• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Question To Pro-Choice People

Re: A critique of reason

Yah. If this were a butcher shop, I'd check to make sure you weren't putting your thumb on the scales. Evolution News is

"Evolution News & Science Today[edit]
"CSC publishes the blog Evolution News & Science Today (formerly Evolution News & Views) (often shortened to Evolution News (EN))."

& who is CSC?

"The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), is part of the Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative Christian think tank[2] in the United States. The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) in public-school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe while casting doubt on the theory of evolution.[3] These positions have been rejected by the scientific community, which identifies intelligent design as pseudoscientific neo-creationism, whereas the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus.[4]

"The Center for Science and Culture serves as the hub of the intelligent design movement. Nearly all of prominent proponents of intelligent design are either CSC advisors, officers, or fellows. Stephen C. Meyer, a former vice president of the Discovery Institute and founder of the CSC, serves as a Senior Fellow, and Phillip E. Johnson is the Program Advisor. Johnson is commonly presented as the movement's "father" and architect of the Center's Wedge strategy and "Teach the Controversy" campaign, as well as the Santorum Amendment."

Both cites from Center for Science and Culture - Wikipedia

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

So - to coin a phrase, the output of CSC is merely special pleading & propaganda. That's why I fixed the first two lines I quoted above.

NAAPC is

"About

"The National Association for the Advancement of Preborn Children was founded by Martin Palmer, a practicing attornery and member of American Bar Association, the Maryland Bar Association, the American Trial Lawyers, the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association, and an honoree in Who’s Who in American Law. Mr. Palmer completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, and received his Law Degree from the University of Baltimore School of Law .

"Mr. Palmer represented Chris Fritz in a father’s rights in abortion case; obtained preliminary injunction to prevent his wife from aborting their second child. Dr. Bernard Nathanson testified on behalf of the preborn child.

"Coleman v. Coleman, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1984

"Another father’s rights in abortion case which originated in Rockville, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, DC, in which both Dr. Jerome Lejeune of Paris, France, and Dr. Bernard Nathanson of New York City testified as to the equal humanity and personhood of the preborn child."

(My emphasis - more @ About - NAAPC)

I'm sure Mr. Palmer is sincere in his beliefs. Does he have a background in the medicine, biology, ethics of conception? I don't see any of that noted on his site - which I would expect to see, if he had it. So - should we simply take his word on the issues @ hand?

The testimony cited in 1981 above was during President Reagan's administration - a great disappointment to the anti-abortion forces, I'm sure, as he made nice noises but didn't take any substantive action. However, it was early days for the anti-abortion groups - they had come late to the realization that they had an issue. & so it goes.


Btw, it's not about the site that was cited. It's about the scientific facts.

But, just so to cater to you, and to help put your skepticism at rest..... Princeton University provides a list of various scientific references:


Life Begins at Fertilization

The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception



Now....it's your turn.
Provide scientific references that say human life does not start at fertilization.
 
Last edited:
"Personhood," is not a right to "give." A person is a human. Any human has rights, according to the Constitution.
If we're about equality- no one should have more rights than others.


I could ask you the same thing: How do you uphold the rights of a woman without stepping on the rights of the fetus?



Why is there a human life created? Who had caused the problem in the first place?
The one who'd caused this, should face the consequence of her actions.
The least she could do is to deliver the baby.

Too bad that she's got an unwanted pregnancy. Whose fault is it?


Indeed, it's kinda complicated, isn't it?

It logically - and squarely - puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the woman - the one who's supposed to have sole responsibility of her own body.

We know what could possibly result from unprotected sex.
Explain, how did that human get created inside her body?
:mrgreen:


Bingo!

That's the reason why pro-choice wants to dehumanize the fetus!

It's a complicated situation - and they don't have the confidence that their main argument can successfully stand alone in the Supreme Court!

Well, in the USA personhood IS a legal issue.

Again, how do you give personhood to a fetus without diminishing the rights of the woman.

