Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science

There are only three positions available in this debate, you are either for (pro), neutral, or against (anti) abortions. Some people are to squeamish to be honest about this and attempt to re-brand themselves as pro choice, or por life, or any of the myriad of other labels that get applied, but the reality is pretty simple.

I've been thinking about your point of view here for awhile now. I wanted to be sure of what I thought about it before responding. I understand what you are saying, but, after some deliberation, I think there are far too many facets and nuances to this issue to put it in such stark black and white terms.

There are the militant pro-choicers who want no restrictions of any kind on abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy or any other consideration.

There are the qualified pro-choicers who want a woman to be able to obtain an abortion if she deems it necessary for her benefit or well being, but who would draw that line at some point restricting the time that it should be legal on demand. Generally the line is drawn at the first trimester or when the fetus has a chance to be viable or some such criteria. Such people are pro-choice in the early stages, but pro life when, in their opinion, the issue does involve another identifiable being.

There are the qualified pro-lifers who oppose all abortion for convenience sake as they see the developing baby as 'viable' at all stages and do not separate one stage as less important than another in order for a human being to be born and to live. But those folks refuse to judge a woman facing possible medical consequences or who has been a victim of rape or incest or when the fetus is so damaged there is no chance for quality of life. I fall mostly into this category.

And then there are the militant pro-lifers who see all abortion as murder of an innocent and justify abortion only when the life of the mother is at risk. A few don't justify it even then.

I think the only 'neutral' folks are those who honestly have no opinion whatsoever on this subject.
 
Yes, we already got one of those.

Both involve the unilateral ending of other human lives.

I missed where you explained why you have more rights than the baby. Is it because you can vote?

When did you gain the right to life? When you were two? When you were born? When our mama's water broke? How ere you fundamentally any different than the day before?

Tell us what changed everything.

Only if a person is an idiot.

It only involves the unilateral ending of life if you're an idiot? :cuckoo:

Ectopic are nit the only high-risk pregnancies, dolt.

Now, when did you gain the right to life? When you were two? When you were born? When our mama's water broke? How ere you fundamentally any different than the day before?
 
If you are so ignorant that you do not understand the difference between an induced and a spontaneous abortion you should not even be discussing the issue.

:lol:

I'm not the one who claimed an abortion's not an abortion. I simply pointed out that an abortion is an abortion regardless of why it occurs- including the reason it's induced.
 
No, it can't. What it CAN do is provide us with the facts to base our decision on . . . unless they contradict what someone is determined to do anyway, in which case that person can pretend that moral and ethical questions are made in a scientific vacuum.

What's odd is that those most vociferously insisting that science can't make this decision also feel free, when they wish, to accuse the other side of being "anti-science". Please don't just gloss over THAT little tidbit and pretend it isn't there.

It really comes down to whether that developing baby is a human being or it isn't. And for myself, I can't think of any point in that development, in or out of the womb, that is more or less important and/or necessary to the man or woman it will be than is any other stage of that development.

And that is why I am staunchly pro life. There are means to prevent starting a baby, but once one is on the way, for me the issue involves two lives, not one.

But I don't want my government getting involved in the matter except at the local level on the expressed votes of the people. If a community doesn't want abortions, it should not have to allow them. But that community should not have the ability to dictate matters of conscience for the next community.

The Federal government should not be involved at all other than to secure the rights of the people and then leave it to them to work out the sort of society they wish to have.

Actually, I agree. Moreover, I will say that at whatever level of government this issue is decided, it should ALWAYS be decided by the people of society at large, not by a handful of unelected officials decreeing what is right and proper for everyone. If we wanted that sort of society, we wouldn't live in America. I believe that one of the biggest reasons that abortion is such a touchy, hot-button issue is because the people have been cut out of the process entirely and had it imposed on them by fiat.


So if the people decided to once again make it legal to kill a mormon?
 
And here we have yet another example of just how unscientific and illogical the pro-aborts truly are: JB's specious "all-or-nothing" argument.
Wtf are you talking about?
As if the abortion debate is about fatally flawed, doomed-from-the-start embryos such as ectopic pregnancies, and basing opinions about abortion on the scientific fact that human life begins at conception requires letting pregnant women die in alleys.

I'm not the one who said women should not be permitted abortions under any circumstances. Nor am the one who says they should under no circumstances be publicly funded (read: performed at a hospital is someone has no insurance).

God forbid anyone have a serious, rational discussion of abortion rather than finding an emotional button and hammering that fucker.

You're the one being emotional. I've laid out my reasoning and logic elsewhere and linked it in this thread. I've demanding others do the same.
 
