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

[JBeukema]

at fertilization it bears not the slightest resemblance to a human being.

So, basically, your argument boils down to: 'Killing the ******* and chinks isn't wrong because they don't look like me?'

 

[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?

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

Where do i say that the tissue is not human? Where do i ever say it is not living tissue? Don't misunderstand what i am saying.

Do i say plop the tissue out into Siberia? I say put it on the table. Have that 4 week old mass of tissue worked over any way you want and given all the life support it can get. Will it live?

No one has the right to force someone else to be an incubator for a something that can be construed as a parasite. I know those are harsh terms but it is what it is. 4 week old fetal human tissue cannot survive without its host.

Again, i do not say abortion do i? I say c- section, a form of birth. Birth effectively ends pregnancy.

JB asks is it human from conception. Yes it is
Jb asks is that tissue alive. Yes it is

Alive and having a life of its own are two very different things.

 

[JBeukema]

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

Not quite

Margaret Sanger

Founded PP in the hopes that the negroes could be convinced to remove themselves from the planet

 

[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?

Then what exactly is the point of abortion?

Do I say abortion?

I say give it birth with a c- section.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

So... at what point did what change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

No, Syrenn you are not saying give it life. As of today's medical technology you know full well that removing it from the womb is a death sentence. You are in fact, playing God.

4 week old tissue is not a baby.

This is nothing more than your opinion. My opinion is that you are 100% wrong. It is a baby in a very early stage of development and I am pretty sure that biology back me up on that.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

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.

No, Syrenn you are not saying give it life. As of today's medical technology you know full well that removing it from the womb is a death sentence. You are in fact, playing God.

4 week old tissue is not a baby.

This is nothing more than your opinion. My opinion is that you are 100% wrong. It is a baby in a very early stage of development and I am pretty sure that biology back me up on that.

Immie

Except biology doesn't back you up. It's crazy forced birthers who call fetuses babies, not scientists.

I think we can all agree, however, that there is a big difference between something that breathes on it's own and something that does not.

 

[JBeukema]

[
I get the part where everyone is crying "murder" over an abortion.

The only people in this thread who seem to think abortion is murder are the pro-abortionists. If you didn't know in your own heart that you advocate the cold-blooded murder of a child, you wouldn't have to lie to yourself about what you advocate and try to convince yourself that we're somehow dealing with a not-alive non-human- non-organism.

A C-sections is not an abortion.

If used to end the pregnancy and end bring about the child's death, yet it is.

A C-section would be giving birth to what ever it is that is there. How hard is that for everyone to understand?

Anyone else reminded of 'partial birth'?

If 4 week old tissue has a life of its own

So it is 'stand-alone life'? Can you please one story and stick with it?

let god decide.

I don't believe in your god

 

[JBeukema]

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.

19th Amendment. If women were people, they'd have been covered by previous Constitutional language.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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

Where do i say that the tissue is not human? Where do i ever say it is not living tissue? Don't misunderstand what i am saying.

Do i say plop the tissue out into Siberia? I say put it on the table. Have that 4 week old mass of tissue worked over any way you want and given all the life support it can get. Will it live?

No one has the right to force someone else to be an incubator for a something that can be construed as a parasite. I know those are harsh terms but it is what it is. 4 week old fetal human tissue cannot survive without its host.

Again, i do not say abortion do i? I say c- section, a form of birth. Birth effectively ends pregnancy.

JB asks is it human from conception. Yes it is
Jb asks is that tissue alive. Yes it is

Alive and having a life of its own are two very different things.

Do you not understand that human beings develop through various stages before they are fully capable of living outside of the womb? Whether you c-section it out, deliver it out, abort . . .what means you use . . . how can you expect a human being in the earliest stages to survive in an environment it is not yet equipped to survive in? Surviving -- viability -- doesn't determine if a fetus is a human being or not. That 'blob of living tissue' you refer to IS a human being in one of the earliest stages of development. To state otherwise is a lie.

I never said to put a 4 week fetus into Siberia . . . I said if you were to be plopped into Siberia, as you are right at this moment, you'd die within an hour because you are neither prepared nor equipped to survive in that environment. . . just as a human being taken from it's environment too soon is not prepared or equipped to survive in that environment.

Does putting you into a hostile environment (in which you will surely die) make you less human? Because if I'm understanding your argument, you're saying that putting a 4 week fetus into a hostile environment (in which it will surely die) makes it less human.

 

[syrenn]

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

I don't disagree with you one bit. The goal is to not have so many pregnancies.

The problem i have with the pro life people is that they do not adopt the children that are unwanted. They talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk when it comes time to raise up all of these little people. I dont see many pro lifers who are willing to give up their time and money and homes to support the masses in the foster care system now.

The alternative would be for every who is pro life to register as pro life and get in line for the adoption of next baby that is born who is wanted. I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[Ravi]

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.

It's right there in black and white, Babble, I'm just sorry you are too retarded to understand that women were counted as persons as were blacks, thus destroying one of Buttemia's pet arguments.

 

[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?

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.

And i am good with that.

 

[JBeukema]

I think we can all agree, however, that there is a big difference between something that breathes on it's own and something that does not.

?

 

[Ravi]

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.

19th Amendment. If women were people, they'd have been covered by previous Constitutional language.

What a coward you are, Buttemia.

 

[syrenn]

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?

Do i say abortion? Do i say killing?

 

[JBeukema]

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

I don't disagree with you one bit. The goal is to not have so many pregnancies.

Stop fucking every Tom, Dick, and Harry without birth control

Take the pill, use a condom, wash with foam, stop being a slut. With these simple steps, you can avoid pregnancy.

 

[R.D.]

I don't disagree with you one bit. The goal is to not have so many pregnancies.

I've asked this before and don't know if it was answered (long thread)

Why?

 

[JBeukema]

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?

Do i say abortion? Do i say killing?

No, you can't admit to yourself what you advocate because you know it's indefensible.

 

[AllieBaba]

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

Not quite

Margaret Sanger

Founded PP in the hopes that the negroes could be convinced to remove themselves from the planet

Not just blacks, but all types of "undesirables". She wanted to eliminate poor people, stupid people, people with imperfections either mentally, financially, or physically.

She was a hard core eugenecist (sorry, I have a hard time with that spelling). They soft soap it now (lots of revision going on), but it's true nonetheless.