That’s incorrect. It was a state issue prior to Roe v Wade. (Does that mean it gets an upgrade from a good try to a great try?)
With regard to abortion, all that matters is what one says–not what one actually believes? Interesting.
That’s incorrect. It was a state issue prior to Roe v Wade. (Does that mean it gets an upgrade from a good try to a great try?)
With regard to abortion, all that matters is what one says–not what one actually believes? Interesting.
That’s a hell of a question for any “pro-choice” folks who are pro-prohibition-of-prostitution. I would love to hear an answer.
Truth BOMB!!
You can call it what you want. You refer to it as “being” status for a human. Essence of person-hood. Whatever it is you want to call it. I think the easiest most colloquial and honest term is soul. But I’ll call the meta-physical idea whatever you want, because I’m not interested in the semantics. So, when does a human life achieve a state of (in your words) “being”? and what evidence do you have for the existence of this differentiation in being-ness?
Even though BC prevents a human life that will not come to pass (a statement that is scientifically untrue of abortion)?
Okay, so how do you make the claim that abortion prevents a human life when by this statement you admit that it ends one, not prevents it. And since birth control doesn’t bother you, can we both acknowledge that it is that ending (killing) of a human life that bothers you with abortion?
No, since there were no states that legalized abortion at that period in time. Still just a “good” try.
That is not so clever a twist on the fact that the only thing that matters regarding a politician is what he/she says while in power. Not what is dug about them after their death.
.
An adequate response? To that attempted analogy? It’s not worthy of a response. It resembles nothing close to any reality even if you were to grant a ‘many worlds hypothesis’ for it’s basis.
These conversations are often frustrating when people hang on to distorted views of reality with an iron grip.
Inferring that you know that life is human and you just don’t care about it is not a flying leap based on anything you said.
You said you believe the life en-utero is a human life. Abortion is the taking of that human life and you don’t care that a human life is being taken ad hoc. If you are justifying abortion is ok, then you are justifying the taking of a human life. If you are for the taking of innocent human life, ad hoc, then either you don’t care or your sadistic.
You don’t understand that the death penalty is not a major cause of death by any measure in this country and hence, considering the millions of other threats to human life that are far more likely to happen to the average person, and hence is not a high priority with regards to my activism towards it?
It’s not a difficult thing to understand. If it was a larger threat to human life, I would be more active in my protestation. But the numbers of executions is really, really small. That doesn’t justify the taking of the life, it just doesn’t also justify the preponderance of my effort. The focus of my efforts are driven by the numbers because the numbers indicate the level of crisis that it is.
If we get the numbers of abortions a year under that of executions in a year, I will protest every execution with signs, slogans, chants and fury.
The numbers indicate the gravity of a situation. Do you think, for instance, that if the Nazi’s exterminated 20 people a year in their concentration camps, it would have made the news? It doesn’t change the evil of what the camp is, but it does change the level of crisis that it is.
The fact that the number of abortions is hovering around 1 million people a year is an alarmingly high number. As of this moment 59,252,882 people have been terminated via abortion since 1973. That is an entire region of people, exterminated off the Earth, disposed of as trash. This does not bother you? Not even a little?
Also, a little known fact was that Roe v. Wade only made abortion legal up to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
And certainly, having much better scientific evidence now, I think the case can be made for reversing that decision if based on fact alone, without bias or sway.
She’s a remarkable young lady…
Right you are. But like most things the “slippery slop” entered eventually. I am sure that when the Justices voted they didn’t think that one particular party would take it to the extreme of wanting to allow abortion in the 9th month. My gosh what a hideous and evil act.
The further into gestation one goes, the more the POC has a claim to being considered an autonomous individual, and the smaller becomes the gap between the magnitude of the mother’s right to self-determination and the POC’s ‘claim’ to being carried to term.
I’m not sure I follow you here, but I support contraception because it prevents the need for abortion.
I find this characterization simplistic. You seem to think the POC must be viewed as either a clump of cells or a fully-formed human indistinguishable from a born individual. I reject that dichotomy. An abortion does not have to be ‘the killing of a human life’ to be an event worth mourning.
Prior to RvW, 4 states allowed abortion under almost any circumstances, and 14 allowed it under some circumstances. #MakeMyTryGreatAgain
It is a hypothetical, and thus need not ‘resemble reality’ to be worthy of discussion. You are ducking it because you don’t like where it leads.
If you can’t muster an effective response, maybe one of your fellow-travelers will.
How true.
Again, this is the standard word-game people with your viewpoint like to play–call the POC ‘human life,’ then pretend that this label implies/requires that the POC be considered the equivalent of a born individual. It is a ludicrous position. Frankly, I doubt if even you truly believe it. For example, if you did, you would advocate that women who use RU486 be tried for murder–of an ‘innocent’ no less. Thus, it would surely follow that you would advocate for life in prison without possibility of parole for such women, yes? Is that your position?
I understand someone prioritizing what they perceive as the area of greatest need, but that is not what you implied above. You implied that the death penalty was not a moral concern because it is relatively infrequent. That is unfathomable to me. But, you clarified your position above, so thanks for that.
So, POC are now “people.” It is this sort of inflammatory rhetoric that prevents rational discussion of this topic.
Your arguments about “if you woke up . . . .” are all nothing more than hyperboles, none of them will ever happen in the real world. To invent fake hypotheticals justifying your actions proves your position cannot be held in the real world.
Similar to if I told you that I can prove the sky is normally green using a hypothetical, I would be laughed at endlessly. And rightly so. Hypotheicals are just that and nothing more, a hypothetical story.
You never took debate in high school did you? I never did and even I realize an “out in left field” hyperbole has no place in a debate.
