Abortion battle looming?

[Onceler]

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?

You're convinced of your moral superiority on this issue. You're convinced that abortion is murder.

If you're right, society will catch up. Your "side" repeatedly invokes slavery as an example of when the majority agreed on something immoral. Organized slavery - at least in the U.S. - fell under the sheer weight of its immorality. People caught up very quickly.

I don't see that happening with abortion, but I could be wrong. I'm always amazed when I discuss this with pro-lifers how callous & casual they are about the idea of women being forced to carry to term. I think most people get that.

 

[Onceler]

But the arguments (lies) come from the liberals.

This was horrifically lame, btw. Could that be a more partisan statement?

So, conservatives believe it, but don't talk about it? Really?

 

[apple0154]

ROFLMAO.... So tell us... when DOES the magic human fairy come and turn the child human?

Well, first of all, there's no magic fairy.

A human being enters the world at birth. Human beings are individuals. Separate from one another. All our laws and customs are based on that.

As I noted before if a woman was seen putting alcohol in a baby bottle and giving it to a 3 month old child she would be arrested. Common sense and logic dictates we should arrest any pregnant woman who so much as has a sip of wine.

Are we prepared, as a society, to do that? Are we prepared, as a society, to dictate what activities a pregnant woman may participate in? Skiing, for example or any other activity that may put the fetus at risk? If fetuses are children and they share the same body as a adult female shouldn't we apply the same laws to pregnant, adult females as we do to children regarding health and safety? Or do we continue to bend and twist and wriggle the laws like trying to put the proverbial square peg in the round hole?

 

[apple0154]

Apple would probably go along with this idea; because he's for killing the unborn, since they're always going to be abused and unwanted, so it holds to reason that the poor are being abused and unwanted also.

Apple's ideology has just solved not only the problem of the unwanted; but also that of the high unemployment.

Well, you see, the point is the homeless are already homeless. The abused have already been abused. Abortion prevents that from happening to a human being by stopping the process that is likely to lead to a human being suffering such fate.

Think of it like this. A single woman is requested to return to the doctor's office after having had an examination a few days ago. The doctor tells her she's pregnant and, also, that she has a fatal illness. Life expectancy about two years. Say, for example, aggressive ALS.

She knows if she bears a child it will have neither a mother nor father. It may be adopted but, on the other hand, prospective adopting parents will want to know family history.

So, we have a potential child who will know neither biological parent and should it be fortunate enough to connect with a good family as an adult it faces a higher than normal chance of becoming one of the "People living with the disease become progressively paralyzed due to degeneration of the upper and lower motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord. Eighty per cent of people with ALS die within two to five years of diagnosis– unable to breathe or swallow."
http://www.als.ca/

Who would wish that life on anyone?

 

[Good Luck]

You're convinced of your moral superiority on this issue. You're convinced that abortion is murder.

If you're right, society will catch up. Your "side" repeatedly invokes slavery as an example of when the majority agreed on something immoral. Organized slavery - at least in the U.S. - fell under the sheer weight of its immorality. People caught up very quickly.

I don't see that happening with abortion, but I could be wrong. I'm always amazed when I discuss this with pro-lifers how callous & casual they are about the idea of women being forced to carry to term. I think most people get that.

What SHOULD amaze you is the fact that you defend using methods of determining societal justice which have been proven by history to be plain, dead wrong. What SHOULD amaze you is the callous disregard with which you view other living humans whom you, in your mind, have decided are not "worthy" of your consideration. What SHOULD amaze you is the manner you cling to lies ('just a clump of cells") in the face of proven science.

As for why those of us who oppose legalized abortion repeatedly use the example of slavery is simple: because the slavers and abortionists use the same methods to defend their practice. You and they focus on denying the humanity of your targeted groups of victims in order to justify treating them as you see fit. Morally there is no difference between you. The only difference between slavery and abortion is the details of which attributes of your targeted groups are used to deny their humanity, and thereby their rights.

 

[Bonestorm]

What SHOULD amaze you is the fact that you defend using methods of determining societal justice which have been proven by history to be plain, dead wrong. What SHOULD amaze you is the callous disregard with which you view other living humans whom you, in your mind, have decided are not "worthy" of your consideration. What SHOULD amaze you is the manner you cling to lies ('just a clump of cells") in the face of proven science.

As for why those of us who oppose legalized abortion repeatedly use the example of slavery is simple: because the slavers and abortionists use the same methods to defend their practice. You and they focus on denying the humanity of your targeted groups of victims in order to justify treating them as you see fit. Morally there is no difference between you. The only difference between slavery and abortion is the details of which attributes of your targeted groups are used to deny their humanity, and thereby their rights.

Hey GL, what do you think of fertility clinics?