Woman gets a cancer that SHOULD have a 95 percent survival rate. Due to your purposed personhood....a doctor must avoid or even drastically delay giving treatments that would be harmful to the embryo or fetus. Consequence....a mostly survivable cancer advances and metastasizes and the woman dies 2 years later.

These types of scenarios show that a pregnant woman would be clearly and emphatically have less rights than a man.

Now, if a doctor lays out the risks and benefits to a pregnant woman of adjusting treatment to fit her pregnancy or delay treatment all together.....and I decide to chance my survival rate and continue my pregnancy....that is MY choice.
 
Re: A critique of reason

Btw, it's not about the site that was cited. It's about the scientific facts.

But, just so to cater to you, and to help put your skepticism at rest..... Princeton University provides a list of various scientific references:



Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception



Now....it's your turn.
Provide scientific references that say human life does not start at fertilization.

Yes, a zygote, embryo, or fetus is life.

Now answer mine,

A pregnant woman's cancer is discovered 4 weeks into her pregnancy. Oncologist states the most reliable cure (95 % survival at 5 years) for her cancer will definitely kill the embryo. Alternate versions of therapy will give her a 25 percent survival rate at 5 years, but she likely will be able to maintain her pregnancy. In your mind should the woman have a choice to pick the relatively sure cure?
 
Squaring the circle

:roll: yada-yada-yada....

Care to bring up anything scientific that says life doesn't start at conception?

Yah. The Creationists (& that's what Center for Science and Culture [CSC] & blog Evolution News & Science Today) are - have an overriding theological position that they subordinate everything else to. Science is supposed to follow the evidence, no matter where that leads. The history of science in Western Civilization is the history of natural philosophy breaking away from creed in order to discover the underlying laws that govern nature.

So - CSC & Evolution News & Science Today may have interesting things to say about the World - but as long as they are bound to their creed - I expect that their contributions to science will be slight, @ best. The statements on life beginning @ conception you cited were creedal statements more than anything else, hoping to start a bandwagon effect on federal government, I suppose.

There are people of faith doing excellent science, to my knowledge. But I don't expect excellent science from organizations that have already endorsed creedal statements as their end-all & be-all. I don't think it can be done, given that science is open-ended & tentative about its truth statements. The contradictions are simply too great.
 
Re: A critique of reason

Btw, it's not about the site that was cited. It's about the scientific facts.

But, just so to cater to you, and to help put your skepticism at rest..... Princeton University provides a list of various scientific references:

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

Now....it's your turn.
Provide scientific references that say human life does not start at fertilization.

The sites contain what purports to be scientific facts. But CSC, for instance - is guilty of bad faith. They pretend to be a scientific organization when they're talking to their funders, the public, & the press. & when they're talking to their true believers, they drop the presumed mask, & take on their evangelistic personas - see the URLs included in my remarks on CSC before. They're been caught @ this various times before, & yet they persist.

Princeton's list is interesting - if you look @ the URL in your browser, it says the article is under ~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2 You're conflating the fact that Princeton University's pro-life organization is presumably housed @ Princeton, with Princeton's approval & backing of Princeton's pro-life organization. See their website: Princeton Pro-Life | Princeton University

"Princeton Pro-Life is a student-run organization devoted to promoting a culture of life on campus and in the world beyond. We host speakers, sponsor conferences, write editorials, and coordinate with other campus organizations to raise awareness of the pro-life message. We also organize a trip to the annual March for Life in Washington D.C. in January."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

Nowhere there nor anywhere on their site do I see a declaration that Princeton University endorses or maintains the integrity of every speech, statement, document, etc. that Princeton Pro-Life may emit.
 
Why are pro choice upset by children being housed at the border separately from their parents, when they illegally cross the border and are being processed. However, they are ok with babies being ripped from the womb, ending their lives.
 
Well, in the USA personhood IS a legal issue.

Again, how do you give personhood to a fetus without diminishing the rights of the woman.

