The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[koshergrl]

Those who support the legality of abortion do not seek to force anything on anyone.

Those who are against the legality actively seek to control others, and the full heat of their wrath falls on the poor and working class.

Well they seek to force death upon the unborn.

And they seek to force those who think that killing the unborn in order to protect pedophiles and human traffickers to fund said killing.

So yeah. You're a liar.

 

[koshergrl]

If someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to it. An obstetrician has a legal responsibility for a fetus. If they do any harm to it they can be sued. A fetus has legal inheritance rights. And one could offer other examples.

So why is it life one time but not another time?

The "choice" comes into play with that circumstance.

Do you not see the illogic there? Here's a different example… showing two women doing the same exact thing, however one killing took place outside the womb and the other took place inside.

We have certain inalienable rights because we are human beings… not because of our location. Our humanity has nothing to do with location. If I was on the moon right now, I would still be a person. lol. Two babies at the exact same age, one outside the womb and one in are the same, except for location. It is illogical and absurd to think that one is a human being and the other one isn't. Can you admit that?

No lol
Being in the womb, my opinion and definitions, doesn't constitute a human.
Besides, you don't have an "age" until you are outside the womb

Wrong.
You are human in the womb.

 

[TNHarley]

If someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to it. An obstetrician has a legal responsibility for a fetus. If they do any harm to it they can be sued. A fetus has legal inheritance rights. And one could offer other examples.

So why is it life one time but not another time?

The "choice" comes into play with that circumstance.

Do you not see the illogic there? Here's a different example… showing two women doing the same exact thing, however one killing took place outside the womb and the other took place inside.

We have certain inalienable rights because we are human beings… not because of our location. Our humanity has nothing to do with location. If I was on the moon right now, I would still be a person. lol. Two babies at the exact same age, one outside the womb and one in are the same, except for location. It is illogical and absurd to think that one is a human being and the other one isn't. Can you admit that?

No lol
Being in the womb, my opinion and definitions, doesn't constitute a human.
Besides, you don't have an "age" until you are outside the womb

Wrong.
You are human in the womb.

Not by the definition.

 

[koshergrl]

If someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to it. An obstetrician has a legal responsibility for a fetus. If they do any harm to it they can be sued. A fetus has legal inheritance rights. And one could offer other examples.

So why is it life one time but not another time?

The "choice" comes into play with that circumstance.

Do you not see the illogic there? Here's a different example… showing two women doing the same exact thing, however one killing took place outside the womb and the other took place inside.

We have certain inalienable rights because we are human beings… not because of our location. Our humanity has nothing to do with location. If I was on the moon right now, I would still be a person. lol. Two babies at the exact same age, one outside the womb and one in are the same, except for location. It is illogical and absurd to think that one is a human being and the other one isn't. Can you admit that?

No lol
Being in the womb, my opinion and definitions, doesn't constitute a human.
Besides, you don't have an "age" until you are outside the womb

Wrong.
You are human in the womb.

Not by the definition.

By any definition.
Zygote/embryo/fetus simply describes a stage of development.
But the animal is still the animal no matter what stage of development it is.

A chimp zygote is a chimp at that stage of development.
A horse embryo is a horse at that stage of development.
A whale fetus is a whale at that stage of development.

Whether born or not, the being is still the species that it is. A human embryo isn't non-human. It's a HUMAN embryo. Which is to say, it is HUMAN.

 

[TNHarley]

The "choice" comes into play with that circumstance.

Do you not see the illogic there? Here's a different example… showing two women doing the same exact thing, however one killing took place outside the womb and the other took place inside.

We have certain inalienable rights because we are human beings… not because of our location. Our humanity has nothing to do with location. If I was on the moon right now, I would still be a person. lol. Two babies at the exact same age, one outside the womb and one in are the same, except for location. It is illogical and absurd to think that one is a human being and the other one isn't. Can you admit that?

No lol
Being in the womb, my opinion and definitions, doesn't constitute a human.
Besides, you don't have an "age" until you are outside the womb

Wrong.
You are human in the womb.

Not by the definition.

By any definition.
Zygote/embryo/fetus simply describes a stage of development.
But the animal is still the animal no matter what stage of development it is.

A chimp zygote is a chimp at that stage of development.
A horse embryo is a horse at that stage of development.
A whale fetus is a whale at that stage of development.

Whether born or not, the being is still the species that it is. A human embryo isn't non-human. It's a HUMAN embryo. Which is to say, it is HUMAN.

The definition of a human being states otherwise kosher.

 

[buttercup]

No lol
Being in the womb, my opinion and definitions, doesn't constitute a human.
Besides, you don't have an "age" until you are outside the womb

You didn't refute what I said. Why do you think mere location is what determines our humanity?

