It is certainly true that those who support abortion are monsters...

[Montrovant]

You are arguing with yourself. I haven't said that a fetus is not alive, nor that it is not a separate being. I've pointed out that the question "Is a fetus alive?" is different from the question "Is a fetus a separate living being?", just as it is different from the question "Is a fetus a person?". You may not see a distinction between the question of if a fetus is alive and if a fetus is a separate living being, but it exists. I think a subject as contentious as abortion would be best discussed or argued with very clearly defined points.

The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with the abortion debate? OK....

I can discuss abortion without arguing my position about it. Besides, I'll join in any thread I care to.

Of course personhood is not a scientific term. So what? Do you think the abortion debate is based solely on scientific knowledge?

I'm not trying to make anything about "this, that, and the other thing that allows (me) to slide right on by." I'm pointing out that JC456's comment that "there is but one question, is a fetus alive?" is not the only, or even an especially accurate, question. It's a minor point, but as I said, with an issue this contentious, clearly defined phrasing seems best.

I haven't refused to answer anything. I don't recall you actually asking me if a fetus is alive, but if you've been unable to figure it out from my posts, yes, I readily accept that it is.

My point is why bring in unanswerable philosophical questions, when science has already answered those questions. Not only had it answered those questions, it already provided a solution long ago in the form of birth control.

I also never skipped over the question of is a fetus a separate living being. That answer is yes, because it is nothing else. Parasites don’t suddenly become life once they latch onto a host, even though they may depend on the host for life. They also don’t become one with the host. How is it we definitively apply that simple logic to the likes of tapeworms, but not to our own? Why are we creating a vague abstraction for humans that we don’t apply to the rest of nature. It’s because people don’t want to take responsibilty for the act of reproduction. You may not intend to have a baby. That’s just what happens when two people launch their gametes at eachother, sometimes the guys buckshot hits the girls clay pigeon. You can try to reason or justify that responsibility away, but in doing so we are overlooking cold hard facts here we’ve known for a very long time. Because sex is fun, but sex also requires responsibility. You can’t simply reason that responsibility away, but there are very simple, easy, accessible, effective steps to have the fun without the responsibility.

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

The abortion argument is a moral one, but the morals are based on hard scientific fact.

Also, you might want to NEVER attempt to play Grammar Nazi with someone who's light-years beyond you in English skills. You will only embarrass yourself.

• We use quotation marks with direct quotes, with titles of certain works, to imply alternate meanings, and to write words as words.

Quotation Marks: Rules How to Use Them Correctly

In this case, the first half of the equation was, more or less, a quote from you, and the quotation marks indicate that. The second half of the equation was my translation of your words, and the quotation marks are used to indicate THAT.

Lesson over, no charge.

So when you "more or less" quoted me, were you implying an alternate meaning? Because it certainly presented an alternate meaning from what I actually posted.

If you need to change my words and their meaning to make your point work, your point may not be on solid ground to begin with.

 

[Montrovant]

You are arguing with yourself. I haven't said that a fetus is not alive, nor that it is not a separate being. I've pointed out that the question "Is a fetus alive?" is different from the question "Is a fetus a separate living being?", just as it is different from the question "Is a fetus a person?". You may not see a distinction between the question of if a fetus is alive and if a fetus is a separate living being, but it exists. I think a subject as contentious as abortion would be best discussed or argued with very clearly defined points.

The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with the abortion debate? OK....

I can discuss abortion without arguing my position about it. Besides, I'll join in any thread I care to.

Of course personhood is not a scientific term. So what? Do you think the abortion debate is based solely on scientific knowledge?

I'm not trying to make anything about "this, that, and the other thing that allows (me) to slide right on by." I'm pointing out that JC456's comment that "there is but one question, is a fetus alive?" is not the only, or even an especially accurate, question. It's a minor point, but as I said, with an issue this contentious, clearly defined phrasing seems best.

I haven't refused to answer anything. I don't recall you actually asking me if a fetus is alive, but if you've been unable to figure it out from my posts, yes, I readily accept that it is.

You get that you're not the only pro-abortion person on this thread, right? And certainly not the only pro-abortion person debating this topic in America. When the statement was made that "Is a fetus alive?" was the first, most basic question that it all came down to, it was - brace yourself - NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. Whatever YOU do or don't accept or acknowledge, there are far too many people out there who flatly refuse to even admit this is a question; they want to skip right past it and pretend it doesn't exist.

