The Abortion MYTH

[apple0154]

One thing you keep ignoring: all of the above scenarios describe LIVING human organisms in the process of development. Yes, some strange things can go on. However, it does not make them less than human as you insist. Obviously, one human CAN become two, as is expressed in every set of identical twins. In fact, there are instances of one human becoming three humans. Just because it does not happen at later stages of development does not mean that happening at earlier stages of development makes them less than human..

Then a fertilized cell is not a unique human being. That was the anti-abortionist argument and it's no longer valid. It is human material. It may or it may not become one human being or two human beings but it is not a unique human being, therefore, it can not be classified as a unique human being.

Furthermore, 25-50% of those so-called human beings simply "evaporate", for lack of a better term and we have absolutely no idea why.

Yes, as you acknowledged, some strange things do go on. The fact is many strange things go on. That's the point. One baby. Two babies. No babies. A female baby and then a male baby. Or maybe a baby that's a combination of both. And then, maybe none at all.

How can anyone justify granting the same rights to something like that as they do to human beings? It's insanity!

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

Your "born"centric definition of human is not unlike the bigot who says "well yes, but how can they be humans if they ain't white?" The fact is unborn children in early stages are not like humans at later stages. So what? Infants are not like later stages either. Big deal. They are still human whether you like it or not. Go read a few books on basic biology. Pay close attention to the sections on reproduction in mammals. I have all of biological science on my side, all you have is a pack of liberal lies, and (unfortunately for millions of children killed) of course, the law.

As for a big chip - when people are running around dehumanizing unborn children so they can claim the right to kill them, hell yes I'll carry a big assed chip on my shoulder. The act of abortion, except in cases where the child cannot be brought to term without killing the mother, is among the most despicable acts on the planet. It's no different than taking an axe to an infant.

 

[Good Luck]

Then a fertilized cell is not a unique human being. That was the anti-abortionist argument and it's no longer valid. It is human material. It may or it may not become one human being or two human beings but it is not a unique human being, therefore, it can not be classified as a unique human being.

Furthermore, 25-50% of those so-called human beings simply "evaporate", for lack of a better term and we have absolutely no idea why.

Yes, as you acknowledged, some strange things do go on. The fact is many strange things go on. That's the point. One baby. Two babies. No babies. A female baby and then a male baby. Or maybe a baby that's a combination of both. And then, maybe none at all.

How can anyone justify granting the same rights to something like that as they do to human beings? It's insanity!

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

The insanity stems from you refusing to acknowledge the reality of the situation. It does not matter whether the unborn has the ability to split into two - at the time BEFORE the split, it is A unique living human. AFTER a split (if it occurs) then the split produces two unique, living humans instead of one. If two ova are fertilized, there are two living humans. If one does not survive (dies), then there is still one living human. If the survivor of a set of twins absorbs the non-survivor, that is simply a possible part of the overall process of procreation. (The waste-not, want-not of nature)

So what if a large percentage of them do not survive to the fetal stage of development? 100% of us die eventually. Does that mean we can kill indiscriminately, because we'll all be dead eventually anyway? The existence of natural death in no way justifies bringing about death artificially.

You are as bad as any bigot who ever lived, coming up with every excuse you can to deny the humanity of living humans. You concentrate on their differences. YES! THEY ARE DIFFERENT! But, SO WHAT?

Tell me, how is YOUR observation that "They aren't human beings because they are different from us" any better or more justified than those who point to skin color, eye shape, religious background, socio-economic birthright, or any of the other "reasons" throughout history that a specified class of humans have been denied human right because "they are different from us!"?

 

[apple0154]

Tell me, how is YOUR observation that "They aren't human beings because they are different from us" any better or more justified than those who point to skin color, eye shape, religious background, socio-economic birthright, or any of the other "reasons" throughout history that a specified class of humans have been denied human right because "they are different from us!"?

The difference is all those human beings you referred to all possess the fundamental qualities one uses to refer to a human being. From laws to medical procedures we are able to establish standards that apply to all human beings. We are not able to do that with fertilized cells.

The most obvious example is the idea of two people sharing the same body and the bigger one being able to kill the smaller one when it's the bigger who has medical problems. It's ludicrous.

If society wants to classify a fertilized cell as a human being, fine. However, let's make sure the same laws apply across the board.

