Horror: Aborted Baby Parts Are Ending Up In Landfills, Says Ohio Attorney General ...

Your fifth concession to the standing points, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

LOL! They're human eggs and human sperm, and that's all they are... and all they will ever be.

They are not human life... and they will never BE human life.

ROFL! No. It doesn't

LMAO! No... they're not.

LOL! No... they do not. Neither the Egg, nor the Sperm have any potential to every become human life.

Yeah... that's so true. It's just not relevant.

BUT! If it will make ya feel better, feel free to kill as many human eggs and sperm as you can find. I doubt anyone would care... and you're entitled sell those for as much profit as you can get.

 

And your fifth consecutive round of deflection and Charlie Sheen-esque "WINNING" drivel is also duly noted and summarily rejected.

Debate fail, player disqualified...

- - - Updated - - -

Too bad the law - not to mention basic objective reality - disagree with you...

 

Sadly... restating a formally discredited assertion, doesn't actually reinforce it...

But with that said, she made the choice, which you claim is to punish herself. I can't see how that's any of my business; or your for that matter.

But since you're determined to make it my business... I would suggest that she not listen to the craven, perverse idiots who tell her that she's entitled to murder her child if she conceives such, because she's not.

And I'd add that she should listen to her own instincts which tell her that CHOOSING TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE is a very serious decision, which should never be taken lightly and never outside of marriage.

Yes.. the unborn are dependent upon their mother bearing their responsibility for their decision to engage in sexual intercourse, which is specifically designed to INDUCE conception.

You're here simply to deny that the Mother has any responsibility to the child she conceived through her willful CHOICE... . Which is not only false, it's hysterically false, and on every level and in every sense of the word.

False...

Of course it is... and it does so, just like you, by continuing to develop as a human being.

Already done, but I'll do it again for you...

Murder: the unlawfulI (immoral) premeditated killing of one human being by another.

See how easy that is?

- - - Updated - - -

LOL! A relativist crying about objective reality!

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

 

Your ire is misplaced here. Definitely didn't deny that pregnancy is a medical condition with consequences, I only question if many people would see it as bad enough to justify killing a person even if you educated them on all the bad things pregnancy can bring.

If pro-lifers got their way abortions would happen anyway and women would suffer needlessly because of their laws. Everything hinges on whether the fetus is a person. And there is no logical way around the fact that it's not a person. There are illogical ways people can try to get around it though, and you let that persist by not addressing their point. You will much sooner convince them that a fetus is not a person, than that pregnancy justifies killing an innocent person.

 

This would make sense if the value of the fetus were a sort of gray area, sort of like how many people think of different kinds of animals. Like I think it's wrong to torture a chicken, but I value a chicken less than a dog and a dog less than a person. But it seems to me that people think of fetal value in a more black or white sort of way, i.e. being innocent, almost angelic persons (pro-lifers), or as having value only in reference to what the mother wants (pro-choicers). The black and white approach to personhood is generally favored, probably partly influenced by the atrocities of world war II where enemies were often portrayed as something of less value than a full person. Given that cultural fact, the issue of the suffering of the mother, while significant, is still going to be secondary to the right of a person to live in most people's minds. So it would be much more productive to attack the pro-life argument head-on, demonstrate that there is nothing there for them to value, as opposed to promoting women's right to their bodies as a competing value to the right to live. That's not the best approach to keeping abortion safe and legal because to most people, the right to live is considered paramount and the lesser evil is going to be to follow the action where a life is less likely to be lost. If they think abortion is murder, then there's a 100% chance a person will die, versus pregnancy where the mother has a fraction of a percent chance to die, albeit with a higher rate of morbidity. And as we've discussed elsewhere, pointing out the futility of anti-abortion laws would be the next best approach, but it's not going to convince people who believe in "justice."

They think that because sex has the risk of leading to unwanted children, then people have a moral obligation to be more careful about sex than they perceive many people to be. And it's true that it's not all about stopping abortion any more than they believe murder laws are about stopping murder. They want people who do things they consider "evil" to be punished, but this brings us back to the same point as before: We must convince them that fetuses aren't persons at the time of abortion, then there would be no reason for them to feel anybody needs punishment and everybody can be freer to have sex, and when necessary abortion, without guilt. I would concede, however, that many of them are sexist in placing disproportionate responsibility on women.

