Abortion.What do you think about it?

ehBeth wrote:

snood wrote:
There are women and men on both sides. The one I see taking a superior tone is you - you seem to pretend this to be somehow foregone, as if all discussion of pro and con is silly.

Pretend? I'm one of the posters who agrees with Frank that most of this discussion is silly.

There's a good-sized segment of the world that believes this has nothing to do with anyone but the woman involved. Nothing.

My point was that there are two sides - both vehement in their insistence on their "rightness" - so declaring the argument moot seems presumptuous to say the very least.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
snood wrote:
There are women and men on both sides. The one I see taking a superior tone is you - you seem to pretend this to be somehow foregone, as if all discussion of pro and con is silly.

Pretend? I'm one of the posters who agrees with Frank that most of this discussion is silly.

There's a good-sized segment of the world that believes this has nothing to do with anyone but the woman involved. Nothing.

My point was that there are two sides - both vehement in their insistence on their "rightness" - so declaring the argument moot seems presumptuous to say the very least.

Beth...

...this has nothing to do with the supposed "point" Snood was supposedly trying to make about whether or not I am treating the argument is "moot."

If it were, he'd realize how absurd it is to claim that it is I who is treating this as a "foregone conclusion"...that it is I who is "taking a superior tone"...

..when even he sees and writes "My point was that there are two sides - both vehement in their insistence on their "rightness" - so declaring the argument moot seems presumptuous to say the very least."

If he had any sense of balance...he would have simply not written anything...or would have written that BOTH sides do what he is suggseting I was doing.

If his "point" truly were to show that "...there are two sides - both vehement in their insistence on their "rightness" - so declaring the argument moot seems presumptuous to say the very least"...

...he would have actually said that, instead of "There are women and men on both sides. The one I see taking a superior tone is you - you seem to pretend this to be somehow foregone, as if all discussion of pro and con is silly."

But Snood needs to single me out for special attention because he just cannot help himself. He is drawn to my posts like a moth drawn to a flame.

I love it, of course.
.
_________________

0 Replies

ehbeth,

If Frank Apisa could see beyond his exaggerated sense of self-importance, he would see how absurd it is to think that my reasons for asserting what I did have anything to do with an inordinate attraction to his posts.

He keeps saying that if the other side just got over themselves and minded their own business, the issue would be resolved.

I repeat, both sides feel as adamant, so for him to take that attitude is stupid. I mentioned that there are women on the anti-abortion side, because apisa seems to think he speaks for all women. He speaks only for himself, delusions of grandeur notwithstanding.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

ehbeth,

If Frank Apisa could see beyond his exaggerated sense of self-importance, he would see how absurd it is to think that my reasons for asserting what I did have anything to do with an inordinate attraction to his posts.

He keeps saying that if the other side just got over themselves and minded their own business, the issue would be resolved.

I repeat, both sides feel as adamant, so for him to take that attitude is stupid. I mentioned that there are women on the anti-abortion side, because apisa seems to think he speaks for all women. He speaks only for himself, delusions of grandeur notwithstanding.

See what I mean, Beth.

I love ya, Beth.

We missed you at the meet last night at the Pan. Phoenix, Blatham, Joe Nation and I got schnockered....and had a hell of a time. The breeze coming in from the Hudson was stupendous...and made a 99 degree day in the city seem like a blessing.

0 Replies

I will second that. it was great to see you guys.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I will second that. it was great to see you guys.

We did have a good time. You guys left a bit early. The cops did not arrive on the scene until almost an hour after you two left.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
snood wrote:
There are women and men on both sides. The one I see taking a superior tone is you - you seem to pretend this to be somehow foregone, as if all discussion of pro and con is silly.

Pretend? I'm one of the posters who agrees with Frank that most of this discussion is silly.

There's a good-sized segment of the world that believes this has nothing to do with anyone but the woman involved. Nothing.

hi ehBeth,

You sound very certain.

So you should be able to give a very precise answer:

Exactly when does a human life begin?

Doesn't look like we ever got an answer to this one.

0 Replies

You're a glutton for punishment, RL.

0 Replies

Haven't posted in a while and thought I'd jump in here.

As it's been stated on here that a fetus to a human is no different than an egg to a chicken... (Or was it yolk to a chicken? Sorry - don't recall! :wink: )

I wonder if those performing the surgeries shown on the link below are doctors, veterinarians, farmers or what?

http://www.fetal-surgery.com/fs-pics.htm

0 Replies

Phenomenal pics, baddog1.

