[W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Saying that it's not a human being is not saying it's not human. Why do you lie about this?

It is FACT that it's not a human being. You've been schooled in this.

Why do you not know what the word "lie" means?
Your distinction is a distinction without a difference.
You need some schooling in sophistry and semantics.

 

[Peter King]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Look, I regret to hear that you find my use of "sigh" offensive. But I can tell you I am not going to start censoring myself just for your benefit. Either you get used to it or put me on ignore.

I called it a lack of respect for fellow posters, one that they do not use on you when they hear you claim something you have already claimed several times before in a discussion. That is how it works. And if I ignored every person who is impolite from time to time is not the solution for lack of civility IMHO.

People are allowed to post their opinions on this board. If someones opinion bothers you that much, put them on ignore.

Except it is not an opinion about anything other than a fellow poster. And that can be seen as not an opinion. An opinion would be that you are wrong when you claim a live human is created from the moment of conception, that is an opinion of mine, your "comment" was not an opinion but more something of an accusation/personal comment that does not further this discussion whatsoever. So please, opine all you want about the subject, but don't opine about what you see as my "short comings" because that that is not an opinion in my opinion.

Why do you disagree with it? What is your definition of what a live human is?

Very simple, a ZEF is not "a live human", it does not possess the properties of humans. It may get there in time but a zygote is not a human just like a baby is not an adult. It can get there in due course but anything can happen between the first and the last stage. The same goes with basically being able to sustain life. No functioning lungs, no functioning digestive and hormonal systems, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Which all says nothing about the righteousness of abortion or the moment at which elective abortion has to be ended and only abortion for extreme reasons can be allowed. Abortion has nothing to do with "live human", human being or anything like that. It has to do with the mother's right to self determination, to self preservation, the right to privacy and the right to make medical decisions about her own body without the governments interference in that decision. And especially not the constant interference of anti-choice/pro-life groups. They have no say in this, it is not their body and it is none of their damned business. And that goes double for conservative politicians, the biggest bunch of hypocrites around. They want to force women to stay pregnant against her wishes but when the rights and the future of that "force on a woman"'s child is concerned none of those conservative hypocrites give a crap.

 

[Lursa]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

The "pro-abortion" members are any and all members who deny that the unborn child is a human being. I believe this puts you in that inestimable company.
This denial of the humanity of the unborn child is very much along the lines of the denial of full humanity to the slaves by the 1850s proponents of slavery.
A falsehood embraced to make what's clearly immoral appear moral.

According to you, human and human being are interchangeable and mean only living being with human DNA...I did get your agreement to that.

So...who says that the unborn humans are entitled to a right to life? Your claim is that that is universal and self-evident. You have not supported this with anything but your lists that fail and your own opinion. While many would agree with you...Minnie and I have provided actual proof that your opinion is not universal nor self-evident.

Not only can you not prove us wrong with any resources of your own...you cannot even define the term 'universal' in the context you are attempting to use it.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

I called it a lack of respect for fellow posters, one that they do not use on you when they hear you claim something you have already claimed several times before in a discussion. That is how it works. And if I ignored every person who is impolite from time to time is not the solution for lack of civility IMHO.

Except it is not an opinion about anything other than a fellow poster. And that can be seen as not an opinion. An opinion would be that you are wrong when you claim a live human is created from the moment of conception, that is an opinion of mine, your "comment" was not an opinion but more something of an accusation/personal comment that does not further this discussion whatsoever. So please, opine all you want about the subject, but don't opine about what you see as my "short comings" because that that is not an opinion in my opinion.

Thank you for taking the time out to write all this, but let me tell you one thing very clearly: I am not going to stop saying certain things just because you don't like it.

Very simple, a ZEF is not "a live human", it does not possess the properties of humans.

What are these properties?

It may get there in time but a zygote is not a human

Why is an entity that carries human DNA not human?

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

That there is a falsehood in itself, there are very few pro-abortion members, there are plenty of pro-choice members.

