Why Can't the Pro-Abortionists be Honest?

[fj1200]

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

What would make you think that?

You are making too much sense for extreme fundamentalists to understand. They wish only to debate semantics.

How DARE you take away the right to choose from a woman!!!

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 seem to be basing your entire position on that 15-30% but of the abortions that take place after that point (Most? I don't know) ARE terminating a viable mass of cells that will be born. You still need to determine a point where that mass of cells does become human.

[Missileman]

What would make you think that?

You said the authority lies with them, right?

You seem to be basing your entire position on that 15-30% but of the abortions that take place after that point (Most? I don't know) ARE terminating a viable mass of cells that will be born. You still need to determine a point where that mass of cells does become human.

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

[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?

[Missileman]

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



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?

I draw the line at first trimester. Others will draw it differently.

[fj1200]

I draw the line at first trimester. Others will draw it differently.

But based on what? If it is an arbitrary point then there is a breakdown in the logic. I'll grant you that not all fertilized eggs are viable and they will miscarry but do the remainder have any right beyond the choice of the mother?

[LuvRPgrl]

I draw the line at first trimester. Others will draw it differently.

"Significant amount of developement" and "first trimester",,,very arbitrary, vague,... what exactly occurs to determine when it becomes a human being, what is "significant',

Your ;notion, like I said earlier, is completely arbitrary and subjective, subject to revision, change and at the mercy of science.

[red states rule]

Looks like those who are pro-life are only pro life when the life is on Death Row

[J.T]

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

Your opinion doesn't matter because there is no room for opinion when it comes to established and verifiable scientific facts. You can cry about Earth being 6000 years old and flat all you want, but you remain an idiotic and dishonest moron.

The reality is simple. The Zygote constitutes a new human organism created by the fusion of a spermatozoon and an ovum. This new organism is a living system. Life begins at conception- at the time at which a new living creature comes into existence. This is biology; there is no room for your religion.

I draw the line at first trimester.

Why? What fundamental aspect of your nature changes that made crushing your skull in cold blood go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing

[PostmodernProphet]

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

she cannot sustain her own life functions.......no right to life!...

[Missileman]

do the remainder have any right beyond the choice of the mother?

IMO, no. But even with that answer, I'd still restrict abortions to the 1st trimester with exceptions for mother's health and catastrophic defect.

What's your position on abortion to save the mother's life?

"Significant amount of developement" and "first trimester",,,very arbitrary, vague,... what exactly occurs to determine when it becomes a human being, what is "significant',

Your ;notion, like I said earlier, is completely arbitrary and subjective, subject to revision, change and at the mercy of science.

First trimester is hardly vague.

[logroller]

she cannot sustain her own life functions.......no right to life!...

Oh come on... you know she's functioning very well; and quite beautiful I might add, though that's not a consideration in the matter.

Using such emotional plays are no help. That's like the arguments about rape victims. Its just unproductive to the debate.

[LuvRPgrl]

IMO, no. But even with that answer, I'd still restrict abortions to the 1st trimester with exceptions for mother's health and catastrophic defect.

What's your position on abortion to save the mother's life?

That becomes life vs. life, not convience vs. life, so at that point, it becomes the parents decision, obviously more to the mother.

First trimester is hardly vague.

AGAIN, putting words in my mouth. No wonder you think you win so many debates here, you argue against yourself.

What event happens at the end of the first trimester that constitutes the idea that the fetus suddenly becomes a human being?

And virtually with all pregnancies, you wouldn't be able to determine the end of the first trimester down to the day, as pregnancies vary in length from woman to woman, and birth to birth by the same woman.

Oh come on... you know she's functioning very well; and quite beautiful I might add, though that's not a consideration in the matter.

Using such emotional plays are no help. That's like the arguments about rape victims. Its just unproductive to the debate.

Virtually all arguements from the pro abortionists community are emotional ploys.

My body, my choice,,,,simply not true

Its just a blob of cells, ,,,, simply not true

Rape and incest,,,,,so, I hate to say it, but fact is, if the baby is born and say one day old, and the mother then finds out for a fact that it was the result of rape or incest, does she have the right to kill it then.

What PMP is saying is that the baby in the picture is as dependent on others for nutrition and safety as the "fetus" baby is. The only difference is how the nutrition is given to it, and what they are using for shelter/protection.

[Missileman]

AGAIN, putting words in my mouth.

Putting words in your mouth, my ass!

"Significant amount of developement" and "first trimester",,,very arbitrary, vague,...

Word for word quote.

[LuvRPgrl]

Putting words in your mouth, my ass!



Word for word quote.

weak. In other words, I have no answer.

[Missileman]

weak. In other words, I have no answer.

IOW, you don't deny that you made ANOTHER false accusation against me.