ABORTION.......

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

"Get what"? What do you want me to understand, Real?.........And since the argument is based upon DNA, why don't you tell when a fetus would be considered part of the mother's body, genetically?

real life wrote:

The unborn is not at any point considered genetically part of the mother's body. He has a distinct genetic identity from the moment of conception.

Genetically, the fetus is not part of the mother's body. Is there any way in which it can become part of her body, genetically speaking? What about her clone? If she were carrying her clone, would it constitute as being part of her body, since they both have identical DNA structure?

Just think about it.

0 Replies

Hi Real Life,

Answer the question and we'll see if you know what you are talking about, or if you are simply just making stuff up to suit your beliefs!

Chumly wrote:

Would you agree that if you cannot provide a logical definition of what constitutes a human being, that you cannot then with rationality claim that "the unborn qualifies" as a human being?

By "yours" I meant that you provided it to me and that you concurred with it, "yours" should be understood in the context in which it was placed. Contextual meanings are relevant else there are no congruent dialogues. I would expect that you know all this already. If you want to play semantic games go ahead. I suggest you answer the question unless you fear you won't be able to explain yourself properly.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Hi Real Life,

Answer the question and we'll see if you know what you are talking about, or if you are simply just making stuff up to suit your beliefs!
Chumly wrote:
Would you agree that if you cannot provide a logical definition of what constitutes a human being, that you cannot then with rationality claim that "the unborn qualifies" as a human being?

By "yours" I meant that you provided it to me and that you concurred with it, "yours" should be understood in the context in which it was placed. Contextual meanings are relevant else there are no congruent dialogues. I would expect that you know all this already. If you want to play semantic games go ahead. I suggest you answer the question unless you fear you won't be able to explain yourself properly.

If I want to play semantic games?

I'm not the one who can't make up his mind what 'human being' means. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Hi Real Life,

Answer the question and we'll see if you know what you are talking about, or if you are simply just making stuff up to suit your beliefs!
Chumly wrote:
Would you agree that if you cannot provide a logical definition of what constitutes a human being, that you cannot then with rationality claim that "the unborn qualifies" as a human being?

By "yours" I meant that you provided it to me and that you concurred with it, "yours" should be understood in the context in which it was placed. Contextual meanings are relevant else there are no congruent dialogues. I would expect that you know all this already. If you want to play semantic games go ahead. I suggest you answer the question unless you fear you won't be able to explain yourself properly.

If I want to play semantic games?

I'm not the one who can't make up his mind what 'human being' means.

See, Chumly...all you gotta do is "make up your mind"...and from that point on, a "human being" is exactly what you made your mind up for it to be.

I "have made up my mind" that a human being does not exist until the fetus is completely out of the woman's vagina.

So...there is no way a recently fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus could possibly be a "human being."

Join me in that...and all this give and take can be ended.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
"Get what"? What do you want me to understand, Real?.........And since the argument is based upon DNA, why don't you tell when a fetus would be considered part of the mother's body, genetically?

real life wrote:
The unborn is not at any point considered genetically part of the mother's body. He has a distinct genetic identity from the moment of conception.

Genetically, the fetus is not part of the mother's body. Is there any way in which it can become part of her body, genetically speaking?

No. It will remain distinct throughout the pregnancy.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

What about her clone? If she were carrying her clone, would it constitute as being part of her body, since they both have identical DNA structure?

Just think about it.

A hypothetical example about cloning really has no relevance to the topic of abortion as it is practiced today. There are no abortions taking place subsequent to cloning attempts.

You simply don't seem to want to deal with the reality of the abortion issue as it affects people today, but instead try to conjure up hypotheticals that disconnect the discussion from the real world.

It is doubtful that a woman would consent to a cloning procedure and then opt for abortion.

Even if she did, the unborn would still have his own heartbeat, brainwaves, etc and be medically distinguishable as a separate person. The medical community that I have quoted considers the unborn as a separate patient, not just on genetics alone.

