Abortion battle looming?

As tech has improved, the 'viability' of the child has gone to earlier and earlier ages. As tech has improved, we have seen that previous assumptions of 'sentience' were wrong.



Ah, the next evolutionary step in the dehumanization process of the left.

Call the child 'two cells' or 'a clump of cells'

Never mind that the complete genetic coding of a unique human life is present.

Never mind that those 'two cells' could be the next MLK, Einstein etc...

Just keep dehumanizing at all costs.



I am not saying it can't be part of the discussion. But it has nothing to do with your attempts to dehumanize the child so that you can feel better allowing it to be killed.



Wow... how did we jump to frozen embryos?

Ah... yes, there it is.... the grand old 'clump of cells' argument. Which is that? Dehumanization technique four or is it five? and now also calling it a zygote.... just can't admit it is a human child can you?



ROFLMAO.... no moron... it is those who attempt to proclaim the 'fetus' or 'zygote' as 'subhuman' that believe in some magical occurring at a future date where the 'fetus' suddenly turns human.

It is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that it is a unique human life. FACT.

Not opinion. FACT. It is alive. It is human. Period.



WTF????

Are you just tossing out any and all failed arguments of the left in the hopes that one sticks?

Nothing I'm doing is "dehumanizing." You are utilizing the word "child" because it's an emotional word; the correct terms for various stages of development ARE zygote, fetus, child...you had seemed to agree with that before, but when it suits the emotionalism of your argument, you'll throw child around for a zygote or frozen embryo or whatever. Next, you'll trot out "baby killer."

It's always ridiculous arguing with zealots on this issue. You don't like hearing "clump of cells." You'd rather use "child" or "baby"...maybe you'd like to get some booties for the clump of cells, or a list of prospective colleges?

Sorry - it's a clump of cells. No brain, no brainstem, no brainwaves - no activity whatsoever. No awareness, limbs, organs - no "personhood" at all.

It's a blueprint. If you want to get emotional, get emotional about the slaughter in Darfur. The idea that you're comfortable telling women that they HAVE NO CHOICE but to carry to term from the 1st moment of conception is absolutely abhorrent to me.....
 
Strawmen & generalizations. You're an intellectual lightweight on this topic.
And you are an outright liar on this topic.

A fertilized egg is NOT a chicken. Just an FYI on that.
But a fertilized egg does CONTAIN a chicken. The liberal habit of pointing out an egg is not a chicken just shows the extreme ignorance (or dishonesty) of the abortionists. But we all know by now that the only support for legal abortion comes from lies, distortions, and ignorance.

Humans do not come from eggs, we come from an ovum which is fertilized by a sperm. Chicken eggs contain an ovum, also, which, when fertilized by a sperm from a rooster develops into a chicken by using the other contents of the egg for biomass. Humans develop using the nutrients provided by the mother through her placenta.

The word "convenience" is thrown around too much in the abortion debate. It creates the impression that the vast majority of abortions are little more than birth control for young pregnant women who don't give it a 2nd thought. That is just not the case for many, many abortions.
However, it IS the case in the majority of abortions. Most abortions are for the convenience of the mother (and father) who don't want to deal with it. So we lie about the science, we lie about the reality, and redefine humanity for the expressed purpose to excluding unborn children from their natural rights as living humans.

Sentience is important; the point at which you reach self-awareness, measurable brain function, viability...these are all important considerations to the discussion.
Why is that? Is a born child with severe cerebral palsy any less human than a child who is intellectually gifted? Is a child dependent on dialysis (ie: not vialble without outside support) less human than a healthy child?

As stated earlier, and continues to be demonstrated by the abortionists - though they deny it continually (liars) - the bottom line of the Abortionist argument is that unborn human children are not human, or do not deserve human rights (IF they acknowledge they are human) because they are DIFFERENT. And then they point out ALL the differences, ignoring the fact that every single difference they use to justify their bullshit is temporary.

The bottom line is that a human adult is a living organism of the species Homo Sapiens. A human teenager is a living organism of the species Homo Sapiens. A human child is a living organism of the species Homo Sapiens. A human infant is a living organism of the species Homo Sapiens. A human fetus is a living organism of the species Homo Sapiens. A human embryo is a living organism of the species Homo Sapiens. A human zygote is a living organism of the species Homo Sapiens. Those are the scientific facts that scientifically define Homo Sapiens (humans) from other animals.

Again, the bottom line comes into view, the ONLY reason for considering ANY other factor than the fact that we are talking about living humans is for the PURPOSE of excluding them. There is no other valid reason for insisting that factors other than the status of living human be considered. The amazing hypocrisy of the modern liberal. In ANY other instance, the liberals would be insistent that we use the broadest possible definition for who deserves human rights. But when it comes to killing our own children, they insist that a broad, purely scientific based definition is not good enough.

WHY is it not good enough? (Because then you cannot dehumanize them for your own immoral purposes.)
 
Good Luck - it would probably interest you to know that there are quite a few pro-choice conservatives, as well....
 