It is the anti-abortionists who, like their racist predecessors, want to use the equal but different designation that was used against the blacks in the 60's.

We've been there, done that. An exception here. A difference there. If the anti-abortionists really believe a fertilized cell is a human being than come right out and support equal rights, across the board. No exceptions. No differences. No "except if" or "except in that case". No exceptions that could not be applied to other human beings, in general.

If 25-50% of newborns died within the first nine months the entire country would want a full investigation. No expense spared. They'd question and re-question every woman involved.

Unfortunately, it's a different story when we talk about spontaneous abortion. The usual "investigation" consists of a shrug and a "those things happen" remark.

The bottom line is we don't know enough about fertilized cells and reproduction to jump to the conclusion those cells are human beings.

Why do you want to cheapen every other human being by equating them to fertilized cells?


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

The insanity stems from you refusing to acknowledge the reality of the situation. It does not matter whether the unborn has the ability to split into two - at the time BEFORE the split, it is A unique living human. AFTER a split (if it occurs) then the split produces two unique, living humans instead of one. If two ova are fertilized, there are two living humans. If one does not survive (dies), then there is still one living human. If the survivor of a set of twins absorbs the non-survivor, that is simply a possible part of the overall process of procreation. (The waste-not, want-not of nature)

So what if a large percentage of them do not survive to the fetal stage of development? 100% of us die eventually. Does that mean we can kill indiscriminately, because we'll all be dead eventually anyway? The existence of natural death in no way justifies bringing about death artificially.

You are as bad as any bigot who ever lived, coming up with every excuse you can to deny the humanity of living humans. You concentrate on their differences. YES! THEY ARE DIFFERENT! But, SO WHAT?

Tell me, how is YOUR observation that "They aren't human beings because they are different from us" any better or more justified than those who point to skin color, eye shape, religious background, socio-economic birthright, or any of the other "reasons" throughout history that a specified class of humans have been denied human right because "they are different from us!"?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The difference is all those human beings you referred to all possess the fundamental qualities one uses to refer to a human being. From laws to medical procedures we are able to establish standards that apply to all human beings. We are not able to do that with fertilized cells.

The most obvious example is the idea of two people sharing the same body and the bigger one being able to kill the smaller one when it's the bigger who has medical problems. It's ludicrous.

If society wants to classify a fertilized cell as a human being, fine. However, let's make sure the same laws apply across the board.

It is the anti-abortionists who, like their racist predecessors, want to use the equal but different designation that was used against the blacks in the 60's.

We've been there, done that. An exception here. A difference there. If the anti-abortionists really believe a fertilized cell is a human being than come right out and support equal rights, across the board. No exceptions. No differences. No "except if" or "except in that case". No exceptions that could not be applied to other human beings, in general.

If 25-50% of newborns died within the first nine months the entire country would want a full investigation. No expense spared. They'd question and re-question every woman involved.

Unfortunately, it's a different story when we talk about spontaneous abortion. The usual "investigation" consists of a shrug and a "those things happen" remark.

The bottom line is we don't know enough about fertilized cells and reproduction to jump to the conclusion those cells are human beings.

Why do you want to cheapen every other human being by equating them to fertilized cells?


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

It's not ludicrous, you choose to dehumanize to simplify things. Because you;re an idiot, I guess.

 

[Good Luck]

The difference is all those human beings you referred to all possess the fundamental qualities one uses to refer to a human being. From laws to medical procedures we are able to establish standards that apply to all human beings. We are not able to do that with fertilized cells.

The most obvious example is the idea of two people sharing the same body and the bigger one being able to kill the smaller one when it's the bigger who has medical problems. It's ludicrous.

If society wants to classify a fertilized cell as a human being, fine. However, let's make sure the same laws apply across the board.

It is the anti-abortionists who, like their racist predecessors, want to use the equal but different designation that was used against the blacks in the 60's.

We've been there, done that. An exception here. A difference there. If the anti-abortionists really believe a fertilized cell is a human being than come right out and support equal rights, across the board. No exceptions. No differences. No "except if" or "except in that case". No exceptions that could not be applied to other human beings, in general.

If 25-50% of newborns died within the first nine months the entire country would want a full investigation. No expense spared. They'd question and re-question every woman involved.

Unfortunately, it's a different story when we talk about spontaneous abortion. The usual "investigation" consists of a shrug and a "those things happen" remark.

