A question for pro choice advocates..

[Avatar9]

If it is born and living...it is a life of its own once outside the host.

One toe in the mother? One leg? Crowning? Ten seconds before that? At what moment, exactly, does what actually change, other than the current law as it reads today (which isn't an argument, or you'd have to say spousal rape was okay until it was made legal in the 1970s)?

Why, exactly, is it okay to kill you one second and not the next? Location?

A one month old baby is not 4 week old cells

That's not entirely accurate. Many of the child's cells are actually likely to be around four weeks of age. Some of the red blood cells, for instance, will likely be around that age. Heck, the cells lining your gut don't last a week.

Now what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

 

[Avatar9]

A baby has a life of its own.

Agreed. It has its own biological functions from conception. What;s your point, exactly?

 

[syrenn]

A four-week old human, however, is an other story.

Why do you have to lie about the subject at hand? I mean that as a serious question. If you beleive that killing a human at that point of development is okay, why can't you simply make that argument? Why do you have to dodge the issue and misrepresent what we're talking about?

I do not say that they are not human cells. They are human cells and the cells are alive. They do not however have a " separate life" of their own, nor are they a viable baby.

So? So it's okay to kill the BABY, right?

Its not a baby.

 

[Avatar9]

4 week old cells are living cells...but not a life of their own.

A four-week old human, however, is an other story.

Why do you have to lie about the subject at hand? I mean that as a serious question. If you beleive that killing a human at that point of development is okay, why can't you simply make that argument? Why do you have to dodge the issue and misrepresent what we're talking about?

I do not say that they are not human cells. They are human cells and the cells are alive. They do not however have a " separate life" of their own, nor are they a viable baby.

Nobody is 'viable'. We all die outside our environment, or deprived of nourishment, or with the passage of time, or if the gut flora we depend on fail us... From the moment of our conception, we're moving toward death.

Now what's your point, exactly?

Here, let's start from the beginning. Is it okay to kill you right now because I don't want you to exist? If not, then why not?

 

[Kat]

I do not say that they are not human cells. They are human cells and the cells are alive. They do not however have a " separate life" of their own, nor are they a viable baby.

So? So it's okay to kill the BABY, right?

Its not a baby.

Sure it is. We all are nothing but a bunch of cells. Surely you can do better.

 

[Avatar9]

I do not say that they are not human cells. They are human cells and the cells are alive. They do not however have a " separate life" of their own, nor are they a viable baby.

So? So it's okay to kill the BABY, right?

Its not a baby.

Yes, it is.
WordNet Search - 3.1

One's baby is simply one's offspring. It's also used subjectively to refer to a young creature, with what one considers 'young' being the subjective bit.

 

[syrenn]

A four-week old human, however, is an other story.

Why do you have to lie about the subject at hand? I mean that as a serious question. If you beleive that killing a human at that point of development is okay, why can't you simply make that argument? Why do you have to dodge the issue and misrepresent what we're talking about?

I do not say that they are not human cells. They are human cells and the cells are alive. They do not however have a " separate life" of their own, nor are they a viable baby.

How long has that rationalization been working for ya ?

Just fine thank you very much. Its all about where you personally believe that it is a life. A life of its own. I don't think that it is a life of its own until about 20 weeks old. I do not support late term abortion.

 

[syrenn]

If it is born and living...it is a life of its own once outside the host.

One toe in the mother? One leg? Crowning? Ten seconds before that? At what moment, exactly, does what actually change, other than the current law as it reads today (which isn't an argument, or you'd have to say spousal rape was okay until it was made legal in the 1970s)?

Why, exactly, is it okay to kill you one second and not the next? Location?

A one month old baby is not 4 week old cells

That's not entirely accurate. Many of the child's cells are actually likely to be around four weeks of age. Some of the red blood cells, for instance, will likely be around that age. Heck, the cells lining your gut don't last a week.

Now what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

It changes when it can live on its own outside of a womb. That is the point it has a life of its own.

The subject at hand is if abortion doctors are murders. My answer is no.

 

[Avatar9]

Just fine thank you very much. Its all about where you personally believe that it is a life.

Believe? That's what science is for. Biology, physiology, embryology... We do have the ability to actually answer such questions. In fact, the answers are pretty easy to find. There are people who study this stuff, believe it or not.

