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

[NYcarbineer]

No two people are identical; your premise is bullshit

We are talking about them being the same in the context of killing them.

Oh, so they have to have the same skin colour as you? They have to be the same religion? What, exactly, are the criteria for being a 'real' human?

You say there is no difference between killing the 2 celled version of a human and the fully developed born version of a human.

Do cite

Why can't you people ever be honest?

make that known by clearly and unequivocally stating your exact position.

I have. Multiple times. Three times in this very thread.

Not my fault you never learned how to read.

Now, answer the question: at what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?

State your position.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does anyone else wish that Buttemia had been aborted?

No, not particularly, there aren't any on this site that I feel that way about... well, except for... {loss of connection requires this post to remain incomplete}... sorry, for some reason I can't finish that sentence.

Immie

Off topic, but I think Babble is the product of an unfertilized egg.

Beukema is a classic troll. He wants to argue against your stand while not revealing his own.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Yes, it's a living organism, but at fertilization it bears not the slightest resemblance to a human being.
There is nothing unreasonable about allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages, and to protect her right to do so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

i advocate abortion of unwanted children.

Killing off the unwanted.

Where have we heard that before?


No wonder PP was founded by a eugenicist. Explains the name, too, when you think about it.

Hitler? lol

Oh wait, the Nazis were anti-abortion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...

...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,

and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.

I will stipulate that it is human. I will stipulate that it is an organism. I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.

Please...begin...

 

[AllieBaba]

Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...

...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,

and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.

I will stipulate that it is human. I will stipulate that it is an organism. I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.

Please...begin...

Why should we argue something we've never asserted in the first place?

 

[Immanuel]

Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...

...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,

and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.

I will stipulate that it is human. I will stipulate that it is an organism. I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.

Please...begin...

Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?

A fetus is human. No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.

The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter. What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number. We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.

Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work. We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...

...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,

and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.

I will stipulate that it is human. I will stipulate that it is an organism. I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.

Please...begin...

Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?

A fetus is human. No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.

The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter. What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number. We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.

Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work. We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.

Immie

Outstanding post, Immie!

I wonder how they'll spin this.

 

[Immanuel]

Since the original theme of this epic was cogent argument...

...someone on the anti-abortion side please make an argument to us that demonstrates that a fertilized egg is NO DIFFERENT than a fully developed person,

and therefore must be treated NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to the issue of abortion/termination/killing, call it what you want.

I will stipulate that it is human. I will stipulate that it is an organism. I contend that both of those stipulations are immaterial to the question presented.

Please...begin...

Why do you want us to make an argument we don't agree with?

A fetus is human. No more or less human then it was when it was a Blastocyst or that it will be when he or she reaches the ripe old age of 99.

The vast majority of us who are pro-life are not interested in punishing the woman or the abortionist for that matter. What we want is fewer abortions and ultimately zero abortions or at least as close as we can get to that number. We will probably never see anywhere close to that and as long as people such as yourself promote abortion on demand from conception through birth (if that is your position as it seems to be) then the hope of ever reducing the number of abortions is pie in the sky.

Accomplishing our goals through the threat of punishment may seem to some to be achievable, but for me, I don't think that will work. We have to undertake alternative methods which don't include the threat of punishment and quite frankly about the only way I can think of is through education and ultimately changing the hearts of women and men bringing them to accept that abortion is not the answer.

Immie

Outstanding post, Immie!

I wonder how they'll spin this.

I can already answer that in NY's words... "Then you are as irrational as he is", but he won't provide any solutions either.

Immie

 

[syrenn]

Babies can't survive period without someone assisting them.

It's a worthless argument..that something isn't human because it can't feed and clothe itself. It's patently untrue.

I have never suggested that babies can survive on their own without assistance.

I do ask the still unanswered question: Will 4 week old fetal tissue that has been c-sectioned out have "life"? Feel free to give it all the assistance you want, all the life saving support you want but will it have "life"? Is there something there to save that will live?

 

[xsited1]

Babies can't survive period without someone assisting them.

It's a worthless argument..that something isn't human because it can't feed and clothe itself. It's patently untrue.

I have never suggested that babies can survive on their own without assistance.

I do ask the still unanswered question: Will 4 week old fetal tissue that has been c-sectioned out have "life"? Feel free to give it all the assistance you want, all the life saving support you want but will it have "life"? Is there something there to save that will live?

Not today, but medical science is advancing at a remarkable rate and it wouldn't surprise me if in the future a 4 week old could be taken out of the womb and allowed to develop in an incubator.

 

[JBeukema]

Only 3/5 human. Also, property.

