Hey defenders of killing unborn children.

[Busta]

Why is this not addressed to the hateful person that used nothing but insults towards me?

You sher in his guilt.
The world isn't fair, so eat your crow while it's worm and only point your finger at your self; Otherwise you are no better then he.
See my sig.

 

[shuamort]

WoW cookie dough is the makings for cookies. So if it is uncooked or not it can only produce one thing, cookies.
So using your logic uncook sperm and egg would be a child. Just not done. Pretty much a child in the raw.

It has the propensity to be a cookie, but if there's no willing oven, a cookie it won't be.

Why is this not addressed to the hateful person that used nothing but insults towards me?

I didn't see a person personally attacking you. Please use the "report post" function and we will review that and address that individual.

 

[Fantasea]

Well it seems to me that reason would dictate a directive....no matter the number of abortions that take place, great people are always going to be born. This list proves nothing more than the environment and will of the individual has more to do with greatness than some predestination that can be arrested by a womans right to control her own reproductive functions.

All the more reason that all kids should be allowed to be born. Why should any be nipped in the bud, as it were?

 

[Fantasea]

Sorry it has taken me a day to get back to this...I has my attention divided and could not give this the time it deserved. However, now I do so here we go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Prior to Roe v. Wade, illegal abortion was never a capital crime. The doctor involved was charged, prosecuted, and, if convicted, usually lost his license and did a little jail time. The mother was never charged.

I was only speaking to the idea that one could be pro life and support the death penalty or be pro choice and against it. It was a baiting tactic used by Dhard to instigate immediate victory on this topic...we can leave that one alone for now; I know what you want to get at and it s the personhood debate.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fantasea
The concept of a human able to be a non-person who at a particular point becomes a person has no basis in biological fact. It is merely a tactic in the strategy adopted by the pro-death crowd to declare the product of conception legitimate prey for the abortionist.

Now fantasea, come on...lets not be so openly decietful. The personhood of a fetus is an intense debate because of good reason. There is biological basis for the knowledge that the fetus does not have sentience or awareness or personhood at all until late in the pregnancy. Regardless of the biological evidence, there is also no legal grounds to extend personhood to the fetus. Nor is there even a solid religious basis for extension of personhood to the fetus. Lets cover our favorite...the biological facts.

Fact: The only organ that makes the uniqueness of individuality is the brain. We can transplant any other organ with moderate success, but it is impossible to transplant the brain with any success. Further, it is established fact that the personality and intellect (the embodiment of personhood) are seated within the brain. That is common biological fact, but if you want the name of any number of random text books that state this, just ask.

Conclusion: Though the personhood of the fetus may be more than neurobiology, personhood cannot exist without the neurobiological criteria being in place.

Fact: The development of the central nervous system (CNS) and other neurobiological constructions that allow for sentience, self awareness, and other aspects of personhood is clearly observable process with no development of the cerebral neocortex (controlling higher brain functions) until 22-23 weeks of gestation.

Conclusion: Since development of the neurobiological framework for personhood is not intact until 22-23 weeks of gestation, and that framework, though not the sum of personhood, is a prerequisite, then personhood cannot be attributed to the fetus until 22-23 weeks.

This is touching the tip of the ice berg as I am pressed for time again. But you see, clearly, there is FACTUAL and BIOLOGICAL basis for the premise that a fetus may not have personhood at one point in development, but later there is a transition to personhood.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fantasea
It's simply the use of words to disguise the truth. The claim is that until it reaches a particular point in its development, the fetus is a non-person. However, every biological text refutes this.

No, you are grossly misrepresenting scientific foundations and fundamental principles of fetal development. The truth is, before the CNS is developed and connected, there is no awareness or sentience or personhood to the mass of tissue in the womb. To claim differently is to lie.

And no, not every biological text refutes my claim. Here is a list that backs me up. I deal in facts...it would be nice and would make this more productive if you did also.

