Notice the anger from pro-abortion apologists

Rockson

Well-known member
It's not the least bit disingenuous. Context matters.

Abortion is murder. PERIOD.

Watch these pro-choice folks as fumble and mumble through what should be easy answers.

Interesting video.

Of course these are questions they don't want even framed, they want one thing.....to look socially acceptable and to lock into one thought and one thought only. They want to be believe in a women's right to choose. Sounds so liberating! Sounds so free! Sounds so much like a position of standing against a tyranny of others making one do what they don't want to do.

I don't think too many who favor abortions really think through on the is it life or no life question. Doesn't seem to matter to them. I think the greatest number though would acknowledge they don't KNOW for sure if a fetus if life or not. It slows them down from being a part of the IN crowd though by trying to assess these things. Why be slowed down? They want to be part of the FREEDOM TEAM or so they think it's freedom.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Aren't you the one really pretending you have a solid rock case to say a baby's first breath is when life begins?
Not life, personhood. That's what the law says. Until it has taken a breath, there is no person with rights.
Aren't you the one pretending that a baby kicking and moving in the womb isn't some type of life? If it's not life.....what is it?
No, it's not a baby till it's born. Until then, it's a foetus. And yes, of course it's alive. And yes of course, aborting the pregnancy will kill it.
And do you have any record in scripture to show that Adam's physical body was moving (like a baby in a womb) before his spirit or life was put in it?
What has scripture got to do with it? We are talking about abortion, a public health measure, not a religious tract. Abortion rights apply to all, not just Christians. You have no more right to use scripture to decide policy on such a matter than does a Hindu or a Muslim.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Not life, personhood. That's what the law says. Until it has taken a breath, there is no person with rights.
No, it's not a baby till it's born. Until then, it's a foetus. And yes, of course it's alive. And yes of course, aborting the pregnancy will kill it.
What has scripture got to do with it? We are talking about abortion, a public health measure, not a religious tract. Abortion rights apply to all, not just Christians. You have no more right to use scripture to decide policy on such a matter than does a Hindu or a Muslim.
But as you know full well the denial of personhood by some authorities doesnt change the reality of the nature of the human life being killed. Rockson says baby and so do I, you say personhood, still the same human life that you are advocating be killed.


Also, its not a foetus until its born. For several weeks its an embryo. And when its a fully grown adult it may be called a left winger.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
But as you know full well the denial of personhood by some authorities doesnt change the reality of the nature of the human life being killed. Rockson says baby and so do I, you say personhood, still the same human life that you are advocating be killed.
Of course. Changing labels doesn't change the nature of the organism. I argue that what I call a foetus is insufficiently developed to be considered a person with full human rights until it is capable of surviving birth and thriving without a placenta. Calling it a baby doesn't change that one iota. It just muddies the water and skews the argument towards etymology rather than biology and sociology were it belongs. If we could all agree a neutral term it would make things easier for us all. Sadly, all the available labels, even the medically correct term foetus, have become loaded with symbolism by one side or the other.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Not life, personhood. That's what the law says. Until it has taken a breath, there is no person with rights.
No, it's not a baby till it's born. Until then, it's a foetus. And yes, of course it's alive. And yes of course, aborting the pregnancy will kill it.
What has scripture got to do with it? We are talking about abortion, a public health measure, not a religious tract. Abortion rights apply to all, not just Christians. You have no more right to use scripture to decide policy on such a matter than does a Hindu or a Muslim.

The same philosophy was used to exterminate 6 million Jews.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Of course. Changing labels doesn't change the nature of the organism. I argue that what I call a foetus is insufficiently developed to be considered a person with full human rights until it is capable of surviving birth and thriving without a placenta. Calling it a baby doesn't change that one iota. It just muddies the water and skews the argument towards etymology rather than biology and sociology were it belongs. If we could all agree a neutral term it would make things easier for us all. Sadly, all the available labels, even the medically correct term foetus, have become loaded with symbolism by one side or the other.
Nonsense. Determination of life:

E – Environment. A journey through a birth canal cannot account for a change in a child’s rights. Location does not affect personhood. A child in the womb or outside the womb is still a human being.