Think about that.

0 Replies

Quote:

So...there is no way a recently fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus could possibly be a "human being."

How about a woman who has had an abortion voluntarily.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Quote:
So...there is no way a recently fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus could possibly be a "human being."

How about a woman who has had an abortion voluntarily.

Not sure what you are referring to here, spendius.

Are you talking about a woman who has a C-section, and thus the baby never passes thru the birth canal to be born vaginally?

0 Replies

Not at all real life.

Things happen.I wasn't referring to such things at all.I am all in favour of the thing you mention.It shows a determination that I find laudable as long as it isn't conducted for cosmetic reasons.If it is,as I'm sure it is in most cases,an attempt to give the little mite the best chance I'm 100% in favour.

I was a little mite myself once despite the self-serving shite coming from the usual suspects who have personal convenience at the forefront of their shite philosophistry.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I "have made up my mind" that a human being does not exist until the fetus is completely out of the woman's vagina.

So...there is no way a recently fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus could possibly be a "human being."

Join me in that...and all this give and take can be ended.

Hi Frank,
We'll see how things progress (using the word loosely) but my question to Real Life stands.

0 Replies

Hi Real Life,
You are rather naive if you consider my question is predicated on the simplistic notions of challenging semantics. Are you lacking the courage to answer perhaps?

Chumly wrote:

Would you agree that if you cannot provide a logical definition of what constitutes a human being, that you cannot then with rationality claim that "the unborn qualifies" as a human being?

0 Replies

I was unborn once Chum.And I'm a human being.
What are you getting at?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Hi Real Life,
You are rather naive if you consider my question is predicated on the simplistic notions of challenging semantics. Are you lacking the courage to answer perhaps?
Chumly wrote:
Would you agree that if you cannot provide a logical definition of what constitutes a human being, that you cannot then with rationality claim that "the unborn qualifies" as a human being?

Using your logic, neither would Chumly qualify as a human being. Smile

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I was unborn once Chum.And I'm a human being.
What are you getting at?

I am keeping my powder dry for Real Life. Although if he is not tough enough to step up to the plate

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Using your logic, neither would Chumly qualify as a human being.

This is a question for Real Life and your presumptions are premature.

0 Replies

Your powder will probably always be dry, Chumly, as you are unwilling to address the subject. First you asked for a definition of human being, and that having been provided you simply dance when asked if you accept a common definition.

If merriamwebster.com's definition doesn't suit you, then you are free to try to find one that does.

The problem for you is that you want to avoid addressing the question of whether the unborn is a human being or not.

Medical professionals representing several large groups are on record as stating that they consider the unborn a separate patient, i.e. not part of the mother's body.

Concurring with these medical professionals will, of course, completely compromise the position of the abortion supporters. This, apparently, is why you cannot bring yourself to say whether you agree or disagree with them and why.

Spare us the lectures on courage when you cannot bring yourself to articulate ANY kind of position, and defend it. You need to not only make up your mind, but show a valid reason for the position you choose.

The pro-life position is based on the medical status of the unborn; and medical facts and expertise support it. The abortion supporters rely on nothing but dodging the issue with semantics and repetitious sloganeering.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The pro-life position is based on the medical status of the unborn; and medical facts and expertise support it. The abortion supporters rely on nothing but dodging the issue with semantics and repetitious sloganeering.

Actually...

...the pro-life position is based on the willingness of some people to poke their noses into places their noses do not belong.

For the most part, they are a bunch of sanctimoneous hypocrites...kissing some god's ass at the expense of taking rights away from the women among us.

0 Replies

RL:

Quote:

The pro-life position is based on the medical status of the unborn; and medical facts and expertise support it. The abortion supporters rely on nothing but dodging the issue with semantics and repetitious sloganeering.

Well put. BUT, I don'ty think trying to label pro-choice people as "pro-abortion" does your argument any credit.

