I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

windword
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

I'm not defensive. And, I don't think that anyone in this thread has declared that an unborn baby, at any stage of gestation, is a "parasite".

I agree with this statement.

www.abovetopsecret.com... The Regal:
If you honestly can't tell the difference between saying "This thing is a parasite" and "This thing's functionality is closer to a parasite than a human being", then I really can't help you, sorry

Sorry Windword but that is.......wrong.
The relationship between mother and child is more like a mutualism relationship, aka a symbiosis relationship.
Both parties gain from the relationship. Therefore the child is nothing like a parasite.

reply to post by Quadrivium

Sorry Windword but that is.......wrong.

In your opinion.

The relationship between mother and child is more like a mutualism relationship, aka a symbiosis relationship.

Gosh, I hope so! I'm gonna need someone to move in with when my Social Security runs out!

Both parties gain from the relationship. Therefore the child is nothing like a parasite.

When you say "mutualism" I take it you mean that the relationship is a "plus, plus" for both organisms, but this isn't necessarily the case, especially since childbirth, before modern medicine, was the number 1 killer of women. What are the positive gains for the mother? What are the positive gains for the father?

Procreation is great for the survival of the species, but not always so great for the individuals involved.

reply to post by windword
This is one of the biggest things that sadden me about those who agree with abortion for a use as contraception.
They have absolutely no idea about the relationship that a mother an unborn child share.
So your question was " what benefits does the mother gain?".
1. Reduced risk of cancer.
2. Some Autoimmune diseases may get better.
3. Many with eating disorders find they diminish with pregnancy.
These are just a few.......the big one is that the new baby's cells actually pass over to the mother. These cells actually seek out areas in the woman's body that may be damaged in some way. The baby's cells then offer themselves to be used by the mother's body in the affected area.

windword
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

If you share that opinion, then you are mistaken. DNA doesn't lie.

DNA isn't a "person" either.

A living being with human DNA is a human being. Pretending otherwise is simply living in denial.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


A fertilized egg is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree.

A living, one celled being, with human DNA is NOT a person. When sperm meets ova, both living "beings" with DNA, btw, the ova doesn't just suddenly transform into a tiny person, that's just silly.

reply to post by windword


People aren't plants.

You post that, and call ME silly?

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

A fertilized egg is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree.

Fertilized egg is to human as acorn is to tree.

It's called "analogy"

a·nal·o·gy
A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

If a fertilized egg is a person, then all too often, people are getting flushed down the toilet, when women menstruate.

A large share of fertilized eggs never successfully implant to establish a pregnancy: Between 50 and 80 percent of fertilized eggs never successfully implant........
rhrealitycheck.org...

reply to post by windword


It's a very poor analogy. If you don't see people as any more important than a plant, then we have nothing further to discuss. I am not the one who will have to explain your position one day.

LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by windword

 

It's a very poor analogy. If you don't see people as any more important than a plant, then we have nothing further to discuss. I am not the one who will have to explain your position one day.

She isn't saying that people are plants. No distinction is needed.

It's an analogy used to help describe the fact that a fetus is not a human being.

This is third grade stuff.

A fetus is a fetus, an acorn is an acorn.

A human being is a human being, and an oak tree is an oak tree.

It's symmetrical and does not require that humans and trees are the same thing for the sake of the argument, so your argument that humans an plants are not the same thing is not a point at all. If you want to defame an analogy, you have to show where the links are broken, not just blurt out some empty rhetoric. You would have to prove that an acorn does not turn into an oak tree or that a fetus does not turn into a human being to invaliate the analogy, or show an external factor that indirectly does such.

My 9-year-old neice could have explained this.

TheRegal
She isn't saying that people are plants. No distinction is needed.

It's an analogy used to help describe the fact that a fetus is not a human being.

This is third grade stuff.

Oh, like being able to read the dictionary?

Merriam-Webster online dictionary

fe·tus noun \ˈfē-təs\ : a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born

That sort of "third grade" stuff?

TheRegal
A fetus is a fetus, an acorn is an acorn.

A human being is a human being, and an oak tree is an oak tree.

Since a basic dictionary defines a "fetus" as a person or animal at a certain stage of development, your comments are rather pointless.

TheRegal
It's symmetrical and does not require that humans and trees are the same thing for the sake of the argument, so your argument that humans an plants are not the same thing is not a point at all. If you want to defame an analogy, you have to show where the links are broken, not just blurt out some empty rhetoric. You would have to prove that an acorn does not turn into an oak tree or that a fetus does not turn into a human being to invaliate the analogy, or show an external factor that indirectly does such.

That someone compares a human being at an early stage of development to a plant isn't something I have to show is an invalid argument. Common sense does that already. Common sense states that one doesn't ignore basic definitions, and simple science, to excuse killing people, too.

TheRegal
My 9-year-old neice could have explained this.

Does your 9-year-old niece think killing unborn babies is acceptable?

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Common sense states that one doesn't ignore basic definitions, and simple science, to excuse killing people, too.

