US Becoming Pro-Life

[PLC1]

This entire thread is about: 'PRO-LIFE'/'PRO-CHOICE'/Late Term Abortions, I don't think, nor have I ever said that the healthy babies were in this discussion {not from my posts anyway...some of the other hysterical posts you'll need a interpreter for, can't stay on point and becomes incensed when pushed for a response}. The abnormalities in the birth process is the reason for late term abortions...regardless of the 'crying/whining/hysteria' from the Pandora's in the group!

Surely, you're not going to try to argue that only unhealthy babies are aborted in the late term? "Abnormalities in the birth process"?? What abnormalities are you talking about?

Unless you're totally in denial, you know that many of the late term abortions have been performed on perfectly healthy babies.

Exactly...who do you think pays for all of those costly medical bills??? The tooth fairy?
And your 'assuming' that they do not...once again the discussion centered around the reason(s) for a late term abortion...(not the hysterical rantings of Pandora who makes stuff up without any proof from medical records!!!)

Right. Far better to just off them if they're going to cost. Who is going to pay, after all?

Really, and you've read and have seen the stats on that??? Yes, many a anxious adoptive parent want babies {perfectly shaped, perfect medical records...perfect/perfect/perfect} Better check with some adoption agencies/foster care programs before stepping off of that bridge...cause it just isn't so...wish it was otherwise, but sadly it is not!

Check Pandora's post above, contemplate the fact that she and I are seldom on the same page, then remember that there are many more who would say the same.

As for me, I wouldn't adopt, and for a very good reason: By the time the kid reached adulthood, I'd be way up in my '80s. There are, however, many, many younger people who would love to have a child.

APPLES AND ORANGES...we're discussing late term abortions due to the medical needs of the mother...are you following Pandora continual derailing of topic/subject matter?

No, we're discussing late term abortions, period. There are very few instances in which the baby must be aborted in order to save the mother. Most such cases could be taken care of by C section.

Yawn...

Your normal response to facts that are inconvenient to your point of view.

Now that sure ties right into the topic...JEEZE LOUISE But your point about the 'right wing religious types' is basically what I was asking: they don't want to allow a woman the right to abort her baby but they sure as sh!t don't want to fund the institutional places that it will take to provide long term care of all those 'problem babies either'.

so, off them before they cost the taxpayer.

While we're at it, let's kill off the handicapped, and the elderly as well. We'll save a ton of cash.

Seems as though you've chased that statement right back around to my points that I was asking Pandora for some serious thought process about...but all it did was make her 'CRY' and say what a 'MEANY I AM'!!! LMAO

Do Not ask the HARD questions...it just makes them cry louder!!!

Sometimes, they even answer in all caps, they're crying so loud.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Surely, you're not going to try to argue that only unhealthy babies are aborted in the late term? "Abnormalities in the birth process"?? What abnormalities are you talking about?
Unless you're totally in denial, you know that many of the late term abortions have been performed on perfectly healthy babies.
Right. Far better to just off them if they're going to cost. Who is going to pay, after all?
Check Pandora's post above, contemplate the fact that she and I are seldom on the same page, then remember that there are many more who would say the same.
As for me, I wouldn't adopt, and for a very good reason: By the time the kid reached adulthood, I'd be way up in my '80s. There are, however, many, many younger people who would love to have a child.
No, we're discussing late term abortions, period. There are very few instances in which the baby must be aborted in order to save the mother. Most such cases could be taken care of by C section.
Your normal response to facts that are inconvenient to your point of view.
so, off them before they cost the taxpayer.
While we're at it, let's kill off the handicapped, and the elderly as well. We'll save a ton of cash.
Sometimes, they even answer in all caps, they're crying so loud.

Maybe you & GenSeneca need to regroup and do a 'fact check' or obtain those records that Pandora alludes too without any basis/facts...because all I'm hearing is 'HYSTERIA' {ya, I enjoy the caps lock...it's just how I type...but you all ASSume that I'm shouting}.