How about instead of citing "personhood" as an argument, you try explaining to us WHY it's a valid argument at all? Where does "personhood" appear in science? What are its objective standards, by which everyone can ascertain the exact same moment at which "personhood" begins? If there aren't any, how can it be a valid argument?

See my linked posts.


Now... tell me the difference between you and a skeleton. Why is one afforded legal rights denied the other?
 
Please try and learn to differentiate between "scientific fact" and "statement of political group's political opinion".

When a system gains the 'right to life' and whether women should be allowed to 'abort' their child's life is a matter of scientific fact?

Please, link us to the studies or mathematical proofs that proof your view to be a scientific fact.
 
"It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy." Joel Feinberg Joel Feinberg, Abortion

"Another error is the moment-of-conception fallacy. The joining of a human egg and sperm defines a new and unique human genotype. It does not produce any human hopes and fears and memories or anything else of moral importance implied by the term human. The newly fertilized egg may have the potential for a fully human existence, but that potential was there even before fertilization. The same can be said of all the fertilizations that might have been. The penetration of that egg by one sperm meant an early death for millions of competing sperm. It destroyed all hope for those millions of other unique human genotypes.

The moment-of-conception fallacy implies that fertilization is a simple process with never a doubt as to whether it has or has not happened. In reality, the "moment" is a matter of some hours of complex activity. There are elaborate biochemical interactions between the sperm and various layers of the egg membrane. The sperm gradually breaks up, and only its nucleus is established in the egg. Then both egg and sperm nuclei initiate radical changes before the fusion of the two nuclei. Many of the developmental events following this fusion were predetermined during the production of the egg. Genes provided by the sperm do not have discernible effects until embryonic development is well under way. A strictly biological definition of humanity would have to specify some point in this elaborate program at which the egg and sperm have suddenly been endowed with a single human life." From The Pony Fish's Glow and Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature, by George C. William.




"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION

Boston Review — Judith Jarvis Thomson

Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion

Why Francis Beckwiths Case Against Abortion Fails

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

I love this one from your 10 myths.

9. "Pro-choice activists want abortion on demand until the moment of birth."

False. Pro-choice activists work to protect the Roe v. Wade standard, which allows states to ban elective third-trimester abortions. The debate over late-term and partial-birth abortions has to do with abortions performed for emergency medical reasons, not elective abortions.

It must be those non existent pro abortionists who keep challenging those laws then.
 
I'm not sure what kind of honest discussion could be had in the first place when the OP's thread title is "Why Pro-Abortion is Anti-Science."

Funny, I've never met a Pro-Abortion person in my life. Words have meaning, and in this case they are used to mischaracterize the position of those who the author disagrees with even before the discussion is started.

Why do pro abortionist keep saying this?

Because they're ashamed to own their true position and want to hide it from others and themselves behind euphemisms. Wouldn't you, if you were in their shoes?

I like to think I would be honest about it, like I a m about the other offensive positions I have.
 
constitutional rights are not up for majority vote.

that issue HAS been explored and HAS been legislated and corrected by the Courts.

Actually, dumbass, they are. Ever hear of a little procedure called "Constitutional Amendment"? I realize that leftists never use it, favoring the illegal judicial fiat instead, but it does exist, and does involve voting.
I bet she has. Constitutional amendments are voted on by the representatives of the people. The people do not directly vote on civil rights...it is unconstitutional.

Dumbass.

Really?

Does that mean that the current proposition in Califirnia to legalize marijuana and allow people to grow it is unconstitutional?

Talk about dumbass statements.
 
Bullshit fail :thup:

I'm decidedly Anti-abortion AND Pro-Choice.

And I'm not lying to anyone, let alone myself.

I did offer an alternative, it is not my fault that you guilty conscious prohibited you from acknowledging the possibility that others were lying to you. That is pretty telling, if you ask me.

I already acknowledged the point, at least implicitly, that a woman who chooses to abort for no reason other than convenience can be fairly characterized as pro-abortion.

Where I say you fail is insisting that Pro-Choice = Pro-Abortion. It does not.

The debate is about abortion, not choice. There are three possible opinions in the debate.

Pro Abortion.
Neutral.
Anti Abortion.

The euphemism of pro choice is nothing more than an attempt to cloud the real issues. You are free to sit back and refuse to take a stance on abortion if it makes you nervous to make a commitment, but you are not free to claim that you are both for and against it.

Unless you want to insist that you are actually wishy washy.
 
Why do pro abortionist keep saying this?

Because they're ashamed to own their true position and want to hide it from others and themselves behind euphemisms. Wouldn't you, if you were in their shoes?

I like to think I would be honest about it, like I a m about the other offensive positions I have.

