Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, I agree that the egg implantation and what constituted life after that is the main sticking point to the issue.
In terms of viability, there is certain criteria used to determine viability. The distinction is important. But ending the life through abortion is where others and I have a problem. It's not the child dying from an naturally occurring process.
I'm not sure what you mean by "abnormalities outside of the womb". Do you mean those who have physical deformations?
What I said was “abnormalities inconsistent with life outside the womb” and I was referring to fetuses like my friend’s daughter was carrying. A fetus missing the majority of its brain can survive in the womb where the mother’s placenta is providing oxygen and nourishment, but cannot survive outside the womb where a functioning brain is necessary for breathing, sucking and all basic life functions.
Had she carried to term and delivered, the baby would have died immediately. To force a woman to endure 4 and a 1/2 more months of pregnancy while knowing every second her fetus had no chance of survival is cruel. That’s why there are exceptions that allow for abortion at a later stage of pregnancy in that sort of case.
Both positions are premises by definition. I do agree that the basic core of the debate is whether a fetus is a human life. My premise is that it is in that two humans come together, fertilization has taken place, and growth is begins. That is the biological definition of life (ie human life). Anyone stating their cases on either side uses terms as a foregone conclusion to some extent, so that isn't a "begging the question" statement. I there has to be a burden of "proof" from both sides. I've presented mine and it can go from there.
The fact that both sides rely on premises that "beg the question" doesn't mean that neither side does. Pro-choicers and pro-lifers rely on assumptions that are not universally accepted to make their cases, which means both camps are begging the question.
Those baseline assumptions (i.e., "human life begins at conception" versus "human life begins at viability") cannot be reconciled, which is why there will never be a winner in this debate.
You haven't actually presented "proof" for your argument. You've made an assertion that human life starts at fertilization (not universally accepted), and that taking a life at any stage of development is wrong (also not universally accepted).
There's some sleight of hand going on when you use the "biological definition of life" to define "human life." Most people don't give a flying fig about "life" in a vacuum. Bacteria, spores, insects, most animals... all alive and mostly disposable. We tolerate killing sentient animals for food or sport. So there must be something that makes us "human" beyond the mere proliferation of cells and ability to feel pain. But whatever that is, there's no consensus on when a fertilized egg reaches that point, or whether the mere potential of someday becoming a fully-formed, viable human is enough to subjugate the rights of the mother.
So now you're trying to justify your pro-abortion stance by calling out a minority of pro-lifers that might be hypocrites? This all getting old. Buh, bye.
I've seen this at least 4 times. And never once has anyone disagreed, because yes there are hypocrites and liars living among us in this big world we share.
But it apparently this non-point from this specific quote means a lot for whatever reason, I can't figure it out. Weird.
Of course abortion is murder. It's the killing of another human being. It meets the standard of what constitutes life. Many preemies are born early and most people wouldn't consider killing it. Whether it's outside of the womb or inside the womb, this preemie would be the same age and just as human. The only difference is its physical location by mere inches (ie inside or outside of the womb).
It use to be "law" to treat the black citizens like subhumans, but it didn't change the fact that it was morally wrong. Would you change your "by the law" belief if abortion was made illegal, or is this just an stance you take when the law fits your World view?
When a pregnant woman is murdered and her unborn baby dies as well, it is listed as 2 murders by the courts (ie, the law).
Yes, it's my "personal belief" that abortion is murder, just as it is your "personal belief" that taking the life of an unborn child isn't. You mistakenly think that those who think abortion is wrong and that it is indeed killing a child are few in number. But even with that being the case, moral standards are not decided by a quorum. I refer back to the Jim Crow Laws that were decided by quorum and put into law in the past. So standing on soley legal grounds doesn't help your argument. What is done to a baby during an abortion is barbaric and to say it's killing a child is an understatement to say the least.
