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

[Cecilie1200]

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 **** 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

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

The debate is not about whether the fetus is alive, the issue is by what right do you strip a woman of right to determine whether or not to bring this fetus to term. And you’re continually using the murder of the living as a comparison, which is a straw man because they’re aren’t the same thing and you know it.

You’ve lost the argument on every point you’ve posited to this point and this one isn’t going to work either.

When we want to prevent murders, we look at the causes of violence: poverty, lack of opportunity, easy availability of weapons, influence of gangs, lack of protection of vulnerable citizens. Because just making murder illegal doesn’t work.

Where have you suggested doing anything towards looking at the root causes of abortion and making changes in the poverty, lack of health care, lack of job protections for low wage workers, and lack of maternity leave to reduce abortions?

No, that's YOUR issue. As has been pointed out before, YOU are not the only person in this argument, nor do you get to arbitrarily define the debate parameters for both sides solely according to what YOU want to talk about. You and your self-absorbed "No one's concerns matter except what I say can matter!" attitude are the reason this is such a nasty, divisive battle, so congratulations and maybe try to pull your head out of your conviction that your point of view is the only point of view for five seconds.

 

[jc456]

That’s because the goal isn’t to reduce abortions, it’s to shame and humiliate women for “getting caught” as we called it in high school.

actually it's to protect the child.

 

[jc456]

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 **** 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

It’s not a straw man argument to call out your red herrings. The issue is, whether or not it is life. It’s like debating how to lower murder rates without debating whether or not murder is wrong, and instead saying murder is still gonna happen anyway. That’s a pretty good example of a red herring, and that’s exactly what your doing. And in this scenario, you don’t have to agree with all the propositions to reduce murder if you don’t think they’re going to work with evidence backing it up.

The debate is not about whether the fetus is alive, the issue is by what right do you strip a woman of right to determine whether or not to bring this fetus to term. And you’re continually using the murder of the living as a comparison, which is a straw man because they’re aren’t the same thing and you know it.

You’ve lost the argument on every point you’ve posited to this point and this one isn’t going to work either.

When we want to prevent murders, we look at the causes of violence: poverty, lack of opportunity, easy availability of weapons, influence of gangs, lack of protection of vulnerable citizens. Because just making murder illegal doesn’t work.

Where have you suggested doing anything towards looking at the root causes of abortion and making changes in the poverty, lack of health care, lack of job protections for low wage workers, and lack of maternity leave to reduce abortions?

I'll quote Cecilie:

No, that's YOUR issue. As has been pointed out before, YOU are not the only person in this argument, nor do you get to arbitrarily define the debate parameters for both sides solely according to what YOU want to talk about. You and your self-absorbed "No one's concerns matter except what I say can matter!" attitude are the reason this is such a nasty, divisive battle, so congratulations and maybe try to pull your head out of your conviction that your point of view is the only point of view for five seconds.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That’s because the goal isn’t to reduce abortions, it’s to shame and humiliate women for “getting caught” as we called it in high school.

Yeah, you got us. We're spending all that time focusing and talking exclusively about the life of the unborn child just as an invented ruse because we're obsessed with you and your vagina and what you do with it. You have cleverly seen through our pretense to the truth that you and your coochie are the center of the universe!

 

[Cecilie1200]

What else is it if it isn’t a separate living being? There’s no magic going on here, it’s living, it’s human, it’s separate. There’s no magical benchmark of “oh, exactly 22 weeks since conception, it’s now a living separate being.” We all know what happens, well, most should and those who don’t are willfully blind. It meets every threshold of the scientific definition of life. It’s not it’s mother, it’s not a tumor, it’s not an extra bag of skin, it has its own unique DNA. It’s not a fly, it’s not a horse, it’s not a sock, it’s not anything that’s not a human.

Person is an abstract term. What constitutes a “person”? Why are we basing what is and isn’t life on these abstract terms when we’ve had a functioning scientific definition of human life, and life in general, a long ass time ago?

Some argue that until a certain point of development, a fetus is still a part of the mother. At least, that is the impression I have gotten from a number of people in these sorts of arguments.

As far as what is a person, it is important in a Constitutional sense. The Constitution grants various rights and protections to persons, so determining what constitutes a person can be a very important consideration.

I don't want to argue the pros or cons of abortion. I'm trying to limit myself to very specific details; in this case, the idea that the important question is whether a fetus is alive. That is just an over-simplification of the question IMO. I prefer it to be clearer, as I don't think the vast majority of people, regardless of their opinions about abortion, would say that a fetus is made up of anything but living tissue. As I said, the argument would be whether the fetus is separate from the mother, or whether the fetus constitutes a person, and at what time those things occur.

