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

[Vanquish]

Nice try, but no, dipshit.

The sexism charge comes from the bevy of insults hurled at me simply because I'm a MAN and I have an opinion about the value of motherhood.

More ******* bullshit. And you wonder why people won't debate shit with you. Actually you probably don't wonder. You just float along believing your own bullshit.

When did you tell us you were a man?

I think I must have hit a nerve with you when I pointed out your hypocrisy and misogyny and that's why you lost your cool and started insulting people with obscenities. Call me **** till the cows come home. I doesn't change the fact that your posts indicate you view women primarily as breed cows.

I've said nothing of the kind that would lead any reasonable person would that in the least. That you persist in your character assassination (attempted) is proof of your radical hatred of men.

OMG!! All men are rape oppressors!

 

[Anguille]

Nice try, but no, dipshit.

The sexism charge comes from the bevy of insults hurled at me simply because I'm a MAN and I have an opinion about the value of motherhood.

More ******* bullshit. And you wonder why people won't debate shit with you. Actually you probably don't wonder. You just float along believing your own bullshit.

When did you tell us you were a man?

I think I must have hit a nerve with you when I pointed out your hypocrisy and misogyny and that's why you lost your cool and started insulting people with obscenities. Call me **** till the cows come home. I doesn't change the fact that your posts indicate you view women primarily as breed cows.

I've said nothing of the kind that would lead any reasonable person would that in the least. That you persist in your character assassination (attempted) is proof of your radical hatred of men.

OMG!! All men are rape oppressors!

What is a"rape oppressor"? Sounds like someone I would approve of.

Vanquish, you been vanquished.

 

[Vanquish]

Not even close to being vanquished, but nice turn of phrase.

Rape oppressor is no doubt how you view all men - evil subjugators who impose their will at all turns. At least that's how your rabid posts make you out. Have fun with that.

Back on topic - I added women/mothers to the equation because, FOR ME, the mere fertilized cells in a Petri dish still NEED the mother to become life. No crime if you're storing cells that have no attachment to the mother. Or disposing of them.

If the fertilized cells are in a vacuum, you're not stopping life...it needs the mother to START. Feel free to pick back up your incubator bullshit arguments if you want, but that's just logic people.

 

[AllieBaba]

Their mother is the woman from whom the egg comes.

They obviously don't need a mother to start. That's why it's important to define them as people in their own right. Because we can start humans outside the mother's body. They do it ALL THE TIME.

 

[Anguille]

Not even close to being vanquished, but nice turn of phrase.

Rape oppressor is no doubt how you view all men - evil subjugators who impose their will at all turns. At least that's how your rabid posts make you out. Have fun with that.

Back on topic - I added women/mothers to the equation because, FOR ME, the mere fertilized cells in a Petri dish still NEED the mother to become life. No crime if you're storing cells that have no attachment to the mother. Or disposing of them.

If the fertilized cells are in a vacuum, you're not stopping life...it needs the mother to START. Feel free to pick back up your incubator bullshit arguments if you want, but that's just logic people.

The fertilized cells are not kept in a vacuum. Biologically speaking they are no different than fertilized cells in a womb.

 

[Vanquish]

So you can bring a baby to term without a mother from start to finish?

WOW! We really do live in the future!

 

[Vanquish]

Guess that shut you up - which is just as well. You didn't really want to have a tempered, reasoned debate about this. You just wanted to say your radical, sexist "men are evil" shit and leave.

Can someone point people to this thread when they try to say I'm a liberal? I'm just sayin'.

 

[JBeukema]

Again:

I believe it is in society's best interest to allow a woman a reasonable window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy FOR ANY REASON.

Why is it best for society to allow homicide for any reason when the victim is very young?

Why?

I believe that the first trimester time period of a pregnancy fairly represents that 'window'.

Why? What, exactly, changes at the end of the first trimester that makes killing the child in cold blood no longer okay?

You didn't tell me why I'm wrong. You didn't state your own position and tell us why it's better.

Why do you have to lie?

 

[JBeukema]

Still haven't seen anyone answer these

Is shooting you in the face okay?


If not, why not and and what moment did something change about your fundamental nature change that made killing you in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?

How old were you when killing you went from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing and why did it suddenly become wrong to kill you?
​

Why haven't you answered your own question? Or is it fair to say that you believe an abortion is homicide from conception on?

Is that your position?

Learn how to read

 

[JBeukema]

Until the embryo has developed a nervous system (which also means a brain), it's just a mass of cells.

Even today, you are just a mass of cells

 

[JBeukema]

Obviously, JB feels that abortion should be illegal

Do cite

the meaning is clear.

Yes, it is. But you have to know how to read.

 

[JBeukema]

Why can't you people ever be honest?

 

[Luissa]

So, JB I could assume you are against the morning after pill?

Nope. Human life isn't important.

The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person.

If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.

See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism

I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.

When do you consider the brain to be operational?

 

[JBeukema]

When people kill people for alleged crimes committed against them, it's called vigilantism. It's a crime.

Lots of people are perfectly justified in wanting other people dead. But they don't get to kill them, and if they do, they have committed murder. The only difference here is that the babies can't speak for themselves and have done absolutely nothing to anyone.

Tell us what the law should be then. Tell us what abortion law in this country SHOULD look like.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...tion-of-life-vs-protection-of-the-person.html

 

[JBeukema]

So, JB I could assume you are against the morning after pill?

Nope. Human life isn't important.

