A Question To Pro-Choice People

[tosca1]

At what point has there been a denial of that. Plant life starts at pollination. All individual life above a cellular level starts with breeding of some sort, with a few exceptions. When human life begins is irrelevant. When life begins holds no sway on the bodily autonomy issue, and also has no bearing on the personhood issue.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

That's up to the courts to decide, right? Please refer to my other thread "The Heart Beat Bill."

If pro-choice has the confidence that the woman's right to body autonomy can SUCCESSFULLY stand alone before the Supreme Court - then, why the heck do they go doing all sorts of contortions in their attempt to dehumanize the fetus?


They don't have that confidence!
If the fetus is recognized by the Supreme Court as a human, deserving of all right like any other -
then, it could very well be a different ballgame.
Our rights end when it steps on the right of another - at least, that's what I think.
Otherwise, what's wrong about someone needing a kidney desperately, to just take a kidney from another?

Supreme Court decisions can be surprising.
I gave the case of the Christian baker about the SSM wedding cake. Who would've thought the Supreme Court would overturn the ruling of the lesser courts, and rule in favor of the baker?
The ruling was based on artistic expression!


Furthermore.....

The irony of it all, the very argument pro-choice uses (woman's autonomy), could be used against her, right?
After all, if the woman has sole control of her body, then, how the heck did she allow another human being to be created inside her?

 

[tosca1]

Re: A critique of reason

Care to point out where anyone here has made that argument?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

There are some who tries to dismiss my scientific sources that says human life does start at conception.
Some folks insists on pointing at the url of my sources, obviously with no clue about research and "referencing."

If one does not accept it as a truth - then, they're claiming it's false.
Therefore, the onus is on them to support their claim.

 

[JustHanging]

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?

When someone is dying of kidney failure, and one of your kidney's could save them, if you refuse to give them one of yours, are you murdering them? It all gets very complicated, with no easy answers.

 

[tosca1]

When someone is dying of kidney failure, and one of your kidney's could save them, if you refuse to give them one of yours, are you murdering them? It all gets very complicated, with no easy answers.

No, you're not murdering them if you refuse to give one of yours.
That's like asking, if you've got enough food for your family - are you murdering those that are dying of hunger just because you didn't share your food with them?

It's his kidneys that are killing him, not you.

You may be called selfish, or uncaring (or any other names anyone can think of) - but, it's not murder.

 

[Peter King]

Re: A critique of reason

There are some who tries to dismiss my scientific sources that says human life does start at conception.
Some folks insists on pointing at the url of my sources, obviously with no clue about research and "referencing."

If one does not accept it as a truth - then, they're claiming it's false.
Therefore, the onus is on them to support their claim.

biological life might start at conception, but that does not mean a whole of a lot IMHO. Simple cells with no consciousness or even functioning brains do not constitute a person, that is just a simple fact. If your brain is dead, you are brain dead and allowing that person to die is for most people not that much of an issue, if it is an issue at all. As long as there is no functioning brain, no consciousness, how can you claim that a person exists? At conception only a special group of dna cells is created and then during the gestation more and more functions and complexity starts to "appear".

You have your views, I have my views, you think life starts at conception, I say personhood/ human beings only are present at the situation that could be described as "brain birth".

 

[OlNate]

Do your own thing the best way you think. Let me do mine, my own way.

What I can say, however.....

......publicly castigating someone on how she should respond - isn't only undiplomatic, and an off-topic...... but more coming across as a form of censorship, and kinda smacks of self-appointed "authority" on public discourse.[/I] :lol: Definitely, that isn't the best way to elicit a so-called
open-minded response. It's like waving a red flag to a bull! :mrgreen:



I'm not here to take lessons on public debate. I've already done that - in university!

Anyone who wants to shove some free "lessons" on how to debate, please use the pm system.


Cheers.


note: your question got lost. You distracted me with your lecture.
I don't even think I got to reading it. :shrug:
Bring it up again! And this time, try not to clutter it with a lecture on debating.

