Let us argue about abortion

[NYcarbineer]

Do computers think? How about dung beetles? Define thinking so I can prove you wrong, if I try to do it before you are pinned down you will pretend you weren't saying that thinking is thinking.

The poster said that the DNA in a zygote thinks it's human. Prove it, since you're defending that statement.

Once again, Dawkins, the great scientist every uneducated evolutionist in the world can quote, agrees.

Well, he may have any number of opinions. For you to say so does not constitute proof or even evidence.

 

[koshergrl]

What have the pro abortion crowd at Slate been worrying about lately? They have decided to admit the pro life crowd is right, and declare that it doesn't matter if abortion is murder because the babies aren't important.

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

So what if abortion ends life? - Salon.com

a plant has life. a fetus is not a fully developed human being. it's not fully human. and that is a fact no one likes mentioning in an emotional argument.

we all like to thing of a fetus as a child...well the day a fetus has the same protected rights as living people in America, Big Brother will become the oppressor of women

Wrong. That's not a fact. It is FULLY human, at a particular stage of development, as you JUST SAID. Certain developmental stages aren't more or less human. Just as a child is fully human, a parapalegic is fully human, and your grandparents were fully human.

An embryonic horse is fully a horse...at the embryonic stage. I find it interesting that the only animal that is attributed different percentages of being is human. And that's because, in fact, we AREN'T something different when we are at different stages. We're still what we are. So kindly stop spreading that particular lie, it makes you look more ridiculous than usual.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That would be half the people that responded to this thread.

35 people have responded to this thread. Name the 17 who've insisted that a human fetus is not a human fetus.

Since you counted them you already know who they are.

So your answer is 'I can't'. You probably shouldn't have originally claimed you could.

Kind of makes you look like an ass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't have to.

You do if you agree with her that they are using it.

Give me any example in case law where someone's right to exercise their free will was denied them solely on the grounds that they could not prove it was an exercise of free will.

Apparently the above wackiness from the Windbag is not supported by any credible evidence.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

What have the pro abortion crowd at Slate been worrying about lately? They have decided to admit the pro life crowd is right, and declare that it doesn't matter if abortion is murder because the babies aren't important.



So what if abortion ends life? - Salon.com

a plant has life. a fetus is not a fully developed human being. it's not fully human. and that is a fact no one likes mentioning in an emotional argument.

we all like to thing of a fetus as a child...well the day a fetus has the same protected rights as living people in America, Big Brother will become the oppressor of women

Wrong. That's not a fact. It is FULLY human, at a particular stage of development, as you JUST SAID. Certain developmental stages aren't more or less human. Just as a child is fully human, a parapalegic is fully human, and your grandparents were fully human.

An embryonic horse is fully a horse...at the embryonic stage. I find it interesting that the only animal that is attributed different percentages of being is human. And that's because, in fact, we AREN'T something different when we are at different stages. We're still what we are. So kindly stop spreading that particular lie, it makes you look more ridiculous than usual.

actually, dummy, we are not always human in the womb. there are plenty of times in the gestational period of many animals in the early stages where a chromosome flipped one way or the other could make the difference in what it ends up being. i know that in your world science is a liberal conspiracy, but to those of us not living inside jesus' ballsack, we know the truth.

i'm sure this is wayyyyyy above your pay grade, but in case any of it happens to seep through your tin foil hat into your fundie brain.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8]Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Antares]

Good god, NOT IN HUMANS you moron.

a plant has life. a fetus is not a fully developed human being. it's not fully human. and that is a fact no one likes mentioning in an emotional argument.

we all like to thing of a fetus as a child...well the day a fetus has the same protected rights as living people in America, Big Brother will become the oppressor of women

Wrong. That's not a fact. It is FULLY human, at a particular stage of development, as you JUST SAID. Certain developmental stages aren't more or less human. Just as a child is fully human, a parapalegic is fully human, and your grandparents were fully human.

