Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[syrenn]

Our hearts don't have their own heart, and they never grow one.

Because they aren't a human. A baby is.

It is human tissue, just as aborted 4 week old tissue is. Neither are have stand alone"life"

And you base the assertion that a fetus has no "stand-alone life" on what? Your continued, deliberately-obtuse ignorance on the subject of what "independent life" actually means in biological terms?

Will 4 week old fetal cells live by themselves? Will 4 week old tissue that has been c-sections out of a womb live?

 

[snjmom]

Oh? Humans live in air, huh? In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity? I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".

Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive. In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.

It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote. An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism. Period. This is not an arguable biological fact. A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus. A heart is an organ IN an organism. A fetus is an organism.

Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"

Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.

So it's a living organism, but it's not a life?



WTF is a 'stand alone life' is not a living organism?

I swear, abortionism is a religion. You people sound like the YECs demanding creationism be taught in the schools, dancing around the definition of a scientific theory

Is a fetus human? Yes. Does it have the right to reside in your womb if you choose not to carry it? No. Do you have the right to expel it in a legally approved manner, even if the unfortunate consequence is the death of said human? Yes.

That's pretty straightforward, no?

 

[JBeukema]

Syrenn you can't be serious that you think people aren't obliged to care for their children, even when they don't want to. Because that's over the top ridiculous. Women are prosecuted EVERY DAY for walking away from their kids without first providing adequately for them.

I do think that BOTH parents are more then obliged to care for their children. That is one reason i advocate abortion of unwanted children. Unwanted, unloved, uncared for children are so incredibly sad. Both parents should be prosecuted for neglecting their children.

Killing them is better than finding them a good home?

The entire baby-killing industry knows it's indefensible. You know what you advocate in nothing other than cold-blooded murder.

It's why you hide behind euphemisms like 'aborting' a human life as though it were nothing more than an attempt to move a file in DOS.

People don't 'pass away', they die. You don't 'abort' a life, you kill.

If what you advocate is justifiable, why can't you face what it is you advocate?

 

[syrenn]

So we're back to you idiots failing biology 101 and knowing what a human being is

Do i say the tissue is not human? I say the tissue is not a stand alone "life"

So we're back to not knowing what a human being is?

I know the difference between human tissue and what a human being is, yes. You seem not to however.

And where does you penchant for eugenics come into play into all of this i wonder?

 

[JBeukema]

You keep appealing to the law.

It should be legal because it's legal?

What about slavery and spousal rape?

Abortionism is Statism

 

[syrenn]

So we're back to you idiots failing biology 101 and knowing what a human being is

Do i say the tissue is not human? I say the tissue is not a stand alone "life"

And you continue to be egregiously wrong and stupid in so doing. And I say "stupid" because you're not just ignorant and uneducated on this topic, but you are WILLFULLY so. You have CHOSEN to cling to your ignorance of biology, which is the very embodiment of "stupid".

Nice try at deflection. Do try and answer a simple question?

Will 4 week old fetal tissue live outside of the womb? Will 8 week old tissue live outside of the womb? Is it adoptable at 4 or 8 weeks?

 

[JBeukema]

Do i say the tissue is not human? I say the tissue is not a stand alone "life"

So we're back to not knowing what a human being is?

I know the difference between human tissue and what a human being is, yes. You seem not to however.

Evidently not. Unless you admit your earlier posts were simple outright lying

And where does you penchant for eugenics come into play into all of this i wonder?

You say outright you believe in killing off the uwanted and you want to talk about eugenics?

 

[Shadow]

Oh? Humans live in air, huh? In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity? I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".

Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive. In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.

It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote. An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism. Period. This is not an arguable biological fact. A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus. A heart is an organ IN an organism. A fetus is an organism.

Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"

Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.

So it's a living organism, but it's not a life?



WTF is a 'stand alone life' is not a living organism?

I swear, abortionism is a religion. You people sound like the YECs demanding creationism be taught in the schools, dancing around the definition of a scientific theory

Don't even try to understand her stupid argument. She just has a bunch of meaningless bullet points she constantly throws out there...pretending she actually has a point.

 

[JBeukema]

i advocate abortion of unwanted children.

Killing off the unwanted.

Where have we heard that before?


No wonder PP was founded by a eugenicist. Explains the name, too, when you think about it.

 

[syrenn]

Oh? Humans live in air, huh? In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity? I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".

Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive. In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.

It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote. An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism. Period. This is not an arguable biological fact. A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus. A heart is an organ IN an organism. A fetus is an organism.

Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"

Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.

Do you deny that a fetus is an organism? Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism. You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier. Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.

What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient. For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.

I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"

Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?

 

[syrenn]

Oh? Humans live in air, huh? In what science book did you find THAT criterion to humanity? I don't remember that appearing in ANY description of "human being".

Of course, the biological truth is that all human being engage in respiration, and must do so to remain alive. In that, fetuses are no different from any other human being.

It really doesn't matter what something is "as far as you're concerned", because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not up for a vote. An organism is an organism, and a fetus is an organism. Period. This is not an arguable biological fact. A heart is not an organism, and no one has ever claimed it is, so it's not comparable to a fetus. A heart is an organ IN an organism. A fetus is an organism.

Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"

Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.

So it's a living organism, but it's not a life?



WTF is a 'stand alone life' is not a living organism?

I swear, abortionism is a religion. You people sound like the YECs demanding creationism be taught in the schools, dancing around the definition of a scientific theory

How dense are you?

Take your organism out of the womb and see if your organism lives. Rather simple don't you think?.

That is a stand alone life.

 

[JBeukema]

I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host.

I'd like to see you live without your gut flora

It is only tissue as far as I am concerned

like evolution is just a guess?

, until it has a "life" of its own

It does from creation, unless you're back to just making shit up

. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"

In short, science doesn't matter when it doesn't support your faith and what you need to be true


Abortionism really is a religion

 

[JBeukema]

Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"

Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.

So it's a living organism, but it's not a life?



WTF is a 'stand alone life' is not a living organism?

I swear, abortionism is a religion. You people sound like the YECs demanding creationism be taught in the schools, dancing around the definition of a scientific theory

How dense are you?

Take your organism out of the womb and see if your organism lives. Rather simple don't you think?.

That is a stand alone life.

Let's take you out of your natural habitat, too

how long can you survive in space or underwater?

 

[AllieBaba]

Babies can't survive period without someone assisting them.

It's a worthless argument..that something isn't human because it can't feed and clothe itself. It's patently untrue.

 

[Ravi]

Okay, two problems here. One, the Constitution doesn't define "real human" anywhere in it, nor does it ever mention life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That would be the Declaration of Independence. So please explain to me how your source for a "real human being" definition can POSSIBLY be the US Constitution.

Second problem is, if one must have legal protections to be a "real human being", does that mean that slaves were not real human beings prior to emancipation and the end of the War Between the States, and somehow real humanity was magically conveyed upon them at that point? Because I gotta say, that Abraham Lincoln didn't know his own strength, if that was the case. Someone should nominate that man for canonization, pulling off a miracle like that!



So it WAS emancipation that magically conveyed "real human being" status on the slaves.

The only question that remains then is what they were before Congress and the President magically made them into humans.

Only 3/5 human. Also, property.

Your Constitutional scholarship rivals your biological and medical learning.

The Constitution never said anyone was" 3/5 human". The Enumeration Clause, dealing with how Representatives are apportioned, says this:

". . . which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Doesn't say a damned thing about anyone being a fraction of a human, or even a fraction of a person.

Property, on the other hand, they definitely WERE. That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not they were "real human beings". So again, if they weren't humans until the Civil Rights Act magically conveyed humanity upon them, what sort of animal were they? Or perhaps they were insects? Plants?

You've answered your own question but you're too stupid to see that. They were included in the phrase "all other persons." And you know who wasn't included in that phrase? The unborn. The founders didn't count the unborn as persons and neither do rational people.

Because they're not and the constitution backs that up.

Loser.

 

[Immanuel]

Are you advocating for personal responsibility for our forebears? Should we now have reparations?

That's reality. Without the state to protect your rights, they are subject to the power gradient between you and every other human being.

Cecilie. It is quite plain English. Does the fetus have the right to force you to carry it, by law? If it is to be considered a person with a right to life, does that right supercede your right to decide what will live in your body?

So, you are saying that the fact that our current government from January 22, 1973 through today is screwed up in the "head" so to speak is the problem of unborn and thus they should die if the mother so chooses?

Our government is not always right. It was not right when it treated human beings who were black as 3/5 human and slaves. It was not right when it treated women as less than human and refused them the right to vote along with many other rights. It is not right today in torturing human beings who have never even been tried for terrorism. There are many things wrong with our society (yet I would never choose to live anywhere else on a permanent basis).

