What do 12 year old kids know about abortions anyway?

[Liberalman]

What do 12 year old kids know about abortions anyway?


12-year-old speaks out on the issue of abortion - YouTube


Does this mean the women's right to choose is the wrong choice?

 

[gerryh]

This from the youtube site

"My daughter prepared and delivered this speech for her grade 7 class. Even those who didn't agree with her loved it."


My middle daughter did the same thing in her grade 7 class. She researched, wrote and stood up in front of her class and delivered her research on Abortions. I found out about it after the fact when my wife showed me her paper with an A+ on the front of it.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I hope your daughter didn't confuse "child," "foetus," and "embryo."

 

[gerryh]

I hope your daughter didn't confuse "child," "foetus," and "embryo."

No confusion, they are synonymous.

 

[Liberalman]

Why do C-Sections never produce any fetus just babies?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

No confusion, they are synonymous.

Every dictionary and medical textbook in the world disagrees with you, but I know that won't have any effect at all.

 

[WLDB]

Why do C-Sections never produce any fetus just babies?

If performed in the first couple months of the pregnancy you wouldnt be getting a baby out.

 

[gerryh]

Every dictionary and medical textbook in the world disagrees with you, but I know that won't have any effect at all.

You're right, it won't.

If performed in the first couple months of the pregnancy you wouldnt be getting a baby out.

Yes you would. It wouldn't be a dog or a cat now would it.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You're right, it won't.

I know, it's the sad part about political "discourse" these days. The true believers are utterly dishonest. Anything for the cause.

 

[gerryh]

I know, it's the sad part about political "discourse" these days. The true believers are utterly dishonest. Anything for the cause.

Changing the name doesn't change what that life is. So, the only ones being dishonest are those that use the reasoning that one is not aborting a "baby" they are only aborting a "fetus". As if the name change makes that life less human.

and by the way, I don't find the discussion of the killing of thousands of baby's every year to be a "political" discussion. It's a sad commentary on how little respect and value today's society places on a human life.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Changing the name doesn't change what that life is. So, the only ones being dishonest are those that use the reasoning that one is not aborting a "baby" they are only aborting a "fetus". As if the name change makes that life less human.

Wrong again. The distinctions between an embryo, a foetus, and a child are significant and important in science, law, and medicine. Which is why the terms predate the abortion debate by centuries.

If you get your wish and abortion is completely outlawed throughout the world, will you still insist that embryos and foeti be called "children?" Will you allow doctors to use the terms?

and by the way, I don't find the discussion of the killing of thousands of baby's every year to be a "political" discussion. It's a sad commentary on how little respect and value today's society places on a human life.

As opposed to when?

And yes, it's about law and policy. I call that political. You no doubt call it your Great Self-Righteous Moral Crusade for Justice, Truth, and Decency.

And you're still dishonest.

 

[Cliffy]

It's a sad commentary on how little respect and value today's society places on a human life.

Today's society places little value on any life. You, for example, only place value on human life. I place value on Life in any shape or form. All life on this planet is interdependent and interconnected. No species is more important than any other.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Today's society places little value on any life. You, for example, only place value on human life. I place value on Life in any shape or form. All life on this planet is interdependent and interconnected. No species is more important than any other.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. Thus far, gerryh has demonstrated only that he places value on human life up until birth.

 

[gerryh]

Wrong again. The distinctions between an embryo, a foetus, and a child are significant and important in science, law, and medicine. Which is why the terms predate the abortion debate by centuries.[/quote[

You can call me wrong all you want. It won't change the fact that "I" consider it homicide. At one time killing an "injun" or a "nig ger" was just fine because they weren't really "human". Didn't change the fact that it was still wrong even if the "law" said otherwise.

If you get your wish and abortion is completely outlawed throughout the world, will you still insist that embryos and foeti be called "children?" Will you allow doctors to use the terms?

I don't have a problem with that.

And yes, it's about law and policy. I call that political. You no doubt call it your Great Self-Righteous Moral Crusade for Justice, Truth, and Decency.

No, the killing of another human is not about "law and policy" as much as you would like to believe that.

And you're still dishonest.

If that helps you sleep at night, fine.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. Thus far, gerryh has demonstrated only that he places value on human life up until birth.

Really, and you haven't demonstrated that you place any value on any human life, before OR after birth.

 

[Cliffy]

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. Thus far, gerryh has demonstrated only that he places value on human life up until birth.

Well, he does hate war as a waste of human life, but no one ever mentions the lose of life of any other species due to war.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Wrong again. The distinctions between an embryo, a foetus, and a child are significant and important in science, law, and medicine. Which is why the terms predate the abortion debate by centuries.[/quote[

You can call me wrong all you want. It won't change the fact that "I" consider it homicide. At one time killing an "injun" or a "nig ger" was just fine because they weren't really "human". Didn't change the fact that it was still wrong even if the "law" said otherwise.

Ah, that'd be the times that aren't "these days," when there was deep respect for life, right?

Really, and you haven't demonstrated that you place any value on any human life, before OR after birth.

Aaaaaand. . . that'd be because I don't really.

But that's not my point here. My point is that your deliberate misuse of language shows a want of honesty and integrity when you get all het up. And that's dangerous.

 

[gerryh]

My point is that your deliberate misuse of language shows a want of honesty and integrity when you get all het up. And that's dangerous.

The language is wrong. It's a man made distinction that I don't accept. No dishonesty what so ever. I'm not the one drawing these lines saying it's ok to kill a "fetus" but not ok to kill a "baby" (usually). I don't accept that there is a difference between the two. Just different stages of development of a human being. No different than a teen, a toddler, an adult.

Ah, that'd be the times that aren't "these days," when there was deep respect for life, right?

and where do I say that? You now starting to put words into other peoples mouths? Can't make your argument otherwise?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The language is wrong. It's a man made distinction that I don't accept. No dishonesty what so ever. I'm not the one drawing these lines saying it's ok to kill a "fetus" but not ok to kill a "baby" (usually). I don't accept that there is a difference between the two. Just different stages of development of a human being. No different than a teen, a toddler, an adult.

No, it's a man made distinction you don't accept in one specific context. You've already said that you accept distinguishing between and embryo, a foetus, and a child in scientific and medical contexts other than abortion.

By the way, ALL linguistic distinctions are "man made." Who do you think makes language?

and where do I say that? You now starting to put words into other peoples mouths? Can't make your argument otherwise?

Raht char, good buddy:

It's a sad commentary on how little respect and value today's society places on a human life.

Statement implies that there was a time when society gave higher respect and value to a human life. Given the context of the conversation, that time would be when abortion was not allowed. Which period encompasses slavery, genocide, &c. &c.

 

[taxslave]

No confusion, they are synonymous.

Proving you and your daughter failed biology.

 

[gerryh]

Proving you and your daughter failed biology.

Really? and you would not how my daughter did in biology how?

Statement implies that there was a time when society gave higher respect and value to a human life. Given the context of the conversation, that time would be when abortion was not allowed. Which period encompasses slavery, genocide, &c. &c.

It's a direct statement, it "implies" nothing.

No, it's a man made distinction you don't accept in one specific context. You've already said that you accept distinguishing between and embryo, a foetus, and a child in scientific and medical contexts other than abortion.

.

I don't accept it as a reason to discount a human life and differentiate for reasons of killing that life. As different stages of that life I have no problem. They all describe a human.