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

[Wan]

It would fit in under "baiting/flaming/trolling", IMO.

Your opinion means nothing. The fact that I was not infracted for mocking you is proof that mocking posters on this board is not against the rules.

But all this is not important. My contention is that it is both stupid and unreasonable of you to say "sez who?" when people tell you things that are generally regarded as true. Do you see this?

What is the difference?

This is an honest question. However, let me tell you that I have not thought about this much, and it's because I am not the one who tries hard to make a distinction between "human" and "human being". This is the entire doing of the pro-choicers. To me, a "human being" is a human, just like how the unborn is a human, as well. And if you want to say, "haha you don't know the difference between these two!" feel very free to do so.

Why do you insist on pointing out the unborn is not a human being?

 

[Wan]

"agents" chose to engage in statistically risky behavior. It's like playing Russian Roulette. You know this.

And what is your point? Why do you seem to think it's somehow immoral that a miscarriage happens?

You asked about taxonomy.

True, and you have not answered. Let me ask you the question again so you can't weasel out of it: what species do zygotes belong to?

I do not consider a zygote "unborn". A zygote cannot be born, so calling one unborn is absurd.

I did not ask you about your linguistic preferences as to what to call the zygote. But if you insist on it, I will play along. So to you, the zygote is not unborn. This is fine. I can work with this. My question will now simply become: what species does the zygote belong to?

The fact that the taxonomy doesn't actually cover zygotes should tell you something about how much sense your reducto absurdist argument makes.

What is the source of this particular taxonomy you refer to? Provide a source. Secondly, maybe the reason taxonomists do not specifically mention zygotes is because they expect people to be smart enough to realize that the resultant offspring of two Homo Sapiens is a Homo Sapiens, too.

Can you tell me why when two humans procreate, the offspring is not a human? And one more time, what species do zygotes belong to?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Your opinion means nothing. The fact that I was not infracted for mocking you is proof that mocking posters on this board is not against the rules.

Not necessarily. It could be that nobody reported it (the post where you said you mocked me) and a mod hasn't seen it.

But all this is not important. My contention is that it is both stupid and unreasonable of you to say "sez who?" when people tell you things that are generally regarded as true. Do you see this?

That is your opinion, not necessarily fact. And I'll thank you to stop with it, I don't call your opinions stupid or unreasonable.

This is an honest question. However, let me tell you that I have not thought about this much, and it's because I am not the one who tries hard to make a distinction between "human" and "human being". This is the entire doing of the pro-choicers. To me, a "human being" is a human, just like how the unborn is a human, as well. And if you want to say, "haha you don't know the difference between these two!" feel very free to do so.

So you don't know. Got it.

Why do you insist on pointing out the unborn is not a human being?

I correct people when they call it a human being.

 

[Wan]

Not necessarily. It could be that nobody reported it (the post where you said you mocked me) and a mod hasn't seen it.

Ok, then report me for mocking you. See if I get infracted.

That is your opinion, not necessarily fact.

I never said it was a fact. But I see you like to throw the word "fact" around a lot as if it somehow gives more weight to what you say. Hint: it doesn't.

And I'll thank you to stop with it, I don't call your opinions stupid or unreasonable.

Well I will thank you to stop saying "sez who" but we both know it will never happen.

So you don't know. Got it.

Indeed I "don't know". What else you got?

I correct people when they call it a human being.

I didn't ask you what you'd do when people call it a human being. I asked you what's so special about being a human being.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

And what is your point? Why do you seem to think it's somehow immoral that a miscarriage happens?

I think it's obvious from the arguments here that you don't actually care about zefs. A billion zefs could die every hour and you wouldn't care.

True, and you have not answered. Let me ask you the question again so you can't weasel out of it: what species do zygotes belong to?

I did not ask you about your linguistic preferences as to what to call the zygote. But if you insist on it, I will play along. So to you, the zygote is not unborn. This is fine. I can work with this. My question will now simply become: what species does the zygote belong to?


