The Personhood of the unborn needs to be settled

[Mr Natural]

You pretty clearly don't spend much time actually talking to pro-life people, if you're assuming they're fine with this practice and that this is therefore an "Aha!" moment. Personally, I quit a good job as a medical secretary in a fertility clinic precisely because their practices were so unacceptable to my pro-life views.

Well, aren't you special.

 

[edward37]

No need to play stupid. The key word is becomes. Not is. And it night never become. Most pregnancies do not.

At any point along the continuum he or she is fully human.

It is always fully human, the question is at what point does it 's's rights equal or exceeds the mothers? It isnt a parasite or "lump of flesh". But neither does it have individual rights and responsibilities until birth.

That’s a slippery slope.

Putting that aside I don’t think you can say he or she is fully human and then in the same breath call it a parasite and a lump of flesh.

But to answer your question when it is a living human. That’s when. So conception.

So the fertility clinics are creating and freezing living humans then? Disposing of them is what? Murder?

You pretty clearly don't spend much time actually talking to pro-life people, if you're assuming they're fine with this practice and that this is therefore an "Aha!" moment. Personally, I quit a good job as a medical secretary in a fertility clinic precisely because their practices were so unacceptable to my pro-life views.

You're pro life??? Then have as many children as you can Just don't tell my wife or daughter what they should do

 

[buttercup]

yes... look how we are treating those precious babies.... defending the ' sanctity of life ' my ass..........

You're really good at logical fallacies. Again, that just shows how weak your position is.

Not everyone is like you, buttercup. Joe is making generalizations, but he's not all wrong either. It is terribly frustrating to hear people be so pigheadedly selfish and so short sighted that they can't see where total neglect of our most vulnerable will lead us. Yet that is what many conservatives want.

I understand what you're saying, but it still shouldn't be put forth as an argument, because it's a logical fallacy. In fact, there are probably 2 or 3 fallacies there, including a red herring. By the way, what you're saying might be a good topic to discuss (on a new thread) because I think that accusation is based on some big misunderstandings.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Given how hard that is, expecially when you're poor, I'd really rather people aren't forced to give birth to children they don't want or can't afford. Forcing poor women to have babies is ridiculous. The rich will just go to Canada.

Yanno, if you don't want to be sullied with the responsibility of a child, simply practice abstinence. If not that, birth control. Don't wait until it is developing in your womb to say "I want control of my body!"

YOU HAD CONTROL OF YOUR BODY BEFORE YOU SPREAD THOSE LEGS OF YOURS.

Now I'm dirty. Time for breakfast and a shower.

YOU HAD CONTROL OF YOUR BODY BEFORE YOU SPREAD THOSE LEGS OF YOURS.
Whoa! There are two equally responsible people involved in that scenario, and it's about time everyone started remembering that.
No more of this slut shaming women who find themselves pregnant after engaging in sex which is considered good sport for the men and only nasty for the women.
Nuh-uh.

correct,, but only one of them can get pregnant and then go on to murder the child,,,

No woman can get pregnant on her own; it takes a male.

A woman chosing a termination of pregnancy is not committing murder. The developing embryo and fetus is a potential human in early stages and each fertilization of an egg will result in a different potential human. Like many many rolls of the dice, there is great variety in the human experiment. It is best to wait until the parents are ready to welcome and care for their children. This dice roll may not be at the right time. There will be other chances, as many as you wish to take.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Help young women who feel there is no other option to come up with a better plan. That's fine. But don't push your belief onto someone else by making abortion illegal. Doctors don't believe it is murder and the law does not believe it is murder and most of the people in this country do not believe it is murder. It is a termination of pregnancy. Make another roll of the dice when you are ready to accept Mother Nature's consequences for the act.

Tell me, do the orderlies at the nursing home tell you that sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating stating that lies are truth makes them true just to quiet you down?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No need to play stupid. The key word is becomes. Not is. And it night never become. Most pregnancies do not.

At any point along the continuum he or she is fully human.

It is always fully human, the question is at what point does it 's's rights equal or exceeds the mothers? It isnt a parasite or "lump of flesh". But neither does it have individual rights and responsibilities until birth.

That’s a slippery slope.

Putting that aside I don’t think you can say he or she is fully human and then in the same breath call it a parasite and a lump of flesh.

But to answer your question when it is a living human. That’s when. So conception.

So the fertility clinics are creating and freezing living humans then? Disposing of them is what? Murder?