Woman gets a cancer that SHOULD have a 95 percent survival rate. Due to your purposed personhood....a doctor must avoid or even drastically delay giving treatments that would be harmful to the embryo or fetus. Consequence....a mostly survivable cancer advances and metastasizes and the woman dies 2 years later.

These types of scenarios show that a pregnant woman would be clearly and emphatically have less rights than a man.

Now, if a doctor lays out the risks and benefits to a pregnant woman of adjusting treatment to fit her pregnancy or delay treatment all together.....and I decide to chance my survival rate and continue my pregnancy....that is MY choice.


Roe v. Wade

The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.
Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia


You're talking about a specific case (having cancer).
Without immediate treatment could mean death for the woman.
I don't think anyone would fault her for seeking treatment (even if the treatment would be detrimental to the fetus).
 
Last edited:
Re: A critique of reason

The sites contain what purports to be scientific facts. But CSC, for instance - is guilty of bad faith. They pretend to be a scientific organization when they're talking to their funders, the public, & the press. & when they're talking to their true believers, they drop the presumed mask, & take on their evangelistic personas - see the URLs included in my remarks on CSC before. They're been caught @ this various times before, & yet they persist.

Princeton's list is interesting - if you look @ the URL in your browser, it says the article is under ~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2 You're conflating the fact that Princeton University's pro-life organization is presumably housed @ Princeton, with Princeton's approval & backing of Princeton's pro-life organization. See their website: Princeton Pro-Life | Princeton University

"Princeton Pro-Life is a student-run organization devoted to promoting a culture of life on campus and in the world beyond. We host speakers, sponsor conferences, write editorials, and coordinate with other campus organizations to raise awareness of the pro-life message. We also organize a trip to the annual March for Life in Washington D.C. in January."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

Nowhere there nor anywhere on their site do I see a declaration that Princeton University endorses or maintains the integrity of every speech, statement, document, etc. that Princeton Pro-Life may emit.


To place your emphasis on url, is irrational.

It's about the.....

list of scientific references that are listed - those are the evidence!

Not the url!




Did you even look at them?


Provide your own scientific evidence that says life does not begin at fertilization!

Unless you do, I'll be ignoring you.
I won't be engaging with your irrational argument about the url!
Bye for now.
 
Last edited:
Re: A critique of reason

Here's a long article, an in depth explanation:



Although the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1965 attempted to redefine “conception” to mean implantation rather than fertilization,4 medical dictionaries and even English language dictionaries both before and after 19665,6 define “conception” as synonymous with fertilization (sometimes via the intermediary term of “fecundation”).7,8,9 Moore’s 1974 edition of a human embryology textbook states that development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum is fertilized by a sperm and ends at death. It is a process of change and growth that transforms the zygote, a single cell, into a multicellular adult human being.

10 Moore’s 2008 edition emphasizes that development does not end at birth but extends into early adulthood.1 Professor Emeritus of Human Embryology of the University of Arizona School of Medicine, Dr. C. Ward Kischer, affirms that “Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception).

Even authors who philosophically lean towards not attributing the same value to human life at the one-cell stage as they do to later stages of development admit that “As far as human ‘life’ per se, it is, for the most part, uncontroversial among the scientific and philosophical community that life begins at the moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell.”12 J.T. Eberl goes on to say – and this is really the debate:

“However, what is controversial is whether this genetically unique cell should be considered a human person.”

Nonetheless, one could sensibly make the case that “personhood” can only exist in a living human being and that the division of these two entities is arbitrary at best.



It is clear that from the time of cell fusion, the embryo consists of elements (from both maternal and paternal origin) which function interdependently in a coordinated manner to carry on the function of the development of the human organism. From this definition, the single-celled embryo is not just a cell, but an organism, a living being, a human being.


The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created.
When Human Life Begins | American College of Pediatricians


That scientific evidence exists, is quite clear! A human life begins at conception - and "personhood" is nothing but another definition of a human!



We know why pro-choice are quite adamant to make a spin out of this "personhood."

They don't have the confidence that their main argument (the woman's right to have sovereignty on her own body) can successfully stand alone before the Supreme Court - not when you're also talking about another human involved!

