Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

lazybones32

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you put women who have abortions on a par with human traffickers?

I'll answer this question when you answer the question I put to you.

lazybones32

Two Sheds wrote: »

A spokesman for the Obama Administration hasn't seen the video and hasn't discussed it with Obama but nevertheless tells us that Planned Parenthood operates to the highest ethical standards and referred questions about Planned Parenthood to..... wait for it.....Planned Parenthood.

PP gets half a billion dollars in federal funding every year; the White House is not going to publicly criticise someone they give so much tax-payers money to.

Digital Solitude

lazybones32 wrote: »

PP gets half a billion dollars in federal funding every year; the White House is not going to publicly criticise someone they give so much tax-payers money to.

Half a billion dollars is nothing in the US Economy, its ~$4 dollars from each tax payer, per year.

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

I'll answer this question when you answer the question I put to you.

Of course I don't believe we should allow humans to be trafficked and I suspect you already knew that I would answer that way.

Now, as I have answered your question would you care to answer mine or are you going to ignore it as usual

lazybones32

Digital Solitude wrote: »

Half a billion dollars is nothing in the US Economy, its ~$4 dollars from each tax payer, per year.

Half a billion dollars is a lot of money in any Govt.s balance sheet; especially when it's taxpayers money.

eviltwin wrote: »

Of course I don't believe we should allow humans to be trafficked and I suspect you already knew that I would answer that way.

Now, as I have answered your question would you care to answer mine or are you going to ignore it as usual

We don't interact very often on Boards so how do I ignore you? I don't see why I must answer your questions if you won't answer mine - basic manners.
A: No

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

Half a billion dollars is a lot of money in any Govt.s balance sheet; especially when it's taxpayers money.


We don't interact very often on Boards so how do I ignore you? I don't see why I must answer your questions if you won't answer mine - basic manners.
A: No

Your question was so ridiculous I didn't think it even needed to be answered. I didn't think you really believed anyone who is in favour of abortion is also supportive of human trafficking.

dancingchicken

Is this not a good thing? The body parts can used towards helping others, whats more Christian than that?

lazybones32

eviltwin wrote: »

Your question was so ridiculous I didn't think it even needed to be answered. I didn't think you really believed anyone who is in favour of abortion is also supportive of human trafficking.

It's applying your standards of justification to a different scenario. Just because people are going to do it, we should make it legal and safe... pretty sure I've written this already (and I'm accused of ignoring you?)

dancingchicken

I'm 100% pro choice. People don't think twice about getting an animal put down, whats make you think human life is more precious than an animals? Humans are a species that breeds other species to eat them. 10s of thousands of animals die just to keep one human fed. And humans are destroying the planet with pollution and global warming. The less humans that are born the better..

dancingchicken

am946745 wrote:

SW.. Bottom line they are PAYING mothers for the aborted children.. Right... You can't dress it up any other way. intentionally killing a child for its organs.

Its not a child, its not even a baby. Its an unborn feotus that isn't even fully developed. Is it better to overpopulate the world and cause more suffering for everyone? Jesus would approve of abortion if he was real..

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

It's applying your standards of justification to a different scenario. Just because people are going to do it, we should make it legal and safe... pretty sure I've written this already (and I'm accused of ignoring you?)

The fact you can even compare the two says it all. I asked you a simple question, is the aim of the pro life movement to stop all abortion full stop or just make it illegal. You didn't answer it.

lazybones32

The aim is to end abortion. I've written this before. You've highlighted this before. If I meant to make abortion illegal, I'd have written that the goal is to make abortion illegal. You are the one who introduced this notion of making it illegal #80.

End - a point that marks the limit of something : the point at which something no longer continues to happen or exist (Merriam-Webster)

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

The aim is to end abortion. I've written this before. You've highlighted this before. If I meant to make abortion illegal, I'd have written that the goal is to make abortion illegal. You are the one who introduced this notion of making it illegal #80.

End - a point that marks the limit of something : the point at which something no longer continues to happen or exist (Merriam-Webster)

Never going to happen and very naive to think it's possible

Two Sheds

dancingchicken wrote: »

Its not a child, its not even a baby. Its an unborn feotus that isn't even fully developed. Is it better to overpopulate the world and cause more suffering for everyone? Jesus would approve of abortion if he was real..

The question that abortion supporters can never answer is when does an unborn become a baby? If it's at birth then there must be something in the birthing process that magically causes a transformation. If it's before birth then they have to agree that abortion is the killing of a baby.

Of course, it's a pointless exercise because everybody knows exactly what's at stake and what is being done.
That's why, when the arc of justice has run its course, abortion and its supporters will be in the category of the greatest child abusers in history.

