Lets find out where current members stand - public poll

[Removable Mind]

You want the hard and fast answer?

There are women who want to be irresponsible with their bodies and use of birth control. And they wish to kill the life that results from their irresponsibility. They will use any excuse and create whatever situation necessary to that end.

So do a hell of a lot of men who abandon kids that they father...

EDIT...

Gezzzzzzzz, the more I read your post. What a damning statement against women in general. That's amazing that you would make such a generalistic claim that is purely sexist.

 

[Ontologuy]

You want the hard and fast answer?

There are women who want to be irresponsible with their bodies and use of birth control. And they wish to kill the life that results from their irresponsibility. They will use any excuse and create whatever situation necessary to that end.

I hear your concern, though I don't share it with regard to the frequency degree you might be implying.

For the great most part women don't want to "f***-and-kill", and among "pro-choicers" the great percentage of those that do advocate F&K irresponsibility are mostly the boyfriends of the women.

Women don't like surgical/chemical abortion; it's a procedure they'd prefer not to have to go through.

True, there are a small percentage of women, mostly teens and young adults, who don't understand the fundamentals of conception prevention, and, of course, pro-choice misinformation that a human "isn't" created at conception doesn't help there. But for the most part, the problem here lies with substandard old-tech birth-control that has too high a failure rate.

But this is neither here nor there.

I asked why all the big to-do about about whether a ZEF is human "being", a "person", or not.

I can understand that you may want to go to extremes to prevent extreme F&K behavior.

But your answer, it just doesn't seem to speak to my question.

 

[Masada]

A tapole is NOT a frog. It does have the potiential of becoming a frog.
An early fetus is NOT a person/baby/child.
But it does have the potential of becoming one.

A tadpole cannot breath air, but a frong can.
An early fetus cannot breath air, but a person/baby/child can.

As OKgrannie pointed out on another thread:



http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...h-control-and-abortion-18.html#post1058431421

How could you abort something that is even "potentially" a human being? We aren't talking about frogs here. We're talking about human beings. It illustrates your view of humanity, to compare a fetus to a tadpole. In your messed up mind, they are equivalent. We aren't talking about tadpoles and frogs, we're talking about human beings.

If frogs were as precious and important as human beings, I would be just as adamate about protecting tad poles. But in your view, one is no more important than the other. What kind of messed up view of humanity is this?

Bottom line. Whether you believe a fetus is a "person" or not, what you DO KNOW is that a fetus, if left in its' natural state (the womb), and cared for properly and responsibly, will develope into a human being. By terminating a fetus, you are KNOWINGLY terminating a human being. It's not even a matter of opinion though. A fetus is a person, scientifically speaking. I know there's a lot of science that tries to say otherwise, and it's wrong. That's the great thing about "science". It can be proven and disproven. "Life" is the debate. And "life" originates at conception.

I see people going back to this "viability" argument. It's silly. Of course a fetus of 2 weeks isn't viable outside the womb on it's own. But guess what, neither is a newborn baby. If a woman gives birth to a baby, and she dies, the baby isn't viable ON IT'S OWN outside the womb. It still relies on someone, or something, to sustain its' life outside the womb. Look at the definition of the word "viable". A newborn isn't viable on its' own either. So the whole "viability" argument over abortion is stupid.

Lastly, a fetus ISN'T A PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY. It's seperate, but attached. It is two seperate bodies, two seperate living organisms. A fetus ISN'T "her body".

Ironically, no one answered my simple question. For pro-choice people, it might as well be a toaster oven inside a woman's womb. Their belief is that a woman isn't pregnant with a "child", until a certain point. As if a fetus wasn't a child in the early stages of development even from conception. And they continually try to compare "natural" abortion to conscientious abortion. That's like comparing dying of old age to murder. In fact, it's precisely the same. One occurs naturally, while the other is inflicted upon someone.

Just remember pro-choicers. Remember your own life. Take a minute to examine your own life, and know this. You are here because your mother didn't think like you. I was born into a poor, working, farm family. To a liberal, that was a poor choice. Because terminating a pregnancy is far better than allowing a child to be born into poverty. It's been said numerous times in this thread, so don't try to deny liberals believing that way. I'll say to them, I'de much rather be born and be poor, than to never have been born at all. Ask a liberal if they regret being born, 99% will say no. Luckily, their mother didn't decide that having a child would of been too difficult on her. Yet liberals will line up to defend the practice of aborting babies "to save them from a life of abuse, welfare, and poverty". Who are they to decide?