So perhaps for you, the question that needs to be addressed is, "Why do I think the entire subject is about me?"

You get that I, like you, and everyone else here, am just giving my opinion, right?

You get that it's not your opinion I'm objecting to; it's your assumption that every question asked and point made is about you personally.

Except I have made no such assumption. In fact, a lot of what I've been arguing is about what I see as the views of others.

That you assume I think every question asked is about me personally says much more about you than me.

I will admit to assuming that every post directly quoting me or one of my posts is directed at me, though.

Yeah, you have, in fact, made that assumption. And no, I'm not planning to go back and forth over this endlessly.

Wonderful for you that you are going to decide what I am or are not thinking, then.

 

[Montrovant]

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

A human fetus is a human, just at an early stage of development.

was it made with human sperm and egg? then when you kill it have you killed a human? yes, yes you do.

Is there a final point to this line of questioning?

 

[LaDexter]

Nobody is answering my question.

Simple truth - when the Earth doesn't produce enough food to feed the overpopulated humans, we know who to blame/exterminate for human overpopulation....

RELIGION

 

[jc456]

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

A human fetus is a human, just at an early stage of development.

was it made with human sperm and egg? then when you kill it have you killed a human? yes, yes you do.

Is there a final point to this line of questioning?

I'm educating you on what a human fetus is, a live human.

 

[Montrovant]

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

A human fetus is a human, just at an early stage of development.

was it made with human sperm and egg? then when you kill it have you killed a human? yes, yes you do.

Is there a final point to this line of questioning?

I'm educating you on what a human fetus is, a live human.

I haven't said it is anything else.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thank you for that brilliant, thoughtful and informative commentary. As always, you excel in your boost the level of intellectual discourse to the highest level. We can all learn so much from you. God bless.

Now, perhaps you would like to comment on the issues that I raised that can actually reduce the demand for abortion. Please tell us more about how pro life you are .

Why would I respond to your issues? They’re all excuses not issues. Fetus is alive, you can’t change that no matter how many times you wish to. People are expected to be responsible for themselves correct?

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the fuck did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

And I said personal fking responsibility!

Is a fetus live?

A fetus is alive. So is an ameba. Being alive does not make either a human being. You jackasses keep blathering about abortion being murder, but when children are subjected to inadequate medical care, poor nutrition, and are made to live in squalor, that is also murder...just the slow kind

"Lots of things are alive. Look how clever I am to dismiss a fetus's humanity on the basis that LOTS of non-humans are alive! Just don't ask me to account for the fact that the fetus has all the classifiers of humanity as well, because I'm hoping no one notices while I run past that!"

Moron.

Tell us more about how much you care about that fetus when it actually becomes a human being. Tell us which government programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage others to keep their child. Tell us how pro life you really are or get out of my face.

 

[jc456]

Why would I respond to your issues? They’re all excuses not issues. Fetus is alive, you can’t change that no matter how many times you wish to. People are expected to be responsible for themselves correct?

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the fuck did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

And I said personal fking responsibility!

Is a fetus live?

A fetus is alive. So is an ameba. Being alive does not make either a human being. You jackasses keep blathering about abortion being murder, but when children are subjected to inadequate medical care, poor nutrition, and are made to live in squalor, that is also murder...just the slow kind

"Lots of things are alive. Look how clever I am to dismiss a fetus's humanity on the basis that LOTS of non-humans are alive! Just don't ask me to account for the fact that the fetus has all the classifiers of humanity as well, because I'm hoping no one notices while I run past that!"

Moron.

Tell us more about how much you care about that fetus when it actually becomes a human being. Tell us which government programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage others to keep their child. Tell us how pro life you really are or get out of my face.

there are plenty of parents available for unwanted children. you should read up rather than wish them dead.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My point is why bring in unanswerable philosophical questions, when science has already answered those questions. Not only had it answered those questions, it already provided a solution long ago in the form of birth control.

I also never skipped over the question of is a fetus a separate living being. That answer is yes, because it is nothing else. Parasites don’t suddenly become life once they latch onto a host, even though they may depend on the host for life. They also don’t become one with the host. How is it we definitively apply that simple logic to the likes of tapeworms, but not to our own? Why are we creating a vague abstraction for humans that we don’t apply to the rest of nature. It’s because people don’t want to take responsibilty for the act of reproduction. You may not intend to have a baby. That’s just what happens when two people launch their gametes at eachother, sometimes the guys buckshot hits the girls clay pigeon. You can try to reason or justify that responsibility away, but in doing so we are overlooking cold hard facts here we’ve known for a very long time. Because sex is fun, but sex also requires responsibility. You can’t simply reason that responsibility away, but there are very simple, easy, accessible, effective steps to have the fun without the responsibility.