And when they deny the ZEF during the first part of the pregnancy is not a human being than they are absolutely right. The linking this opinion is all kinds of ridiculous. And it once again places you, based on that view alone, firmly in the anti-choice/pro-life camp. They come up with skewed and complete fake comparisons like that all of the time.

Also, this is not a morality issue, it is a legal issue, what people think is morally right is as subjective as hell. To claim that being of the opinion that a zygote is not a human being is stating a falsehood purely based on your opinion is ridiculous enough, but to on top of that claim this is being embraced to what something you feel clearly immoral to appear moral is utter and total :bs

You are not the determining body of what makes legal things immoral. What you feel is immoral is irrelevant to the next person. Also abortion is not a moral or an immoral choice for society, we have no right to business in telling people that what they are doing is a moral or immoral choice. Because it is none of our frigging business.

You're off base and out of line here, Peter.
I'm staunchly "pro-choice" -- I posted a moral argument for choice.
You're posting talking points, showing yourself to be unwittingly pro-abortion and bigoted toward those who are anti-abortion.
Your view of morality is jejune, moreover.
Your entire post boils down to your calling views you disagree with "ridiculous."
Let's have an argument from you. Show your mettle. This mealymouthed talking-point posturing doesn't become you.

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

So you cannot list the members who are proabortion .

Noted.

List? Name names? Your brand of politics looks to be in need of revision, ma'am.
And I named you, didn't I? Did you note that?

 

[Lursa]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

The "pro-abortion" members are any and all members who deny that the unborn child is a human being. I believe this puts you in that inestimable company.
.

Hey, you and I agreed...the unborn in a human woman is alive and human=human being=having Homo sapiens DNA.

Nothing more, nothing less. So...who says the unborn is entitled to a right to life? Your claim is that that is a universal and self-evident moral view.

We here have provided many sources that prove it is not. You have not provided sources that prove yours is anything but personal opinion...you cannot even provide definitions of the words you toss around in your argument. See: "universal" in the context which you continually use it.

 

[Peter King]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Thank you for taking the time out to write all this, but let me tell you one thing very clearly: I am not going to stop saying certain things just because you don't like it.

Fine, but then at some point (as it happens to all of us, even myself twice for three points), you are going to fall afoul with the power that be on our fine forum. As is often said, (as I have read it often) "discuss the subject not each other, further infractions might lead to thread bans or worse" (paraphrasing that last one there). Because it is against the norm to discuss other posters "upstairs". Downstairs you can pretty much lay into one another, but up here that is not the norm.

What are these properties?

Why is an entity that carries human DNA not human?

Very simple, a ZEF is not "a live human", it does not possess the properties of humans. It may get there in time but a zygote is not a human just like a baby is not an adult. It can get there in due course but anything can happen between the first and the last stage. The same goes with basically being able to sustain life. No functioning lungs, no functioning digestive and hormonal systems, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Fine, but then at some point (as it happens to all of us, even myself twice for three points), you are going to fall afoul with the power that be on our fine forum. As is often said, (as I have read it often) "discuss the subject not each other, further infractions might lead to thread bans or worse" (paraphrasing that last one there). Because it is against the norm to discuss other posters "upstairs". Downstairs you can pretty much lay into one another, but up here that is not the norm.

Thank you for your concern that I might get infracted. But let me worry about myself, ok?

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

According to you, human and human being are interchangeable and mean only living being with human DNA...I did get your agreement to that.

So...who says that the unborn humans are entitled to a right to life? Your claim is that that is universal and self-evident. You have not supported this with anything but your lists that fail and your own opinion. While many would agree with you...Minnie and I have provided actual proof that your opinion is not universal nor self-evident.

Not only can you not prove us wrong with any resources of your own...you cannot even define the term 'universal' in the context you are attempting to use it.

I've unpacked "universality" two or three times for you.
The unborn child is a human life.
Abortion terminate a human life.
Internet links supporting yours and Minnie's talking points are nugatory.
Minnie's posts are the very soul of confusion about the topic of abortion.
Yours, the very soul of bad faith.
Find Quag.

 

[year2late]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

List? Name names? Your brand of politics looks to be in need of revision, ma'am.
And I named you, didn't I? Did you note that?