Also, I tend to qualify a lot of posts before wasting time on them - the first few statements are crucial.

:roll: Tos, I love you, but you're a handful. Go look it up yourself, you know how to use the website just like I do. I enjoy talking to you, but I do not enjoy the threads you start just to talk **** to people you disagree with.

Catch ya around.

 

[marke]

Re: @ least two errors there

You do not know your history.

Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900.
In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening.

Roe v Wade was decided by a majority of Republican appointed Justices.

Just because some of the judges were supposedly partisan republicans does not make abortion right in God's eyes. If anything, the claim that republican judges passed the atrocity into law just highlights the fact that judges can be political and corrupt.

 

[minnie616]

Re: @ least two errors there

Just because some of the judges were supposedly partisan republicans does not make abortion right in God's eyes. If anything, the claim that republican judges passed the atrocity into law just highlights the fact that judges can be political and corrupt.

Trying to change the goal posts won’t work since your posts are on this tread for all to read.

I responded to this post of yours....

You misunderstand. Abortion was not always legal in America in spite of what the founding fathers may have thought about it. Abortion is not a God-given inalienable right, it is a democrat hedonist mob granted right.

You do not know your history.

Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900.
In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening.

Roe v Wade was decided by a majority of Republican appointed Justices.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: @ least two errors there

Just because some of the judges were supposedly partisan republicans does not make abortion right in God's eyes. If anything, the claim that republican judges passed the atrocity into law just highlights the fact that judges can be political and corrupt.

Since religious stances can have no bearing on law in a system that allows for freedom of religion, the use of any deity for an argument is moot. While abortion may be wrong in your deity's eyes, that does.not automatically hold true for anyone else's, even if the claim is that they are the same one.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Thorgasm]

So then, assisted suicide is murder then? Because it's illegal in the vast majority of states (43 of 50 states).

Legally, yes.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: A critique of reason

There are some who tries to dismiss my scientific sources that says human life does start at conception.
Some folks insists on pointing at the url of my sources, obviously with no clue about research and "referencing."

If one does not accept it as a truth - then, they're claiming it's false.
Therefore, the onus is on them to support their claim.

You are not providing any scientific sources. You are providing sources that are referencing other supposedly scientific sources. I will pause here to say that I have not caught up to all post after this weekend (I've spent most of it running the games library at a board game convention), so if you have expanded to include other actual scientific sources, I've not gotten to that post yet. The one source you've been citing is a biased site that holds an agenda and blatantly says so, as pointed out. If you want to use other sources as your argument support, then you need to cite them directly. Otherwise, the source you cited is the one subject to being disputed, not what it refers to.

That said, despite the proper discrediting of your source, there still is no arguing that life in and of itself starts at conception. But so far you have provided no support that life alone is sufficient criteria. Many counter examples, including those alive but brain dead, have been brought forward to show that life itself is not enough.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[prometeus]

You better review my posts.

Why can't you just answer a simple question?

 

[southwest88]

Re: @ least two errors there

Maybe the next democrat president can pardon Gosnell since the democrats plan to make post birth abortion legal once they get Trump out of the way.

No one is going to pardon Gosnell - he made himself radioactive in the political sphere. I expect he'll die in stir.

democrats plan to make post birth abortion legal - post birth abortion is an interesting phrase. What does it mean, exactly?

Trump - he seems well on the way to self-destructing anyway. I doubt that the Democratic Party has to do much of anything, as Trump goes sliding off the rails all by his lonesome.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: @ least two errors there

Four thousand years of laws opposing the execution of unborn babies has now been replaced in the last 50 years by an unpopulat leftist godless liberal law allowing the savage barbarian brutality.

The USA has not been in existence for 4,000 years. smh

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: @ least two errors there

When it came to the democrat court ordered slow starvation execution of Terri Schiavo I definitely call it murder. I also call mercy killings of babies born alive murder as well, which was why, with apologies to the deranged racist Northam, Kermit Gosnell was sent to prison.