Are you sure about that? Or are they storing eggs and sperm? Those aren’t genetically distinct human beings. It’s just eggs and sperm.

No, they also store fertilized embryos for implantation at a later date, and they store more than they will actually use, "in case".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ordinary care is obligatory for all persons, including infants. So no, you can't just kill them. Has nothing to do with being self-sufficient. Viability is the point where the organism has the all the bodily functions that sustain life (even though infants cannot provide for themselves).

So by your logic, the victim of a car accident with 2 collapsed lungs, therefore NOT having all of the bodily functions to sustain life, should just be left to die?

Now you're just being obtuse. No, you can't let this one just die either. The treatment to re-inflate the lungs would fall under ordinary care in any emergency room and they would be obliged to treat the victim.

No, I'm extending your logic to it's natural conclusion. You just don't like where it leads. If you're going to claim that a person only has the right to live on the basis of their ability to self-sustain, then this is what you get.

I find it interesting that you keep using the term "ordinary care". What could POSSIBLY be more ordinary then the human gestational process? It's literally how every single human being is produced.

Your logic fails. Treating a crash victim does not utilize another person's body or life against their will.

Your will was demonstrated when you consented to sex. News flash: Sex has the potential to make babies. This is not a state secret. An innocent should not be condemned to death simply because you lack self control and personal responsibility.

Furthermore, in many cases, WILL is completely irrelevant. I have to use my body every single day to protect and sustain my children, whether I want to or not. I have to go to work to keep a roof over their heads. I have to make them food. I have to bathe them. I have to clothe them. I have to get their injuries treated. If my toddler knowingly runs into traffic, it is my duty to retrieve him. If I don't do these things they will die and I will be charged with a crime. The argument of "well you can't FORCE me to use my body to support them" would be laughed right out of the courtroom. So spare me your false equivalencies.

Apparently, even Alyssa Milano knows that sex is a procreative act, and that if you're not ready to risk pregnancy, you should abstain from sex. It's all over her Twitter feed lately.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can it walk, talk or chew gum? Does a fetus have any sentient awareness? Can it survivie outside the womb?

First, as the child is developing in the womb, it is reliant on the nutrients supplied to it by the mother. Her diet and physical condition determine the health of the baby (assuming a full term pregnancy)

Second, after birth, the child is again reliant on either of its parents to feed and nurture it. The amount of nurturing the child gets determines whether the child lives or dies.

Third, throughout childhood, the child is dependent on the parents for basic needs. This period is when the child should be taught how to care for themself. How well the child learns to take care of themself through their teenage years and adulthood will determine if they live or die.

The one key similarity? Dependence.

Now, to wrap that up...

Your key argument is that since the fetus depends on the mother, the fetus is not human and therefore part of the mother. Since it has not yet developed "sentience" as you so define it, it is not human.

WRONG.

If we used your argument, then the fetus, the baby, and the child would not be human. If that child is born with a cognitive disorder that robs he or she of their sentience or awareness, they cease to be human. None would be human until they shed their dependency on their parents or gained/regained the "sentient awareness." For the next decade or two (or the rest of their life for that matter), the child/adult would be a "potential human".

Your argument is flawed. Your argument is emotional.

And since I am not a homeless man in San Francisco, I am not going to rifle through more of your garbage post.

Have a good morning.

You have more patience than I do. I can't work up even this much ability to treat her posts as if they're coming from a semi-reasoning creature.

Use facts like ammo on a Vulcan cannon.

People will continue to make irrational arguments until someone obliterates them.

I simply cannot take her BS seriously enough to answer it as though it's worthy of debating. It's like engaging in a debate with a 3-year-old about whether or not wishes made when blowing out birthday candles REALLY come true . . . except she's not as cute as a 3-year-old.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is always fully human, the question is at what point does it 's's rights equal or exceeds the mothers? It isnt a parasite or "lump of flesh". But neither does it have individual rights and responsibilities until birth.

That’s a slippery slope.

Putting that aside I don’t think you can say he or she is fully human and then in the same breath call it a parasite and a lump of flesh.

But to answer your question when it is a living human. That’s when. So conception.

So the fertility clinics are creating and freezing living humans then? Disposing of them is what? Murder?

Are you sure about that? Or are they storing eggs and sperm? Those aren’t genetically distinct human beings. It’s just eggs and sperm.

Nope they are fertilized eggs. Conceived in a petri dish. I have a niece and nephew from a batch. They have ten left still frozen.

I wonder, this "they aren't human if they're not born" argument... what science is it based on? I would genuinely enjoy a scientific explanation of this argument.