An embryonic horse is fully a horse...at the embryonic stage. I find it interesting that the only animal that is attributed different percentages of being is human. And that's because, in fact, we AREN'T something different when we are at different stages. We're still what we are. So kindly stop spreading that particular lie, it makes you look more ridiculous than usual.

actually, dummy, we are not always human in the womb. there are plenty of times in the gestational period of many animals in the early stages where a chromosome flipped one way or the other could make the difference in what it ends up being. i know that in your world science is a liberal conspiracy, but to those of us not living inside jesus' ballsack, we know the truth.

i'm sure this is wayyyyyy above your pay grade, but in case any of it happens to seep through your tin foil hat into your fundie brain.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8]Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken - YouTube[/ame]

 

[koshergrl]

a plant has life. a fetus is not a fully developed human being. it's not fully human. and that is a fact no one likes mentioning in an emotional argument.

we all like to thing of a fetus as a child...well the day a fetus has the same protected rights as living people in America, Big Brother will become the oppressor of women

Wrong. That's not a fact. It is FULLY human, at a particular stage of development, as you JUST SAID. Certain developmental stages aren't more or less human. Just as a child is fully human, a parapalegic is fully human, and your grandparents were fully human.

An embryonic horse is fully a horse...at the embryonic stage. I find it interesting that the only animal that is attributed different percentages of being is human. And that's because, in fact, we AREN'T something different when we are at different stages. We're still what we are. So kindly stop spreading that particular lie, it makes you look more ridiculous than usual.

actually, dummy, we are not always human in the womb. there are plenty of times in the gestational period of many animals in the early stages where a chromosome flipped one way or the other could make the difference in what it ends up being. i know that in your world science is a liberal conspiracy, but to those of us not living inside jesus' ballsack, we know the truth.

i'm sure this is wayyyyyy above your pay grade, but in case any of it happens to seep through your tin foil hat into your fundie brain.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8"]Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken - YouTube[/ame]

So you're saying our dna changes back and forth between different types of animals during gestation?

Why don't you link the studies to that, skippy. I find it immensely amusing you think I'm a dummy. Please cite and link an instance when an embryo developing in a woman's uterus spontaneously "flips" into something besides a human.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The poster said that the DNA in a zygote thinks it's human. Prove it, since you're defending that statement.

Once again, Dawkins, the great scientist every uneducated evolutionist in the world can quote, agrees.

Well, he may have any number of opinions. For you to say so does not constitute proof or even evidence.

Never said it did, I am still waiting for you to define thinking so I can prove that DNA thinks using your definition.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You do if you agree with her that they are using it.

Give me any example in case law where someone's right to exercise their free will was denied them solely on the grounds that they could not prove it was an exercise of free will.

Apparently the above wackiness from the Windbag is not supported by any credible evidence.

You, obviously, don't know what credible means.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

Wrong. That's not a fact. It is FULLY human, at a particular stage of development, as you JUST SAID. Certain developmental stages aren't more or less human. Just as a child is fully human, a parapalegic is fully human, and your grandparents were fully human.

An embryonic horse is fully a horse...at the embryonic stage. I find it interesting that the only animal that is attributed different percentages of being is human. And that's because, in fact, we AREN'T something different when we are at different stages. We're still what we are. So kindly stop spreading that particular lie, it makes you look more ridiculous than usual.

actually, dummy, we are not always human in the womb. there are plenty of times in the gestational period of many animals in the early stages where a chromosome flipped one way or the other could make the difference in what it ends up being. i know that in your world science is a liberal conspiracy, but to those of us not living inside jesus' ballsack, we know the truth.

i'm sure this is wayyyyyy above your pay grade, but in case any of it happens to seep through your tin foil hat into your fundie brain.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8"]Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken - YouTube[/ame]

So you're saying our dna changes back and forth between different types of animals during gestation?

Why don't you link the studies to that, skippy. I find it immensely amusing you think I'm a dummy. Please cite and link an instance when an embryo developing in a woman's uterus spontaneously "flips" into something besides a human.

my mistake. i misunderstood entirely what you were saying. and my link isn't germane therefore. see how that works? we own up to ******* shit up. no biggie.

anyway, call it a zygote, call it fred, i don't give a ****. no one is a murderer for getting an abortion before the fetus can live outside the mother's body. the only people who think that are backwards religious people. and frankly, who gives a **** what they think. they believe in santa claus in the sky.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why is it that the ones who say they are anti-abortion are also pro-war and pro-death penalty.