 

[Removable Mind]

How could you abort something that is even "potentially" a human being? We aren't talking about frogs here. We're talking about human beings. It illustrates your view of humanity, to compare a fetus to a tadpole. In your messed up mind, they are equivalent. We aren't talking about tadpoles and frogs, we're talking about human beings.

If frogs were as precious and important as human beings, I would be just as adamate about protecting tad poles. But in your view, one is no more important than the other. What kind of messed up view of humanity is this?

Bottom line. Whether you believe a fetus is a "person" or not, what you DO KNOW is that a fetus, if left in its' natural state (the womb), and cared for properly and responsibly, will develope into a human being. By terminating a fetus, you are KNOWINGLY terminating a human being. It's not even a matter of opinion though. A fetus is a person, scientifically speaking. I know there's a lot of science that tries to say otherwise, and it's wrong. That's the great thing about "science". It can be proven and disproven. "Life" is the debate. And "life" originates at conception.

I see people going back to this "viability" argument. It's silly. Of course a fetus of 2 weeks isn't viable outside the womb on it's own. But guess what, neither is a newborn baby. If a woman gives birth to a baby, and she dies, the baby isn't viable ON IT'S OWN outside the womb. It still relies on someone, or something, to sustain its' life outside the womb. Look at the definition of the word "viable". A newborn isn't viable on its' own either. So the whole "viability" argument over abortion is stupid.

Lastly, a fetus ISN'T A PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY. It's seperate, but attached. It is two seperate bodies, two seperate living organisms. A fetus ISN'T "her body".

Ironically, no one answered my simple question. For pro-choice people, it might as well be a toaster oven inside a woman's womb. Their belief is that a woman isn't pregnant with a "child", until a certain point. As if a fetus wasn't a child in the early stages of development even from conception. And they continually try to compare "natural" abortion to conscientious abortion. That's like comparing dying of old age to murder. In fact, it's precisely the same. One occurs naturally, while the other is inflicted upon someone.

Just remember pro-choicers. Remember your own life. Take a minute to examine your own life, and know this. You are here because your mother didn't think like you. I was born into a poor, working, farm family. To a liberal, that was a poor choice. Because terminating a pregnancy is far better than allowing a child to be born into poverty. It's been said numerous times in this thread, so don't try to deny liberals believing that way. I'll say to them, I'de much rather be born and be poor, than to never have been born at all. Ask a liberal if they regret being born, 99% will say no. Luckily, their mother didn't decide that having a child would of been too difficult on her. Yet liberals will line up to defend the practice of aborting babies "to save them from a life of abuse, welfare, and poverty". Who are they to decide?

Indeed a fetus is separate...BUT NOT EQUAL!

 

[Aberration]

Indeed a fetus is separate...BUT NOT EQUAL!

Equal protection, unless you don't want to be a parent.

 

[iangb]

How could you abort something that is even "potentially" a human being? We aren't talking about frogs here. We're talking about human beings. It illustrates your view of humanity, to compare a fetus to a tadpole. In your messed up mind, they are equivalent. We aren't talking about tadpoles and frogs, we're talking about human beings.

If frogs were as precious and important as human beings, I would be just as adamate about protecting tad poles. But in your view, one is no more important than the other. What kind of messed up view of humanity is this?

Bottom line. Whether you believe a fetus is a "person" or not, what you DO KNOW is that a fetus, if left in its' natural state (the womb), and cared for properly and responsibly, will develope into a human being. By terminating a fetus, you are KNOWINGLY terminating a human being. It's not even a matter of opinion though. A fetus is a person, scientifically speaking. I know there's a lot of science that tries to say otherwise, and it's wrong. That's the great thing about "science". It can be proven and disproven. "Life" is the debate. And "life" originates at conception.