Nothing I'm doing is "dehumanizing." You are utilizing the word "child" because it's an emotional word; the correct terms for various stages of development ARE zygote, fetus, child...you had seemed to agree with that before, but when it suits the emotionalism of your argument, you'll throw child around for a zygote or frozen embryo or whatever. Next, you'll trot out "baby killer."

It's always ridiculous arguing with zealots on this issue. You don't like hearing "clump of cells." You'd rather use "child" or "baby"...maybe you'd like to get some booties for the clump of cells, or a list of prospective colleges?

Sorry - it's a clump of cells. No brain, no brainstem, no brainwaves - no activity whatsoever. No awareness, limbs, organs - no "personhood" at all.

It's a blueprint. If you want to get emotional, get emotional about the slaughter in Darfur. The idea that you're comfortable telling women that they HAVE NO CHOICE but to carry to term from the 1st moment of conception is absolutely abhorrent to me.....
Fucking liar. Everything you propose is to dehumanize unborn children. We use the word "child" and "baby" because that is what we call them. Ask a pregnant mother how her fetus is doing and observe the look on her face. She will tell you that it is her BABY.

We say "my child is about to enter kindergarten", where is the "emotional" value of the word child? Child is simply a generic term commonly used to refer to our progeny. YOU think calling an unborn human "child" is emotional because you are so intent on dehumanizing them in your mind, the word becomes emotionally laden TO YOU. Because YOU desire to hold to your lies that they are not human.

And, interestingly, we now see you even abandon the scientifically accurate term "fetus" in favor of the deliberately dehumanizing, and quite inaccurate, description "clump of cells". And do so within a post claiming you do not deliberately dehumanize the unborn. You are a fucking LIAR. And the real pity is, you KNOW you are a fucking liar, but cannot even admit so to yourself.

Once again, proof that supporters of legal abortion can only do so through lies. Lies are all you have in your bigotry against living humans who do not meet your standards for "personhood". You are no better than all the racists and bigots throughout all history who use their lies to disassociate their targeted group from enjoying the rights of other humans. You use the same methods, the same kinds of lies, and the same bullshit justifications - the only difference is the minor details of which differences you focus on, and which terms you use to dehumanize.
 
Good Luck - it would probably interest you to know that there are quite a few pro-choice conservatives, as well....
But the arguments (lies) come from the liberals.

Answer my question you fucking liar. WHY is a broad based, purely scientific definition of human not good enough for you in determining who deserves human rights?

What is the justification for using OPINION to define something as essential as the basic right to life?

Also, if opinion is indeed a valid method of determining human rights, how is your opinion any more valid than those who would remove the rights of blacks or other minorities?
 
For starters, I don't really respond to anything phrased with "you fucking liar." You have some serious anger issues - but you are one of the best namecallers on the board.

But, if you want an answer to that, you'd have to read back through the thread. I have provided ample response for that one....
 
For starters, I don't really respond to anything phrased with "you fucking liar." You have some serious anger issues - but you are one of the best namecallers on the board.

But, if you want an answer to that, you'd have to read back through the thread. I have provided ample response for that one....

lol...so i guess its ok to call people liars, just not "fucking" liars

lmao
 
i don't think it has to be an arbritrary line. there is no denying that the zygote, or any state of the fetus, is made up of human dna and but for an a normal birth, would in fact be a human being. imo, if anyone draws a line anywhere before full term, eg, the birth, they are truly playing "god", because at any time before birth, it is still in the fetus stage. as such, if you say the fetus at this state has "rights" or is "human", you cannot arbitrarily go back and proclaim at some magical juncture that it is not yet human.

i understand your concerns about juggling the rights and our understanding of humanity and i share them as well, but it seems contradictory to proclaim at X months or X days that this is now a human being when the entire time it is still in the same process, that of fetus, until birth. be it one day or 240 days.....

just my thoughts at the moment

.
 
For starters, I don't really respond to anything phrased with "you fucking liar." You have some serious anger issues - but you are one of the best namecallers on the board.

But, if you want an answer to that, you'd have to read back through the thread. I have provided ample response for that one....
Got a clue for you. "Because" is not a valid response to the question why.

Why is a broad, purely scientific definition of human not good enough for determining who is deserving of human rights? Can you answer that one or not?
 
lol...so i guess its ok to call people liars, just not "fucking" liars

lmao

Well, it is interesting, Yurt; if it were me or a libbie talking like GL is now, you'd be all over it (and you know it).

But, you're first comment on that topic is reserved for me, which is quite pretty revealing...
 
Well, it is interesting, Yurt; if it were me or a libbie talking like GL is now, you'd be all over it (and you know it).

But, you're first comment on that topic is reserved for me, which is quite pretty revealing...

not at all, i call people fucking liars and non fucking liars....and you call people liars, i don't recall if you saying fucking, but "fucking" is irrelevant, you're whining about people calling people liars and that is truly hypocritical of you

its so funny to watch you get in these intellectually dishonest positions all the time :)
 
Got a clue for you. "Because" is not a valid response to the question why.

Why is a broad, purely scientific definition of human not good enough for determining who is deserving of human rights? Can you answer that one or not?

