Why Can't the Pro-Abortion Crowd Ever be Honest?

[Red Flag]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is by definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible act- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When you pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal one or both of the following to be true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You don't understand the subject and have no place in intelligent discussion of the matter.

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position. You have no place in honest discussion.



*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

 

[Bodi]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is by definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible act- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When you pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal one or both of the following to be true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You don't understand the subject and have no place in intelligent discussion of the matter.

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position. You have no place in honest discussion.



*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

While I agree with you in principle, you have to leave out debatable aspects like calling a Zygote a "child" or calling the killing of a Zygote "murder" since it's position as a "person" is not clear, and consequently, it's rights. With regards to pro-choice defensibility... there isn't any logic. It is all emotional pandering to feminism at the expense of both the developing human and the man's rights.

 

[Red Flag]

While I agree with you in principle, you have to leave out debatable aspects like calling a Zygote a "child"

Definition of CHILD

1
a : an unborn or recently born person

Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

With regards to pro-choice defensibility... there isn't any logic

Sure there is. Let's start at the beginning. Why is it not-okay to kill you?

 

[Paschendale]

My argument is very honest. When the basic rights of a mother conflict with those of a fetus, the mother's supersede those of the fetus.

 

[Risky Thicket]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is by definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible act- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When you pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal one or both of the following to be true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You don't understand the subject and have no place in intelligent discussion of the matter.

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position. You have no place in honest discussion.



*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

The choice should ultimately be the woman's. I believe in freedom of choice. I believe that if you don't support abortions that you should not have one and that you should stay the hell away from people who will make their own decisions when considering a abortion.

 

[Red Flag]

My argument is very honest. When the basic rights of a mother conflict with those of a fetus, the mother's supersede those of the fetus.

The right to one's life trumps one's 'right' to not have stretch marks.

 

[Red Flag]

The choice should ultimately be the woman's. I believe in freedom of choice. I believe that if you don't support abortions that you should not have one and that you should stay the hell away from people who will make their own decisions when considering a abortion.

So... don't have slaves if you don't want, but don't take mine? Don't rape if you don't want, but let Ricardo Ramirez go? Don't kill if you don't want, but let Charlie Manson go?

So... do away with all laws and let anarchy reign?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

The right to one's life trumps one's 'right' to not have stretch marks.

If the want not wanting stretchmarks is thinking, feeling, and a part of society, and the other doesn't even have a brain? Yeah. Hell, her right or desire of anything at all trumps that of a ZEF in every case. The ZEF is basicaly inanimate. By the word of the law, it neither has rights nor is it considered a person, nor is there even the tiniest shred of a reason why it should be. The debate as to whether a ZEF is a person is not at all up in the air: it simply isn't. It doesn't even have any qualities of life, let alone personhood. And the anti-choicers have a tendency to talk about "a right to life" as though this is something the previously non-existent, and current inanimate, ZEF asked for, when in reality they are simply using it for their own emotionally-driven, baseless cause.

 

[Red Flag]

If the want not wanting stretchmarks is thinking, feeling, and a part of society, and the other doesn't even have a brain?

Having a brain is important? Why? Some time ago I asked another poster why killing him is not okay. The pro-abortion crowd tend to avoid that question. Why is killing you now not okay and why was killing you once okay? What changed? Is it the presence of a brain? Is the mere presence of several neurons necessary and sufficient?

Yeah. Hell, her right or desire of anything at all trumps that of a ZEF in every case

Interesting. What if I pick her baby up the ankles, swing it around, and smash it's head against a wall? Is that okay? Why not? What if she does it? What if the afterbirth hasn't come out and the umbilical cord is still attached?

At what moment does what fundamental aspect of your nature change that makes killing you in cold blood for my own self-interest go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?

. The ZEF is basicaly inanimate.

Wrong.

Definition of INANIMATE

1
: not animate:

Inanimate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If the child were already dead, we would be talking about killing it, now would we?

Why can't you people ever be honest about this subject?

By the word of the law, it neither has rights nor is it considered a person

And raping your wife was legal until the 70s. If memory serves, the sexual exploitation of children was criminalized about the same time.

Appealing to the Law and saying the Law should be what the Law is because that is what the Law is... doesn't bolster your argument or your credability.

, nor is there even the tiniest shred of a reason why it should be. The debate as to whether a ZEF is a person is not at all up in the air: it simply isn't.

Like a Negroe or a woman not so long ago...