 

[syrenn]

So? So it's okay to kill the BABY, right?

Its not a baby.

Sure it is. We all are nothing but a bunch of cells. Surely you can do better.

So...again, C section it out... give the 4 week old cells birth. Problem solved. Its not an abortion, the woman no longer has to carry a pregnancy...and the "baby" is a baby all on its own with a life of its own.

 

[Kat]

Its not a baby.

Sure it is. We all are nothing but a bunch of cells. Surely you can do better.

So...again, C section it out... give the 4 week old cells birth. Problem solved. Its not an abortion, the woman no longer has to carry a pregnancy...and the "baby" is a baby all on its own with a life of its own.

Absurd proposal. Why would one want to do that exactly? If it weren't life, no one would ever even have this conversation.

 

[syrenn]

Sure it is. We all are nothing but a bunch of cells. Surely you can do better.

So...again, C section it out... give the 4 week old cells birth. Problem solved. Its not an abortion, the woman no longer has to carry a pregnancy...and the "baby" is a baby all on its own with a life of its own.

Absurd proposal. Why would one want to do that exactly? If it wasn't life, no one would ever even have this conversation.

The op is asking if abortion is murder. If the issue is abortion... then c section it out. Give it birth. Rather simple. If it lives...it lives.

 

[Avatar9]

It changes when it can live on its own outside of a womb.

That would be never. None of us can live on our own. Remember what I said earlier about if our gut flora fail? We get really sick if that happens, and we die if the balance isn't restored. We also all die if plants stop making oxygen. Also, like the unborn and just about everything known to exist save the water bear, we die in a vacuum- or anywhere else outside our natural environment.

We used to die if certain parts of us died, but now we can keep Dick Cheney alive with no heart and we can almost replace our lungs. At this rate, we might be able to replace our entire bodies within a century and we won't have to be alive at all in order to be able to have this discussion.

Also, if viability as you envision it is the guideline here, then what about when grandma's on a breathalyzer or when grandpa needs kidney dialysis? Or a baby who need to be rushed to the ER after birth? Again, none are viable- does that make it okay to just shoot them in the head and be done with it? Then we have many who never achieve viability. Others have to be robbed of their lives, in terms of their biosynthetic energy and their liberty (time) in order to have the fruits of their labor stolen to support the old, the weak, and the lazy who have no lives of their own, who can't sustain their own existence and who must suck the life and wellbeing of others like parasites in order to continue their existence.

But you never answered the question. Is it okay to kill you right now because i don't want you to exist? If not, why not? And at what exact moment did what , exactly, change that made it no longer okay to do so? Was it when the afterbirth came out? Could I just leave you in a dumpster then or leave you on a table and let you have a life of your own if you were really alive?

 

[Avatar9]

So...again, C section it out... give the 4 week old cells birth. Problem solved. Its not an abortion, the woman no longer has to carry a pregnancy...and the "baby" is a baby all on its own with a life of its own.

Absurd proposal. Why would one want to do that exactly? If it wasn't life, no one would ever even have this conversation.

The op is asking if abortion is murder. If the issue is abortion... then c section it out. Give it birth. Rather simple. If it lives...it lives.

So... what, exactly, is your objection to doing the exact same thing with a newborn or a three-year-old? Just leave it in a dumpster or on a table in the forest and let it have a life of its own. If it lives, it lives, right?.

 

[Kat]

So...again, C section it out... give the 4 week old cells birth. Problem solved. Its not an abortion, the woman no longer has to carry a pregnancy...and the "baby" is a baby all on its own with a life of its own.

Absurd proposal. Why would one want to do that exactly? If it wasn't life, no one would ever even have this conversation.

The op is asking if abortion is murder. If the issue is abortion... then c section it out. Give it birth. Rather simple. If it lives...it lives.

LOL How cute. You think there only way to abortion?

 

[syrenn]

It changes when it can live on its own outside of a womb.

That would be never. None of us can live on our own. Remember what I said earlier about if our gut flora fail? We get really sick if that happens, and we die if the balance isn't restored. We also all die if plants stop making oxygen. Also, like the unborn and just about everything known to exist save the water bear, we die in a vacuum- or anywhere else outside our natural environment.

