[quote]Varqanir wrote:
You know, Kneedragger, even though you have bald-facedly and erroneously stated, twice, on this thread, that I am an advocate of, as you so colorfully put it, “the slaughter of innocent children”, I bear you no ill will. [/quote]
lol, dude get used to it.
I’ve been called worse by him while trying to agree with him as well.
I’m convinced he selectively reads posts, and only responds to the combination of words his canned responses can cover.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The only right I am concerned about for the living human being is the right to live. [/quote]
I tried to travel down this road, apparently this right doesn’t exist. [/quote]
the point not mentioned is it is living at the mothers expense and no one else’s
[/quote]
So is a 5 month old.
Edit: The mohter also helped put it there. 99.99% of the time with consent. [/quote]
A 5 year old can go live with Dad or aunt Susie or worse case the State
[/quote]
So can an unborn baby 7 months into gestation. [/quote]
FTR, most pro abortion people are only for the first trimester except for the obvious cases where the mothers life is in danger. This is assuming there was no legal reason preventing them doing it in that time period.[/quote]
What makes a 3rd 1rst trimester baby less human than a 2nd trimester baby?[/quote]
There is no such thing as “less human” in a literal sense. One is either human or one is not.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
There is no such thing as “less human” in a literal sense. One is either human or one is not. [/quote]
So you agree that is it is human the moment after birth, it is also human at the moment of conception?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is one of the most amazing moments that life has to offer. Waiting for their little gray face to open up and start screaming is the most exciting and nerve stressing moments ever.
[/quote]
I’d have to agree with the above.
I’m am curious whether you think there is any difference between this time and say, the time between conception and the next possible menstrual cycle when as many of 50% of conceptions are miscarried without the woman even knowing she was pregnant.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The only right I am concerned about for the living human being is the right to live. [/quote]
I tried to travel down this road, apparently this right doesn’t exist. [/quote]
the point not mentioned is it is living at the mothers expense and no one else’s
[/quote]
So is a 5 month old.
Edit: The mohter also helped put it there. 99.99% of the time with consent. [/quote]
A 5 year old can go live with Dad or aunt Susie or worse case the State
[/quote]
So can an unborn baby 7 months into gestation. [/quote]
FTR, most pro abortion people are only for the first trimester except for the obvious cases where the mothers life is in danger. This is assuming there was no legal reason preventing them doing it in that time period.[/quote]
What makes a 3rd 1rst trimester baby less human than a 2nd trimester baby?[/quote]
Depends on your definition of human I guess. If its DNA or something then no difference.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is one of the most amazing moments that life has to offer. Waiting for their little gray face to open up and start screaming is the most exciting and nerve stressing moments ever.
[/quote]
I’d have to agree with the above.
I’m am curious whether you think there is any difference between this time and say, the time between conception and the next possible menstrual cycle when as many of 50% of conceptions are miscarried without the woman even knowing she was pregnant.
[/quote]
Of course there is a difference, I can’t see it, lol.
Look, I hate the miscarriage argument, because it isn’t even remotely close to the same arena.
Abortion is the willful removal of life by a third party. A miscarriage is an unfortunate natural circumstance that we do our best to avoid, but can’t always. If a fertilized egg doesn’t implant, then there really isn’t much anyone can do about it. And having a doctor go in and pull the fertilized egg off the wall isn’t the same as a woman’s body rejecting it on its own.
You know what I mean? Two different situations.
usmccds423, if you looked at any entries in respectable dictionaries like Oxford or Webster, you would see that a parasite is not exclusively a creature of another species. Intraspecific parasitism happens all the time in the animal kingdom, usually among egg-laying species where an animal will lay an egg in the nest of another animal of its own species, so that the mother must care for another animal’s young.
A parasite is any animal that takes advantage of its host, regardless of species, gaining resources at the host’s expense. Before the word was used in a biological sense, it referred exclusively to humans: a parasite was simply a freeloader, literally one who ate at another man’s table, contributing little or nothing to his host in return.
We may not like to refer to an unborn child as a parasite, because of the but essentially that is what it is: during gestation it receives nutrients from its host (the mother), decreasing her fitness and causing her to require more nutrients and other resources to support both her and it.
Technically speaking, for the gestational period, it would be an endoparasite (like a tapeworm), because it is inside the mother’s body, and after birth it would be an ectoparasite, like a tick, that lives outside of the host’s body.
This is not to say that babies are tapeworms or ticks. Babies are cute and fuzzy, whereas ticks typically are not. But the gestation and raising of a child involves an implicit acceptance of the parasite-host relationship on the part of the mother.