Your Constitutional scholarship rivals your biological and medical learning.

The Constitution never said anyone was" 3/5 human". The Enumeration Clause, dealing with how Representatives are apportioned, says this:

". . . which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Doesn't say a damned thing about anyone being a fraction of a human, or even a fraction of a person.

Property, on the other hand, they definitely WERE. That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not they were "real human beings". So again, if they weren't humans until the Civil Rights Act magically conveyed humanity upon them, what sort of animal were they? Or perhaps they were insects? Plants?

You've answered your own question but you're too stupid to see that. They were included in the phrase "all other persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn. The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational people.

Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.

Loser.

You know who else wasn't counted?

Women.

We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too.

(Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)

So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?

 

[syrenn]

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.

I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"

Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?

And what pray tell gives you the right to make the decision that it does not have life as far as you are concerned?

Forgive me because you and I are friends and I respect much of what you say but dagnamit, who made you God?

Immie

Will 4 week old C-sectioned out tissue live? Will it be a baby? That is what gives me the right to say it is not a life as far as i am concerned. The tissue is living, the tissue is human but the tissue does not have stand alone life.

I do not pretend to be god. I do understand life and what a baby is. 4 week old tissue is not a baby.

I get the part where everyone is crying "murder" over an abortion. A C-sections is not an abortion. A C-section would be giving birth to what ever it is that is there. How hard is that for everyone to understand?

If 4 week old tissue has a life of its own..i am saying give it that life. Give it a c-sectioned birth. The woman no longer has it inside her body, it has not been destroyed in an abortion. If the tissue is a baby let it have it live if it has a life. You could also say..let god decide.

 

[Ravi]

Your Constitutional scholarship rivals your biological and medical learning.

The Constitution never said anyone was" 3/5 human". The Enumeration Clause, dealing with how Representatives are apportioned, says this:

". . . which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Doesn't say a damned thing about anyone being a fraction of a human, or even a fraction of a person.

Property, on the other hand, they definitely WERE. That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not they were "real human beings". So again, if they weren't humans until the Civil Rights Act magically conveyed humanity upon them, what sort of animal were they? Or perhaps they were insects? Plants?

You've answered your own question but you're too stupid to see that. They were included in the phrase "all other persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn. The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational people.

Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.

Loser.

You know who else wasn't counted?

Women.

We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too.

(Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)

So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?

Wrong. Even the simplest research proves you wrong.

The three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes."[1][2] The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only."[3]

wikipedia

Loser.

 

[Anguille]

Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions? If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions. Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and saving those innocent lives. Figures you couldn't see that on your own.

I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you. Typical.

If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder. By anyone rational anyway.

Again you completely and totally ignore my entire post, my entire point. Unfuckingbelievable. Punishing the woman isn't my ballyiwick, it's yours so stop projecting it onto me. And your statement above makes zero sense. Punishment does not dictate whether something is murder, the law does and unfortunately our law okayed the killing of unborn human beings. You are truly dumber than a rock.

I realize you want to put me into some kind of rw extremist box . . have fun with it because I'm not fitting and I'm not playing your game. Once again, punishing the woman isn't what pro-life is about it is about preventing abortion thus preventing the destruction of innocent human life.

If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder. By anyone rational anyway.

Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.

And look at you clapping along like a trained seal or something. You know what? Good. Remember this the next time you try and pigeon hole me with your "pro-lifers don't care about the woman they only care about the unborn" bullshit. mmmkay?


Neither one of you have answered JB's question:

"At what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?"

Want to try answering this or are you just going to bounce back with more projection? Never mind, I already know the answer to that question.

Hey there, little ankle biter. Having another meltdown?

 

[AllieBaba]

Well that was fairly convoluted. You are saying you understand babies can't live without assistance, but if you have to give them assistance to live, they aren't really alive?

You do realize that fertilized eggs are started in petrie dishes and transplanted into women, right? So technically, they are living, with assistance, outside of the mother.

And we are able to keep babies at younger and younger ages alive. What will happen to your argument when we are able to maintain life and grown of babies from that magical 4-week point? What will the justification be then for allowing mothers to kill them, when if a stranger would do it, it would be murder?

 

[AllieBaba]

You've answered your own question but you're too stupid to see that. They were included in the phrase "all other persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn. The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational people.

Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.

Loser.

You know who else wasn't counted?

Women.

We needed a constitutional amendment to make it clear that females are people, too.

(Clearly, you're not familiar with the suffragettes.)

So let's go ahead and run with your argument and see where that takes us, eh?

Wrong. Even the simplest research proves you wrong.