It doesn't even have any qualities of life

Except, you know... being alive, which is what 'life' means... Seriosuly, why do you people feel the need to lie if what you support isn't wrong?

the anti-choicers

Are abolitionists 'anti-choicers'? I mean, nobody forced anyone to be a slavekeeper...

have a tendency to talk about "a right to life" as though this is something the previously non-existent

\
You were once non-existent

, and current inanimate,[/QUOTE
Why do you lie? Nobody's talking about Stone Foetus.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

1. Having a brain isn't all there is to it, but it's a pretty big start. When people's brains degrade to a point of non-functionality they lose their rights as human beings. They are considered effectively dead in the ways that matter. Someone else gets the decision whether they live or die (or rather, whether they are unplugged from the machines making their organs move in a rhythmic way). So even if you wanted to make it all about that, we are pretty consistent about it with actual physical human beings as well.

2. Strawman. Elective abortion after viability is not only illegal, but even when it was legal no one did it except in the most dire of medical emergencies. 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester, whether late-term is legal or not. It is not comparable to killing a viable infant. Though if it comes down to the woman or a newborn/viable fetus, the woman's rights still win. If only one can walk away alive, who do we save, the viable fetus or the woman?

3. Comparing this to civil rights is like someone going "anorexian" because after all, even plants can scream. It's absurd on every level. If a ZEF can't even pass the most basic of qualifiers of being an organism, why exactly should it be considered a person?

4. Yes, I was once non-existent. And it wouldn't have made a lick of difference to me whether I'd been aborted - it's not like I'd know the difference.

 

[Josie]

1. Having a brain isn't all there is to it, but it's a pretty big start. When people's brains degrade to a point of non-functionality they lose their rights as human beings. They are considered effectively dead in the ways that matter. Someone else gets the decision whether they live or die (or rather, whether they are unplugged from the machines making their organs move in a rhythmic way). So even if you wanted to make it all about that, we are pretty consistent about it with actual physical human beings as well.

There is a large difference between suffering brain damage to the point where there is very little chance of survival and being in the developing stages of brain development where there is a very high chance of normal brain development. It makes sense to end the suffering of a human who is brain dead because there is nothing science can do to bring that person back to normal brain function. It makes NO sense to end the life of a developing human simply because they're too young.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

There is a large difference between suffering brain damage to the point where there is very little chance of survival and being in the developing stages of brain development where there is a very high chance of normal brain development. It makes sense to end the suffering of a human who is brain dead because there is nothing science can do to bring that person back to normal brain function. It makes NO sense to end the life of a developing human simply because they're too young.

People don't get abortions because the ZEF didn't answer their question of was 2+2 is. I was simply saying that brain function is, indeed, a major factor in what is a person. It's also a major factor in whether or not something has enough independent functions to be called an organism. A ZEF has neither.

There's no reason to consider the rights of a ZEF any more seriously. In fact, there's even less. Not only are they not presently a person, but they never were - they have no former wishes to go on at all. Not only are they not persons, but they aren't even sufficiently advanced to be considered an organism.

If what something might be "someday" is so important, why don't we just bury everyone now? They'll all be dead "someday."

The possible state of something SOMEDAY is irrelevant to what it IS. And what it IS should dictate how we treat it.

 

[Paschendale]

The right to one's life trumps one's 'right' to not have stretch marks.

No, the right to control one's body, life, and sexuality trumps the rights of an unborn child that might not even survive.

Rights aren't qualified against each other. It is the people who are. The mother trumps the fetus.

 

[Red Flag]

There is a large difference between suffering brain damage to the point where there is very little chance of survival and being in the developing stages of brain development where there is a very high chance of normal brain development.

Does it? A given neural network in some computer lab might have a high chance of further development and evolution, perhaps even the rise of a sentient mind. However, that mind does not yet exist. How, therefore, can I harm a non-existent individual?

It makes sense to end the suffering of a human who is brain dead

How can the truly brain dead suffer?

 

[AdminX]

a 17 yr old girl is brutally raped, and subsequently impregnated, by a serial pedophile 43 yr old man. Keep the baby so as not to commit Abortion? Reallyt? Abortion is a bit of a "necessary evil" my friend

 

[Red Flag]

1. Having a brain isn't all there is to it, but it's a pretty big start. When people's brains degrade to a point of non-functionality they lose their rights as human beings.

Why?

And would a hypothetical alien intelligence have any rights, since it wasn't human? What if it had no brain like ours? What is I replaced your brain, bit by bit, with electronics?

They are considered effectively dead in the ways that matter

What ways are those?

Elective abortion after viability is not only illegal

What is this 'viability'? Some infants don't start breathing on their own and are not viable at birth. Old people or people in car crashes or not viable and rely on machines. Dick Cheney relies on an artificial heart and is not viable without this intervention.

90% of abortions take place in the first trimester

Relevance?

If only one can walk away alive, who do we save, the viable fetus or the woman?

Do we save the left or the right twin? How is a doctor ever to decide which of two patients to save?

Comparing this to civil rights is like someone going "anorexian" because after all, even plants can scream.

So women don't have a right to abort?

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury
Civil rights | LII / Legal Information Institute

​

Compare: positive rights
contrast: natural rights


What, then, is all the fuss over states trying to limit abortion?

