Abortion Unfiltered

Ultravid

I want to raise awareness of an excellent website which shows from every angle - biological, political, conditional, and philosophical - that abortion is the greatest injustice in the world today.

Read the articles on the site, watch the videos, and we can then use this thread to discuss the issues raised.

http://www.abort73.com/

tbh

how about you back up your opinion with your own arguments? I could link to a dozen websites that would claim there's nothing wrong with abortion.

Virgil°

This issue has been done to death already.
Moral of the story: Neither side budge an inch and the thread gets locked.

Edit: By the way "The greatest injustice" !?!?. Thats a tad insulting to several other pressing problems this planet is host to.

Zulu

Besides this has been done, locked, done again and locked again, in the last two weeks.

The only thing we've established without doubt is that certain posters can't discuss abortion without resorting to personal insults.

bushy...

Ultravid wrote: »

I want to raise awareness of an excellent website which shows from every angle - biological, political, conditional, and philosophical - that abortion is the greatest injustice in the world today.
Read the articles on the site, watch the videos, and we can then use this thread to discuss the issues raised.

http://www.abort73.com

Looks a bit iffy , like something they talk about here :

http://www.bbt.com/about/privacyandsecurity/fraudulentwebsite_mimic.html

www.abort.com was probably the original

Zaph

Ultravid wrote: »

I want to raise awareness of an excellent website which shows from every angle - biological, political, conditional, and philosophical - that abortion is the greatest injustice in the world today.

Personally I'd say that millions of children dying every year for want of safe drinking water was the greatest injustice. Or maybe that millions of unwanted children are born every year because of the lack a proper co-ordinated family planning programme in many underdeveloped countries. Or that there are millions of people displced from their homes by war. Or the fact that even in this day and age people die of hunger every second of every day. Or that people are routinely detained, tortured or killed for their political or religious beliefs in countries all around the world. Or that the richest countries in the world have stood idly by and done little or nothing to resolve any of these situations.

But sure if hyperbole is what floats your boat then don't let me stop you. However some facts and opinions of your own rather than a link to the site of some "ministry" who seem to be as intent on selling web design packages as they are their message would strengthen your argument immensely.

Ultravid

Hey this thread needn't be locked! We need not resort to personal insults as they do not achieve anything and have no bearing on the discussion. I will take seriously the suggestion made by the first poster to this thread, and I will post my reply in a short time, to get the ball rolling, so to speak.

If you have nothing constructive to say, please do not view or post on this thread! If you want to insult anyone, insult me by PM! I can take it!

rainbow kirby

Zaph speaks more sense than the rest of this thread put together.

Ultravid

Ok so I said I would post my own reply, so here it is.

I say that abortion is the greatest injustice in the world today, because it snuffs (read kills) out the life of an unborn human person. It is the killing of an innocent human life and I will demonstrate how so in this post.

This injustice exceeds all others that one could name, since the right to life is a basic, fundamental human right. The right to live. The right to life. To be deprived this right is a primary and supreme injustice.

It may surprise many people to learn that the scientific community are in absolutely no doubt as to when human life begins: they unanimously agree that life begins at conception - this is just one quote, but there follows a link to many others. To say that science does not know when human life begins is dishonest, since there is no debate - emphasis mine:

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School:

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Much more here from multiple scientific authorities:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html

It is also interesting to note what the pro-abortion people have said about it in the past:

Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the world – Planned Parenthood – argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:

"I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus."

Again this individual does not stand alone, there are many more interesting statements:

David Noonin, in his book, A Defense of Abortion, makes this startling admission:

"In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point." (p. xiv)

More statements here, and the sources for those I've posted to follow up:
http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony

The fact is, abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. It is not the life of a goat, or a monkey, but only that of a human being.

In the meantime, I would recommend the website www.abort73.com, as it contains all the information you need to be informed of the truth about abortion. It will shock you. It will disturb you. But it is the truth.

Zaph

Ultravid wrote: »

I say that abortion is the greatest injustice in the world today, because it snuffs (read kills) out the life of an unborn human person. It is the killing of an innocent human life and I will demonstrate how so in this post.

This injustice exceeds all others that one could name, since the right to life is a basic, fundamental human right. The right to live. The right to life. To be deprived this right is a primary and supreme injustice.