I am not pro abortion.

That is a lie.

I am personally against abortion. I would never have one.

I am pro- it is not any of my business what health care decisions a person makes for themselves.

Where pro-choice is concerned. The choice is most often "no".

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

I think it's unreasonable to demand "universality" for the right to life (or any rights at all). Simple reason: there are people on earth that do not believe people have the right to life. Therefore, the rule of universality has been violated. However, I still enjoy the right to life, at least here in the West. Therefore, universality is not a requirement for a right to be valid.

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Hey, you and I agreed...the unborn in a human woman is alive and human=human being=having Homo sapiens DNA.

Nothing more, nothing less. So...who says the unborn is entitled to a right to life? Your claim is that that is a universal and self-evident moral view.

We here have provided many sources that prove it is not. You have not provided sources that prove yours is anything but personal opinion...you cannot even provide definitions of the words you toss around in your argument. See: "universal" in the context which you continually use it.

I've told you what you can do with your "sources." Ditto that.
This much you get right:

the unborn in a human woman is alive and human=human being=having Homo sapiens DNA.

Now just cleanse your mind of the pro-abortion talking points and you'll be well on your way toward an original thought.
Godspeed.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

If "the unborn should have the right to life" is an opinion, then so is "all humans should have the right to life".

 

[Peter King]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

You're off base and out of line here, Peter.
I'm staunchly "pro-choice" -- I posted a moral argument for choice.
You're posting talking points, showing yourself to be unwittingly pro-abortion and bigoted toward those who are anti-abortion.
Your view of morality is jejune, moreover.
Your entire post boils down to your calling views you disagree with "ridiculous."
Let's have an argument from you. Show your mettle. This mealymouthed talking-point posturing doesn't become you.

Then why do you use a lot of pro-life terminology? That is the reason why some (or more than some) doubt your veracity of your pro-choice viewpoints.

Let us start with these talking points from your last post I was responding to:

1. you called people who disagreed with your views about "ZEF's being human beings" pro-aborts. Knowing full well one would hope that this is highly offensive to pro-choice people. Just like I do not call pro-lifers women-haters (because that is offensive to them, even if I might have sinned long ago with this).

2. then you call us akin to racist, because we, those pro-aborts who do not agree with your views, are just as bad as the old racist slave owners/Americans who did not recognise slaves as equal human beings. Another vile insult IMHO.

3. and after that you claim we are embracing a falsehood to make our immoral views (again, because we disagree with you) seem moral.

And then you call me out of line? Nope, not going to fly with me. Especially because you again call me pro-abort and bigoted towards those who are anti-abortion. Hell no, with your use of the word pro-abort you are being bigoted to all decent people who are pro-choice.

Also, calling my views of morality "jejune" or devoid of significance is :bs after your completely immoral post (IMHO) about those who disagree with what you see as the moral view.

My entire post boils down to disagreeing with your description of the pro-choice posters on this board with regard to us being "pro-aborts" and calling us equal to slave ignoring racists all because we do not agree with your description of the "moral opinion that you have and we should all agree with"?

No, your posturing was unbecoming, my posturing was the direct result of that. I do not like being made out to be an pro-abort, and I guess most here also do not like that kind of description. I will proudly be bigoted, aka having an attitude of intolerance to being called a pro-abort and being compared to slave owners/slave owner supporters because we do not agree with you on what you claim we should be seeing unborn children as.

And FYI, if I am not mistaken I explained my views about when a fetus comes to be a human being, it is dependent on brain birth (just like dying is dependent on brain death). I think it is ridiculous to view a zygote as a human being. All it has is DNA, it does not possess "a soul or essence of that which makes a human being a human being, their functioning higher brain functions".

 

[Lursa]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

I've unpacked "universality" two or three times for you.
The unborn child is a human life.
Abortion terminate a human life.
Internet links supporting yours and Minnie's talking points are nugatory.
Minnie's posts are the very soul of confusion about the topic of abortion.
Yours, the very soul of bad faith.
Find Quag.