The bottom line is we don't know enough about fertilized cells and reproduction to jump to the conclusion those cells are human beings.

Why do you want to cheapen every other human being by equating them to fertilized cells?


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

Where have I indicated that I do not want full and complete human rights granted to the unborn? That is exactly what a just society would do.

Your counter examples still come down to "they aren't really human because they are different that what (you) insist being called human." The difference between us is you are using opinion to deliberately exclude a class of humans from what you desire to be called "human beings". I am simply acknowledging the scientific fact that we are all living humans, from conception through gestation through birth through infancy through childhood through adolescence through adult. Every one of us is human.

(BTW: the definition of "human being" is "to be human".)

Merriam Webster:

human being
One entry found.

To+be+human

Main Entry:
human being
Function:
noun
Date:
1751

: human

And you still show a profound ignorance of the science behind what you claim. For instance:

The most obvious example is the idea of two people sharing the same body and the bigger one being able to kill the smaller one when it's the bigger who has medical problems. It's ludicrous.

Yes, it is ludicrous to insinuate that either entity has conscious control over the (inaccurately) described biological process. Giving the children human rights prior to birth would have no effect one way or the other on a set of twins resulting (in numerous differing ways) only one surviving to birth.

Similarly, when an observed death has no indications of foul play, we also simply shrug our shoulders and say "these things happen". They happen more often for people in their 90s than people in their 50s. If people in their 50s suddenly started dropping as fast per capita as people in their 90s do, you can bet there would be some investigation done. Since there is a known average rate for spontaneous abortions, the only reason for any onvestigation would be if the rate were to increase above the known natural rate.

There are no legal protections against the actions of nature. So your claims of "equal but different" is a load of nonsense. Besides, it is not the pro-life faction who is insisting they not be given human rights because they are different.

Conversely to your examples of nature in action, abortion is deliberate, premeditated homicide. It deliberately and knowingly kills a living human. You can deny their humanity all you want, but you cannot change the truth.

 

[apple0154]

It's not ludicrous, you choose to dehumanize to simplify things. Because you;re an idiot, I guess.

In the estimation of someone who calls a fertilize cell a human being. Now that's funny!

 

[apple0154]

Your counter examples still come down to "they aren't really human because they are different that what (you) insist being called human." The difference between us is you are using opinion to deliberately exclude a class of humans from what you desire to be called "human beings". I am simply acknowledging the scientific fact that we are all living humans, from conception through gestation through birth through infancy through childhood through adolescence through adult. Every one of us is human.

(BTW: the definition of "human being" is "to be human".)

Fine. My toe is human.

Yes, it is ludicrous to insinuate that either entity has conscious control over the (inaccurately) described biological process. Giving the children human rights prior to birth would have no effect one way or the other on a set of twins resulting (in numerous differing ways) only one surviving to birth.

Similarly, when an observed death has no indications of foul play, we also simply shrug our shoulders and say "these things happen". They happen more often for people in their 90s than people in their 50s. If people in their 50s suddenly started dropping as fast per capita as people in their 90s do, you can bet there would be some investigation done. Since there is a known average rate for spontaneous abortions, the only reason for any onvestigation would be if the rate were to increase above the known natural rate.

There are no legal protections against the actions of nature. So your claims of "equal but different" is a load of nonsense. Besides, it is not the pro-life faction who is insisting they not be given human rights because they are different.

Obviously I have to keep repeating myself. A fertilized cell is not a unique, human being because that fertilized cell may or may not become two or three human beings. That puts an end to the discussion.

One more time. A fertilized cell is not a unique, human being.

Can't you see the error of your argument? You wrote, "There are no legal protections against the actions of nature" and "Yes, it is ludicrous to insinuate that either entity has conscious control over the (inaccurately) described biological process."

That's my point. We don't have control and until we do we can not enact laws presuming we do. We don't even know what we are protecting. A male? A female? Two males? Three females?

The answer is, "None of the above because we have no idea how nature works."

As for a load of nonsense we know what kills a person even if they are 90 years old.

What twisted logic do you use to say we should protect something you claim is a human being when you freely admit we have no idea how nature works? Are we going to interfere in a woman's life on the absurd assumption we're protecting a human being when we have absolutely no idea if that fertilized cell or embryo will ever become a human being?

