• 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!

"The Unborn"

You know, I was watching a science-fiction film the other night, and there was a character who had some kind of baby naturally growing from his left shoulder. After seeing the film, I considered it, and I suppose if I was in that situation I'd have the thing aborted immediately regardless of whether it was a person or not, even if it was a naturally reproduced version of myself. I'd just want to get that damn baby off my shoulder.
Is that how women feel, I wonder?
Yeah, you definitely understand a woman’s perspective. :roll:
 
No, again, you are in the wrong line. This thread is not about religion.
Does religion play no part in your beliefs regarding morals and morality?
 
Sure. Bye bye. Take your bad faith to another thread.
:lamo You’ve been offered numerous opportunities to engage in honest, fact based debate, and have chosen not to. Instead, you have persisted in pushing your false personal beliefs as facts, refusing to provide any actual objective proof.
 
??? My horses are fed and taken care. I'd rather clean my barn than my house.

If you've got some piles to clean out of YOUR bedroom closet, I suggest you do so appropriately...instead of dumping it here with big fonts and silly pretentiousness and amusing visual imagery of chest puffery. :lol:

:2wave:
This is new and interesting: "amusing visual imagery of chest puffery." Would you be so kind as to direct me, by number, to one of these visual images? I'd like to know what you're talking about.
 
Does religion play no part in your beliefs regarding morals and morality?
I'd say it probably has a lot to do with my views on just about everything. Once, in a course on Hegel, I was discussing Hegel's Idealism with the professor outside of class, and in the middle of our conversation, out of nowhere, he asked me if I was a Catholic. I told him I was and he nodded and said, "Catholics don't seem to have the trouble others have in understanding Hegel." How about that.
 
I never said it was. The 3 stages I refer to are zygote, embryo, fetus.

What is the stage you are referring to called?

Three days after fertilization, a normally developing embryo will contain about six to 10 cells. By the fifth or sixth day, the fertilized egg is known as a blastocyst - a rapidly dividing ball of cells. The inner group of cells will become the embryo. The outer group will become the cells that nourish and protect it.

Blastocyst - Mayo Clinic
 
Last edited:
Why don't they happen (rare exceptions given)? Why not wait until then to make sure one is making the right decision. No one wants a little more time to decide? What's the rush?

Why is it unheard of.




You know.

Early abortions are best for the woman’s health.

Waiting until the second trimester puts the woman’s health at a greater risk.
 
This is new and interesting: "amusing visual imagery of chest puffery." Would you be so kind as to direct me, by number, to one of these visual images? I'd like to know what you're talking about.

Well, it's probably what you see when you look in the mirror.

But probably not what others see :mrgreen:




This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
If a woman goes to doctors in the third trimester and says, "that's it, I'm out", why won't they do it?


If is the key word there. Considering late term abortions are quite rare and only done for the medical necessity i have already described then your "if" is questionable .

Again your argument appears to be that women are a vapid lot who act on emotions rather than think up good reasons to abort. Why would a woman go through months of pregnancy and wait till they had a viable baby and then demand it be aborted. Would it be because your argument here obviously rests on the opinion that women are not intelligent or caring enough to give that any concern.
Okay, so if then why?



There are only 4 abortion clinic doctors in the United States were taught how and are skilled enough to perform abortions past viability.

From Romper:

In 2013, there were four doctors in the country who performed abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, according to Slate. (Current numbers could be even lower.)

Which States Offer Late-Term Abortions? They Are Very Difficult To Access

Shared


The pregnant woman must have a non viable pregnancy or the pregnancy would cause irreparable damage to a major bodilily function If the pregnancy continued.

In 2008 Kansas was one of the few states that performed abortions past the age viability.

There were 323 abortions past 22 weeks that took in 2008.

132 were because the fetus was non viable and
191 were because continuing the pregnancy would cause irreparable damage to a major bodily function.

See pages 8 and 9 of the 2008 Kansas abortion Stats:

https://www.kdheks.gov/phi/abortion_sum/2008itopcmbnd.pdf
 
Last edited:

For some reason you have chosen to distinguish a sub-set of embryo. That's fine, you are welcome to do so. I have never seen others here do so and cannot see any purpose, but it's up to you.