No, the right to control one's body, life, and sexuality trumps the rights of an unborn child that might not even survive.

You will not survive. You are guaranteed to die. Are all your rights null and void?

Also, we already debunked the claim that a baby is part of her mother's body.

Rights aren't qualified against each other

Oh? So we don't contrast my right to, say, do as I wish with my car with your right to say, not be run down in the middle of the street?

. It is the people who are.

It used to be that way, yeah. White trumped nigger everytime. Most people would generally say we did right by changing that, though.



​

 

[Red Flag]

a 17 yr old girl is brutally raped, and subsequently impregnated, by a serial pedophile 43 yr old man. Keep the baby so as not to commit Abortion? Reallyt? Abortion is a bit of a "necessary evil" my friend

Why would a paedophile want a 17-year-old?

 

[Red Flag]

No, the right to control one's body, life, and sexuality trumps

Wait.

Rights aren't qualified against each other.

Make up your mind.

 

[AdminX]

Why would a paedophile want a 17-year-old?

Are you going to address the point, or evade it with semantics. OK, replace the word "pedophile" with 'criminal'. Now, go....

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

So your approach here is simply to pack your argument with as many fantastical strawmen and intentionally obtuse requests to define basic words so as to bog down my reply?

How we might deal with other sentient lifeforms or sentient machinery is beside the point, diversionary, and has an obvious response, besides. Machines: We'll get there when we get there, or more likely, won't be given a choice, but regardless the EXACT SAME criteria we use for organic organisms can probably be cross-applied in part or in full to machines, as can personhood. Aliens: Unless they want to permanently move here it's irrelevant what we think of them, but again, they would probably meet the same criteria we use presently for organisms.

We have a very clear picture of when a ZFM reaches the state of organism, and that the things which are relevant to personhood reside in the brain.

Viability is just that. It doesn't matter whether they require medical care - a non-viable fetus cannot survive no matter how much medical intervention they are given, period. Why? Because the organs and functions absolutely necessary to an organism are not complete, or may be absent entirely. We can give Dick a ticker, but we'd have a hard time building his entire respiratory system or fitting him with a functional brain.

Since you can't seem to get the answer yourself, I'll give it to you: if it's one or the other, we save the woman. Always. The woman always trumps the fetus.

I'm not sure what your response to my absurdist dietary comparison is trying and failing to say. I think, once again, you have failed to either read of comprehend what I've said.

 

[AdminX]

So your approach here is simply to pack your argument with as many fantastical strawmen and intentionally obtuse requests to define basic words so as to bog down my reply?

How we might deal with other sentient lifeforms or sentient machinery is beside the point, diversionary, and has an obvious response, besides. Machines: We'll get there when we get there, or more likely, won't be given a choice, but regardless the EXACT SAME criteria we use for organic organisms can probably be cross-applied in part or in full to machines, as can personhood. Aliens: Unless they want to permanently move here it's irrelevant what we think of them, but again, they would probably meet the same criteria we use presently for organisms.

We have a very clear picture of when a ZFM reaches the state of organism, and that the things which are relevant to personhood reside in the brain.

Viability is just that. It doesn't matter whether they require medical care - a non-viable fetus cannot survive no matter how much medical intervention they are given, period. Why? Because the organs and functions absolutely necessary to an organism are not complete, or may be absent entirely. We can give Dick a ticker, but we'd have a hard time building his entire respiratory system or fitting him with a functional brain.

Since you can't seem to get the answer yourself, I'll give it to you: if it's one or the other, we save the woman. Always. The woman always trumps the fetus.

I'm not sure what your response to my absurdist dietary comparison is trying and failing to say. I think, once again, you have failed to either read of comprehend what I've said.

I'm sorry but did you say 'organic organisms'. LOL

 

[obvious Child]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

Because your definition renders miscarriages murder.

See how that's not intelligent? Kthxbye.

 

[atrasicarius]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is by definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible act- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When you pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal one or both of the following to be true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You don't understand the subject and have no place in intelligent discussion of the matter.

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position. You have no place in honest discussion.



*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

Looks like I'm not done posting this yet:

 

[atrasicarius]

Does it? A given neural network in some computer lab might have a high chance of further development and evolution, perhaps even the rise of a sentient mind. However, that mind does not yet exist. How, therefore, can I harm a non-existent individual?

You know, that's a good question. Let me think for a moment. Oh right, you can't. Thanks for defeating your own argument. Are we done here?

 

[molten_dragon]

With regards to pro-choice defensibility... there isn't any logic. It is all emotional pandering to feminism at the expense of both the developing human and the man's rights.

This isn't really fair, since I could argue just as easily that the pro-life position is also all emotional pandering to the precious little unborn babies at the expense of the woman's rights.

It's just a simple fact of this issue, it's very emotional for both sides, and it's probably always going to be the case.