Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...[W:875,1181]

[prometeus]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

I can lead a horse to water

I doubt that you could even do that.

but I apparently can't teach you to read and understand common English words.

First you should learn their real meaning, not the meaning that you designate to suit a lunatic fringe belief.

"As they are regarded" means as you regard

No, it means exactly what it means and it does not include abortion and it never did.

which means that you think your ignorance of the meaning of the word homicide changes its actual meaning.

No meaning is changed, learn to deal with reality.

No, any killing of a human is a homicide whether it is criminal or not.

Yes and every single one without exception is documented / investigated to include who was killed and all the relevant circumstances pertaining to the killing, based on which a determination is made if an illegal at was committed and if prosecution is warranted. None of this documentation or investigation is done for abortion, which leaves the inescapable conclusion that abortion is not regarded as homicide. Now in true form to the fringe position you hold you deny this reality and stomp your feet instead and rant about latin roots.

You think that lifeforms exist that are somehow not organisms and cannot perform homeostasis even when you acknowledge that they do perform homeostasis but not really for reals homeostasis.

Care to try that in some coherent form?

This is either a fundamental lack of knowledge of biology on your part or just deliberate self-contradiction for the sake of being a provocateur.

Clearly neither. The definition is very simple, even if it escapes you entirely and only requires the most rudimentary reading skills.

It's so wrong I don't even know where to begin

Yes, that does happen when one holds extreme beliefs.

I have even quoted from my undergrad textbook verbatim, to which you had a hissy fit because apparently embryology isn't a real science or isn't really a specific field within the life sciences.

There is no need to post a lie again. I made no such claims, bu pointed out to you that the relevant science that determines what an organism is is biology, not embryology.

I didn't say anything of the sort, nor anything that could reasonably be misconstrued as such. As ever, I can count on you to unreasonably and deliberately misconstrue.

No misrepresentation at all. That is your tradecraft along with posting lies.

It is, objectively, an aggressive homicide.

To those on the lunatic fringe.

 

[RamFel]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

You mean the debate yer currently having with yourself. Even known right-wingers on this forum disagree with your definition of a human being, as does the activist anti-abortion right-wing SCOTUS .

You mean right wingers in name only, don't you?

 

[RamFel]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

We have a REAL WORLD problem of millions of children who are dying of HUNGER every year. And millions more who suffer from terribly from malnutrition. THAT CAN BE FIXED.

But you...and others who subscribe to your beliefs are too worried about what's going on inside women's uteruses to even care about these millions of suffering children.

When you and others start caring about the born children around the world who suffer and die miserable deaths each years...then MAYBE somebody might give a **** about your outrageous cause to protect the unborn.

What's wrong with protecting the unborn? Sounds like love and compassion to me. Why not protect them? Tell me. I really want to know.

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

So doesn't that mean the fetus' "rights" end where my body begins? After all, no other human being has the "right" to attach to my body to stay alive.

Just curious.

*Sorry. I'm coming on the tail end of this. Not trying to interrupt anyone*

Nope... that is a completely different scenario and situation.

Want to find out why?

You are not allowed to place another human being into a dependent state and then remove that care. I would not be allowed to invite you to ride on my airplane and then once we are in the air, I decide to just kick you off the airplane. I would not be allowed to do that because I have placed you into a dependent state. Since the woman has placed the fetus into a state of dependence, she should not be allowed to simply kill it at will.

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

And we're still waiting for evidence that abortion bans actually create an environment where abortions (both legal or back-alley) and child abuse are reduced.

I am still waiting for evidence that murder rates have decreased since it is against the law to murder another human being. What??? Murder laws have NOT decreased? Okay lets remove ALL laws banning murder and homicide.

This is what your argument actually sounds like. Sounds pretty silly once it is repeated back to you... right?

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

So what "proper justifications" can you think of where it is RIGHT to take the life of an innocent human being?

Only when the mothers life is in imminent danger during a pregnancy.

ANY other reasons and it is killing an innocent human being without proper justification for no better reason than convenience.

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

How are they perfectly innocent? They cannot form intent, they cannot act. That is the same "innocence" as a tree or a rock or other inanimate object. It has no value in that sense. Looking at it your way, it could just as easily be evil.

This ability to form intent and act is LESS than other higher animals and we kill those all the time.