I'm trying to have the question put forth as clearly as possible, I'm not answering the question. Abortion arguments almost inevitably go nowhere.

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"

 

[Montrovant]

Some argue that until a certain point of development, a fetus is still a part of the mother. At least, that is the impression I have gotten from a number of people in these sorts of arguments.

As far as what is a person, it is important in a Constitutional sense. The Constitution grants various rights and protections to persons, so determining what constitutes a person can be a very important consideration.

I don't want to argue the pros or cons of abortion. I'm trying to limit myself to very specific details; in this case, the idea that the important question is whether a fetus is alive. That is just an over-simplification of the question IMO. I prefer it to be clearer, as I don't think the vast majority of people, regardless of their opinions about abortion, would say that a fetus is made up of anything but living tissue. As I said, the argument would be whether the fetus is separate from the mother, or whether the fetus constitutes a person, and at what time those things occur.

I'm trying to have the question put forth as clearly as possible, I'm not answering the question. Abortion arguments almost inevitably go nowhere.

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.

 

[jc456]

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.

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

 

[Cecilie1200]

I’ve already said before in this thread, on your first period, you send a form into government, what BC you want, gets delivered to your door (or procedure paid for) automatically. Then say bye bye to abortion.

The fact that it still will happen doesn’t make it less than a crime. You could say the exact same thing for murder. But it’s not going to be driven underground to a heavy degree at all. Rare cases here and there, for people that can afford it (it’s going to be stupid expensive, this isn’t Botox injections we’re talking about) and still stupid enough to not use BC. That’s a fair compromise, no excuse for abortion (we’ll allow the .00001% cases of incest and rape). Don’t start with the BC failure shit either, we’re talking 99.9% efficacy rates outside of non-chemical IUDs that are still very effective. (which just means legal lingo for covering our ass if you did not use correctly). If you’re worried about condoms breaking, use lube...way easier problem to solve than getting an abortion. Take your pills, get mirena, use a condom, they’re free and delivered to your door when you need them.

That is quite an unhinged rant that completely fails to address the issue that I raised and exposed your delusion that outlawing abortion will end abortion. It is not just about birth control either. To be clear, I am not "pro abortion" I am pro choice. There is a big difference.

My question to you was, and still is : Are you really pro life? Again, these are the questions that I asked which you avoided.

Do you support......

Meaningful and comprehensive sex education
Readily available and affordable birth control
Universal health care'
Affordable Housing
Nutritional programs such as food stamps'
Affordable pre school and day care
A living minimum wage
Laws against discrimination.

This is a test to prove that you are really pro life as opposed to being "pro fetus" like most of you hysterical anti abortion people are.

There’s nothing unhinged about what I said. Whenever you hear this type of ridiculous characterization, like “unhinged”, you know you’re hovering over the target, because someone sound in their beliefs doesn’t have to resort to tactics like that and the rest of your entire deflectionary, red herring response that followed. Your issues are putting the cart, and an entire engineless RV before the horse. Whether or not a fetus is human life takes priority over anything else...because if it is, abortion is killing human life. So, if it is killing, we need to stop it obviously. It’s like not including the people who stopped looking for work, or who work part time hoping for something better into the unemployment numbers (which we still do). You’re not addressing the issue at hand when you do that...except in this case it’s life and death.

I’ll answer your stupid, red herring questions once, then no more. This is the stupidest tactic I’ve ever heard of BTW, calling people who think a fetus is human life pro-death because they don’t 100% agree with Bernie Sanders. Outrageous, and you need to grow up and have an honest conversation for once. Anyway moving on.

Meaningful comprehensive sex education, yes. Where specifically does it fail now? And how would you improve it? I’m open to any suggestions.

Available and affordable BC. I just answered that, this will be me third time now. I’m all for government sending the pill straight to your door or paying for your IUD. All for free. Why you’d have to ask that again is beyond me, unless you don’t really listen, or read, and this is a cookie cutter response. It isn’t like it’s not readily available and un-affordable now. It might be one of the most available and affordable things out there. Coffee might have it beat, but not much else. Any place that sells aspirin (very affordable and available by any metric you want to use) will also sell condoms for cheaper. There’s still vending machines with condoms in ******* bathrooms, that’s pretty damn available. You can go to a pharmacy, any pharmacy, they’re everywhere, and pick up pills for 40 bucks I think. That’ll last you a month and is just about the same cost as using a condom every day. So what exactly is so unaffordable, and unavailable with birth control now?