So...who says the unborn is morally entitled to a right to life?

 

[Lursa]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

If "the unborn should have the right to life" is an opinion, then so is "all humans should have the right to life".

That is all opinion. It's all subjective.

 

[Peter King]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Thank you for your concern that I might get infracted. But let me worry about myself, ok?

I don't like infractions myself and I would be remiss to warn someone about behaviour that may lead to them not being able to discuss things any more. That lessens the discussion IMHO. I may not agree with you, and I will say that to your face, just as I expect you to do that to my face. That is the code of the "West" here on a forum like this.

But you are right, I have given my opinion, I will no longer worry about that.

 

[Lursa]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

I've told you what you can do with your "sources." Ditto that.
This much you get right:

Now just cleanse your mind of the pro-abortion talking points and you'll be well on your way toward an original thought.
Godspeed.

Who says the unborn has a moral right to life?

 

[Peter King]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

If "the unborn should have the right to life" is an opinion, then so is "all humans should have the right to life".

Except you are almost talking in absolutes and comparing apples and oranges. In theory all human beings should have the right to die, especially when they have lost the thing that makes them "human beings". You know, your brain. If the brain has gone, kaput, no longer functioning whatsoever, then everyone should have the right to have their still living shell "terminated" by switching off the machines or allowing the body to die/actively making it die.

And human beings under certain circumstances should also have the right to die. But that has to do with human beings. As a human being we have freedom of choice. A Zygote however has no such properties of a human being. At the early stages of gestation the rights of the woman must always outweigh that of a special clump of cells/primitive organism with no ability to sustain life. Now later in the pregnancy that balance shifts (except under specific circumstances). At some point during the pregnancy the scales level out, making the woman and the fetus have almost equal rights to life (almost but as said, not entirely).

And no, early in the pregnancy the unborn should not have the right to life" as it has no consciousness to warrant such a protection over that of the only real person/human being involved, the pregnant person.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

At the early stages of gestation the rights of the woman must always outweigh that of a special clump of cells/primitive organism with no ability to sustain life.

This is an opinion.

 

[Peter King]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

This is an opinion.

No, that is a legal fact.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

No, that is a legal fact.

I would not call it a fact. A legal ruling, yes.

 

[Peter King]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

I would not call it a fact. A legal ruling, yes.

And thus a legal fact. Roe v. Wade ruled that the State has a legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. But that these rights are separate and distinct and:

Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

Which clearly states at some point during the pregnancy, when a woman is approaching term, the state's legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of life overrides the woman's rights to privacy and making a medical decision without government interference. Because the supreme court literally states:

for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

The state may after the first trimester regulate things but that is with regard to protecting the woman, protecting the life of the unborn, from the interest of the state: is at viability.

Or as the supreme court stated:

This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.


Which means that at the point of viability the rights of the unborn equal those of the mother, prior to that the state cannot interfere in a woman's decision to have an abortion. Because from preserving the rights of the fetus, the compelling point for the state to make decisions to protect the rights of the fetus starts at viability, not at conception.

Quotes from Roe v. Wade that I used can be found here: ROE v. WADE | FindLaw

 

[code1211]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

The U.S. Supreme Court standard holds that states may prohibit abortion after fetal viability so long as there are exceptions for the life and health of the woman.

Sometimes unfortunately an abortion is needed to save the woman’s life/or save her from irreparable damage to a major bodily function.

There are 3 clinics and 4 doctors where OBs and GYNs May send their pregnant patients when the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life or Heath.

If the fetus is non viable ( dead or dying ) a life threatening infection can endanger the woman’s life. Also irreparable damage to a woman’s bodily function such as ( stroke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, kidney or liver damage ) if the pregnancy continued.

You keep talking about laws that are passed.

I'm talking about life.

I have no issue with the idea that we are killing babies as a society because we have decided that it is just too inconvenient to care for unwanted babies.

I feel that it's a ghastly and immoral choice, but it's the choice we have made.

IF our societal choice is to have abortions legally available, I'll support that. I only ask that we who populate the society accept our choice and what it says about us.