 

[apple0154]

There's this complicated procedure that involves a set of events that turn the child from non-human to human.

Complicated? I suppose it depends on the definition of "complicated". Certainly events that would kill any human being if reversed.

1. Going from a liquid environment to a gaseous one. Try taking a fish out of water and note what happens.

2. A valve in the heart closes and blood direction changes. Veins used to carry blood atrophy and become cords which hold organs in place. Ask your doctor what happens when veins collapse and atrophy.

 

[Good Luck]

Well, you see, the point is the homeless are already homeless. The abused have already been abused. Abortion prevents that from happening to a human being by stopping the process that is likely to lead to a human being suffering such fate.

Think of it like this. A single woman is requested to return to the doctor's office after having had an examination a few days ago. The doctor tells her she's pregnant and, also, that she has a fatal illness. Life expectancy about two years. Say, for example, aggressive ALS.

She knows if she bears a child it will have neither a mother nor father. It may be adopted but, on the other hand, prospective adopting parents will want to know family history.

So, we have a potential child who will know neither biological parent and should it be fortunate enough to connect with a good family as an adult it faces a higher than normal chance of becoming one of the "People living with the disease become progressively paralyzed due to degeneration of the upper and lower motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord. Eighty per cent of people with ALS die within two to five years of diagnosis– unable to breathe or swallow."
http://www.als.ca/

Who would wish that life on anyone?

"Better dead than poor/abused" is quite literally the most depraved and despicable defense of killing children there is.

 

[Good Luck]

Hey GL, what do you think of fertility clinics?

I think they are a wanted service which use immoral methods due to current lack of adequate technology. They need to develop their technologies so they can change their methods, so as to not end up with too many embryos. They need to go back to the laboratory, perfect their methods on non-human subjects until they can consistently fertilize one ovum at a time to be implanted in as successful pregnancy.

Then I would support bringing their services back to dealing with human reproduction. As it stands now, the "left over" embryos are an error without possibility of moral resolution.

 

[apple0154]

The word convenience is used to describe why 97% of women seek abortions...it may be a term that is disagreeable as it lays bare the unpleasant reality of motive. The left attempt to use personal circumstances to induce an emotional blurring of this fact...but no matter the personal story it still boils down to convenience. Yes there are personal stories that sound and are sympathetic- it does not change or diminsh the convenience factor. Convenience is being chosen over the life of the unborn child.

If a woman sees her child starting to run into the street and she prevents him/her from doing so is the woman doing that for "convenience"? If a woman sees her child about to drink some cleaning fluid from under the kitchen sink and stops her child is she doing that for "convenience"?

When a woman knows she will not be able to love and support a child properly and she is well aware of the lack of support society offers she refuses to bring a child into the world to suffer. Hardly what one would consider "convenience".

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

A fertalized "chicken" egg is in fact scientifically a chicken. It is not a duck or a robin.

The word convenience is used to describe why 97% of women seek abortions...it may be a term that is disagreeable as it lays bare the unpleasant reality of motive. The left attempt to use personal circumstances to induce an emotional blurring of this fact...but no matter the personal story it still boils down to convenience. Yes there are personal stories that sound and are sympathetic- it does not change or diminsh the convenience factor. Convenience is being chosen over the life of the unborn child.

Sentience is a useful tool by the left when discussing the unborn. That again does not offer itself to a reasonable position to kill a fully human albeit not fully developed human being. Numerous born persons are not sentient-with the likelyhood of never being so-the unborn are not in that category as their sentience is developmental and if allowed to live will go on to become fully sentient.

 

[Bonestorm]

I think they are a wanted service which use immoral methods due to current lack of adequate technology. They need to develop their technologies so they can change their methods, so as to not end up with too many embryos. They need to go back to the laboratory, perfect their methods on non-human subjects until they can consistently fertilize one ovum at a time to be implanted in as successful pregnancy.

Then I would support bringing their services back to dealing with human reproduction. As it stands now, the "left over" embryos are an error without possibility of moral resolution.

Well, do you think they all ought to be shut down? Because I never hear much about shutting down the murder mills that are fertility clinics from the "pro-life" people.

 

[apple0154]

"Better dead than poor/abused" is quite literally the most depraved and despicable defense of killing children there is.

But the point is there aren't any "children". The process is stopped.

Why do anti-abortionists have difficulty understanding the concept of "time"? Our world is governed by "time".

Have you never heard the expression, "Don't count your chickens before they've hatched"?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

But the point is there aren't any "children". The process is stopped.

Why do anti-abortionists have difficulty understanding the concept of "time"? Our world is governed by "time".

Have you never heard the expression, "Don't count your chickens before they've hatched"?

are you seriously relegating your stance on abortion down to an age old idiom?

besides, the saying means ---> not all chickens will survive "birth"

 

[Good Luck]

Well, do you think they all ought to be shut down? Because I never hear much about shutting down the murder mills that are fertility clinics from the "pro-life" people.