Schiavo was, for all intents and purposes, already dead. Her brain was mush.

It was her husband who wanted to pull the feeding tube. At the time, I was against it. When I saw the autopsy report, I realized it was the right thing but by the wrong person. He lost all right to be her next of kin when he took up w/ another woman, in my opinion.

 

[year2late]

Re: @ least two errors there

Take a perfectly good baby and cut its limbs off, sever its head, and then clean out the remains from the womb. That is not palliative care.

OK, what the hell does that have to do with my question. I was speaking to hospice and palliative care. Where in the Hippocratic oath does it demand that a person only be treated with aggressive treatment no mater how serious or terminal the disorder?

Does the Hippocratic oath allow for Hospice Care, comfort care, palliative care of born individuals?

 

[year2late]

Re: @ least two errors there

You should not need an interpreter to clearly understand what the Auschwitz-style doctor was talking about.

OK, at least now I know you are trolling.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: @ least two errors there

I think you're seeing what you want (fear?) to see in the World. It may be that Modernity does not sit well with you.

You have my sympathy.

Yes, Gosnell was arrested, tried, found guilty of murders, manslaughter, various drug-related felonies. He was sentenced to life in prison, without possibility of parole. Gosnell was not charged with mercy killings, he was charged with several murders (& one count, I believe, of manslaughter), & other charges.

And the murder charges were for killing *born* infants. He was not convicted of any charges related to performing abortions, IIRC.

 

[Lursa]

Re: @ least two errors there

It is impossible to support abortion while at the same time feeling sorry for the baby whose head in on the chopping block.

Such simplistic thinking, that's like saying you dont feel sorry for your toddler undergoing heart surgery because you are allowing the heart surgery. :roll:

There are many difficult decisions we make in life...not all the right solutions are painless or pleasant. Most of us are capable of making the right decision, no matter how difficult.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: @ least two errors there

Baby killers do not like to think of human babies as being human.

I've only known one baby killer in my life. She did two years for manslaughter of her 7 week old son.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Try to live an ethical life

Serve God with fear and trembling and believe and obey His Word and you won't end up badly.

My god doesn't require I fear him.

 

[Lursa]

Re: @ least two errors there

You cut your pets into little pieces and dispose of the parts when they get in your way?

Lying and emotional manipulation wont get you far here. You already know the facts and pretend not to.

What does it matter once they are dead? Are you so emotionally and sentimentally imprisoned by your rationalization of the unborn that you cant unlock your mind to understand that 97.5% of all abortions consist of painlessly flushing the smaller-than-a-pea unborn from the womb? And the very rare rest by law are given lethal/anesthetic injections and feel no pain and are dead before removal?

Do you object to the dead unborn being dismembered in order to prevent more pain and damage to the woman? Yes or no?

 

[Lursa]

Re: @ least two errors there

People have gone to jail for putting dying pets out of their misery. But in America nobody will go to jail for putting unborn babies out of their selfish mother's and father's misery.

Source the bold. More lies from you in your desperate attempt to use falsehoods to try and end legal abortion.

Lying is a sin.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Follow the bouncing ball

The Bible says the time is coming when the wicked religious crowd will murder Christians and think they are doing God a service. No wonder then that even now the wicked religious mob murders innocent babies and think they are doing God a service.

Your Christian beliefs on abortion: who cares? Why should non-Christians or those who dont believe the same be forced to comply with your beliefs?

I wrote to you yesterday that you have other options if you feel the need to live in a theocracy. Say good by to many of your personal liberties and equality. But the door's open...feel free.

I'm a practicing Christian and I dont see the need to use force of law or any other force against women to make them remain pregnant against their wills. I know the my Lord and Savior would abhor that idea as well.

The prevailing goal for pro-choice people is that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: @ least two errors there

People have gone to jail for putting dying pets out of their misery.

Please cite your source. As long as it's done humanely, it's legal to have your pets euthanised - for *any* reason.