And the abortion issue is essentially whether the host, who does not agree to the terms of such a relationship has the right to eject a freeloader from her table, with the knowledge that the freeloader will starve to death if she does.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
There is no such thing as “less human” in a literal sense. One is either human or one is not. [/quote]
So you agree that is it is human the moment after birth, it is also human at the moment of conception?[/quote]
I believe, I know, that my religious beliefs, my faith, is irrational. I believe that based on my faith a woman should never abort a pregnancy under any circumstances, even if her life is in danger. How can a human kill an innocent human to save an innocent human? We are not God so we cannot make that choice.
Now, since I acknowledge that my faith is irrational, how can I force others to follow when we live in a secular nation? I cannot come up with an argument that is 100% logical and science based to defend my position and I don’t think it’s wise for a nation to base its laws on the irrational unless everyone believes the same thing and even then it probably is a mistake. I believe the separation of church and state needs to go both ways. If religion starts dictating to the state then the state will, as history has shown, dictate to religion.
With the death penalty, for example, I am against it but I have non-religious reasons for that position; I don’t believe the state should have the power of life and death over its citizens being one of them.
The question is how far should a Christian go to fight abortion? Should they stick to trying to change the laws? Should they burn down abortion clinics? Kill doctors? Kidnap pregnant women? Would Jesus find any and/or all of those methods acceptable?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is one of the most amazing moments that life has to offer. Waiting for their little gray face to open up and start screaming is the most exciting and nerve stressing moments ever.
[/quote]
I’d have to agree with the above.
I’m am curious whether you think there is any difference between this time and say, the time between conception and the next possible menstrual cycle when as many of 50% of conceptions are miscarried without the woman even knowing she was pregnant.
[/quote]
Of course there is a difference, I can’t see it, lol.
Look, I hate the miscarriage argument, because it isn’t even remotely close to the same arena.
Abortion is the willful removal of life by a third party. A miscarriage is an unfortunate natural circumstance that we do our best to avoid, but can’t always. If a fertilized egg doesn’t implant, then there really isn’t much anyone can do about it. And having a doctor go in and pull the fertilized egg off the wall isn’t the same as a woman’s body rejecting it on its own.
You know what I mean? Two different situations. [/quote]
I am not really making an argument and I don’t usually get involved in this discussion because it is so emotional and I am pretty conflicted on the issue. But I do know that when my wife had an early miscarriage we were pretty bummed out because we really wanted a child. But if my current boy would have died during delivery it would have been a whole different deal. We would have had a funeral and I can tell you I probably would have needed grief counseling and it would have absolutely destroyed my wife. So is this a justifiable “theoretical” difference or a rational one? Maybe not, but there is a real difference as demonstrated by they way pretty much everyone responds to these different circumstances. In real life, that little speck getting washed down the first menstrual cycle just isn’t the same thing as the boy that is ready to come out of my wife’s belly. So I don’t see the issue as “black and white” as some do, even though I struggle with it.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is one of the most amazing moments that life has to offer. Waiting for their little gray face to open up and start screaming is the most exciting and nerve stressing moments ever.
[/quote]
I’d have to agree with the above.
I’m am curious whether you think there is any difference between this time and say, the time between conception and the next possible menstrual cycle when as many of 50% of conceptions are miscarried without the woman even knowing she was pregnant.
[/quote]
Of course there is a difference, I can’t see it, lol.
Look, I hate the miscarriage argument, because it isn’t even remotely close to the same arena.
Abortion is the willful removal of life by a third party. A miscarriage is an unfortunate natural circumstance that we do our best to avoid, but can’t always. If a fertilized egg doesn’t implant, then there really isn’t much anyone can do about it. And having a doctor go in and pull the fertilized egg off the wall isn’t the same as a woman’s body rejecting it on its own.
You know what I mean? Two different situations. [/quote]
A miscarriage is technically referred to as a “spontaneous abortion”.
Is there a moral difference, in your mind, between a mother intentionally inducing a miscarriage by drinking a strong cup of mint tea at three weeks, and the same woman having a doctor remove the fetus at ten weeks?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The only right I am concerned about for the living human being is the right to live. [/quote]
I tried to travel down this road, apparently this right doesn’t exist. [/quote]
the point not mentioned is it is living at the mothers expense and no one else’s
[/quote]
So is a 5 month old.
Edit: The mohter also helped put it there. 99.99% of the time with consent. [/quote]
A 5 year old can go live with Dad or aunt Susie or worse case the State
[/quote]
So can an unborn baby 7 months into gestation. [/quote]
FTR, most pro abortion people are only for the first trimester except for the obvious cases where the mothers life is in danger. This is assuming there was no legal reason preventing them doing it in that time period.[/quote]
What makes a 3rd 1rst trimester baby less human than a 2nd trimester baby?[/quote]
There is no such thing as “less human” in a literal sense. One is either human or one is not. [/quote]
Precisely my point.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I cannot come up with an argument that is 100% logical and science based to defend my position [/quote]
There have quite a few secular and logical arguments put forth in this thread and others for opposing abortion.
