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

[ABikerSailor]

Until the embryo has developed a nervous system (which also means a brain), it's just a mass of cells.

 

[Vanquish]

No, NY.

I think no one wanted to do the work of going back and finding your specific arguments. Asking someone to scroll back and do that...if they're not readily accessible...is asking a bit.

Why don't you repost your stance...THEN ask people to rebut it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, NY.

I think no one wanted to do the work of going back and finding your specific arguments. Asking someone to scroll back and do that...if they're not readily accessible...is asking a bit.

Why don't you repost your stance...THEN ask people to rebut it?

I bumped it 1227.

 

[Vanquish]

Ahh sorry. Guess I missed it.

Again:

I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON. I believe that opportunity should be constitutionally protected as a right.

I don't concede this in the least. It's not in society's best interest to say - "here's a grace period for your responsibilities, here's a grace period where you can kill a life.

I believe that the first trimester time period of a pregnancy fairly represents that 'window'.

Why the first trimester? What qualities does the first trimester have that you think should allow this?

Is it development? If so, the cells had everything they needed to start at conception to start growing. Stopping it even during the first trimester is stopping a life.

From a religious point of view, what if the soul enters the body at the moment of conception? You can't prove it doesn't - so why take the chance at all? Simply to make someone's life more convenient? Killing is worse than rape, so saying that it's to protect a raped woman doesn't really pass muster.

I'm not religious, but that argument works for those who are.

I believe that after the first trimester, it is reasonable to allow the people of the individual states to regulate abortion in any manner they see fit.

Now you're changing the issue to federalism vs statism - without any supporting argument. What mystically happens after the first 3 months that mean there shouldnt be a uniform law across the land?

Either let states make the decision from the beginning or don't. But there's nothing inherent in the level of development after 3 months that should change the legal framework.

Whoever thinks I'm wrong in any of that can step up and say so, and please, tell me what EXACTLY is wrong with my specific views and what your opposing view is specifically.

Well basically you've stated a bunch of preferences but with nothing to support them in law, logic/argument, or life experience. If your argument basically rests on the idea that the fetus isn't developed enough...expose that assumption so we can discuss it, please.


A baby begins at conception. If you end the cells growing, you're ending life. That's irrefutable. Either you are or you aren't ending life - and you are with an abortion. With as little as we know about the human body and/or the soul...abortion is so wrong on so many levels.

Otherwise I'll assume no one finds fault in my position.

 

[AllieBaba]

Posting pictures of the unborn simply is an appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are stupid when considering laws.

That's right. FUCK THE TRUTH! FUCK EDUCATION!

BTW, exactly how do you justify abortion? I bet it's an appeal to emotion as all pro-abortion arguments are. Because the science and the facts don't bear out a single one of the pro abortion arguments.

The argument that women will be forced to deliver monster children at huge risk to their own life...a lie, and appeal to emotion.

The argument that huge numbers of rape victims will be branded as sluts and forced to raise unwanted children...a lie and appeal to emotion.

The argument that abortion reduces the numbers of abortions, the numbers of dead women, the incidence of child abuse...all lies and appeals to emotion.

I've never made any of those arguments.

Pfffft....

 

[Qball]

You act like fetuses willingly crawl into the uterus and set up camp for nine months. You have every right to not host another human in your body, but that means not getting pregnant in the first place. The situation necessarily changes after the fact. Saying "it's MY BODY" is beside the point. Nobody's confused about whose body it is. But if you get pregnant with a child you don't want, whose fault is that?

Try reading the thread before opening your yapper. I was raped, asshole.

And I'm sorry to hear that, but what I said wasn't wrong (generally speaking). Plenty of women act like it's a matter of self-defense because they're pregnant and don't want it to be.

Even if you were raped, the violation of your body came from your rapist, not the child you were impregnated with.

 

[AllieBaba]

When people kill people for alleged crimes committed against them, it's called vigilantism. It's a crime.

Lots of people are perfectly justified in wanting other people dead. But they don't get to kill them, and if they do, they have committed murder. The only difference here is that the babies can't speak for themselves and have done absolutely nothing to anyone.

 

[Vast LWC]

Those are cells which merge to create us. Neither is itself an organism. Prior to the union of the two, we do not exist.

That's a completely arbitrary and subjective interpretation, and does not jibe with scientific definitions.

Wrong. An organism can't exist before it comes into existence. Nothing can be that wish is non-existent.

