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

[Vast LWC]

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.

France was occupied by the Nazis for the entirety of 1942.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

So someone that adamantly opposes abortion but opposes the power of government to pick and choose who to prosecute and who not to prosecute on cases with the same set of circumstances is an "extremist of the first order"?

That would be LIBERTARIAN and we are the furthest political party from extrmism there is.
You do not compromise in favor of relinquishing reproductive rights TO THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Far out! Some one on the left who is actually willing to set a starting point and attempt to work to a compromise. I like that.

Let's begin... you say 2-3 months. Let me throw out date of conception for a beginning point. Hopefully we can work towards an agreement.

Another issue we need to look at is what reasons are acceptable. Any reason whatsoever in the first 2-3 months? Are we going to then discuss what reasons after the first trimester? I mean, even though I am pro-life, I am concerned about if there is a verifiable danger to the health of the mother? Again any reason? Fetal Abnormality? Life of the Mother? Rape? Incest? Mother has hemorrhoids?

When there is a case of the health of the mother, I think such a thing needs to be verified by at least one other doctor rather than to just take the word of the abortionist.

How about in the case of a minor mother? Do we just let the clinic snip away or do we require them to notify the courts of a potential case of molestation?

There are many things that need to be discussed, but doggone it at least we can start discussing the issues.

Immie

 

[Grace]

Shadow, aka Me-Too

Big Dog is a bully who doesn't hesitate to use his superior strength to intimidate other combatants. Big Dog may be smart, articulate or just plain mean, but in any case he is a remorseless fighter, brutally ripping into even the weakest of combatants. Once Big Dog securely fastens his powerful jaws on a hapless victim, Me-Too will join the attack. Me-Too is far too weak and insecure to engage in single combat, and must ally himself with Big Dog or a pack of other Warriors to bring down his quarry.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.



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.

Yes it does. 'Host' and 'parasite' dehumanizes both, which I suspect is the point of using those terms. I usually refer to them as 'the woman' and 'the unborn' or 'the unborn human being'.

What about my second question?

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Well on this we agree. My first post in this thread said the very same thing.

For people on the "pro-choice" side of things, a woman's 'right to choose' trumps the unborns 'right to life'.

For people on the "pro-life" side of things, the unborns 'right to life' trumps a woman's 'right to choose'.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Prolly. But there can never be a compromise as long as people think women can't be the masters of their own bodies....seriously, it goes against nature to think anything else. Thems just the facts.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Abortion does end the life of another individual human being. Abortion was made legal with Roe v. Wade. What abortion is, is legalized murder.

Second bolded -- Other than Vanquish I haven't seen anyone on the pro-life side saying that abortion should be made illegal. What I have seen is you making this false claim then going around posing questions as if it were fact and actually expecting answers.

What I and many others have stated is that reducing the number of abortions should be the goal of both sides. Do you disagree that this should be a common goal? I have also stated that if making abortion illegal achieved this then make it illegal; if keeping it legal achieves this then keep it legal.

 

[AllieBaba]

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?

Well she's not pregnant, one assumes...so she would be charged with murder.

I don't see that happening any more often than it happened before Roe v. Wade.

 

[syrenn]

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



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.

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.

Yes it does. 'Host' and 'parasite' dehumanizes both, which I suspect is the point of using those terms. I usually refer to them as 'the woman' and 'the unborn' or 'the unborn human being'.

What about my second question?

As i said before, In 9 weeks, a bit more then two months, you should know what you want to do in terms of carrying a baby or not.

For clarity....i am VERY opposed to late term abortion. At some point in the fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own without the assistance of its mother. It is at THAT point i consider it moving from human cells that are alive..to a human baby that has a life of its own. Anything before that point in my opinion is only living tissue.

 

[AllieBaba]

Unfortunately, the abortion clinics have carte blanche when it comes to late term abortions. THAT'S WHY THEY WON'T PROVIDE STATS.

 

[syrenn]

Unfortunately, the abortion clinics have carte blanche when it comes to late term abortions. THAT'S WHY THEY WON'T PROVIDE STATS.

