Why is abortion the way of the world?

[FA_Q2]

It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!

Does

It

MORH

Out

Of

Something

That

Is

Not

A

Human

Being

Into

Something

That

IS

A

Human

Being?

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Not really needed though. Inside that fertilized chicken egg there is, indeed, a chicken in its earliest stages of growth.

So yes, that is a chicken.

I disagree. It's not even a chick yet.

Again, your disagreement is irrelevant and only supported by what you WANT to be true rather than what actually is.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Let's

Go

Slow

Just

For

You.


Is a human being "a human being" while they are in the Zygote STAGE of their life, growth and development?

Yes

Or

No.

It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!

Does

It

MORH

Out

Of

Something

That

Is

Not

A

Human

Being

Into

Something

That

IS

A

Human

Being?

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Dodger fan?

No, humans are not birds. Yes, we share about 60 % of DNA with Chickens. There are two types of reproduction......

Humans are not birds. That's about the most correct statement you've ever made.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, it's because most pro-lifers are interested in scientific fact, and personhood is the mystical, romantic realm of glandular-thinking barbarians like you.

Most pro-lifers I've talked to have no interest in science beyond twisting it to support their position. What they avoid is admitting an that their religion is the source of their pro-life opinion.

• What does science say about when to turn off the life support of a coma patient?
• What does science say about when a person is too young or too old to drive?
• What does science say about when a person is too young to drink, sign a contract, vote, or enlist?

I dispute your ability to understand what other people have an interest in, because I have proof that you don't actually LISTEN to what other people are saying. And I utterly dismiss and spit upon any and all statements from you regarding what the beliefs of others are.

And I'm outright laughing at the way your position did a 180 switch from one thread to the other because I shredded you on the previous stance you tried to take.

 

[BlindBoo]

Does being Implanted or not implanted affect or change what the zygote IS?

It is the first step necessary to become a human being. That is it will never become a human being with out attaching to the womb.

 

[BlindBoo]

It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!

Does

It

MORH

Out

Of

Something

That

Is

Not

A

Human

Being

Into

Something

That

IS

A

Human

Being?

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Dodger fan?

No, humans are not birds. Yes, we share about 60 % of DNA with Chickens. There are two types of reproduction......

Humans are not birds. That's about the most correct statement you've ever made.

Yeah it was kind of a crazy question.

 

[BlindBoo]

Does

It

MORH

Out

Of

Something

That

Is

Not

A

Human

Being

Into

Something

That

IS

A

Human

Being?

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Not really needed though. Inside that fertilized chicken egg there is, indeed, a chicken in its earliest stages of growth.

So yes, that is a chicken.

I disagree. It's not even a chick yet.

Again, your disagreement is irrelevant and only supported by what you WANT to be true rather than what actually is.

I don't think so. See a chicken is something you can deep fry but an egg you scramble. I guess you can deep fry an egg but how would you eat the drumsticks?

You want to call a zygote a human being and I don't. I'm sure you have your reasons.......

 

[Cecilie1200]

And that's leaving aside the fact that I utterly reject your attempt to assert false parameters. Which I do.

Too bad.

For you, since it means you don't get to state your opinions as fact and have me go along with it.

And if the result is that you stop talking, then bonus points!

 

[alang1216]

Sacred applies to both religious concepts (Jesus is sacred) or non religious ones (my memories are sacred). Further, the sanctity of life is not a dictionary word - it is a phrase with more meaning - Sanctity of life - Wikipedia - that encompass religious precepts as well as secular precepts aka ethics.

I'd still argue that it's meaning and use is mostly based on religion.

From your link:

In Christianity:

The phrase sanctity of life refers to the idea that human life is sacred, holy, and precious, argued mainly by the pro-life side in political and moral debates over such controversial issues as abortion, contraception, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, and the "right to die" in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and other English-speaking countries. (Comparable phrases are also used in other languages.) Although the phrase was used primarily in the 19th century in Protestant discourse, after World War II the phrase has been used in Catholic moral theology and, following Roe v. Wade, Evangelical Christian moral rhetoric.[1]​

 

[Cecilie1200]

At conception, that is a unique and wholly separate human.

No it's not. It is a unique combination of human DNA. it is not yet a Human Being.

Anyway, so what? There is nothing divine about a fertilized egg just because it is human. Many of those never become human being either.