In every example I mentioned above innocent lives are being ended on a scale that puts the number of abortions carried out worldwide into the shade. How are those lives any less valuable than that of an unborn baby?

Ultravid wrote: »

Ok so I said I would post my own reply, so here it is.


It may surprise many people to learn that the scientific community are in absolutely no doubt as to when human life begins: they unanimously agree that life begins at conception - this is just one quote, but there follows a link to many others. To say that science does not know when human life begins is dishonest, since there is no debate - emphasis mine:

Much more here from multiple scientific authorities:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html

It is also interesting to note what the pro-abortion people have said about it in the past:

Again this individual does not stand alone, there are many more interesting statements:

More statements here, and the sources for those I've posted to follow up:
http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony

The fact is, abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. It is not the life of a goat, or a monkey, but only that of a human being.

In the meantime, I would recommend the website www.abort73.com, as it contains all the information you need to be informed of the truth about abortion. It will shock you. It will disturb you. But it is the truth.

Where is your own reply? All those facts, opinions, call them what you will, are lifted directly from that website. They are not your own, they have been compiled by someone else and posted on a website with an agenda that you just happen to support.

And just so we're clear on this I'll state my own position on abortion - I have none. I am completely neutral on the subject and have no strong opinions either for or against it. What I do have strong opinions on, however, is lazy posting and passing off other people's doctrine as being your own "proof" as to why your particular point of view is correct. Did you think we wouldn't notice or something?

Phototoxin

ITs clear that ultravid is agasint abortion and the sources cited are some of the reason why, you ahd ly expect her/him to get a medical degree. Sources are being cited.

Addionally while the lives of the unborn are of no more value that children in any other part of the world that does not make it alright. just because people are dying in some coutries doesnt make intentional killing alright.

In addition a simple change of law in the countires effected by abortion would dramatically cut them.

Also its worth nothing that there is a correlation between better maternity care and the absense of abortion in a country...

Ultravid

Zaph wrote: »

In every example I mentioned above innocent lives are being ended on a scale that puts the number of abortions carried out worldwide into the shade. How are those lives any less valuable than that of an unborn baby?



Where is your own reply? All those facts, opinions, call them what you will, are lifted directly from that website. They are not your own, they have been compiled by someone else and posted on a website with an agenda that you just happen to support.

And just so we're clear on this I'll state my own position on abortion - I have none. I am completely neutral on the subject and have no strong opinions either for or against it. What I do have strong opinions on, however, is lazy posting and passing off other people's doctrine as being your own "proof" as to why your particular point of view is correct. Did you think we wouldn't notice or something?

I am not talking here about starving children. That too is an injustice, but this discussion is about abortion. We know there is enough food and money to feed all the world's people. The problem is human selfishness.

I posit that the problem of abortion is also one of human selfishness.

The arguments on abort73 are supported by myself. I say that abortion is the greatest injustice in the world today. I held that abortion was gravely wrong long before I discovered that particular website. I do not see how my use of an information resource is somehow problematic to you.

I say it again: Abortion is the killing of an innocent human life.

Dave!

Ultravid wrote: »

The fact is, abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. It is not the life of a goat, or a monkey, but only that of a human being.

What's so great about humans anyway?

Phototoxin

if they're not great then why is your sig telling us to donate blood ?? To feed vampires ?:pac:

Nerin

Dave! wrote: »

What's so great about humans anyway?

happy meals on legs is all they are! Bah,is this another abortion bashing thread by someone with an agenda,or,is it another lazy troll thread. Zaph speaks much sense. I'd thank him if there was a mobile thanks button.

Phototoxin

This is my last post before I get back to guild wars and msn..

It doesnt seem like a bashing thread, infact the OP hasn't bashed it they've just put forth reasons why and support of thier position. If anything its the other superfulous comments.:(

Ultravid

It is interesting that there is a zealous desire to silence all discussion on abortion on boards.ie.

You would actually think that they are terrified about discussing it, and so out comes the bashing/insult card in order to lock all threads, and thus stifle discussion. Scary.

Nerin

Ultravid wrote: »

It is interesting that there is a zealous desire to silence all discussion on abortion on boards.ie.

You would actually think that they are terrified about discussing it, and so out comes the bashing/insult card in order to lock all threads, and thus stifle discussion. Scary.