And especially the sweet irony of it -

how could the woman have allowed the creation of another human life inside her body when she's supposed to be the one who has sole control over it?



Would what amount to as, frivolous killing of another human being, be allowed by the Supreme Court?

That's what I'm waiting to see when this reaches the Supreme Court!
 
Last edited:
A bumper crop from the tainted tree

Here's a long article, an in depth explanation:

When Human Life Begins | American College of Pediatricians

That scientific evidence exists, is quite clear! A human life begins at conception - and "personhood" is nothing but another definition of a human!

We know why pro-choice are quite adamant to make a spin out of this "personhood."

They don't have the confidence that their main argument (the woman's right to have sovereignty on her own body) can successfully stand alone before the Supreme Court - not when you're also talking about another human involved!

And especially the sweet irony of it -

how could the woman have allowed the creation of another human life inside her body when she's supposed to be the one who has sole control over it?

That's what I'm waiting to see when this reaches the Supreme Court!

ACPeds? But these are our old friends yet again:

"This article is about a socially conservative advocacy group. For the major professional association of pediatricians, see American Academy of Pediatrics.

"American College of Pediatricians

Founded
2002; 17 years ago
Founders
Gerry Boccarossa and Joseph Zanga
Type
501(c)(3)
Tax ID no.
47-0886878
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Members
500 (estimated)
Revenue (2015)
$88,991
Expenses (2015)
$78,761
Website
American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds)

"The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States.[1] The group was founded in 2002 and claims to have over 500 members, although independent sources report that group has between 60 and 200 members and only one employee.[2][3]. The group's primary focus is advocating against the right of gay or lesbian people to adopt children, and it also advocates conversion therapy.[4]

"The organization's view on parenting differs from the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which holds that sexuality has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.[3][5][6] ACPeds has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for "pushing anti-LGBT junk science".[4] A number of mainstream researchers, including the director of the US National Institutes of Health, have accused ACPeds of misusing or mischaracterizing their work to advance ACPeds' political agenda.[7][8]"

(My emphasis - more @ American College of Pediatricians - Wikipedia)

Especially note the Reception part of the URL. ACPeds stands accused of bad faith, mere political/theological? posturing, inflating their numbers, & on & on.

Are there no legitimate scientific groups on the anti-abortion side?
 
Re: A bumper crop from the tainted tree

ACPeds? But these are our old friends yet again:

"This article is about a socially conservative advocacy group. For the major professional association of pediatricians, see American Academy of Pediatrics.

"American College of Pediatricians

Founded
2002; 17 years ago
Founders
Gerry Boccarossa and Joseph Zanga
Type
501(c)(3)
Tax ID no.
47-0886878
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Members
500 (estimated)
Revenue (2015)
$88,991
Expenses (2015)
$78,761
Website
American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds)

"The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States.[1] The group was founded in 2002 and claims to have over 500 members, although independent sources report that group has between 60 and 200 members and only one employee.[2][3]. The group's primary focus is advocating against the right of gay or lesbian people to adopt children, and it also advocates conversion therapy.[4]

"The organization's view on parenting differs from the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which holds that sexuality has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.[3][5][6] ACPeds has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for "pushing anti-LGBT junk science".[4] A number of mainstream researchers, including the director of the US National Institutes of Health, have accused ACPeds of misusing or mischaracterizing their work to advance ACPeds' political agenda.[7][8]"

(My emphasis - more @ American College of Pediatricians - Wikipedia)

Especially note the Reception part of the URL. ACPeds stands accused of bad faith, mere political/theological? posturing, inflating their numbers, & on & on.

Are there no legitimate scientific groups on the anti-abortion side?

Thanks for your research and pointing out tosca 1 is not using legitimate scientific links.