I see people going back to this "viability" argument. It's silly. Of course a fetus of 2 weeks isn't viable outside the womb on it's own. But guess what, neither is a newborn baby. If a woman gives birth to a baby, and she dies, the baby isn't viable ON IT'S OWN outside the womb. It still relies on someone, or something, to sustain its' life outside the womb. Look at the definition of the word "viable". A newborn isn't viable on its' own either. So the whole "viability" argument over abortion is stupid.

Lastly, a fetus ISN'T A PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY. It's seperate, but attached. It is two seperate bodies, two seperate living organisms. A fetus ISN'T "her body".

Ironically, no one answered my simple question. For pro-choice people, it might as well be a toaster oven inside a woman's womb. Their belief is that a woman isn't pregnant with a "child", until a certain point. As if a fetus wasn't a child in the early stages of development even from conception. And they continually try to compare "natural" abortion to conscientious abortion. That's like comparing dying of old age to murder. In fact, it's precisely the same. One occurs naturally, while the other is inflicted upon someone.

Just remember pro-choicers. Remember your own life. Take a minute to examine your own life, and know this. You are here because your mother didn't think like you. I was born into a poor, working, farm family. To a liberal, that was a poor choice. Because terminating a pregnancy is far better than allowing a child to be born into poverty. It's been said numerous times in this thread, so don't try to deny liberals believing that way. I'll say to them, I'de much rather be born and be poor, than to never have been born at all. Ask a liberal if they regret being born, 99% will say no. Luckily, their mother didn't decide that having a child would of been too difficult on her. Yet liberals will line up to defend the practice of aborting babies "to save them from a life of abuse, welfare, and poverty". Who are they to decide?

You are making the same mistakes, over and over again.

1) You do not know what other people or groups think - be that 'women', 'liberals' or anything else. Yet you repeatedly make (false) claims about their opinions.
2) You equivocate massively, jumping between 'person', 'human', 'human being' interchangeably. Yet they are not the same thing, by a long shot.
3) You repeat the 'you're glad you are alive' fallacy. Yet it's been pointed out to you that conception is but one event in a whole chain of events that led to you being here right now, stretching out on both sides of conception - conception itself is no more than one of those events, one which you are choosing to see as the most important.
4) You argue for protecting something based simply on the fact that it is a 'potential'. Yet you have been reminded that sperm/egg cells also have that potential - they need other things to realise that potential, but so does a ZEF.
5) You repeatedly insult people or arguments which are against you. Yet this does nothing but clutter up the thread with a bunch of pointless flaming.

 

[Masada]

It's amazing to watch a liberal's thought process. It's like they are missing the part of the brain that allows a person to use "reason".

I think about a person's retirement. Throughout the "process" of their careers, they protect their "retirement". I could argue, like a liberal, and say that a person's "retirement" really isn't a "retirement" until it contains enough money to support the retiree for the rest of their lives. Yet, I wonder how a liberal would feel about concientiously terminating their retirement accounts before they reach maturity? You see the "process" I mentioned is akin to a "pregnancy", and the "retirement" is the "fetus". Liberals wouldn't dream of terminating their retirement accounts before they reach maturity! I mean, who would??? Well, I know people who have had to for certain reasons. Like avoiding bankruptcy, or paying off a high medical bill. That's akin to abortion in the context of medical necessity, rape, or incest. Hard to argue about dipping into your retirement account if it means putting a down payment on your oncologist. But when it comes to living human beings, liberals have no problem whatsoever terminating the life of a developing human being.

A person that has "reason", and knows how it works, can not say they are not terminating a "life" via abortion. People who claim abortion isn't terminating life, are by definition "unreasonable". They have allowed a personal opinion to supercede reason. Why? Because at the root of this issue there is a philosophical belief in total "sexual freedom". No restraint, no responsibility. Sex without consequences in other words. If you try to reason with a liberal, and explain that unwanted pregnancy is easily avoidable by abstaining, they mock you, scoff at you, and ridicule you for either being naive or a religious zealot. Pro-choice people absolutely refuse to entertain the philosophy of sexual responsibility, except for the specific act of sex. But they stop there. What I mean is, liberals are all about "having sex responsibly", but they refuse to deal with the actual responsibilities of sexual activity, which is often PREGNANCY. In other words, liberals want you to "have" responsible sex, just not be responsible afterwards if a baby is the result of that sex. This isn't "reason". This isn't how a reasonable person thinks.