Of course to make things easier we start counting a person's age once they are born, but you missed the point of the example I gave you. Those babies – one inside the womb, and one out – were conceived on the same day, they were the same age. Your reply is akin to saying "that's just the way we do things" but you didn't even attempt to address the illogic that the example I posted demonstrates. Please address it and show why mere location is what determines our humanity.

 

[buttercup]

The definition of a human being states otherwise kosher.

Please back yourself up. A human being is a member of the species Homo sapiens. If the baby on the other side of the birth canal is a member of a different species, please show us what species it belongs to.

 

[TNHarley]

No lol
Being in the womb, my opinion and definitions, doesn't constitute a human.
Besides, you don't have an "age" until you are outside the womb

You didn't refute what I said. Why do you think mere location is what determines our humanity?

Of course to make things easier we start counting a person's age once they are born, but you missed the point of the example I gave you. Those babies – one inside the womb, and one out – were conceived on the same day, they were the same age. Your reply is akin to saying "that's just the way we do things" but you didn't even attempt to address the illogic that the example I posted demonstrates. Please address it and show why mere location is what determines our humanity.

I'm sorry but being in a womb isn't a location. That sounds kinda silly..lol
To address the question, I will supply another question.
Should I start saying I'm eating scrambled chickens instead of scrambled eggs?
My point is, fetuses can't even achieve homeostasis.. It's a totally different thing.

 

[jillian]

Definitions are powerful.

Prolife people tend to define the unborn fetus as the most innocent, a human being that has the right to life just like the rest of us.

Pro-choice people tend to define the unborn fetus as a clump of cells in a woman's body that has no more rights than the woman's appendix.

If you want to understand both sides of the issue, look at the issue through the prism of both those definitions.

the people who are anti-choice are not pro life. that is a misnomer. they are pro birth. if that weren't the case, they would support women who were having children -- help them get educated, job trained, provide day care, food assistance if necessary. but the same people who say they're "pro-life" are the first to throw women to the wolves and condemn their children to hunger.

people who are pro choice want government out of our personal decisions. roe v wade was the compromise.

 

[koshergrl]

Do you not see the illogic there? Here's a different example… showing two women doing the same exact thing, however one killing took place outside the womb and the other took place inside.

We have certain inalienable rights because we are human beings… not because of our location. Our humanity has nothing to do with location. If I was on the moon right now, I would still be a person. lol. Two babies at the exact same age, one outside the womb and one in are the same, except for location. It is illogical and absurd to think that one is a human being and the other one isn't. Can you admit that?

No lol
Being in the womb, my opinion and definitions, doesn't constitute a human.
Besides, you don't have an "age" until you are outside the womb

Wrong.
You are human in the womb.

Not by the definition.

By any definition.
Zygote/embryo/fetus simply describes a stage of development.
But the animal is still the animal no matter what stage of development it is.

A chimp zygote is a chimp at that stage of development.
A horse embryo is a horse at that stage of development.
A whale fetus is a whale at that stage of development.

Whether born or not, the being is still the species that it is. A human embryo isn't non-human. It's a HUMAN embryo. Which is to say, it is HUMAN.

The definition of a human being states otherwise kosher.

Nonsense.

The definition does not dictate WHO is human. For example, did the *definition* of negroes as a higher form of animal make them animals?

No, it didn't. The definitions of "human" and "person" have been changed in the past few decades so that leftist monsters can get away with genocide. In fact, those who commit genocide HISTORICALLY change the *definition* of humanity to mask their intent and clean up their actions.

It doesn't change the reality..scientific and moral...regardless what you call them...unborn children are 100 percent human.

And you should be ashamed of yourself for buying into the disgusting fad of denying them their humanity in order to justify their slaughter. Germans did the same, as did those who slaughtered Indians.

 

[TNHarley]

The definition of a human being states otherwise kosher.

Please back yourself up. A human being is a member of the species Homo sapiens. If the baby on the other side of the birth canal is a member of a different species, please show us what species it belongs to.

Lol I guess you aren't much on any of the actual science in this argument, ey?

 

[buttercup]

I'm sorry but being in a womb isn't a location. That sounds kinda silly..lol
To address the question, I will supply another question.
Should I start saying I'm eating scrambled chickens instead of scrambled eggs?
My point is, fetuses can't even achieve homeostasis.. It's a totally different thing.

How is the womb not a location?

As for the rest of your post, an unfertilized egg is completely different than a chicken. A zygote/embryo/fetus is not an unfertilized egg, so try again.

 

[TNHarley]

No lol
Being in the womb, my opinion and definitions, doesn't constitute a human.
Besides, you don't have an "age" until you are outside the womb

Wrong.
You are human in the womb.

Not by the definition.

By any definition.
Zygote/embryo/fetus simply describes a stage of development.
But the animal is still the animal no matter what stage of development it is.