A gamete is a cell belonging to a parent.

When merged with its counterpart, it forms a new organism.

That organism is alive and, if the gametes are form human parents, human.

This creation of a new living human being, by the very meaning of the words the moment a human life begins.



Yet you people keep repeating them

as those are all examples of fully formed humans

As opposed to someone born missing a leg? Or someone who hasn't undergone puberty?

that are simply missing one attribute due to circumstance.

There is a large difference between that and a collection of cells that never formed into a human.

You're trying to play word games because you can't face what you advocate. No biology textbook and no biologist or geneticist- nor anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge of the subject- is buying it.

I just quoted you the direct biological definition of a human being, and you're acusing me of playing "word games".

OK dude, whatever. Apparently, even when presented with direct evidence the contradicts your argument, you still insist you are right.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because you've obviously made up your mind that you're right no matter what.

 

[Vast LWC]

Well, at least YOU are willing to admit that they're morally equivalent.

However, I believe JB is well aware that the word "murder" is a legal term, not a medical or moral one, and that abortion is - at the moment - legal. And I believe that is why he very specifically did NOT use it. Which means that your accusation of him is false in letter AND in spirit: what he said was technically, factually accurate, reasoned and unemotional, and completely honest.

Just because you don't LIKE having it pointed out that abortion is bringing about the death of a child doesn't make it a lie.

Oh, give it a rest.

Obviously, JB feels that abortion should be illegal, and therefore the statement that he made equates an abortion with a murder that has gone unpunished.

You can parse words all you like, the meaning is clear.

 

[Vast LWC]

Zygote - : a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell

Fetus - : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

Child - a : an unborn or recently born person

Ultra-partisan - Vast LWC

Hyperbole - Accusing someone of making statements they never made because you don't like their point.

What was there about these definitions that you thought was going to HELP your position?

Yep, because I feel that a compromise on Abortion is the right way to go, instead of attempting to label all women who have abortions murderers, I am the ultra-partisan.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

You know what? You win. Go on insisting you're right in the face of whatever evidence someone else might present. I'm done.

I can tell you this: That kind of attitude won't win you any friends at your next social gathering, that is, if you're ever invited to any.

 

[Vast LWC]

One never becomes human. Humans have human children. The new organism is human from creation. This is a biological fact.

There is no more room for debate or opinion on that than there is over whether Earth is flat.

So are fingernail clippings. That is a "biological fact".

But really, nothing I say is going to affect your hyperbolic statements, so there's no point.

It's a biological fact that fingernail clippings are what? Organisms? Where did YOU go to school?

Oh, and one more thing, learn to fucking read the statement before making stupid assed posts like this.

"The new organism is human."

"So are fingernail clippings."

Obviously, this indicates that the fingernail clippings are "human" not "an organism".

Grammar 101.

...Out....

 

[AllieBaba]

Zygote - : a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell

Fetus - : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

Child - a : an unborn or recently born person

Ultra-partisan - Vast LWC

Hyperbole - Accusing someone of making statements they never made because you don't like their point.

What was there about these definitions that you thought was going to HELP your position?

Yep, because I feel that a compromise on Abortion is the right way to go, instead of attempting to label all women who have abortions murderers, I am the ultra-partisan.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

You know what? You win. Go on insisting you're right in the face of whatever evidence someone else might present. I'm done.

I can tell you this: That kind of attitude won't win you any friends at your next social gathering, that is, if you're ever invited to any.

That's right, when all else fails, use the "Nobody likes you anyway" argument.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's right, when all else fails, use the "Nobody likes you anyway" argument.

Yeah, that's it. You're so right. I've definitely been out-debated. LOL.

 

[Vanquish]

It grows. Abortion stops it growing.
It is a human from beginning to end. It hasnt harmed anyone.
Abortion stops a human from living. A human that is innocent of all crimes.
Therefore...abortion stops an innocent human from living without justifiable cause.
Therefore...abortion is murder.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ahh sorry. Guess I missed it.

Again:

I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON. I believe that opportunity should be constitutionally protected as a right.

I don't concede this in the least. It's not in society's best interest to say - "here's a grace period for your responsibilities, here's a grace period where you can kill a life.

I believe that the first trimester time period of a pregnancy fairly represents that 'window'.

Why the first trimester? What qualities does the first trimester have that you think should allow this?