This isn't difficult to grasp. We don't know. That is the answer and anti-abortionists care so little for human beings that they're willing to weigh the value of a human being's life against that "something we don't know". That's what's repulsive.

 

[Good Luck]

Fine. My toe is human.




Obviously I have to keep repeating myself. A fertilized cell is not a unique, human being because that fertilized cell may or may not become two or three human beings. That puts an end to the discussion.

One more time. A fertilized cell is not a unique, human being.

Can't you see the error of your argument? You wrote, "There are no legal protections against the actions of nature" and "Yes, it is ludicrous to insinuate that either entity has conscious control over the (inaccurately) described biological process."

That's my point. We don't have control and until we do we can not enact laws presuming we do. We don't even know what we are protecting. A male? A female? Two males? Three females?

The answer is, "None of the above because we have no idea how nature works."

As for a load of nonsense we know what kills a person even if they are 90 years old.

What twisted logic do you use to say we should protect something you claim is a human being when you freely admit we have no idea how nature works? Are we going to interfere in a woman's life on the absurd assumption we're protecting a human being when we have absolutely no idea if that fertilized cell or embryo will ever become a human being?

This isn't difficult to grasp. We don't know. That is the answer and anti-abortionists care so little for human beings that they're willing to weigh the value of a human being's life against that "something we don't know". That's what's repulsive.

So you start going to more and more ludicrous points to prove how wrong you are. There is no error in my argument. An unborn fertilized ovum whose parents are human is human. They are a complete, living organism of the species homosapiens. Your toe is not a complete organism, and BELONGS to a member of the species homosapiens - but is not itself OF the species homosapiens. Nor is any other body part, nor are separate gametes, so may as well stop with the stupidity and focus on the reality.

The fact is we DO know - a lot. Not everything, but a lot. We DO know many of the causes of death. We do NOT know why people age (yet) We DO know the definition of living organism, we DO know the definition of species. There was a time we did NOT know much of anything about what caused people to die. Were we less human because we didn't know what caused us to die? Do be ridiculous. Not knowing all the causes of death, no matter what the stage of development, in no way changes what we are.

A fertilized ovum may or may not split into two or more complete organisms. It does not matter. Prior to the split it is a single, complete, living organism of the species homosaapiens. After any split that may occur, it becomes more than one complete living organisms of the species homosapiens. One of the twins (or triplets) may die. The survivor(s) are still living complete organism(s) of the species homosapiens. AT NO TIME IS IT NOT LIVING, COMPLETE, or HUMAN. You keep claiming that the fact it MAY split into more than one makes it non human. That is patently false. Just because you or I cannot do it does not make them non-human. An infant's brain doubles in size in the year or so after birth. Our brains do not grow at all. Does that fact of difference between infants and adults make one of us less than human? No, it does not.

You continue with your "but they are not like us" complaints. No, they are not "like us". They are at a prior level of development - a process all of us went through. And we were all complete, living organisms of the species homosapiens, and still are living, complete organisms of the species homo sapiens. IT DOES NOT CHANGE!! The only thing that changes is our level of development, and eventual death, sometimes early, sometimes VERY early, and sometimes (like my grandfather, recently passed) after a long long time.

Yoiu need to ask yourself something. Is your insistence on finding a "valid" difference between the unborn and born humans in order to find truth, or for the PURPOSE of excluding the unborn from your list of those who deserve human rights? Because you are really trying hard to avoid the truth. Whether they split during the zygote stage or not, at each and every moment, from conception to birth and beyond, every one is human by medical, scientific definition.

Only the law denies this fact. But the law has been known to deny lots of facts about the state of a targeted group's humanity in favor of a societal desire. My ancestors bore the brunt of the law denying our humanity from the landing of Columbus to the early 1900s.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Fine. My toe is human.




Obviously I have to keep repeating myself. A fertilized cell is not a unique, human being because that fertilized cell may or may not become two or three human beings. That puts an end to the discussion.

One more time. A fertilized cell is not a unique, human being.

Can't you see the error of your argument? You wrote, "There are no legal protections against the actions of nature" and "Yes, it is ludicrous to insinuate that either entity has conscious control over the (inaccurately) described biological process."

That's my point. We don't have control and until we do we can not enact laws presuming we do. We don't even know what we are protecting. A male? A female? Two males? Three females?

