Why Can't the Pro-Abortionists be Honest?

[J.T]

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 by 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 act- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When you 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 don't understand the subject and have no place in intelligent discussion of the matter.

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position. You have no place in honest discussion.



*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.

[maineman]

why are the anti-abortionists unwilling to compromise? Why can they not say, let's outlaw all abortions after quickening? that would save thousands and thousands of those fetuses that they consider human beings.

[J.T]

why are the anti-abortionists unwilling to compromise?

Because they oppose homicide.

Why aren't the anti-rapists willing to 'compromise'?

Do you always ask such stupid questions?

Why can they not say, let's outlaw all abortions after quickening?

Why is it okay to kill you before your mother notices you kicking and not after? What changes that makes killing you go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?

they consider human beings.

Sorry, but age, race, and the colour of your skin don't decide whether or not you're human. That bullshit won't fly here.

Before any argument can take place, we'll have to define human being.

Do we have to define 'is', too?

human being

noun
Definition of HUMAN BEING

: human






²human

noun
Definition of HUMAN

: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : man; broadly : hominid

— hu·man·like adjective



human being

 
–noun 1.any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Noun

S: (n) homo, man, human being, human (any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae

[red states rule]

why are the anti-abortionists unwilling to compromise? Why can they not say, let's outlaw all abortions after quickening? that would save thousands and thousands of those fetuses that they consider human beings.

Amzing how people like you who support the murder of the unborn were never aborted themselves

[PostmodernProphet]

why are the anti-abortionists unwilling to compromise? Why can they not say, let's outlaw all abortions after quickening? that would save thousands and thousands of those fetuses that they consider human beings.

quickening....""to reach the stage of pregnancy at which the child shows signs of life."......works for me....of course, that would mean abortion would be illegal before any woman was aware she was pregnant, but I can live with that compromise.....

I guess you need to learn how to accept the fact that many people, including the supreme court, don't agree with your definition of when a clump of cells crosses the line and becomes a human being.

sorry.

for me, it's kinda like calling a fertilized egg a chicken.

it isn't a rhinoceros.....

I was of course trying to see if we can arrive at a list of things that differentiate a human being from a single cell with human DNA...the dictionary quotes don't help that. For instance, I think a human being requires a brain, especially given that it separates us from other species.

"nothing" makes for a short list.....

Hey asshole...go fuck yourself! Do you want to have a debate or just sling shit? I'm capable of either.

Our brain (intelligence) does separate us from other animals. And FYI you ignorant fuck, an organism doesn't have to be multicellular. Further, a human being could be something less than a complete organism, for instance a person born without eyes isn't a complete organism, but still a human being.

now, Miss....don't be so nasty....we already know you're the last person to be qualified as a human being, you don't have to demonstrate it.....

Abortion is the same way.

no, it simply isn't......there is no denying, scientifically, that the fetus is life.....you can pretend, for the sake of killing it, that it's life isn't as good as a "human being's" life.....but that is just pretending for the sake of killing it......

[Missileman]

Not so, outside interference is the premise. When fertilized eggs do not make it to full term, for whatever reason, with no outside interference then so be it.

So you would cede yourself authority over the other 70% of pregnancies?

[fj1200]

So you would cede yourself authority over the other 70% of pregnancies?

No, two parents were blessed with that authority.

[Missileman]

No, two parents were blessed with that authority.

Does that imply you're okay with the decision of the two parents if they decide to abort?

Nope, those are merely two examples of a human not being able to survive certain elements, just as some babies die right after birth, are stillborn, etc etc.

If the fertilized egg failed to implant, then either the baby fetus didnt perform well enough to get implanted, or the mothers body failed in its job to implant it, in which case, the baby wasnt taken care of properly enough to survive, not any different than if the mothers body kills the infant under a large host of other possibilities. In which, these are cases in which the fertilized egg baby was not provided with proper nutrition or protection from the elements of nature, which can include parts of the mothers body.

Reading further, FJ's response may be better than mine...

The latter 15% of failed pregancies are often the result of chromosomal abnormality. Why can't you understand that if the blueprint (DNA) is severely flawed, the result of the construction is NOT going to be a human being?

You do support mandatory blood testing if a cop "suspects" one of drunk driving. With so many crooked cops, its impossible to deny that some completely sober people driving will be forced to give blood. See revelarts
video on cops confiscating money when the driver has done NOTHING ILLEGAL

I support mandatory blood testing IF, there is probable cause, i.e. erratic driving, smell of alcohol, failed sobriety test, and the suspect then refuses to comply with a breath test to establish proof of DUI. Your contention that a sober person is going to meet all those requirements is PURE BULLSHIT FANTASY! A sober person will comply with the breath test.

