CDZ POLL: An Abortion Kills a Child

[anynameyouwish]

Reminder.

1. This thread is in the CDZ; ALL CDZ rules apply.
2. You can change your answers at any time.
3. All sides are invited to present any and all evidence to support their views.
4. Posts and responses are asked to be confined to the subject of this OP. "Does and abortion kill a child, or not?"
5. For Reference, this thread and poll is in reference to abortions and the biology of HUMAN beings, only.
6. This thread is NOT about whether or not abortions "SHOULD" be legal or illegal. It is ONLY about whether or not an abortion kills a child.

no.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Oh good grief. Life begins at conception, you can spin it all day long but it's a scientific fact.

Snuffing that life out is wrong. It's murder

All you pro choice clowns? Learn personal responsibility

"Snuffing that life out is wrong. It's murder "

what if that LIFE is a democrat?
a gay?
a muslim?
an atheist?
a liberal?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Pro-Life people murder. Take a look at this
A Brief History of Deadly Attacks on Abortion Providers. Do Pro-Life activists support these people? I haven't seen anything where Pro-Choice murdered Pro-Life Activists.

They are Demons those who participate in the mass slaughter of the Unborn. They are obviously perverted by the same disease that inflicted the Canaanites who also sacrificed their OWN children to Ba'al.

Ancient CHILD Sacrifice to the Demons, in MODERN day we call this Abortion on Demand it is no different to what the Canaanites did. Pro-Abortion types are Athiest for a reason, their god is the same as Ba'al, their god dwells in The Bottomless Pit.

Psalm 106:34-43

"They served their idols and were ensnared by them. They sacrificed to demons their own sons and daughters, shedding innocent blood, the blood of their own sons and daughters. whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, desecrating the land with bloodshed.

They defiled themselves by their actions, became adulterers by their conduct"

"I haven't seen anything where Pro-Choice murdered Pro-Life Activists."

It is not Pro-Choice, why are you all so frightened of calling yourselves Pro-ABORTION?

Re. murder. The audacity to comment such a thing when the Pro-ABORTION crowd are responsible for the slaughter In Utero of MILLIONS of developing children around the WORLD every year, you and your kindred spirits of previous years ALREADY have the BLOOD on your hands of approx 60-70 MILLIONS, who knows with all the illegal abortions that happened as well that you obviously would have supported them also, such is the Pro-Abortion crowds INSATIABLE lust for the Genocide of The Unborn, the actual figure is probably in the 100-200 MILLIONS range.

Pro-Life activists do NOT have to harm the Pro-ABORTION crowd because Karma will get you, we know where the supporters of the Genocide of The Unborn are going, it is somewhere hot and you are going to perpetually burn.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If abortion isn't topical why do you suppose it was listed as one of the keywords?

 

[sartre play]

Wow, now some people are saying the people abort by political party??? so now Anything you don't like is political?

 

[Chuz Life]

How much money would I have to donate to this site, in order to have a thread that the mods will help keep it from being derailed from the op?

Again.

I ask sincerely.

Give me a dollar amount.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Wow, now some people are saying the people abort by political party??? so now Anything you don't like is political?

Yep. Shameless.

"It's gotten us to a point where we can't see the fact that we're all having abortions, and we're doing it for reasons we personally think matter – and that's all that matters. Pro-life women are having abortions, too."

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

If abortion isn't topical why do you suppose it was listed as one of the keywords?

Yes Grumblenutbag, Abortion is the topic.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

How much money would I have to donate to this site, in order to have a thread that the mods will help keep it from being derailed from the op?

Again.

I ask sincerely.

Give me a dollar amount.

If you want I will for a second time Self-Delete my posts. Hold on....

Edited to add that I have Self-Deleted 3 posts, I do still hold to those personal opinions I posted and will post them again in the next Abortion thread in a different section of this forum. The Snowflakes of course think those opinions of mine are extreme, yes well I consider the killing of the most innocent as they slumber in the womb to be also extreme.

 

[Chuz Life]

How much money would I have to donate to this site, in order to have a thread that the mods will help keep it from being derailed from the op?

Again.

I ask sincerely.

Give me a dollar amount.

If you want I will for a second time Self-Delete my posts. Hold on....

Edited to add that I have Self-Deleted 3 posts, I do still hold to those personal opinions I posted and will post them again in the next Abortion thread in a different section of this forum. The Snowflakes of course think those opinions of mine are extreme, yes well I consider the killing of the most innocent as they slumber in the womb to be also extreme.

You were not expected to do that LUCY.

There are too many other posts to report (with only a phone and limited time.)

I thought that we could all have a civil, objective, informational and maybe (dare I say) adult conversation about the facts and the reasonings that both sides use to support their conclusions

However, we have little more than the equivalent of a bunch of monkeys trying to figure out how to unfuck a football.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

How much money would I have to donate to this site, in order to have a thread that the mods will help keep it from being derailed from the op?

Again.

I ask sincerely.

Give me a dollar amount.

