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

[beowolfe]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

You're bing disingenious. I know of no one who is 'pro-abortion'. If that were the case, abortion would be the only outcome that would satisfy them. They would be lobbying for mandatory aboritions. What you're calling pro-abortion is actually a name drummed up by those who don't want to have an honest conversation.

Pro-choice, which is a term, anti-abortionists will never use, is a simple position that says:

A woman has the right to determine if she will carry a baby to term. This is not a determination for the government to make. It is her choice. It worked for Bristol Palin. She could have aborted her son while he was a fetus, but she 'CHOSE" to carry to term. It's all about the woman's decision.

 

[syrenn]

It does have a life of it's own and by removing it from it's proper environment before it is able to survive kills that life.

It is not a life on its own at 4 weeks.. It requires another willing subject to be its host.

Using 'host' further dehumanizes a fetus. Good job.

Her body, her choice. You see it as killing another human being, the pregnant woman having that abortion may see it differently. Again...it is a matter of opinion.

Of course they do. If they admitted that what they were doing by getting an abortion was ending an individual human being's life they'd likely be too much of a coward to go through with it. Well, hopefully anyway . . .

You said that at 9 weeks is where you draw the line on abortion. Why? What changes? A 9 week old fetus can't live outside the womb any better than a 4 week old fetus can.

My threshold for removing a fetus is about 9 weeks, that is my end point. In that time a person has had enough time to make up their minds. Anything longer then that the pregnancy has gone to far in my opinion, and it is viable...

A cracked mother board later....

No, calling the woman carrying the embryo a "host" is dehumanizes HER, not the embryo. I say host as it seems that the pro life people only want woman to be incubators...and if that is against her will that is being a "host" for something you want out of your body.

 

[Grace]

The continual typing until you get a response is a bit annoying...but if you must...

Yes. An egg, fertilized with sperm should be considered life. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an additional stipulation that it either happened naturally or it was inside a woman growing, but I see you're attempting to take an idea to its logical conclusion. And I'm happy to go there.

Well, go then. The fact remains that until it can survive outside of the host(ess), it IS a parasite UPON the HOST(ess).

Now now Barb. One mustnt meltdown due to disagreeing.
Youre supposed to goosestep and grovel.

 

[syrenn]

You don't have to defend posting the pictures, Z-B. You know why you posted them and that's good enough for all us. The fact that the pictures were "shocking" to someone proves our point even further - the fact that the baby is out of everyone's minds and they don't confront themselves with the living nature of what they're killing...THAT SHOWS that they don't want to confront the issue honestly and directly.

(It's also the reason why I made my "clear pregnancy belly" comment )

Syrenn has admitted that the cells are alive and growing. That's all we need to win. That she has some arbitrary, unprovable milestone set up for when it's ok to kill proves nothing. We win. She loses. End of story.

LOL, ya think? No, that is not even half enough to "win" Life is not arbitrary, you have one or you don't. Again, remove it and see it if lives.

I think just about every woman who has an abortion knows she is ending living cells, that are living inside HER body.

 

[Grace]

Heres something to muse over:

IF it were illegal to have an abortion according to the wants and desires of people who are not forced to carry a fetus/cell/parasite/whatever you wanna callit......and the child is forced to be with the mother that didnt want it and the mother OR father abused that child...then what? Whats the statistics of children/babies being put in microwaves, beat, starved, locked in basements, tortured, abused, molested, abandoned? Anyone know? Because if youre going to force a woman to host a child in her body, then she must also be forced to raise that child, yes? Even though she may hate or never wanted it in the first place so there is no bonding there and never has been.

Any suggestions?

 

[syrenn]

The continual typing until you get a response is a bit annoying...but if you must...

Yes. An egg, fertilized with sperm should be considered life. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an additional stipulation that it either happened naturally or it was inside a woman growing, but I see you're attempting to take an idea to its logical conclusion. And I'm happy to go there.

Is it a viable life? Siting there in its dish will it grow up into a baby?

Or does it NEED and REQUIRE someone elses participation to do that?

It is living human tissue...but it does not have a "life" of its own. If it has a "life" of its own then there would be on need for implantation into a womb.

 

[Vast LWC]

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....

So instead of making the ignorant remark that fingernail clippings are organisms, you instead made the ignorantly INANE remark that fingernail clippings are human in origin, which is utterly irrelevant to the topic of organisms.

And the difference here makes you feel justified in calling someone ELSE "stupid ass" because why?

Reading 101: Recognizing the Topic.

At least your last word was an accurate description of you.

The TOPIC at hand, between another poster and I, in case you missed it, was a definition of what constitutes a human, not what constitutes an organism.

And I didn't call you a "stupid ass", I called your comment "Stupid Assed". Again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

But again, I no longer care to debate this point with people who have already made up their mind that people who have abortions are murderers, and will not be dissuaded from that point.

My only reason for making this post is to correct your error.

Oh, and....

Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!" It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals per se, since God knows, they have nothing else. Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up? No, of course not. Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion: "I feel" and "my belief is".

ROFL.

Isn't that calling the kettle black. But don't take my word for it, just show us some definitive proof of the existence of God, as defined in the Bible, Koran, or any other religion.

Or is being religious now a "leftist" trait?