And that is the choice of the mother and her doctor. And not a choice i would be willing to take away. I really don't care about any stats.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Yes it does. 'Host' and 'parasite' dehumanizes both, which I suspect is the point of using those terms. I usually refer to them as 'the woman' and 'the unborn' or 'the unborn human being'.

What about my second question?

As i said before, In 9 weeks, a bit more then two months, you should know what you want to do in terms of carrying a baby or not.

For clarity....i am VERY opposed to late term abortion. At some point in the fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own without the assistance of its mother. It is at THAT point i consider it moving from human cells that are alive..to a human baby that has a life of its own. Anything before that point in my opinion is only living tissue.

Your two statements above seem conflicting to me. Granted I only got 4 hours of sleep last night so maybe it's that . . . .

A 9 week old fetus can not live outside the womb and yet that's what is your stated cutoff for abortion. You then say that 'at the point in fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own with the assistance of is mother. It is at THAT point I consider it moving from human cells that are alive to a human baby that has a life of its own'. That wouldn't be 9 weeks, that would be (at the earliest) 20 weeks, possibly a few weeks later. So you're ok with abortion up to the 20th week? Again, I'm just asking not trying to harp on you or anything.

 

[syrenn]

Yes it does. 'Host' and 'parasite' dehumanizes both, which I suspect is the point of using those terms. I usually refer to them as 'the woman' and 'the unborn' or 'the unborn human being'.

What about my second question?

As i said before, In 9 weeks, a bit more then two months, you should know what you want to do in terms of carrying a baby or not.

For clarity....i am VERY opposed to late term abortion. At some point in the fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own without the assistance of its mother. It is at THAT point i consider it moving from human cells that are alive..to a human baby that has a life of its own. Anything before that point in my opinion is only living tissue.

Your two statements above seem conflicting to me. Granted I only got 4 hours of sleep last night so maybe it's that . . . .

A 9 week old fetus can not live outside the womb and yet that's what is your stated cutoff for abortion. You then say that 'at the point in fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own with the assistance of is mother. It is at THAT point I consider it moving from human cells that are alive to a human baby that has a life of its own'. That wouldn't be 9 weeks, that would be (at the earliest) 20 weeks, possibly a few weeks later. So you're ok with abortion up to the 20th week? Again, I'm just asking not trying to harp on you or anything.

That's about right. For me... if you don't know what you want in 9 weeks you are rather nuts. Also in that 9 weeks as far as i am concerned it is nothing more then cells. I do not consider it a complete baby at that point. As it stands now a legal abortion is 12 weeks, still well within the only cells time frame for me.

Don't i clearly say i am against late term abortions?

Why do you think i keep saying to c-section it out? If it can not live on its own it does not have a "life" OF its own. At 20 weeks being c-sections out...yes, it would possibly have a "life" of its own. Having an abortion at 20 weeks is not something i would be suggesting a woman to have without considerable thought and reasons for having an abortion so late.

BUT it would still be her choice...its her body....and yes i am very ok with that.

 

[AllieBaba]

Unfortunately, the abortion clinics have carte blanche when it comes to late term abortions. THAT'S WHY THEY WON'T PROVIDE STATS.

And that is the choice of the mother and her doctor. And not a choice i would be willing to take away. I really don't care about any stats.

Naturally, you wouldn't. Because to you and everybody who supports abortion, babies are nothing, and it's not about actually helping people. Because what the stats show is that abortion accomplishes none of the things the pro-abortion crowd claim it does. Which is why stats are avoided like the plague.

 

[AllieBaba]

As i said before, In 9 weeks, a bit more then two months, you should know what you want to do in terms of carrying a baby or not.

For clarity....i am VERY opposed to late term abortion. At some point in the fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own without the assistance of its mother. It is at THAT point i consider it moving from human cells that are alive..to a human baby that has a life of its own. Anything before that point in my opinion is only living tissue.

Your two statements above seem conflicting to me. Granted I only got 4 hours of sleep last night so maybe it's that . . . .