Keeton and Gould, Biological Science, Copyright 1998, Reprint 2001
Fetal Development- Jean Pierre Lecanuet
The Fetal Matrix-Mark Hanson Gluckman

Quote:
Originally posted by Fantasea
Here are a pair of references. Are you able to provide a factual refutation? Or are you limited to regurgitating the same old line that you've been repeating?

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

I keep repeating myself because I am stating fact. You are opining and thinking wishfully against what is readily observable in the womb. Here are two counter sources. There are plenty more where these came from.

"The neurosciences are fundamental to the abortion debate since 'personhood' arises in the nervous system and the nervous system is required for 'personhood.' I was delighted to hear what Dr. Maguire had to say this morning about 'ensoulment.' i.e. unless you have attained the proper 'matter' you cannot obtain the proper 'soul.' These concepts are congruent with my own thinking, as a materialist. You cannot have human behavior, thoughts, values, emotions and consciousness unless you have a developed human nervous system which then permits the existence and expression of personhood.'"

Dr. Michael Bennett-Professor and Chairman, Dept of Neuroscience-Albert Einstein Medical College

"...We might be led to conclude that it is probably not until after 28 weeks of gestation that the fetal human attains. level of neo-cortex mediated complexity sufficient to enable those sentient capacities the presence of which might lead us to predicate personhood of a sort we attribute to full-term newborns." (and):

"Thus, we find, perhaps surprisingly, that the early events of human neuromaturation—as stated thus far—may have much to do with how we view and support full term pregnancies while having nothing to do with the morality of abortions."

Dr. Michael Flower-Dept of Biology, Lewis and Clark College

You wont be making wildly outlandish assertions like the ones above without me calling attention to your claims with counter arguments. Lets keep this truthful, now.

I am sadly disappointed.

Dr. Maguires musings relative to “ensoulment” have no place in this secular discussion.

Dr. Bennet’s comments shed no light on the physical development of the fetus although his words “We might be led to conclude that it is probably…”, are about as timid a set of weasel words one is apt to find.

Dr. Flower is equally fuzzy when he wiggles in with, “… may have much to do with how we view …”

On the other hand, I can’t imagine more definitive or forceful statements than those made by Drs. De Mere and Bongiovanni.

My disagreement with your argument regarding “personhood” is that it is simply an opinion. The opinion states that the product of conception, although it is a living, growing, human being from conception, should be denied protection from the abortionist until it reaches a semi-indefinite point in its gestation.

The opinion refers to sentience. In the grand scheme of things, what is the difference in sentience six months after conception, nine months after conception, twelve months after conception? At any of those points, the head of the child is quite empty and needs to be filled, as it will be as time passes.

The use of the onset of sentience as a dividing line is simply a scheme designed to de-humanize an unborn child. It is necessary to do this because the mass of unsophisticated people would be aghast at the thought that abortions were killing unborn human children. De-humanizing is further advanced by the replacing the familiar terms, child, baby, infant, the medical terms, zygote, embryo, fetus.

According to Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, a person is “a human being.” Attempts to render an entire class of human beings as “non-persons” based upon arbitrary qualities such as gestational age, sentience, and place of residence in order to discriminate against them is intrinsically immoral and unjust.

No facts, no proofs, nothing but opinion.

The only thing you have on your side is the opinion of the late Justice Harry Blackmun. There is a bit of irony with you may or may not be familiar. Have you seen this?

Blackmun's Story​

”Last year, on the fifth anniversary of Blackmun's death, the Library of Congress opened his papers to the public. His thick files on the abortion cases tell the little-known story of how Roe vs. Wade came to be. It is the story of a rookie justice, unsure of himself and his abilities, who set out to write a narrow ruling that would reform abortion laws, not repeal them.”

Full story: http://www.nrlc.org/Judicial/SavageLATimes091405.html

Before you go ballistic over the website, look at the name of the reporter and the newspaper for which he works. Of course, you would not expect to find this posted on the Planned Parenthood website, would you?

 

[shuamort]

No facts, no proofs, nothing but opinion.

Yes, but you're refuting the opinion with opinion. You're claiming it's "dehumanizing". That is your opinion. You can espouse that all you want but claiming that it's more than an opinion would be a fallacy.