Blastocyst | definition of blastocyst by Medical dictionary

blastocyst: The modified blastula stage of mammalian embryos, consisting of the embryoblast or inner cell mass and a thin trophoblast layer enclosing the blastocystic cavity or blastocele.


blastocyst: A pre-implantation embryo consisting of a thin-walled hollow sphere of 16–40 cells, which appears in early mammalian development, the wall of which is the trophoblast.

blastocyst: The modified blastula stage of mammalian embryos (including human), consisting of the embryoblast (inner cell mass) and a thin trophoblast layer enclosing the blastocystic cavity.

blastocyst: The state of the development of the embryo at about eight days after fertilization, when implantation in the wall of the womb occurs.


I will continue to use 'unborn' unless I need to specify a specific stage of human development. It covers everything, including blastocyst, pre-birth.



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
I'd say it probably has a lot to do with my views on just about everything. Once, in a course on Hegel, I was discussing Hegel's Idealism with the professor outside of class, and in the middle of our conversation, out of nowhere, he asked me if I was a Catholic. I told him I was and he nodded and said, "Catholics don't seem to have the trouble others have in understanding Hegel." How about that.

No, again, you are in the wrong line. This thread is not about religion.
Finally, you’ve acknowledged the true basis of your beliefs and motivations behind this thread and likely every other you’ve started in this forum.

Congratulations on finally coming clean, even though it was the unintended result of a lie (you told AO this thread is not about religion, although your religious beliefs are the basis of your arguments).

How about that! :thumbs:

Maybe from now on you will start these types of threads in the sub-forum where they belong, Beliefs and Skepticism.
 
Why don't they happen (rare exceptions given)? Why not wait until then to make sure one is making the right decision? No one wants a little more time to decide? What's the rush?

Why is it unheard of?

You know.

It does not take nine months for a woman to decide if she wants a baby. If she decides to have an abortion that late, the reason is very bad news her obstetrician said about the fetus.
 
Why must I put value on life, regardless of its humanity? There are many examples of people killing for convenience which can neatly be justified in that they benefit the species. It is not exactly obvious, then, that the preservation of human life is inherently moral. You may argue that abortions should only be performed if there is a good medical reason, like the life of the mother being at stake, but I think there is a mental health aspect that pro-lifers rarely consider, and it is that a child is very likely to be gestated and eventually grow up under less than optimal conditions if it is a purely unwanted child. You are doing no one a favor in that scenario, and in short, forced pregnancy has net-negative consequences for both mother and child, and by extension also society. To me, that seems not only unpragmatic, but also immoral.
 
Sure, the same Constitution that once classified a whole racial minority as a fraction of a human being, and the same AMA that has misdiagnosed and over-medicated America for three-quarters of a century. I would tell you what you can do with their considered opinion, but I'm too much of a gentleman.

The "3/5 of a person" clause became irrelevant permanently after the Civil War. There is no reason to bring that up in the abortion debate.
 
"The Unborn"
The Dehumanization of a Human Life


DJagrWQ.jpg


This is the term used by Abortion Apologists to describe the individual human life gestating inside a woman during pregnancy: "The Unborn."
Sounds like the title of a horror movie, doesn't it?

l0TZZ8O.jpg


That's exactly the connotation Abortion Apologetics seeks when it rejects terms like "baby" or "child"
although historically pregnant women were commonly said to be "with child" and "having a baby"
and are still so described by those who have not sold out to Abortion Culture.

The aim of Abortion Apologetics is to dehumanize the human life growing inside a pregnant woman so that it can be killed without compunction.

TTeoZ4L.jpg


Sometimes Abortion Apologists will use the more sci-fi horror name "Zef" --
but this acronymic dehumanization is less effective that the more subtle dysphemism: "The Unborn."
"Zef" shows their hand.
"Zef" is the name of a monster.

"The Unborn," on the other hand, though more eerie than "Zef," lends itself more readily to the denial of its dehumanizing purpose.