Why are anti-abortion folks so against drones that kill so few but are in favor of the incredibly, mind numbing HUGE death rates from the Bush wars?

And as we've all seen, the anti-abortion folks seem to despise children who are already here.

Until they care equally for all life, I don't see any reason to listen to their rants.

JMO

Besides, abortion is LEGAL so there's nothing to talk about.

Why is it you keep asking me why I support the death penalty when even jillian knows I don't?

Why is it you keep asking me why I support wars when you are the one that supports them?

Why do you support drones that kill children simply because Obama is in office?

As we have all seen, dudddlydowrong is a complete idiot.

Please point out where I addressed you.

Thank you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why is it that the ones who say they are anti-abortion are also pro-war and pro-death penalty.

Why are anti-abortion folks so against drones that kill so few but are in favor of the incredibly, mind numbing HUGE death rates from the Bush wars?

And as we've all seen, the anti-abortion folks seem to despise children who are already here.

Until they care equally for all life, I don't see any reason to listen to their rants.

JMO

Besides, abortion is LEGAL so there's nothing to talk about.

Why is it you keep asking me why I support the death penalty when even jillian knows I don't?

Why is it you keep asking me why I support wars when you are the one that supports them?

Why do you support drones that kill children simply because Obama is in office?

As we have all seen, dudddlydowrong is a complete idiot.

Please point out where I addressed you.

Thank you.

This thread was started by me.

You responded to this thread.

Ergo, you responded to me.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What, other than raw material, is needed for a human zygote to grow into a human being? By the way, it is actually possible for a trained individual to distinguish between the zygote of a dog and that of a monkey, yhe fact that I, personally, can not do so is irrelevant. Additionally, this thread is about induced abortions, not natural processes. Stop pretending they are equivalent.

Nothing more is needed. Just the zygote, nutrients, and right environment. And yet you still avoided the question as to whether you think a nut is a tree. Here let's try again, hoping you won't avoid even more things that demolish your claim:

Is this a tree? I'll give you a hint at the answers. It's either yes, or no.

As for the zygotes, you'd need to run their DNA to be able to differentiate the two. Neither you nor any fictitious "trained individual" you just made up can do so otherwise, as they appear exactly the same.

Additionally, this thread is about abortions and the loss of a fetus. Making an arbitrary line in the sand to claim things that work against your stance "don't count" is about as mature as shoving your fingers in your ears. One in four embryos are lost naturally. Do you find that to be the death of a human being?

 

[ZimothyTahn]

What, other than raw material, is needed for a human zygote to grow into a human being? By the way, it is actually possible for a trained individual to distinguish between the zygote of a dog and that of a monkey, yhe fact that I, personally, can not do so is irrelevant. Additionally, this thread is about induced abortions, not natural processes. Stop pretending they are equivalent.

Nothing more is needed. Just the zygote, nutrients, and right environment. And yet you still avoided the question as to whether you think a nut is a tree. Here let's try again, hoping you won't avoid even more things that demolish your claim:

Is this a tree? I'll give you a hint at the answers. It's either yes, or no.

As for the zygotes, you'd need to run their DNA to be able to differentiate the two. Neither you nor any fictitious "trained individual" you just made up can do so otherwise, as they appear exactly the same.

Additionally, this thread is about abortions and the loss of a fetus. Making an arbitrary line in the sand to claim things that work against your stance "don't count" is about as mature as shoving your fingers in your ears. One in four embryos are lost naturally. Do you find that to be the death of a human being?

i could full-mouth kiss you for that! brilliantly stated sir/maddam/you!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What makes a fetus that the mother decides to abort at, say, 25 weeks different from a premature baby born at the same time? The only real difference, other than the mother being selfish, is one of location, not science, since babies as young as 22 weeks have proven themselves viable.