Simply because our government does not recognize a particular right, does not mean that right does not exist.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"

Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.

Do you deny that a fetus is an organism? Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism. You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier. Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.

What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient. For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.

I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"

Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?

And what pray tell gives you the right to make the decision that it does not have life as far as you are concerned?

Forgive me because you and I are friends and I respect much of what you say but dagnamit, who made you God?

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

You believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent person, and yet you wouldn't make it illegal?

What the **** is that? What's your position on infanticide? Should that also not be a crime?

(I swear you can certainly measure the irrationality of the anti-abortion crowd simply by the irrational shit they throw around, jeezus.)

Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions? If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions. Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and saving those innocent lives. Figures you couldn't see that on your own.

I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you. Typical.

If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder. By anyone rational anyway.

Again you completely and totally ignore my entire post, my entire point. Unfuckingbelievable. Punishing the woman isn't my ballyiwick, it's yours so stop projecting it onto me. And your statement above makes zero sense. Punishment does not dictate whether something is murder, the law does and unfortunately our law okayed the killing of unborn human beings. You are truly dumber than a rock.

I realize you want to put me into some kind of rw extremist box . . have fun with it because I'm not fitting and I'm not playing your game. Once again, punishing the woman isn't what pro-life is about it is about preventing abortion thus preventing the destruction of innocent human life.

Will making abortion illegal reduce the number of abortions? If yes, then make it illegal; if no, then leave it legal with restrictions. Sorry to disappoint but the goal isn't to punish the woman, it is about reducing the number of abortions and saving those innocent lives. Figures you couldn't see that on your own.

I notice you've dodge the questions asked of you. Typical.

If there's no cause to punish the woman, then abortion cannot be considered murder. By anyone rational anyway.

Kudos to you for having the patience to try to reason with these wackos.

And look at you clapping along like a trained seal or something. You know what? Good. Remember this the next time you try and pigeon hole me with your "pro-lifers don't care about the woman they only care about the unborn" bullshit. mmmkay?


Neither one of you have answered JB's question:

"At what time did what fundamental aspect of your nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?"

Want to try answering this or are you just going to bounce back with more projection? Never mind, I already know the answer to that question.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"

Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.

Do you deny that a fetus is an organism? Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism. You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier. Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.

What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient. For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.

I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"

Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?

Of course not. But whether it lives outside of its environment doesn't determine its humanness or not. Humans beget humans. From conception to delivery and beyond, they are human beings. Different stages to be sure, but human beings at each and every stage.

If I took you as you are right now and plopped you in the middle of Siberia you'd be dead within the hour. Does that make you less human because you're unprepared and unequipped to survive in a hostile environment?

This is the part that I think many are not getting. Developmental stages of a human being are just that . . . stages of development. But what is living and growing inside of a woman is a human being. How can you possibly say it is anything else? That it is just a blob of tissue? If it were just a blob of tissue, if it isn't "life" as you claim . . . then an abortion wouldn't be something a woman would seek.

I posted these definitions earlier and they went ignored.

Abortion: the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

Pregnancy: 1. the state or condition of being pregnant 2. the period from conception to childbirth

 

[Zoom-boing]

Do i deny that fetal tissue is not an organism? I also do not deny that the tissue is alive. I do say it does not have stand alone "life"

Again, c-sections the 4 week old tissue out. Give it birth. See if it lives.

Do you deny that a fetus is an organism? Yes, that's exactly what you've been trying to do by referring to him as "tissue", which is a much lower-level of biological organization than an organism. You're just trying to backtrack without admitting you were wrong and shot yourself in the foot earlier. Another example of pro-abortion dishonesty.

What you view as a "stand-alone life" is meaningless to the topic, unless you are finally intellectually honest and courageous enough to admit that you support killing living human children strictly because they are inconvenient. For any other purpose, it's a pointless distinction of location and nothing else.

I have never denied it is an organism. I say fetal tissue does not have "life" in and of itself without its host. It is only tissue as far as I am concerned, until it has a "life" of its own. There is no admitting I support killing living human children as i do not believe that 4 week old tissue is "living" ..it has no stand alone "life"

Can you be honest enough to answer the question of, will 4 week old tissue live outside the womb?

Then what exactly is the point of abortion?