0 Replies

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to hear why christians aren't handing out condoms at church on Sunday. If it prevents just one "child murder" surely it would be worth it?

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

"Get what"? What do you want me to understand, Real?.........And since the argument is based upon DNA, why don't you tell when a fetus would be considered part of the mother's body, genetically?

real life wrote:

The unborn is not at any point considered genetically part of the mother's body. He has a distinct genetic identity from the moment of conception.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Genetically, the fetus is not part of the mother's body. Is there any way in which it can become part of her body, genetically speaking?

real life wrote:

No. It will remain distinct throughout the pregnancy.

I'm asking you how a fetus can be part of a mother's body genetically. And you're just saying that the fetus can't be part of the mother because their genetic information is "distinct" from each other. This is the only justification that you are providing me, which positions your view over the "togetherness" definition that I have tirelessly asked from you.

What would make a fetus part of the mother's bodythat is if it isn't? Don't get off track. Stay here, with me. Let's apply definition to this.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

What about her clone? If she were carrying her clone, would it constitute as being part of her body, since they both have identical DNA structure?

Just think about it.

real life wrote:

A hypothetical example about cloning really has no relevance to the topic of abortion as it is practiced today.

We're talking about what makes something part of something else...according to the definition. Use any other example that doesn't relate to cloning, and I will discuss it with you. Simple.

But you haven't even given me a rational definition about this...yet. You're just ranting and babbling with ardent nonsense. You have no foundation to this argument. You want to justify your meaningless crusade against women's right from doing what they want with their own bodies, by using illogical and twisted definitions for the benefit of your own delusional objective.

real life wrote:

There are no abortions taking place subsequent to cloning attempts.

We don't know this, do we? And what is your point? An abortion is an abortionperiod.

real life wrote:

You simply don't seem to want to deal with the reality of the abortion issue as it affects people today, but instead try to conjure up hypotheticals that disconnect the discussion from the real world.

I just want something from you, Real. Give me the definition on how anything can be part of something else without contradicting logic. You haven't done it thus far.

real life wrote:

It is doubtful that a woman would consent to a cloning procedure and then opt for abortion.

Is it impossible?

And what is this nonsense? Why aren't you giving me the definition? Stop with the nonsense and give me the definition already.

real life wrote:

Even if she did, the unborn would still have his own heartbeat, brainwaves, etc and be medically distinguishable as a separate person. The medical community that I have quoted considers the unborn as a separate patient, not just on genetics alone.

But what is your point? Can't you just stop drifting off this topic? Forget abortion, ok? Give me a definition that would constitute "anything being part of something else." This is the whole argument that you are depending on to prevent women from having precedence over their bodies. How can you be more pathetic than this?

real life wrote:

Think about that.

Think about what? That barrage of nonsense I just read? Stay on topic.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

RL:

Quote:
The pro-life position is based on the medical status of the unborn; and medical facts and expertise support it. The abortion supporters rely on nothing but dodging the issue with semantics and repetitious sloganeering.

Well put. BUT, I don'ty think trying to label pro-choice people as "pro-abortion" does your argument any credit.

I understand your point, Snood. I think it has some validity, but I admit I still have used the term in the not-too-recent past. I don't consider it inaccurate, for they do indeed favor the continuance of unlimited abortion on demand, for the most part (there are some exceptions ).

I generally don't use the term 'pro-choice' because I think pro-life people are deserving of the term in some respects as well, since they support more than one alternative to a woman, such as adoption or assistance when she is pregnant and in a difficult situation.

I did use the term 'abortion supporter' and I am wondering if you see it the same way. What term would you consider appropriate that uses the word 'abortion' as part of the description of those who take that position?

Also, the chief reason I do not use the term 'pro-choice' is that termination of a human life is not a valid choice, nor should it be considered such. So in that sense it is a euphemism that obscures rather than enlightens discussion and shields it's contingent from facing the consequences of embracing such a deadly practice.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know