Anybody? Or are we all just armchair scientists?

The same sort of "science" that told primitive people that the sun orbits the Earth: that's how it appears to them, so it obviously must be how it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

At any point along the continuum he or she is fully human.

It is always fully human, the question is at what point does it 's's rights equal or exceeds the mothers? It isnt a parasite or "lump of flesh". But neither does it have individual rights and responsibilities until birth.

That’s a slippery slope.

Putting that aside I don’t think you can say he or she is fully human and then in the same breath call it a parasite and a lump of flesh.

But to answer your question when it is a living human. That’s when. So conception.

So the fertility clinics are creating and freezing living humans then? Disposing of them is what? Murder?

Are you sure about that? Or are they storing eggs and sperm? Those aren’t genetically distinct human beings. It’s just eggs and sperm.

They are NOT storing eggs and sperm. They are storing frozen embryos.

They also store eggs and sperm.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yanno, if you don't want to be sullied with the responsibility of a child, simply practice abstinence. If not that, birth control. Don't wait until it is developing in your womb to say "I want control of my body!"

YOU HAD CONTROL OF YOUR BODY BEFORE YOU SPREAD THOSE LEGS OF YOURS.

Now I'm dirty. Time for breakfast and a shower.

YOU HAD CONTROL OF YOUR BODY BEFORE YOU SPREAD THOSE LEGS OF YOURS.
Whoa! There are two equally responsible people involved in that scenario, and it's about time everyone started remembering that.
No more of this slut shaming women who find themselves pregnant after engaging in sex which is considered good sport for the men and only nasty for the women.
Nuh-uh.

correct,, but only one of them can get pregnant and then go on to murder the child,,,

No woman can get pregnant on her own; it takes a male.

A woman chosing a termination of pregnancy is not committing murder. The developing embryo and fetus is a potential human in early stages and each fertilization of an egg will result in a different potential human. Like many many rolls of the dice, there is great variety in the human experiment. It is best to wait until the parents are ready to welcome and care for their children. This dice roll may not be at the right time. There will be other chances, as many as you wish to take.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Help young women who feel there is no other option to come up with a better plan. That's fine. But don't push your belief onto someone else by making abortion illegal. Doctors don't believe it is murder and the law does not believe it is murder and most of the people in this country do not believe it is murder. It is a termination of pregnancy. Make another roll of the dice when you are ready to accept Mother Nature's consequences for the act.

abortion is murder and this whole conversation is about other options,,,

and if you werent so dead set on killing as the first option this conversation wouldnt be a waste of time,,,

You are the one who is wasting everyone's time here. I have certainly not heard any "conversation" about other options. All I've heard is a lot of name calling and extreme rhetoric meant to get people outraged. No conversation here.

If you'd take your fingers out of your ears and stop shouting your talking points for a minute or two, you might hear the conversation. Just a suggestion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can it walk, talk or chew gum? Does a fetus have any sentient awareness? Can it survivie outside the womb?

First, as the child is developing in the womb, it is reliant on the nutrients supplied to it by the mother. Her diet and physical condition determine the health of the baby (assuming a full term pregnancy)

Second, after birth, the child is again reliant on either of its parents to feed and nurture it. The amount of nurturing the child gets determines whether the child lives or dies.

Third, throughout childhood, the child is dependent on the parents for basic needs. This period is when the child should be taught how to care for themself. How well the child learns to take care of themself through their teenage years and adulthood will determine if they live or die.

The one key similarity? Dependence.

Now, to wrap that up...

Your key argument is that since the fetus depends on the mother, the fetus is not human and therefore part of the mother. Since it has not yet developed "sentience" as you so define it, it is not human.

WRONG.

If we used your argument, then the fetus, the baby, and the child would not be human. If that child is born with a cognitive disorder that robs he or she of their sentience or awareness, they cease to be human. None would be human until they shed their dependency on their parents or gained/regained the "sentient awareness." For the next decade or two (or the rest of their life for that matter), the child/adult would be a "potential human".

Your argument is flawed. Your argument is emotional.

And since I am not a homeless man in San Francisco, I am not going to rifle through more of your garbage post.

Have a good morning.

You have more patience than I do. I can't work up even this much ability to treat her posts as if they're coming from a semi-reasoning creature.

Use facts like ammo on a Vulcan cannon.

People will continue to make irrational arguments until someone obliterates them.

That's what I call real concern for human life.