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

The abortion argument is a moral one, but the morals are based on hard scientific fact.

Also, you might want to NEVER attempt to play Grammar Nazi with someone who's light-years beyond you in English skills. You will only embarrass yourself.

• We use quotation marks with direct quotes, with titles of certain works, to imply alternate meanings, and to write words as words.

Quotation Marks: Rules How to Use Them Correctly

In this case, the first half of the equation was, more or less, a quote from you, and the quotation marks indicate that. The second half of the equation was my translation of your words, and the quotation marks are used to indicate THAT.

Lesson over, no charge.

So when you "more or less" quoted me, were you implying an alternate meaning? Because it certainly presented an alternate meaning from what I actually posted.

If you need to change my words and their meaning to make your point work, your point may not be on solid ground to begin with.

No, the more or less quoting was simply a paraphrase for brevity. And no, that part had EXACTLY the same meaning as what you said.

And since my point was that your assertion was so much bullshit, I fail to see how pointing that out makes a problem for me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You get that you're not the only pro-abortion person on this thread, right? And certainly not the only pro-abortion person debating this topic in America. When the statement was made that "Is a fetus alive?" was the first, most basic question that it all came down to, it was - brace yourself - NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. Whatever YOU do or don't accept or acknowledge, there are far too many people out there who flatly refuse to even admit this is a question; they want to skip right past it and pretend it doesn't exist.

So perhaps for you, the question that needs to be addressed is, "Why do I think the entire subject is about me?"

You get that I, like you, and everyone else here, am just giving my opinion, right?

You get that it's not your opinion I'm objecting to; it's your assumption that every question asked and point made is about you personally.

Except I have made no such assumption. In fact, a lot of what I've been arguing is about what I see as the views of others.

That you assume I think every question asked is about me personally says much more about you than me.

I will admit to assuming that every post directly quoting me or one of my posts is directed at me, though.

Yeah, you have, in fact, made that assumption. And no, I'm not planning to go back and forth over this endlessly.

Wonderful for you that you are going to decide what I am or are not thinking, then.

This just in: saying words actually conveys meanings and communication to other people. Film at 11.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are arguing with yourself. I haven't said that a fetus is not alive, nor that it is not a separate being. I've pointed out that the question "Is a fetus alive?" is different from the question "Is a fetus a separate living being?", just as it is different from the question "Is a fetus a person?". You may not see a distinction between the question of if a fetus is alive and if a fetus is a separate living being, but it exists. I think a subject as contentious as abortion would be best discussed or argued with very clearly defined points.

The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with the abortion debate? OK....

I can discuss abortion without arguing my position about it. Besides, I'll join in any thread I care to.

Of course personhood is not a scientific term. So what? Do you think the abortion debate is based solely on scientific knowledge?

I'm not trying to make anything about "this, that, and the other thing that allows (me) to slide right on by." I'm pointing out that JC456's comment that "there is but one question, is a fetus alive?" is not the only, or even an especially accurate, question. It's a minor point, but as I said, with an issue this contentious, clearly defined phrasing seems best.

I haven't refused to answer anything. I don't recall you actually asking me if a fetus is alive, but if you've been unable to figure it out from my posts, yes, I readily accept that it is.

My point is why bring in unanswerable philosophical questions, when science has already answered those questions. Not only had it answered those questions, it already provided a solution long ago in the form of birth control.

I also never skipped over the question of is a fetus a separate living being. That answer is yes, because it is nothing else. Parasites don’t suddenly become life once they latch onto a host, even though they may depend on the host for life. They also don’t become one with the host. How is it we definitively apply that simple logic to the likes of tapeworms, but not to our own? Why are we creating a vague abstraction for humans that we don’t apply to the rest of nature. It’s because people don’t want to take responsibilty for the act of reproduction. You may not intend to have a baby. That’s just what happens when two people launch their gametes at eachother, sometimes the guys buckshot hits the girls clay pigeon. You can try to reason or justify that responsibility away, but in doing so we are overlooking cold hard facts here we’ve known for a very long time. Because sex is fun, but sex also requires responsibility. You can’t simply reason that responsibility away, but there are very simple, easy, accessible, effective steps to have the fun without the responsibility.

