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

[NYcarbineer]

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.



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.

They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more. A fertilized egg is not a person. Aborting it is not murdering a person.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more. A fertilized egg is not a person. Aborting it is not murdering a person.

Humans conceive humans. From the beginning it is human. They're not human because '"that's what we've named them", they're human because HUMANS BEGET HUMANS. How utterly stupid are you that you can't just admit this? It's not a dog or a cat or an acorn . . it is a human. It is a life that is in one of the very earliest stages of development and abortion is the killing/ending/destruction of a human life. It isn't considered murder because it has been made legal. That doesn't change the fact of what abortion does.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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

It won't ever be made illegal, imo.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Same here but the "pro abortion" label is used.
I adamantly oppose abortion.
I know of NO ONE that is pro abortion.
But I hear it all the time AFTER I have won the debate.

 

[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

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.

Don't lie about my position please.

I have never said it was murder. Our laws allow for the taking of life in certain situations. Abortion is not murder because the courts have declared it to be legal. Being legal does not equate to being right.

My position has always been fewer abortions and never to punish the abortionist or the mother.

Please cease from lying about my position.

Immie

 

[Gadawg73]

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

And who decides which doctor is telling lies and which one is telling the truth?
Government?
You do know that it will be doctors performing those "illegal" abortions.
And you believe they will be prosecuted.
"It was done for the safety of the mother"
Those of us that work in the court system know that abortion laws are almost impossible to prosecute UNLESS:
You are poor and have no $$$$$.
Real world is hard for some folks to understand.
"Just the facts maam"

 

[JBeukema]

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.

They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more. A fertilized egg is not a person. Aborting it is not murdering a person.

So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...

What is a 'person'?

 

[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 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?

You're arguing that there's a difference.


It's on you to show that difference

 

[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 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?

Did I now?

Please site the alleged post in full

 

[JBeukema]

quit claiming that the fetus is no different than a born person.

Who claimed that? Where? Do cite.

 

[PixieStix]

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.

They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more. A fertilized egg is not a person. Aborting it is not murdering a person.

So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...

What is a 'person'?

A person..would be the body of a human

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more. A fertilized egg is not a person. Aborting it is not murdering a person.

So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...

What is a 'person'?

That's the new concept they've invented to argue about now that their old arguments have been shown to be scientific bullshit. Instead of basing our decisions on hard fact, we're going to go with fuzzy, philosophical jargon about "personhood" that can basically mean anything they want to define it as at any given moment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more. A fertilized egg is not a person. Aborting it is not murdering a person.

So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...

What is a 'person'?

A person..would be the body of a human

Depending on the context.

Webster's defines it as "a man, woman, or child, regarded as having a distinct individuality". Merriam-Webster defines it simply as "human; individual".

Of course, if you're saying "in person", then it means "physically present", yes.

 

[JBeukema]

They are human at conception because that is how we've named them and nothing more. A fertilized egg is not a person. Aborting it is not murdering a person.

So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...

What is a 'person'?

A person..would be the body of a human

Which would make us people from the moment the zygote is created.

Is someone with no legs less of a person than someone with legs?


If the body of a human is a person and persons have rights, do dead bodies have rights? Or are only living bodies people?

What if I take a headless body and keep it alive by feeding it having machines handle its breathing and respiration?

Would a genetically engineered life-form made from combining human non-human DNA be a person?

What about a race of intelligent extraterrestrials? Or sentient machines?

If angels from heaven came down and spoke to us, would you consider them persons, though they had no bodies?

 

[JBeukema]

So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...

What is a 'person'?

A person..would be the body of a human

Depending on the context.

Webster's defines it as "a man, woman, or child, regarded as having a distinct individuality".

What, exactly, does it mean to have 'distinct individuality'?

It is a physical thing? Where do conjoined twins fit in this model?

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

False and stop projecting your pov onto me. It's the last time I'm going to ask. I've already answered this about 10 pages back. My position is very closely akin to Immies. Too bad you don't like our answers and keep changing our pov from what we are saying to what you think we should be saying.

When are you going to answer JB's question, asked numerous times throughout this thread?

"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?"

 

[Zoom-boing]

quit claiming that the fetus is no different than a born person.

Who claimed that? Where? Do cite.

Don't you know? WE ALL claimed it when he projected it onto us. Come JB, get with the program! We say one thing and he twists it and claims we said something he believes then expects us to answer his questions based on that falsehood. Our actual pov is irrelevant.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So now, 847 posts in, we go from 'human' and 'alive' to 'person'...

What is a 'person'?

A person..would be the body of a human

Depending on the context.

Webster's defines it as "a man, woman, or child, regarded as having a distinct individuality". Merriam-Webster defines it simply as "human; individual".

Of course, if you're saying "in person", then it means "physically present", yes.

I prefer the Seuss definition: a person's a person no matter how small.

 

[Anguille]

1/3 of abortions are repeat business

The whole birth control sob story is bullshit

I am also for forced sterilization...of all replete offenders. Both men and women alike.

 

[Ravi]

1/3 of abortions are repeat business

The whole birth control sob story is bullshit

I am also for forced sterilization...of all replete offenders. Both men and women alike.

Why do you hate the replete?