There's a difference between having an opinion that's offensive to some people (because virtually all opinions are offensive to SOMEONE), and having one that's shameful and indefensible.
 
I've been thinking about your point of view here for awhile now. I wanted to be sure of what I thought about it before responding. I understand what you are saying, but, after some deliberation, I think there are far too many facets and nuances to this issue to put it in such stark black and white terms.

There are the militant pro-choicers who want no restrictions of any kind on abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy or any other consideration.

There are the qualified pro-choicers who want a woman to be able to obtain an abortion if she deems it necessary for her benefit or well being, but who would draw that line at some point restricting the time that it should be legal on demand. Generally the line is drawn at the first trimester or when the fetus has a chance to be viable or some such criteria. Such people are pro-choice in the early stages, but pro life when, in their opinion, the issue does involve another identifiable being.

There are the qualified pro-lifers who oppose all abortion for convenience sake as they see the developing baby as 'viable' at all stages and do not separate one stage as less important than another in order for a human being to be born and to live. But those folks refuse to judge a woman facing possible medical consequences or who has been a victim of rape or incest or when the fetus is so damaged there is no chance for quality of life. I fall mostly into this category.

And then there are the militant pro-lifers who see all abortion as murder of an innocent and justify abortion only when the life of the mother is at risk. A few don't justify it even then.

I think the only 'neutral' folks are those who honestly have no opinion whatsoever on this subject.

If I was going to define this as black and white I would insist that there are only two possible positions. Being nuetral allow you to pick and choose what you like about both sides of the issue, and that can appear nuanced. Is it really nuanced, or simply a refusal to make a decision?
 
I did offer an alternative, it is not my fault that you guilty conscious prohibited you from acknowledging the possibility that others were lying to you. That is pretty telling, if you ask me.

I already acknowledged the point, at least implicitly, that a woman who chooses to abort for no reason other than convenience can be fairly characterized as pro-abortion.

Where I say you fail is insisting that Pro-Choice = Pro-Abortion. It does not.

The debate is about abortion, not choice.

Oh? So the debate is about smoking, not about the choice or right to smoke?

Whether you support or oppose abortion both in general and in a specific instance, and what laws you feel the State should enforce are two separate, albeit related, issues.
 
Abortion is about choice, and anti-abortionists want to take that choice away. I guess they don't think that the US is the land of the free. They want to live under a white sharia law, govern the country by religion.

If abortion is really about choice why do pro abortionist demonize anyone who chooses not to get an abortion?
:cuckoo:

Would you like to explain this if I am crazy?

Tim Tebow, expert on women's reproductive issues - Democratic Underground

Cassy Fiano The liberal reaction to Tim Tebow’s Super Bowl ad

Just because you are ignorant of the way the world works does not mean everyone else is crazy.
 
Both involve the unilateral ending of other human lives.

I missed where you explained why you have more rights than the baby. Is it because you can vote?

When did you gain the right to life? When you were two? When you were born? When our mama's water broke? How ere you fundamentally any different than the day before?

Tell us what changed everything.

Only if a person is an idiot.

It only involves the unilateral ending of life if you're an idiot? :cuckoo:

Ectopic are nit the only high-risk pregnancies, dolt.

Now, when did you gain the right to life? When you were two? When you were born? When our mama's water broke? How ere you fundamentally any different than the day before?

My very first post in this thread said that abortions should only be preformed if there is a medical reason to do so. I am not sure who you are arguing with, but it is not me.

That does not change the fact that ending an ectopic pregnancy is not a unilateral decision to end human life, because if it was not aborted it would end the life of the mother and the child.

The choice in an ectopic pregnancy is not between the ending of one life and making the other more difficult, it is between saving a life or watching two people die. That makes you, as I said, an idiot.
 
If you are so ignorant that you do not understand the difference between an induced and a spontaneous abortion you should not even be discussing the issue.

:lol:

I'm not the one who claimed an abortion's not an abortion. I simply pointed out that an abortion is an abortion regardless of why it occurs- including the reason it's induced.

No, you claimed there is no difference between an induced and a spontaneous abortion. That is why I am mocking you.
 
abortions should only be preformed if there is a medical reason to do so.
Why?


Should the State enforce that standard?
That does not change the fact that ending an ectopic pregnancy is not a unilateral decision to end human life, because if it was not aborted it would end the life of the mother and the child.

Not all abortions involve ectopic pregnancy, fool.

The choice in an ectopic pregnancy is not between the ending of one life and making the other more difficult, it is between saving a life or watching two people die.

Congrats, you copied one of my posts from another thread.

Moron.
 

Forum List

Back
Top