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

It is only a simple question to simple minds. It is not even the right question. The right question is WHEN does it become a human being. There are those who believe sperm are human beings and thereby even the use of condoms is murder . Where do YOU draw the line,??

 

[jc456]

My point is why bring in unanswerable philosophical questions, when science has already answered those questions. Not only had it answered those questions, it already provided a solution long ago in the form of birth control.

I also never skipped over the question of is a fetus a separate living being. That answer is yes, because it is nothing else. Parasites don’t suddenly become life once they latch onto a host, even though they may depend on the host for life. They also don’t become one with the host. How is it we definitively apply that simple logic to the likes of tapeworms, but not to our own? Why are we creating a vague abstraction for humans that we don’t apply to the rest of nature. It’s because people don’t want to take responsibilty for the act of reproduction. You may not intend to have a baby. That’s just what happens when two people launch their gametes at eachother, sometimes the guys buckshot hits the girls clay pigeon. You can try to reason or justify that responsibility away, but in doing so we are overlooking cold hard facts here we’ve known for a very long time. Because sex is fun, but sex also requires responsibility. You can’t simply reason that responsibility away, but there are very simple, easy, accessible, effective steps to have the fun without the responsibility.

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

It is only a simple question to simple minds. It is not even the right question. The right question is WHEN does it become a human being. There are those who believe sperm are human beings and thereby even the use of condoms is murder . Where do YOU draw the line,??

it's always a human being. what else is a human fetus going to become?

Hence the word 'human'

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the fuck did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

And I said personal fking responsibility!

Is a fetus live?

A fetus is alive. So is an ameba. Being alive does not make either a human being. You jackasses keep blathering about abortion being murder, but when children are subjected to inadequate medical care, poor nutrition, and are made to live in squalor, that is also murder...just the slow kind

"Lots of things are alive. Look how clever I am to dismiss a fetus's humanity on the basis that LOTS of non-humans are alive! Just don't ask me to account for the fact that the fetus has all the classifiers of humanity as well, because I'm hoping no one notices while I run past that!"

Moron.

Tell us more about how much you care about that fetus when it actually becomes a human being. Tell us which government programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage others to keep their child. Tell us how pro life you really are or get out of my face.

there are plenty of parents available for unwanted children. you should read up rather than wish them dead.

Horseshit!! I was in the adoption business and you have no fucking idea what the fuck your you're talking about.

 

[jc456]

And I said personal fking responsibility!

Is a fetus live?

A fetus is alive. So is an ameba. Being alive does not make either a human being. You jackasses keep blathering about abortion being murder, but when children are subjected to inadequate medical care, poor nutrition, and are made to live in squalor, that is also murder...just the slow kind

"Lots of things are alive. Look how clever I am to dismiss a fetus's humanity on the basis that LOTS of non-humans are alive! Just don't ask me to account for the fact that the fetus has all the classifiers of humanity as well, because I'm hoping no one notices while I run past that!"

Moron.

Tell us more about how much you care about that fetus when it actually becomes a human being. Tell us which government programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage others to keep their child. Tell us how pro life you really are or get out of my face.

there are plenty of parents available for unwanted children. you should read up rather than wish them dead.

Horseshit!! I was in the adoption business and you have no fucking idea what the fuck your you're talking about.

for babies you bet you there are. fk dude, people make money being surrogates to get people kids.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would I respond to your issues? They’re all excuses not issues. Fetus is alive, you can’t change that no matter how many times you wish to. People are expected to be responsible for themselves correct?

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the fuck did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

And I said personal fking responsibility!

Is a fetus live?

A fetus is alive. So is an ameba. Being alive does not make either a human being. You jackasses keep blathering about abortion being murder, but when children are subjected to inadequate medical care, poor nutrition, and are made to live in squalor, that is also murder...just the slow kind

"Lots of things are alive. Look how clever I am to dismiss a fetus's humanity on the basis that LOTS of non-humans are alive! Just don't ask me to account for the fact that the fetus has all the classifiers of humanity as well, because I'm hoping no one notices while I run past that!"

Moron.

Tell us more about how much you care about that fetus when it actually becomes a human being. Tell us which government programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage others to keep their child. Tell us how pro life you really are or get out of my face.

I care enough to allow him to live, rather than killing him and tossing him out with the trash. When you can say that, THEN you have enough humanity to start to THINK about challenging me on moral grounds, asshat. Until then, take your "evil is actually good", George Orwell Newspeak bullshit and get out of MY face.