The party of compassion? wow.....it's compassionate to terminate a human being before it ever has a chance to be born? The party of compassion? The same party who gives less to the poor than any other group of Americans. The same party members who have passed laws making it illegal to feed the homeless in certain places. The same party who says that a parent doesn't have to be notified if their minor child is seeking an abortion. The same party that seeks to legalize drugs, drugs that kill people. The same party that actively works to make abortion more affordable and less expensive. Ya, that sounds like a party who is seeking to lower the number of abortions in America. Make em cheaper and more accessible, and stop notifying parents their kids are aborting. The same party who supports ideas like setting up Planned Parenthood locations INSIDE California high schools. The same party who successfully got laws passed that makes it illegal for restaurants to give homeless people left over food at the end of the night. The same party who advocates for the use creation of human embryos for the sole purpose of scientific experimentation.

Ya, the left is one big "humanitarian" party alright. Yet conservatives get ridiculed for just wanting people to work, and stop depending on society or government for their existence. Expecting a man to work isn't cruel. Killing one before he is ever born is. Expecting people to be responsible isn't cruel. Aborting them before they ever get a chance at life is. THAT'S reason.

 

[Aberration]

So do a hell of a lot of men who abandon kids that they father...

EDIT...

Gezzzzzzzz, the more I read your post. What a damning statement against women in general. That's amazing that you would make such a generalistic claim that is purely sexist.

We aren't talking about fathers.

I am not speaking about women in general. I am speaking about women who choose to make specific decisions. You must also think not voting for Obama was racist :roll:

 

[Aberration]

I hear your concern, though I don't share it with regard to the frequency degree you might be implying.

For the great most part women don't want to "f***-and-kill", and among "pro-choicers" the great percentage of those that do advocate F&K irresponsibility are mostly the boyfriends of the women.

Women don't like surgical/chemical abortion; it's a procedure they'd prefer not to have to go through.

True, there are a small percentage of women, mostly teens and young adults, who don't understand the fundamentals of conception prevention, and, of course, pro-choice misinformation that a human "isn't" created at conception doesn't help there. But for the most part, the problem here lies with substandard old-tech birth-control that has too high a failure rate.

But this is neither here nor there.

I asked why all the big to-do about about whether a ZEF is human "being", a "person", or not.

I can understand that you may want to go to extremes to prevent extreme F&K behavior.

But your answer, it just doesn't seem to speak to my question.

I did address it, but I will be more clear.

The person issue is so important to the pro-abortion people because otherwise what they are doing would be criminal.

It is so important to the anti-abortion people because it would criminalize the killing.

 

[Masada]

You are making the same mistakes, over and over again.

1) You do not know what other people or groups think - be that 'women', 'liberals' or anything else. Yet you repeatedly make (false) claims about their opinions.
2) You equivocate massively, jumping between 'person', 'human', 'human being' interchangeably. Yet they are not the same thing, by a long shot.
3) You repeat the 'you're glad you are alive' fallacy. Yet it's been pointed out to you that conception is but one event in a whole chain of events that led to you being here right now, stretching out on both sides of conception - conception itself is no more than one of those events, one which you are choosing to see as the most important.
4) You argue for protecting something based simply on the fact that it is a 'potential'. Yet you have been reminded that sperm/egg cells also have that potential - they need other things to realise that potential, but so does a ZEF.
5) You repeatedly insult people or arguments which are against you. Yet this does nothing but clutter up the thread with a bunch of pointless flaming.

1. The only way to know what other's "think" is to analyze what they say, and what they support, and what they do. So, I'm pretty sure liberals do not think a fetus is a human being. That's what I think liberals think. Now correct me if I'm wrong.

2. Explain to us the difference between a "human" and a "person", then explain the difference in a "human" and a "human being". Sheer definition tells me they are one and the same. But maybe you liberals have a different dictionary for what constitutes humanity. Oh wait, no "maybe" about it, you do.

3. Conception is but one event in a chain of events in humanity. I'll remind you though, conception is a pre-requisite to every other "event" in the process. It's the beginning, and without it, there will never be a human being. Need I explain that to you? It is the most important, because it's the precursor to every other event in the chain of events leading to "personhood".