The answer is, "None of the above because we have no idea how nature works."

As for a load of nonsense we know what kills a person even if they are 90 years old.

What twisted logic do you use to say we should protect something you claim is a human being when you freely admit we have no idea how nature works? Are we going to interfere in a woman's life on the absurd assumption we're protecting a human being when we have absolutely no idea if that fertilized cell or embryo will ever become a human being?

This isn't difficult to grasp. We don't know. That is the answer and anti-abortionists care so little for human beings that they're willing to weigh the value of a human being's life against that "something we don't know". That's what's repulsive.

You can sing it from the rooftops; but that doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Canceled2]

You need to ask yourself something. Is your insistence on finding a "valid" difference between the unborn and born humans in order to find truth, or for the PURPOSE of excluding the unborn from your list of those who deserve human rights? Because you are really trying hard to avoid the truth. Whether they split during the zygote stage or not, at each and every moment, from conception to birth and beyond, every one is human by medical, scientific definition.

What the pro abortionist can't do is to just say the truth which is:

We don't care if the fetus is a human being we just want the right to abort it. i.e. kill it.

93% of ALL abortions are for a lifestyle choice. Only 6% are for health reasons of the mother or fetus and 1% are for rape and incest. Even if we offer the caveat of a 7% need for abortions the pro-abortionist will then insist that the fetus is not a human being ...That is why I state that they logially inconsistant and deceptively hypocritical.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

"something we don't know"?


i'm positive an in utero baby is a human being.

 

[apple0154]

You need to ask yourself something. Is your insistence on finding a "valid" difference between the unborn and born humans in order to find truth, or for the PURPOSE of excluding the unborn from your list of those who deserve human rights?

My insistence is based on protecting the rights of human beings.

As I noted before anti-abortionists grabbed on to anything and everything, throughout history. From claiming they knew when a soul entered the body to quickening "proving" that's when a human being came alive. After those arguments were flushed they grabbed onto the "each person has one set of DNA" showing they're a unique individual.

Then it was discovered a person can have more than one set of DNA. Then it was discovered a cell can split and become two. Then it was discovered one cell can absorb the other resulting in the mixing of the two DNA's which undeniably proves a fertilized cell at the time of conception is NOT one, unique individual.

As science progresses it may reach a point where blood tests will be able to determine if a fertilized cell is even capable of becoming a human being. Considering 25-50% of them spontaneously abort that is sufficient reason to believe some of them are not capable of becoming a human being. Again, the point is, we don't know. We don't know what happens in utero.

Consider the following. http://www.haileyswish.org/hailey/

This baby started to become ill at 5 months and died at 16 months. Once the diagnosis was made the doctors could say how long she would live.

Let’s consider a fertilized cell. We have no idea if that cell is genetically correct or healthy. In short, we have no idea if that cell will survive to become a healthy, born baby. We have no way of testing for various diseases, hereditary or otherwise.

Let’s say we could test for diseases and found that the cell/embryo/fetus would die six months after conception, for whatever reason. Should the mother be allowed to abort or should she be forced to carry that cell/embryo/fetus until it dies?

No one would suggest the girl in the aforementioned story should have been killed and if a cell/embryo/fetus is considered a human being then it should follow the woman be obliged to continue the pregnancy along with the accompanying morning sickness and other associated discomforts until such time it dies. Would I be correct in concluding you agree that the woman should be obliged to carry that cell/embryo/fetus, for months, knowing for certain it will die before delivery?


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

So you start going to more and more ludicrous points to prove how wrong you are. There is no error in my argument. An unborn fertilized ovum whose parents are human is human. They are a complete, living organism of the species homosapiens. Your toe is not a complete organism, and BELONGS to a member of the species homosapiens - but is not itself OF the species homosapiens. Nor is any other body part, nor are separate gametes, so may as well stop with the stupidity and focus on the reality.

The fact is we DO know - a lot. Not everything, but a lot. We DO know many of the causes of death. We do NOT know why people age (yet) We DO know the definition of living organism, we DO know the definition of species. There was a time we did NOT know much of anything about what caused people to die. Were we less human because we didn't know what caused us to die? Do be ridiculous. Not knowing all the causes of death, no matter what the stage of development, in no way changes what we are.