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

The question that abortion supporters can never answer is when does an unborn become a baby? If it's at birth then there must be something in the birthing process that magically causes a transformation. If it's before birth then they have to agree that abortion is the killing of a baby.

Of course, it's a pointless exercise because everybody knows exactly what's at stake and what is being done.
That's why, when the arc of justice has run its course, abortion and its supporters will be in the category of the greatest child abusers in history.

You realise those aren't the only options, nor is there a specific time during the pregnancy where 'foetus-mode' deactivates and 'baby-mode' begins.

Most pro-life supporters pick either very clearly defined instances in human reproduction, conception or implantation, as the time they believe a baby comes into existence. The problem is that pro-life people want to impose that belief on others that don't share that belief.

Two Sheds

SW wrote: »

You realise those aren't the only options, nor is there a specific time during the pregnancy where 'foetus-mode' deactivates and 'baby-mode' begins.

Most pro-life supporters pick either very clearly defined instances in human reproduction, conception or implantation, as the time they believe a baby comes into existence. The problem is that pro-life people want to impose that belief on others that don't share that belief.

There is no 'mode' because there is no difference. When is a human being not a human being?

Supporters of abortion have been playing these word games for so long that they can't see the idiocy in attempts to split a human being into different 'modes' and thereby absolve themselves of moral culpability. They want to impose their own, non-scientific definition of human being on unborn human beings in order to manufacture an excuse to kill them.

We think we have advanced as a society; yet a whopping great Lie is presented and accepted as the truth, with lots of nodding dogs in attendance.

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

There is no 'mode' because there is no difference. When is a human being not a human being?

Supporters of abortion have been playing these word games for so long that they can't see the idiocy in attempts to split a human being into different 'modes' and thereby absolve themselves of moral culpability. They want to impose their own, non-scientific definition of human being on unborn human beings in order to manufacture an excuse to kill them.

We think we have advanced as a society; yet a whopping great Lie is presented and accepted as the truth, with lots of nodding dogs in attendance.

Personally, absence of a brain would mean that there is no 'being' to speak of.

Would you agree or disagree? If you disagree, then what do you use to define what a human being is?

Two Sheds

SW wrote: »

Personally, absence of a brain would mean that there is no 'being' to speak of.

Would you agree or disagree? If you disagree, then what do you use to define what a human being is?

Are you 'personally' taking responsibility for the moral culpability of aborting millions of human beings?

Presenting a personal viewpoint doesn't absolve anybody of their complicity and culpability in all abortions. There are a million shades of grey to hide behind, when the issue is black and white.

As for knowing who a human being is - if that isn't obvious then we shouldn't be starting from here.

But ask yourself - why did I bring up the 'no-brain' scenario, when that represents a tiny percentage of abortions; why did I not attempt to defend my true, much broader position?

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

Are you 'personally' taking responsibility for the moral culpability of aborting millions of human beings?

Presenting a personal viewpoint doesn't absolve anybody of their complicity and culpability in all abortions. There are a million shades of grey to hide behind, when the issue is black and white.

No, I'm not taking personal responsibility for every aborted foetus. because a)I don't have a womb and b) I've never gotten anyone pregnant.

As for knowing who a human being is - if that isn't obvious then we shouldn't be starting from here.

Then how can you say people are aborting human beings then???

But ask yourself - why did I bring up the 'no-brain' scenario, when that represents a tiny percentage of abortions; why did I not attempt to defend my true, much broader position?

Eh, no it doesn't. The brain starts functioning at a basic level (but is still developing) at 10 weeks approx. the majority of UK abortions happen before 10 weeks (77% according to here)

So, again, does a human being exist without any form of functioning brain? If yes, then what do you use to define what a human being is?

Two Sheds

SW wrote: »

No, I'm not taking personal responsibility for every aborted foetus. because a)I don't have a womb and b) I've never gotten anyone pregnant.

You just stand in the wings and cheer?

SW wrote: »

Then how can you say people are aborting human beings then???

Isn't that the point of abortion - to get rid of an inconvenient human being? We're not talking about unwanted puppies.

SW wrote: »

Eh, no it doesn't. The brain starts functioning at a basic level (but is still developing) at 10 weeks approx. the majority of UK abortions happen before 10 weeks

So, again, does a human being exist without any form of functioning brain? If yes, then what do you use to define what a human being is?

Ask yourself - what is the purpose of abortion? Of course the unborn are human beings. What else could they be - something that magically transforms into a human being? That line of reasoning is up there with finding babies under heads of cabbage.

Denying the humanity of the enemy is the first tactic of battle.

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

Isn't that the point of abortion - to get rid of an inconvenient human being? We're not talking about unwanted puppies.

No. Abortion is to end a pregnancy.