You're arguing against scientific terms like zygote, fetus, et al, in favor of a loosy goosy catch-all term "human". By using this argument, you're attempting to simplify your stance for the "unsophisticated people" who wouldn't be able to make the connection between zygote and human that you're attempting to make.

 

[tecoyah]

Yes, but you're refuting the opinion with opinion. You're claiming it's "dehumanizing". That is your opinion. You can espouse that all you want but claiming that it's more than an opinion would be a fallacy.

You're arguing against scientific terms like zygote, fetus, et al, in favor of a loosy goosy catch-all term "human". By using this argument, you're attempting to simplify your stance for the "unsophisticated people" who wouldn't be able to make the connection between zygote and human that you're attempting to make.

Very clearly put. And my reasoning for no longer attempting debate with Fantasea on this issue. In ant debate, stating an opinion as Fact is counter productive, and simply leads to frustration. One is tempted to use the ever present "Ignore" function but, ...there IS the entertainment aspect.

 

[Howard Beale]

tecoyah:

I am a bit new here -- what is the "Ignore function"?

 

[tecoyah]

tecoyah:

I am a bit new here -- what is the "Ignore function"?

You can make a person dissapear from view in these forums....by using the ignore function. I recommend it regularly to members that become antagonistic, who I do not wish to discipline, but feel need a break from each other. This function will leave the member name in a thread....but remove the posted information. I find it takes away some of the temptation to bitchslap those who might make you....uh...frustrated.

 

[Howard Beale]

You can make a person dissapear from view in these forums....by using the ignore function. I recommend it regularly to members that become antagonistic, who I do not wish to discipline, but feel need a break from each other. This function will leave the member name in a thread....but remove the posted information. I find it takes away some of the temptation to bitchslap those who might make you....uh...frustrated.

In other words, if I use the ignore function on you, then no one can see your posts? You're just "disappeared"? Is there any place I can go to read up on this rather than bother you with questions?

 

[tecoyah]

In other words, if I use the ignore function on you, then no one can see your posts? You're just "disappeared"? Is there any place I can go to read up on this rather than bother you with questions?

Its easy...just click on the persons profile (click the name) when the profile comes up, just click on "add to ignore list".

This person will become invisible....only to you

 

[Howard Beale]

Thanks Tecoyah,

Does that mean that when I open a thread I will not see their posts? Sorry to be so ignorant.

 

[tecoyah]

You should see they have posted....but not what they wrote.....place me on ignore and test it...you will see the result.

Hell....probably outa leave me on ignore anyway....heh

 

[Howard Beale]

Tecoyah:

I tried it. You were right. I like it better with you in the ignore list. lol

Thanks.

 

[shuamort]

And another dumbass thread originated by you should receive what? intelligent discourse? You try to connect an apple and an orange and we should respect your intelligence? you want civil responses to your inane input, but accuse others or "rolling"? Most of your input here is just so much mental masturbation, very repetitive in nature, and only a limited variation in strokes.
But I suppose that you are one of the "lonely" and don't have much choice.

Mod Note

Let's keep the personal attacks out of this thread.

/Mod Note

 

[justcurious]

Saying "What else comes out." is not a valid argument. You and I both know that a human baby comes out. However, a fetus is a potential human baby, it is not one. Also, if you grant a fetus a right to life, then you destroy the mother who carries it's right to make decisions for themselves and their own body.

I think I agree... It is natural law language that cuts off any discussion of a mother having a right to make that decision; saying a fetus is a baby which is a child who only has a natural right to be born, assumes that the mother should have no control over the situation and if she did suggest otherwise she is considered outside the majority "normal" moral beliefs of our being which is untrue. There is a divide of this moral belief and whether the majority is pro-choice or pro-life doesn't matter. It is a touchy "moral dilemma" and those who believe they have a moral upperhand obviously will agree to holding majorial standing in the face of the media and public.

 

[jallman]

I am sadly disappointed.