A fertilized ovum may or may not split into two or more complete organisms. It does not matter. Prior to the split it is a single, complete, living organism of the species homosaapiens. After any split that may occur, it becomes more than one complete living organisms of the species homosapiens. One of the twins (or triplets) may die. The survivor(s) are still living complete organism(s) of the species homosapiens. AT NO TIME IS IT NOT LIVING, COMPLETE, or HUMAN. You keep claiming that the fact it MAY split into more than one makes it non human. That is patently false. Just because you or I cannot do it does not make them non-human. An infant's brain doubles in size in the year or so after birth. Our brains do not grow at all. Does that fact of difference between infants and adults make one of us less than human? No, it does not.

You continue with your "but they are not like us" complaints. No, they are not "like us". They are at a prior level of development - a process all of us went through. And we were all complete, living organisms of the species homosapiens, and still are living, complete organisms of the species homo sapiens. IT DOES NOT CHANGE!! The only thing that changes is our level of development, and eventual death, sometimes early, sometimes VERY early, and sometimes (like my grandfather, recently passed) after a long long time.

Yoiu need to ask yourself something. Is your insistence on finding a "valid" difference between the unborn and born humans in order to find truth, or for the PURPOSE of excluding the unborn from your list of those who deserve human rights? Because you are really trying hard to avoid the truth. Whether they split during the zygote stage or not, at each and every moment, from conception to birth and beyond, every one is human by medical, scientific definition.

Only the law denies this fact. But the law has been known to deny lots of facts about the state of a targeted group's humanity in favor of a societal desire. My ancestors bore the brunt of the law denying our humanity from the landing of Columbus to the early 1900s.

 

[apple0154]

You can sing it from the rooftops; but that doesn't mean it's true.

What did I say in the corresponding post that wasn't true?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Apple says: "Dehumanization protects human beings".

 

[Good Luck]

What did I say in the corresponding post that wasn't true?

You claim that the inability to determine at the early stages if a zygote is going to split into twins or more makes them not human. That is patently false.

They are human (ie: living organisms of the specieis homosapiens) at all times from conception to death - regardless of when the death occurs.

 

[apple0154]

What the pro abortionist can't do is to just say the truth which is:

We don't care if the fetus is a human being we just want the right to abort it. i.e. kill it.

93% of ALL abortions are for a lifestyle choice. Only 6% are for health reasons of the mother or fetus and 1% are for rape and incest. Even if we offer the caveat of a 7% need for abortions the pro-abortionist will then insist that the fetus is not a human being ...That is why I state that they logially inconsistant and deceptively hypocritical.

Offer a caveat? Surely you jest. Are you saying fertilized cells are human beings but, hey, no problem in killing 7% of them? Because daddy was all gung-ho but mommy didn't agree that's reason enough to kill a human being?

Wow! You really don't put much value on human beings, do you? Talk about hypocritical. "I don't like how you were conceived so I can kill you."

That is the perfect example, the proof if you will, that anti-abortionists don't value human beings because if they did they would never sanction killing one because of the way they were conceived.

Skin color. Nationality. Religious affiliation. We can't kill people for those reasons but if we don't like who your daddy is that's different. Then we can kill you.

Is this a sketch for SNL?

 

[apple0154]

"something we don't know"?


i'm positive an in utero baby is a human being.

Really? Then science can use you because as far as I'm aware they can't tell if a fertilized cell will divide and become two males or two females or one male and one female or simply stop growing and be absorbed by the mother's body.

Don't waste your talents posting here!

 

[Damocles]

Offer a caveat? Surely you jest. Are you saying fertilized cells are human beings but, hey, no problem in killing 7% of them? Because daddy was all gung-ho but mommy didn't agree that's reason enough to kill a human being?

Wow! You really don't put much value on human beings, do you? Talk about hypocritical. "I don't like how you were conceived so I can kill you."

That is the perfect example, the proof if you will, that anti-abortionists don't value human beings because if they did they would never sanction killing one because of the way they were conceived.

Skin color. Nationality. Religious affiliation. We can't kill people for those reasons but if we don't like who your daddy is that's different. Then we can kill you.

Is this a sketch for SNL?

One of the largest arguments that is made against the pro-lifer/anti-abortion stance is that many do not believe that rape/incest is reason for abortion. If you note she said "even if we allow for that caveat" not, "we should have that caveat".

As for the life of the mother, it is always our right to protect our lives against danger another brings, even if they don't mean to bring it.

 

[Damocles]

Really? Then science can use you because as far as I'm aware they can't tell if a fertilized cell will divide and become two males or two females or one male and one female or simply stop growing and be absorbed by the mother's body.

Don't waste your talents posting here!

They can indeed tell that a fertilized cell will not split and become one of each sex. That is just wrong, like 2+2 is 5 is wrong. They can also tell what sex it will be and that it is human. Not knowing if it will split and become twins is definitely not something that means it isn't human life at its earliest stages.

It isn't a "talent" to recognize that genetics tell us that the fertilized egg can only be one sex. Fraternal twins are from separate eggs, two different sperm fertilize them. Nor is it a talent to understand that if it implants and grows it will become nothing other than the human life it began as.

 

[Good Luck]

My insistence is based on protecting the rights of human beings.

As I noted before anti-abortionists grabbed on to anything and everything, throughout history. From claiming they knew when a soul entered the body to quickening "proving" that's when a human being came alive. After those arguments were flushed they grabbed onto the "each person has one set of DNA" showing they're a unique individual.

Then it was discovered a person can have more than one set of DNA. Then it was discovered a cell can split and become two. Then it was discovered one cell can absorb the other resulting in the mixing of the two DNA's which undeniably proves a fertilized cell at the time of conception is NOT one, unique individual.

As science progresses it may reach a point where blood tests will be able to determine if a fertilized cell is even capable of becoming a human being. Considering 25-50% of them spontaneously abort that is sufficient reason to believe some of them are not capable of becoming a human being. Again, the point is, we don't know. We don't know what happens in utero.

Consider the following. http://www.haileyswish.org/hailey/

This baby started to become ill at 5 months and died at 16 months. Once the diagnosis was made the doctors could say how long she would live.

Let’s consider a fertilized cell. We have no idea if that cell is genetically correct or healthy. In short, we have no idea if that cell will survive to become a healthy, born baby. We have no way of testing for various diseases, hereditary or otherwise.

Let’s say we could test for diseases and found that the cell/embryo/fetus would die six months after conception, for whatever reason. Should the mother be allowed to abort or should she be forced to carry that cell/embryo/fetus until it dies?

No one would suggest the girl in the aforementioned story should have been killed and if a cell/embryo/fetus is considered a human being then it should follow the woman be obliged to continue the pregnancy along with the accompanying morning sickness and other associated discomforts until such time it dies. Would I be correct in concluding you agree that the woman should be obliged to carry that cell/embryo/fetus, for months, knowing for certain it will die before delivery?


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

Wrong. Your insistence is based on continuing to deny a targeted class of human being their rights.

You fill your posts with diatribes of false conclusions and pseudo science.

What we do not know does not change what we DO know. What we DO know, one more time, is the definition of living organism. The unborn meet that definition. We DO know the definition of species differentiation. The unborn meet the definition of homosapiens - HUMAN. Just because we have to wait for the embryo stage of development to know whether we want to paint the room blue, pink, or some gender neutral color does not make them less than human. There was a time we didn't know boy or girl or both or two (or three) of each until the day of delivery. Not knowing does not change what we do know.

The embryo stage of development, BTW, occurs at the approximately the 2nd week of gestation, after which none of these changes you describe can take place (except one fetus absorbing their dead sibling), AND often before the woman is even aware of the pregnancy. Your continued insistence that not knowing the gender makes them not human is absolutely ludicrous.

We do not know what causes dememtia - we just have the ability to describe it. We can't even tell for certain if dementia is alzheimers or another type of dementia without an autopsy of the brain. Does that make dementia patients less human? We are still in the dark about the actual causes of cancer. We do know a lot about various triggers (smoking, bad eating habits, too much sun, etc.), but we do NOT know the mechanism, nor can we accurately predict on an individual basis who will get cancer. We do not even know for certain what factor inside our brains yields self awareness or intelligence - strong factors of the human race. NONE of that lack of knowledge makes a whit of difference with the scientific facts that we DO know.

The facts we DO know prove definitively is that the unborn meet the scientific definition of human - making them human beings (as per the definition of the term human being).

All your claims are false conclusions for the PURPOSE of denying the unborn their human rights. There is ZERO difference between pointing out the developmental differences and pointing out racial differences as an excuse to say "this group of humans do not deserve human rights."