Don't even get me started on "If you don't support big government, you don't care!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you just playing stupid games or do you really believe your own bullshit. Do you know what a straw man argument is...?? You just used that logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to me that I didn't make , and then refute it to claim victory. Where the fuck did I ever say that a fetus is not alive. ?

All of the things that I listed are in fact issue that can be used to reduce the need for abortion. That is my point that you refuse to deal with, but instead, keep bleating about the evils of abortion If you had any decency and intelligence, you would embrace them all. Apparently you have neither

And I said personal fking responsibility!

Is a fetus live?

A fetus is alive. So is an ameba. Being alive does not make either a human being. You jackasses keep blathering about abortion being murder, but when children are subjected to inadequate medical care, poor nutrition, and are made to live in squalor, that is also murder...just the slow kind

"Lots of things are alive. Look how clever I am to dismiss a fetus's humanity on the basis that LOTS of non-humans are alive! Just don't ask me to account for the fact that the fetus has all the classifiers of humanity as well, because I'm hoping no one notices while I run past that!"

Moron.

Tell us more about how much you care about that fetus when it actually becomes a human being. Tell us which government programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage others to keep their child. Tell us how pro life you really are or get out of my face.

there are plenty of parents available for unwanted children. you should read up rather than wish them dead.

True. REAL compassion would be working to make it easier for good parents to adopt in THIS country, instead of having to go overseas in order to adopt while they're still young and without going broke in the process.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My point is why bring in unanswerable philosophical questions, when science has already answered those questions. Not only had it answered those questions, it already provided a solution long ago in the form of birth control.

I also never skipped over the question of is a fetus a separate living being. That answer is yes, because it is nothing else. Parasites don’t suddenly become life once they latch onto a host, even though they may depend on the host for life. They also don’t become one with the host. How is it we definitively apply that simple logic to the likes of tapeworms, but not to our own? Why are we creating a vague abstraction for humans that we don’t apply to the rest of nature. It’s because people don’t want to take responsibilty for the act of reproduction. You may not intend to have a baby. That’s just what happens when two people launch their gametes at eachother, sometimes the guys buckshot hits the girls clay pigeon. You can try to reason or justify that responsibility away, but in doing so we are overlooking cold hard facts here we’ve known for a very long time. Because sex is fun, but sex also requires responsibility. You can’t simply reason that responsibility away, but there are very simple, easy, accessible, effective steps to have the fun without the responsibility.

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

It is only a simple question to simple minds. It is not even the right question. The right question is WHEN does it become a human being. There are those who believe sperm are human beings and thereby even the use of condoms is murder . Where do YOU draw the line,??

No, THAT is only the "right question" to someone who is so biologically illiterate that he shouldn't even be discussing serious issues where other people might hear him.

No one believes sperm are human beings, you imbecile, and no one believes condoms are murder. The closest we can come to someone that stupid is - Surprise! - you and your ilk, with your constant failures at cleverness by trying to pretend fetuses are no different from sperm.

Please stop projecting your mouthbreathing ignorance onto the rest of us, Jethro. It makes me feel like I need to shower.

 

[sakinago]

Hello...

The planet already has too many humans.

The Bible Thumper "plan" for that is to fill the planet with unwanted kids so that they can be exterminated to get the Earth's human population down to a manageable level...

PRO DEATH

If you aren't pro death now, you will be soon....

Thanks for giving us your honest opinion. Read Enlightenment Now, by Stephen Pinker (A progressive Harvard Psychologist), or get the cliff notes version if that’s too much for you. Then see how you’re “final solution” mindset holds up to reality.

 

[sakinago]

Anyone who argues that a fetus is still part of his mother at ANY point is decades out-of-date scientifically, and should educate himself.

The Constitution doesn't actually have a damned thing to do with this, and never did. The REAL Constitution, that is, not the invented "living" Constitution that sprouts new "emanations" and "penumbras" every time you turn your back on it.

Why are you in a thread about abortion if you don't want to discuss the topic of abortion?

The question of whether or not a fetus is alive is not an over-simplification. It's the basic starting point that has to be established and acknowledged before you can discuss anything else. Abortion advocates always want to gloss past it so they don't ever have to state right out that they were wrong/lying on this subject since forever. Trying to "be clearer" without definitively answering that first question is nothing more than trying to AVOID that question and change the subject. I mean, look at you. You're trying to make it about this, that, and the other thing that allows you to slide right on by that fundamental question.