Nothing divine, lol. Just kill em right.

It's just so hard to target the little suckers though.....

A great many of them die naturally after conception and before implantation.

Shockingly, ALL organisms die naturally, if they're not killed first. Doesn't actually make it okay to kill them, though.

As I said (sort of) "Them sucker are just too small to target"

Nothing divine, lol. Just kill em right.

It's just so hard to target the little suckers though.....

A great many of them die naturally after conception and before implantation.

If it is your argument is that it is ok to kill people because many of them will die naturally anyway. . .

Let's follow that to its logical conclusion.

Shall we?

No it's not my argument at all. Fact is a good percent of those zygote never take and never become human beings. Why would that fact make you think it's ok to kill people?

"I only said it. That doesn't mean that's my argument! Why are you holding me responsible for my words?!"

Fact is, a good percent of zygotes die, but that doesn't mean they weren't human beings before they did.

The zygotes are no more human beings than a fertilized lizard egg is a lizard.

Aaaaand now your arguments are devolving again. You're still not as bad off as when you were gabbling about plants, but you're farther away from relevance with reptiles than you were with birds.

Call me when you get into the general taxonomic vicinity of mammals, would you? Still won't be relevant, but it'll be marginally less pathetic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I like you state, "They are non-differentiated cells", as though the two are mutually exclusive. It's so much fun to listen to leftists try to be "scientific" by changing the names things are called by as though it changes the basic facts.

Yes, an embryo is made up

Your confused. A zygote is not an embryo.

Oh, wow, an analogy to a completely different life form

Yet we share so much DNA with them and most all life.

You're confused. You think you're someone with the authority to correct me on English . . . or anything. The fact that you can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're" says otherwise.

Seriously, you should NEVER, EVER speak on anything scientific ever again, because it makes you look even more laughably ignorant than you normally do. Really, just . . . no.

"We share similar DNA, so that makes their reproductive systems TOTALLY analogous to ours. Totally, dude. Now pass the bong!"

 

[Crixus]

PP cannonizes Sanger and any good libtard will sing her praise.


Planned Parenthood | 100 Years Strong



Yet they never mention Sangers motives. I’ll cut and post item (a) through (e) from the link I provided from New York university.


The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
(a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
(b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11.
(c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.


So take that from a woman who the DNC celebrates, the fact that abortion facilities are only built in low incom minority communities, the DNC’s insistants on having racist and rapists in positions of power is very telling. Y’all are heading back to eugenics.

Because Sanger's motives really are not important anymore. She is dead and does not, nor her philosophy, make policy for PP.

The fact that most PP are built in low income areas is not a surprise, they are a low income provider. There certainly is a discussion to be had on weather or not the government should be funding the company - I don't think that the government should be funding any company lest of all PP - but that has nothing to do with Sanger. It has to do with PP and it actual actions - they speak for themselves.

But they are. Planned Parenthood supports them. Openly, quietly sometimes, but the plan is in action. No Abortion clinics in rich white girl neighborhoods, but plenty in any ethnic partnof town. That sure adheres to sangers recommendation of segregating minority’s and poor people, and then controlling their population by means of abortion and sterilization. It has EVERYTHING to do with Sanger and her views. What other reason would their be to kill a born child?

You may have a point about the ethnic makeup but I have not seen any proof that PP targets minority neighborhoods but they rather target poor urban areas - areas where their clients are. The racial divide is likely a function of that rather than the other way around.

I don't link support of abortion with Sanger either as support for abortion is widespread and most people have no idea who Sanger is. I think stating that PP follows Sanger's vision of population control through abortion AND sterilization is extremely tenuous at best. You could say the same thing about any hospital and many clinics all across the country.

And at this time I can not provide any statement from them saying eugenics IS their mission statement, just that it sure looks that way. But what with the new law in new York and the VA law, I’m having a hard time seeing it any other way.

LOL. No, I would not ask for or expect a statement from them supporting eugenics - clearly any org will hide that 'mission statement.' I just don't really see how they differ from any other organization that performs or promotes abortion.

The only reason that they are the mascot here is because they are low income providers that supplement the bottom line with governmental funds.

Still, lawmakers need to draft a law that’s very specific in its language as to what abortion is, and how far along it can be an option. It needs to be etched in stone. Then there will be one less thing to fight over.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's

Go

Slow

Just

For

You.


