Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

quote:

---

It will become a human if undisturbed. That fits my definition.

---

What definition is that?Are you saying that it isn't a human at an earlier point?Do you support RU486, then, and the use of IUD's?

quote:

---

But some of the pro-choicers lack my moral clarity.

---

What you think of a "moral clarity", I recognize as a refusal to recognize that this is far from a black and white issue.

quote:

---

Why don't you describe how a god-damn money grubbing doctor aborts a fetus in the third trimester by ripping it out of the womb, legs, arms, and the beating heart then stops.

---

WT, do you support the death penalty?

quote:

---

If left completely alone in a vagina it will. Does that make a condom an abortion?

---

Ask yourself if semen will generate a new human being on its own in a condom. Yes or no?That should answer your question.If no sperm reaches the egg, is there anything to abort anyway? How do you abort something that's not implanted in the uterine wall?If a human being will not be generated anyway it's not an abortion. Are you following so far?Now ask yourself if a fertilized egg in the uterine wall will result in a human being if undisturbed by medical intervention? Yes or no?

quote:

---

Left alone, the fetus doesn't become anything but dead.

---

Which is exactly what happens to newborns when left alone, but you don't claim that they aren't human and you don't claim that killing them by starvation and/or exposure is wrong. That's inconsistent.This message has been edited by gene90, 05-10-2004 12:57 PM

quote:

---

I'd like to thank gene90 for thinking none of us here notice the glaring flaw in his logic, something called the mother. He tries to make it seem like the fact that a fetus is still inside of and fully dependent on its mother's body is simply a detail of its status in the 'life cycle.' Sure, pal, pull the other leg.

---

We expect mothers to partake of their time and money in caring for their children that are already born. When they don't they go to prison.Why should it be any different inside the womb? The same logic applies.That we treat babies moments before birth and moments after differently under the law is indeed a glaring flaw in logic, that is the point of my participation in this thread.As I've said, all my points have already been made. I am only repeating myself because most of you refused to listen the first time.This message has been edited by gene90, 05-10-2004 01:04 PM

quote:

---

We expect mothers to partake (sic) of their time and money in caring for their children that are already born. When they don't they go to prison.

​

Why should it be any different inside the womb? The same logic applies.

---

And we keep informing you that the same logic simply does not apply, because there is an important distinction that you are trying to handwave away. You evidently see the mother as merely the meat that surrounds the precious glowing fetus. In fact the mother is entitled to rights of her own, such as freedom from interference by fanatics who refuse to acknowledge any degree of difference between a living human being and a fertilized egg inside its mother.If you don't agree with abortion, fine, don't have an abortion. I myself have two children, and have never chosen the abortion option. One of us seems to think that people that disagree with him are imposing their choices on others. The other paints his opponents as Nazi racist eugenicists.regards,
Esteban Hambre

"When does a mother become human" -- at the same time everybody else does. All the women who get abortions are able to do so because their mothers didn't abort them years before. Female children are aborted just as often as male children.Also, simply being human does not include the right to kill one's offspring. I've never heard the defense of somebody on trial for infanticide use the "she's human" argument because it doesn't have any bearing on the case, legal or moral.

quote:

---

In fact the mother is entitled to rights of her own, such as freedom from interference by fanatics

---

Where is that "right" in the Constitution? And how is it even possible for there to be "rights" that entitle one person to deprive another of his own rights? When choosing between the "right" of a woman to end her 9-month pregnancy five months early and the right of her unborn child to live, we have to choose the more fundamental: the right to live.

quote:

---

who refuse to acknowledge any degree of difference between a living human being and a fertilized egg inside its mother.

---

That's a distortion because you know well that we aren't just talking about killing fertilized eggs. Abortion is legal in the US, at least in some places, right up until delivery, and you know that.

quote:

---

If you don't agree with abortion, fine, don't have an abortion.

