Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
legalized murder = oxymoronI 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.
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>
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
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.
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.
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
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
WHAT? Someone who's not a crazy partisan getting involved in an abortion conversation? Fantastic!
In the first 2-3 months, before the fetus reaches the point of self-awareness, I would say that a reason for the abortion is not necessary. After all, if we are to define a point in time, then the fetus would not be considered a person beforehand, but would definitely be considered a person afterwards.
Rape or incest would not be taken into account in this compromise, as the definition of the fetus being human would be answered, and therefore, logically, the reason for killing a human could not be rationalized away. If rape or incest occurred, then there would have to be an abortion before the cut-off date, or not at all.
Fetal abnormality is a puzzle though. I guess it would have to depend on the question of quality-of-life. If the child is going to be born a vegetable, then abortion would be the sensible answer, but there are many other degrees of abnormality.
However, if the life of the mother is in imminent medical danger unless an abortion is performed; then however unfortunate it may be, an abortion will need to be performed. An existing life is, in many cases, simply more valuable than a potential life, as the potential life has less chance of survival.
Now, others may disagree, and a mother and doctor may decide to go in the other direction, but the choice must be available.
You can't say to a person "you have to die now so that we can possibly save the life of someone else". While many people may actually choose this route, you cannot force a person to.
And yes, I agree that any abortion of this type needs to be carefully documented by a doctor, but in what case would an "abortionist" not be an MD?
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Vast LWC again.
I have to leave in about 10 minutes and can't do this post justice so I am not even going to bother to attempt to reply except to say that I think there are many on both sides of this issue that are a lot smarter than I am who are willing to work these issues out and I have no problem continuing to discuss them later. Now, if we could just push both parties out of the way, we might actually get somewhere.
Immie
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Immanuel again.
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.
The title of the thread in a nutshell
When the pro-abortionists say things like "a 9-week old fetus is just a clump of cells" they open the door for pics of what a 9-week old fetus really is.
So the stunt is in response to the "stunt" of referring to a 9-week old baby as a clump of cells.
This is a clump of cells:
And just go on like it never happened.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.
OK, first of all, it's VERY possible to be an extremist Libertarian, they're called ANARCHISTS.
Every philosophy has extremists, unless that philosophy is centrism, which, by definition, is anti-extremist.
In fact, the fact that you feel that it's impossible to be an extremist in your favored philosophy is quite telling.
And, no-one said ANYTHING about what punishment should be involved, at least in the conversation I've been involved in.
Finally, I have never heard an actual Libertarian (rather than people who call themselves Libertarians, but are not) get involved in any public discussion about abortion. I have no idea what the Libertarian Party's platform on abortion is (except in the theoretical), because they never talk about it.
When the pro-abortionists say things like "a 9-week old fetus is just a clump of cells" they open the door for pics of what a 9-week old fetus really is.
So the stunt is in response to the "stunt" of referring to a 9-week old baby as a clump of cells.
This is a clump of cells:
Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise.
When the pro-abortionists say things like "a 9-week old fetus is just a clump of cells" they open the door for pics of what a 9-week old fetus really is.
So the stunt is in response to the "stunt" of referring to a 9-week old baby as a clump of cells.
This is a clump of cells:
Note the partisans studiously avoid any reference to posts that discuss compromise.
Compromise for what? Abortion is legal and isn't going anywhere and restrictions are in place. Unless you mean compromise on those restrictions? Can't a woman get an abortion within the first 3 months now?
There's still no refuting that at conception (insert whatever you, personally want to call the cells/baby/fetus/life) everything that's needed to start the process is there...and the process has been started. Growth occurs...life exists.
You believe in souls? Prove that the soul doesnt enter when the fertilization occurs. (Hint: you cant)
Everything else is just rationalization.
On August 2, 2007, after much independent investigation, it was revealed that discredited South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk unknowingly produced the first human embryos resulting from parthenogenesis. Initially, Hwang claimed he and his team had extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos, a result later found to be fabricated. Further examination of the chromosomes of these cells show indicators of parthenogenesis in those extracted stem cells, similar to those found in the mice created by Tokyo scientists in 2004. Although Hwang deceived the world about being the first to create artificially cloned human embryos, he did contribute a major breakthrough to stem cell research by creating human embryos using parthenogenesis.
There's still no refuting that at conception (insert whatever you, personally want to call the cells/baby/fetus/life) everything that's needed to start the process is there...and the process has been started. Growth occurs...life exists.
You believe in souls? Prove that the soul doesnt enter when the fertilization occurs. (Hint: you cant)
Everything else is just rationalization.
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.
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.
Abortion - bad
"Catholics" like Nancy Pelosi, and you, should be ex-communicated.
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.
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.
Abortion - bad
"Catholics" like Nancy Pelosi, and you, should be ex-communicated.
Ah yes, the old "conversion by force" scam. It works every time.
Immie
