Abortion battle looming?

Superfreak said:
The above is typical of the left. It is a human CHILD. Calling it a 'fetus' is simply a way for the left to dehumanize the child. The 'fetal stage' is just that... a STAGE of the childs development.
Click to expand...

An acorn isn't a tree...yada, yada, yada.

We could have this debate ad infinitum, and it seems like we have. There ARE different stages of human development. Whether you believe it or not, few would look at a microscopic zygote in a petri dish and say "that's a fully realized human being with all of the rights of a fully realized human being." Very few would also look at that & say "child," just as very few would look at a baby and say "teenager," and few would look at a teenager and say "adult."

So, the question then becomes, at what point does a zygote or fetus reach a point at which we can say they have all of the rights we associate with individuals in society...at what point do their rights supercede the right of the woman to control her own body? You say conception...whatever. The Supreme Courts says after the 1st trimester, which to me, is a very good compromise. It takes into account sentience, viability & other aspects that we relate to a vague concept of "personhood," while also fully respecting the rights of the woman involved.

It's easier to be black & white about it - life begins HERE, and it is "murder" from the get go. It takes much less thought & consideration. To me, it is lazy thinking.
 
Last edited:
Rana said:
Those being responsible for their actions are men, so keep it in your pants, or wear a condom! It isn't just woman that have to be responsible and by the way, accidents happen, there are those who are responsible and still get pregnant. It is not my business to make decisions for others! Talk about imposing your will on others.
Click to expand...
Except in cases of rape, the woman has a say in whether sexual intercourse takes place. Denying that basic fact just paints you the emo idiot.

The additional fact that birth control methods are not 100% effective, especially when factoring human error, is well known. At least it SHOULD be, since it is a fact presented time and again and again and again in our society. Anyone who does not know has only themselves to blame for their degree off pure ignorance.

As such, a woman who engages in consensual sex is invariably making an informed decision to risk pregnancy. Deny it all you want, but that is the bottom line. The man aslo is making the same decision, true. But to say the man should just keep it in their pants when the woman is also spreading for him is about as dishonest a reason for abortions as any of the others - proof yet again that when it comes to defending abortion, all the defenders have is lies. It's also another attempt at avoiding personal responsibility. Put the blame on men for consensual sex - women have nothing to do with it. The only way blaming men flies is if we assume women are too stupid to decide for themselves when to have sex.

Legalized abortion for anything less than life threatening medical condition is, and always has been about a way to avoid responsibility for their (as in both the man and woman) decision to risk the consequences of sexual intercourse. Just kill the little bastard. Morally, no different than taking it out back and giving it the ax treatment. But with enough lies, ignorance, and excuses, they can fool themselves into believing their philosophy of "kill the little bastard" is actually the morally superior attitude. Disgusting is a woefully inadequate adjective for pro-abortionists.
 
Ice Dancer said:
A fertalized chicken egg is indeed scientifically a chicken.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Find me a scientist that looks at a egg and says "that's a chicken." I need to see that degree.

There are some very lazy generalizations that go on in this debate. "It is 100% proven scientific fact that a zygote is a human being!"

No - that's why "scientists" call it a zygote.
 
Onceler said:
An acorn isn't a tree...yada, yada, yada.

We could have this debate ad infinitum, and it seems like we have. There ARE different stages of human development. Whether you believe it or not, few would look at a microscopic zygote in a petri dish and say "that's a fully realized human being with all of the rights of a fully realized human being." Very few would also look at that & say "child," just as very few would look at a baby and say "teenager," and few would look at a teenager and say "adult."

So, the question then becomes, at what point does a zygote or fetus reach a point at which we can say they have all of the rights we associate with individuals in society...at what point do their rights supercede the right of the woman to control her own body? You say conception...whatever. The Supreme Courts says after the 1st trimester, which to me, is a very good compromise. It takes into account sentience, viability & other aspects that we relate to a vague concept of "personhood," while also fully respecting the rights of the woman involved.

