Why Mass Abortion Is Synonomous with Extinction of Humanity.

Originally posted by 547000
Killing children is killing children.

Of course, we're not talking about children, are we? "Children" has a set meaning, and refers to a particular category. it means a different thing from "offspring."

People love talking about how it will save the mother's life and so forth, but many people use it as a form of contraception.

Second time. Once abortion is on the table, we are well beyond the "contraceptive" stage. You cannot just add meanings to words willy-nilly. Using abortion to end a pregnancy is a "plan B" option for when contraception has failed, been forgotten, etc.

Third time; intact dilation and extractions are not, and never have been used as an elective procedure to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Never. They're a high-risk procedure that has only ever been done when the fetus is already dead, certain to die, or will cause the death of the mother.

A person like you will never call attention to the fact that you're trying to define a fetus to not being human.

Actually a person like me isn't worried too much over one definition or another. A person like me recognizes that ultimate authority over a woman's body falls upon the woman in question, and no outside agent has a say, no matter what. I understand this concept is difficult for you to conceive of (no pun intended) but, well, it's true.

No, you will insist that whatever it is it's not human and then poof, one day it magically transforms into a human.

edit on 11-8-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

No, a person like me recognizes that once the young'un is no longer a fixture to its mothers body, it is an individual person and is to be afforded considerations thereof. That is, when the birth happens. Up until that point, it's all in the mothers' ballpark.

Now, at what point in the anti-choice viewpoint does it cease being human? The moment the hips leave the birth canal and reveal the lack of a penis?

reply to post by 547000

The basic gist is, do you believe fetuses are humans? I do. I do not think comparing them to clumps or tumors is intellectually honest.

Indeed, they are human, biologicaly speaking. The important question for me is, are they human beings (with properties of mind)? And since when? Certainly not since conception.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by 547000
Killing children is killing children.

Of course, we're not talking about children, are we? "Children" has a set meaning, and refers to a particular category. it means a different thing from "offspring."

People love talking about how it will save the mother's life and so forth, but many people use it as a form of contraception.

Second time. Once abortion is on the table, we are well beyond the "contraceptive" stage. You cannot just add meanings to words willy-nilly. Using abortion to end a pregnancy is a "plan B" option for when contraception has failed, been forgotten, etc.

Third time; intact dilation and extractions are not, and never have been used as an elective procedure to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Never. They're a high-risk procedure that has only ever been done when the fetus is already dead, certain to die, or will cause the death of the mother.

A person like you will never call attention to the fact that you're trying to define a fetus to not being human.

Actually a person like me isn't worried too much over one definition or another. A person like me recognizes that ultimate authority over a woman's body falls upon the woman in question, and no outside agent has a say, no matter what. I understand this concept is difficult for you to conceive of (no pun intended) but, well, it's true.

No, you will insist that whatever it is it's not human and then poof, one day it magically transforms into a human.

edit on 11-8-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

No, a person like me recognizes that once the young'un is no longer a fixture to its mothers body, it is an individual person and is to be afforded considerations thereof. That is, when the birth happens. Up until that point, it's all in the mothers' ballpark.

Now, at what point in the anti-choice viewpoint does it cease being human? The moment the hips leave the birth canal and reveal the lack of a penis?

edit on 11/8/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

So if a mother decides to kill a toddler, it's okay? After all, the child is just mooching off it's parents.

Do humans have a right to life or not? All this talk about a mother's choice is a smokescreen. If it's a human it has the right to life. You wouldn't let perents have choice after birth would you? Then why would yoou give them the option of murder when the fetus poses no threat to the mother's life?

reply to post by Maslo


Can we unplug people in a coma? Do such people have a right to life?

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Maslo

 

Can we unplug people in a coma? Do such people have a right to life?

Patients in coma do have some properties of mind left, so yes, they should probably have a right to life. Coma is like a deep sleep with some brain damage, but not yet brain death. Brain dead patients on the other hand, altough biologicaly alive, should not have a right to life, and they do not have (they are regularly unplugged).

reply to post by Maslo


What about patients who are brain dead then suddenly come back to life?

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Maslo

 

What about patients who are brain dead then suddenly come back to life?

That is not possible, according to current science.

Originally posted by Dr Expired
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

Aw shucks, but I respect your view, but aren't you doing the same to me

Not at all, I would never try to take the CHOICE away from you but you would certainly like to take it away from me.

