"We keep marrying other species and ethnics " - Fox News Host

Watermark said:
Event he most liberal abortion laws don't usually allow at-will late-term abortions.
Click to expand...

Who cares? At the end of the day the same conservatives who pretend to give a rats ass whether a fetus is fully gestated will want nothing to do with raising taxes to support these children if they are forced into the world nor will most of them want to adopt them unless they are milky white. The entire debate is laughable.

"Look at me, I care so much........"

"Have you adopted any children or plan to?"

"Settledown...I don't care that much....."
 
PostmodernProphet said:
nothing specific from the founding fathers, but here is a link to a case dating from 1732 in England of a woman convicted of performing abortions....I will presume the laws in the colonies mirrored those of England at least till the Revolution....



http://www.abortionessay.com/files/beare.html
Click to expand...

Do you think it would be a misdemeanor if they considered it murder?

That's what you want to do right? Convict abortion doctors of murder? Maybe the mothers as accomplics? Hang them? Some pro-lifer you are.
 
Watermark said:
Do you think it would be a misdemeanor if they considered it murder?
Click to expand...

do you think it would be a misdemeanor if they considered it a legal right?

That's what you want to do right? Convict abortion doctors of murder? Maybe the mothers as accomplics? Hang them? Some pro-lifer you are.
Click to expand...

I want to stop them. I don't think it should be necessary to hang them to stop them.
 
Hey gang,

If you just substitute a few key words, most of Dixie's drivel could be co-opted by speeches given by jokers from the Taliban or Ahmadinejad when they "justify" sexism, classism and racism. Unreal!
 
Taichiliberal said:
Hey gang,

If you just substitute a few key words, most of Dixie's drivel could be co-opted by speeches given by jokers from the Taliban or Ahmadinejad when they "justify" sexism, classism and racism. Unreal!
Click to expand...

Exactly. Their "valid" points are no more valid than any other degrading bullshit that comes out of just about every major religion.
 
Watermark said:
I was once a sperm and an egg. I was once part of a supernova as well. It was only when all my parts coalesced together and I had sufficiently advanced that I became a person.
Click to expand...

No, you became a human being with distinct DNA, when your mother's egg was permeated by your father's sperm. Before that time, you did not exist. There is no point you need to "advance" to in order to become a human being. What you are is what you are, from point of conception forward, until your life is terminated or ends naturally. Now you can claim you aren't "viable" or you aren't "sentient" but those are conditions, they do not define what you are.

Abortion is simply the killing of unwanted human beings, let's just be honest about that. We can go from that point and have a philosophical debate over when it is appropriate or acceptable to kill unwanted human beings, but denying that is what is taking place is a lie.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I will deal with the second first, since it is the easiest to discount....obviously that change doesn't occur within a moment's time.....thus, it is invalid as a determinant of "personhood" since you cannot distinguish between what exists on the third day versus the tenth let alone the moment before and the moment after....

in addition it shares a major fault with the first you suggested....when labor can be induced or a child delivered by caesarian, how can "personhood" be identified by the arbitrary stroke of a physician's scalpel on the umbilical cord?....is it the doctor's act which forms a living human being?.....can the same scalpel be used to either cut the umbilical or cut the throat?.......
Click to expand...


I assure you the blood flow changes direction long before the 10th day but it appears you're seeking a defining moment. Even when people die everything does not cease at the exact same time. We use brain wave activity to classify death, however, people can live in a vegetative state for years.

As a society we not only need a defining "moment" at which time we can classify something as a human being but we have to be able to apply standard rules and regulations and grant standard rights to whatever it is. We can not do that with an embryo/fetus.

As I explained before the custom is if a woman's body is defective she has the right to terminate the pregnancy. If an embryo/fetus is a human being no one can possibly justify killing an innocent human being because another human being has a defective body. It's insanity.

Let's suppose abortion was outlawed and a woman wanted to abort due to her having a defective body. Now let's say the husband wanted the child so he appeals to the "powers that be" and explains his case. His wife wants to kill his son because SHE has a defective body.

How can that possibly be justified? How can society justify a person with a defective body killing an innocent human being? it devalues every other human being because we must have standards across the board. Otherwise, we end up with two classes of human beings.

As I also mentioned before society dealt with that concerning the blacks and Jews. We're still dealing with, it in a way, with the torture fiasco. As a society we must not torture even if the person is the lowest of the low life.

There are certain standards that apply to all human beings and surely one of those standards is an innocent human being can not be killed by another human being because that one has a defective body.

Pregnant women will be "monitored" the same as any woman with a child. There are things we can not give children such as certain medications. Many things a pregnant woman consumes is passed to the embryo/fetus.