Innocent - adj. - 1. free from moral wrong 2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless. 3. not involving evil intent or motive.

If one is not innocent, then one is guilty. If unborns are not free from guilt, which guilt do they have?

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Who decides what is 'proper justification?'

Common sense does.

The ONLY proper justification for abortion is when the mothers life is in imminent danger during a pregnancy. Any other reason is killing an innocent human being for no better reason than convenience and without proper justification.

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

LOLOLOLOL

You have yet to 'win' this argument in any other thread so I dont know why you think you can here.

I see nothing new so far.

You are correct. Nothing new needs to be said. The facts simply do not change.

Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. That is a SCIENTIFIC FACT.

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

An acorn is not a tree and the odds of it surviving to be a tree are miniscule. Many die before even emerging from the ground. Get it? Existence at one point *does not guarantee* survival or developement.

And an acorn is not a tree because it cannot perform any functions of the tree: provide shade, wood, fruit, nuts, reproduce, etc. The value of an acorn is nothing compared to the valued, the contributions, of the tree. And there is no way of knowing IF the acorn ever will.

Would you sacrifice a tree to save an acorn? No. Well, you might but it is not a rational decision and the great majority of Americans would not.

What is truly unfortunate is that you are unable to think past something so thin as the shell of an acorn and acknowledge the truth of what is inside, even though I provided you a picture with nice little labels that were written at the 5th grade level. When you are given credible science at an appropriate level for your intelligence, to not accept it in favor of your magical thinking tells all that need be told about you.

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

If abortion can only be done to save women's lives....why do almost 35,000 women die or nearly die in pregnancy and childbirth every year? And I know you've seen the CDC data on this.

Lying again are we? Even after I corrected you for lying about this very same statement last time?

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

So as CC said, you are not remotely arguing from a scientific or legal position. There is no judgement in science, just facts. And science has nothing to say on abortion, it's just a procedure.

And the law says it's legal.

So you are arguing a moral point. What makes YOUR version of morality right for everyone else? What makes your opinion something that the law should be based on?

Science says that unborns are living human beings. The law currently operates under the assumption that they are not.

Law that flies in the face of known science is bad law. Exactly of the same sort that allowed blacks to be exploited by saying that they also were not human beings.

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

The unborn cant be abused.

So the numbers have to be less. I'm not saying it was a good argument to begin with, just pointing out a fact.

You are correct, the unborn cannot be abused. Instead they simply get killed for no better reason than convenience which is much MUCH worse.

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

How can someone disprove opinions, because it is only your opinion that abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. And without justification? That is according to you, the constitution and Roe v. Wade is all the legal justification a woman needs to be able to choose her having an abortion. And if someone is of the opinion that abortion should be allowed and thinks it is not a human being/person than that woman needs no further justification because justification is just proving something is right or reasonable and while abortion is not justifiable to you, that does not mean that it is not justifiable to others.

So there again, how can I prove your opinions are wrong, your opinions are biased and totally yours. Just like you cannot change my opinions.

Also, pro-choice does not need people on their side,they need the law/constitution on their side and thank goodness Roe v. Wade is all the support pro-choice needs.

I am curious, are you claiming that a fetus is not a human being?

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

So, in all the misdirection and bad argumentation, did anyone *actually* directly address the reasoning in the OP's initial post? If so, can anyone briefly summarize? Or even direct me to the post which substantively dealt with his post? Thanks.

(I trudged through the first five or so pages of nonsense before finally skipping to the end where I found the discussion had careened onto some other digression.)

It is truly amazing what some pro-choicers will say to avoid the simple truth.

 

[Fedor50]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Not that I can see. However, I've done so in a recent thread so I'll say my piece here as well. (Yup - there's definitely a certain amount of repetition here, both of talking points and those making them!) Welcome in!


