is okay one day and wrong the next?

You can't name a single reason the ruling is good or right? It just happens to suit your needs and your desire to babies?

I have absolutely zero emotional investment in fetuses so you are really wasting your time trying to use the fallacy of appeal to emotion in this debate.

You have not made a cogent argument as to why a one hour old 2 cell zygote is a person, so don't be getting on me for not making cogent arguments.

Roe v Wade is reasonable and serves the best interests of our democratic society. There is no identifiable greater good achieved by throwing women in prison for life, or executing them, for having a first trimester abortion.

It is an irrational, extreme position (yours that is) and no sane society allows itself to be governed by its irrational extremists.

Thankfully, we will never be governed by yours.

 

[Synthaholic]

your idiotic question was answered

No it wasn't. Here it is again:

Your argument is that these organisms are the beginnings of a baby. Correct?

 

[Immanuel]

You've really begun to embarass yourself.

I guess your desire for cogent reasoned arguments wasn't applicable to you.

So you still can't say shooting you in the face is wrong?

You can't tell me why killing a baby is okay one day and wrong the next?

You can't name a single reason the ruling is good or right? It just happens to suit your needs and your desire to babies?

I have absolutely zero emotional investment in fetuses so you are really wasting your time trying to use the fallacy of appeal to emotion in this debate.

You have not made a cogent argument as to why a one hour old 2 cell zygote is a person, so don't be getting on me for not making cogent arguments.

Roe v Wade is reasonable and serves the best interests of our democratic society. There is no identifiable greater good achieved by throwing women in prison for life, or executing them, for having a first trimester abortion.

It is an irrational, extreme position (yours that is) and no sane society allows itself to be governed by its irrational extremists.

Thankfully, we will never be governed by yours.

I think you had a typo there. It should read party. Because it serves the purpose of dividing this nation for the benefits of The Democratic Party not our democratic society. And few, if any, have promoted throwing a woman in prison for even a day let alone life for any abortion let alone a first trimester abortion.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

You can't tell me why killing a baby is okay one day and wrong the next?


At what moment and for what rational reason did killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?

Do you have any argument other than 'we wanna be allowed to kill babies'?

 

[Gadawg73]

Please, nobody listen to anything gadawg says about pregnancy or delivery. He has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

You know nothing about medical liability or anything in the private sector.
Go back to you gummint tit job. No one in the private sector will hire you.

 

[Gadawg73]

Omg you're an idiot.

Six states see dramatic rise in C-sections - USATODAY.com

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's address the basic flaw in your initial premise:

"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."

The blastocyst is not an independent organism. Yes, it is alive. Yes, it is genetically human. So is your pinky. For a child born with an extra digit, so is the 6th toe on his foot, or the 6th finger on her hand. But it is NOT a living human organism.

Until such time as it can survive independently from its mother, the fetus is more a part of the mother than it is "a living human organism."

Why couldn't you be honest about that?

Let's examine the MANY basic flaws in YOUR premise.

A blastocyst IS an independent organism. The problem here is that YOU don't understand what "independent" means in terms of organisms. It does NOT mean "self-sufficient, needing no other organisms to provide nourishment or a safe living environment", because by that standard, NONE of us are independent organisms. Nature shows us many organisms which cannot live outside the body of another organism, and many which are utterly dependent on other organisms to survive. The blastocyst/embryo/fetus during gestation is but one of these organisms. He is an organism because he meets all the criteria that define organisms: growth, homeostasis, etc. He is independent in the sense that he has separate systems from his mother, and is self-directing. It is not the mother's body which controls his growth, development, and function; his own body does that.

Second flaw: you also don't understand the difference between organs and organisms. A pinky is not an organism. It is an organ, and a PART of an organism.

A fetus is not part of his mother at any point in time, any more than a tape worm in her digestive tract would be "part of her body".

I'd ask why you couldn't be honest about that, but it's clear that it's because your education in biology is sadly lacking. I suggest you sue the school district from which you graduated immediately.

 

[Cecilie1200]

your idiotic question was answered


then the latest sock puppet came in to deny biology again and claim grandma ceases to be an organism when when she's on a ventilator


why can't you people ever be honest?

Because they're ignorant.

 

[Gadawg73]

Omg you're an idiot.

http:A Risky Rise in C-Sections - US News and World Report

"Rising malpractice premiums may play a role"
Well DUH.
AllieBabble, you are a dumbass. Thanks for confirming it.
You will NEVER, EVER be able to out work, out research and out hustle me.
You are a gummint stooge that does not have to produce a profit for anyone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can anyone who ever reads things posted by JB possibly answer that question? JB is all over the place in his posts. One minute pro-life the next... kill them all. You would have to clarify what JB's stance really is.

I do agree with him though about it being a life from the moment of conception. Um, if that is his stance.

Immie

Here's JB's stance verbatim:

If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth.

So that is what you can agree or disagree with, if you prefer.

Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so. I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.

As to answering your question. Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth. And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate. From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human. No one can change that.

Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances. Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.

Immie

My understanding is that JB is pro-choice, but doesn't feel the need to lie and pretend basic biology is something that it isn't in order to facilitate being pro-choice. I'm not entirely sure how he DOES justify abortion under those circumstances, though.

 

[Shadow]

Then Cesarean sectioning it out at 4 weeks, giving it birth, wont mater then if it is not part of a womans body.

This is a stupid argument for abortion. Most OBGYN's will go out of their way to talk a woman out of a cesarean. Why???

A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health, including infections, hemorrhaging, possible injury to other organs, complications due to anesthesia and possible death.

Death stats for the mother are two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.

Not to mention some babies do survive the c- section and then are discarded and left to die,when they would actually survive with medical treatment.

BS, if there ANY complications during labor MOST doctors want to do a cesarean. That decreases their liability if there are problems from waiting on the vaginal delivery.
Chord wrapped around the baby or any lowering of the baby heart rate are the top 2 reasons.

Key word being "complications". I know from experieince just how far they will actually go to avoid them.

Even in the case of a breech birth...they would much prefer to do a proceedure (aversion) to physically turn the baby around...rather than cut you open.

 

[Immanuel]

Here's JB's stance verbatim:

If you were to take RU-486 after the child's individual sentience comes into existence, causing the child's death, because you decided the baby was too inconvenient. it's no different than shooting the baby in the head five seconds after birth.

So that is what you can agree or disagree with, if you prefer.

Well, if I wanted to search through enough of JB's posts, I think I can find where he has supported the pro-choice point of view as well, but I don't really care to do so. I am also not 100% sure that is JB's actual beliefs as he trolls.

As to answering your question. Yes, I believe the fetus is a human being and that using RU-486 or any other form of induced abortion is snuffing out its life no differently than shooting it in the head five seconds after birth. And, I will say that I don't consider sentience to be a determining factor in this debate. From the point of conception on, the offspring of a human couple is human. No one can change that.

Induced abortion is the killing of a human being under all circumstances. Whether or not it should be illegal in any or all circumstances is a completely different question.

Immie

My understanding is that JB is pro-choice, but doesn't feel the need to lie and pretend basic biology is something that it isn't in order to facilitate being pro-choice. I'm not entirely sure how he DOES justify abortion under those circumstances, though.

That has always been my impression too.

Immie

 

[Synthaholic]

I support the principles established Roe v. Wade

You mean perjury? Norma McCorvey has stated repeatedly that her entire story was bullshit

Why do you believe her 'post' version over her 'pre' version?