It seems only those in favor of removing life when they see fit that keep bringing up religion…
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I am not really making an argument and I don’t usually get involved in this discussion because it is so emotional and I am pretty conflicted on the issue. But I do know that when my wife had an early miscarriage we were pretty bummed out because we really wanted a child. But if my current boy would have died during delivery it would have been a whole different deal. We would have had a funeral and I can tell you I probably would have needed grief counseling and it would have absolutely destroyed my wife. So is this a justifiable “theoretical” difference or a rational one? Maybe not, but there is a real difference as demonstrated by they way pretty much everyone responds to these different circumstances. In real life, that little speck getting washed down the first menstrual cycle just isn’t the same thing as the boy that is ready to come out of my wife’s belly. So I don’t see the issue as “black and white” as some do, even though I struggle with it. [/quote]
This is a good post. My half brother and his wife have had the misfortune of experiencing both an early miscarriage and a very late miscarriage, and while there was sadness aplenty both times, it was nothing like the same thing. On some philosophical level, it’s been my experience that grief for an early miscarriage tends to be born of what might have been, whereas in the case of a late miscarriage, it is for what was.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]cryogen wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]
Nope, that’s utter bullshit.
It’s not a child when it’s a blastoma. It’s not a child when it’s a foetus. It’s still a parasite, until the moment of birth.
Given that our own bodies can also act in a parasitic fashion against ourselves, only a fucking arsehole would try to enforce their own idiotic religious insecurities on other people.
Why is it that for the most part, anti-abortionist fuckwits seem to be ok with drone strikes and wars?
You’re only pro-life when you can use the argument to make yourselves feel superior to others.
The worst part is that the fucking christians who have been responsible for the most atrocious genocides and subjugations throughout history are claiming that abortion is somehow a genocide.
You’re fucking insincere cunts who have no right stealing my oxygen. Go kill youselves and find out if you’ve been good enough to go to your pathetic afterlife.[/quote]
Wow, you swore a lot and called a child a parasite. You sure seem enlightened.
Please, use vulgarity and strawmen to further fail to prove any points or make logical rebuttals…[/quote]
I like the whole ‘It’s not a child when it’s a blastoma’ for somebody who claims to be some logical stalwart, but cannot tell the difference between a stage of human development and the human organism itself.
Or calling me out on an argument I did not make, at all. Maybe if we cuss a lot and intermix a whole lot of philosophical terminology, used incorrectly, that we don’t actually understand; we can be enlightened and self actuated like him.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I cannot come up with an argument that is 100% logical and science based to defend my position [/quote]
I doubt this very much. It may be–is–ugly as all hell, but follow a “science” guy like Dawkins to the philosophical terminus of his conception of morality and you’ll find a “logical” and science-based argument for abortion (or, at any rate, argument against abortion’s immorality).
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Is there a moral difference, in your mind, between a mother intentionally inducing a miscarriage by drinking a strong cup of mint tea at three weeks, and the same woman having a doctor remove the fetus at ten weeks?[/quote]
Not really.
A homeopathic abortion v a vacuum? There is little difference between the two morally, accept there is no third party that is involved.
I would venture to guess that few women know they are preggers at 3 weeks.
EDIT: ignore last sentence. I misread your post.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
usmccds423, if you looked at any entries in respectable dictionaries like Oxford or Webster, you would see that a parasite is not exclusively a creature of another species. Intraspecific parasitism happens all the time in the animal kingdom, usually among egg-laying species where an animal will lay an egg in the nest of another animal of its own species, so that the mother must care for another animal’s young.
A parasite is any animal that takes advantage of its host, regardless of species, gaining resources at the host’s expense. Before the word was used in a biological sense, it referred exclusively to humans: a parasite was simply a freeloader, literally one who ate at another man’s table, contributing little or nothing to his host in return.
We may not like to refer to an unborn child as a parasite, because of the but essentially that is what it is: during gestation it receives nutrients from its host (the mother), decreasing her fitness and causing her to require more nutrients and other resources to support both her and it.
Technically speaking, for the gestational period, it would be an endoparasite (like a tapeworm), because it is inside the mother’s body, and after birth it would be an ectoparasite, like a tick, that lives outside of the host’s body.
This is not to say that babies are tapeworms or ticks. Babies are cute and fuzzy, whereas ticks typically are not. But the gestation and raising of a child involves an implicit acceptance of the parasite-host relationship on the part of the mother.
