Look in the mirror, and say hello to yourself, a pro-abortion person. "Pro-choice" is a poor, misleading term. I strongly favor freedom of choice, yet I am anti-abortion.
If you disallow the choice to terminate a pregnancy, you favor the use of force to prevent someone from controlling her own immune system for the sake of her normal good health. What is more, every man who is anti-choice on this issue and asks a woman to have sex is asking her to risk not just pregnancy, but dying or becoming permanently paralyzed, psychotic, incontinent, and disabled but irrelievable pain if unforeseeable complications occur in late pregnancy or childbirth. And you are offering absolutely nothing comparable in return. That is not love. That is so selfish that such a man is laughable.
I did specify, at length, above. You folks often deny the humanity of the offspring in utero, you deny that the offspring in utero is alive, and some of you even engage in semantic games trying to deny the word "offspring," which I use specifically due to its objective meaning and scientific neutrality. You deny that the action of killing another human is homicide. You deny that the action of killing someone incapable of aggression, someone you have personally created, is the initiation of force.
You deny that the noun "human" and the colloquial phrase "human being" are synonymous.
I have never denied that a human embryo is human or alive. I stand by my etymologically correct use of "offspring." I do deny that abortion is homicide. A human embryo is not a person. I deny that a human embryo is a someone instead of a something. I deny that human embryos are innocent in the sense of being harmless because they disable the immune systems of the women pregnant with them. I deny that any woman personally creates a human embryo unless she deliberately attempts to become pregnant. I deny that "human" and "human being" are synonymous because they are used to imply different characteristics, and I deny that a human embryo is a human in the full sense of that term, and so do many scientists.
In short, many of you deny so many basic facts of the discussion that you are incapable of participating in the discussion in a meaningful way until you educate yourselves.
I'm already educated. Please tell the posters on the thread what degrees you have, because if one of them is not anthropology, I don't think you are qualified to tell me how to use the words "human," "human being," and "person."
False, and this demonstrates your lack of education. Parasitism is a negative symbiotic relationship between members of two different species. Again your statements imply that you believe we change species in the womb, though you should know better.
Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship in which one organism lives on/off of another normally in a way detrimental to that other. It can occur between two different species or between members of the same species, when it is called "intraspecific parasitism." There are various forms of intraspecific parasitism, and the comparison of the relation between a pregnant woman and a fetus to a host and parasite is not new (actually, I think you can go back to Aristotle), has been commonly made by physicians and biologists since the latter 1800s, and has resulted in better understanding of the functioning of the placenta, the female immunology of pregnancy, and a host of other biological phenomena. That you do not know this is because you did not pay attention to the professional references I provided on parasitism and the immunology of pregnancy. Tell me again how many PhDs you have in biological sciences?
Your belief is irrelevant in the face of objective reality. In order to hold that belief, you would be engaging in self-deception, as stated above.[/QUOTE]
When I do not know what is objectively true, I read, and because I went to graduate school for quite a long time, I am quite capable of finding reliable scientific sources on a wide range of topics and reading them intelligently.
You appealed to polling data; by implication your statement was "these folks are smart, they disagree with you, therefore you are wrong."
My reply was to state that they may well disagree with me, but that does not mean they, by necessity, lie to themselves or others as you do.
The polling data I referred to concerned views on abortion by educational level. I did not say that all people with postgraduate education considered themselves "pro-choice" because some, admittedly a minority, consider themselves "pro-life." My point is that highly educated people can take either side of this disagreement, so you do not have a warrant for claiming someone is "uneducated" because they express typical "pro-choice" views. Do you really suppose that I thought up all the ideas I present by myself, out of sheer imagination, and did not read hundreds of books and articles and websites concerning this topic? And do you suppose that I did not sift through that material, checking out the credentials, research level, and logic of the authors before I decided to agree with or support their ideas and share them with others? That you don't like those ideas makes you try to insult me by claiming I am uneducated, but because, unlike me, you do not share how many postgraduate degrees you have and where you got them, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that that I have called your bluff on this issue. After all, you do not provide any links or references to any professional peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of your views.
Quick turn-around. Planned Parenthood's "doctors" can get a whole lot of killing done in one random, idle Saturday.
And obstetricians in the US frequently perform caesarians because they don't feel like waiting for hours for their patients to give birth naturally. That helps them make a lot more money.
Not even going to let you finish this one. Absolutely false, and one more absolute demonstration that you are uneducated.
If you were an educated person, you would provide serious links or references to prove you are correct. And by the way, serious scientists do not use expressions such as "absolutely false" and "absolute demonstration." They are not that naive. But you'd know that if you were used to reading professional scientific writing.
The lifespan of every sexually reproducing organism begins at conception. You don't need an "A" in Embryology to know that, you just needed to have paid attention in high school coursework. If you had a good teacher or were in honors classes, middle school coursework.
What they teach in middle school and high school is often modified and even contradicted at the college and postgraduate levels because, when one deals with more complex ideas, theories, and paradigms, simple generalizations are harder to make. Go back and reread Moot's posts on the various different points at which a scientist can choose to say life begins. And I still say that if an organism never sexually reproduces, you have no warrant for claiming that it is a sexually reproducing organism, only that it has organs for sexual reproduction. And those organs do not appear at conception, but in the seventh week, so if an embryo is miscarried before that, it does not even have organs for that purpose.