It's too simplistic. It's like throwing up our hands and saying, "sorry, women - we really can't come up with a reasonable decision, so you're just going to have to give birth now."

We have many, many laws that are by their nature arbitrary. But the arbitrary limits or rules that are set are acceptable because the majority agree they are reasonable. That's just how it is.

It is entirely UNreasonable to force women to carry to term simply because we can't find "perfect" agreement. There are times when the vast majority of reasonable Americans can agree - even if it's at the earliest stages, with the morning-after pill. Right now, it's the 1st trimester; that might change, depending on elections & the court.
 
not at all, i call people fucking liars and non fucking liars....and you call people liars, i don't recall if you saying fucking, but "fucking" is irrelevant, you're whining about people calling people liars and that is truly hypocritical of you

its so funny to watch you get in these intellectually dishonest positions all the time :)

No - you call lefties on everything, and ignore righties for the same things.

And that's funny to watch.
 
Was this a question?

What did you want...praise?

there was no question, there were however my thoughts on the matter which i thought you could address....but now you're all pissy over getting shown to be a hypocrite on the liar issue you'll probably just ignore actual discussion now....you're hypersensitive that way
 
No - you call lefties on everything, and ignore righties for the same things.

And that's funny to watch.

haha...its so cute to watch you deflect and lie in order to run away from getting caught in another hypocrtical whiny moment...

your statement above is nothing but pure projection onceler...thanks for the laught :)

i'm sure posters like bravo, dixie etc....really agree with you!! LOL
 
True. It is about WHEN human rights should be granted. But pretending it is about 'control' of the womans body is just nonsense from the left. Again, in all cases not involving rape, the woman (along with the man) has the right to choose whether or not to have sex. If the two CHOOSE to have sex, they have the right to CHOOSE to use protection or not. If the results of their actions result in a child, then they are responsible for their actions.

How do you suggest society should deal with a case like the one involving Assange and the two women in Sweden should one of them become pregnant? While the ladies agreed to sex he's charged with rape because the condoms broke and he just kept pumping banging....well, he kept going.

If that is considered rape and abortions are permitted for rape that means the life of an innocent human being would depend on a broken condom.

Is that the standard anti-abortionist belief?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The stupidity of that is quite funny. As stated the other 100,000 times you use that pathetic analogy.... an acorn is like the EGG cell. IF fertilized, its gentics are most certainly that of an oak tree.

Here is where you venture into the ACTUAL argument. I understand that there are different stages of development. But at NO time after fertilization of the egg cell by the sperm cell is it anything other than human.

The argument IS about WHEN human rights should be granted. My point is and always has been just that. Just quit pretending that by saying 'fetus' that it is somehow not a human child.

As you say, no one is going to look at a baby and say 'teenager'. Just as no one would look at a baby, toddler, pre-teen, teenager or adult and say 'nope, not a human'.

True. It is about WHEN human rights should be granted. But pretending it is about 'control' of the womans body is just nonsense from the left. Again, in all cases not involving rape, the woman (along with the man) has the right to choose whether or not to have sex. If the two CHOOSE to have sex, they have the right to CHOOSE to use protection or not. If the results of their actions result in a child, then they are responsible for their actions.

The childs rights do not supersede the womans. Nor should the woman's rights supersede the childs. She should not have the right to kill the child out of convenience. The child and its body have just as much right to exist. Especially when the woman (and man) KNOW that a child is a potential consequence of their actions.

This is where we obviously differ. You are willing to 'compromise' with someone else's life. I am not.

That is just nonsense. I would be willing to bet I have put far more thought into my position than most who support abortion.

The 'lazy' are the ones who are willing to say 'hey, go ahead and terminate a human life. It isn't me, so what do I care. I am willing to compromise with someone else's life'
 
It's too simplistic. It's like throwing up our hands and saying, "sorry, women - we really can't come up with a reasonable decision, so you're just going to have to give birth now."

We have many, many laws that are by their nature arbitrary. But the arbitrary limits or rules that are set are acceptable because the majority agree they are reasonable. That's just how it is.

It is entirely UNreasonable to force women to carry to term simply because we can't find "perfect" agreement. There are times when the vast majority of reasonable Americans can agree - even if it's at the earliest stages, with the morning-after pill. Right now, it's the 1st trimester; that might change, depending on elections & the court.
Actually, it is you abortionists who are refusing to come up with a reasonable definition because you insist on clinging to your lies about the status of unborn humans.

By your standard, there was nothing morally wrong with slavery, as long as the majority agreed that blacks were not human enough to deserve human rights. By this standard it was morally correct to use small pox laden blankets to exterminate native Americans, because the prevailing opinion was that we were not human enough to deserve any rights.

The standard of "what people can agree on" has been used before, mutliple times. History is FULL of instances where the ruling majority used their opinions to dehumanize a targeted group of humans for their own purposes: to enslave, kill, steal their land, etc. etc. etc. Yet every single time opinion has beeen the standard by which human rights are withheld, history has shown that attitude to be morally corrupt.

How is it different this time?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top