Possibility of something happening in a one in 6 billion rate does not make for decent politics. Gather all the information on 22 week old births. Note how ridiculously rare they are. Note how all of them have terrible health problems. Note how "viability" is reliant on the full extent of every artificial life support measure we have.

Translation, "thinking makes my head hurt, don't ask me hard questions."

This thread is not about political options, it is about abortion itself. I am not advocating political options here, I am challenging you to argue about the issue. As of yet, all you can do is argue about semantics and laws.

What, specifically, is different about the child inside a mother who wants an abortion from one inside one who doesn't? Provide scientific evidence to support your position.

Straw hominem: using the word "translation" to make up stances that have nothing to do with what's been said or hold any point of their own. Intelligence level: 2nd grade hick.

I answered your question quite directly, in that you can select whatever line in the sand you'd like, but it's still a line in the sand regardless of 25 weeks or 22 weeks. I assumed you were smart enough to expand my use of the term "decent politics" to DECISION MAKING, but I assume too much about you, as usual. But to dumb it down for you, the difference is irrelevant. If you want to claim viability ought to be at 22 weeks, you're just moving the line in the sand. But it still exists, which tends to make your question moot.

What is the underlying argument, other than you are right and I am wrong?

Good use of asking a question. I'm glad you're finally coming around. But the underlying argument is that the above line in the sand is based on an actual development, in that fetal viability is an appropriate state to deem a physiologic change towards becoming a developed human fetus, whereas conception is not. In fact conception is rather arbitrary from an anatomy, physiology, viability, and developmental perspective. The ONLY change at conception is a genetic one, but both sperm and egg are human cells, as is a zygote.

I did not answer because the question is irrelevant, we are not talking about plants here, we are talking about humans. For one thing, I eat plants, but I have never eaten a human being.

Your mixed metaphors always amuse me. But what you are claiming is that the possible development into a human is equivalent to being a human, when such is not true. It is effortless to prove this concept when applying it to, well, anything else. Is an acorn a tree even though it will one day become a tree? You avoid the answer because you know it is NO. So why do you believe the zygote of other living things are equivalent to the "hatched" form? You see unlike you who makes incompatible comparisons like fetuses to computers, likening an umbilical cord to a power cord, or likening humans to parasites, my comparisons can usually be broken down into distinct common aspects. In this case the point is simple: zygotes of higher order species are not an independent member of that species, but rather contain the potential to develop into such a role.

The fact that we even talk about fetuses using the term "potential" should tip you off. Are you aware of the definition? "possible, as opposed to actual". A fetus has the potential to become a human. It is not actually a human.

You don't know what babies do? Perhaps that is the root of the problem, you should come back when you understand that part.

Hey you asked if you would tell someone if a fetus wasn't really a baby. Except it's not really a baby. It's a fetus. This the terminology difference. Don't get all hurt and avoid the actual point because I sarcastically used the term "I dunno" in a sentence.

Do I believe humans are symbiotic organisms? Considering that we absolutely cannot survive without intestinal organisms that help us digest food I would have to say yes. That comes with the caveat that I know very little about biology, so could be wrong.

If you claim humans absolutely cannot survive without intestinal organisms, and fetuses do not have intestinal organisms, it's safe to conclude you just shot your own argument in the foot in that you made the case that a fetus is not a human because it has no intestinal organisms. Unfortunately the only correct part of that quote was you knowing very little about biology, because that's not the case. I won't give you too much crap here because you honestly admitted your limits, which I appreciate. But we can actually kill off all the bacteria in our gut with antibiotics and keep going. Regardless, humans are definitely not parasites. Well, most of us.

Unlike you, I don't claim to be perfect, I meant embryonic sac.

Nice to see that, despite your superior intelligence, you don't actually have an answer to my question though.

As to what I can only interpret to be your intended question, there are a number of physiologic changes that occur

Those sound mechanical, not something that magically happens to change a non human into a human. What makes a baby not alive simply because you refuse to accept it is alive?