:rolleyes: oh ffs come off it. We discussed it last week. And the week before that. Two, maybe Three threads i believe. Posting a link to some site to start a thread about abortion,on its own,is the reason i would feel less than inclined to have a serious discussion. Threads get locked when- prochoice people get annoyed and tell prolife people to **** off and stop being so enraging,or when prolifers call prochoicers baby killers. Since i've joined boards theres been loads of abortion threads. But they.re usually the same,neither side budges. There is no conspiracy,we aren't silencing you. Thats that.

Meirleach

Ultravid wrote: »

It is interesting that there is a zealous desire to silence all discussion on abortion on boards.ie.

You would actually think that they are terrified about discussing it, and so out comes the bashing/insult card in order to lock all threads, and thus stifle discussion. Scary.

It is a rather touchy subject, so bashing and insulting does tend to happen, I don't think there's any boards conspiracy to shush it up though(although there's probably a fair few people sick of hearing about it!).

Mena

Ultravid wrote: »

It may surprise many people to learn that the scientific community are in absolutely no doubt as to when human life begins: they unanimously agree that life begins at conception - this is just one quote, but there follows a link to many others. To say that science does not know when human life begins is dishonest, since there is no debate - emphasis mine:

Much more here from multiple scientific authorities:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html

I'm sorry, but I have to call Bulls**t here. Can you provide some sort of evidence for this claim?

Ultravid

Ok. I don't want to insult anyone nor get personal and I would ask the same of any visitor to this thread.

If anyone wants to get personal with me, PM me! (This is a half-joke =p)

I would suggest that antagonists be banned or their posts deleted, and the mannerly remainder can continue their discussion.

To Mena: the evidence is in the link, which shows the testimony of countless medical experts and medical school textbooks. It's all there. The science is saying human life begins at conception.

The link again, is here:
http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony

Scroll down - you can see the books, the quotes - this is what the student doctors are taught about human life.

Nerin

Ultravid wrote: »

Ok. I don't want to insult anyone nor get personal and I would ask the same of any visitor to this thread.

If anyone wants to get personal with me, PM me! (This is a half-joke =p)

I would suggest that antagonists be banned or their posts deleted, and the mannerly remainder can continue their discussion.

To Mena: the evidence is in the link above, which shows the testimony of countless medical experts and medical school textbooks. It's all there. The science is saying human life begins at conception.

a-mods will decide. B-religious,philosophical and scientific means usually are need to decide something like "when life starts". None have all agreed or come to a totally universal conclusion. Hence,as mena said so eloquently,its bull.

Ultravid

Sorry to double post, but here is more evidence of the fact that science tells us life begins at conception:

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

Just one of the quotes there:

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."

The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

Phototoxin

None have all agreed or come to a totally universal conclusion. Hence,as mena said so eloquently,its bull.

the same could be said of evolution, particle physics, or a host of any other things. Does that make them all bull ?

Nerin

Phototoxin wrote: »

the same could be said of evolution, particle physics, or a host of any other things. Does that make them all bull ?

well,theories,aren't all proven,i agree that evolution makes sense,but i wouldn't say its totally proven 100% correct and flawless.. saying they are totally concrete,and fully proof of whatever you are arguing,yes,yes it is bull. The comment that because a group say something is such a way so it must be right, and everyone else is wrong. Bull.

Phototoxin

Realistically life began either 650 billion years ago or 6000 (if you are yong earther creationist loon) anyway...

However i do think that a babys life begins when it is even a single cell, as otherwise who is to say how many cells we need to be human ? If no one really knows surely it is better to err on the side of caution and not kill them ?

Nerin

Phototoxin wrote: »

Realistically life began either 650 billion years ago or 6000 (if you are yong earther creationist loon) anyway...

However i do think that a babys life begins when it is even a single cell, as otherwise who is to say how many cells we need to be human ? If no one really knows surely it is better to err on the side of caution and not kill them ?

a tadpole (even frogspawn) is not a frog. Describe a frog. 4 legs,Amphibian etc Tadpole-not a frog. But is potential to become a frog. If i killed a tadpole,i killed a tadpole,i didn't kill a frog. I killed a potential frog. I kill a bunch of cells,i didn't kill a human. Thats my opinion.