4. Sperm and egg are not the same, and they aren't comparable to a fetus. You cannot constitute life with sperm alone, nor can you constitute life with egg alone.

5. I insult arguments counter to mine because I fail to see any "reason" whatsoever in the arguments FOR abortion. If liberals truly did want to reduce the number of abortions in America, why on Earth do they then turn around and fight to make abortion more affordable and more accessible? Why on Earth do they fight against notifying parents of minors seeking abortions? They are afraid this would reduce the number of abortions, yet they claim they desire to reduce the number of abortions. Point being, they are liars. They straight up lie about their desire to reduce abortions.

I'll expand on the comment about there being no "reason" in the argument FOR abortion. When debating a liberal on this subject, they bring up the issue of "not having enough people willing to adopt". So the reasonable thing to do is abort???? That's what liberals deem "reasonable"???? To terminate even the possibility of a life coming into the world? Would a farmer kill his seed he just planted because he doesn't believe it will rain? There is no "reason" behind abortion, because you cannot possibly know what that child will become before it's even born.

Liberals call themselves "humanitarians". But you can't even get a liberal to acknowledge that abortion terminates the life of a human being before it ever has a chance to be born. "Humane"????? Why wont any of you liberals answer the question? Is it "humane" to terminate the life of a human being before it ever has a chance to be born? You wont answer. Instead, you are the ones who "clutter up the issue" with a bunch of semantical crap about viability and when a life becomes a life. Give me a break. Do you not know what a fetus becomes? Of course you do, but are perfectly willing to kill it anyway. Honestly, where is the "reason" in that kind of thought?

 

[minnie616]

You are making the same mistakes, over and over again.

1) You do not know what other people or groups think - be that 'women', 'liberals' or anything else. Yet you repeatedly make (false) claims about their opinions.
2) You equivocate massively, jumping between 'person', 'human', 'human being' interchangeably. Yet they are not the same thing, by a long shot.
3) You repeat the 'you're glad you are alive' fallacy. Yet it's been pointed out to you that conception is but one event in a whole chain of events that led to you being here right now, stretching out on both sides of conception - conception itself is no more than one of those events, one which you are choosing to see as the most important.
4) You argue for protecting something based simply on the fact that it is a 'potential'. Yet you have been reminded that sperm/egg cells also have that potential - they need other things to realise that potential, but so does a ZEF.
5) You repeatedly insult people or arguments which are against you. Yet this does nothing but clutter up the thread with a bunch of pointless flaming.

Exactly !

Even after I pointed a tadpole is NOT frog and an early fetus is NOT a person/baby/child Msada keeps jumping between "person", 'Human' and "human being" interchangeablely.

 

[Masada]

Let me remind you that liberals made all these same arguments when "partial birth abortion" was legal as well. Now that science has unequivically proven them wrong, they are forced to eat their own words. Liberals commonly argued that even a 8 month old fetus in the womb isn't a "human being" or a "person". Which is how they could come to support 3rd trimester abortions along with "partial birth abortion".

And now liberals expect us to believe they are the authority on what constitutes life????? Please. Just a few years ago, they were arguing that a 9 month old fetus wasn't a "person", and that a woman had every right to abort that baby if she so chose.

So, let me ask you liberals. Give me a specific number. At what point does a fetus become a "person", and becomes unacceptable to abort it? What day of gestation does this happen. You say you have science on your side. So tell us what day a fetus becomes a "person". Then tell us why just a few years ago, you all were claiming that a 9 month old fetus wasn't a "person" either.

Fact is, liberals are the furthest thing from being the authorities on what constitutes "life". I don't think a group of people so eager to end life before it even starts has any authority to tell anyone when life begins. Clearly, if liberals could support aborting 9 month old fetuses, they have no clue what constitutes "life". Heck, the chief liberal in America, Obama himself, refused to even protect babies AFTER THEY WERE BORN! Ya, they have no authority over what defines or constitutes "life".

 

[Masada]

Exactly !