Please take a breath in right now. Your body just changed in Size.
As you sleep for a period of time during the next twenty-four hours, your Level of awareness changes.
As you move throughout the world, your Environment changes.
Growing up and into adulthood, your Degree of dependency changed, in fact as you get older you will become more dependent on others.
SLED will help you see how everyone is the same (in a general sense) except these four conditions. The most interesting thing, these exact same four traits can be used to define the differences between us and the unborn.
In fact they are exactly the same, except they depend on the mother to grow. Before you tell me that women have abortions because they don’t want to have the burden of a child, let me tell you two points; first, she partook in an activity known to create life and secondly, nature dictates where the life grows.
Third point; where in the path of gestation does an embryo ever change? From the instant of fertilization the embryo is a 1)whole 2)complete 3)human 4)living 5)being. There is no beginning stage that shows the embryo is less autonomous at the beginning compared to nine-and-a-half months later. If you know where this science exists, please show me.
Fourthly, where does this claim to being carried to term come from? You have answers to questions that were never asked.
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:110, topic:226481”]The further into gestation one goes, the more the POC has a claim to being considered an autonomous individual, and the smaller becomes the gap between the magnitude of the mother’s right to self-determination and the POC’s ‘claim’ to being carried to term.
[/quote]
All forms of birth control, save the barriers like condoms or diaphragms, are abortifacient. In other words, you cannot support birth control and at the same time be against any abortions or vice versa. If you believe me to be wrong, simply prove it.
quote=“EyeDentist, post:110, topic:226481”]
I’m not sure I follow you here, but I support contraception because it prevents the need for abortion.
[/quote]
Oh EyeDentist, I have answered your attempts at stumping me yet you never respond. I doubt you are intimidated by me. I just have a bachelor’s degree and three traumatic brain injuries with an anoxic head injury to finish my development.
But again, your hypothetical is NOT based in reality so it is worthless discussion point.
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:110, topic:226481”]
It is a hypothetical, and thus need not ‘resemble reality’ to be worthy of discussion. You are ducking it because you don’t like where it leads.
If you can’t muster an effective response, maybe one of your fellow-travelers will.[/quote]
Other than traits used in the acronym of SLED, how are the unborn different before and after birth? To follow your line of thought, every woman and doctor who willfully kills a child needs to be held accountable for their actions. In fact before the influx of American money, countries that were pro-LIFE like Chili, Poland and the Philippines did just that. Both parties were held accountable.
The claim Pat made about one million deaths per year in America because of abortion is actually way off. These are the lowest possible numbers and there is no way they are any lower. The numbers are from Pedophile Promoters and not the truth. In addition, they are often late term surgical abortion and not the early term chemical variety.
and
It wasn’t a good analogy. It doesn’t resemble the case of abortion in any way, shape, or form. So I will do the dignified thing and move on.
It’s not a word game! Rhetoric is not the problem here. The problem is that abortion kills a human life. Talking about all this other stuff is just a red herring, meant to distract from the issue at hand.
Is the unborn in a human woman a human life? The answer is 100% crystal clear, backed by science and any other measure you can throw at it. Science seldom is able to prove things beyond the shadow of a doubt, in this case it has. From zygote to death, that creature is a human being.
So what it is, is not in question.
The question is now one of value. All human life, by default has equal value. When you kill a human life for any other reason, other than threat, you place the value of one human life over another.
Your position is that a woman has a right to kill human life, depending on how they feel. My position is that, unless that life is a threat to her own, she does not have the right to kill it.
So as a value proposition:
Child = Mother
Your proposition:
Child < Mother
Abortion on demand is an indefensible position.
Defending that which is not defendable is what prevents rational discussion. Refusing to acknowledge the obvious, prevents rational discussion. Rhetoric is not the problem, bad ideas are the problem.
In what ways did it differ that rendered it so inapt as to be unworthy of discussion?
It follows, then, that if a woman terminates a pregnancy the day after conception and pre-implantation by taking RU486, you would have her charged with first-degree murder and thrown in jail without possibility of parole for the rest of her life. Because per your statement above, there is no moral and/or ethical difference between the actions of this woman and one who deliberately plans and carries out the murder of her two-year-old by shooting him in the head. Is that the position you are staking out here–that those two ‘crimes’ are identical in their depravity, and thus should be treated equally under the law?
Be honest–when you contemplate these two events, do you feel the same sense of revulsion at the prospect of a single-celled ‘human’ being prevented from implanting in the uterus as you do at the thought of someone blowing the brains out of a two year old’s head?
(I sincerely apologize to anyone upset by the language I’m using here, but I think it’s important to draw as starkly as possible the differences between the events under discussion.)
SUFFER THE VIOLINIST: WHY THE PRO‐ABORTION ARGUMENT FROM BODILY AUTONOMY FAILS
by Richard J. Poupard
This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 30, number 4 (2007).
article found here - http://www.equipresources.org/atf/cf/{9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215}/JAA025.pdf
EyeDentist cannot refute the arguments presented in the article.
The day after conception? Wouldn’t you just take plan b, which doesn’t terminate a pregnancy but prevents it?
You’re referring to the day after intercourse, at which time emergent contraception can prevent fertilization. In my comment I was referring to the day after fertilization, specifically with regard to RU486’s effects as a contragestive (an agent that works post-fertilization by preventing implantation, or causing immediate endometrial shedding).
Technically, conception can happen within a few hours. Just getting the details from you. I’m aware of what the abortion pill is, too.
IMO, the relevant details concern the relative moral/ethical standing of a zygote vs that of a 2 year old child, and the legal implications stemming therefrom.