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

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Yes, i know the developmental cycle of humans.

Again, i don't not dispute that the tissue is human. Nor have i stated that it is not human.

As you say yourself, 4 week old fetal tissue is not viable. And that is rather my point. Viability is what gives it life. It has nothing to do with it being more, or less, human.

Um, it isn't "tissue" it is a human being in the earliest stages of development.

Viability gives it life? I disagree with that. You are a human being. You would not be viable in Siberia as you are right at this moment. Both are true statements. The same statements can be applied to a fetus (substitute table for Siberia). It is viable in the womb and it is a (early developing) human being, a human life. Taken prematurely from it's environment and it will die. It can only die if it was life to begin with. Viability doesn't determine whether it is a human being.

So for you when the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb is when you would say no to abortion? Anything prior to that and abortion is ok? (just asking for clarification)

While we disagree on this issue, thank you for discussing it rationally and calming and not flinging falsehoods, like others in here have done.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?'

That, or "My own ignorance is enough reason for other people to die", since of course, an embryo at fertilization looks EXACTLY like a human being . . . all human beings look that way at that stage of their lives. What Idiot Boy ACTUALLY means is that an embryo at fertilization doesn't look like AN ADULT HUMAN, and there's no reason he should. My toddler doesn't look like an adult human being, either, but that doesn't mean HE'S not human.

And yes, NY, I realize that my toddler looks more like an adult human being than an embryo does, before you bother to triumphantly point that out. This is because my toddler is much closer to being an adult than an embryo is. Once again, both of them look EXACTLY like all human beings do AT THAT STAGE OF THEIR LIVES.

 

[R.D.]

Told you folks.

Anyone who supports abortion supports population control and eugenics. ANYONE. I've never met one person who claims they support it for the sake of the children and the women who doesn't REALLY support it because they want to control other people's breeding habits.

That would be true only if the government were forcing abortions on people. You guys don't even seem to know the meaning of things that you propose (population control, eugenics). I find it amazing that all of the people trying to give the government the right to decide what happens with a woman's body are predominately men! I guess you still feel the need to control women.

It's the individual body within hers....back of the line

 

[JBeukema]

Told you folks.

Anyone who supports abortion supports population control and eugenics. ANYONE. I've never met one person who claims they support it for the sake of the children and the women who doesn't REALLY support it because they want to control other people's breeding habits.

That would be true only if the government were forcing abortions on people.

Are you familiar with a Ms Margaret Sanger?

You guys don't even seem to know the meaning of things that you propose (population control, eugenics)

Says someone who thinks compulsory eugenics are the only eugenics

Liberal eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

Cecil... I'm using you as a baseline for what a human looks like and NY looks nothing like you in a few key areas *stares at those areas with a blank stare and drools*

 

[Immanuel]

You're the only one bringing your god into it

sorry to disappoint you but Immie was. the one to bring god into it. You responded to my response to him. Do keep up.

Actually, that is not exactly true. I asked you who made you God. Since we all know you are not really God, I was not bringing God into this discussion.

Immie

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

At what time? Right around the 40 day mark. It's when scientists have proven the mass of cells does not develop a nervous system until after that point.

It's also referred to in Judaic theology, because it states that the embryo created by your parents doesn't get a soul (a small piece of God's energy He carves out from Himself for us), until around the 40 day point.

Short answer to your question? At about a month and a half is when it changes to something that could be considered human.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I thought her argument was "It's small and helpless and fragile, so that makes it okay to kill it", an attitude that in school-age children is generally called "bullying".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Viability is what gives it life.

Viability is a meaningless subjective term.

You cannot survive without your gut flora


You cannot survive out of your environment


If I cut your femoral artery, you cannot survive without drastic medical intervention


None of these facts make you 'not a life'

How remain a twit, however

I'm sorry for you. Hopefully some day you can accept that you are a murderer, forgive yourself, and move truly move on.

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be "gut fauna", since flora would be plants, and you're talking about bacteria, right?

Not sure either of them is 100% correct.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Told you folks.

Anyone who supports abortion supports population control and eugenics. ANYONE. I've never met one person who claims they support it for the sake of the children and the women who doesn't REALLY support it because they want to control other people's breeding habits.

JB here is a huge proponent of eugenics..or have you not been paying attention in other threads.

That is a completely different point of disagreement with JB, which largely involves matters of strictly opinion on both sides. At least HE isn't a lying sack trying rationalize away what he really believes by ignoring scientific fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecil... I'm using you as a baseline for what a human looks like and NY looks nothing like you in a few key areas *stares at those areas with a blank stare and drools*

Honestly, I can't believe actual adults (at least putatively) say ignorant shit like "doesn't look like a human" in public. As though anyone expects or SHOULD expect a fetus to look like an adult. And they never even QUESTION the ridiculousness of their assumption that "human being" means "ADULT human being", like that's the only variety they come in.

 

[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.

At what time? Right around the 40 day mark. It's when scientists have proven the mass of cells does not develop a nervous system until after that point.

It's also referred to in Judaic theology, because it states that the embryo created by your parents doesn't get a soul (a small piece of God's energy He carves out from Himself for us), until around the 40 day point.

Short answer to your question? At about a month and a half is when it changes to something that could be considered human.

It is human from the moment of conception, to say otherwise is a lie. Humans conceive and give birth to humans; fetuses don't "morph" into a human at some arbitrary 40 day mark.

 

[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...

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

1. You can't speak for everyone

2. Are you saying you support the right to an abortion in the 1st trimester?

3. Are you saying you support the legal use of RU486?

4. Are you saying you support the morning after pill's use?

5. Are you saying abortion in the 1st trimester is not murder?

 

[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...

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

Beukema said using RU486 was no different than shooting a born person. Do you agree?

 

[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...

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

Why would you not want to punish murderers if you believe abortion is murder? That's daft.

Or, if you don't believe abortion is murder, then quit claiming that the fetus is no different than a born person.

 

[AllieBaba]

Immie has said all along that he doesn't think it would help matters to make abortion illegal.
He's just said he thinks it's wrong.

 

[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...

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.

If you don't believe women and doctors should be punished as killers for aborting fetuses then you don't believe the fetus is a living human being with personhood and deserving of the protections that go with that status; you believe it is something else, which is exactly the justification for the permissibility of abortion in the first place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Immie has said all along that he doesn't think it would help matters to make abortion illegal.
He's just said he thinks it's wrong.

Then he's pro-choice.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think they should be prosecuted, if abortion is made illegal.

 

[AllieBaba]

Immie has said all along that he doesn't think it would help matters to make abortion illegal.
He's just said he thinks it's wrong.

Then he's pro-choice.

no shit.