We used to die if certain parts of us died, but now we can keep Dick Cheney alive with no heart and we can almost replace our lungs. At this rate, we might be able to replace our entire bodies within a century and we won't have to be alive at all in order to be able to have this discussion.

Also, if viability as you envision it is the guideline here, then what about when grandma's on a breathalyzer or when grandpa needs kidney dialysis? Or a baby who need to be rushed to the ER after birth? Again, none are viable- does that make it okay to just shoot them in the head and be done with it? Then we have many who never achieve viability. Others have to be robbed of their lives, in terms of their biosynthetic energy and their liberty (time) in order to have the fruits of their labor stolen to support the old, the weak, and the lazy who have no lives of their own, who can't sustain their own existence and who must suck the life and wellbeing of others like parasites in order to continue their existence.

But you never answered the question. Is it okay to kill you right now because i don't want you to exist? If not, why not? And at what exact moment did what , exactly, change that made it no longer okay to do so? Was it when the afterbirth came out? Could I just leave you in a dumpster then or leave you on a table and let you have a life of your own if you were really alive?

And in all of that lies the abortion issue. Why do you think its such a flammable subject?

I am pro choice. I have no issue with a woman having 100% control over her body.

Therefore to the OP's sad attempt at a metaphor...abortion is not murder.

 

[Kat]

It changes when it can live on its own outside of a womb.

That would be never. None of us can live on our own. Remember what I said earlier about if our gut flora fail? We get really sick if that happens, and we die if the balance isn't restored. We also all die if plants stop making oxygen. Also, like the unborn and just about everything known to exist save the water bear, we die in a vacuum- or anywhere else outside our natural environment.

We used to die if certain parts of us died, but now we can keep Dick Cheney alive with no heart and we can almost replace our lungs. At this rate, we might be able to replace our entire bodies within a century and we won't have to be alive at all in order to be able to have this discussion.

Also, if viability as you envision it is the guideline here, then what about when grandma's on a breathalyzer or when grandpa needs kidney dialysis? Or a baby who need to be rushed to the ER after birth? Again, none are viable- does that make it okay to just shoot them in the head and be done with it? Then we have many who never achieve viability. Others have to be robbed of their lives, in terms of their biosynthetic energy and their liberty (time) in order to have the fruits of their labor stolen to support the old, the weak, and the lazy who have no lives of their own, who can't sustain their own existence and who must suck the life and wellbeing of others like parasites in order to continue their existence.

But you never answered the question. Is it okay to kill you right now because i don't want you to exist? If not, why not? And at what exact moment did what , exactly, change that made it no longer okay to do so? Was it when the afterbirth came out? Could I just leave you in a dumpster then or leave you on a table and let you have a life of your own if you were really alive?

And in all of that lies the abortion issue. Why do you think its such a flammable subject?

I am pro choice. I have no issue with a woman having 100% control over her body.

Therefore to the OP's sad attempt at a metaphor...abortion is not murder.

I am for a woman having 100% control over her body as well. We aren't talking about a woman's body. We are talking about an unborn child. 2 bodies.

 

[Avatar9]

It changes when it can live on its own outside of a womb.

That would be never. None of us can live on our own. Remember what I said earlier about if our gut flora fail? We get really sick if that happens, and we die if the balance isn't restored. We also all die if plants stop making oxygen. Also, like the unborn and just about everything known to exist save the water bear, we die in a vacuum- or anywhere else outside our natural environment.

We used to die if certain parts of us died, but now we can keep Dick Cheney alive with no heart and we can almost replace our lungs. At this rate, we might be able to replace our entire bodies within a century and we won't have to be alive at all in order to be able to have this discussion.

Also, if viability as you envision it is the guideline here, then what about when grandma's on a breathalyzer or when grandpa needs kidney dialysis? Or a baby who need to be rushed to the ER after birth? Again, none are viable- does that make it okay to just shoot them in the head and be done with it? Then we have many who never achieve viability. Others have to be robbed of their lives, in terms of their biosynthetic energy and their liberty (time) in order to have the fruits of their labor stolen to support the old, the weak, and the lazy who have no lives of their own, who can't sustain their own existence and who must suck the life and wellbeing of others like parasites in order to continue their existence.