It's easier to be black & white about it - life begins HERE, and it is "murder" from the get go. It takes much less thought & consideration. To me, it is lazy thinking.
Click to expand...
No matter how you put the terms, or try to sway the details, you cannot escape the fact that we are talking about living humans. They are human at all stages of development.

"Ooooo! Looky at the microscope. They don't LOOK human, so they don't deserve human rights!" Since when is it moral to decide who get their human rights protected based on APPEARANCE? Is it not appearance that is used by racists? Once again, lies and hypocrisy: that is the basis of supporting legalized abortion.

At what point do we associate human rights? Why not with HUMANS? That seems pretty simple. Believe it or not, some things ARE black and white. A human deserves human rights. If it is not human, then it does not. The ONLY reason for making it complicated is to justify disassociating a class of humans from their rights. Even then, when all the fancy language is condensed to basic meaning, the justification comes down to being different. They are different, so they don't deserve human rights. We have done it to every race on the planet, and done it to groups of people based on other differences. Andd history has shown that every single time we have pointed out a class of humans and denied their humanity and/or their rights, we have been morally WRONG to do so. This time is no different. Abortionists will lie, cheat, and scream, clinging desperately to their lies, as racists and other bigots have done through the ages.

If the topic weren't so serious, it would outright comical the depth to which abortionists go to justify their stance.
 
Good Luck said:
No matter how you put the terms, or try to sway the details, you cannot escape the fact that we are talking about living humans. They are human at all stages of development.

"Ooooo! Looky at the microscope. They don't LOOK human, so they don't deserve human rights!" Since when is it moral to decide who get their human rights protected based on APPEARANCE? Is it not appearance that is used by racists? Once again, lies and hypocrisy: that is the basis of supporting legalized abortion.

At what point do we associate human rights? Why not with HUMANS? That seems pretty simple. Believe it or not, some things ARE black and white. A human deserves human rights. If it is not human, then it does not. The ONLY reason for making it complicated is to justify disassociating a class of humans from their rights. Even then, when all the fancy language is condensed to basic meaning, the justification comes down to being different. They are different, so they don't deserve human rights. We have done it to every race on the planet, and done it to groups of people based on other differences. Andd history has shown that every single time we have pointed out a class of humans and denied their humanity and/or their rights, we have been morally WRONG to do so. This time is no different. Abortionists will lie, cheat, and scream, clinging desperately to their lies, as racists and other bigots have done through the ages.

If the topic weren't so serious, it would outright comical the depth to which abortionists go to justify their stance.
Click to expand...

The racism argument is basically a strawman. It's not relevant in this discussion.

"Personhood" IS a part of the abortion argument, whether you like it or not. Like I said, it's easier to think about everything in black & white terms; but that doesn't mean it's correct to do so.
 
Superfreak said:
The above is typical of the left. It is a human CHILD. Calling it a 'fetus' is simply a way for the left to dehumanize the child. The 'fetal stage' is just that... a STAGE of the childs development.
Click to expand...

The word "fetus" has been used since the Middle Ages. It's not some lefty-inspired trivialization.

fetus
late 14c., from L. fetus "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from L. base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund).
 
Rana said:
Those being responsible for their actions are men, so keep it in your pants, or wear a condom! It isn't just woman that have to be responsible and by the way, accidents happen, there are those who are responsible and still get pregnant. It is not my business to make decisions for others! Talk about imposing your will on others.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with you, girlfriend? Don't you know it's the woman who's always responsible since she carries the fet-, I mean, baby? </sarcasm>
 
Good Luck said:
Yea, let us ignore the fact that a significant percentage of the pro-life movement are women. Let's turn the topic into men wanting to subjugate women emo argument, hating on men and vastly exaggerating the dangers of childbirth, completely devoid of anything resembling either reality or facts.
Click to expand...