Phototoxin

but you are a bunch of cells.. so if I kill your bunches of cells surely I will kill you..

I would say that that imagery is more appropraite to a sperm and egg. But even then the tadpole has a full set of frog dna the sperm or the egg alone doenst.

Ultravid

Nerin wrote: »

a tadpole (even frogspawn) is not a frog. Describe a frog. 4 legs,Amphibian etc Tadpole-not a frog. But is potential to become a frog. If i killed a tadpole,i killed a tadpole,i didn't kill a frog. I killed a potential frog. I kill a bunch of cells,i didn't kill a human. Thats my opinion.

If you reject science what do you base your opinion on?

The moment egg and sperm unite, you have a new individual human being who begins to grow and develop at that moment. By 18-21 days the heart will begin to beat. By 6 wks, they will move on their own, and respond (draw away from) a needle if stuck during an amniocentesis. Solomen and Berg, as well as Curtis are leading college Biology texts. Both say conception is the beginning of the human life cycle. You can argue the rights of the person all you want, but facts are facts, human life begins at conception.

bquinn

Zaph wrote: »

In every example I mentioned above innocent lives are being ended on a scale that puts the number of abortions carried out worldwide into the shade. How are those lives any less valuable than that of an unborn baby?



Where is your own reply? All those facts, opinions, call them what you will, are lifted directly from that website. They are not your own, they have been compiled by someone else and posted on a website with an agenda that you just happen to support.

And just so we're clear on this I'll state my own position on abortion - I have none. I am completely neutral on the subject and have no strong opinions either for or against it. What I do have strong opinions on, however, is lazy posting and passing off other people's doctrine as being your own "proof" as to why your particular point of view is correct. Did you think we wouldn't notice or something?

How can you call someone who does the research to find the facts lazy? You say you have no opinion about abortion, but apathy is not an excuse to allow others to suffer. "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." Yet that is what you seem to be advocating. The difference between a child killed by abortion and the child killed by starvation is just a little bit of time. Both suffer, and as members of the same species, we have the responsibility to care for both. Either you stand up for those who can't defend themselves, or you are part of the group who causes the suffering. That is for you to decide.

Nerin

Ultravid wrote: »

If you reject science what do you base your opinion on?

The moment egg and sperm unite, you have a new individual human being who begins to grow and develop at that moment. By 18-21 days the heart will begin to beat. By 6 wks, they will move on their own, and respond (draw away from) a needle if stuck during an amniocentesis. Solomen and Berg, as well as Curtis are leading college Biology texts. Both say conception is the beginning of the human life cycle. You can argue the rights of the person all you want, but facts are facts, human life begins at conception.

then i will. And i'll disagree with your belief,and you with mine. Circles as usual. There are scientists that will disagree with your scientists,religious folk that will disagree with your religious folk,and philosophers that will disagree with yours.

Nerin

bquinn wrote: »

How can you call someone who does the research to find the facts lazy? You say you have no opinion about abortion, but apathy is not an excuse to allow others to suffer. "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." Yet that is what you seem to be advocating. The differnece between a child killed by abortion and the child killed by starvation is just alittle bit of time. Both suffer, and as members of the same species, we have the responsibility to care for both. Either you stand up for those who can't defend themselves, or you are part of the group who causes the suffering. That is for you to decide.

oh gods,here we go,i'm out,i've been working all day and am in no mood for this.

Ultravid

Nerin wrote: »

then i will. And i'll disagree with your belief,and you with mine. Circles as usual. There are scientists that will disagree with your scientists,religious folk that will disagree with your religious folk,and philosophers that will disagree with yours.

As regards the unborn, when he/she pulls away from the needle in pain as I described above, this is not opinion, it is observable scientific fact.

bquinn

Phototoxin wrote: »

but you are a bunch of cells.. so if I kill your bunches of cells surely I will kill you..

I would say that that imagery is more appropraite to a sperm and egg. But even then the tadpole has a full set of frog dna the sperm or the egg alone doenst.