I’m for universal health care, but that doesn’t mean what I’m guessing you think it means. We should go with the Swiss system, that also happens to be the best in the world, by far. Look it up, I’m sure you’re confusing universal with single payer. Single payer may be fine and dandy for the average person with a cold, or basically anything treatable by a general practitioner, but blows for anyone who needs specialized care. This is why virtually all the countries that have single payer systems, still have private health insurance industries for people who can afford it. If single payer was so wonderful, private insurance obviously would not be needed, and there wouldn’t be a two tier system. At best, socialism is the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Again this is when it is run effectively, with people who truly care. Sounds fine and dandy up until you realize that for the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people (utilitarianism), means that by necessity, you need to overlook the minority. The minority when it comes to healthcare are people who need specialized care. Something that the Swiss and US systems have the absolute best in world of, and something that’s pretty lacking in the countries with single payer systems, although you don’t hear too much complaint because it’s a minority. Moving on

Affordable housing. Even with our stupidly inflated housing prices, we have some of the most affordable housing out there. The average home size in America is 2500 sq ft. Contrast that to Europe, where the average is 900 sq ft. So do you want a government that’s already overextended that adds a trillion in debt a year, to make that an average of 3000 sq ft? They can’t cover the entitlements already in place, but sure let’s just give our children more debt, hopefully we’ll be dead by that time.

Pre school. Women gained the right to have full time jobs, now it’s expected of them to have full time jobs in our economy. They lost the right to stay at home with the kids. That’s the current state of affairs. Good for the 20% of women who want to work full time, really shitty for the other 20% who want to be housewives, and also difficult for the rest of the 60% in between who want to have plenty of family time, but want to work as well. If you want to put the financial burden of full time healthcare for free on everyone, it’s going to be really shitty for 80% of women paying for the 20% who want to work full time and have free daycare.

Food stamps already exist. They’re heavily used as well. Used in a way that suggest we never pulled out of the recession properly.

“Living minimum wage”. Show me an instance where this isn’t a job killer and I’ll be aboard. All that does is create less hires, and raises cost of goods. But yea, an 18 year old fry cook deserves 17$ an hour...no, what they need to do instead is get technical training for things like welding if college isn’t the best option for them. There’s tons of the technical jobs out there, but we send all our kids to college that maybe shouldn’t who’ll either drop out, choose a major for a career that doesn’t exist/disappearing, and then are saddled with debt, and go back to their minimum wage job. This is all a bit more nuanced, and a much more complex problem than a simple solution like “well just give them more money” can fix.

We already have laws against discrimination, so this is another idiotic topic that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or claims that anyone who doesn’t agree with Bernie 100% is pro-death. That’s about as silly as it gets. Can we talk about the real topic that actually involves potentially life and death decisions?

Thank you once again for clearly demonstrating that you are not prolife and in fact bend over backwards to find excuses to trash programs and policies that could and do actually make the lives of children better and encourage women to carry a child to term. ******* hypocrite!!

That’s more of what an “unhinged” response looks like. I laid out my reasons why I don’t agree with all your red herring solutions. Not in a complete way as possible, because I don’t want to spend that much effort on red herrings. You didn’t address any of those reasons, and skipped right on over into I’m a “******* hypocrite”.

What will help women have better lives for them and their children, is to use birth control, and wait to have kids when your ready. It helps if you have a dedicated partner to help out with kids too. That’s whats going to help the most, there’s a shit ton of evidence for that, outside of the obvious that is wait for kids when you’re ready, and two parents are better than one most of the time. Do you hear me calling you a hypocrite because I don’t hear you aspousing those views first? No. Because it’s a stupid and unfair line of reasoning. Just like it’s stupid to believe that government is able to cover for all the irresponsible choices people make in a way that actually addresses the root problem, or in a way that doesn’t cost the US witnin a decade triple the amount of money that’s actually circulating around the globe (that’s coming from Vox btw).

More than half of the women getting abortions are already married or cohabiting with the father in a committed relationship do that argument is also a red herring.

13% of the women profess to be evangelicals and 2/3 profess to be Christian of some denomination or other.

But fully 80% profess to be POOR.

I always love the way you pro-aborts trot out this ridiculous "stat", as though you can just magically combine any two things at random and say, "They're the same thing, so that makes me right!" Shacked up ain't married, and the fact that people like you want to pretend they are is a big contributor to the number of women ending up with unwanted pregnancies, so yay for you and your "sympathy" creating the very problems you want us to believe you're so "caring" about.

You know why people like you insist on lumping these two things together and pretending they're the same? Because that way, you don't have to deal with the reality that 83% or so of all abortions are performed on women who are unmarried, ie. women who are engaging in sex and risking pregnancy when they know perfectly well that they do not want to have a baby. For people who are so vitriolically hate-filled toward the very idea of men having any say in your lives and your reproduction, there is only one word for someone who would meekly hand over that control to some man in exchange for nothing at all: MORON.