Common sense states that a fertilized, single cell egg is NOT a person. Birth control such as "the pill" isn't killing people, this is simple science!

Abortion cannot be discussed logically because the main source behind most staunch anti-abortionists is religious belief.

How can logic compete with years of psychological and behavioural indoctrination?

It seems most agree it is an issue that cannot be solved logically, because the two opposing views will never meet.

Everyone loves babies and children. The american family with children is teetering on an economic precipice. When did america become a country that families are a liability instead of a future?

fetus is just a medical term to describe an unborn child, it's a fetus until it's born.
A unimplanted egg is not a fetus.
I belive a fetus desrves protection as a human life. I dont feel the same about an unimplanted egg.

reply to post by beezzer


So let me get this straight. You voluntarily joined the military to go fight in a war and help kill people, to only come back home and lecture and remove the rights of others who may need to have an abortion, or voluntarily kill people.

Methinks you need to look inside and not out.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Amazing how people spend a fortune on IVF to have a child,and yet kill 5-6000 unborn each day ,cant people comprehend how to use contraceptives ? whats the matter with these people ?

libertytoall

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

charles1952
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)

What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.

I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.

The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.

None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.

There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.

You're right, the laws are inconsistent. The violence against unborn or whatever that nonsensical law is called is wrong. Absolutely wrong. I would not ever convict any one that charge.

This woman WANTED her child, are you saying it was ok for someone to kill it?

The crime is attacking the woman. The pregnancy is part of the woman. It IS wrong to charge someone twice for the same crime. If the woman wants to sue for damages, that is an entirely civil matter. And that BTW, is exactly how the bible treats the end forceble end of a planned pregnancy.

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: clarity

The man is being charged with murder, not domestic violence. He took a life......fact.

He should be charged with whatever is appropriate for the crime against the woman. I assume we can agree on that much. I believe that Beyond that it should be a civil matter and just because there is a law, doesn't make the law correct.

The only problem with your feminist cockamamie viewpoint on abortion is you fail to accept or admit the woman has the brunt of the blame and responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. You nonchalantly act as if getting pregnant is on par with getting the flu or catching a cold. You had to open your legs in order to get pregnant. You had to allow a male's organ to enter your hole... The female had to initiate the process. You can't just wake up one day pregnant like you're some innocent victim.. Sex is biologically for making babies. You can't have sex carrying out the natural steps to make a baby and then cry foul as if it's some sort of mistake when you end up pregnant. Lay in the bed you made for yourself. My biological mother was 15 and instead of abortion she carried me and gave me up for adoption. What a selfless act and the morally RIGHT thing to do. Killing the baby and throwing in the garbage is not a moral act any humane person can defend. And I bet your'e the same person who screams at animal abuse. You can never bring back the timeline of a life which you have so irresponsibly and heartlessly squashed.

I'm not religious in the slightest bit before you start calling me a bible thumper or something. I simply have compassionate for human life and a lot of common sense.

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

And the caveman comments. What a sexist thug. Seriously?


I had this friend in high school. He had a miserable childhood, so he decided he never wanted to bring children into this world. he got a vasectomy as soon as he turned 18.

Case in point. He did not want children. Period. He got a vasectomy. He didn't blame it on the woman. He didn't force the woman to be responsible for birth control.


You don't want responsibility for babies? Take care of your own junk and stop blaming the women.

wombatta
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Amazing how people spend a fortune on IVF to have a child,and yet kill 5-6000 unborn each day ,cant people comprehend how to use contraceptives ? whats the matter with these people ?

Rantings from the uneducated pro lifers.

Guess what, crap happens. If you think people actually understand sex 100% of the time, then you need to listen to Love Line on the radio for a few weeks. It will be an eye opener, I promise you.

There are people who think you can't get pregnant if you are a virgin. There are people who think you can't get pregnant if you are on your period. People's birth control fail a lot more often than you think.

Humans happen, that is what. Not everyone has the same education, intelligence, emotional intelligence. If that were the case, then young males wouldn't swindle teen girls into sleeping with them and there would be no need for statatury rape.

People are impressionable, sad, gullible. Some people are so emotionally devastated that they will do anything to get attention from another.


the problem with pro lifers such as yourself is that you think every aborted baby is missing the chance to grow up in a nice, lovely single family home with loving parents and a great education.


You people don't have the first clue how awful the real world can be. If you were so safe and snug in your safe little homes, you would know that there are lives out there being lived that are far worse than death.

You would know that people are in horrific positions that have to make horrific decisions. But you like to look down and judge from your ivory tower and feel smug.

reply to post by wombatta


Here it comes. The Huckabee "why can't women control their libido", paraphrasing. Then "new" republican political argument for abortion. So that is why this thread was revived.

The case was decided for the act/crime mentioned in the opening post.

Welden gets nearly 14 years in Tampa abortion pill case

"I'm plagued with remorse and regret for the horrible actions I've committed which led to this day," the fertility doctor's son said before the judge imposed sentence. "And what I've done will stay with me every day for the rest of my life no matter what happens today or the day after."