Abortions are only the business of the mother and father involved, nobody else. Its not my business and its not yours. Its really that simple.

reply to post by Maslo


It has happened, IIRC. Consider the cases of a few NDEs where the paient has been brain dead.

reply to post by 547000


Then it means they have not really been braindead, just misdiagnosed. But this has no relevance to embryos, since we know with 100% certainty they are braindead, at least in the first trimester, when most abortions happen anyway.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


So be your view, I will leave it alone...but why do you not leave ny view alone?
Iam expressing my belief and for some reason you are denying my right to hold it....?
Think about it if you want.
No not by force, but neither am I forcing my belief.
Iam simply expressing a belief on a very serious subject.
Iam not naming any couple or parent .
Iam expressing as a member of the human race... my opinion on the termination of millions upon millions of fetuses world wide over the last few decades.
Think about it if you want.

reply to post by Dr Expired


www.peterrussell.com...

World Population Counter:
6 912 916 708
Total births per second: 4.17 Total deaths per second: 1.80 Net growth: 2.37 per second

I wouldnt worry about "mass abortion" bringing about extinction of humanity. The whole notion of everyone aborting all fetuses is absurd. Its like worrying that gay marriage would bring about extinction of humanity, since homosexuals dont reproduce. Its based on absurd and unrealistic exaggerations.

Meanwhile, its high population growth and overpopulation which already endangers humanity longterm survival. This is the problem which endangers humanity, in reality and now, not in some theoretical unrealistic scenario. And abortion helps to mitigate this problem, therefore its beneficial for humanity.

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
No, a person like me recognizes that once the young'un is no longer a fixture to its mothers body, it is an individual person and is to be afforded considerations thereof. That is, when the birth happens. Up until that point, it's all in the mothers' ballpark.

So if a mother decides to kill a toddler, it's okay? After all, the child is just mooching off it's parents.

I believe I answered this inane question in the text that you quoted, but clearly did not once bother to read. I'm sorry if this is due to some mild form of illiteracy or dyslexia or whatever, but, well... it was right there. Immediately above where you were typing. You were probably looking at it as you were typing.

Do humans have a right to life or not? All this talk about a mother's choice is a smokescreen. If it's a human it has the right to life. You wouldn't let perents have choice after birth would you? Then why would yoou give them the option of murder when the fetus poses no threat to the mother's life?

Actually no, the woman's choice to abort or carry to term is the core issue here. She must absolutely have the freedom to make a rational choice about her own future, else she is no more than a farm animal.

reply to post by Maslo


People like him believe it is our holy duty to overpopulate and utterly destroy the earth before Jesus comes back, else he'll be upset that we didn't "use it to its fullest." And of course, Jesus will only come back once we've utterly ruined everything, to save us from ourselves, with no responsibilities or baggages whatsoever. More babies means not only a faster desolation of the planet, but also more souls for Jesus to gobble up.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Actually no, the woman's choice to abort or carry to term is the core issue here. She must absolutely have the freedom to make a rational choice about her own future, else she is no more than a farm animal.

this is the point pro-lifers don't seem to ever want to address cause it contradicts their anti-big brother, anti-government stances. at what point do we allow authorities to dictate the internal bodily processes of another human?? should uncle sam come over and duct tape the young rape victims legs together to make sure dat dere seed takes hold??

the minute we allow government intervention over the inner workings of the human body, then we've opened pandoras box.

Originally posted by Maslo
Meanwhile, its high population growth and overpopulation which already endangers humanity longterm survival. This is the problem which endangers humanity, in reality and now, not in some theoretical unrealistic scenario.

I'm not against abortion, but I just wanted to point out that overpopulation is not a problem at all.

We waste and mismanage our natural resources in an extreme way.

reply to post by Jezus

We waste and mismanage our natural resources in an extreme way.

And that proves overpopulation is not a problem how? Until we stop doing so (very unrealistic, utopian thought), overpopulation is and continues to be a problem.

It's not question of if mothers have a choice. It's a question of whether it's acceptable to kill a human being for reasons other than to preserve/defend another's life.

A fetus is a human being, yes or no?

reply to post by 547000

A fetus is a human being, yes or no?

In its objective usage —as in "a being," or "[a] human being" —it refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex state than simple organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions").

Nope, fetus, just like braindead people, plants, bacteria or lower organisms, is not a "being", since it lacks mind. It is merely a life. Presence of mind is possible only after the 5th month.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by 547000

 

A fetus is a human being, yes or no?

In its objective usage —as in "a being," or "[a] human being" —it refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex state than simple organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions").

Nope, fetus, just like braindead people, plants, bacteria or lower organisms, is not a "being", since it lacks mind. It is merely a life. Presence of mind is possible only after the 5th month.

Then let's simplify. Is it human? Will it ever develop into something that isn't human?