D – Degree of Dependency. The unborn fetus is totally dependent on the mother for life through the umbilical cord, but newborn babies are also fully dependent. A baby left to herself will die within hours unless she is attended to and her needs met. In fact, everyone relies on other people and things to some degree. We don’t question the personhood of those who are dependent on kidney machines, insulin, or pacemakers. Elderly people in a nursing home who have to be fed are no less valuable than the person who is feeding them
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

BMS

Well-known member
Of course.
Yes of course. And obviously then NO to the rest of your post.
If you label the entity foetus and baby and I label it ice cream and baby it doesnt work because ice cream cant be the same human entity that is being killed
Just trying to work out how and why you cant get the reality.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
The same philosophy was used to exterminate 6 million Jews.
No, it wasn't. All humans are equal. All humans pass through the development stages from zygote to adult. All humans that are born and alive are persons entitled to the same rights. There is no equivalence to the Nazis at all.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Nonsense. Determination of life:
Rubbish. This mantra of yours has nothing to do with whether an organism is alive or not.
E – Environment. A journey through a birth canal cannot account for a change in a child’s rights. Location does not affect personhood. A child in the womb or outside the womb is still a human being.
Of course you must be right, because if it was significant then we would mark the anniversary of its occurrence every year for our entire lives. Oh wait...

D – Degree of Dependency. The unborn fetus is totally dependent on the mother for life through the umbilical cord, but newborn babies are also fully dependent. A baby left to herself will die within hours unless she is attended to and her needs met. In fact, everyone relies on other people and things to some degree. We don’t question the personhood of those who are dependent on kidney machines, insulin, or pacemakers. Elderly people in a nursing home who have to be fed are no less valuable than the person who is feeding them
We are all dependent on others. Very few people these days could fend for themselves entirely without assistance. Which is of course irrelevant. The foetus is dependent on the placenta, and on the one person to whom the placenta is attached. That person may be unwilling or unable for many reasons, to continue supporting the pregnancy. Once born, anyone can care for a baby. It is the exclusivity of dependence that is the point at issue. If it was ever possible to remove foetus and placenta together and continue the development in an artificial womb, then much of the justification for abortion would disappear.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Yes of course. And obviously then NO to the rest of your post.
If you label the entity foetus and baby and I label it ice cream and baby it doesnt work because ice cream cant be the same human entity that is being killed
Just trying to work out how and why you cant get the reality.
Just trying to work out why surrealism is supposed to help your argument. We agreed that labels don't work. The point is that there is a difference between foetus and baby. Trying to obscure that difference by fusing the labels together is what Orwell describes in 1984. By limiting vocabulary, you limit the ideas that can be expressed. The difference between foetus and baby is an idea you are attempting to suppress by applying the same label to both. It won't work. There is a massive difference between them and different labels will always be needed to describe and express that fact. Foetus and baby will do fine. Ice cream is I think a little bizarre, and besides it is used to describe something else entirely.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Rubbish. This mantra of yours has nothing to do with whether an organism is alive or not.
Of course you must be right, because if it was significant then we would mark the anniversary of its occurrence every year for our entire lives. Oh wait...

We are all dependent on others. Very few people these days could fend for themselves entirely without assistance. Which is of course irrelevant. The foetus is dependent on the placenta, and on the one person to whom the placenta is attached. That person may be unwilling or unable for many reasons, to continue supporting the pregnancy. Once born, anyone can care for a baby. It is the exclusivity of dependence that is the point at issue. If it was ever possible to remove foetus and placenta together and continue the development in an artificial womb, then much of the justification for abortion would disappear.

Complete nonsense and worse, an attempt to walk back your own words. These organisms are human beings.

Psalm 139:13-16

13 For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.


Killing a human baby is the lowest of the low. Depravity!
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Complete nonsense and worse, an attempt to walk back your own words. These organisms are human beings.

Psalm 139:13-16

13 For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.


Killing a human baby is the lowest of the low. Depravity!
The unborn foetus is not a baby.
I have always said that the foetus is a human being. It is not yet a person.
Ancient poetry is not a valid argument for anything.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Wll if you cant acknowledge the value of the unborn human being I probably still cant communicate with you.
Of course the unborn human has value. Just look at any happy expectant mum. How much value is a matter of opinion, varying from person to person and according to circumstances. What it does not have is legal rights. That is a matter of fact, not opinion.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Wll if you cant acknowledge the value of the unborn human being I probably still cant communicate with you.
What was the point of asking how he spells the name of his avatar, when the word is clearly visible under that avatar?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I remember Hillary using the Doublespeak term 'Women's Heath' instead of saying 'Abortions'.

Did she ever use the phrase 'Men's Health'?

There are no "Equal Rights" when it comes to the Father losing their Child it would seem. :rolleyes:
The Obamascare document doesn't mention abortion. It says Women's healthcare.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
No, it wasn't. All humans are equal. All humans pass through the development stages from zygote to adult. All humans that are born and alive are persons entitled to the same rights. There is no equivalence to the Nazis at all.
Nazis called Jews parasites like your Komrade calls undelivered babies "parasites"
 
Top