---

So, if other people have abortions, it's not my business to try to enact laws to stop them?That's odd because if other people murder their children, somehow that is our business, because they go to prison. In fact, if a woman harms her unborn children she can even end up in legal trouble, as the incident at LDS Hospital showed a month or so ago.In fact, if a pregnant woman gets murdered, then that is automatically considered two counts of murder, not one.

quote:

---

Laci and Connor's Law: `(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

---

So you cannot categorically argue that a fetus is non-human, it seems a fetus is human under certain circumstances and not human under certain others. That's inconsistent.This message has been edited by gene90, 05-10-2004 01:31 PM

quote:

---

So, if other people have abortions, it's not my business to try to enact laws to stop them?

​

That's odd because if other people murder their children, somehow that is our business, because they go to prison.

---

And gene90, for the umpteenth time, not everyone is as certain as you that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a fetus inside its mother and a breathing, functioning, independent human being. All your references to infanticide, no matter how many times you make them, are quite beside the point when we're forced to consider the relevant issue of the mother.I notice you never provided a reference to the part of the Constitution that mentions 'unborn' citizens. Could it be you're barking up the wrong tree trying to bring the Founding Fathers into this?

quote:

---

So you cannot categorically argue that a fetus is non-human

---

And once again, you have no right to say that I did argue that point. The fact that you keep trying to put it in my mouth is no reason to assume it doesn't belong back in your ass. What I did argue is that, since there's absolutely no way to determine scientifically when someone's humanity begins, I guess we owe it to the mother of whose body the fetus is still inside to leave responsibility for the developing human up to her.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

And gene90, for the umpteenth time, not everyone is as certain as you that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a fetus inside its mother and a breathing, functioning, independent human being.

---

The Law sees no difference if murder is involved.Therefore the fetus is a human being, unless you want to make the argument that whether or not we are human depends on how we die.There is another issue here. We live in a republic. The people elect representatives to enact laws. If a majority of citizens believe that murder is wrong they are entitled to laws banning such murders. Same with abortion. We have the right to enact such laws, if (and when) the Court gets out of the way and stops reading things into the Constitution that, by your own admission, are not there. If not, we'll just get a Constitutional amendment. Either way, we will be ruled by the People and not by left-leaning activist judges.

quote:

---

I notice you never provided a reference to the part of the Constitution that mentions 'unborn' citizens.

---

Nor did you. My point is that the Constitution never made the distinction. Therefore the Supreme Court pulled Roe vs Wade out of thin air. There is no Constitutional basis for a "right" to abortion.

quote:

---

And once again, you have no right to say that I did argue that point.

---

If a fetus is human, you can't kill it, therefore the point is a great relevance to this debate.Further, you are constantly making the implication that there is some difference between a newborn and an embryo about to be born.

quote:

---

not everyone is as certain as you that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a fetus inside its mother and a breathing, functioning, independent human being.

---

So if you don't want me to interpret your arguments as stating the fetuses are not human, you shouldn't constantly imply that that is your view.

quote:

---

I guess we owe it to the mother of whose body the fetus is still inside to leave responsibility for the developing human up to her.

---

Then why don't you leave it up to the parents to decide if their newborn is human or not?This message has been edited by gene90, 05-10-2004 02:12 PM

Maybe we can find something to agree on?I suggest that this is not a human:

I agree. Part of the factor is that uterine implantation has not yet occured. Once that occurs an abortion would either kill a human outright or be an active intervention to prevent a human from being, once the course of events had already been set.Are these human beings?This message has been edited by gene90, 05-10-2004 02:14 PM

quote:

---

Further, you are constantly making the implication that there is some difference between a newborn and an embryo about to be born.

---

I give up.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Interesting title.Suppose you and everybody supporting choice had been aborted?Then the issue would be resolved, would it not?This message has been edited by gene90, 05-10-2004 02:19 PM

I don't know. How do you define a human being?I've seen something that looked like a human being, more than your pictures do but was not, in my view, a human. Is some "one" born with nothing above the brain stem a human? I don't think so. It is a human body not a "person" in any way that makes sense to me.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-10-2004 03:18 PM

What'd I say, huh? A roswell alien meets an aging Marlon Brando.

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

Ninth and Tenth amendments.