The three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes."[1][2] The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only."[3]

wikipedia

Loser.

Wiki is find for information for which there is no argument. It's a great source for getting information about documents, recorded history, established government frameworks, etc.

And I would love to see what research proves him wrong. Please provide it.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"

Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?

Of course not. But whether it lives outside of its environment doesn't determine its humanness or not. Humans beget humans. From conception to delivery and beyond, they are human beings. Different stages to be sure, but human beings at each and every stage.

If I took you as you are right now and plopped you in the middle of Siberia you'd be dead within the hour. Does that make you less human because you're unprepared and unequipped to survive in a hostile environment?

This is the part that I think many are not getting. Developmental stages of a human being are just that . . . stages of development. But what is living and growing inside of a woman is a human being. How can you possibly say it is anything else? That it is just a blob of tissue? If it were just a blob of tissue, if it isn't "life" as you claim . . . then an abortion wouldn't be something a woman would seek.

I posted these definitions earlier and they went ignored.

Abortion: the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

Pregnancy: 1. the state or condition of being pregnant 2. the period from conception to childbirth

Once again, Arthur Koestler comes to mind. Clearly, they need to have been something other than human when they were at their youngest. I do not believe it is an inability to be honest with others so much as an inability to admit to themselves what they advocate and/or have done.

This cognitive dissonance seems to be a defense mechanism born out of a deep moral conundrum: they believe in their heart of hearts that they are murderers but they also need to believe they are good people, so they must find a way to convince themselves that what their actions are okay. Since they cannot convince themselves that killing the innocent and defenseless is acceptable, they instead undergo complex mental gymnastics to convince themselves that the child was somehow not alive or not human.

That is why they become so emotional during these discussions. I have had more than one of them try every attempt to spin their way around from the simple fact that their actions led to the death of a human being. Ultimately, their final response boils down to pure emotion. They are angry because the facts lead them to conclude they are murderers. That realization, that conclusion, that judgment of their own actions they are so desperate to avoid facing is their primary motivation. They cannot reconcile what they know to be true with what they need to believe, so they construct for themselves a unique faith that, like so any other faiths we commonly call religion, places the cause above the facts.

To deny the truth is an act of service. This, of course, is why it is useless to discuss any particular aspect of [the matter] with [these people]. Any genuine intellectual contact which you have with her involves a challenge to her fundamental faith, a struggle for her soul.
-Adapted from Arthur Koestler's contribution to [ame="http://www.amazon.com/God-That-Failed-Arthur-Koestler/dp/0231123957/"]The God That Failed[/ame]

It is also why they so oft feel the need to claim that only the religious Right opposes abortion for moral or religious reasons. If opposition to the act can be deemed merely a religious objection, then it can be dismissed as merely a different faith.
​

 

[Zoom-boing]

If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder. By anyone rational anyway.

Again you completely and totally ignore my entire post, my entire point. Unfuckingbelievable. Punishing the woman isn't my ballyiwick, it's yours so stop projecting it onto me. And your statement above makes zero sense. Punishment does not dictate whether something is murder, the law does and unfortunately our law okayed the killing of unborn human beings. You are truly dumber than a rock.

I realize you want to put me into some kind of rw extremist box . . have fun with it because I'm not fitting and I'm not playing your game. Once again, punishing the woman isn't what pro-life is about it is about preventing abortion thus preventing the destruction of innocent human life.

Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.

And look at you clapping along like a trained seal or something. You know what? Good. Remember this the next time you try and pigeon hole me with your "pro-lifers don't care about the woman they only care about the unborn" bullshit. mmmkay?


Neither one of you have answered JB's question:

"At what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?"

Want to try answering this or are you just going to bounce back with more projection? Never mind, I already know the answer to that question.

Hey there, little ankle biter. Having another meltdown?

Another? I never had a first one, let alone a second . . . that was wishful thinking on your part.

btw, you forgot to answer the question.

 

[Anguille]

Babies can't survive period without someone assisting them.

It's a worthless argument..that something isn't human because it can't feed and clothe itself. It's patently untrue.

I have never suggested that babies can survive on their own without assistance.

I do ask the still unanswered question: Will 4 week old fetal tissue that has been c-sectioned out have "life"? Feel free to give it all the assistance you want, all the life saving support you want but will it have "life"? Is there something there to save that will live?

Not today, but medical science is advancing at a remarkable rate and it wouldn't surprise me if in the future a 4 week old could be taken out of the womb and allowed to develop in an incubator.

Better yet, implanted into a man. I can't wait to see how some men suddenly see the light when it becomes a case of them getting pregnant.