I don't claim to be perfect my dear hick. I only claim to be smarter than you. As for not having an answer to your question, you did see that the very next line I wrote was addressing what I thought was your intended question, right? You may want to read the full post, or at least the following paragraphs, before claiming I'm ignoring your point.

Do you believe something SHOULD magically happen to change a non human into a human? Perhaps that's the difference in our perspectives: you believe a human comes into being because of magic. And I do believe babies are alive, being the things that exist after birth. We've gone over this. A fetus is living tissue, non-viable as a baby for the majority of pregnancy.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

My issue isn't with abortion, while I believe it should be limited thats not my call...SCOTUS says its legal.

My issue is with all you pro-choice cowards who hide behind euphemistic language to make yourselves "feel" better about killing human children.

Really? Because it seems like your issue is with abortion. It sounds like you're just misdirecting your problem with abortion to word choice. You do realize you said your whole problem is a childish wording issue, right? Speaking of word choice problems:

I know it helps not to call them human.

The fact that people like you need to hide behind these euphemisms simply means you need them to justify your views.

Can you show me where a "fetus" growing in the womb of a young woman is not a "human" fetus"?

The problem you're running into is that you can't differentiate a noun from an adjective. People are claiming that acorns are not trees, and that zygotes are not humans. When we use the term "humans" we're talking about a noun, being a THING. But you use the term "human fetus" where your use of "human" is an adjective, being a DESCRIPTION of a thing. Directly juxtaposed, the revised claim you can't understand is this: a human fetus is not a human. Similarly, a human house is not a human. Adjectives. Nouns. English communication.

So you're saying our dna changes back and forth between different types of animals during gestation?

No, that's not what he said. You really don't understand this topic.

i could full-mouth kiss you for that! brilliantly stated sir/maddam/you!

dude! play it cool. there are people here!

meet me later at the park.

 

[koshergrl]

actually, dummy, we are not always human in the womb. there are plenty of times in the gestational period of many animals in the early stages where a chromosome flipped one way or the other could make the difference in what it ends up being. i know that in your world science is a liberal conspiracy, but to those of us not living inside jesus' ballsack, we know the truth.

i'm sure this is wayyyyyy above your pay grade, but in case any of it happens to seep through your tin foil hat into your fundie brain.

Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken - YouTube

So you're saying our dna changes back and forth between different types of animals during gestation?

Why don't you link the studies to that, skippy. I find it immensely amusing you think I'm a dummy. Please cite and link an instance when an embryo developing in a woman's uterus spontaneously "flips" into something besides a human.

my mistake. i misunderstood entirely what you were saying. and my link isn't germane therefore. see how that works? we own up to ******* shit up. no biggie.

anyway, call it a zygote, call it fred, i don't give a ****. no one is a murderer for getting an abortion before the fetus can live outside the mother's body. the only people who think that are backwards religious people. and frankly, who gives a **** what they think. they believe in santa claus in the sky.

What on earth does misunderstanding what I said (yet you called me the dummy, hahaha) have to do with your outlandish assertion that human embryos change into non-humans during development?

Weirdo. Btw, you're offensive. I think I'll report you.

 

[koshergrl]

It's also entertaining that you think *religious people* are the backwards ones. I doubt you've been around many.

 

[Noomi]

There is no point arguing about abortion. We all have the same arguments, and we will never agree. The pro life crowd will insult the pro choice crowd, and the pro choice crowd will insult right back.
This is one issue that no one will ever agree on, because no one is able to discuss the issue without getting into a slanging match.

 

[Borillar]

When one views the fetus as a human being, then it is their business to prevent the murder of human beings, just as it is everyone's business to outlaw all murders.

What if one doesn't agree with gun ownership, and believes it is their business to prevent gun ownership? Guns cause death too.
Long story short...Both are rights given to use by our constitution. I don't want your guns, stay away from my right to privacy.

Guns "caused" 30,708 deaths in 1998, there were at least 884,273 abortions that same year, that is over 28 deaths of a child for every single gun death.

Did you have a point?

It's not a "child" until it's born.