Dr. Maguires musings relative to “ensoulment” have no place in this secular discussion.

Dr. Bennet’s comments shed no light on the physical development of the fetus although his words “We might be led to conclude that it is probably…”, are about as timid a set of weasel words one is apt to find.

Dr. Flower is equally fuzzy when he wiggles in with, “… may have much to do with how we view …”

Oh so you are going to dismiss the entire post and the fact that biologists disagree with your absolutist philosophies because you dont like the wording? Come on now, I thought you could do better than that. I see some tactics are hard to let go of...

On the other hand, I can’t imagine more definitive or forceful statements than those made by Drs. De Mere and Bongiovanni.

You say tomato, I say biologically-decietful-revision-of-facts-in-an-effort-to-promote-a-repressive-agenda. Besides, their statements dont mean anything because I dont like how they said it. See...two can play that game.

My disagreement with your argument regarding “personhood” is that it is simply an opinion. The opinion states that the product of conception, although it is a living, growing, human being from conception, should be denied protection from the abortionist until it reaches a semi-indefinite point in its gestation.

And my disagreement with your argument is that it cannot be scientifically observed. Your whole argument supposes this magical thinking that without the neurobiological framework necessary to give traits of humanity, there is still a baby in womb. That is just outright false. There is this emotional appeal to the unintelligent mass, swaying them into believing there is a child in the womb in the earliest stages of gestation. There simply isnt.

The opinion refers to sentience. In the grand scheme of things, what is the difference in sentience six months after conception, nine months after conception, twelve months after conception? At any of those points, the head of the child is quite empty and needs to be filled, as it will be as time passes.

Thats easy. At conception there is no sentience nor is there any vessel for such. At six months, the brain and spinal cord have sufficiently developed and there is not only the capability of sentience, but the evidence of it as well. Learning is already taking place in the womb. At 9 months, the child is fully developed and intelligence is present. At twelve months, experience has been added...need I keep going?

The use of the onset of sentience as a dividing line is simply a scheme designed to de-humanize an unborn child. It is necessary to do this because the mass of unsophisticated people would be aghast at the thought that abortions were killing unborn human children. De-humanizing is further advanced by the replacing the familiar terms, child, baby, infant, the medical terms, zygote, embryo, fetus.

The denial that there are clear demarcations in development and that these delineations mark the need for different moral stances toward the fetus is clearly a scheme designed by the oppressionist agenda to control the reproductive rights of a woman. Humanizing a mass of cells and invading a womans right to control her own body through decietful nomenclature of biological functions is deplorable at best.

According to Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, a person is “a human being.” Attempts to render an entire class of human beings as “non-persons” based upon arbitrary qualities such as gestational age, sentience, and place of residence in order to discriminate against them is intrinsically immoral and unjust.

So...just in all fairness, why not make a list of...just for comparison's sake...the definitions of zygote, embryo, fetus, blastocyst...you know, all those words you say dont really have a meaning.

No facts, no proofs, nothing but opinion.

And I see some tunes never change. I am sorely disappointed.

The only thing you have on your side is the opinion of the late Justice Harry Blackmun. There is a bit of irony with you may or may not be familiar. Have you seen this?

Blackmun's Story​

”Last year, on the fifth anniversary of Blackmun's death, the Library of Congress opened his papers to the public. His thick files on the abortion cases tell the little-known story of how Roe vs. Wade came to be. It is the story of a rookie justice, unsure of himself and his abilities, who set out to write a narrow ruling that would reform abortion laws, not repeal them.”

Full story: http://www.nrlc.org/Judicial/SavageLATimes091405.html

Before you go ballistic over the website, look at the name of the reporter and the newspaper for which he works. Of course, you would not expect to find this posted on the Planned Parenthood website, would you?

No, I wouldnt expect to find this on the planned parenthood site. Planned Parenthood tends to traffic in fact and statistical analysis. This is just an interesting story. Facts please.