Let's discuss the fact that if a woman becomes pregnant and decides to terminate the pregnancy, she's the one being called a murderer, not the man who's equally responsible.
 
christiefan915 said:
Let's discuss the fact that if a woman becomes pregnant and decides to terminate the pregnancy, she's the one being called a murderer, not the man who's equally responsible.
Click to expand...

horse manure....a man has NO choice, NO say, we've had that beat into our skulls by far left liberals
 
Onceler said:
The racism argument is basically a strawman. It's not relevant in this discussion.

"Personhood" IS a part of the abortion argument, whether you like it or not. Like I said, it's easier to think about everything in black & white terms; but that doesn't mean it's correct to do so.
Click to expand...
Racism, and any other kind of bigotry is CENTRAL to the issue because abortionsist are using the SAME TYPES OF ARGUMENTS and methods as racists and other bigot have used through history to justify their inhumane philosophy. Deny it all you want, but that is the bottom line. You focus on the fact that unborn humans are different from born humans. Bigots do the exact same thing: focus on differences between themselves and the targeted group to justify maltreating them.

I never denied that "personhood" is part of the argument. In fact it is central, because those few abortionsist actually willing to acknowledge scientific facts then turn to the term "person" to deny unborn children human rights. But whether you want to use the excuse "they are not persons" or "they are not human", there is no moral difference. Personhood is simply a legal term used through history to deny human rights by limiting the definition of person to the preferred class, and denying that status to the targeted class.

Abortionists use the excuse that unborn children are different to deny them personhood (those that do not outright deny proven science in order to claim they are not even human). Of course, they lie through their despicable teeth that is not what is happening, but in the end, you cannot escape it. You point out differences and use them to justify denying personhood (ie: human rights) to your targeted class of humans. Your methods, defenses and arguments are not substantially different than any other time in history classes of humans were declared as not being "persons", nor being human, or any other terminology you care to bring into the discussion which distinguishes between those humans whose rights are retained, and those humans whose rights are denied them. The only difference is the details used to support your bigoted conclusions.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Let's discuss the fact that if a woman becomes pregnant and decides to terminate the pregnancy, she's the one being called a murderer, not the man who's equally responsible.
Click to expand...
The man may be equally responsible for the pregnancy, but there is no way in hell you can claim he is equally responsible for the decision to kill the child. At best some men can and do put pressure on the woman, because he wants to escape responsibility for his actions. But in the end, today, the decision to keep or kill belongs 100% to the woman.
 
apple0154 said:
So just to clarify your position are you saying a fetus has a right to life regardless if a woman has a defective body?

Let me make this clear so there's no misunderstanding. Let's say a pregnant woman contracts gestational diabetes or uncontrolled high blood pressure. It is likely she will suffer some body damage (liver, kidney, vision, etc). As a society protecting the life of the fetus do we insist she continue to carry that fetus and should damage occur and her very life is in jeopardy do we forcibly hospitalize her so if she does die we can keep her body functions going until the fetus is viable to be removed?

Or do we kill the innocent human being so the defective one may live?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...

What about if she doesn't have a defective body?
 
Good Luck said:
Asked and answered. And answered. And answered. And answered. And answered. And answered. And answered. And answered. And answered.

(Hint: medical science has been able to handle gestational diabetes as a routine, minor complication for several years now.)

If the woman is under a genuine threat to her own life, then and only then should she have the option to kill in order to save her life. How many times over how many threads does it need be explained?

(Ans: Forever, since you will never like the answer, you will continue to act as if it is a new question.)
Click to expand...

As long as it's clear the fetus is not a threat to her life. The threat is her own defective body.

But let me ask this one: since you invariably come out with the "what if a pregnancy causes medical problems for the woman?" excuse, what of the 90+% abortions which are NOT performed for medical reasons? Do you oppose the legal right to convenience killings, or is all your focus on potential medical problems a bunch of smoke to hide what is really going on?
Click to expand...