Since it is a hypothetical where U acknowledge the existence of a creatopr of human life, it is His, the lifes belong to him, not to the women and men who go through the process of procreation, hence it is His right to do what He wants with that life.
Again, assuming there is a God and Heaven, those lifes are better off anyways, But dont go claiming, then the babies we abort are better off also, because it simply isn't our call to make.

Assuming you consider your god to be just, and assuming your god implants a soul into a human being at the moment of conception (a popular argument), the fact that some 30% of these souls never see the light of day implies that abortion is a just act, unless you can also believe your god is capable of being unjust, at which point one would have to ask who in their right mind would worship such a deity.

yet another irrelevant issue as to the morality.....abortion

So you'd have no problem imprisoning a pregnant woman and forcing her to carry to term. You have a lot of nerve railing about morality.

[LuvRPgrl]

Except for the fact that 15% of these fertilized eggs never implant and another 15% are lost through spontaneous abortion without any outside interefence whatsoever. Your premise is flawed.

Nope, those are merely two examples of a human not being able to survive certain elements, just as some babies die right after birth, are stillborn, etc etc.

If the fertilized egg failed to implant, then either the baby fetus didnt perform well enough to get implanted, or the mothers body failed in its job to implant it, in which case, the baby wasnt taken care of properly enough to survive, not any different than if the mothers body kills the infant under a large host of other possibilities. In which, these are cases in which the fertilized egg baby was not provided with proper nutrition or protection from the elements of nature, which can include parts of the mothers body.

Reading further, FJ's response may be better than mine...

That's a huge distortion of what I wrote and you know it. I suppose the lie you just told was easier to write than a coherent, logical response to the rest of the post. As I recall, it's not an unusual tactic for you.

You do support mandatory blood testing if a cop "suspects" one of drunk driving. With so many crooked cops, its impossible to deny that some completely sober people driving will be forced to give blood. See revelarts
video on cops confiscating money when the driver has done NOTHING ILLEGAL

[LuvRPgrl]

The latter 15% of failed pregancies are often the result of chromosomal abnormality. Why can't you understand that if the blueprint (DNA) is severely flawed, the result of the construction is NOT going to be a human being?

SO? How would that prove the organism wasn't human, or an individual?
Just because it died at a young age, and never was very fit, not too much unlike someone born with severe defects, just not quite as severe as the ones that die early

[logroller]

SO? How would that prove the organism wasn't human, or an individual?
Just because it died at a young age, and never was very fit, not too much unlike someone born with severe defects, just not quite as severe as the ones that die early

There really isn't a clear or perfect answer to the whole abortion issue-- that's why govt should stay the f out of it. That includes funding it. Its an elective procedure and unless the fetus can live outside the womb, its not an individual.
Is it Human? I'd say aborting an unwanted child isn't all that "human." Let see-- a head, two arms, two legs, ten fingers, ten toes. That's what a human is right? Or is it something more? Humans, by and large, are a loving social being. Of course humans, mankind, whatever you want call us have a duality, where man is selfish, even willing to kill for self-preservation. It's a fine line to walk and there's always faults, but through the freedom of choice we succeed or fail, both as individuals and as a society. Impose your will on another and both fail.

So far as severe defects, is that the responsibility of the public? I have a family cancer risk. Which I could premise as a defect-- should govt treat my cancer should I get it?

Don't get me wrong, I think abortion is a stupid behavior; but stupid exists, and will continue to as long govt protects people from their own behavior!

[Missileman]

SO? How would that prove the organism wasn't human, or an individual?
Just because it died at a young age, and never was very fit, not too much unlike someone born with severe defects, just not quite as severe as the ones that die early

We're not talking about a cleft pallet or a club foot, we're talking about a no head, no organs, no form whatsoever type result.

[PostmodernProphet]

The latter 15% of failed pregancies are often the result of chromosomal abnormality. Why can't you understand that if the blueprint (DNA) is severely flawed, the result of the construction is NOT going to be a human being?

query: is the gay gene sufficient to consider homosexuals to be something other than human beings?......

[Abbey Marie]

query: is the gay gene sufficient to consider homosexuals to be something other than human beings?......

And the fearless award goes to... Prophet.

If I may interject: How about the physical ability to sustain life functions outside the womb as the point of viability and consideration of right to life

A newborn will die without some mother's milk. Even a toddler will die without someone to feed it. Yes, these have developed all the parts needed to survive, but in all three cases (fetus, newborn, toddler), there is death without some sort of sustainability. In fact, the fetus will survive if the mom just goes on doing what she normally does to live herself. The babies need active, purposeful care.

[fj1200]

You said the authority lies with them, right?

For you to ask the question was a serious misread of my other posts here.

The mass of cells is human, IMO though, you don't get a human being until a significant amount of development occurs.

Then once you get past the 30% mark then the vast majority of feti(?) have reached viability and you know they will advance to birth if left to their natural development. At what point are you willing to give them the benefit of a right to the property that they have in their life?