Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion

[Kreskin]

***********************************************
Notice only one of the pro-choice side of the podium addressed the givpeaceachance personal narrative? Hmmmm... their science and law diatribes do not evoke any of those feelings of the pain she shared, or assign any value to hers. Hmmmm...

No values again, seems to be a pattern here?:fish:

I'm not sure what you mean by her personal experiences with pain. I've read it a couple of times and don't see any connection to her being in pain, unless you count her reflecting on her friends who weren't aborted.

Just what values do you expect EVERYONE to have. Yours? You cornered the market on values and ethics? When precisely did that occur?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The only reason for the legal mumbo jumbo is, as I said, because the fools in power don't have a clue what to do if both mother and child have equal rights to life so they stonewall and leave it up to science to make their decision for them. Science, in the meantime, continues to hash it out, so the decision sits in limbo. Effectively, however, the child is human before it is born even if people are too dense to realize it or too cowardly to admit it..

I mostly agree Anna, except the part about child being human inside the womb. As I said before, we don’t know, science cannot tell us with any degree of certainty.

But you are right, politicians don’t want to touch the hot potato. If anybody tries to tackle the issue of abortion, there is no way he can win, there are plenty of ways he can lose. That is why when conservatives became serious about winning power (with Harper), the first thing they did was refused to put a prolfie plank in their party platform. I remember the proposal to put pro life plank in their platform was rejected 55 to 45.

So politicians don’t want to touch the issue, they would rather leave it to the courts and to scientists. Perhaps that is where it belongs anyway.

 

[JLM]

The only reason for the legal mumbo jumbo is, as I said, because the fools in power don't have a clue what to do if both mother and child have equal rights to life so they stonewall and leave it up to science to make their decision for them. Science, in the meantime, continues to hash it out, so the decision sits in limbo. Effectively, however, the child is human before it is born even if people are too dense to realize it or too cowardly to admit it..

I mostly agree Anna, except the part about child being human inside the womb. As I said before, we don’t know, science cannot tell us with any degree of certainty.

But you are right, politicians don’t want to touch the hot potato. If anybody tries to tackle the issue of abortion, there is no way he can win, there are plenty of ways he can lose. That is why when conservatives became serious about winning power (with Harper), the first thing they did was refused to put a prolfie plank in their party platform. I remember the proposal to put pro life plank in their platform was rejected 55 to 45.

So politicians don’t want to touch the issue, they would rather leave it to the courts and to scientists. Perhaps that is where it belongs anyway.

To deny a child is human inside the womb, indicates to me, the deniers are on pretty thin ice and makes me suspicious of their own ulterior motives. S.J. please answer one question for me..........what leads you to believe it is some other specy?

 

[Liberalman]

Once the protection of the fetus inception to birth law is passed by the Conservatives this fall Harper will get the Nobel Peace Prize for stopping a baby genocide

 

[JLM]

Once the protection of the fetus inception to birth law is passed by the Conservatives this fall Harper will get the Nobel Peace Prize for stopping a baby genocide

Would that be a bad thing?

 

[Liberalman]

Would that be a bad thing?

What would be a bad thing?

 

[JLM]

What would be a bad thing?

I was responding to post # 384.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

S.J. please answer one question for me..........what leads you to believe it is some other specy?

We have been through this before, JLM. I am not saying it is some other species. I don’t know what it is, and scientists cannot tell us. Scientists cannot say for sure when the fetus become s a human life.

That is a very profound, difficult question, because before we answer it, we have to define what we mean by human life. What exactly constitutes humanity? By and large we agree that after birth it is human life (though in rare cases even that would be controversial, look at Terri Schivo case).

But a fetus doesn’t’ look human, especially in the early stages. So before we decide that it indeed is human, we have to establish what we mean by ‘humanity’. And that opens up a whole new can of worms.

As I have said before, it is a difficult question, with no easy answer.

 

[Liberalman]

whatever

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Once the protection of the fetus inception to birth law is passed by the Conservatives this fall Harper will get the Nobel Peace Prize for stopping a baby genocide

In your dreams, Liberalman. I keep asking you to give a link to the article where Harper said that, but you (not surprisingly) refuse to do so.

As I said before, I wish he would try. He won’t succeed, and he is sure to be voted out of office.

 

[Liberalman]

S.J. please answer one question for me..........what leads you to believe it is some other specy?

We have been through this before, JLM. I am not saying it is some other species. I don’t know what it is, and scientists cannot tell us. Scientists cannot say for sure when the fetus become s a human life.

That is a very profound, difficult question, because before we answer it, we have to define what we mean by human life. What exactly constitutes humanity? By and large we agree that after birth it is human life (though in rare cases even that would be controversial, look at Terri Schivo case).

But a fetus doesn’t’ look human, especially in the early stages. So before we decide that it indeed is human, we have to establish what we mean by ‘humanity’. And that opens up a whole new can of worms.

As I have said before, it is a difficult question, with no easy answer.

Fetus is human just a smaller compressed human.

When you look at a tadpole it is a baby frog going through development into a frog.

Fetus is the same may not look like a human but at the end looks like a human.

How about a baby that has downs syndrom doesn’t look human at birth does that mean that it isn’t? No it is this argument does not apply

 

[JLM]

S.J. please answer one question for me..........what leads you to believe it is some other specy?