What is the source of this particular taxonomy you refer to? Provide a source. Secondly, maybe the reason taxonomists do not specifically mention zygotes is because they expect people to be smart enough to realize that the resultant offspring of two Homo Sapiens is a Homo Sapiens, too.

Can you tell me why when two humans procreate, the offspring is not a human? And one more time, what species do zygotes belong to?

You are repeating yourself quite a bit.

The answer was in the link. A human zygote has no species classification. Most biologists would probably say homo sapiens but there's really no answer - probably because the question is so silly.



Either you care about them or you don't. "It's just a miscarriage"! No, "It's a BABAY!!!"

If "it's a baby", but you're not concerned about most of them...

 

[minnie616]

In cases where the zef spontaneously aborts, or miscarries, there is no human agent causing the zef to die. Whereas in the case of abortion, there are human agents causing the zef to die. In the former case, nobody is guilty. In the latter case, someone is guilty.
...

Even the most fertile woman/man has a > 10% failure rate. If I go into an endeavor knowing that there's a > 10% chance I'm going to have the death of a "child" on my hands, I'd say I was being immoral.

It seems that God/nature can't meet the stated standard for "moral" behavior. The ultimate moral agents fail the test?

He can draw a line where ever he wants. I am free to say the location of that line is crazy.

I agree.
I, myself had 6 known pregnancies.

I have 4 born children all who are adults now.
I had 2 known miscarriages between my second and third child.

The first miscarriage was early on. About 5 to 6 weeks. I was about 20 weeks pregnant during my second miscarriage.

I am a Christian and belong to a pro choice Protestant Chuch. We sincerely believe that ensoulment does not happen until after live birth when a newborn takes his/ her first breath.

We believe God values souls and knows the majority of fertilized eggs will not even implant let alone live until childbirth.

If I had believed my 2 miscarriages ended in dead children, my 2 youngest children ( whom I love dearly ) would not be alive because my husband and I would not have tried to have another child ( or 2 ) after my second miscarriage.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I agree.
I, myself had 6 known pregnancies.

I had 2 known miscarriages between my second and third child.

The first miscarriage was early on. About 5 to 6 weeks. I was about 20 weeks pregnant during my second miscarriage.

I am a Christian and belong to a pro choice Protestant Chuch. We sincerely believe that ensoulment does not happen until after live birth when a newborn takes his/ her first breath.

We believe God values souls and knows the majority of fertilized eggs will not even implant let alone live until childbirth.

If I had believed my 2 miscarriages ended in dead children, my 2 youngest children ( whom I love dearly ) would not be alive because my husband and I would not have tried another child ( or 2 ) after my second miscarriage.

My sister in law had many IVF attempts before managing to get one pregnancy to a successful delivery. She was told up front that here odds were 5%, and if you look at the number of attempts x the number of eggs implanted, it took every one of those 20 tries to get there.

 

[minnie616]

My sister in law had many IVF attempts before managing to get one pregnancy to a successful delivery. She was told up front that here odds were 5%, and if you look at the number of attempts x the number of eggs implanted, it took every one of those 20 tries to get there.

I am very happy for your sister-in-law that she was able to have a child through an IVF treatment.

I have read that about about 20 embryos die for every successful IVF treatment.

 

[Wan]

I think it's obvious from the arguments here that you don't actually care about zefs. A billion zefs could die every hour and you wouldn't care.

Firstly, you do not know whether I care or not. Secondly, whether or not I care is irrelevant. This thread is about human-induced abortion, not spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.

You are repeating yourself quite a bit.

That's because you keep weaseling out of my question. I will repeat: what species does the zygote belong to?

The answer was in the link.

I do not care what some expert thinks. I want to hear your personal reasoning why you think an entity that carries human DNA is not part of humanity.

A human zygote has no species classification.

Back this up with links to reputable authorities stating that human zygotes don't belong to any species.

Most biologists would probably say homo sapiens but there's really no answer - probably because the question is so silly.

