This Epitomizes Why Abortion Is Wrong !

a reply to: WarminIndy

Again, you are making it a philosophical debate.

No I'm not.

Extraction from the mother is usually what an abortion is, correct?

A C-section is an extraction......

Therefore a fetus with a beating heart that is extracted from the mother is a person, legally.

Once extracted, a fetus is no longer a fetus! It's a born baby person. (legally)

Does anyone have any issues with eating eggs? If life is so precious, why do we choose to eat aborted chicken fetuses? What makes a human life any more precious than a chicken's? Those who are against abortions seem to set a lot of double standards.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If life is so precious, why do we choose to eat aborted chicken fetuses?

They aren't "aborted chicken fetuses", they're unfertilized eggs. How could you not know that?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Does anyone have any issues with eating eggs? If life is so precious, why do we choose to eat aborted chicken fetuses? What makes a human life any more precious than a chicken's? Those who are against abortions seem to set a lot of double standards.

We eat chickens too.
Most societies draw the line at cannibalism.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Does anyone have any issues with eating eggs? If life is so precious, why do we choose to eat aborted chicken fetuses? What makes a human life any more precious than a chicken's? Those who are against abortions seem to set a lot of double standards.

Aborted chicken eggs?

You mean eggs that have been laid by the chicken and then cracked open? Or are you talking about a medical procedure that removes the eggs from the chicken?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Again, you are making it a philosophical debate.

No I'm not.

Extraction from the mother is usually what an abortion is, correct?

A C-section is an extraction......

Therefore a fetus with a beating heart that is extracted from the mother is a person, legally.

Once extracted, a fetus is no longer a fetus! It's a born baby person. (legally)

Then induced abortion should not be included in the legal definition.

But do you see how far you have twisted this in order to make it a choice?

1:Babies are only people once they breathe. (what about babies on life support?)
2:Babies are only people if they are wanted.
3:Babies are only people if they can contribute.
4: Pets are persons also.
5:Egg and sperm are humans (biologically they are only material for pregnancy)

Then you tell me it is not philosophical. You are defending a choice, that makes it philosophical. You aren't defending the choice to even view a fetus as a human, you are only defending the choice to discard a biological human.

Can I ask a question, what is the proper procedure for discarding a biological human?

a reply to: adjensen

My point was that some people seem to value certain forms of life over others and tend to set double standards based on their own personal beliefs. The pill prevents an egg from being fertilized yet some Christians (Catholics in particular) seem to be against it. If you eat ufertilized eggs then how can you be against the prevention of fertilizing a human egg?

I admit I didn't realize that, but I learned something new today so I'm happy I made the mistake. I guess I didn't know that fact in the same way you didn't know (or forgot) about your religiously influenced opinion on abortion.

No need to get "snarky", we all make mistakes my friend.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Extraction from the mother is usually what an abortion is, correct? Therefore a fetus with a beating heart that is extracted from the mother is a person, legally.

That's why they kill them before extracting them. The ethics of an abortion supporter are disgusting. If they kill them outside of the womb, you're killing a person, but if you kill them inside the womb, they refer to that as fetal demise.

Its amazing how the procedure itself determines whether they are people or not.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Then induced abortion should not be included in the legal definition.

What? The law provides that anyone who is born alive, no matter the circumstances of that live birth, is a legal person.

But do you see how far you have twisted this in order to make it a choice?

No. I'm not the one doing the twisting. You are a master of twisting words!

1:Babies are only people once they breathe. (what about babies on life support?)

That's not exactly what I said. However, even a baby on life support is breathing. A baby can't survive if its lung don't operate.

2:Babies are only people if they are wanted.

Apples and oranges. We are talking about when the legal definition of "person" kicks in. We're not talking about homocide laws pertaining to assault on a pregnant woman.

3:Babies are only people if they can contribute.

I never said that.

4: Pets are persons also.

Yes, our pets are people too! (in an emotional sense)

5:Egg and sperm are humans (biologically they are only material for pregnancy)

Human egg and sperm are human lifeforms. Horse egg and sperm are not. The sperm passes on chromosomes, the genetic material required to create a human body.

Then you tell me it is not philosophical. You are defending a choice, that makes it philosophical.

Abortion is both a philosophic and a biological issue.

You aren't defending the choice to even view a fetus as a human, you are only defending the choice to discard a biological human.

I never said that a fertilized egg or a fetus isn't human. I said it's not a person, and the law agrees.

1 Samuel 15
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

God orders the slaughtering of infants and babies already born, he even ordered the killing of pregnant women in so many words, so why would he be against abortions today?

How do we know women who decide to get abortions aren't unknowingly following god's orders and ultimate plan?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The pill prevents an egg from being fertilized yet some Christians (Catholics in particular) seem to be against it. If you eat ufertilized eggs then how can you be against the prevention of fertilizing a human egg?