A 9 week old fetus can not live outside the womb and yet that's what is your stated cutoff for abortion. You then say that 'at the point in fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own with the assistance of is mother. It is at THAT point I consider it moving from human cells that are alive to a human baby that has a life of its own'. That wouldn't be 9 weeks, that would be (at the earliest) 20 weeks, possibly a few weeks later. So you're ok with abortion up to the 20th week? Again, I'm just asking not trying to harp on you or anything.

That's about right. For me... if you don't know what you want in 9 weeks you are rather nuts. Also in that 9 weeks as far as i am concerned it is nothing more then cells. I do not consider it a complete baby at that point. As it stands now a legal abortion is 12 weeks, still well within the only cells time frame for me.

Don't i clearly say i am against late term abortions?

Why do you think i keep saying to c-section it out? If it can not live on its own it does not have a "life" OF its own. At 20 weeks being c-sections out...yes, it would possibly have a "life" of its own. Having an abortion at 20 weeks is not something i would be suggesting a woman to have without considerable thought and reasons for having an abortion so late.

BUT it would still be her choice...its her body....and yes i am very ok with that.

Here's those cells at 8 weeks:

 

[AllieBaba]

doesn't look like a clump of cells to me.

The 9-Week Fetus in Motion

 

[Immanuel]

As i said before, In 9 weeks, a bit more then two months, you should know what you want to do in terms of carrying a baby or not.

For clarity....i am VERY opposed to late term abortion. At some point in the fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own without the assistance of its mother. It is at THAT point i consider it moving from human cells that are alive..to a human baby that has a life of its own. Anything before that point in my opinion is only living tissue.

Your two statements above seem conflicting to me. Granted I only got 4 hours of sleep last night so maybe it's that . . . .

A 9 week old fetus can not live outside the womb and yet that's what is your stated cutoff for abortion. You then say that 'at the point in fetal development a baby can be removed from the womb and have a life of its own with the assistance of is mother. It is at THAT point I consider it moving from human cells that are alive to a human baby that has a life of its own'. That wouldn't be 9 weeks, that would be (at the earliest) 20 weeks, possibly a few weeks later. So you're ok with abortion up to the 20th week? Again, I'm just asking not trying to harp on you or anything.

That's about right. For me... if you don't know what you want in 9 weeks you are rather nuts. Also in that 9 weeks as far as i am concerned it is nothing more then cells. I do not consider it a complete baby at that point. As it stands now a legal abortion is 12 weeks, still well within the only cells time frame for me.

Don't i clearly say i am against late term abortions?

Why do you think i keep saying to c-section it out? If it can not live on its own it does not have a "life" OF its own. At 20 weeks being c-sections out...yes, it would possibly have a "life" of its own. Having an abortion at 20 weeks is not something i would be suggesting a woman to have without considerable thought and reasons for having an abortion so late.

BUT it would still be her choice...its her body....and yes i am very ok with that.

It is my understanding that many women are just finding out that they are pregnant at nine weeks. In many cases it takes much longer, especially if it is the first pregnancy. Really, they've only really missed one period at seven weeks. So, they have two weeks to make their decision? By the time many women discover they have a human being in their womb, we're passed ABS's 40 day point and just seven days from your cut off period but by this time the human within has a beating heart, fingers and toes, nose and mouth.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

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.

Abortion does end the life of another individual human being. Abortion was made legal with Roe v. Wade. What abortion is, is legalized murder.

Second bolded -- Other than Vanquish I haven't seen anyone on the pro-life side saying that abortion should be made illegal. What I have seen is you making this false claim then going around posing questions as if it were fact and actually expecting answers.

What I and many others have stated is that reducing the number of abortions should be the goal of both sides. Do you disagree that this should be a common goal? I have also stated that if making abortion illegal achieved this then make it illegal; if keeping it legal achieves this then keep it legal.

legalized murder = oxymoron

Do I need to point it out to you?

That fact that all you have is pathetic word twisting just further indicates that your arguments are insubstantial.
Murder - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1mur·der noun \ˈmər-dər\
Definition of MURDER

1
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2
a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder>
b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

 

[Anguille]

doesn't look like a clump of cells to me.

The 9-Week Fetus in Motion

It doesn't look like a human being either. It looks like a alien from some other planet.
Not sure what you kooks are trying to achieve with those kinds of stunts.