Just because you cannot answer my question, it does not mean it's silly.

One more time, tell me why you think an entity that carries human DNA is not human.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I am very happy for your sister-in-law that she was able to have a child through an IVF treatment.

I have read that about about 20 embryos die for every successful IVF treatment.

She was on her last "batch" of eggs. I think there were 5 treatments with 4-5 eggs each treatment. There were 3 post implant miscarriages. That's tough, as I'm sure you know.

 

[minnie616]

She was on her last "batch" of eggs. I think there were 5 treatments with 4-5 eggs each treatment. There were 3 post implant miscarriages. That's tough, as I'm sure you know.

So sorry about her post implant miscarriages.

I am sure it was very tough for her.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Firstly, you do not know whether I care or not. Secondly, whether or not I care is irrelevant. This thread is about human-induced abortion, not spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.

It's irrelevant because you don't care? You don't care because you're an anti-abortion crusader, and non-abortion dead babies (sic) are not something you concern yourself with?

God - the moral agent - does a lot of "unborn human" killing.

That's because you keep weaseling out of my question. I will repeat: what species does the zygote belong to?

I do not care what some expert thinks. I want to hear your personal reasoning why you think an entity that carries human DNA is not part of humanity.

Another I already answered. I think humanity is the human race. Preborn is not a word. I reject the term "preowned" for used cars as well.

Back this up with links to reputable authorities stating that human zygotes don't belong to any species.

It was embedded (linked) in that link some posts back. I'm not digging for it. The biologists discussing the topic mentioned it as well.

Just because you cannot answer my question, it does not mean it's silly.

One more time, tell me why you think an entity that carries human DNA is not human.

:doh
You're beating a dead semantic horse. You can keep swapping words around until they mean something, but that's too much for me.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

So sorry about her post implant miscarriages.

I am sure it was very tough for her.

We think it caused 2-3 years of postpartum depression. Loooong story.

 

[minnie616]

We think it caused 2-3 years of postpartum depression. Loooong story.

So sorry to hear that.

My heart goes out to her and all her family and loved ones too.

 

[Angel]

I dismiss it because it dispenses with the health and welfare of the mother and child in the blind pursuit of the One Goal -> a live birth. All else is deemed "irrelevant" by your argument. It's an argument - callous argument. If you really believed it, you'd be outraged at all of the failed implatations.

It doesn't "dispense" with anything, nor is it a "blind pursuit" of "a live birth." You either don't grasp the argument you deign to criticize or you're tap-dancing to beat the band in an attempt to justify your general dismissal of opinion as mere opinion by focusing on this particular topic.

And what's this nonsense you're on about now, conflating the natural failure of impregnation with abortion? You call my argument "callous" because it's logical; your "argument" is incoherent because it doesn't make sense.

Shall I reproduce my argument here for our consideration, or are you only interested in appearing to score points by grandstanding in posts?

 

[Angel]

So be it. Attempting pregnancy, knowing that there will be failures, is immoral. You have spoken.

The discarding of embryos is where the immorality enters this IVF scenario. I've already had this discussion with soylentgreen; you might have missed it.
Don't go Phil Donahue on me, man. Let's keep this honest.

 

[code1211]

IOW, you have no evidence. I understand and accept your concession.

I showed you pictures of babies that were killed after birth, witness testimony saying that the witness actually did the killing of the babies born during the abortion process.

What passes for evidence in your world of blind denial?

 

[Scrabaholic]

I showed you pictures of babies that were killed after birth, witness testimony saying that the witness actually did the killing of the babies born during the abortion process.

What passes for evidence in your world of blind denial?

I haven't seen them (such pictures are not allowed here), but I have seen pictures anti choicers purport to be abortions in other venues. 99% of the time, they are using pictures of stillbirths.

 

[year2late]

I haven't seen them (such pictures are not allowed here), but I have seen pictures anti choicers purport to be abortions in other venues. 99% of the time, they are using pictures of stillbirths.

