The Abortion Question

[Brownshoe]

(09-27-2015, 01:25 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I have bolded all the things you said in that post which do not follow from anything I've said.

So why don't you answer my question?

So, do you think it's a part of the mother even though it has its own heart, brain, blood, organs, ect.?
Why should we give the right to women to murder another human being just for inconveniencing the woman?

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2015, 02:11 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: So why don't you answer my question?

Guy, you're barking up the wrong tree if you expect questions to be given a forthright answer. 

They will be liberal with their responses.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-27-2015, 02:11 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: So why don't you answer my question?

So, do you think it's a part of the mother even though it has its own heart, brain, blood, organs, ect.?
Why should we give the right to women to murder another human being just for inconveniencing the woman?

I think that a fetus until viable is a living thing that has no form of rights that override those of the mother, unless said mother plans on delivering or carrying it until viable (i.e. I'm opposed to so-called "partial-birth abortion" practices, which are illegal).

We should not give anybody the right to "murder" "human beings" just for "inconveniencing" women, but of course we are not discussing that subject, so why you brought it up is mysterious.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-27-2015, 02:14 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Guy, you're barking up the wrong tree if you expect questions to be given a forthright answer. 

They will be liberal with their responses.  

Coming from perhaps the most elusive person on the board, this one literally made me laugh.

Perhaps cons would be more satisfied with the answers if they could quit asking silly, repetitive, loaded or otherwise bad questions.

[Brownshoe]

(09-27-2015, 02:57 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I think that a fetus until viable is a living thing that has no form of rights that override those of the mother, unless said mother plans on delivering or carrying it until viable (i.e. I'm opposed to so-called "partial-birth abortion" practices, which are illegal).

We should not give anybody the right to "murder" "human beings" just for "inconveniencing" women, but of course we are not discussing that subject, so why you brought it up is mysterious.

So you think that a fetus isn't a human, and is a "thing"? Why is it a human when it's viable? That makes no sense to me because the ability to be viable is determined on how far medical science is at that point in time. In 100 years if science is able to make an unborn child viable from conception is it a human from conception? and if it is why is it fair to unborn children being murdered now?

[Johnny Cupcakes]

Life begins at conception. I don't really think that debating that fact is the vital part of that argument. The only argument that the pro-choice side legitimately has is whether or not a woman has the right to her own body even if it's at the expense of killing another, which I agree, is a tough subject.

I'm for everyone having the right to do what they want with their bodies, but not so much having the right to end a human life. It's a hard subject for me, but I consider myself pro-life, and don't see that changing.

[Blutarsky]

(09-26-2015, 11:07 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Yes, the OP asked the question when does life begin. Scientifically, it's easy to determine what's alive and what isn't. The moral question is what living things have any protected rights to continue living.

It becomes a philosophical and moral question not due to "ignoring science", but because whenever anybody seeks to say something is "bad", they are making a moral judgment, not a scientific one. Science does not offer solutions to moral questions.  For example, science tells us that an apple on a tree is a living thing; it cannot tell us whether that means it's morally wrong to rip them off and eat them or not.

Pro-choice people aren't ignoring science. They are recognizing that just pointing at something and saying "IT'S ALIVE!!!!" doesn't mean it's wrong to destroy it. If you think otherwise, be careful whenever scratching your arm, lest you accidentally take the innocent life of a harmless living skin cell. Also, make sure you're vegan. And then still yet, make sure you eat only artificial non-plant based products, since those are alive, too.

Your "reasoning" is ludicrous. When there is discussion of "when does  life begin" we are talking about a human life, not about a stinking skin cell.
The question is "does human life begin when sperm meets egg?"
I presume human skin cells begin to develop long after that event occurs.

I'm shocked that no pro abortionist has brought up the notion that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite feeding off its host.
Yep, that's been throw out there by the lefties, Google it.

[xxlt]

(09-26-2015, 05:52 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote:  So my question to all of you is; When does the right to life of the baby outweigh the right to choice of the woman? At conception? When the heart starts beating? When the brain begins developing? Or never?

Never.

[Beaker]

(09-26-2015, 05:52 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: When does the right to life of the baby outweigh the right to choice of the woman? At conception? When the heart starts beating? When the brain begins developing? Or never?

Never. The woman has the ability to choose. She decides what she will do. Religion has no say in it unless she decides it does. Case closed.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-27-2015, 08:53 AM)xxlt Wrote: Never.

(09-27-2015, 09:23 AM)Beaker Wrote: Never. The woman has the ability to choose. She decides what she will do. Religion has no say in it unless she decides it does. Case closed.

You guys are both in favor of late term abortions? Wow.

[Beaker]

(09-27-2015, 10:36 AM)PhilHos Wrote: You guys are both in favor of late term abortions? Wow.

Actually, I am in favor of a person having enough common sense to make their decision long before then.

[GMDino]

(09-27-2015, 08:38 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: Your "reasoning" is ludicrous. When there is discussion of "when does  life begin" we are talking about a human life, not about a stinking skin cell.
The question is "does human life begin when sperm meets egg?"
I presume human skin cells begin to develop long after that event occurs.

I'm shocked that no pro abortionist has brought up the notion that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite feeding off its host.
Yep, that's been throw out there by the lefties, Google it.

Let's be clear: The fetus relies on the mother's body to survive.  Some on the right have chosen to say that means pro-abortion people are calling a baby a parasite.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-26-2015, 06:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Depends on if you want to "ignore science" or not.

Simple biology states it begins at conception; however, there will be those that try to muddy the waters.

We have been over this before.  Simple biology states spermatozoa and ova are already alive before conception.  If either or both the spermatozoa and/or ova are not alive then conception will not occur.

[StLucieBengal]

That's my baby at conception. I don't call it that chunk of cells.

[Beaker]

(09-27-2015, 11:32 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That's my baby at conception.    I don't call it that chunk of cells.

Doesn't matter what you call it. Its her decision.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-27-2015, 11:33 AM)Beaker Wrote: Doesn't matter what you call it. Its her decision.

yes unfortunately we live in a place where murdering babies is easy and cool to some.

[Belsnickel]

(09-27-2015, 10:47 AM)Beaker Wrote: Actually, I am in favor of a person having enough common sense to make their decision long before then.

That's my thing. I am personally against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's life being in danger. I find abortion morally reprehensible any other time. But, it is not my place to infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy. Instead, I think we should focus on educating the public better in a realistic manner and making contraception more readily available.

[GMDino]

(09-27-2015, 10:47 AM)Beaker Wrote: Actually, I am in favor of a person having enough common sense to make their decision long before then.

(09-27-2015, 11:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's my thing. I am personally against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's life being in danger. I find abortion morally reprehensible any other time. But, it is not my place to infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy. Instead, I think we should focus on educating the public better in a realistic manner and making contraception more readily available.

Yes but that's being rational and trying to reach some kind of understanding.  No one gets votes doing that.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-27-2015, 11:32 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That's my baby at conception.    I don't call it that chunk of cells.

That would be a zygote or a blastocyst, but please don't let that hinder your hyperbole.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-27-2015, 11:36 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: yes unfortunately we live in a place where murdering babies is easy and cool to some.

Name one person who believes it is "cool."