She is posting propaganda and calling it scientific facts.

smh
 
Re: A critique of reason


Notes: The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is an advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States. The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP’s support for adoption by gay couples. The group’s membership as of 2016 is estimated at 500 members, in contrast to the AAP’s over 60,000 members. The organization’s view on parenting is at odds with the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which holds that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children. The American College of Pediatricians has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “hate group“, with “a history of propagating damaging falsehoods about LGBT people”. (D. Van Zandt 4/15/2017)

American College of Pediatricians - Media Bias/Fact Check



We know why pro-choice are quite adamant to make a spin out of this "personhood."

Why do you continue to lie about pro choice? You have been told by a few of us that we are correcting you anti choicers when *you* bring it up.
 
"Personhood," is not a right to "give." A person is a human. Any human has rights, according to the Constitution.
Please post the amendment or other passage in the Constitution that says that.

SCOTUS has deliberated on that, more than once, and decided, specifically, that the unborn do not have any rights.

And then we have this, which should also be proof that that is not in the Constitution, since it informs how our laws view "persons":

1 U.S. Code: SS 8 “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

And ppsssssssssssssssssssttt: dont now switch lanes and say that 'it's not about the law!' You brought it up trying to use the Constitution in your argument.


If we're about equality- no one should have more rights than others.

The unborn are not equal:

The unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.​

Here's another fact:the born and unborn cannot be treated equally under the law. It's not possible.If you disagree, please explain how the govt can protect the life of the unborn without violating the Constitutional rights and bodily sovereignty of women?
 
Last edited:
Too bad that she's got an unwanted pregnancy. Whose fault is it?

Who says it's about 'fault?'

Who says that abortion is wrong to begin with, what authority are you appealing to with that?
 
Re: A bumper crop from the tainted tree

Thanks for your research and pointing out tosca 1 is not using legitimate scientific links.

She is posting propaganda and calling it scientific facts.

smh

She's been posting that same nonsense here for a few years now. She's unconcerned about facts or legitimacy, I suppose.
 
Re: A bumper crop from the tainted tree

She's been posting that same nonsense here for a few years now. She's unconcerned about facts or legitimacy, I suppose.

Agreed, and she's trying to make the facts support her position...which they do not.

They do this very commonly, the pro-life people.

When they realize that their religious beliefs (for most) are not legally binding or persuasive, they look for something concrete on which to make a "solid" argument...so they look to science.

They want to use a claim that science decides it all...human DNA. And yet, science is completely objective, it applies no value, does not take individuals or society into consideration. Value and morals are subjective.

So the science aspect has nothing to do with ethics or morality...those are applied *subjectively*.​
In other words, why do you go out of your way trying to prove the unborn is not a human being?


To which my response was:
Nope...you have to prove your own premise.

Again: it's the pro-life argument and you only see pro-choice people *responding* to that argument. If you all didnt put it out there, we wouldnt need to address it
.

So the whole 'it's a human life thing is *their* argument, not pro-choice people's.

And if you'll note, most of this thread is her trying to prove exactly that…the abortion is wrong because it's a biological human life.
 
Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia


You're talking about a specific case (having cancer).
Without immediate treatment could mean death for the woman.
I don't think anyone would fault her for seeking treatment (even if the treatment would be detrimental to the fetus).
No. Without immediate treatment the woman will still live but her likely hood at the coveted 5 year survival would be much reduced.
So if the fetus is deserving of personhood....why not consider both equally?

You hinted at what I believe to be the answer....”no one would blame the woman”...why would you bring that up?
 
"Legalized murder" is an oxymoron. "Murder" is a legal term.

Abortionists do not see the execution of unborn babies as murder because leftist democrats managed to effect a SCOTUS ruling by a handful of secularist judges who irrationally and immorally declared of their own opinions that the execution of unborn babies is not murder. Hitler and his deluded followers did the same thing with Jews. Under those wicked Nazi barbarians the execution of Jews was not murder either.
 
Abortionists do not see the execution of unborn babies as murder because leftist democrats managed to effect a SCOTUS ruling by a handful of secularist judges who irrationally and immorally declared of their own opinions that the execution of unborn babies is not murder. Hitler and his deluded followers did the same thing with Jews. Under those wicked Nazi barbarians the execution of Jews was not murder either.