Is a human being "a human being" while they are in the Zygote STAGE of their life, growth and development?

Yes

Or

No.

It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!

Does

It

MORH

Out

Of

Something

That

Is

Not

A

Human

Being

Into

Something

That

IS

A

Human

Being?

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Not really needed though. Inside that fertilized chicken egg there is, indeed, a chicken in its earliest stages of growth.

So yes, that is a chicken.

Please don't encourage their ignorance. It is absolutely needed for the brain-damaged among us to understand the vast difference between mammals and birds, or at least to understand that they don't understand it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you are not claiming that human zygotes morph into human beings, this is your chance to clarify your claim.

Why should I prove something I didn't do. Prove your accusation. When did I say a zygote from two human parents was non-human? A zygote is an unattached fertilized egg. When it attaches to the mothers womb it becomes an embryo. Not all zygotes attach to their mothers wombs. Nothing sacred about conception.

Let's

Go

Slow

Just

For

You.


Is a human being "a human being" while they are in the Zygote STAGE of their life, growth and development?

Yes

Or

No.

It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!

It is a human fertilized egg, otherwise known as "what all human beings are at that stage of life". Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Can it become an adult human being? Yes, if not killed. Is it less of a human being for not being an adult? No.

Yes.

No, but YOU are less of a human being for being an idiot and being proud of it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you have no plan. Got it.

The plan is to establish, secure and protect the rights of children who are being denied their rights by you and your ilk.

Funny that sails over your head.

But then what? How will you stop it?

Name any one crime against humanity that has been completely "stopped."

Why are you demanding more when comes to stopping abortions than you are for any other form of child molestation?

Because it's something Taz wants to do. If he/she wanted to beat children, he/she would be insisting that the fact that the laws don't completely stop such behavior, there shouldn't be any laws at all.

That really is not the crux of that statement and there really is a problem there. Something that the pro-life position must address (and does in a few ways).

If abortion becomes illegal do you prosecute women that have an abortion? If you do, then how do you do so or even know that it was an abortion and not a miscarriage? If not, then why make it illegal in the first place?

Those are, IMHO, real questions that the pro-life position has to struggle with as there is not a good answer to them both even if there is a best answer.

That really IS the crux of the discussion I was in, but thank you so much for inserting yourself and telling me how I "have to" be having a completely different discussion.

In MY never-humble opinion, you need to ASK me if I would like to discuss what the laws should be in the event of an abortion ban, not TELL me that I HAVE to discuss it.

 

[Crixus]

PP cannonizes Sanger and any good libtard will sing her praise.


Planned Parenthood | 100 Years Strong



Yet they never mention Sangers motives. I’ll cut and post item (a) through (e) from the link I provided from New York university.


The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
(a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
(b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11.
(c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.


So take that from a woman who the DNC celebrates, the fact that abortion facilities are only built in low incom minority communities, the DNC’s insistants on having racist and rapists in positions of power is very telling. Y’all are heading back to eugenics.

Because Sanger's motives really are not important anymore. She is dead and does not, nor her philosophy, make policy for PP.

The fact that most PP are built in low income areas is not a surprise, they are a low income provider. There certainly is a discussion to be had on weather or not the government should be funding the company - I don't think that the government should be funding any company lest of all PP - but that has nothing to do with Sanger. It has to do with PP and it actual actions - they speak for themselves.

But they are. Planned Parenthood supports them. Openly, quietly sometimes, but the plan is in action. No Abortion clinics in rich white girl neighborhoods, but plenty in any ethnic partnof town. That sure adheres to sangers recommendation of segregating minority’s and poor people, and then controlling their population by means of abortion and sterilization. It has EVERYTHING to do with Sanger and her views. What other reason would their be to kill a born child?

You may have a point about the ethnic makeup but I have not seen any proof that PP targets minority neighborhoods but they rather target poor urban areas - areas where their clients are. The racial divide is likely a function of that rather than the other way around.

I don't link support of abortion with Sanger either as support for abortion is widespread and most people have no idea who Sanger is. I think stating that PP follows Sanger's vision of population control through abortion AND sterilization is extremely tenuous at best. You could say the same thing about any hospital and many clinics all across the country.

And at this time I can not provide any statement from them saying eugenics IS their mission statement, just that it sure looks that way. But what with the new law in new York and the VA law, I’m having a hard time seeing it any other way.