 

[steen]

Posted by jallman;
"...before the CNS is developed and connected..."
Parden me for not being up to snuff on my biology. I've heard this before and I have a couple questions:
Please reiterate for me the name of the part of the spinal cord which attaches to the brain, and the name of the cortex of which it attaches to.

The spinal cord ends up in the brain stem which connects tho the thalamus and then through the thalamocortical tract connects with the brain's cortes. The input enters in the cortex of the parietal lobe (top middle/back), gets processed into sensation and responses are then generated by the "motor strip" (top middle/front). The final connection of the thalamocortical tract to the cortex of the parietal lobe occurs at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy.

Also, what is the capability of the brain just before this connection is made?

Not much. Without input, there is no evaluation or conscious response, only reflexes. The brain does no more processing than a computer that is turned off. Once signals reach the parietal lobe, processing begins. (Only exception are cranial nerves I and II that are not going through the brainstem/thalamus "switchboard.")

 

[steen]

Again, thx. Now I can get to some homework.
I have a couple more questions though:
#1) Is the ZEF capable of prosessing sensory intput, however rudimentary, from it's eyes at any point before this connection is made? It is my understanding that the eyes are wired independently of the CNS.

It is possible, but I have never seen data on this. But yes, the nerve from the back of the eye does run back to the occipital lobe (back of the head) without touching any other system. It is still, however, made up of 3 neurons, and I am not sure when those connections mature. Likewise, some autonomic (not under willful control) nerves that run through the thalamus are modulating the signal, and as such, this modulation also is dependent on the thalamocortical tract connecting at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy.

The other nerve, Cranial nerve I is responsible for the sense of smell. It's connection to the brain is rather odd and may be functioning earlier as well.

#2) You mentioned that upon the connection of the thalamus to the cerebral neocortex, EEGs show that a more organized pattern of neural activity divelops. This leads me to assume that there are pre-thalamus/cerebral neocortex connection brain waves. Is that assumption accurate?

Well, "brain wave" is a rather specific pattern that involves the brainstem-cortex-brainstem interactions. As such, there are no real brain waves before the connection of the thalamocortical tract connects (again, this is at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy). before then, the electrical impulses are random and do not represent organized processing (And they are not real "brain waves").

 

[steen]

Are you saying that biological fact may be ignored if it conflicts with ones "view"?

You do it all the time.

This is an example of ignoring biological fact. Biology texts regard these terms as chronological points which are not at all precisely observed by the unborn child since all of them do not progress at an identical rate.

Please document your odd and bizzare claim.

Pro-abortionists use these medical terms as part of the overall strategy to de-humanize the unborn child.

Hmm, who are the pro-abortionists?

The product of conception is a complete human child commencing with its conception.

Only in your overheated. revisionistic lingiustic hyperbole. It is not a "complete human child" until birth.

 

[steen]

I think the ultimate proof that abortion is wrong for our society is this. If you believe that the greater good of society outweighs the rights of the individual than it is logical to stop women from having abortions because her baby could be a valuable member of society some day.

I find it hard to accept such a fascist view, not the least because there is no guarantee that it results in a "valuable" member of society rather than the next Reffrey Dahmer or Tim McVeigh.

 

[steen]

I did a google search on the words "post abortion stress syndrome" and 78,000 hits appeared. There's plenty of fire under all that smoke.

yes, many prolife liars. But then we already know that so many prolifers outright lie, as you have demonstrated. here is the SCIENTIFIC research references (They all disprove the prolife lie of the "pass."):
Major B et al. (2000). "Psychological responses of women after frist-trimester abortion. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 777-784.

Russo NF et al. (1997). The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 23-31.

Lydon J et al. (1996). Pregnancy decision making as a significant life event: A comittment approach. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 71, 141-151.

Gilchrist AC et al. (1995). Termination of pregnancy and psychiatric morbidity. British Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 243-248.

Cozzarelli C et al. (1994). The effects of anti-abortion demonstrators and pro-choice escorts on women's psychological response to abortions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 404-427.

Major B et al. (1992). Psychosocial predictors of adjustment to abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 121-142.

Russo NF et al. (1992). Abortion, childbearing and women's well-being. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 269-280.