My focus is on the danger of classifying a fetus as a human being. Nowhere is there a law that discriminates between two classes of human beings to the degree where the life of one class of human being (woman) is automatically worth more than the life of a member of another class (fetus).

While killing the fetus may save the life of the woman the same can be said of a woman requiring life-saving medication and killing an innocent pharmacist because she can't afford to pay for it. In both cases the woman has a defective body and in both cases killing an innocent human being will enable her to prolong her life.

Then there's miscarriages. A woman determined to abort may try various strategies, from taking certain medications to deliberately causing accidents to start labor prematurely.

If/when a woman miscarries to what degree shall authorities interrogate her? If a disgruntled ex-boyfriend goes to the authorities and claim she deliberately fell down the stairs attempting to burst the amniotic sac bringing on premature labor/miscarriage should authorities have the power to investigate?

Why have laws been suggested/rumored that should abortion be unlawful the doctor will be charged but not the woman? Are we prepared, as a society, to charge a woman seeking an abortion the same as we would charge anyone else putting out a contract on someone's life?

Classifying a fetus as a human being and then bending and twisting laws that govern fetuses and pregnant women is a very dangerous thing.

We know about societies that differentiated between humans. Our history is full of it, up to and including "equal but different".

And what about the rights of fetuses? Are we permitted to put a little beer or whiskey in the baby bottle of a six month old? I don't see the difference if a pregnant woman is allowed a glass of wine. Both "children" will absorb the alcohol.

Or do we just classify a fetus as a human being and slide along while we, slowly but surely, either expand the exceptions dealing with fetuses to other human beings or do we expand the rights of fetuses to fully encompass all the rights other human beings have?

The world doesn't stand still. It will go one way or the other. After all, if a miscarriage at six months is given a cursory investigation what's the big deal if a human being dies three months later, after birth?

Or will society go the other way and expect accountability from pregnant women? Will carrying a child on the inside be compared to carrying a child on the outside in regards to the food and drink and possible dangers it may be exposed to?

Those are my concerns.

As for dealing with abortion the answer lies in education. The answer may also lie in time-releasing birth control.

There are a number of possibilities. Trying to classify a fetus as a human being is not one of them.
 
I've never been super-comfortable with the extremes on either side. I'd love to see birth control & education promoted and encouraged even more than they are now, and abortion discouraged.

But I do think it needs to be there, and be legal & safe. People get pregnant for all kinds of reasons that have nothing at all to do with planning responsibly for parenthood. There has to be an opt-out. Bringing a kid into the world is as huge as it gets - a massive, life-altering event that entails responsibilities & considerations that deserve a proper decision.
 
Never before have I seen a person actually use the history of equality to DEFEND keeping a targeted class of humans from their rights. It is, without a doubt, the most despicable example of pure hypocrisy I have ever had the extreme misfortune to witness.

You arguments are pure, fear mongering, bigoted bullshit. They remind me of the rhetoric of the early 60s, words we studied in our middle school (jr high) social studies classes. Descriptions of the economic chaos that would result from passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permeated southern base news sources.

You are full of shit, Apple. Your arguments are typical of all subhuman scum who justify their bigotry. Not to mention the outright lies.

Nowhere is there a law that discriminates between two classes of human beings to the degree where the life of one class of human being (woman) is automatically worth more than the life of a member of another class (fetus).
Click to expand...
Yes, there is. Legalized abortion laws do EXACTLY that: discriminates against the class of unborn humans in favor of the class of born humans. So you are lying right there. In fact, it is worse than that. The law discriminates against the class of unborn humans to the degree that the CONVENIENCE of born humans is of greater concern than the LIFE of the unborn. Since there is no WAY you are so fucking STUPID as to truly believe your own statement, then the inescapable conclusion is you are one of the worst liars to ever make an asininely moronic political statement as you have made here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top