There are activities we can not allow a child to participate in due to injury. The same must apply to pregnant women if we classify an embryo/fetus a human being. We have child endangerment laws. What laws will be proposed and enacted regarding pregnant women?

Some people naively believe we can turn the clock back to 1950 when religious leaders or governments could simply state a position and no one questioned them. Those days ended with the Freedom Revolution of the 60s. People even publicly stood up and defied their government by refusing to go to war! (In my view one of the greatest advancements in civilization.) The people realized the "good ol' days" were really the "bad old days" as far as freedom was concerned.

The point is people realize the absurdity of classifying an embryo/fetus a human being. They realize the questions that will inevitably arise. The bizarre situations. The debasing of every human being. The inevitable encroachment on the freedoms of women. And other things we can not even begin to imagine.
 
LadyT said:
No. The overwhelming majority of anti-choicers still don't adopt children.

But you personally get one or two cool points. Two if the kids are completely unrelated to you.
Click to expand...

That's rtight folks just ask Lady Tuna...it's ok to kill 'em 'cause not enough of y'all who think its wrong to kill babies adopt 'em...Now that''s some good ol' Tuna logic. Don't matter none that they are innocent human beings at the most vulnerable stage of life KILL 'EM!
 
Dixie said:
you became a human being with distinct DNA, when your mother's egg was permeated by your father's sperm.
Click to expand...

A small fraction of the material that would become me (and really isn't even in me anymore) coalesced into a primitive zygote over several days after the sperm hit the egg. You do a grievous insult to humankind to call that a human person.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
(Apple0154)For example, why should a woman with a defective body be allowed to terminate the life of another human being? If a pregnant woman develops uncontrolled high blood pressure or diabetes and those illnesses threaten her health/life why should she be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, kill an innocent human being?

If we are going to classify embryos/fetuses as human beings then such women must be compelled to carry the pregnancy to completion regardless of the consequences to her. Otherwise, if society mandates a woman may terminate a pregnancy due to her faulty body then we have two classes of human beings. The life of the human being known as "woman" is automatically considered superior to the life of the human being known as a "fetus".
Click to expand...

ignoring the situation of abortions for non-medical reasons, which in truth represents the vast majority of abortions......
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of ignoring that. We can not classify the lives of one group of human beings as being worth less than another group. It's all or nothing. Either every embryo/fetus is a human being and protected or none are. Either we are allowed to kill innocent human beings or we are not. If not, then the defective woman can not abort. It makes a mockery of everything our society is based on. It debases every other human being.

We have to think this through logically. If an embryo/fetus is a human being then it must not be killed because another human being has a defective body meaning the woman must endure any damage. Or an embryo/fetus is not a human being and a woman may abort to prevent damage to herself.

The problem is the exceptions that have to be made to accommodate classifying embryos/fetuses as human beings and the first exception is their life is worth less than the life of another human being with a defective body. Doesn't that cause you concern?

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

PostmodernProphet said:
a fingernail paring from a fetus and from a birthed child are both human material...a birthed child and a fetus are both whole entities....there is no valid scientific reason to treat one differently from the other....



an unborn child is not a tumor, but even then, yes a tumor is alive....and certainly an unborn child is alive....the moment before birth a fetus will respond to every stimulus that a birthed child will respond to and in exactly the same way.....

of course it's a human life....the DNA doesn't change at birth from "chicken" to "human"...from the moment of conception on the DNA of the child can be distinguished from that of the mother, the father, and every other human being on earth...it is human, it is a unique individual, it is alive....



and does this somehow give you a right to kill a percentage of those that survive?.....somewhere around 100% of birthed children cease to exist within 110 years or so of birth....I expect we could use that same logic to justify killing any one of them, no?.....


obviously the opposite is true...denying the unborn status as a human being cheapens the value of life.....we have an entire generation of people who have grown up believing you can take life at whim....do you think that has no impact upon the way they view the rest of humanity?.....


ignoring the situation of abortions for non-medical reasons, which in truth represents the vast majority of abortions......


????....that is precisely what you are doing by permitting abortion....saying that an unborn human being is of no value...in truth you are mirroring the antebellum slave owners and the Nazis, both of whom insisted their victims weren't really human beings.....


you are sanctioning the killing of the healthy right now....
Click to expand...
 
Watermark said:
A small fraction of the material that would become me (and really isn't even in me anymore) coalesced into a primitive zygote over several days after the sperm hit the egg. You do a grievous insult to humankind to call that a human person.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but after conception, nothing else has to happen for you to be human life. You are a unique human life in the state of being, therefore, a "human being" at point of conception. You can say you are a human being at "zygote" phase, but you are what you are, that doesn't change. It's not insult to humankind to admit what biology says, it's called being honest. What you are doing, is propping up a lie and misrepresentation. You want to claim a human being is something else, when that contradicts biological fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top