We have been through this before, JLM. I am not saying it is some other species. I don’t know what it is, and scientists cannot tell us. Scientists cannot say for sure when the fetus become s a human life.

That is a very profound, difficult question, because before we answer it, we have to define what we mean by human life. What exactly constitutes humanity? By and large we agree that after birth it is human life (though in rare cases even that would be controversial, look at Terri Schivo case).

But a fetus doesn’t’ look human, especially in the early stages. So before we decide that it indeed is human, we have to establish what we mean by ‘humanity’. And that opens up a whole new can of worms.

As I have said before, it is a difficult question, with no easy answer.

It looks to me like a very easy answer, S.J. The simplest thing for you and I to do is to accept it as human until someone else can prove to us it's not. That takes the onus off you and me.

 

[JLM]

If D.N.A. were to be extracted from a fetus a week before birth and then another sample taken immediately after birth, what would be the difference between the two samples if any?

 

[bluedog]

S.J. please answer one question for me..........what leads you to believe it is some other specy?

We have been through this before, JLM. I am not saying it is some other species. I don’t know what it is, and scientists cannot tell us. Scientists cannot say for sure when the fetus become s a human life.

That is a very profound, difficult question, because before we answer it, we have to define what we mean by human life. What exactly constitutes humanity? By and large we agree that after birth it is human life (though in rare cases even that would be controversial, look at Terri Schivo case).

But a fetus doesn’t’ look human, especially in the early stages. So before we decide that it indeed is human, we have to establish what we mean by ‘humanity’. And that opens up a whole new can of worms.

As I have said before, it is a difficult question, with no easy answer.

***************************************************
Please PLEASE!!!
What do you mean the 'scientists' cant tell you what it is?
Of course they can!
The two reproductive donors would give you the first clue. M/F!!!

A woman cannot hold a zygote or fetus of a fish, a bird, a dog cat or cow in her womb. It would be washed from her as 'foreign to her' and immediately released.
A woman can have sex with a dog, a cat, a cow... BUT... the zygote...
It can never be absorbed in the uterine wall.
It can never, can not and will not inhabit a human womb...

Unless AND ONLY it is Human! a human zygote, a human fetus, all various stages of 'HUMAN' Development!!

You are married to a doctor for crying out loud !!:fish:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It looks to me like a very easy answer, S.J. The simplest thing for you and I to do is to accept it as human until someone else can prove to us it's not. That takes the onus off you and me.

That is how you look at it, JLM. The way I look at it, fetus does not look like a human being. So unless and until scientists tell me that it is a human being, I take the view that it is not, and that it is perfectly OK to abort the fetus. As I said, I would much rather listen to scientists than to listen to Fundamentalist preachers and the Pope.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If D.N.A. were to be extracted from a fetus a week before birth and then another sample taken immediately after birth, what would be the difference between the two samples if any?

And what does that have to do with anything? DNA is indicative of humanity, but it does not define humanity. DNA takes from a man when he was alive and taken from him a week later when he is dead will be identical. But that doesn’t mean he is still a human being, after he has died.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

A woman cannot hold a zygote or fetus of a fish, a bird, a dog cat or cow in her womb. It would be washed from her as 'foreign to her' and immediately released.

I understand that bluedog. A fetus, a potential human (or undeveloped human as Anna put it) resides in the womb. My question is, how do we know that it is a human being? Sure it will develop into a human being. But that is a far cry from saying that it is already a human being.

 

[gerryh]

You are married to a doctor for crying out loud !!:fish:

I'm beginning to question that.

 

[lone wolf]

I'm beginning to question that.

Somehow, I think Cannuck was a lot closer to the truth. The denial was way too dramatic....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

There has been lot of confusion of logic on this thread, let me see if I can clarify it. The prolife argument goes as follows:

Human beings have heartbeat.

Fetus has a heartbeat.

Therefore, fetus is a human being.

For heartbeat, substitute, DNA, formation of limbs, brainwave etc. This is faulty logic. These things characterize a human being, are manifestations of humanity, but they do not define humanity. Let me explain with an example.

How do we know that somebody is a millionaire? If he drives a Ferrari, does that mean that he is a millionaire? If he owns a yacht, or has a trophy wife, does that mean that he is a millionaire?

It does not. Ferrari, yacht, trophy wife, these are all manifestations of wealth, but they do not define wealth. His Ferrari may be borrowed, he may have borrowed money to buy the yacht, the trophy wife may really be in love with him. While we could say that the guy looks like a millionaire, these outward signs do not make him a millionaire.

The only way we will know if he is a millionaire is if he shows us the statement (which can be verified) of his assets, with assets minus liabilities coming to over a million dollars. That is what defines a millionaire, not whether he drives a Ferrari or a pick up truck (as Warren Buffet does).

Similarly, heartbeat, DNA, brainwave etc. these are manifestations of humanity, but they do not define humanity. As I have demonstrated, there are cases when there is heartbeat or there is DNA, but there is no humanity.

So one has to ask the question, what makes a human being? Scientifically, that is, I am not interested in spiritual claptrap. Until we can settle this question, the fact that fetus has a heartbeat, or human DNA etc., these things really don’t mean much.