Even after I pointed a tadpole is NOT frog and an early fetus is NOT a person/baby/child Msada keeps jumping between "person", 'Human' and "human being" interchangeablely.

lol...ok genius. Here's your chance to shine! Tell us the difference in a "person" and a "human", then tell us the difference in a "human" and a "human being".


Go.....

 

[Removable Mind]

Let me remind you that liberals made all these same arguments when "partial birth abortion" was legal as well. Now that science has unequivically proven them wrong, they are forced to eat their own words. Liberals commonly argued that even a 8 month old fetus in the womb isn't a "human being" or a "person". Which is how they could come to support 3rd trimester abortions along with "partial birth abortion".

And now liberals expect us to believe they are the authority on what constitutes life????? Please. Just a few years ago, they were arguing that a 9 month old fetus wasn't a "person", and that a woman had every right to abort that baby if she so chose.

So, let me ask you liberals. Give me a specific number. At what point does a fetus become a "person", and becomes unacceptable to abort it? What day of gestation does this happen. You say you have science on your side. So tell us what day a fetus becomes a "person". Then tell us why just a few years ago, you all were claiming that a 9 month old fetus wasn't a "person" either.

Fact is, liberals are the furthest thing from being the authorities on what constitutes "life". I don't think a group of people so eager to end life before it even starts has any authority to tell anyone when life begins. Clearly, if liberals could support aborting 9 month old fetuses, they have no clue what constitutes "life". Heck, the chief liberal in America, Obama himself, refused to even protect babies AFTER THEY WERE BORN! Ya, they have no authority over what defines or constitutes "life".

Liberals...Liberals...Liberals...Liberals? What is wrong with you?

 

[clownboy]

Exactly !

Even after I pointed a tadpole is NOT frog and an early fetus is NOT a person/baby/child Msada keeps jumping between "person", 'Human' and "human being" interchangeablely.

Nor are they anything else. That tadpole isn't going to mature into anything but a frog. That fetus, not going to mature as anything but a human being. That's IF they're allowed to mature. Along the same vein - a child is not an adult. Your argument is irrelevent to the abortion argument.

That said, if the state wants to allow eugenics, which abortion is, it should be up to the individual states. Roe v Wade was made from wholecloth and bears no resemblence to the actions and behaviors the framers wished to protect.

 

[Masada]

Liberals...Liberals...Liberals...Liberals? What is wrong with you?

I'm really impressed with your ability to dodge the question. What is wrong with me? What is wrong with ANY PERSON who could support "partial birth abortion"? There's a good question for you.

Any chance you'll address the point being made that just a few years ago IT WAS LIBERALS arguing that a 9 month old fetus was not a "human being" or a "person" either? Any chance you'll be honest about it?

I use the term "liberals" to identify a group of people in America who by and large support abortion. Or are you trying to deny that too? Are you denying that it is "liberals" who overwhelmingly support abortion? No, you can't deny that. You are merely deflecting the debate elsewhere to avoid the real issues being brought up.

If you are uncomfortable with the issue, I understand. Pick an issue, and address it. I've laid out many. How about the issue of liberals claiming that their desire is to reduce the number of abortions in America, but they have a consistent track record of trying to make abortion more affordable and more easily accessible, in addition to opposing parental consent laws. None of which reduce the number of abortions, but literally INCREASE the number of abortions. Why avoid that issue?

Yes, it's much easier for you to deflect, and call me a radical, than it is to honestly discuss the left's philosophies behind supporting abortion.

 

[Ontologuy]

Exactly ! Even after I pointed a tadpole is NOT frog and an early fetus is NOT a person/baby/child Msada keeps jumping between "person", 'Human' and "human being" interchangeablely.

The process a human goes through in development is very similar to that of a frog.

The difference is that a frog goes through much of its very early development stages outside of its "womb", outside of the egg, but a human goes through much of its early development stages inside of the womb.

So though a human embryo/fetus is prenatal, its frog-equivalent, a tadpole, is "postnatal", in essence.

Regardless, the human embryo, the human baby, the human adult, all are humans.

And, the frog tadpole, the frog froglet, and the frog adult, all are frogs.

So your anaolgy here is erroneous, in that your attempt at creating your analogous premise fails to lead to the conclusion you seek.