But okay, I can also answer all your other issues. A fetus is made up of living tissue, but that's a deflection, because "living tissue" is not the point. He is made up of living tissue, because he IS A LIVING ORGANISM, separate and distinct from all other living organisms, and all living organisms are made up - by definition - of living tissue. I am, you are, presumably even Cecile Richards is.

Not only is a fetus a living organism, distinct from the OTHER living organism which is his mother, he is a separate living organism from the moment of conception. There is no other point in time to which you can point with any level of scientific evidence and accuracy and say, "There. That is the moment when he became a separate organism, because XYZ."

"Personhood" is a bullshit, made-up concept which has no basis in scientific, medical fact. It is all about "feelz". There are hyper-emotional, hypo-intelligent dunderheads out there who will insist, with great passion, that their pets are "people". I can tell you that all three of my children were persons the whole time I carried them in my uterus, and with just as much conviction - although probably NOT the same level of desperation - as a woman heading into a Planned Parenthood will insist that her unborn offspring is NOT a person. Unless you have a scientific definition of "person", it all gets us exactly nowhere useful.

Abortion arguments almost inevitably go nowhere because, like you, people refuse to answer the question so we can move forward on the same, settled footing together.

You are arguing with yourself. I haven't said that a fetus is not alive, nor that it is not a separate being. I've pointed out that the question "Is a fetus alive?" is different from the question "Is a fetus a separate living being?", just as it is different from the question "Is a fetus a person?". You may not see a distinction between the question of if a fetus is alive and if a fetus is a separate living being, but it exists. I think a subject as contentious as abortion would be best discussed or argued with very clearly defined points.

The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with the abortion debate? OK....

I can discuss abortion without arguing my position about it. Besides, I'll join in any thread I care to.

Of course personhood is not a scientific term. So what? Do you think the abortion debate is based solely on scientific knowledge?

I'm not trying to make anything about "this, that, and the other thing that allows (me) to slide right on by." I'm pointing out that JC456's comment that "there is but one question, is a fetus alive?" is not the only, or even an especially accurate, question. It's a minor point, but as I said, with an issue this contentious, clearly defined phrasing seems best.

I haven't refused to answer anything. I don't recall you actually asking me if a fetus is alive, but if you've been unable to figure it out from my posts, yes, I readily accept that it is.

My point is why bring in unanswerable philosophical questions, when science has already answered those questions. Not only had it answered those questions, it already provided a solution long ago in the form of birth control.

I also never skipped over the question of is a fetus a separate living being. That answer is yes, because it is nothing else. Parasites don’t suddenly become life once they latch onto a host, even though they may depend on the host for life. They also don’t become one with the host. How is it we definitively apply that simple logic to the likes of tapeworms, but not to our own? Why are we creating a vague abstraction for humans that we don’t apply to the rest of nature. It’s because people don’t want to take responsibilty for the act of reproduction. You may not intend to have a baby. That’s just what happens when two people launch their gametes at eachother, sometimes the guys buckshot hits the girls clay pigeon. You can try to reason or justify that responsibility away, but in doing so we are overlooking cold hard facts here we’ve known for a very long time. Because sex is fun, but sex also requires responsibility. You can’t simply reason that responsibility away, but there are very simple, easy, accessible, effective steps to have the fun without the responsibility.

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

No, there’s a moral aspect to it, this was never a claim as has been stated many times. “Philosophy” has to rely on reality, and we use science to understand reality. If philosophy isn’t based in reality, it is useless. It’d be like writing a computer code, you can write whatever code you want, but it has to be a workable code or it’ll crash the system. So, one could philosophize that nihilism is the way to go, because nothing matters and there is no “moral truth”. But if one actually puts nihilism into practice (almost all nihilist do not even go a tiny degree) their life, relationships, careers, whatever, spiral out of control (because at the very least, one must still behave in manner where things have meaning, or that there is right and wrong, even if they don’t believe that).

So, what good is it for philosophy to ignore what science (a.k.a reality) is telling them and not build off of that? Why are you looking for a computer code that’s just going to crash the system? Or in other words, my original question, why is it we are looking to philosophy to abstractly and non-concretely answer questions that science has already provided us?

 

[sakinago]

Nobody is answering my question.

Simple truth - when the Earth doesn't produce enough food to feed the overpopulated humans, we know who to blame/exterminate for human overpopulation....

RELIGION

Yea, your question isn’t based in reality. Enlightenment Now, Steven Pinker, order it on amazon. Stop bugging us until then.