Adler NE et al. (1992). Psychological factors in abortion: An overview. American Journal of Psychology, 47, 1194-1204.

Adler NE et al. (1990). Psychological responses after abortions. Science, 47, 248, 41-43.

Dag g PKB (1991). The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion-Denied and completed. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 578-585.

Blumenthal SJ (1991). Psychiatric consequenses of abortion, an overview. In NL Scotland (ed.). Psychiatric aspects of abortion, pp. 17-38. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Zabin LS et al. (1989). When urban adolescents choose abortion: Effects on education, psychological status, and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perspective, 21, 248-255.

Mueller P et al. (1989). Self-blame, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 57, 1059-1068.

Schwartz RA (1986). Abortion on request: The psychiatric implications. In JD Butler et al. (eds.). Abortion, medicine, and the law (3rd ed.; pp. 323-340). NY: File.

Major, B et al. (1985). Attributions, expectations, and coping with abortion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 48, 585-599.

David HP (1981). Postpartum and postabortion psychotic reactions. Family Planning Perspective, 13, 88-92.

Shusterman L (1979). Predicting the psychological consequenses of of abortion: Social Science Medicine, 13, 683-689.

National Academy of Sciences (1975). Legalized abortion and the public health. Washington, DC: author.

Adler, NE (1975). Emotional responses of women following therapeutic abortion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 446-454.

Athanasiou R et al. (1975). Psychiatric sequellae to term birth and induced early and late abortions. Family Practice Perspectives, 5, 227-231

Ah, yes, liar. There are several posters who, not being able to factually refute my arguments,

We have actually.

liberally sprinkle their posts with the word "lie" in all its forms as a means of trying to goad me into a defensive outburst.

Not at all. we point out that you lie because.. well because you ARE lying.

However, no one has ever been able to make the charge stick.

Your multiple occurences of lies have been evidenced many times.

 

[DHard3006]

So...just in all fairness, why not make a list of...just for comparison's sake...the definitions of zygote, embryo, fetus, blastocyst...you know, all those words you say dont really have a meaning.

This argument is used because people cannot face the simple fact that a child is the only thing that can come from these names.
The defenders of killing unborn babies will not tell us why we cannot defend ourselves from dangerous people.
The defenders of killing unborn babies will not tell us why it is wrong to kill criminals convicted of murder.
Maybe because killing an unborn child is the very same as killing an adult convicted for murder or killing a person by defending oneself.

The end result of defending oneself by deadly force is the death of a human.
The end result of executing a convicted murder is the death of a human.
The end result of killing an unborn child by abortion is the death of a human.
Which one is defended by the killers of unborn children and which two are not?

 

[jallman]

This argument is used because people cannot face the simple fact that a child is the only thing that can come from these names.
The defenders of killing unborn babies will not tell us why we cannot defend ourselves from dangerous people.
The defenders of killing unborn babies will not tell us why it is wrong to kill criminals convicted of murder.
Maybe because killing an unborn child is the very same as killing an adult convicted for murder or killing a person by defending oneself.

The end result of defending oneself by deadly force is the death of a human.
The end result of executing a convicted murder is the death of a human.
The end result of killing an unborn child by abortion is the death of a human.
Which one is defended by the killers of unborn children and which two are not?

OK Dingus Kahn, I will bite since you are at least promoting a somewhat logical argument. Your argument is flawed with some of the more rational body in this debate. I support the death penalty whole heartedly. But I only support the death penalty under very stringently defined parameters. First, the death penalty is not a punishment, but it is a termination of a predator lacking the hope of rehabilitation. It is the end of a life that cannot contribute to society any more, and has in fact, remorselessly taken from society. I believe these predations include remorseless murder, serial murder, molestation of a child or children, or deliberate treachery against the state. The society has the right and the responsibility to terminate those who set themselves above the protective goals of the society.