I'm fairly certain he can bear up under the disapproval of his "concern for human life" from someone who's defending the killing of infants. In fact, I'd be willing to bet money that he wouldn't take YOUR approval on that score if it came gift-wrapped.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are two equally responsible people involved in that scenario, and it's about time everyone started remembering that.
No more of this slut shaming women who find themselves pregnant after engaging in sex which is considered good sport for the men and only nasty for the women.
Nuh-uh.

"Nuh-uh"

Who are you, Queen Latifah? You can get your hand out of my face now.

Slut shaming?

Gimme a break. You insist on being pro choice, but then when you get on the horse and get pregnant, you want yet another choice to get out of the bad choice you made before. Pro choice begins in the bedroom. It does not begin six weeks into a pregnancy when a fetal heartbeat is detected.

That's not slut shaming, that's bad decision making. I'm sorry. The woman bears just as much responsibility for her actions as the man does.

I never said she didn't. You are the one who slut shamed the women. Take responsibility for your own shitty attitude.

Seems like you're the one copping an attitude.

I call it like I see it. I don't care who I offend in the process.

There are no mistakes in the bedroom. If you commit to the act, you are responsible for the forthcoming result. Both of you.

I find it to be more weighted on the woman's shoulders because she is the vessel which carries the life she will want to eventually terminate. Her choice is threefold, she can either say no, and avoid the abortion process entirely, she can say yes and commit to the pregnancy. Or she demand the use of a condom during intercourse to avoid the abortion process.

Rape is another ballgame. While I can understand the desire of a woman to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape, I also wonder why or how it is fair to exterminate that life due to the manner in which it was conceived.

I also wonder why or how it is fair to exterminate that life due to the manner in which it was conceived.
I agree with that argument. It is not the child's fault that it is a product of rape or incest. Incest, by the way, is a common reason for abortion. Most child sexual abuse is done by family members.

Incest, by the way, is not even remotely "common", as a reason for abortion or as a general occurrence. You should stop watching Lifetime movies.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 261281

Conservatives:
“We want you to pay for your own children.”

Filthy Pieces Of Shits:
“What...you think my children are better off dead?”

The level of Loon from you LefTarded folks grows by the day.

Filthy Pieces of Shit: we wont help you with your kids but we sure as hell will force you to bear them.

LefTard Logic:
Filthy Pieces Of Shits = Those who expect people to pay for their own children

Not Filthy Pieces Of Shits = Those who expect others to pay for their children.

Folks, I’m not making this shit up.

inequality does that. i am not making it up either.

How about just staying in your homeland where you are an “equal”? Simple shit

this isn't about equality. You have to have the inferior argument.

 

[TemplarKormac]

YOU ARE ONE SICK MOTHER ****** THAT THINKS A CHILD THE DAY BEFORE BIRTH IS ok TO KILL,,,

Wow! All those caps! Somebody's pissed off!

And someone is full of murderous glee. Thanks for sharing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope, not angry at the male half of the human species. Just at men who don't take responsibility for their half of making a baby and are ready to heap shame on the woman while feeling he is nothing but a normal male. For doing exactly the same thing. It is a societal view that when men sleep around, it is "sowing his wild oats." When a woman behaves comparably, she is a whore. Just about everyone used to buy into that, and I guess some people still do.

Curious.

So why are you continually portraying the woman as the perpetual victim here?

Also, notice how I placed responsibility on both the man and the woman for their sexual behavior?

 

[caddo kid]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

citizenship by birth won't occur until a 'birth'

a citizen has no rights until 'birth'

'personhood' does not occur until 'birth'

a person is not a person until birth occurs

What are you missing ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

YOU ARE ONE SICK MOTHER ****** THAT THINKS A CHILD THE DAY BEFORE BIRTH IS ok TO KILL,,,

well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, Pee Wee

 

[OldLady]

Nope, not angry at the male half of the human species. Just at men who don't take responsibility for their half of making a baby and are ready to heap shame on the woman while feeling he is nothing but a normal male. For doing exactly the same thing. It is a societal view that when men sleep around, it is "sowing his wild oats." When a woman behaves comparably, she is a whore. Just about everyone used to buy into that, and I guess some people still do.

Curious.

So why are you continually portraying the woman as the perpetual victim here?

Also, notice how I placed responsibility on both the man and the woman for their sexual behavior?

Partisan garbage talk; try again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope, not angry at the male half of the human species. Just at men who don't take responsibility for their half of making a baby and are ready to heap shame on the woman while feeling he is nothing but a normal male. For doing exactly the same thing. It is a societal view that when men sleep around, it is "sowing his wild oats." When a woman behaves comparably, she is a whore. Just about everyone used to buy into that, and I guess some people still do.