Cry away, you unfortunate 'fearful' people that don't quite get the 'LATE TERM ABORTION' medical reasons...continue to feed off of the 'FEAR' of the unknown and misguided FEELINGS, there's nothing, absolutely nothing that I can/could say to change that concrete 'FEELING' that you have.

 

[Pandora]

Cry away, you unfortunate 'fearful' people that don't quite get the 'LATE TERM ABORTION' medical reasons...continue to feed off of the 'FEAR' of the unknown and misguided FEELINGS, there's nothing, absolutely nothing that I can/could say to change that concrete 'FEELING' that you have.

Yes there is something you can say/do to change minds. But it’s not about feelings it’s about logic.

Just simply explain how partially birthing via a purposefully done breech delivery then stopping before the head of the baby comes out, holding the babies head in the woman till you can stab it in the back of the neck and keeping that head inside the woman till you are sure the baby is dead, then letting the dead baby finish being born will ever in any case save a woman’s life. If you can even explain in just one case how this ever could save a woman’s life you win the argument for life.

If you can explain how that works you can easily change minds. I have asked for it to be explained to me how making a sick dying woman deliver breech could ever be good for the woman and I have asked repeatedly how letting the child be born all but the head then stopping the delivery process long enough to kill the baby is ever helpful to the woman’s life.

You can change my mind in a heart beat if you can explain to me how this helps a woman who is so sick and so unhealthy she must end her pregnancy right away.

I bet if you can explain how this process will save the life of a single woman you would change the minds of every person reading this who is against it.

 

[PLC1]

Maybe you & GenSeneca need to regroup and do a 'fact check' or obtain those records that Pandora alludes too without any basis/facts...because all I'm hearing is 'HYSTERIA' {ya, I enjoy the caps lock...it's just how I type...but you all ASSume that I'm shouting}.

Cry away, you unfortunate 'fearful' people that don't quite get the 'LATE TERM ABORTION' medical reasons...continue to feed off of the 'FEAR' of the unknown and misguided FEELINGS, there's nothing, absolutely nothing that I can/could say to change that concrete 'FEELING' that you have.

OK, then, fair enough.

Post some facts showing how a baby about to be born is different from one who has just been born.

You can even post it in all caps, in red, and bold it if you want to.

 

[Dr.Who]

You believe that life begins at conception. OK, if that's what you want to believe.

It does follow, then, that killing a human immediately after conception is the same as killing one as an adult.

Therefore, according to your logic, ending a life at any stage of the game is the same, whether the individual has been born or not.

Now, does that recently fertilized egg realize that it is human? Is it sentient at that point?

That's where your argument breaks down. A human zygote is alive, no doubt. Whether it is human depends on your definition of human. Is it enough to have human DNA, or does it have to have consciousness as well?

Is an acorn an oak tree?

It is obvious that life does begin at conception. (I actually do not believe that personhood begins at conception. I believe that it begins very close to conception. But that is a religious belief and should not be used to force public policy.) The scientific evidence on the other hand overwhelmingly demands that a living human zygote is just as human as a fully grown sentient human. And the secular evidence should be used to shape public policy. voters should also rely on their personal opinions based on whatever they want to base it on.

An acorn has as much right to belong to the species of oak as an oak tree. It is not a maple after all.

 

[PLC1]

It is obvious that life does begin at conception. (I actually do not believe that personhood begins at conception. I believe that it begins very close to conception. But that is a religious belief and should not be used to force public policy.) The scientific evidence on the other hand overwhelmingly demands that a living human zygote is just as human as a fully grown sentient human. And the secular evidence should be used to shape public policy. voters should also rely on their personal opinions based on whatever they want to base it on.

An acorn has as much right to belong to the species of oak as an oak tree. It is not a maple after all.

Do you see any difference between aborting a two week old fetus, killing a baby, or killing an adult? If all are human, then there is no difference, is there?

An acorn is a potential oak tree, just as a fetus is a potential human being. If every acorn were to grow into its potential, the Earth would soon be covered with oaks.

 

[palerider]

Well since you brought it up... I'm on the same page as George!