 

Because people are anti-choice for different reasons, all reasons for decriminalizing abortion must be presented. People do not always realize the reasons they are anti-choice, as demonstrated by those desired to see women punished. Many of those who recognize the futility of anti-abortion laws still support them because a woman deserves to die from botched abortion if she should dare to choose abortion. Few anti-choicers will ever recognize that they have been manipulated by politicians for a political cause.

If pro-lifers were opposed to pre-marital sex because of the risk of pregnancy, then they should be delighted with the option of abortion. The fact is that they are hung up on sex, and particularly women having the freedom to choose to have sex without consequences. They cling to the patriarchal view of women BELONGING to their fathers and then to their husbands, and especially their sexuality belonging to fathers/husbands. Many of these people want to use the unavailability of abortion and the lack of knowledge of birth control to SCARE women into remaining celibate, of course to do that, they will have to bring back the shame and disgrace of illegitimate births.

 

I didn't say human, I said a human. To compare an unborn human to a skin cell is wrong IMO. The unborn even at one cell is a separate living organism. It is very much a human, not just simply human. Sure it hasn't developed at the first stage into what we know as a person, but does that mean it is any less deserving of protections. I can go off on a tangent about miscarriages and still births and how those affect people emotionally, just as if a born human dies that can feel pain. The tragedy isn't necessarily just for the one who dies, but the ones who are still alive, but that's off topic and doesn't really apply to abortion, but it does make a point about how the unborn does have an affect on others. Positive when they find out they are pregnant, or negative, just like meeting new people. The unborn does affect people around them, even if the unborn him/herself is unaware of it.

 

I said a human, not human. eggs and sperm separated don't make a human, together they do. I have given many valid reasons why the unborn deserves protections and is quite different then an egg and sperm separate. The unborn is a human life that develops and grows and changes as it develops. Yes I'm aware that errors occur during development and the unborn may never reach viability, but does that mean it doesn't deserve protections at least until that point is reached? Eggs and sperm are simply human and will never be anything other then an egg, or sperm. Just like an arm, or leg. However if you want to make an argument that cells used to make a human are deserving of the same protections as the human they make when combined, I'm all ears. I myself wont make that argument, because I don't feel they do.

 

Why do you feel the fetus "deserves" protection?.......and a pregnant woman doesn't?

 

An egg and sperm together is only one step closer to being A human than an egg and sperm separately. The chances of either developing into A human being are small. The reasoning for protecting a joined egg and sperm is sensible to you, not to many others. You simply cannot compel a woman to protect an embryo if she does not want to, she will find a way to abort. OTOH, the maternal mortality rate in this country is shocking, it is much higher than many other developed countries. Sufficient money and resources applied to that could actually save lives. So...if you're REALLY concerned with "life", start lobbying for practices that save women's lives.

 

But, but, but...only a fetus "deserves" protecting, not mere women!!!

 

Until the unborn has separated from the woman host, it is not "a separate living organism", it is attached and depends upon that attachment for its existence. See a dictionary for "separate" and "individual."

 

The both do and yes you can protect both

- - - Updated - - -

Who says I don't?

- - - Updated - - -

why even bother posting things like this?

- - - Updated - - -

it is separate. The cord is part of the unborn, even has a different blood type, not even close to the same

 

Then cut the cord from the mother and let it survive on its own...

 

proof that it's separate from the mother, the fact that you can cut the cord and it will survive on its own at a certain point in development. Doing what you suggest would cause the human population to become extinct, or any other animal that develops this way.

 

When the cord is cut and the unborn survives on its own, it's separate. While it's attached, it's not separate. That's simply and matter of simple definition.

 

"""""""at a certain point in development""""" ONLY

 

Abso-frakkin'-lutely. Which brings us back to the only restrictions that are appropriate are those based on viability, which is what Roe v. Wade said. I know there are those who don't get that, and make a most, ummmm... undignified spectacle about it, but there it is...

 

it is a separate and unique individual, there's really nothing to argue there. Yes it is attached to the woman, but ti is it's own being, it is not part of the woman ever. not arguing if it is attached by a cord to the woman, but it is it's own unique individual

- - - Updated - - -

so that makes it part of the woman until then? no it's still it's own unique being

 

An unborn fetus is the size of a bean, so the post is nothing more then hysterical religious nonsense about "baby parts"
90% of termination of pregnancy is done at 12 weeks or before

 

Nursery rhymes have nothing to do with this.

 

IF it's not part of the woman it should be able to be removed at ANY TIME and survive on it's own........can it?????