Whether or not a fetus is a human "being", a "person", remains debatable.

But you have no way of knowing the "being" status, the "person" staus of a frog, when or even if that status occurs for frogs, and that's part of where your argument fails.

At least you didn't try to say that because a tadpole isn't a frog then a fetus isn't a human.

And, of course, that illustrates the other part of where your argument would fail any test: a tadpole is most certainly a frog, a frog in its early stages of development.

It's like which of these words doesn't belong: zygote, embryo, human, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, adult? obviously, the answer is "human".

The same is true with frogs, in that which word doesn't belong: tadpole, frog, froglet, legged froglet, adult? Again, the right answer is "frog".

"Human" and "frog" are species designations whereas the other words for each are growth stage designations.

So when you ridicule someone for not getting your "point" .. it's best to make sure you really have a point first.

 

[minnie616]

Let me remind you that liberals made all these same arguments when "partial birth abortion" was legal as well. Now that science has unequivically proven them wrong, they are forced to eat their own words. Liberals commonly argued that even a 8 month old fetus in the womb isn't a "human being" or a "person". Which is how they could come to support 3rd trimester abortions along with "partial birth abortion".

I posted the following on another thread when you brought up partial birth abortion.:

I just want to clear up some misconceptions.

Partial birth abortion was a type of abortion procedure. Partial Birth abortion is now banned.

Late term abortion has been legal since 1973 and still is in most states.

Only .008 percent of all abortions are preformed after 21 weeks gestation
( less than 5 and one-half months gestation).

These late term abortions are the extreme cases.

They take place when the woman's life is in danger,
when the fetus had died in the womb,
When the fetus is so malformed it will either be stillborn
or will die within a few minutes or hours.

 

[JayDubya]

A Rana catesbeiana tadpole is a Rana catesbeiana, it's just not an adult Rana catesbeiana.

You can call any Rana catesbeiana "a frog."

 

[nota bene]

I posted the following on another thread when you brought up partial birth abortion.:

I just want to clear up some misconceptions.

Partial birth abortion was a type of abortion procedure. Partial Birth abortion is now banned.

Late term abortion has been legal since 1973 and still is in most states.

Only .008 percent of all abortions are preformed after 21 weeks gestation
( less than 5 and one-half months gestation).

These late term abortions are the extreme cases.

They take place when the woman's life is in danger,
when the fetus had died in the womb,
When the fetus is so malformed it will either be stillborn
or will die within a few minutes or hours.

Generally, "partial-birth" and "late-term" are used interchangeably. "Late-term" is more "politically correct," so that's the term I use.

From Wiki:

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[SUP][1][/SUP] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kansas is one of only three states that permits late-term abortions. You may be very surprised by the stats provided from page 8 on.

http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/08itop1.pdf

 

[minnie616]

The Guttmacher Institute points out in a brief on this issue, the Supreme Court has held that:

•even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;”
•“health” in this context includes both physical and mental health;
•only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable; and
•states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.

 

[Aberration]

The Guttmacher Institute points out in a brief on this issue, the Supreme Court has held that:

•even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;”
•“health” in this context includes both physical and mental health;
•only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable; and
•states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.

All very valid arguments. Which is why I wish the utmost effort and investment is put into an economical artificial womb.

 

[minnie616]

Generally, "partial-birth" and "late-term" are used interchangeably. "Late-term" is more "politically correct," so that's the term I use.

From Wiki:

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[SUP][1][/SUP] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Partial Birth and Late term abortion should not be used interchangably.
As is pointed out in the wiki link Partial birth is one form of late term abortion.

Partial birth abortions use to use Intact dilation and extraction to partial deliver an aborted fetus.
Sometimes the partial birth aborted fetus lived for a few minutes or hours after the abortion.

Now during late term abortions an intracardiac injection is used to stop the fetal heart beat on late second and third trimester therapeutic termination of pregnancy procedures.
These are preformed when the life/health of the woman is at risk or when the fetus has extreme fetal anomalies and/or genetic defects .

 

[Aberration]

Is that in reply to what I said? Or just a statement?

 

[minnie616]

Is that in reply to what I said? Or just a statement?

Sorry, it was a reply to nota bene's post.
I edited my post to include the quote.