So what country do you live in? In America, the judges are supposed to be secular, to at least be capable of maintaining a secularist perspective on the law.

Perhaps you would prefer a theocracy? There are many to choose from...and you can say goodby to many of your personal liberties and your equality...which is exactly what you are insisting on for pregnant women. Seems like a better option, since it would be YOUR choice to move instead of you trying to force your beliefs on others.
 
Re: A bumper crop from the tainted tree

Agreed, and she's trying to make the facts support her position...which they do not.

They do this very commonly, the pro-life people.

When they realize that their religious beliefs (for most) are not legally binding or persuasive, they look for something concrete on which to make a "solid" argument...so they look to science.

They want to use a claim that science decides it all...human DNA. And yet, science is completely objective, it applies no value, does not take individuals or society into consideration. Value and morals are subjective.

So the science aspect has nothing to do with ethics or morality...those are applied *subjectively*.​



To which my response was:


So the whole 'it's a human life thing is *their* argument, not pro-choice people's.

And if you'll note, most of this thread is her trying to prove exactly that…the abortion is wrong because it's a biological human life.

The first post in this thread tries to give a fertilized egg "personhood" without stating that objective. Completely disingenuous argument/thread, imo.
 
No. Without immediate treatment the woman will still live but her likely hood at the coveted 5 year survival would be much reduced.
So if the fetus is deserving of personhood....why not consider both equally?

You hinted at what I believe to be the answer....”no one would blame the woman”...why would you bring that up?

Exactly. If the unborn is equal, legally, the Dr would have to protect its life. How can the Dr do that without violating the woman's right to life then?

Beside, they know the unborn arent equal, they just dont want to admit it. That's why most (not all) believe that it's acceptable for a woman who's been raped or a victim of incest to have an abortion. If it was really a kid or equal to a kid, of course you couldnt kill it.
 
If your only main argument supporting the legalized murder of the unborn, is that the woman has the sole right to her body......

.....why does it matter to you if the baby is human, or not?


In other words, why do you go out of your way trying to prove the unborn is not a human being?

Considering this thread and your assumptions do not meet the minimal criteria for truth or reality my only reply is to critique the OP for dishonesty or ignorance. No one supports legalized murder, the fetus is obviously human and a human "Being" is generally something that exists without being part of another human "being". Rarely have I noted so many false talking points in one commentary.
 
Review all the threads in this section. Someone's bound to insist that the fetus isn't human!




So, why the need to dehumanize the unborn? To insist that it doesn't have "personhood" :roll: only makes the pro-choice seem so silly.

If there is confidence that the woman's right trumps the right of the human she carries inside her own body - then, the argument should stand alone.

A fetus is the precursor of a human being. Nothing more or less. You should go back to your old argument about souls. If you could prove their existence you might actually have a point. Of course then you would need to admit that God is the biggest abortionist of all and heaven is mostly populated by souls that were never born. 3/4's of fertilized eggs never develop into humans.

Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos? - Reason.com
 
Last edited:
A fetus is the precursor of a human being. Nothing more or less. You should go back to your old argument about souls. If you could prove their existence you might actually have a point.

Exactly. See the first part of my post 66 for why IMO she's had to shift gears.
 
So what country do you live in? In America, the judges are supposed to be secular, to at least be capable of maintaining a secularist perspective on the law.

Perhaps you would prefer a theocracy? There are many to choose from...and you can say goodby to many of your personal liberties and your equality...which is exactly what you are insisting on for pregnant women. Seems like a better option, since it would be YOUR choice to move instead of you trying to force your beliefs on others.

I live in America where many conservative judges think abortion should be illegal and many liberal judges think babies should still be subject to execution shortly after they are born. I agree with conservative judges who oppose abortion. Democrats despise conservative judges and one major reason they are so desperate to have Trump removed from office is so he cannot continue to appoint conservative judges to courts.
 
Back
Top Bottom