When they do this, they are not just lying and intentionally deceiving others...they are lying to themselves. At some point you repeat the same lie, you actually believe it.

If someone needs to lie to make a point ...they have no point.

 

[Wan]

It's irrelevant because you don't care? You don't care because you're an anti-abortion crusader, and non-abortion dead babies (sic) are not something you concern yourself with?

God - the moral agent - does a lot of "unborn human" killing.



Another I already answered. I think humanity is the human race. Preborn is not a word. I reject the term "preowned" for used cars as well.


It was embedded (linked) in that link some posts back. I'm not digging for it. The biologists discussing the topic mentioned it as well.


:doh
You're beating a dead semantic horse. You can keep swapping words around until they mean something, but that's too much for me.

You think an entity that carries DNA is not a part of humanity. Sorry but I have decided to not take you seriously anymore. Not even the pro-choicers deny that the zygote is a Homo Sapiens.

 

[Angel]

Go Wan!

 

[code1211]

I haven't seen them (such pictures are not allowed here), but I have seen pictures anti choicers purport to be abortions in other venues. 99% of the time, they are using pictures of stillbirths.

It's a little amazing to me that Minnie "Liked" your post that denied the pictures of Baby Boy A was posted when the picture was posted in response to a post from her.

I apologized for posting the picture in the post where it was posted. Like you, she noted that such pictures are not normally allowed. Now she applauds your ignorance and apparently her own amnesia. It is, in passing, a good picture to forget.

Please google "Gosnell Baby Boy A" and "Gosnell Baby Boy B". You can be horrified or not by the pictures you will find. The pictures submitted as evidence in the Gosnell trial show the bodies of third trimester abortion victims.

In consideration of your delicate psyche, I will not post the pictures here. However, be assured that these were accepted in court as evidence in a series of murder convictions. Neither depicts a "still birth".

Denial, rationalization and projection are all actions of addicts and symptoms of addiction. I find it interesting that denial, rationalization and projection are also the tools of the pro choice argument.

 

[minnie616]

It's a little amazing to me that Minnie "Liked" your post that denied the pictures of Baby Boy A was posted when the picture was posted in response to a post from her.

I apologized for posting the picture in the post where it was posted. Like you, she noted that such pictures are not normally allowed. Now she applauds your ignorance and apparently her own amnesia. It is, in passing, a good picture to forget.

Please google "Gosnell Baby Boy A" and "Gosnell Baby Boy B". You can be horrified or not by the pictures you will find. The pictures submitted as evidence in the Gosnell trial show the bodies of third trimester abortion victims.

In consideration of your delicate psyche, I will not post the pictures here. However, be assured that these were accepted in court as evidence in a series of murder convictions. Neither depicts a "still birth".

Denial, rationalization and projection are all actions of addicts and symptoms of addiction. I find it interesting that denial, rationalization and projection are also the tools of the pro choice argument.

I liked Scrabaholic post because she is correct most of pictures of an intact fetus that pro-life people post saying they were abortions are really are of stillbirths.

Usually after 16 weeks the fetus need to be dismembered, even for fetal abnormalities.
After 20 weeks by law the fetus receives a lethal medication in a clinic abortion and must be dead before contractions can be induced or dismemberment starts.

The Gosnell pictures are of babies who were born alive and then Gosnell killed them.

 

[code1211]

I liked Scrabaholic post because she is correct most of pictures of an intact fetus that pro-life people post saying they were abortions are really are of stillbirths.

Usually after 16 weeks the fetus need to be dismembered, even for fetal abnormalities.
After 20 weeks by law the fetus receives a lethal medication in a clinic abortion and must be dead before contractions can be induced or dismemberment starts.

The Gosnell pictures are of babies who were born alive and then Gosnell killed them.

Thank you.

 

[minnie616]

Thank you.

We all know that Gosnell induced Labor and they when any were born he murdered them.

That’s not abortion , it is not even attempted abortion.

He delivered the babies and then killed them after they were born. Anyone who kills born babies will be prosecuted.