If you want I will for a second time Self-Delete my posts. Hold on....

Edited to add that I have Self-Deleted 3 posts, I do still hold to those personal opinions I posted and will post them again in the next Abortion thread in a different section of this forum. The Snowflakes of course think those opinions of mine are extreme, yes well I consider the killing of the most innocent as they slumber in the womb to be also extreme.

You were not expected to do that LUCY.

There are too many other posts to report (with only a phone and limited time.)

I thought that we could all have a civil, objective, informational and maybe (dare I say) adult conversation about the facts and the reasonings that both sides use to support their conclusions

However, we have little more than the equivalent of a bunch of monkeys trying to figure out how to unfuck a football.

"You were not expected to do that LUCY."

But I did have to do that Chuz, because it was the correct thing to do. I will post those comments in the next Abortion thread that probably will be in Current Events or whatever.

 

[JoeMoma]

As with most of these kinds of questions the rational answer is neither and both depending on the circumstances.

Personally I don't think of a 6 week old fetus as a child but I do think a 6 month old fetus is close enough to a child and i think a 7 - 9 month old fetus is a child

Interesting.

So, do you hold the view that Human Beings reproduce like frogs and butterflies do? Where the parents have sex and create one organism that only later becomes some other organism?

A zygote is no more a child than a cheek cell.

While a zygote is genetically unique collection human cells it is not yet a child.

Are you willing to be questioned further on that?

Sure why not?

An embryo is a potential child it is not a child

Ever here a new expectant mother say she's going to have an embryo, a zygote...clump of cells?

Good grief life begins at conception, anyone thinking different needs help

But. I suppose killing an embryo makes it ease one's conscious than killing a baby.

I have no dog in this hunt.

But I see there is a difference between a 2 day old embryo and a fully formed human child 2 days away from birth.

They are not the same thing.

A zygote is not the same as an embryo which is not the same as a fetus which is not the same as a new born infant which is not the sane as a toddler which is not the same as a 12 year old which is not the same as a 25 year which is not the same as a 50 year old which is not the same as a 100 year old. All of these are different stages of the human life cycle. Termination at any of these stages is the termination of a human being.

Sorry if you consider this post off topic.

It's not off topic.

But a zygote is not a life unto itself. At what point during gestation does that zygote become a life unto itself?

A cell in not necessarily a human being even if it is a human cell

A human zygote is a life unto its self and is a human being. It is at the very first point in the life cycle in which this is so.

To understand this, think about the life cycle of a human being second by second. If the zygote isn't the first stage of life for an individual human being, then at what moment of time is that organism a human being, and why wasn't it a human being the moment before?

 

[Leo123]

An abortion kills a developing human being.

Can you please expound on your "developing human being " comment?

Well, when a sperm pierces an egg, more often than not a miracle takes place which is the advent of life.

Not a word I would choose. But, ok.

Nature counts on the fact that if left to develop it will result in a human being.

Biologically, it already IS a human being. Is it not already human? Yes. Is it not already an organism? It is. Does it not already physically EXIST as a human organism? It does.

Stopping that development by killing the developing egg (zygote) is precluding a human life from developing into a person.

That's a debate for another thread. However, as you have tied it to the development and biology, above. . . I have to point it out to you that the most basic definition for what a natural "person" is - is simply "a human being." Conceivably, any "human being" of any age, sex, color, stage of development or age would MEET that criteria. Just by "being" a human being.

No amount of slicing and dicing the definition of the development of a human being is going to alter that. Abortion is therefore, killing a future human being at best and taking a human life at worst. Pretty obvious really.

For the sake of this discussion, I am trying to keep it objective. Comments like "at Best" and "at Worse" do not really address the real issue of this thread. Specifically, about whether or not it is a child.

The real question is: How do women who get abortions reconcile the killing of a life? After all, unless raped, they had a hand in creating that life. Now they are going to kill it. I would like to ask them why. I wouldn't judge them but it would be interesting to hear.

I hope you get answers to those questions.

Just not in this thread.

I agree with your definition of human being however, unfortunately, IMO, the definition of child, life, human being, etc. has been hijacked by pro abortionists. I remember when saying a women who was pregnant was carrying a baby or even a child. It was generally accepted that a pregnancy was a precious thing and pregnant women were to be highly regarded, protected, etc. Since Roe, that is no longer the case and a baby has been down-graded to a bunch of cells that can be wisked away at any time for any reason.

 

[Chuz Life]

An abortion kills a developing human being.

Can you please expound on your "developing human being " comment?

Well, when a sperm pierces an egg, more often than not a miracle takes place which is the advent of life.

Not a word I would choose. But, ok.

Nature counts on the fact that if left to develop it will result in a human being.

Biologically, it already IS a human being. Is it not already human? Yes. Is it not already an organism? It is. Does it not already physically EXIST as a human organism? It does.

Stopping that development by killing the developing egg (zygote) is precluding a human life from developing into a person.