Is it development? If so, the cells had everything they needed to start at conception to start growing. Stopping it even during the first trimester is stopping a life.

From a religious point of view, what if the soul enters the body at the moment of conception? You can't prove it doesn't - so why take the chance at all? Simply to make someone's life more convenient? Killing is worse than rape, so saying that it's to protect a raped woman doesn't really pass muster.

I'm not religious, but that argument works for those who are.

I believe that after the first trimester, it is reasonable to allow the people of the individual states to regulate abortion in any manner they see fit.

Now you're changing the issue to federalism vs statism - without any supporting argument. What mystically happens after the first 3 months that mean there shouldnt be a uniform law across the land?

Either let states make the decision from the beginning or don't. But there's nothing inherent in the level of development after 3 months that should change the legal framework.

Whoever thinks I'm wrong in any of that can step up and say so, and please, tell me what EXACTLY is wrong with my specific views and what your opposing view is specifically.

Well basically you've stated a bunch of preferences but with nothing to support them in law, logic/argument, or life experience. If your argument basically rests on the idea that the fetus isn't developed enough...expose that assumption so we can discuss it, please.


A baby begins at conception. If you end the cells growing, you're ending life. That's irrefutable. Either you are or you aren't ending life - and you are with an abortion. With as little as we know about the human body and/or the soul...abortion is so wrong on so many levels.

Otherwise I'll assume no one finds fault in my position.

Nothing to support them in law? You mean other than current constitutional law and generally the law of the land around the country? lol

Oh, you didn't say what the law should be instead of what I want it to be.

Describe your laws for the nation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When people kill people for alleged crimes committed against them, it's called vigilantism. It's a crime.

Lots of people are perfectly justified in wanting other people dead. But they don't get to kill them, and if they do, they have committed murder. The only difference here is that the babies can't speak for themselves and have done absolutely nothing to anyone.

Tell us what the law should be then. Tell us what abortion law in this country SHOULD look like.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ahh sorry. Guess I missed it.

Again:

I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON. I believe that opportunity should be constitutionally protected as a right.

I don't concede this in the least. It's not in society's best interest to say - "here's a grace period for your responsibilities, here's a grace period where you can kill a life.

]

I'm not asking you to concede anything. Why does outlawing the abortion of an embryo make things better, as opposed to giving a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to do so.

You want to use the law to force women who get pregnant to have the child or else? What good does that do society?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not one anti-abortionist in this thread can tell us what the law should be?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And at 4 weeks an embryo is indistinguishable from any other animal embryo.

No, it isn't. Just because YOU are uneducated in embryology (and basic biology) and have no idea what to look for doesn't mean the differences aren't clear. I couldn't tell poison ivy from poison oak from any other plant in the forest, but that doesn't mean they're indistinguishable. It just means I don't know shit about botany.

I'll never understand why people think their personal ignorance is some sort of conclusive debating point.

And now you area an embryologist along with a biologist? Amazing.

I seem to understand it better then you do. The only difference in the first few weeks is the chromosomes.

No, you obtuse troll. The point isn't that I'M an embryologist, but that YOU aren't, either. Only someone who is religiously committed to never, EVER getting the point of ANY argument, no matter how painfully obvious, could fail to understand that. But then, you seem actually PROUD of the fact that you never understand anything or possess any sort of hard knowledge or evidence on any subject.

Case in point: "The only difference in the first few weeks is the chromosomes." Is that right? This took me about five minutes to find on the Internet, so what's YOUR problem?

Truth In Science - Embryology

Note Figure 2, which shows pictures of what the various embryos ACTUALLY look like. Even a religious-grade dunce like you should be able to spot the differences. I do so love people who consider real knowledge a waste of time, and prefer to continue disseminated long-debunked frauds. Good job, Einstein.

And before you decide to waste my time trying to attack the source, please note that Michael Richardson's work was published in BOTH Anatomy and Embryology and Science. So by all means, go tell THOSE journals that they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Anguille]

It grows. Abortion stops it growing.
It is a human from beginning to end. It hasnt harmed anyone.
Abortion stops a human from living. A human that is innocent of all crimes.
Therefore...abortion stops an innocent human from living without justifiable cause.
Therefore...abortion is murder.

Poppycock!!
A fetus inhabiting the womb of a body that does not want it there is violating her body. Same as the penis of a rapist.
It makes no difference how the fetus got there, it has no right to be there without her permission.