This is an oft-repeated line, but one which is both incorrect and is used to come to false conclusions. Several points here:

• "Human being" is not an objectively scientific term - rather, it is a psycological/philosophical one. What constitutes a 'human being' is not well defined, as with 'person' etc - even within the law, there are conflicting definitions (see foetal homicide laws, which vary wildly from state to state). A brief challenge - if you believe differently - define 'human being' (or even 'organism'!) and I will show you that your definition either includes things which clearly are not a human being (skin or sperm cells, for example, or transplanted organs), excludes things which clearly are human beings (conjoined twins or chimeras, normally), or does not include a zygote/embryo/foetus.
• There are indeed some embryological textbooks which state that the newly-fertilised zygote is the start of a human being. However, the vast majority of such textbooks were published in the early 1990's or (often decades) earlier, before IVF was commonplace or much was known about stem cells. If you look at the most recent versions of many of these textbooks, these statements (which tend to be lines mentioned in passing in an introduction to the book) have been removed. At least one book has gone one step futher to clarify:
  
  
  ”The question of when an embryo becomes a human being is difficult to answer because opinions are affected by religious and personal views. The scientific answer is that, from the time of conception, the embryo has human potential, and no other, because of its human chromosomal constitution”
  Before We are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects - with STUDENT CONSULT Online Access Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology & Birth Defects: Amazon.co.uk: Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud: Books.​
  
  ...and other embryological textbooks offer views opposed to yours:
  
  
  ” The zygote formed undergoes mitosis repeatedly to form the embryo which later develops into an organism”
  Textbook of Human Oral Embryology, Anatomy, Physiology, Histology & Tooth Morphology: Amazon.co.uk: K.M.K. Masthan: Books​
  
  ...as do journal articles:
  
  
  ” each embryo, having the ability to develop into an individual, is valuable”
  Morphological appearance of the cryopreserved mouse blastocyst as a tool to identify the type of cryoinjury
  ​
  
  ...and other biology textbooks:
  
  
  Completion of mitosis then gives rise to two embryonic cells, each containing a new diploid genome. These cells then commence the series of embryonic cell divisions that eventually lead to the development of a new organism.
  ~The Cell: A Molecular Approach. 2nd edition. Geoffrey M Cooper.
  Meiosis and Fertilization - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf.​
  
  ...which indicates that the question is a subjective one, since multiple scientific sources give multiple conflicting answers.
  
• It's also worth pointing out that something being the 'beginning of' a human being is not the same as being a human being. There are plenty of examples of this: cake mix is the beginning of a cake (but is not a cake yet), the bride's entrance is the beginning of a wedding (but is not the wedding itself), the '[' symbol is the beginning of this post (but the post was not a post until I hit 'send'), and so on. Many of the sources that are claimed to be pro-life are worded this way, and as such do not actually support the pro-life POV.
• There are lots of arguments to be made that a zygote/embryo/pre-viable foetus should not be considered an independent organism (another term which is poorly defined) - for example, the ZEF is not capable of maintaining homeostasis as a stable whole, which is often one of the hallmarks of 'organism-ness'.
• There are also lost of arguments that a ZEF should not be considered a human being (for example, the twinning problem). I won't go into these too much now.

You got so much wrong here in this post that I honestly dont know where to start or which statement to pick apart first. I mean, almost EVERYTHING that you have said is literally wrong.

 

[RamFel]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

False-Equivalency = calling the fetus a human being and saying it is being murdered when the activist anti-abortion right-wing social engineering SCOTUS disagrees with you. You are either for the law or against the law .

I'll say it. "A fetus is a human being and a person. How do I know this?

(1) Because what the person looks like at conception has nothing to do with what what they are. They have names like Embryo and Fetus, but they are also called Human's and Persons. And....

(2) Whether a person is just conceived or out of the womb (a kid, teenager, adult or senior citizen), it is still the same individual. You were once a mass of cells, weren't you? If you had been aborted, you would be dead now. The issue is NOT about women. It's about the right to life for the babies.

 

[RamFel]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Defended while it damages her from inside? It is not "more innocent" simply for having no idea what's going on, just like an impaired hostage wouldn't be "more innocent," and you'd probably permit killing them if necessary to end harm.

Any person will, in theory, advance to whatever comes next. Doesn't make it ok for them to hurt people.

But they are not hurting anybody, but abortion does and there are mountains of proof. And you do have SOME proof and I agree with it, but you need to tell the truth. It's not as bad as you make it sound.

 

[RamFel]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

You're predictable, so I already know what you've picked, and you've done so with the intention of dishonestly, slicing off what's around it. So, no.

Oops too late. I drove my wife to a doctors appointment and was trying to use it to answer some posts. Didn't mean to double-post.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Speaking of subjective comments...