Curious.

So why are you continually portraying the woman as the perpetual victim here?

Also, notice how I placed responsibility on both the man and the woman for their sexual behavior?

Partisan garbage talk; try again.

LOL

Nice deflection. If you can't answer the question, just say so.

 

[Nia88]

Another interesting thing is, Republicans want less government but want to dictate a woman's reproductive rights.

You have the right to reproduce.

You have no right to take an innocent life.

It's not a life pre 22 weeks. A 12 week old fetus isn't viable for life. It's merely growing tissue at that point. Not a baby.

Well, thanks for that scientific update from 1960. Why not go whole hog and recommend treating fevers with leeches, while you're being archaic and primitive?

Primitive scientific updates for primitive people.

 

[playtime]

AS for the illustration you got off on that implied human embryos could be a bird, reptile or pig, that is total hogwash. It is a human being in an early stage of development. A human being who cuts a first tooth is in a stage of development in which his pain is translated into a cry for help. A human being who commits to an act of unprotected sex that results in a mass of human cells implanting into its mother's womb is in the first stages of human development. The male participant in this pleasant gift of sex is the father, and the female participant is the mother. Their genes are combined into a brand new and separate human being, who like the father needing some female pleasure, needs a home. The time for her to elect not giving a new human being in his first stage of development should have read a book instead of having sex with someone who considered her just an object and possibly, vice-versa.

If you can kill a fetus, don't be surprised if the world doesn't just decide killing anyone who makes you feel obligated will just live with your murder and won't care for you or think of you ever again since your death was just an unpleasant occurance in a world full of murderous killers looking for a thrill of killing, which is the wont of serial killers.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. It was true then, and it will be true when women change the world into a place that accepts murderers without the blink of an eye or one iota of caring.

You kill your own, you get a world of killing ahead of you, and that's how it is. I did not make the rules of the world, I just know what they are. Don't shoot the messenger because you support killing unborn human beings (who will never be pigs, by the way), you're going to find the dice roll will be on you sooner than you think.

I hope that was actually addressed to PLAYTIME, not to me, because I agree with you, I was not the one who posted that illustration. I was the one who posted the meme mocking the misconceptions people have about the preborn. I think you accidentally quoted me instead of him.

Sorry. I thought you posted the gravestone picture that said "The fetus isn't human," "Skin cells are human too", "Ejaculation kills millions of humans", the cold-hearted commentary that "The Fetus is a Parasite," "Life doesn't begin at conception" (a lie), "The fetus is a clump of cells." (no, it's still the first stage in the life of a human being, and drinking alcohol at this time can render that infant without body parts or with a severely disfigured face.) "It's (only) a part of the woman's body" (not true, it is not like its mother genetically, and is the starting stage of an entirely different human being's life), and "the embryo isn't even alive." If it weren't alive it would not be forming cells to become organs, limbs, and features similar to other human beings by the DNA of that INDIVIDUAL life that is damn certainly not its mother, and it's not it's father. It is a new human being in its formative stage. Cute little sayings that are little white lies will never amount to the value of one unborn American that is savagely and brutally murdered and drug out of a woman's body. Not ever.

So I was answering the post you put in. Most people put something in their posts in the form of an answer to the person they are communicating with. I wish you had indicated the gravestone picture with the natty false narrative sayings in it was someone else's contribution, Buttercup. the right thing to do is to credit the "picture" to whoever posted that picture, and not leave it to the guesswork that it was your idea to bring it here.

I did post that, but it was a meme showing those false statements with an image of a grave with the words "Here lies basic biology." In other words, people who say those things don't know basic biology.

I'm sorry if that meme was confusing at first glance, but as you can see by all my other posts, rest assured I am firmly pro-life.

if you think a 6 week old embryo is the same as a 6year old child then it is you who is scrambled in the knowledge of biology, sweety.

Strawman, I didn't say they were the same, I've been saying they are both human. Now, if the only way you can win an argument is by being deceptive, that just shows how weak your position is.

anything inside the female that can be forced to continue to grow against her wishes, is indeed ALL the same in the eyes of 'pro lifers'. so uh- no strawman here. howeverrrrrrr, i will grant you that a post born child, if in need of federal 'entitlements' like food, medical care, housing, & education - then you are right; they are not the same & that compassionate conservationism is turn off from the spigot.