Eugenics is not their stated aim, nor was it Sanger's. It was a by-product of her aim to provide all women with birth control.

Yes, more women of colour get abortions than do white women. They do so in direct proportion to the percentage of their respective populations which are poor, and in America, you are more likely to be poor if you are non-white and living in urban areas. It has nothing to do with eugenics.

13% of the women getting abortions in the USA are evangelical Christians. Guess that "abstinence only" birth control and virulent anti-abortion stance isn't exactly working for them.

"Campaign life" your name's a lie. You don't care if women die.

Read Sanger. She clear states who should be removed from the gene pool and why. She was not in the racket for noble reasons. Don’t feel bad, the heroine on the right Ann Rand was a sick bitch, female hitler type to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is human life they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be human and that inevitably leads back to religion.

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

No pro life advocates avoid that at all. Human is CLEARLY defined in modern science generally though genetics. There is absolutely zero question that a human life begins when it is conceived.

What you are digging for is personhood - not human.

OK. How's this?

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion​

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

Indeed.

Being religious is not a prerequisite to question the humanity of killing your offspring in the womb. I know a few people like this.

But alas, the Left will continue to portray this as a state vs. religion issue.

Go check out the thread on Why is the left so happy about abortions? to see why Alang really, Really, REALLY needs to set up strawmen. She's completely lost and helpless the instant pro-lifers don't conform to what her talking points memo told her their positions would be.

From this post: "A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life"

sanc·ti·ty
Dictionary result for sanctity
/ˈsaNG(k)tədē/
noun
noun: sanctity; plural noun: sanctities

1. the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.

Really? That phrase about sanctity appeared in one of my posts? Please tell me which one, because it sure as shit isn't the one you're putatively, and ineffectually, responding to.

I'll become responsible for an anti-abortion argument based on religion when I actually make one, and not before. Until then, you can take your "all pro-lifers are about religion because ONE PERSON said THIS" bullshit and put it in the same trash bin where I left all your other failed attempts at debate.

Throw away the script, start thinking for yourself, and deal with the fact that pro-lifers are individuals, not interchangeable cardboard-cutout villians in your life movie, dumbass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

PP must be pretty stupid because:

In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.​

No, it is once again YOU who is stupid, because you think that actually stops them. THEY are far smarter than you - as are most people, it seems - in that they figured out how to cook the books before the Hyde Amendment was even signed.

I was unaware of this. Do you have anything to support your assertion?

Do you have anything to prove that answering your questions is worth the effort? Because the last time I did it, you ignored four entire posts to respond to one-half of one sentence cut-and-pasted out of context.

In what way have you earned that much respect again?

 

[otto105]

Disagree with your title and OP linking ancient human sacrifices to abortion. The human sacrifices were generally of adults to appease their gods. Abortion is the murder of babies for convenience.

I disagree with your linking abortion to convenience.

People have the right to decide for themselves how many children they want to have. The state has no compeling interest in this decision.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's

Go

Slow

Just

For

You.


Is a human being "a human being" while they are in the Zygote STAGE of their life, growth and development?

Yes

Or

No.

It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!

Does

It

MORH

Out

Of

Something

That

Is

Not

A

Human

Being

Into

Something

That

IS

A

Human

Being?

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Dodger fan?

No, humans are not birds. Yes, we share about 60 % of DNA with Chickens. There are two types of reproduction......

Yes, we have certain similar DNA. No, that is not in any way even remotely relevant to the fact that we're different species, different genera, different all the way up to phylum level. In other words, only an ignorant ass clown thinks "Well, chicken eggs . . ." has anything to say about human reproduction. And trying to pretend that citing DNA similarities somehow makes your argument LESS of a joke actually makes you sound even more ridiculous.

Seriously, stop. Go back to "Abortion is good because I hate religion!" It was stupid, but at least it was a type of stupid you were familiar with.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And quite frankly, I value any zygote you point to more than I do you. And after all, you ARE all about "granting" the right to live based on whether or not other people want you to, right?

I guess you don't believe in capital punishment?

You have even less business making assumptions about my beliefs and projecting them onto me than most pro-abort imbeciles do, and that's saying something.

You want to know what I believe? First, ASK me; do not tell me what you ASSume they are. THEN prove to me that THIS time, you're actually going to read the answer.