But you never answered the question. Is it okay to kill you right now because i don't want you to exist? If not, why not? And at what exact moment did what , exactly, change that made it no longer okay to do so? Was it when the afterbirth came out? Could I just leave you in a dumpster then or leave you on a table and let you have a life of your own if you were really alive?

And in all of that lies the abortion issue. Why do you think its such a flammable subject?

I am pro choice. I have no issue with a woman having 100% control over her body.

Even if what she does with it means causing direct harm to another?
So... suicide bombing in the middle of Times Square on New Years eve- her body, her choice? Or does she not have the right to make a choice that means causing direct harm to another?

 

[syrenn]

That would be never. None of us can live on our own. Remember what I said earlier about if our gut flora fail? We get really sick if that happens, and we die if the balance isn't restored. We also all die if plants stop making oxygen. Also, like the unborn and just about everything known to exist save the water bear, we die in a vacuum- or anywhere else outside our natural environment.

We used to die if certain parts of us died, but now we can keep Dick Cheney alive with no heart and we can almost replace our lungs. At this rate, we might be able to replace our entire bodies within a century and we won't have to be alive at all in order to be able to have this discussion.

Also, if viability as you envision it is the guideline here, then what about when grandma's on a breathalyzer or when grandpa needs kidney dialysis? Or a baby who need to be rushed to the ER after birth? Again, none are viable- does that make it okay to just shoot them in the head and be done with it? Then we have many who never achieve viability. Others have to be robbed of their lives, in terms of their biosynthetic energy and their liberty (time) in order to have the fruits of their labor stolen to support the old, the weak, and the lazy who have no lives of their own, who can't sustain their own existence and who must suck the life and wellbeing of others like parasites in order to continue their existence.

But you never answered the question. Is it okay to kill you right now because i don't want you to exist? If not, why not? And at what exact moment did what , exactly, change that made it no longer okay to do so? Was it when the afterbirth came out? Could I just leave you in a dumpster then or leave you on a table and let you have a life of your own if you were really alive?

And in all of that lies the abortion issue. Why do you think its such a flammable subject?

I am pro choice. I have no issue with a woman having 100% control over her body.

Therefore to the OP's sad attempt at a metaphor...abortion is not murder.

I am for a woman having 100% control over her body as well. We aren't talking about a woman's body. We are talking about an unborn child. 2 bodies.

Fine... then separate the bodies and each can go on its own merry way. Each with its own life.

If that is not possible at 4,8,12 weeks... then it is one body.

 

[syrenn]

That would be never. None of us can live on our own. Remember what I said earlier about if our gut flora fail? We get really sick if that happens, and we die if the balance isn't restored. We also all die if plants stop making oxygen. Also, like the unborn and just about everything known to exist save the water bear, we die in a vacuum- or anywhere else outside our natural environment.

We used to die if certain parts of us died, but now we can keep Dick Cheney alive with no heart and we can almost replace our lungs. At this rate, we might be able to replace our entire bodies within a century and we won't have to be alive at all in order to be able to have this discussion.

Also, if viability as you envision it is the guideline here, then what about when grandma's on a breathalyzer or when grandpa needs kidney dialysis? Or a baby who need to be rushed to the ER after birth? Again, none are viable- does that make it okay to just shoot them in the head and be done with it? Then we have many who never achieve viability. Others have to be robbed of their lives, in terms of their biosynthetic energy and their liberty (time) in order to have the fruits of their labor stolen to support the old, the weak, and the lazy who have no lives of their own, who can't sustain their own existence and who must suck the life and wellbeing of others like parasites in order to continue their existence.

But you never answered the question. Is it okay to kill you right now because i don't want you to exist? If not, why not? And at what exact moment did what , exactly, change that made it no longer okay to do so? Was it when the afterbirth came out? Could I just leave you in a dumpster then or leave you on a table and let you have a life of your own if you were really alive?

And in all of that lies the abortion issue. Why do you think its such a flammable subject?

I am pro choice. I have no issue with a woman having 100% control over her body.

Even if what she does with it means causing direct harm to another?
So... suicide bombing in the middle of Times Square on New Years eve- her body, her choice? Or does she not have the right to make a choice that means causing direct harm to another?

Really... C-sections cause harm to a baby? I was under the impression it is a form of birth.