Why Can't the Pro-Abortionists be Honest?

[red states rule]

[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?......

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

You should try reading my posts several times before commenting on them. I clearly stated that the ones that die EARLY have severe defects.
However,

It doesnt make them any less human.

Logrollers consideration that having ten fingers, etc is what makes one human, well, what about amputees?

Protection of the life of its citizens is the top priority of the govt, so, the govt should be involved inprotecting those who are the least capable of protecting themselves.

The whole question always comes down to , is the fetus an individual human being or not? When does the fertilized egg become an IHB?

There are really only two certain demarcation lines that wont change. Fertilization and birth.
The different phases of viability will change as science advances. I could hardly believe that anyone would say that the time a IHB comes into existence is determined by the level of advancement of our science, and it changes as science advances.

Then, on the other hand, very, very few would say the 8-1/2 month old fetus/baby is not a viable IHB (Individual human being)

Those who do believe that the 8-1/2 month old fetus is an IHB, would either have to believe that its status as an IHB occurs either at fertilization, or at some point in pregnancy.

Again, if they try to claim its during the pregnancy period, that is completely subjective, subject to change, inconsistent, and probably dependent on science, and definately dependent of the developement of the baby in utero, of which all babies develope at different rates.

This would cause the point of IHB to be variable, in which case, aborting at virtually anytime would allow for the POSSIBLITY that the fetus is an IHB, and we couldnt know for sure. If we dont know for sure, we have to err on the side of caution and assume it is an IHB

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

At times they sure act different than.....

[Missileman]

You should try reading my posts several times before commenting on them. I clearly stated that the ones that die EARLY have severe defects.
However,

It doesnt make them any less human.

And you should read mine more closely, because I never said they weren't human, I said they would never be a viable human being. One of my skin cells is human, it is not however a human being. You seem very close to arguing that any collection of tissue with human DNA is a human being no matter its form or viability. That's not logical ground.

There are really only two certain demarcation lines that wont change. Fertilization and birth.

There are other clear lines between fertilization and birth that you ignore because it suits your argument.

[LuvRPgrl]

There are other clear lines between fertilization and birth that you ignore because it suits your argument.

Yet you don't name any of them. Again, you assume something. You say I ignore them, IF they do exist, I have never heard of them and hence I cant ignore something I do not know about. You are simply a liar, and not a good one at that.

[logroller]

Yet you don't name any of them. Again, you assume something. You say I ignore them, IF they do exist, I have never heard of them and hence I cant ignore something I do not know about. You are simply a liar, and not a good one at that.

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

[gabosaurus]

If I may interject: How about the physical ability to sustain life functions outside the womb.

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

[logroller]

You should try reading my posts several times before commenting on them. I clearly stated that the ones that die EARLY have severe defects.

Logrollers consideration that having ten fingers, etc is what makes one human, well, what about amputees?

There are really only two certain demarcation lines that wont change. Fertilization and birth.
The different phases of viability will change as science advances. I could hardly believe that anyone would say that the time a IHB comes into existence is determined by the level of advancement of our science, and it changes as science advances.

Then, on the other hand, very, very few would say the 8-1/2 month old fetus/baby is not a viable IHB (Individual human being)

Those who do believe that the 8-1/2 month old fetus is an IHB, would either have to believe that its status as an IHB occurs either at fertilization, or at some point in pregnancy.

This would cause the point of IHB to be variable, in which case, aborting at virtually anytime would allow for the POSSIBLITY that the fetus is an IHB, and we couldnt know for sure. If we dont know for sure, we have to err on the side of caution and assume it is an IHB

Its ironic i would overlook this post!
Though I agree with all your statements, I, at the same time, realize reason plays a significant role. I mean, 8 month and 2 month-old fetuses are developmentally different. To say fertilization and birth are the only lines seems unreasonable. What about implantation, nervous stimulation and response. Anybody who's felt or seen a baby's kick on the mother's stomach can reason there is an actual being inside far more easily than morning sickness or a baby bump.

[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.

[Missileman]

Yet you don't name any of them. Again, you assume something. You say I ignore them, IF they do exist, I have never heard of them and hence I cant ignore something I do not know about. You are simply a liar, and not a good one at that.

I apologize...there is indeed a difference between ignoring and ignorance. I mistakingly gave you the benefit of the doubt and applied the former. I should have realized that statements like "there are only two clear lines of demarcation" are born of the latter. My bad!

[red states rule]

Remember this folks

Guns do not kill people. Abortion clinics kill people

[J.T]

Humans, by and large, are a loving social being.

Where did you study biology?

And you should read mine more closely, because I never said they weren't human, I said they would never be a viable human being. One of my skin cells is human, it is not however a human being. You seem very close to arguing that any collection of tissue with human DNA is a human being no matter its form or viability. That's not logical ground.

Go to the local middle school. Ask a science teacher what an organism is.

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

Viability is a moving target, and therefore meaningless.

[Missileman]

Go to the local middle school. Ask a science teacher what an organism is.

Where exactly in my post did I use the term "organism"?

BTW, you never did answer whether an eyeball is a human being.

[J.T]

Where exactly in my post did I use the term "organism"?

BTW, you never did answer whether an eyeball is a human being.

Go to the local library and ask for a dictionary. Look up 'human being' and 'eyeball'.

[Missileman]

Go to the local library and ask for a dictionary. Look up 'human being' and 'eyeball'.

I'm aware of the difference, you however are arguing like you'd equate the two.