They should be shut down as far as their operations involving human reproduction is concerned, but not permanently. They should also be encouraged to continue with research so they can, someday, re-offer their services without the associated immorality of abandoned human embryos.

 

[apple0154]

What SHOULD amaze you is the fact that you defend using methods of determining societal justice which have been proven by history to be plain, dead wrong. What SHOULD amaze you is the callous disregard with which you view other living humans whom you, in your mind, have decided are not "worthy" of your consideration. What SHOULD amaze you is the manner you cling to lies ('just a clump of cells") in the face of proven science.

As for why those of us who oppose legalized abortion repeatedly use the example of slavery is simple: because the slavers and abortionists use the same methods to defend their practice. You and they focus on denying the humanity of your targeted groups of victims in order to justify treating them as you see fit. Morally there is no difference between you. The only difference between slavery and abortion is the details of which attributes of your targeted groups are used to deny their humanity, and thereby their rights.

We'd all probably take anti-abortionists a bit more seriously if they weren't such hypocrites. They rant up and down about how fetuses are human beings and then condone their killing if a woman has a faulty body.

They tell us if a woman is raped that's a good reason to kill an innocent human being who had absolutely nothing to do with the rape. Kill an innocent human being who had not even been in existence at the time!

The outrage is compounded when they compare abortion to slavery. While those who believe in the freedom of abortion believe the fetus is not a human being and, I suppose, those who believed in slavery truly believed the slave was less than human the anti-abortionist believes the fetus is a human being yet condones it's murder in certain circumstances.

I think the reason anti-abortionists are usually angry persons is due to cognitive dissonance.

"Cognitive dissonance is a physiological term. It is the anxiety or conflict when two opposing thoughts are held simultaneously."
http://www.reference.com/motif/Science/cognitive-dissonance

The poor folks are all mixed up.

 

[Good Luck]

But the point is there aren't any "children". The process is stopped.

Actually the point is the claim that there are no human children involved is an outright full blown abortionist lie. Any general biology text that includes reproduction in mammals as a topic proves your claim to be wrong. Science has proven you wrong, yet you cling to your lies/ignorance/both.

When an argument depends on lies, it cannot be considered valid.

 

[Onceler]

There are no "lies." Only opinions that differ from yours.

 

[Good Luck]

We'd all probably take anti-abortionists a bit more seriously if they weren't such hypocrites. They rant up and down about how fetuses are human beings and then condone their killing if a woman has a faulty body.

They tell us if a woman is raped that's a good reason to kill an innocent human being who had absolutely nothing to do with the rape. Kill an innocent human being who had not even been in existence at the time!

The outrage is compounded when they compare abortion to slavery. While those who believe in the freedom of abortion believe the fetus is not a human being and, I suppose, those who believed in slavery truly believed the slave was less than human the anti-abortionist believes the fetus is a human being yet condones it's murder in certain circumstances.

I think the reason anti-abortionists are usually angry persons is due to cognitive dissonance.

"Cognitive dissonance is a physiological term. It is the anxiety or conflict when two opposing thoughts are held simultaneously."
http://www.reference.com/motif/Science/cognitive-dissonance

The poor folks are all mixed up.

You see hypocrisy because you are too ignorant of real science to make any valid judgment. When a woman's life is threatened due to pregnancy, how many of those children do you think survive the death of their mother? (Damned near zero, and none without heroic measures that are seldom successful even if used.) Therefore the question is do we build the laws to let one survive, or be stupid and insist on killing both?

And you have no idea what my stance is on abortions due to rape. It is a very sticky issue, but I do not believe in killing a child for the sins of its father.

And the slavery equation has been fully explained more than once. If you are too set in your lies to see the relationship, that is YOUR lack, not that of the anti-abortion argument.

 

[Bonestorm]

They should be shut down as far as their operations involving human reproduction is concerned, but not permanently. They should also be encouraged to continue with research so they can, someday, re-offer their services without the associated immorality of abandoned human embryos.

That's the most you can say for an industry that, by your reckoning, murders tens of thousands of human children each year? That's pretty weak sauce.


Edit: And what's this "embryo" shit? I thought they were children.

 

[Good Luck]

There are no "lies." Only opinions that differ from yours.

When a person clings to their "opinion" despite being proven wrong by science, the only conclusion is they are deliberate lies. The status of the unborn as living humans has been well established by the biological sciences. Yet in this very thread you made the claim they are just a "clump of cells". Being you are not stupid enough to be ignorant of the scientific proof of the humanity of the unborn, then calling them "a clump of cells" IS a lie. And you KNOW it to be a lie.