"The Unborn" is a baby, a child, a developing human life.
Oppose Abortion Culture.
Call out Abortion Apologetics for what it represents -- the dehumanization of human being.

Comments?
Contrition?
Testimonials?


The Unborn sounds like a freaking horror movie...

Sure, the same Constitution that once classified a whole racial minority as a fraction of a human being, and the same AMA that has misdiagnosed and over-medicated America for three-quarters of a century. I would tell you what you can do with their considered opinion, but I'm too much of a gentleman.

They were not counted as 3/5 of a person as in an actual person... it was for the purposes of the census and voting.
 
The "3/5 of a person" clause became irrelevant permanently after the Civil War. There is no reason to bring that up in the abortion debate.

It was not relevant to abortion then either... it never was.
 
So, you think personhood begins after birth.

I asked Angel these questions and he seemed think the fetus is definitely a person, or "the term person is an irrelevant concept."

Leaving aside legality for the moment, do either of you know whether the fetus is a person? What even is a "person"?

The word "person" has one objective meaning. It is not possible to have an opinion about personhood; people who say they "believe" any human life prior to birth is a person are lying to push an anti-choice agenda. Have you ever noticed everyone who calls the ZEF a person is an anti-choicer? I never once saw anyone who is neutral on abortion call them people. There is a reason for that. Angel is obviously a pro-lifer because he accuses everyone who uses medical terminology of "dehumanizing" unborn offspring - just like anti-choicers always love to do when their emotions take over.

By definition, fetuses are not people. They are human beings, but human being =/= person.
 
The proof is in the aggregate. 50 million dead. Get real, man.

There is no proof 50 million ZEFs died.

There is no proof women never bear the full emotional weight of making motherhood decisions.

If there was proof of either, you would have already shown it to us. You are the one who needs to get real.
 
Sorry for the imprecise language. What I meant was that according to a comparative study: {Boklage CE. Survival probability of human conceptions from fertilization to term. Int J Fertil. 1990;35(2):75‐94.} about 90 percent of pregnancies survive to full term after clinicsl recognition.... Various articles, including from healthline I believe, say around 10 to 15 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriages.... But look, even if the chances were only 1 percent, would it be moral to kill that unique code of dna off? No. Is it wrong to kill an old comatose patient or a seriously ill one, given that they still have chance to survive? Of course it would... The murder is wrong because of pain idea falls flat too because what about people who don't feel pain.... Is it ok to kill them? Of course not. The only one definition of murder that encapsulates all aspects of why murder is so horribly wrong is because it robs us of a future like ours.... The philosophical article is by a guy named Marquis by the way and is called why abortion is immoral... Check it out.
 
This entire post is fiction. No article about abortion could possibly state the probability a zygote will result in a fully developed baby nine months later is 90 percent. That is because most zygotes do not even survive the very short trip from a fallopian tube to a uterine wall and fewer implant. Then if a blastocyst forms and creates an embryo, the probability of a miscarriage is still 2/3. I would put my bets on the poor child surviving before any clump of stem cells every day of the week.

I wrote a rebuttal... Sorry, forgot to click reply with a quote... It just the one before that comment...
 
I never clicked on that thread. Can you explain?
All I can say is that a phrase was presented in Latin which I found by asking a friend who was more familiar with Latin to translate, and when he didn't find it to mean what Angel claimed, Angel responded claiming Latin was his native tongue. So you may very well be correct that English is his second language.
 
Sorry for the imprecise language. What I meant was that according to a comparative study: {Boklage CE. Survival probability of human conceptions from fertilization to term. Int J Fertil. 1990;35(2):75‐94.} about 90 percent of pregnancies survive to full term after clinicsl recognition.... Various articles, including from healthline I believe, say around 10 to 15 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriages.

It's more like this. Much more common than your source claims.


2/3rds of human embryos don’t survive


Which fertilized eggs will become healthy human fetuses? Researchers predict with 93% accuracy -- ScienceDaily

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die. The findings are important to the understanding of the fundamentals of human development at the earliest stages, which have largely remained a mystery despite the attention given to human embryonic stem cell research.