That's a debate for another thread. However, as you have tied it to the development and biology, above. . . I have to point it out to you that the most basic definition for what a natural "person" is - is simply "a human being." Conceivably, any "human being" of any age, sex, color, stage of development or age would MEET that criteria. Just by "being" a human being.

No amount of slicing and dicing the definition of the development of a human being is going to alter that. Abortion is therefore, killing a future human being at best and taking a human life at worst. Pretty obvious really.

For the sake of this discussion, I am trying to keep it objective. Comments like "at Best" and "at Worse" do not really address the real issue of this thread. Specifically, about whether or not it is a child.

The real question is: How do women who get abortions reconcile the killing of a life? After all, unless raped, they had a hand in creating that life. Now they are going to kill it. I would like to ask them why. I wouldn't judge them but it would be interesting to hear.

I hope you get answers to those questions.

Just not in this thread.

I agree with your definition of human being however, unfortunately, IMO, the definition of child, life, human being, etc. has been hijacked by pro abortionists. I remember when saying a women who was pregnant was carrying a baby or even a child. It was generally accepted that a pregnancy was a precious thing and pregnant women were to be highly regarded, protected, etc. Since Roe, that is no longer the case and a baby has been down-graded to a bunch of cells that can be wisked away at any time for any reason.

I agree with some of what you are saying about the semantics. However, a changed definition does not and can not change what an organism actually is.

Scientifically, biologically a human organism of any age or stage of development, is the young of the biological parents who conceived it.

No rewording of the definitions will change that fact.

 

[JoeB131]

When I imagined what this CDZ thread would be like, I actually imagined a back and forth INFORMATIVE discussion. . . Where one person would post "I believe and abortion kills a child, BECAUSE. . . " Then, the other side might / would respond in kind.

I can not imagine why that is too much to ask.

Fetuses aren't viable. Therefore they are not children, as found in Roe v. Wade.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree with your definition of human being however, unfortunately, IMO, the definition of child, life, human being, etc. has been hijacked by pro abortionists. I remember when saying a women who was pregnant was carrying a baby or even a child. It was generally accepted that a pregnancy was a precious thing and pregnant women were to be highly regarded, protected, etc. Since Roe, that is no longer the case and a baby has been down-graded to a bunch of cells that can be wisked away at any time for any reason.

Um.. no.

Here's what happened before Roe v. Wade.

Women who wanted to end their unwanted pregnancy went into their OB/GYN's office. He performed an abortion and wrote down something else on the chart. Abortion laws in 1972 were like prostitution laws now. Everyone wrung their hands about how awful and immoral it was. Very little was done to prevent it.

The justices probably thought they were getting rid of an unworkable law no one was actually following.

So to answer the OP's question. It's a child if you want it. If you don't want it, it's "that problem I need to take care of on Tuesday."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As per your definition and arguments, I answered affirmatively. Honestly, I don't know enough about biology so I leaned on my moral objection to abortion. Sounds kind of like cheating when I say it out loud. It made me think about what a child is. Or rather what I have been conditioned to think a child is. When asked to picture a child in my head, the images can range from anything to toddlers, teens, infants and even babies in the womb. What doesn't pop into my head is say a fertilized egg or blastocyst. Over time those will become my images of a child, but that isn't how I read the question, i.e., they are a child. How would you reconcile that? Apologies for any half formed thought. I am more confident in my philosophical/moral approach to the subject rather than the science.

And that’s how it’s intended to be: each individual decides for himself consistent with his own values, beliefs, and good conscience – not as dictated by the state.

 

[JoeB131]

You were not expected to do that LUCY.

There are too many other posts to report (with only a phone and limited time.)

I thought that we could all have a civil, objective, informational and maybe (dare I say) adult conversation about the facts and the reasonings that both sides use to support their conclusions

However, we have little more than the equivalent of a bunch of monkeys trying to figure out how to unfuck a football.

I think the problem here is you want to couch the debate in terms favorable to you without bringing in any other factors or points of discussion. Real life doesn't work like that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh good grief. Life begins at conception, you can spin it all day long but it's a scientific fact.

Snuffing that life out is wrong. It's murder

All you pro choice clowns? Learn personal responsibility

Wrong.

Murder is a matter of the law – and as a settled, accepted fact of law abortion is not ‘murder.’

 

[SassyIrishLass]

As per your definition and arguments, I answered affirmatively. Honestly, I don't know enough about biology so I leaned on my moral objection to abortion. Sounds kind of like cheating when I say it out loud. It made me think about what a child is. Or rather what I have been conditioned to think a child is. When asked to picture a child in my head, the images can range from anything to toddlers, teens, infants and even babies in the womb. What doesn't pop into my head is say a fertilized egg or blastocyst. Over time those will become my images of a child, but that isn't how I read the question, i.e., they are a child. How would you reconcile that? Apologies for any half formed thought. I am more confident in my philosophical/moral approach to the subject rather than the science.

And that’s how it’s intended to be: each individual decides for himself consistent with his own values, beliefs, and good conscience – not as dictated by the state.

I sincerely hope you didn't support Obamacare