Well, unfortunately there are morons in the world who would ascribe negative motivations to an objectively innocent and helpless organism, calling them rapists and garbage and parasites.

Those people aren't so good at the whole "definition" thing to begin with.

Any harm of pregnancy is self-inflicted. Any argument predicated on the kid (or offspring, if you must) initiating harm forgets that the parents created the offspring in the first place. As such, any such argument can and will be summarily dismissed.

Whomever created the offspring is irrelevant to whether or not it creates harm. This is such a logical fact that disputing it is about as ridiculous as it gets.

In order for it to be legal, killing typically requires justification.

Not just a motive. Every killing has some kind of motive.

Self-defense is justification for a homicide. Personal financial gain is not.

The overwhelming majority of abortions occur for personal financial gain.

You omitted the word "proper" in your definition. Let's see if you can do what Fedor failed and either define it objectively, or, you could show how REALLY good you are and demonstrate why it can't be defined objectively.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

Science says that unborns are living human beings. The law currently operates under the assumption that they are not.

You were already corrected on this point. That is not how the law operates. It refers to personhood. Do try to keep up.

Law that flies in the face of known science is bad law. Exactly of the same sort that allowed blacks to be exploited by saying that they also were not human beings.

Since I have already demonstrated that that is not what the law is doing, your point is irrelevant.

 

[iangb]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

You got so much wrong here in this post that I honestly dont know where to start or which statement to pick apart first. I mean, almost EVERYTHING that you have said is literally wrong.

I guess any response is better than no response at all, but I have to admit I was hoping for something a little more... substantial? Nothing more than 'you're wrong!' doesn't really refute even a single word of what I posted.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

I am curious, are you claiming that a fetus is not a human being?

You mean besides the other hundred times (I estimate) where I explained my opinion about this? A fetus might be human material but that does not make it (at the time abortion is legal, or when I think it should be legal in the first trimester) a fetus is not yet possessing the properties I associate with a "human being/person".

 

[minnie616]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

What is truly unfortunate is that you are unable to think past something so thin as the shell of an acorn and acknowledge the truth of what is inside, ....

An acorn may have everything except nourishment that it needs to grow a tree,

but an embryo needs more than just nourishment to become a living being.
It needs the woman's life forces.

Scientists can start growing an embryo but after several days without implantation the cells just start replicating and the embryo grows in a disorderly way. That is the main reason why after a certain number days the embryo is either implanted during IVF treatment or it is frozen or discarded.

The embryo is not even a “potential” living being in so far as a “potential being” is defined as something capable of passing from this potential state to the state of being that thing in actuality, and only thanks to internal factors.

A blank sheet of paper is not a potential drawing, in so far as in order to pass from the state of blank sheet to the state of drawing it requires an external factor, namely the draughtsman. As opposed to this, an acorn is a potential oak, for the soil in which it is planted only plays a nutritional role and it passes from the state of acorn to that of oak by virtue of internal factors only.

The same is often considered to hold for the embryo. But in fact, it doesn’t. The latest scientific research – the full range of which has still not been fully appreciated – shows the mother’s indispensable role. Some of the growth factors that have been identified no doubt come from the embryo itself; but others come from the mother and are sufficiently important to be indispensable to the embryo’s growth: if put in a purely nutritious environment, the embryo will multiply self-identically or in a disorderly way.


It is not correct to say of the embryo that it grows: it is grown by the mother. It is not a potential living being; the mother is the potential mother of a living being.

The Embryo Is Not a Potential Living Being - L'Humanité in English

 

[minnie616]

Re: Why Abortion is WRONG! It is Just THIS Simple...

I am curious, are you claiming that a fetus is not a human being?

A fetus is human , but until it is viable and has it's own vital forces it is not a living being.

In fact, the only definition that can be given of a living being is this: it is a being that has functions that can specifically be called vital because they keep the living being alive and need no other functions to keep it alive, and because they are such that if one does not operate , then none of the others will, and then the living being decays.

Now my hand, my eye do have functions –to grasp, to see– but they have no functions that keep them alive; they are only kept alive by the living being to which they belong, myself (in the case in point), who am a living being.

The same holds for the embryo. It has practically no vital function; the vital function it needs to be a living being are those of its mother.

The Embryo Is Not a Potential Living Being - L'Humanité in English