Seriously, and this is a woman speaking to you, if you are playing house and giving wifey benefits to some guy who hasn't given you a ring, public vows, and a legal commitment in return, you're a gullible idiot, and I simply cannot understand why any intelligent, self-respecting female - let alone a "feminist" - would trust themselves and their futures to a man like that. Mind you, I like men as a group very much and bear no particular hostility toward them; but I think even they themselves will tell you honestly that they're dogs when it comes to sex, and if they can get a woman to accept, "Sure, baby, I love you, I'm committed to you" in place of an ACTUAL, binding obligation, they'll do it.

Lots of people in the US "profess" to be Christians, religious, spiritual, whatever. Doesn't necessarily make it true. I can name a bunch of people of my own personal acquaintance who call themselves "Jewish" or "Catholic" without believing a single tenet of their professed faith or making any effort to actually practice said faith in any way, simply because of ethnicity or family heritage. I'm not really sure what point you think you're making with this. No one has ever denied that there are bad or false Christians in the world.

According to the National Abortion Federation, slightly over half of women who have abortions are actually low-income.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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?

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

is the fetus live?

 

[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.

is the fetus live?

Yep.

To get around a drawn out process to find out my view of abortion (and again, I'm not particularly interested in arguing the validity of my views), I am in favor of legal abortions up to a certain point. Whether that is the time of viability outside the womb, which I believe is about 21 weeks and onward, or whether some sort of test can be done to determine the degree of brain development and function in the fetus, I don't know, but I believe some sort of cut-off point is necessary.

Hopefully that answers where you seem to be going.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What else is it if it isn’t a separate living being? There’s no magic going on here, it’s living, it’s human, it’s separate. There’s no magical benchmark of “oh, exactly 22 weeks since conception, it’s now a living separate being.” We all know what happens, well, most should and those who don’t are willfully blind. It meets every threshold of the scientific definition of life. It’s not it’s mother, it’s not a tumor, it’s not an extra bag of skin, it has its own unique DNA. It’s not a fly, it’s not a horse, it’s not a sock, it’s not anything that’s not a human.

Person is an abstract term. What constitutes a “person”? Why are we basing what is and isn’t life on these abstract terms when we’ve had a functioning scientific definition of human life, and life in general, a long ass time ago?

Some argue that until a certain point of development, a fetus is still a part of the mother. At least, that is the impression I have gotten from a number of people in these sorts of arguments.

As far as what is a person, it is important in a Constitutional sense. The Constitution grants various rights and protections to persons, so determining what constitutes a person can be a very important consideration.

I don't want to argue the pros or cons of abortion. I'm trying to limit myself to very specific details; in this case, the idea that the important question is whether a fetus is alive. That is just an over-simplification of the question IMO. I prefer it to be clearer, as I don't think the vast majority of people, regardless of their opinions about abortion, would say that a fetus is made up of anything but living tissue. As I said, the argument would be whether the fetus is separate from the mother, or whether the fetus constitutes a person, and at what time those things occur.

I'm trying to have the question put forth as clearly as possible, I'm not answering the question. Abortion arguments almost inevitably go nowhere.

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.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 **** 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

what does a fetus turn into? ameba? A tree? a cockroach? tell us what a human fetus turns into? tick tock.

 

[Montrovant]

Some argue that until a certain point of development, a fetus is still a part of the mother. At least, that is the impression I have gotten from a number of people in these sorts of arguments.

As far as what is a person, it is important in a Constitutional sense. The Constitution grants various rights and protections to persons, so determining what constitutes a person can be a very important consideration.

I don't want to argue the pros or cons of abortion. I'm trying to limit myself to very specific details; in this case, the idea that the important question is whether a fetus is alive. That is just an over-simplification of the question IMO. I prefer it to be clearer, as I don't think the vast majority of people, regardless of their opinions about abortion, would say that a fetus is made up of anything but living tissue. As I said, the argument would be whether the fetus is separate from the mother, or whether the fetus constitutes a person, and at what time those things occur.

I'm trying to have the question put forth as clearly as possible, I'm not answering the question. Abortion arguments almost inevitably go nowhere.

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.

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.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

why would you be asking for others?

 

[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?

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Technically, no, because they already are. They do, however, turn into OLDER humans if you leave them alone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.

 

[LaDexter]

For those who are against abortion, what happens when planet Earth is unable to feed the human population because the human population is too large for Earth to feed it????