Pro-aborts constantly want to assert that the unborn is no different than a blob of protoplasm.

Those little hands reaching out of the womb sure look like living human beings to me.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Phenomenal pics, baddog1.

Pro-aborts constantly want to assert that the unborn is no different than a blob of protoplasm.

Those little hands reaching out of the womb sure look like living human beings to me.

Pro-aborts lay to claim that those little hands (or whatever they are) and what they're connected to have no basic rights whatsoever - human or otherwise. That it would be more than fine to sever those "appendages" if Mommy wishes because any pain that the fetus may (or may not) feel is secondary to her choices. Crying or Very sad

I'm thinking they see chicken wings in those pic's. Or perhaps egg whites! :wink:

0 Replies

How do you know you aren't just succumbing to anthropomorphism? Just because something looks like a human being, doesn't mean that it is.

What it is, is something that may become a human being eventually. To ignore that difference is to disengage from the real issue.

The definition of what constitutes a human being is readily available anywhere, and foetuses don't fit.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

How do you know you aren't just succumbing to anthropomorphism? Just because something looks like a human being, doesn't mean that it is.

What it is, is something that may become a human being eventually. To ignore that difference is to disengage from the real issue.

The definition of what constitutes a human being is readily available anywhere, and foetuses don't fit.

Previously, you seemed to imply that a newborn didn't fit either.

You posted this definition from Wiki,

Quote:

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") under the family Hominidae (known as the great apes).[1][2] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species.

and when asked if newborns fit that definition of 'human being', you at first seemed to say that they didn't

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
It would seem that a newborn infant might fail to meet this definition in the eyes of some.

A definition from an internet 'free encylopedia', which anyone can post in, hardly qualifies as medical evidence, does it?

That's correct, babies don't qualify either, which is why we don't let them vote, drink or operate heavy machinery....why do we have the right to deny them that?.....Because we arbitrarily assign these rights as they get closer to becoming a complete adult member of the species.

and when asked for clarification

real life wrote:

We were talking about the definition of 'human' that you referred to from wiki.

Are you really saying that newborns do not qualify as human?

you avoided answering.

Are you prepared to state unequivocally that newborns ARE human beings?

If newborns are human beings, at EXACTLY what point did they obtain that status?

If newborns are NOT human beings, then at EXACTLY what point DO they become human beings?

0 Replies

I agree real life. Newborns are not complete human beings either, which is why society refuses them the right to drive a car, drink, vote, work, scuba dive. How many times have we been here?

They can, however, exist independantly from their mothers from this point on. Some human is almost certainly required, but nobody is forced to from that point on.

0 Replies

I just wanted to clarify and emphasize the fact that you cannot even admit that a newborn is a living human being.

It is always helpful to pro-lifers when people can see how far out in left field the views of the pro-abortion group are.

So when EXACTLY does one become a human being, Eorl?

0 Replies

bm

0 Replies

It's clearly a gradual process real life. How is that left field?

Absolutism is left field (that's why outlawed abortion is NOT the legal position in most civilised countries, and why it IS the legal postion in extremist countries.)

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

It's clearly a gradual process real life. How is that left field?

Absolutism is left field (that's why outlawed abortion is NOT the legal position in most civilised countries, and why it IS the legal postion in extremist countries.)

How gradual, Eorl?

When does one become a human being?

One years old?

Two years old?

Three years old?

Four years old?

When?

How do you know when it has occurred?

What criteria do you use to determine if one is a living human being or not?

0 Replies

All such definitions are arbitrary, and the current right to life in the USA is granted at birth...but it varies around the world of course.

Personally, I'd like to minimise abortions as much as possible, and keep as many as possible in the first tri-mester. But I definately wouldn't attempt to do that by making it illegal. I can't condone slavery for any reason.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

How do you know you aren't just succumbing to anthropomorphism? Just because something looks like a human being, doesn't mean that it is.

If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and looks like a duck... :wink: This ain't rocket-science Eorl!

Quote:

What it is, is something that may become a human being eventually. To ignore that difference is to disengage from the real issue.

What it is, is something that WILL develop into a human being - or die! To ignore that fact is to disengage from the real issue! You, me and everyone on the face of the earth were at that very stage at one point of life. That is an undeniable fact.

Quote:

The definition of what constitutes a human being is readily available anywhere, and foetuses don't fit.

Your opinion - you're entitled to it.

0 Replies

Abortion.What do you think about it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know