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

[AllieBaba]

I thought your question is when is it ok to kill a human.

It's ok to kill a human that doesn't have the protections of the state.

It's quite simple.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that I don't really believe for a second that you thought "real human being" meant "someone you can't kill", are you saying that legality conveys morality? That passing a law to do something makes it moral? How, then, do you decide what laws to pass and what to legalize, if there's no moral standard except that provided by what is ALREADY legal?

I took real human being to be someonY
Ye that you can't kill without punishment. I am saying that legality is a reflection of morality. If the morals of the day don't consider a particular human to be under the protection of the state, then there are no punishments for killing said human and certain aspects of society may celebrate those actions. You can find evidence of this throughout history and all over the globe.

This is too vague, you need to be more specific. What does "certain aspects of society may celebrate those actions" mean? You say there's evidence; refer to it.

Because I have no idea WHAT the fuck you're trying to say.

 

[syrenn]

Our hearts don't have their own heart, and they never grow one.

Because they aren't a human. A baby is.

It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"

 

[JBeukema]

Our hearts don't have their own heart, and they never grow one.

Because they aren't a human. A baby is.

It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"

So we're back to you idiots failing biology 101 and knowing what a human being is

 

[JBeukema]

If what you advocate isn't wrong, why can't you admit to yourselves what you advocate?

 

[snjmom]

Yes, well, if you deny those things to your infant, you will go to jail.

There are rights, they are listed here and there in things like constitutions, bibles and korans; even primitive people recognize basic rights.

And you are naive and ignorant if you don't know that. Since I assume you are neither, I assume you are being duplicitous.

No, I will have my parental rights severed. The child will be placed in foster care or put up for adoption. Where in the constitution does it say that you have to provide for your child? Most of the religious edicts are presumptive of an obedient child and admonish the parent to turn away the disobedient child and let it fend for itself.

Again, the reality is that children are just as much of a burden as they are a joy and that society benefits as a whole if the children that are brought into the world are welcome and planned for.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thats not the aspect that JB is stomping around about. He is all up in arms about where life begins and if the mother has the right to "end" that "life" Abortion=murder

Again, c-sections it out and set it on the table at 4 weeks. See if it has life.

Oh, WELL, by the same token, if you take a fish out of water and set it on the table, it'll die too. I guess that means fish aren't alive in the first place.

Somehow, I think this "brilliant" standard of "if it dies under the right circumstances, it must not have been alive in the first place" is going to be a bit problematic.

Fish do not live in the air, humans do.

Put a human, any human underwater it will die just the same as a fish out of water.

I am not saying that 4 week old aborted tissue is not "living." So long as the tissue is not necrotic it is living tissue. Living tissue does not mean it is a "life" as far as i am concerned. Your heart is living human tissue. The heart, in and of itself is not a human with a "life".

Oh? Humans live in air, huh? In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity? I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".

Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive. In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.

It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote. An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism. Period. This is not an arguable biological fact. A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus. A heart is an organ IN an organism. A fetus is an organism.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, well, if you deny those things to your infant, you will go to jail.

There are rights, they are listed here and there in things like constitutions, bibles and korans; even primitive people recognize basic rights.

And you are naive and ignorant if you don't know that. Since I assume you are neither, I assume you are being duplicitous.

No, I will have my parental rights severed. The child will be placed in foster care or put up for adoption. Where in the constitution does it say that you have to provide for your child? Most of the religious edicts are presumptive of an obedient child and admonish the parent to turn away the disobedient child and let it fend for itself.

Again, the reality is that children are just as much of a burden as they are a joy and that society benefits as a whole if the children that are brought into the world are welcome and planned for.

If the child is in your care then you are responsible for it. You may give it away. You may not sell it, however, and you must provide for it until such time as another person takes on the burden.

Did you know you can be prosecuted for coming upon a child that is alone, even though you have never seen that child before, and then leaving that child...and the child gets hurt? WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILDREN. The law recognizes this and mankind recognizes this.

If you deliver your baby and walk away and leave it in a motel room, even if you call someone to tell them, you can and will be prosecuted. You not wanting to care for that baby doesn't mean you aren't expected to, and that you're not responsible for its well being.

This is basic stuff.

 

[AllieBaba]

Syrenn you can't be serious that you think people aren't obliged to care for their children, even when they don't want to. Because that's over the top ridiculous. Women are prosecuted EVERY DAY for walking away from their kids without first providing adequately for them.

 

[syrenn]

Our hearts don't have their own heart, and they never grow one.

Because they aren't a human. A baby is.

It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"

So we're back to you idiots failing biology 101 and knowing what a human being is

Do i say the tissue is not human? I say the tissue is not a stand alone "life"

 

[snjmom]

Are you advocating for personal responsibility for our forebears? Should we now have reparations?

That's reality. Without the state to protect your rights, they are subject to the power gradient between you and every other human being.

Cecilie. It is quite plain English. Does the fetus have the right to force you to carry it, by law? If it is to be considered a person with a right to life, does that right supercede your right to decide what will live in your body?

You're still blithering. Are you drunk? Is that why you're unable to make sense? Who's advocating ANYTHING having to do with our forebears?

What the holy hell do legally-protected rights have to do with whether or not someone is a "real human being" (your words)? What in the blazes are you BABBLING about?

THIS is quite plain English: STOP TRYING TO TOPIC-HOP. Just because you want to leap past any discussion of the basic facts upon which legal decisions are and should be made and go straight to a discussion of "This should be legal because it's legal" doesn't mean you get to. If you want to set your own topic, make your own thread. Don't come barging in here trying to impose YOUR topic choices on a discussion that's already begun.