A chimp zygote is a chimp at that stage of development.
A horse embryo is a horse at that stage of development.
A whale fetus is a whale at that stage of development.

Whether born or not, the being is still the species that it is. A human embryo isn't non-human. It's a HUMAN embryo. Which is to say, it is HUMAN.

The definition of a human being states otherwise kosher.

Nonsense.

The definition does not dictate WHO is human. For example, did the *definition* of negroes as a higher form of animal make them animals?

No, it didn't. The definitions of "human" and "person" have been changed in the past few decades so that leftist monsters can get away with genocide. In fact, those who commit genocide HISTORICALLY change the *definition* of humanity to mask their intent and clean up their actions.

It doesn't change the reality..scientific and moral...regardless what you call them...unborn children are 100 percent human.

And you should be ashamed of yourself for buying into the disgusting fad of denk4outying them their humanity in order to justify their slaughter. Germans did the same, as did those who slaughtered Indians.

I totally understand your perspective on this.
However, an unborn fetus doesn't have humanity. Seems more of an emotional argument

 

[buttercup]

Lol I guess you aren't much on any of the actual science in this argument, ey?

Actually, that is exactly what you are going against. You're also showing a lack of knowledge on basic biology, by thinking that the baby in the womb is akin to an unfertilized egg. lol

 

[TNHarley]

I'm sorry but being in a womb isn't a location. That sounds kinda silly..lol
To address the question, I will supply another question.
Should I start saying I'm eating scrambled chickens instead of scrambled eggs?
My point is, fetuses can't even achieve homeostasis.. It's a totally different thing.

How is the womb not a location?

As for the rest of your post, an unfertilized egg is completely different than a chicken. A zygote/embryo/fetus is not an unfertilized egg, so try again.

How do you know my eggs aren't fertilized? I have my own chickens.
You are using geography as an argument for being against abortion. That's silly.

 

[koshergrl]

"Are Blacks human beings? Believe it or not, there was a time when the Supreme Court's answer to this question was no, not if they were slaves."

Sound familiar?

Are Blacks Human Beings? | Stand to Reason

So...a free black person was human. They were apparently granted humanity with their freedom. So up until the age they were granted freedom, they were not human. No matter what their age.

Today we have the same situation only the victims are the unborn (and their hapless mothers). The unborn are *inhuman*...unless, that is, the mother is murdered while pregnant. This somehow grants them *humanity*.

But for those who don't want their babies, the babies are magically no longer human. They can kill them right up to the day of birth (and actually after....hence the spinal cord snipping that goes on in the abortion clinics these days.) They get away with it because they claim that babies who are surrendered by their mothers to the abortion's tools are *inhuman*.

Of course it's all nonsense. They are all biologically human. "Human" is a biological designation..and their humanity is in their genes, and it is there from the moment of conception.

 

[TNHarley]

Lol I guess you aren't much on any of the actual science in this argument, ey?

Actually, that is exactly what you are going against. You're also showing a lack of knowledge on basic biology, by thinking that the baby in the womb is akin to an unfertilized egg. lol

Oh my goodness lol.
Try looking up what species actually is.

 

[TNHarley]

Even the bible states life began at breath. Fetuses can't breath..
JS kosher..

 

[JoeMoma]

Definitions are powerful.

Prolife people tend to define the unborn fetus as the most innocent, a human being that has the right to life just like the rest of us.

Pro-choice people tend to define the unborn fetus as a clump of cells in a woman's body that has no more rights than the woman's appendix.

If you want to understand both sides of the issue, look at the issue through the prism of both those definitions.

the people who are anti-choice are not pro life. that is a misnomer. they are pro birth. if that weren't the case, they would support women who were having children -- help them get educated, job trained, provide day care, food assistance if necessary. but the same people who say they're "pro-life" are the first to throw women to the wolves and condemn their children to hunger.

people who are pro choice want government out of our personal decisions. roe v wade was the compromise.

One major reason for choosing abortion is to avoid the responsibility of raising a child.

Still, I am not sure why you quoted my post....it seems that you view the pre-born as a clump of cells not deserving of legal protection.

That being said, I know lots of pro choice people that have adopted children (some with special needs), served as foster parents, give to local food banks, and do volunteer work for all sorts of people.

 

[buttercup]

How do you know my eggs aren't fertilized? I have my own chickens.
You are using geography as an argument for being against abortion. That's silly.

I don't know what you eat, but that is besides the point. Most eggs that people eat when they eat scrambled eggs in the morning are unfertilized.

According to Wikipedia:

"Most commercially farmed chicken eggs intended for human consumption are unfertilized,"

But that is a irrelevant anyway because the baby in the womb is not an unfertilized egg, to not understand that shows a blatant lack of knowledge on basic biology.