OF course. Like your own arguments, george's are founded in logical fallacy, untruth, and misrepresentation of the facts. He would lose an actual debate on the subject as fast as you and be shown to have nothing more in defense of his position than his own unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, uneducated opinion.

 

[palerider]

The question boils down to when a human becomes a human. If it is, as many contend, at conception, then abortion at any stage is the taking of an innocent life, and is therefore murder, even if the zygote consists of a few microscopic cells.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, vii.

"Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human being from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."E. Bleschmidt, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977)


These are references to medical school textbooks used to teach the subjecs of embryology, fetology, developmental biology, and OB/Gyn. They are credible sources and state explicitly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. Can you provide any credible sources that state that we begin as something other than human beings and then metamorphose into human beings at some later date in our development or will you disregard the hard science in favor of what you prefer to believe?

 

[palerider]

What I'm referring to is the partial birth abortion. As long as the baby is killed before it sees the light of day, it's all legal. That's where I'm coming from when I say that abortion is legal up until birth.

The foundational error in holding up roe as a defense of your position is that roe was decided based on an assumption that unborns were something other than human beings. The roe court acknowledged that its decision was based on an assumption and stated that should that assumption ever be proven wrong, that roe must be struck down as unconstitutional.

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you see any difference between aborting a two week old fetus, killing a baby, or killing an adult? If all are human, then there is no difference, is there?

An acorn is a potential oak tree, just as a fetus is a potential human being. If every acorn were to grow into its potential, the Earth would soon be covered with oaks.

A two week old fetus would be 10 weeks old since conception (8 weeks [definition of a fetus] plus 2). It was a living human being from conception and by 10 weeks it is recognizable a member of the human family possessing a face eyes etc., and can even respond to being touched by grasping things.

I would have to conclude that in all likelihood the two week old fetus the born baby and the adult are all equally deserving of a right to life. They are all clearly alive, human, and legally persons by any legal dictionary.

An acorn is a potential tree in the same way that a child is a potential adult. But the child and the acorn are both still members of their species and both still alive. An acorn is not a tree but it is an oak - an oak seed to be specific.

 

[PLC1]

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, vii.

"Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human being from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."E. Bleschmidt, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977)


These are references to medical school textbooks used to teach the subjecs of embryology, fetology, developmental biology, and OB/Gyn. They are credible sources and state explicitly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. Can you provide any credible sources that state that we begin as something other than human beings and then metamorphose into human beings at some later date in our development or will you disregard the hard science in favor of what you prefer to believe?

Then, given your argument, there is no difference between aborting a fetus at any stage of pregnancy, and killing an adult. Is that you position?

 

[palerider]

Then, given your argument, there is no difference between aborting a fetus at any stage of pregnancy, and killing an adult. Is that you position?

That is my position.

 

[palerider]

Do you see any difference between aborting a two week old fetus, killing a baby, or killing an adult? If all are human, then there is no difference, is there?

None at all.

An acorn is a potential oak tree, just as a fetus is a potential human being. If every acorn were to grow into its potential, the Earth would soon be covered with oaks.

Sorry, but your premise is flawed and from it arises a flawed defense of your position. An acorn is not a "potential" oak tree, an acorn is already an oak tree. Immature certainly, but an oak tree none the less. Rather than go into a long and technical explanation, a picture is worth a thousand words.

This particular photomicrograph is of a wheat seed, but all seeds are essentialy the same. As you can see, when stained, the leaf, the stem, and the root are clearly visible. There is an oak tree already there just as there is already a human being present when fertilization is complete.

 

[PLC1]

That is my position.

I think you're the first one whose position is consistent on this issue. According to your philosophy, then, taking a so called "abortion pill" within a couple of weeks of conception is an act of murder.

How do you think such a crime could be prevented, or punished?

 

[GenSeneca]

... an act of murder.

I told you about this before... The word "Murder" has specific legal meanings and you jumped from "killing" to "murder" in your supposition. Perhaps you should rephrase that question with the original phraseology to which Pale responded.