Conception is after the sperm and egg combine, which in turn yields the DNA genetically unique to the new human individual. No one is saying the egg or sperm by themselves are living human beings. Going back to the tadploe example, the organism is a frog. The tadpole is a stage in the frog's life. Hence the tadpole example is erroneous science. When you were 2 yrs old, you did not look or act the way you do now. That also was a stage in your life. However, you were no less a person then, just because you still had to grow and learn. SAme thing with a child who has not been born, and who must grow and learn to become an adult.

Zaph

bquinn wrote: »

How can you call someone who does the research to find the facts lazy? You say you have no opinion about abortion, but apathy is not an excuse to allow others to suffer. "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." Yet that is what you seem to be advocating. The difference between a child killed by abortion and the child killed by starvation is just a little bit of time. Both suffer, and as members of the same species, we have the responsibility to care for both. Either you stand up for those who can't defend themselves, or you are part of the group who causes the suffering. That is for you to decide.

When someone says that they're going to post their opinion, and their opinion is supported by "facts" from a single website with a particular agenda, it's lazy, or at the very best it's a poorly supported argument. And that goes for someone putting an opposing view across too, I'm not picking on the OP specifically.

As for apathy, where do you see me saying I'm apathetic about the issue. What I did say is that I have no strong opinions either way, which doesn't mean I'm apathetic, but rather I am open to be convinced by either side if one of them can put forward a compelling enough argument to me. So far neither has so I've no real opinion on the matter.

And as for the bits about "advocating evil" and being "part of the group that causes the suffering", that's just sanctimonious bullshít and I take great exception to it. If that's the best argument you can put forward i want no further part in this discussion. I'm off to bed.

bquinn

Zaph wrote: »

When someone says that they're going to post their opinion, and their opinion is supported by "facts" from a single website with a particular agenda, it's lazy, or at the very best it's a poorly supported argument. And that goes for someone putting an opposing view across too, I'm not picking on the OP specifically.

As for apathy, where do you see me saying I'm apathetic about the issue. What I did say is that I have no strong opinions either way, which doesn't mean I'm apathetic, but rather I am open to be convinced by either side if one of them can put forward a compelling enough argument to me. So far neither has so I've no real opinion on the matter.

And as for the bits about "advocating evil" and being "part of the group that causes the suffering", that's just sanctimonious bullshít and I take great exception to it. If that's the best argument you can put forward i want no further part in this discussion. I'm off to bed.

Actually it was the founding fathers of this country who say that those who have the ability to make things right have the responsibility to do so. Not quite the same wording, but the same meaning. I'm not trying to offend you, but I do think that when you won't study the facts and come to a logical conclusion, then you do not have the right to call someone lazy, because they start an discussion from one website. That may be only one resource, but at least it's a beginning. He stated his opinion, then backed it up with a resource. He was looking for a legitamate discussion on the issue. You obviously have specific questions or views about this issue, or you wouldn't be posting here. So instead of insulting the person, why don't you just ask your questions or post your opinions about the issue, so they can be discussed respectively. What facts do you believe? When do you think you became a living person with rights? Because the law defined Black Americans as non persons, did it make it right? I can't imagine that you would think it was ok to watch a one month old baby get torn to death. What about a newborn? Do you know anyone who has been pregnant. (Did you know them while they were pregnant?) I have 3 children, and I could tell the difference between their personalities, before they were born. My oldest loved to have her back rubbed. I would rub my belly, and she would push against my hand. My second one withdrew, if I rubbed my belly. She was very ticklish after she was born. These are personal insights beyond the scientific evidence. What possible argument is there, that there is a difference between a child that is born and one that is not born. Beyond all that, do you know anyone who has had an abortion. I mean really know them? Do they talk about the nightmares? Do they tell you about the anger that they feel towards those they feel pressured them into it? I also work with women who have had abortions. Over half of them have seriously thought of suicide. Most feel as though they were pressured into it by the father of their child or their own parents. I recently met someone whose parents kicked her out of her house and told her she could not come back unless she had an abortion. Instead of giving in, she went and lived with other homeless people. She ended up giving birth to her daughter in the woods. Thankfully both survived. At the very least, if you decide you are pro-choice, then at least support the woman's right to give birth and not jus t the right to have an abortion... Just some things to think about.

Virgil°

bquinn wrote: »

.....

