Thread: The Abortion Argument is Over

Originally Posted by Goldwater

Wow...Dutch and Grumpy were at least fun to talk to.

At any rate...I am undaunted by your fancy pants elitist logic, and I will continue to hold true to the beliefs of my God. That human life begins at egg creation, not fertilization.

Masturbation is murder?
I'd be curious to hear how that plays out, since sperm cells die whether or not they are ejaculated. What an evil God, forcing every man on earth to kill billions of people a day.

Originally Posted by JayDubya

Scientific fact: the lifespan of a member of a sexually reproducing species begins at fertilization.

The lifespan of a member of a sexually reproducing species begins at birth.
Lifespan: The average or maximum length of time an organism, material, or object can be expected to survive or last.
And as stated previously, it is not an organism during any point at which it cannot live outside the womb.

You are welcome to explain why you think that a living member of our species does not warrant protection against aggression, but you cannot refute that they are a) alive, and b) a member of our species.

Given.
But I'll state two reasons:
It is not an organism.
It is not sentient.

Originally Posted by Charles Stover

Masturbation is murder?
I'd be curious to hear how that plays out, since sperm cells die whether or not they are ejaculated. What an evil God, forcing every man on earth to kill billions of people a day.

I've got to come clean.

I don't really think masturbation is murder.

I don't think that NOT fertilizing eggs is murder either.

I don't think anything devine happens upon successful fertilization of a human egg cell that justifes the usage of the religious term "conception" to describe it.

I don't believe that a fetus becoming a homo sapien after fertilization is a sufficient reason to disallow aborting it.

I don't believe it's immoral to abort a fetus that is not in the late stages of cerebral cortex maturation.

I was just trying to push back the point where denial of human development becomes worthy of moral outrage. And it didn't work, because nobody seems to revere the sperm and the egg with the same parental protection instincts that they do a fertilized egg.

I have often wondered why the pro life crowed if you can call it that, can make these grand claims about science and really not know anything about it??

Nobody reveres the sperm or the egg with parental protection instincts because there is nothing to protect.. How many eggs are flushed anually every time women have their monthly friend?? How many zillion sperm are rinsed down the drain in the shower because men and teens masterbate in the shower.. There is nothing to protect..

There is a type of shark that the siblings actually eat one another inside the womb of the mother shark.. Why would god create such a shark or such a system?? Baby sharks eating one another inside the womb?? Sounds like abortion to me..

Scientists Seek To Save Baby-Eating Sharks From Themselves

The bottom line here is simple.. While you pro-lifers continure your meaningless debates as to when a baby is a baby.. You forgot the real issue.. Preventing the pregnancy in the first place.. It is immoral to deny a woman an abortion at any stage if required for a medical reason that threatens the life of the mother.. That is it.. There is no arguement.. You want to morality?? There it is..

No woman can get a late term abortion for non medical reasons to my knowlege.. I would be happy if someone can post state laws that allow late term abortons for non life threatening reasons..

Originally Posted by Dutch

Nope. I'm saying one is a human being genetically. The other is a human egg with a distinctly different genetic makup. If "allowed" one will become develop into something we both recognize, a human being. The unfertilized egg.....won't. Nice pics, family album?

You got that right! And when it does it will have all the rights that the rest of us human beings have. Until then, neither of the photos depict a person.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

You got that right! And when it does it will have all the rights that the rest of us human beings have. Until then, neither of the photos depict a person.

What the photos do depict is a stage of human development. One that we have both experienced. This is what you are advocating killing. Please tell me again about the left's penchant for supporting human rights. Please do that.

Attachment 79

Originally Posted by Dutch

What the photos do depict is a stage of human development. One that we have both experienced. This is what you are advocating killing.

I am not advocating killing anything. I am advocating that in instances such as this where there is some question, or difference of opinion, the only opinion that matters is the opinion of the woman involved, not you. It is not your right to be making decisions for her.

Please tell me again about the left's penchant for supporting human rights. Please do that.

I just did.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

I am not advocating killing anything. I am advocating that in instances such as this where there is some question, or difference of opinion, the only opinion that matters is the opinion of the woman involved, not you. It is not your right to be making decisions for her.



I just did.

Killing one's own children is a human right? You're serious? I believe in a higher standard. You cannot have liberty and the pursuit of happiness without.....life.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Originally Posted by Dutch

Killing one's own children is a human right? You're serious? I believe in a higher standard. You cannot have liberty and the pursuit of happiness without.....life.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You are forgetting that classifying an embryo as a child, or a man, is fucking stupid, they are not. Your quote is meaningless. However, if you want to treat them as such, be my guest because I am liberal and have no problem with you doing so. The only time I have a problem is when you expect everyone else to share your warped view.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

You are forgetting that classifying an embryo as a child, or a man, is fucking stupid, they are not.

Well, I'm glad you cleared all that up. I've been so stupid myself. I thought all along I was advocating for the life, human life. How silly of me.

Your quote is meaningless. However, if you want to treat them as such, be my guest because I am liberal and have no problem with you doing so. The only time I have a problem is when you expect everyone else to share your warped view.

You realize this is an argument as old as mankind itself. Many cultures in history have advocated certain human beings aren't actually human. Our own supreme court decided blacks weren't human but property. That allowed slavery to continue in this country long after we should have abolished it. The national socialists deemed just about everyone except aryans as not human. There have been other examples but why bore you with all that.

I would like to leave you with one thought tho. In all of human history there have been protagonists who were on the side of denying some peoples as actually being human, and there have been those who decried such thinking. History has proven the us supreme court, in this case, and the national socialists as being....on the wrong side of history. I stand on the side that believes we should allow human beings to live irregardless of what stage of development they happen to occupy. I know what side of history that puts me on, tell me, what side of history are you on? Just where does that leave you?