[/quote]
I like you Varqanir, but this is ridiculous. You could could call almost everything a parasite using the above definition. Every person on government assistance, every child, every person on life support, etc… Yet we do not kill (was gonna say murder, yikes!) any of them. (with the exception of life support although I would content that is just allowig nature to take it’s course, which is the opposite of an abortion).
Didn’t I link Webster?
“Intraspecific parasitism happens all the time in the animal kingdom,” can you give me an example? I have never heard of a species of animal that lays an egg in the same species nest to absolve them of rearing their offspring. Even if an example exists, it’s still not the same thing. In zero circumstance does one woman lay an “egg” in another woman without her consent tricking her into allocating resources to the “mothers” offspring.
One of the links I posted suggests there is evidence that a woman does get something out of pregnancy.
[quote]
And the abortion issue is essentially whether the host, who does not agree to the terms of such a relationship has the right to eject a freeloader from her table, with the knowledge that the freeloader will starve to death if she does. [/quote]
Ya, the host does agree to the terms 99.99% of the time. She helped seat that “parasite” at her table.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
usmccds423, if you looked at any entries in respectable dictionaries like Oxford or Webster, you would see that a parasite is not exclusively a creature of another species. Intraspecific parasitism happens all the time in the animal kingdom, usually among egg-laying species where an animal will lay an egg in the nest of another animal of its own species, so that the mother must care for another animal’s young.
A parasite is any animal that takes advantage of its host, regardless of species, gaining resources at the host’s expense. Before the word was used in a biological sense, it referred exclusively to humans: a parasite was simply a freeloader, literally one who ate at another man’s table, contributing little or nothing to his host in return.
We may not like to refer to an unborn child as a parasite, because of the but essentially that is what it is: during gestation it receives nutrients from its host (the mother), decreasing her fitness and causing her to require more nutrients and other resources to support both her and it.
Technically speaking, for the gestational period, it would be an endoparasite (like a tapeworm), because it is inside the mother’s body, and after birth it would be an ectoparasite, like a tick, that lives outside of the host’s body.
This is not to say that babies are tapeworms or ticks. Babies are cute and fuzzy, whereas ticks typically are not. But the gestation and raising of a child involves an implicit acceptance of the parasite-host relationship on the part of the mother.
And the abortion issue is essentially whether the host, who does not agree to the terms of such a relationship has the right to eject a freeloader from her table, with the knowledge that the freeloader will starve to death if she does. [/quote]
Oh brother. Okay, so by that definition, infants are parasites, really old people, children of any age really and a whole load of grown people who are dependant on others for their existence, and suck the life out of them and don’t return the favor.
If you want to broaden the definition, then fine. That will include a lot of people.
So I guess, if you are a organism that depends on another organism for it’s survival we’ve expounded that definition to just about most people.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is one of the most amazing moments that life has to offer. Waiting for their little gray face to open up and start screaming is the most exciting and nerve stressing moments ever.
[/quote]
I’d have to agree with the above.
I’m am curious whether you think there is any difference between this time and say, the time between conception and the next possible menstrual cycle when as many of 50% of conceptions are miscarried without the woman even knowing she was pregnant.
[/quote]
Of course there is a difference, I can’t see it, lol.
Look, I hate the miscarriage argument, because it isn’t even remotely close to the same arena.
Abortion is the willful removal of life by a third party. A miscarriage is an unfortunate natural circumstance that we do our best to avoid, but can’t always. If a fertilized egg doesn’t implant, then there really isn’t much anyone can do about it. And having a doctor go in and pull the fertilized egg off the wall isn’t the same as a woman’s body rejecting it on its own.
You know what I mean? Two different situations. [/quote]
I am not really making an argument and I don’t usually get involved in this discussion because it is so emotional and I am pretty conflicted on the issue. But I do know that when my wife had an early miscarriage we were pretty bummed out because we really wanted a child. But if my current boy would have died during delivery it would have been a whole different deal. We would have had a funeral and I can tell you I probably would have needed grief counseling and it would have absolutely destroyed my wife. So is this a justifiable “theoretical” difference or a rational one? Maybe not, but there is a real difference as demonstrated by they way pretty much everyone responds to these different circumstances. In real life, that little speck getting washed down the first menstrual cycle just isn’t the same thing as the boy that is ready to come out of my wife’s belly. So I don’t see the issue as “black and white” as some do, even though I struggle with it. [/quote]
How you feel about something does not make it what it is.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I cannot come up with an argument that is 100% logical and science based to defend my position [/quote]
There have quite a few secular and logical arguments put forth in this thread and others for opposing abortion.
It seems only those in favor of removing life when they see fit that keep bringing up religion…[/quote]
Yup.