It really is a pity that yourself and Ultravid have decided to attempt to justify pro-life. I love discussing this topic with the likes of Zulu and Sam Vimes. Makes for interesting and logical debate.
"baby murdering is evil rabble rabble rabble......." and "half the women i know who had abortions wanted to die....." do nothing but damage your cause IMO.

Ultravid

Virgil° wrote: »

It really is a pity that yourself and Ultravid have decided to attempt to justify pro-life. I love discussing this topic with the likes of Zulu and Sam Vimes. Makes for interesting and logical debate.
"baby murdering is evil rabble rabble rabble......." and "half the women i know who had abortions wanted to die....." do nothing but damage your cause IMO.

What would you like to justify? Pro-abortion? All I have seen thus far on this thread is that the unborn is a human person, a unique, human individual from conception, with strong scientific evidence to support this conclusion, and therefore to kill him/her is gravely wrong and an obvious injustice. Would you like to try and justify it for us?

You could also reply to quinn's post, rather than just weakly dismiss it as you have just done without considering what she has said, and her first-hand experience of what abortion is and what it does to women, nevermind unborn babies.

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

What would you like to justify? Pro-abortion? All I have seen thus far on this thread is that the unborn is a human person, a unique, human individual from conception, with strong scientific evidence to support this conclusion, and therefore to kill him/her is gravely wrong and an obvious injustice. Would you like to try and justify it for us?

Nah im just pro-choice in most cases. And for every scientific document you can quote saying that an unborn is a human person, i could probably quote one that says it isnt so thats a bit of a standoff. Ergo im not killing what everyone believes to be a person.
I wonder Ultravid are you friends with anyone who has had an abortion?I already know from bQuinn that he is or has been. WHich would mean that he befriended a murderer in his eyes no? Maybe you dont believe its murder as convictionally as you say it is?

Ultravid

Virgil° wrote: »

Nah im just pro-choice in most cases. And for every scientific document you can quote saying that an unborn is a human person, i could probably quote one that says it isnt so thats a bit of a standoff. Ergo im not killing what everyone believes to be a person.
I wonder Ultravid are you friends with anyone who has had an abortion?I already know from bQuinn that he is or has been. WHich would mean that he befriended a murderer in his eyes no? Maybe you dont believe its murder as convictionally as you say it is?

If we aren't sure (I believe I have shown that we are through science) that it is a human person, wouldn't it be best to err on the side of caution and give this life, this human life, the protection afforded to all other human life?

I don't know quinn, but I'm guessing she has experience working as some kind of councillor to those who've had abortions. Though I will let her reply to that question herself as I am speculating, as are you when you suggest she was complicit in abortion, which yes, I hold is murder.

This is relevant to what you've just said:

“Yeah,” the pro-choice attorney rebuts, “but is it a person?”
In Roe vs. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun noted, “The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (Fourteenth) Amendment.”
According to Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, a person is “a human being.” Attempts to render an entire class of human beings as “non-persons” based upon arbitrary qualities such as age and place of residence in order to discriminate against them is immoral and unjust.



History is full of infamous examples of governments legalizing the discrimination of an entire class of human beings by rendering them “non-persons.” Jews were rendered “sub-humans” in Germany in the 1940’s and colonial slaveowners bought and sold Africans as “property.” As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in 1857 ruled that Dred Scott, a black slave, was not a “person” with rights but the “property” of his master. Was the Court wrong then? Of course! The Supreme Court of 1973 that legalized abortion nationwide with its Roe v. Wade decision was just as immoral and unjust. They dehumanized an entire class of human beings in order to legitimize wholesale discrimination against them. Abortion may go down in history as the greatest human rights abuse of all time.

from: http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

Can I ask you to refute the science I have presented showing human life starts at conception?

Mena

Ultravid wrote: »

To Mena: the evidence is in the link, which shows the testimony of countless medical experts and medical school textbooks. It's all there. The science is saying human life begins at conception.

The link again, is here:
http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony

Scroll down - you can see the books, the quotes - this is what the student doctors are taught about human life.

Countless? I counted 20 or so.

**deleted**

As to my own opinion on abortion, I'm pro-choice. I'd never opt for that method myself, but I would never presume to lecture anyone else on what they must/must not do.

Ultravid

Mena wrote: »

Countless? I counted 20 or so.

**deleted**

As to my own opinion on abortion, I'm pro-choice. I'd never opt for that method myself, but I would never presume to lecture anyone else on what they must/must not do.