What?

The chicken egg is unfertilized because the hen didn't have sex with a rooster. Do you think that farmers put chickens on birth control so that they'll lay eggs?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Maragret Sanger's Eugenics policies are still in full force in many countries.

Margaret Sanger was only one of many who were proponents of 'Eugenics
Research Studies' and as such was a small fish in a very large pond.
The whole movement was doomed from the start because many of the
traits studied had little genetic basis.

After the most infamous Eugenics movement (Hitler) the judges who
presided over the Nuremberg trials (1940's) recognised the need for
over sight of medical experiments involving human subjects. As a result
the Nuremberg Code was formulated in 1947, which provided guide lines
for research which are still adhered to today. Other more recent
protocols for research involving human subjects require such things as
informed consent and adherence to strict policies aimed at protecting
the welfare of human subjects.

With that said .... I fail to understand your constant hyper pushing
of eugenics? doesn't seem to be much of an agenda.

a reply to: adjensen

Of course not, but how is taking birth control any different than a farmer keeping roosters away from the hens in order to prevent fertilization? Isn't keeping them separated a form of birth control?

Why is it ok for farmers to keep hens and roosters separated but not for women who feel they deserve a choice? Do you want women to not have a choice just as the chickens don't have a choice?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

how is taking birth control any different than a farmer keeping roosters away from the hens in order to prevent fertilization?

What on earth are you talking about? The farmer keeping roosters away from the hens is called abstinence, not birth control. And guess what? The church teaches abstinence.

Where did you get the idea that I'm opposed to birth control? I only said something because you claimed that people who are opposed to abortion shouldn't eat eggs, which you thought were "aborted chicken fetuses".

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

1 Samuel 15
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

God orders the slaughtering of infants and babies already born, he even ordered the killing of pregnant women in so many words, so why would he be against abortions today?

How do we know women who decide to get abortions aren't unknowingly following god's orders and ultimate plan?

The problem of living in a place where your views of what should be differs from "what is" and the current state of human evolution biologically, spiritually and socially.

Humanity is really a work in progress on so many levels. We haven't even started really to use the telepathic abilities that god designed into our bodies thru evolution (even if there might have been genetic tampering by the Annunaki).

But we have to be exactly what we are now to become exactly what we are meant/destined to be.

a reply to: adjensen

It's not really abstinence if the chicken is being held against its will from having sex, abstinence implies a personal choice, the chickens do not have a choice in the matter.

Even if it were abstinence (which it isn't), it's still a form of birth control because it is a way to avoid any chance of pregnancy, which is exactly what the pill is (voluntarily) used for.

Why is it ok to force birth control on chickens but bad for women to voluntarily take birth control pills? It's the same exact concept. I'm pointing out a double standard some Christians tend to make.

If you aren't against BC then this isn't directed toward you.

1 Samuel 15
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Why would god order the "abortion" of live babies then condemn anyone who used the pill or got an abortion performed on themselves voluntarily?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why is it ok to force birth control on chickens but bad for women to voluntarily take birth control pills?

I can give one reason that it is bad for women to take birth control pills. Side effects, blood clots being the one that pops into my head first.

I can think of a reason that it is okay to force birth control on chickens.
Because they are chickens.

a reply to: butcherguy

I can give one reason that it is bad for women to take birth control pills. Side effects, blood clots being the one that pops into my head first.

I can think of a few reason for people not to eat McDonald's: diabetes, obesity, heart problems, etc. I don't see Christians boycotting McDonald's though.

I can think of a reason that it is okay to force birth control on chickens.
Because they are chickens.

What kind of reason is that? Do chickens have less rights than we do? Do they not have the same right to freedom? Why not? Let me guess, because they're chickens.

I have one good reason why abortion should be forced on fetuses, because they're fetuses. Sounds a bit inconsiderate doesn't it? Humans have a superiority complex, this is a perfect example of that. Double standards aren't very fair.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: adjensen

It's not really abstinence if the chicken is being held against its will from having sex, abstinence implies a personal choice, the chickens do not have a choice in the matter.

Even if it were abstinence (which it isn't), it's still a form of birth control because it is a way to avoid any chance of pregnancy, which is exactly what the pill is (voluntarily) used for.

Why is it ok to force birth control on chickens but bad for women to voluntarily take birth control pills? It's the same exact concept. I'm pointing out a double standard some Christians tend to make.

If you aren't against BC then this isn't directed toward you.

1 Samuel 15
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Why would god order the "abortion" of live babies then condemn anyone who used the pill or got an abortion performed on themselves voluntarily?

You are hilariously funny.

You do realize that every animal you eat comes from eggs in some form, right?

a reply to: butcherguy

I can think of a reason that it is okay to force birth control on chickens.
Because they are chickens.

In that case, its not okay to force birth control or force an unwanted birth on women, because, they are NOT chickens!