 

[Cecilie1200]

[Not only do I not give a damn if other pro-lifers do or don't like my disinterest in religion as an arguing point, I don't even give a fraction of a damn what YOU think they'll think. You are pretty much all alone in the delusion that you are some sort of oracle regarding the thoughts and beliefs of pro-lifers, or conservative people in general.

It's a delusion that RELIGION is a major component in the motivation for the anti-abortion position?

A delusion?

No, you illiterate dumbfuck. It's a delusion that YOU are any sort of expert on what pro-lifers think, feel, and believe.

Christ, learn to read.

 

[Grace]

Cant the same be said about you Cecilie? You know, the part about delusions on what an expert are on you thinking you know what pro choices think, feel and believe?

Just sayin'. And I didnt even call you a name! Gimme a hug, sweetums.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Crap, flood the thread with your nonsensical ranting why dontcha?

Doesn't he always?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The continual typing until you get a response is a bit annoying...but if you must...

Yes. An egg, fertilized with sperm should be considered life. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an additional stipulation that it either happened naturally or it was inside a woman growing, but I see you're attempting to take an idea to its logical conclusion. And I'm happy to go there.

Well, go then. The fact remains that until it can survive outside of the host(ess), it IS a parasite UPON the HOST(ess).

Even if that were true - which it's not - it's irrelevant.

I'm very sorry that you're so hostile to the human reproductive system and the place in it that nature has assigned to women. It must suck to resent one's own biology.

 

[Gadawg73]

You people are brain dead. You want the standard to be "what is medically necessary for the safety of the mother to keep her alive" or some other generic code which will be the law.
Anyone that has worked criminal cases for 6 months knows that doctors will eat that one up night and day and there WILL NEVER BE ANY LAW that bans abortion. Prosecutors will never prosecute ANY doctor that uses that as how does a prosecutor decide what is necessary and what isn't?
They are not doctors you fools.
With another doctor? LOL!! You folks are bat shit crazy and have no clue.
EVER.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cant the same be said about you Cecilie? You know, the part about delusions on what an expert are on you thinking you know what pro choices think, feel and believe?

Just sayin'. And I didnt even call you a name! Gimme a hug, sweetums.

Actually, I have yet to say anything about what abortionistas think, feel, and believe, because I consider it to be irrelevant to the topic. THEY talk about their thoughts and beliefs constantly, but I frankly couldn't care less. I HAVE commented on the fact that they talk incessantly about their emotions as though they have some bearing on fact, but that is itself a simple, observable fact.

 

[Grace]

but I frankly couldn't care less. I HAVE commented on the fact that they talk incessantly about their emotions as though they have some bearing on fact, but that is itself a simple, observable fact.

I rest my case.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Not only do I not give a damn if other pro-lifers do or don't like my disinterest in religion as an arguing point, I don't even give a fraction of a damn what YOU think they'll think. You are pretty much all alone in the delusion that you are some sort of oracle regarding the thoughts and beliefs of pro-lifers, or conservative people in general.

It's a delusion that RELIGION is a major component in the motivation for the anti-abortion position?

A delusion?

No, you illiterate dumbfuck. It's a delusion that YOU are any sort of expert on what pro-lifers think, feel, and believe.

Christ, learn to read.

where did i claim to be?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Abortion law should be no abortions during any period of pregnacy, unless medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In such a situation, an option should be given to the mother to place her baby's life above her own.

There's your law.

And what is the penalty for breaking the law? What do you charge the pregnant woman with?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Crap, flood the thread with your nonsensical ranting why dontcha?

Is that the best you can do?

I'm still waiting for you and the others to state your position on what abortion law should be.

I'd like to see that too. Seems they keep banging into that wall and then running away.

I think they realize that if they logically apply the principles of our law to their own view of what a fetus is, from conception on,

they have to take the stand that abortion should in fact logically be the crime of murder (what else could it possibly be?)

and the anti-abortion crowd is well aware that the idea of convicting women of murder because they had an illegal abortion is viewed as crackpot extremism by normal America.

 

[Vast LWC]

One last thing:

To have any kind of discussion with partisans on either side of this issue is useless, because one side will insist that anyone who has an abortion, from conception on, is a murderer; and the other side will insist that you can abort a fetus up to 8.99 months, if the mother is even slightly inconvenienced by pregnancy.

There is no discussion that can be had on this issue, because, generally, the people who involve themselves in the banter are extremists of the first order.

Personally I would strongly prefer some sort of compromise, like a firm date on whether a fetus is considered a viable, thinking human being, say 'round 2-3 months or so. Perhaps a determination can be made with brain-wave measurements, etc...

But that's never going to happen as long as extremists control the conversation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1942.

That's the last year anyone in France was executed for having an abortion.

Apparently after that, they lost track of what a human fetus really is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One last thing:

To have any kind of discussion with partisans on either side of this issue is useless, because one side will insist that anyone who has an abortion, from conception on, is a murderer, and the other side will insist that you can abort a fetus up to 8.99 months, if the mother is even slightly inconvenienced by pregnancy.

There is no discussion that can be had on this issue, because the people who involve themselves in the banter are extremists of the first order.

Personally I would strongly prefer some sort of compromise, like a firm date on whether a fetus is considered a viable, thinking human being, say 'round 2-3 months or so. Perhaps a determination can be made with brain-wave measurements, etc...

But that's never going to happen as long as extremists control the conversation.

You are lying about my position.