Can you prove, using science, that human life does not begin at conception? Can you refute the science I have presented in my links and in my posts?

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

Can you prove, using science, that human life does not begin at conception? Can you refute the science I have presented in my links and in my posts?

Yeah hang on a second...ill get my test tubes out and stick on a cup of coffee.^^

No one in pro-choice debates that human life starts at conception.....or earlier even(A sperm is human life at an earlier stage)
What I debate is the "importance" of "human life". Why do you class "human" life as being so important? That you could become so enraged at the abortion of the unborn yet not bat an eyelid or care about the slaughter of animals on a massive scale. What is it that makes us more special than those creatures?

Mena

Ultravid wrote: »

Can you prove, using science, that human life does not begin at conception? Can you refute the science I have presented in my links and in my posts?

Do you even understand the science you linked to in the first place?

Ultravid

Mena wrote: »

Do you even understand the science you linked to in the first place?

Yes, adequately. I did A-level biology. Now please, can you answer the question?

To Virgil: Do you believe human life doesn't really matter? Is my life no more valuable than that of a snail?

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

Yes, adequately. I did A-level biology. Now please, can you answer the question?

Answer mine.

Ultravid

Virgil° wrote: »

Answer mine.

Do you believe human life doesn't really matter? Is my life really no more valuable than that of a snail? Do you really believe that?

stakey

Ultravid wrote: »

As regards the unborn, when he/she pulls away from the needle in pain as I described above, this is not opinion, it is observable scientific fact.

Do they scream 'ow' and cower in a corner of the womb as well?

Your views here are very black and white and you've avoided all of that grey in between the two.

I wouldn't question that basic life starts at conception but the choice to have an abortion is not as simple as you'd like to convey it as. People choose abortion for many reasons be it as a result of threats to the life of the mother (which i'd rate much more over that of a collection of cells) or due to circumstances such as rape or incest.

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

To Virgil: Do you believe human life doesn't really matter? Is my life no more valuable than that of a snail?

Not until you acquire what it is that separates us and animals. But then you're not an unborn child are you?
Humans are easily inferior to a VAST amount of animals in a number of ways.
I cant run as fast as a large cat, i cant see as accurately as a bird of prey, im not as strong or agile as a gorrila.But i still classify myself as more important.

I beleive that i(and you), are superior to a snail because we're more intelligent.A gift bestowed upon us by our brain and the consciousness formed by it.
Is there another way to differenciate ourselves from animals?The fact that something is "human life" or potentially human life doesnt hold great importance to me.
Do you believe killing a body without a brain to be immoral?It is "Human life" after all no?

Otacon

Ultravid wrote: »

Can I ask you to refute the science I have presented showing human life starts at conception?

Biologist Scott Gilbert maintains that "Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after... Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins."

Source

So can we please start referring to opinions as such and facts as such?

bquinn

stakey wrote: »

Do they scream 'ow' and cower in a corner of the womb as well?

Your views here are very black and white and you've avoided all of that grey in between the two.

I wouldn't question that basic life starts at conception but the choice to have an abortion is not as simple as you'd like to convey it as. People choose abortion for many reasons be it as a result of threats to the life of the mother (which i'd rate much more over that of a collection of cells) or due to circumstances such as rape or incest.

It's amazing you really have so little knowledge of why women who have abortions 'choose them'. Ultravid guessed right when he said I have counseled women who have had abortions. Because of the field I'm in, I also meet many other women who have had abortions (and men who participated). You say they choose abortions, because of danger to their life, or because their child was conceived through rape or incest. I am a biochemist, have done plenty of medicla research and within the last 5 yrs have gone into the social field of helping women who feel forced into having an abortion. Less than 3% of abortions are due to the reasons you say. Look at any study. A group in NY did a random, confidential survey of women on in NYC. Of those who had an abortion, 92% said they felt forced into it by someone else. SO whose right to choose is it?? If the woman did not want to choose it, the baby obviously did not choose it, then maybe it's the men who are choosing it so they can have their way without any consequences. People have been lied to so much, that many are convinced that women really want this freedom of choice. Yet, why is it that those who say they are 'pro-choice' are not the ones protecting a woman who chooses to give birth to her baby??