If abortion is murder then explain why the hell did the highly Republican Christian red state of Mississippi reject passing the personhood amendment by a fairly wide margin? It would give human rights to all in the womb from the moment of conception. So all abortion would have been banned. Colorado voters rejected a similar proposal not once but twice. The Oklahoma State Supreme court wouldn't even let such a proposal get on the ballot. If you personally believe abortion is murder and a woman, then please don't get one yourself. There is a lot of hypocrisy out there in the pro life world.
I've seen this at least 4 times. And never once has anyone disagreed, because yes there are hypocrites and liars living among us in this big world we share.
So, don't you very much wish that such liars and hypocrites should be imprisoned as soon as they walk out of an abortion clinic?
So, don't you very much wish that such liars and hypocrites should be imprisoned as soon as they walk out of an abortion clinic?
You've gone off the deep end. As entertaining as I find your odd posts, adding you to ignore list. Just wow.
You have a kill everyone who doesn't agree with you, kill those who do agree with you and scorch the earth perspective of the world. Very violent, angry and bitter. Looking to punish everyone around you at all costs 24/7. Sick.
Had she carried to term and delivered, the baby would have died immediately. To force a woman to endure 4 and a 1/2 more months of pregnancy while knowing every second her fetus had no chance of survival is cruel. That’s why there are exceptions that allow for abortion at a later stage of pregnancy in that sort of case.
I totally agree it's cruel. There has got to be some kind of evil religious agenda going on in the hearts and souls of people who want all abortion banned. No regulations allowed. No exceptions allowed. Long prison terms. Such people want more vengeance than God, even though God said vengeance is mine!
The fact that both sides rely on premises that "beg the question" doesn't mean that neither side does. Pro-choicers and pro-lifers rely on assumptions that are not universally accepted to make their cases, which means both camps are begging the question.
Those baseline assumptions (i.e., "human life begins at conception" versus "human life begins at viability") cannot be reconciled, which is why there will never be a winner in this debate.
You haven't actually presented "proof" for your argument. You've made an assertion that human life starts at fertilization (not universally accepted), and that taking a life at any stage of development is wrong (also not universally accepted).
There's some sleight of hand going on when you use the "biological definition of life" to define "human life." Most people don't give a flying fig about "life" in a vacuum. Bacteria, spores, insects, most animals... all alive and mostly disposable. We tolerate killing sentient animals for food or sport. So there must be something that makes us "human" beyond the mere proliferation of cells and ability to feel pain. But whatever that is, there's no consensus on when a fertilized egg reaches that point, or whether the mere potential of someday becoming a fully-formed, viable human is enough to subjugate the rights of the mother.
This sums the issue until very nicely. The states attempting to define “life” as when a heartbeat is detected are also begging the question. Especially considering it’s not even a true heartbeat as it exists at 6 weeks nor does it function in any way like it does in a fully formed human being. It’s a fetal pole “heartbeat” which is just a group of cells with electrical activity and is in no way any kind of cardiovascular system. Using the term “heartbeat” is as inaccurate as it is disingenuous.
You've gone off the deep end. As entertaining as I find your odd posts, adding you to ignore list. Just wow.
You have a kill everyone who doesn't agree with you, kill those who do agree with you and scorch the earth perspective of the world. Very violent, angry and bitter. Looking to punish everyone around you at all costs 24/7. Sick.
My question could have been answered with a yes or no. Some legislators are working hard to get laws passed that would imprison women convicted of abortions. I wondered if you agree with them. If you asked me the same question, I would have answered NO! But many questions asked of you seem too hard for you to answer in a pertinent manner as in the above. If I asked you if you want all abortion banned, I would not expect a pertinent response from you, if any.
People who put me on ignore I regard it as a great victory against them in the debate.
Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 06-06-2019 at 03:12 PM..
The question could have been answered with a yes or no. If you asked me the same question, I would have answered NO! But many questions asked of you seem too hard for you to answer in a pertinent manner.
People who put me on ignore I regard it as a great victory against them in the debate.
Assuming the debate is in good faith I'd tend to agree with you here. It means you are bumping up against their cognitive dissonance points and triggering a fight/flight response.
The exception would be ignoring spammers and trolls as they can clutter up a discussion and add nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