The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person.

If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.

See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism

I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.

When do you consider the brain to be operational?

Erratic electrical impulses can be detected in about 6 weeks, but all structures necessary for higher brain function and the emergence of the individual sentient/intelligent mind are not present 'til near the end of the 1st trimester. I no longer have the original sources bookmarked, but could track them down if really necessary.

 

[JBeukema]

Have you presented any scientific evidence that a fertilized human egg has any resemblance to a born human being whatsoever, other than its DNA content?

Why would I need to, and why would HE need to? It is unnecessary, ridiculous, and irrelevant to demand that an embryo look like anything other than an embryo. A newborn infant doesn't look like an adult, and no one demands that he do so, much less that I "present scientific evidence" that he does.

At every stage in the human life span, from conception to death, the human organism looks exactly as he is supposed to look at that point in his life (barring severe, catastrophic defects, obviously). That's all that's required.



Actually, for the purposes of this particular thread, I just want to make the abortionistas be honest about the facts of the argument. That's enough of an uphill battle to take on all by itself.



When did I ever say that chromosomes were my only evidence? When in this thread have I said ANYTHING about chromosomes, as a matter of fact? How's about you argue with me based on MY ACTUAL ARGUMENTS, rather than the arguments you'd LIKE me to have made?

I'm not going to restate those arguments and rehash the evidence just because YOU can't be bothered to read and pay attention. Go back and look, or we can just consider this one more bit of evidence that you and your comrades are incapable of even the smallest iota of honesty on this subject. Your choice.

You can no more claim a fertilized egg is a human than you can claim the blueprint for a house is a house.

Of course I can, and I have. The fact that you just blew right past all the arguments in favor of "I want to believe she's claiming the DNA as evidence, so THAT'S what I'm going to argue against, never mind what she actually said" means nothing whatsoever.

Once again, go back and find my ACTUAL arguments, or continue on arguing with the voices in your head, thus proving that you bring nothing to the table. Whichever.

There is no scientific argument that magically turns a human zygote into a human person, therefore there is no logical argument that science supports treating human zygotes AS persons.

Care to define your terms?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nope. Human life isn't important.

The morning after pill ends a human life, but does not end the existence of a mind- of a person. What matters is the individual, which is the sentient mind regardless of what system (fleshy, digital, or other) it arises from. When that mind ceases to be (the brain or other system from which arises ceases to function), the individual ceases to exist. That is the real death of a person.

If those systems are not yet operational, then the mind cannot have emerged. It does not yet exist and there is, therefore no individual to be harmed through the ending of the life of the system which might have one day given rise to a new mind. Killing a young foetus, then, is like dismantling the internet today. Each system might someday give rise to a new mind- a new individual person- but it has yet to do so. Therefore I cannot harm a non-existent individual by destroying that system.

See: theory of mind; epistemological solipsism

I have no way of knowing whether any of you are human or not. Nor do i really care. What matters is that you appear to me to be other minds. whether you emerge from a fleshy brain, a supercomputer, or some system I cannot even contemplate is irrelevant.

When do you consider the brain to be operational?

Erratic electrical impulses can be detected in about 6 weeks, but all structures necessary for higher brain function and the emergence of the individual sentient/intelligent mind are not present 'til near the end of the 1st trimester. I no longer have the original sources bookmarked, but could track them down if really necessary.

For the record, I consider the brain to be operational when the organism is capable of self-directing its own maintenance and development. I no more apply the false standard of "must have a brain like that of an adult human" than I apply the false standard of "must look like an adult human". It's unfair and kind of silly to penalize a creature for being exactly what nature intended it to be, simply because that isn't what YOU think it ought to be at that particular moment.

 

[JBeukema]

When do you consider the brain to be operational?

Erratic electrical impulses can be detected in about 6 weeks, but all structures necessary for higher brain function and the emergence of the individual sentient/intelligent mind are not present 'til near the end of the 1st trimester. I no longer have the original sources bookmarked, but could track them down if really necessary.

For the record, I consider the brain to be operational when the organism is capable of self-directing its own maintenance and development.

Since when is a brain even necessary for homeostasis, growth, adaptation, or response to stimuli?

The rest of your post reads a lot like the animal liberation folk's rhetoric about animals.

 

[JBeukema]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your ******* mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

You're bing disingenious. I know of no one who is 'pro-abortion'. If that were the case, abortion would be the only outcome that would satisfy them. They would be lobbying for mandatory aboritions. What you're calling pro-abortion is actually a name drummed up by those who don't want to have an honest conversation.

Pro-choice, which is a term, anti-abortionists will never use, is a simple position that says:

A woman has the right to determine if she will carry a baby to term. This is not a determination for the government to make. It is her choice. It worked for Bristol Palin. She could have aborted her son while he was a fetus, but she 'CHOSE" to carry to term. It's all about the woman's decision.

Well on this we agree. My first post in this thread said the very same thing.

For people on the "pro-choice" side of things, a woman's 'right to choose' trumps the unborns 'right to life'.

For people on the "pro-life" side of things, the unborns 'right to life' trumps a woman's 'right to choose'.

>99% of the time, she made her choice when she opened her legs

 

[JBeukema]

doesn't look like a clump of cells to me.

The 9-Week Fetus in Motion

It doesn't look like a human being either.

All humans look like that at that age, barring severe developmental defects.


How can x not look like x?

Oh yeah, you're a dishonest sack of shit who can't admit what you advocate.