If you're too cowardly to address the conversation at hand, get gone.

If you would read the thread cecilie, you would see the forbears was a response to the Native American genocide brought up by JB.

Plain English. Is a fetus human? Yes. Does it have the right to reside in your womb if you choose not to carry it? No. Do you have the right to expel it in a legally approved manner, even if the unfortunate consequence is the death of said human? Yes.

Simple enough?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I thought your question is when is it ok to kill a human.

It's ok to kill a human that doesn't have the protections of the state.

It's quite simple.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that I don't really believe for a second that you thought "real human being" meant "someone you can't kill", are you saying that legality conveys morality? That passing a law to do something makes it moral? How, then, do you decide what laws to pass and what to legalize, if there's no moral standard except that provided by what is ALREADY legal?

I took real human being to be someone that you can't kill without punishment. I am saying that legality is a reflection of morality. If the morals of the day don't consider a particular human to be under the protection of the state, then there are no punishments for killing said human and certain aspects of society may celebrate those actions. You can find evidence of this throughout history and all over the globe.

Just another example of how the pro-abortion crowd can't be honest. I'd have to believe you're an even bigger idiot than I currently do to believe you actually interpreted the phrase "real human being" to have anything to do with the law.

And no, you're NOT saying legality is a reflection of morality, because you are very clearly saying that something is moral BECAUSE it is legal.

Stop trying to save this mess you've made. You fucked up, you made a fool of yourself, just accept it and move on, because you're NEVER going to be able to make it seem as though you weren't talking out of your ass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our hearts don't have their own heart, and they never grow one.

Because they aren't a human. A baby is.

It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"

And you base the assertion that a fetus has no "stand-alone life" on what? Your continued, deliberately-obtuse ignorance on the subject of what "independent life" actually means in biological terms?

 

[JBeukema]

It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"

So we're back to you idiots failing biology 101 and knowing what a human being is

Do i say the tissue is not human? I say the tissue is not a stand alone "life"

So we're back to not knowing what a human being is?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"

So we're back to you idiots failing biology 101 and knowing what a human being is

Do i say the tissue is not human? I say the tissue is not a stand alone "life"

And you continue to be egregiously wrong and stupid in so doing. And I say "stupid" because you're not just ignorant and uneducated on this topic, but you are WILLFULLY so. You have CHOSEN to cling to your ignorance of biology, which is the very embodiment of "stupid".

 

[snjmom]

The original premise was is it any different to abort a fetus than to shoot a baby that is born.

Just because you can't understand what I'm saying doesn't necessarily make me the fool.

 

[syrenn]

Oh, WELL, by the same token, if you take a fish out of water and set it on the table, it'll die too. I guess that means fish aren't alive in the first place.

Somehow, I think this "brilliant" standard of "if it dies under the right circumstances, it must not have been alive in the first place" is going to be a bit problematic.

Fish do not live in the air, humans do.

Put a human, any human underwater it will die just the same as a fish out of water.

I am not saying that 4 week old aborted tissue is not "living." So long as the tissue is not necrotic it is living tissue. Living tissue does not mean it is a "life" as far as i am concerned. Your heart is living human tissue. The heart, in and of itself is not a human with a "life".

Oh? Humans live in air, huh? In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity? I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".

Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive. In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.

It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote. An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism. Period. This is not an arguable biological fact. A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus. A heart is an organ IN an organism. A fetus is an organism.

Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"

Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.

 

[Truthseeker420]

sperm is alive,is masterbation murder?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fish do not live in the air, humans do.

Put a human, any human underwater it will die just the same as a fish out of water.

I am not saying that 4 week old aborted tissue is not "living." So long as the tissue is not necrotic it is living tissue. Living tissue does not mean it is a "life" as far as i am concerned. Your heart is living human tissue. The heart, in and of itself is not a human with a "life".

Oh? Humans live in air, huh? In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity? I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".

Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive. In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.

It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote. An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism. Period. This is not an arguable biological fact. A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus. A heart is an organ IN an organism. A fetus is an organism.

Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"

Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.

Do you deny that a fetus is an organism? Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism. You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier. Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.

What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient. For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.

 

[syrenn]

Syrenn you can't be serious that you think people aren't obliged to care for their children, even when they don't want to. Because that's over the top ridiculous. Women are prosecuted EVERY DAY for walking away from their kids without first providing adequately for them.

I do think that BOTH parents are more then obliged to care for their children. That is one reason i advocate abortion of unwanted children. Unwanted, unloved, uncared for children are so incredibly sad. Both parents should be prosecuted for neglecting their children.

 

[JBeukema]

Fish do not live in the air, humans do.

Put a human, any human underwater it will die just the same as a fish out of water.

I am not saying that 4 week old aborted tissue is not "living." So long as the tissue is not necrotic it is living tissue. Living tissue does not mean it is a "life" as far as i am concerned. Your heart is living human tissue. The heart, in and of itself is not a human with a "life".

Oh? Humans live in air, huh? In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity? I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".

Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive. In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.

It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote. An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism. Period. This is not an arguable biological fact. A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus. A heart is an organ IN an organism. A fetus is an organism.

Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"

Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.

So it's a living organism, but it's not a life?



WTF is a 'stand alone life' is not a living organism?

I swear, abortionism is a religion. You people sound like the YECs demanding creationism be taught in the schools, dancing around the definition of a scientific theory