Likewise, the same right must be made manifest more locally in each citizen. If a woman becomes pregnant and the introduction of the eventual child is a detriment to her life, then she has the right to not be pregnant. Like with the death penalty, the guidelines for abortion must be strict and definitive. The option of abortion must be exercised within a certain time frame...that being in the development before any sentience is present. The woman seeking the abortion must complete a certain number of educational and counseling hours before the abortion is made available. I am debating this idea with myself currently, but I also am coming to believe that the number of abortions should be kept in a database and that the number of abortions in a lifetime should be limited to two in order to curb abortion being used as birth control.

 

[Fantasea]

Yes, but you're refuting the opinion with opinion. You're claiming it's "dehumanizing". That is your opinion. You can espouse that all you want but claiming that it's more than an opinion would be a fallacy.

You're arguing against scientific terms like zygote, fetus, et al, in favor of a loosy goosy catch-all term "human". By using this argument, you're attempting to simplify your stance for the "unsophisticated people" who wouldn't be able to make the connection between zygote and human that you're attempting to make.

I disagree. There are a number of authoritative sources which remove the argument from the realm of opinion. I have never seen a refutation by authoritative sources of a similar stripe. Have you? If so, share it.

"WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?"​

On April 23-24, 1981, a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on this very question? Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who all affirmed that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.”

 

[Fantasea]

yes, many prolife liars. But then we already know that so many prolifers outright lie, as you have demonstrated. here is the SCIENTIFIC research references (They all disprove the prolife lie of the "pass."):
Major B et al. (2000). "Psychological responses of women after frist-trimester abortion. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 777-784.

Russo NF et al. (1997). The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 23-31.

Lydon J et al. (1996). Pregnancy decision making as a significant life event: A comittment approach. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 71, 141-151.

Gilchrist AC et al. (1995). Termination of pregnancy and psychiatric morbidity. British Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 243-248.

Cozzarelli C et al. (1994). The effects of anti-abortion demonstrators and pro-choice escorts on women's psychological response to abortions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 404-427.

Major B et al. (1992). Psychosocial predictors of adjustment to abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 121-142.

Russo NF et al. (1992). Abortion, childbearing and women's well-being. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 269-280.

Adler NE et al. (1992). Psychological factors in abortion: An overview. American Journal of Psychology, 47, 1194-1204.

Adler NE et al. (1990). Psychological responses after abortions. Science, 47, 248, 41-43.

Dag g PKB (1991). The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion-Denied and completed. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 578-585.

Blumenthal SJ (1991). Psychiatric consequenses of abortion, an overview. In NL Scotland (ed.). Psychiatric aspects of abortion, pp. 17-38. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Zabin LS et al. (1989). When urban adolescents choose abortion: Effects on education, psychological status, and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perspective, 21, 248-255.

Mueller P et al. (1989). Self-blame, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 57, 1059-1068.

Schwartz RA (1986). Abortion on request: The psychiatric implications. In JD Butler et al. (eds.). Abortion, medicine, and the law (3rd ed.; pp. 323-340). NY: File.

Major, B et al. (1985). Attributions, expectations, and coping with abortion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 48, 585-599.

David HP (1981). Postpartum and postabortion psychotic reactions. Family Planning Perspective, 13, 88-92.

Shusterman L (1979). Predicting the psychological consequenses of of abortion: Social Science Medicine, 13, 683-689.

National Academy of Sciences (1975). Legalized abortion and the public health. Washington, DC: author.

Adler, NE (1975). Emotional responses of women following therapeutic abortion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 446-454.

Athanasiou R et al. (1975). Psychiatric sequellae to term birth and induced early and late abortions. Family Practice Perspectives, 5, 227-231
We have actually.
Not at all. we point out that you lie because.. well because you ARE lying.
Your multiple occurences of lies have been evidenced many times.

Nevertheless, folks in the mental health field are raking in big bucks from renting couch time to mothers of aborted children who complain of ailments ranging from mild depression to suicidal tendencies.

Traffic in and out of mental health clinics and psychiatrists' offices is at an all time high. So is the sale of anti-depressant prescription drugs.

According to you, it would probably be mere coincidence, right?