But look, even if the chances were only 1 percent, would it be moral to kill that unique code of dna off?

IMO yes. Why not? We kill the 'unique DNA code' less than nature does. That's about science...science is objective, it applies no value.

More realistically, since the risk ratio is so high, it favors supporting the woman so that she doesnt sacrifice her health, even her life, make the most of her contributions to society, and enables her to uphold her responsibilities to her current family/dependents, keep a roof over her head, food on the table, and uphold her obligations and commitments to employer, church, community, society, etc.

It makes women the better investment societally and women would also be the ones aware of the pain and suffering of forced pregnancy, childhood, motherhood. The unborn know and suffer nothing (by procedure and by law, there is no pain).



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
Last edited:
It seems like you are reading from the pro lifes "how to" manual. In that you take words such as innocent, equal or baby and discard any sensible definition for them and use them for emotional pleading.
Babies are born. Not a fetus. not a zef, not an unborn. When a woman reaches the stage of pregnancy that is a minute before birth then she is having a baby. No one has an abortion minutes before a natural birth will occur. Why are you even considering this lie told by pro lifers?
I am not considering this lie. However, I don't think you can know when exactly an unborn becomes a "person".

And equal! Another absurd interpretation by you. Apparently an unborn child is equal to that of a woman. But unfortunately a woman is not the equal of a man. Because a man has an undisputed right to bodily autonomy where as you would argue that a womans right to bodily autonomy is less than a unborns right to survive. Equal means the same. There is no ill definition of this unless you are playing from the pro life book of emotional pleading and using the word to mean women are inferior while saying the word equal.
It's got nothing to do with sexual inequality (well, the issue does as a whole but it's not what I'm talking about right now). The question is whether a woman's right to bodily autonomy is indeed less than an unborn's right to survive.
And again only a pro lifer would be dishonest enough to claim that the pro choice group claim it is only a baby once born. They have no desire to understand the reasoning used by the pro choice group because it makes their own fanatical ravings look as stupid as it is. Pro choice means it is a woman's right to choose. And if she chooses to have a baby then that is what is is having. And a pro choice person would accept that that is her right and call the life within her a baby out of respect and kindness. Two qualities that pro lifers do not have as they are more interested in pushing their own insane ideology to care about others.
So, this is the issue I have with the whole thing: would a pro-choicer support a woman's right to abort if they truly believed the unborn was a human being, a person, a baby, whatever you want to call it? Do you?


Trying to guilt trip is just another form of emotional pleading. You really do fail to present anything even close to a well reasoned argument. Here your failure is once again to not understand that pro choice means that it is a woman's right to decide what happens to her body and how i personally feel about abortion is my problem and not one i should try to force on her with a dishonest attempt to manipulate her feelings by suggesting that it is a person she is killing. Is your own understanding of women that they are to stupid to think this through for themselves? That they need someone like you to make them feel guilty otherwise they will make bad choices?
Of course it's another form of emotional pleading, what I'm asking is whether you really are not affected by any form of emotional pleading. I can see you don't think an aborted baby is a murdered person, but imagine if you did, would you still feel the woman has the right to bodily autonomy, or would you believe the infant's life must be saved at all costs?





Who would you have decide? Someone like angel who will argue as dishonestly as possible to fulfill an ideology rather than care about the woman or unborn involved. Or someone like yourself who struggles with comprehension of the manipulation of words used by pro lifers? Religious fanatics perhaps? Or maybe the father, a male, should have the right to decide whether his wife is an equal or his property to do with as he pleases. Or should the government be given the power of deciding who lives and who does not. Please, you tell me, who has the right to make that decision?
All the people you've mentioned are either terribly biased or delusional (I suppose that was your point).
If a murderer is going to kill a baby, would you not interfere?
I know I am beginning to sound regrettably just like a staunch pro-lifer, but I'm giving arguing in favour of the pro-life point of view for a change in order to try to make up my mind more concisely when it comes to the abortion issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom