The Abortion Question

[StLucieBengal]

(10-09-2015, 01:51 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Why do you assume the victim can afford Plan B? Why do you assume it is readily available in their area? Why do you assume everyone can safely take Plan B?

Pretty cheap . Plus Obamacare has to cover it. I believe.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-08-2015, 01:01 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: If anyone here has stated that a zygote is not a living thing, I haven't seen it.

This whole "when does life begin" thing is a strawman, and that's my point from the beginning of this thread. The question is not whether a fetus is "alive", the questions are a. what kind of life does it possess? and b. is there any reason to grant this kind of life any more rights than a million other simple life-forms that people have no problem destroying?

Then look harder. There are many who constantly refer to it as a "bag of cells" and things of that nature. Why would they do that except in order to dehumanize the unborn child so as to make abortion seem less than what it is: murder.


As to your questions: a) it doesn't matter. It is a human being. Suppose you have a child that is born with no lungs and will never have anything beyond a 2-year old's brain activity. Obviously, this "mentally-challenged" baby on an iron lung is not going to have any semblance of a life, so, according to your logic, it's okayto kill it.


b) Yes, because it's a human being. Why is it that killing a human being is wrong EXCEPT when that being is in the womb? Why do I not have the right to keep people off my property even if that means killing all trespassers, but my wife has the right to kill our unborn child if she so desires (not that she ever would, mind you) because she just doesn't feel like having a kid right now? Answer: human life is more important than property, unless of course that life is still in the womb.

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-09-2015, 10:07 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Then look harder. There are many who constantly refer to it as a "bag of cells" and things of that nature. 

All cells are alive, unless they are dead, or are housing inmates....Therefore anyone saying they are just a bag of cells has not in any way said they are not alive.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-09-2015, 10:12 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: All cells are alive, unless they are dead, or are housing inmates....Therefore anyone saying they are just a bag of cells has not in any way said they are not alive.

"all cells are alive, unless they are dead"

Why do pro choicers get up in arms, then whenever someone says "life beings at conception"?

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-09-2015, 10:17 AM)PhilHos Wrote: "all cells are alive, unless they are dead"

Why do pro choicers get up in arms, then whenever someone says "life beings at conception"?

Let's limit the discussion you and I are having to the question you thought you answered, and I showed you how you didn't.  You are the one that told someone to "check harder" and then provided a statement that didn't back up your premis.  

All cells are alive.  However when my skin cells slough off they are no longer alive.  Only the cells at the root of my hair are alive the rest are not.  Roll your eyes all you want.  Read your statement I quoted and my response again.  You are wrong and I am right.  All I was pointing out was that your example, after all your "hard looking", was without merit. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2015, 10:12 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: All cells are alive, unless they are dead,

Thanks Capitan

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-09-2015, 12:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks Capitan

You're welcome Tennille

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-09-2015, 10:07 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Then look harder. There are many who constantly refer to it as a "bag of cells" and things of that nature. Why would they do that except in order to dehumanize the unborn child so as to make abortion seem less than what it is: murder.

The opposing view of this is that you are sensationalizing things by calling it "murder".

[*PhilHos*]

(10-09-2015, 10:23 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Let's limit the discussion you and I are having to the question you thought you answered, and I showed you how you didn't.  You are the one that told someone to "check harder" and then provided a statement that didn't back up your premis.  

All cells are alive.  However when my skin cells slough off they are no longer alive.  Only the cells at the root of my hair are alive the rest are not.  Roll your eyes all you want.  Read your statement I quoted and my response again.  You are wrong and I am right.  All I was pointing out was that your example, after all your "hard looking", was without merit. 

YOU might want to re-read my post harder (HARDER, I tell you, HARDER OH YEAH YEAH FASTER YEAH FASTER FASTERFASTERFASTERFASTERFASTER OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH) as I also said "things of that nature" after that (and I wasn't talking about cells, but rather simple "explanations" of how a fertilized egg isn't life).

So, you're still wrong. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-09-2015, 12:26 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: The opposing view of this is that you are sensationalizing things by calling it "murder".

Minus a few exceptions, I view the taking of human life as murder.

It's not like I'm saying that someone raped me when all they did was slap my butt ('cause I'm an expert at replacing the toner). You kill someone because they inconvenience you or you can't afford to feed and care for them, well, I'm sorry, that's murder.

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-08-2015, 01:01 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: If anyone here has stated that a zygote is not a living thing, I haven't seen it.

(10-09-2015, 10:07 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Then look harder. There are many who constantly refer to it as a "bag of cells" and things of that nature.

(10-09-2015, 01:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: YOU might want to re-read my post harder (HARDER, I tell you, HARDER OH YEAH YEAH FASTER YEAH FASTER FASTERFASTERFASTERFASTERFASTER OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH) as I also said "things of that nature" after that (and I wasn't talking about cells, but rather simple "explanations" of how a fertilized egg isn't life).

So, you're still wrong. 

Stop it.  

You posted the highlighted as if it refuted what was said above it.  It literally doesn't.  "Things of that nature" still include them being alive and no one saying differently. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-09-2015, 01:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Minus a few exceptions, I view the taking of human life as murder.

It's not like I'm saying that someone raped me when all they did was slap my butt ('cause I'm an expert at replacing the toner). You kill someone because they inconvenience you or you can't afford to feed and care for them, well, I'm sorry, that's murder.

Who is The Decider when it comes to exceptions?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-09-2015, 01:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Minus a few exceptions, I view the taking of human life as murder.

It's not like I'm saying that someone raped me when all they did was slap my butt ('cause I'm an expert at replacing the toner). You kill someone because they inconvenience you or you can't afford to feed and care for them, well, I'm sorry, that's murder.

Then we get into when something is a "life" which of course many disagree with.  Those that consider it life at conception like that position because it leaves so little to interpretation.  Then they like to try and claim moral superiority like "oh you're pro-choice....BABY MURDERERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"  If that is your position fine, we agree to disagree.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-09-2015, 10:07 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Then look harder. There are many who constantly refer to it as a "bag of cells" and things of that nature. Why would they do that except in order to dehumanize the unborn child so as to make abortion seem less than what it is: murder.


As to your questions: a) it doesn't matter. It is a human being. Suppose you have a child that is born with no lungs and will never have anything beyond a 2-year old's brain activity. Obviously, this "mentally-challenged" baby on an iron lung is not going to have any semblance of a life, so, according to your logic, it's okayto kill it.


b) Yes, because it's a human being. Why is it that killing a human being is wrong EXCEPT when that being is in the womb? Why do I not have the right to keep people off my property even if that means killing all trespassers, but my wife has the right to kill our unborn child if she so desires (not that she ever would, mind you) because she just doesn't feel like having a kid right now? Answer: human life is more important than property, unless of course that life is still in the womb.

I said I haven't seen anybody claim a zygote isn't a living thing. Your response is to say "look harder", then talk about people calling the zygote a "bag of cells". Since cells are living things, it seems you're simply proving my point; though you littered your sentence with the typical pro-life rhetorical tricks by calling said zygote an "unborn child" and incorrectly using the word "murder".

As for the rest, until you prove that zygote=child/human being, everything you said is meaningless.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-09-2015, 05:24 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Pretty cheap .  Plus Obamacare has to cover it. I believe.

So, your response is to ignore 2 out of 3 questions, plus endorse Obamacare?

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 09:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How long is an unborn child a zygote?

(10-09-2015, 01:49 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Not playing your game anymore, pal. You'll have to strawman somebody else. Just know that every single time you call "abortion" the "killing" of a "child", I'm going to add the same correction right behind it until you stop misinforming people.

(10-09-2015, 03:50 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: So, your response is to ignore 2 out of 3 questions, plus endorse Obamacare?

At least you didn't endorse Obamacare.

[BmorePat87]

(10-09-2015, 01:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Minus a few exceptions, I view the taking of human life as murder.

But your definition of murder is irrelevant. Lumping things you disagree with into the definition of murder is sensationalization just as it would be to lump things that aren't rape into the category of rape. 

[*bfine32*]

I detest the act of abortion as much as anyone; however, I do not classify it as murder. Simply because it is legal.

Change the law; then those that perform the act are committing murder.

[GodHatesBengals]

bfine32 Wrote:At least you didn't endorse Obamacare.

Read your first quote, carefully, maybe even out loud, and perhaps even you will realize why I had every reason to accuse you of games. Hint: look up "loaded question".

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-09-2015, 04:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I detest the act of abortion as much as anyone; however, I do not classify it as murder. Simply because it is legal.

Change the law; then those that perform the act are committing murder.

So you accept one small portion of reality?