Ask yourself - what is the purpose of abortion? Of course the unborn are human beings. What else could they be - something that magically transforms into a human being? That line of reasoning is up there with finding babies under heads of cabbage.

Denying the humanity of the enemy is the first tactic of battle.

How about reining in the hyperbole and strawmanning? never said that the unborn isn't a human being, feel to provide evidence to the contrary.

I've been consistent in stating that a brain is required for a human being to exist. Do you agree or disagree?

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

There is no 'mode' because there is no difference. When is a human being not a human being?

Supporters of abortion have been playing these word games for so long that they can't see the idiocy in attempts to split a human being into different 'modes' and thereby absolve themselves of moral culpability. They want to impose their own, non-scientific definition of human being on unborn human beings in order to manufacture an excuse to kill them.

We think we have advanced as a society; yet a whopping great Lie is presented and accepted as the truth, with lots of nodding dogs in attendance.

Should we therefore pay child benefit from the moment of conception? And issue death certs for all miscarriages, alongwith PPS numbers? Why does the Irish state differentiate between miscarriages after 24 weeks compared to before that stage, do you think? What about the sanctity of life for the born, should the born be able to use the body of another human, with or without their consent, to ensure their right to life is protected?

Two Sheds

SW wrote: »

No. Abortion is to end a pregnancy.

How about reining in the hyperbole and strawmanning? never said that the unborn isn't a human being, feel to provide evidence to the contrary.

I've been consistent in stating that a brain is required for a human being to exist. Do you agree or disagree?

I prefer science over subjective and convenient definitions.

Science informs us that an unborn is a human being, at all stages of development.

Support abortion if you wish, but have the courage to own up to what it is you are supporting.

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

I prefer science over subjective and convenient definitions.

Science informs us that an unborn is a human being, at all stages of development.

Support abortion if you wish, but have the courage to own up to what it is you are supporting.

Do you have a link to where scientists have said such? That they've stated a newly fertilised egg is a human being?

Two Sheds

lazygal wrote: »

Should we therefore pay child benefit from the moment of conception? And issue death certs for all miscarriages, alongwith PPS numbers? Why does the Irish state differentiate between miscarriages after 24 weeks compared to before that stage, do you think? What about the sanctity of life for the born, should the born be able to use the body of another human, with or without their consent, to ensure their right to life is protected?

The Irish state recognises the right to life of the unborn. It appoints a legal team to represent the unborn when that right is challenged. The Irish state therefore recognise the unborn as a person - a legal entity with legal rights - just as after birth.

The unborn do not 'use' their mothers; they are not some sort of parasite. That type of reasoning is more that a little askew.

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

The Irish state recognises the right to life of the unborn. It appoints a legal team to represent the unborn when that right is challenged. The Irish state therefore recognise the unborn as a person - a legal entity with legal rights - just as after birth.

The unborn do not 'use' their mothers; they are not some sort of parasite. That type of reasoning is more that a little askew.

So the born can't use the born to maintain their right to life, meaning a foetus has more rights than my born children?

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

The Irish state recognises the right to life of the unborn. It appoints a legal team to represent the unborn when that right is challenged. The Irish state therefore recognise the unborn as a person - a legal entity with legal rights - just as after birth.

The unborn do not 'use' their mothers; they are not some sort of parasite. That type of reasoning is more that a little askew.

So a legal team is appointed to the foetus is a doctor suggests terminating the pregnancy due to danger to the womans life/health?

lazygal

SW wrote: »

So a legal team is appointed to the foetus is a doctor suggests terminating the pregnancy due to danger to the womans life/health?

I wonder how that works if a woman intends to travel abroad in the event she is refused a termination of pregnancy here. Can the legal team of the foetus prevent her from travelling to terminate a pregnancy, if it is known that the woman intends to bring a foetus, which has a legal team appointed to it to protect its right to life, elsewhere to deny it the right to life? Or does the foetus lose the right to legal protection and a legal team once a decision not to allow termination here is made, leaving women who can travel to access terminations elsewhere free to deny the foetus a right to life?

eviltwin

A legal team for a foetus?!!?? I've heard it all now. Who is protecting the woman? You'd laugh if it wasn't so serious, assigning a legal team to a foetus when there are living children out there suffering who can't get the help they need due to the snails pace of the legal system. :mad:

Two Sheds

eviltwin wrote: »

A legal team for a foetus?!!?? I've heard it all now. Who is protecting the woman? You'd laugh if it wasn't so serious, assigning a legal team to a foetus when there are living children out there suffering who can't get the help they need due to the snails pace of the legal system. :mad:

You may not like it, but the Irish Constitutions recognises the right to life of the unborn. That gives the unborn the right to protection under the Law.

The legal rights of another group not being properly vindicated is hardly a sensible reason to remove legal rights from the unborn, or from any other group.