The husband of our vice president is telling men to "step up" to defend the right to kill a child. Real men will see through this evil charade.

[Hammster]

You seem to have said something else entirely.

Then perhaps you should go back and read it again in context.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So ‘real men’ should see through the evil baby killing charade the democrats advocate for, but stay silent on the evil baby killing charade the republicans are promising. Instead, since they both kill babies, we should just go ahead and vote for whichever puts more money into our personal pockets?

Well I for one am glad we cleared that moral conundrum up!

Yes, "real men" should see through the evil, baby killing charades that anyone proffers, whether they be democrat or republican, or any other political joe-schmoe. But really, "real men" should see the even bigger picture of which abortion is but one symptom.

 

[Hammster]

So ‘real men’ should see through the evil baby killing charade the democrats advocate for, but stay silent on the evil baby killing charade the republicans are promising. Instead, since they both kill babies, we should just go ahead and vote for whichever puts more money into our personal pockets?

Well I for one am glad we cleared that moral conundrum up!

Well, you are still confused. I think you are smart and should know what I’m talking about, so I’ll assume that I haven’t been clear and it’s not just you being obtuse on purpose.

IVF has the goal of giving couples a baby. That is a good goal. Babies are awesome. And if someday science figures out how to do it with one egg and one sperm, then great. But right now they cannot.

The abortion that the Harris team and the Democratic platform wants is nothing like that. It is advocating the actual destruction of babies in the womb as the end game.

Now, if you cannot see that there’s a difference, then we really have nothing more to discuss.

 

[Bradskii]

IVF has the goal of giving couples a baby. That is a good goal. Babies are awesome. And if someday science figures out how to do it with one egg and one sperm, then great. But right now they cannot

No, they cannot. In which case do you think that someone should support a process that has the potential of a woman conceiving when that process, to again use your terminology if I may, kills so many babies?

It is advocating the actual destruction of babies in the womb as the end game.

As opposed to destroying them in a test tube. Do you see a difference?

 

[o_mlly]

A baby being born is not going to be aborted.

? And, therefore, it's OK to abort that baby one day before delivery? How about two days? I think you get the point.

 

[Bradskii]

? And, therefore, it's OK to abort that baby one day before delivery? How about two days? I think you get the point.

I think you don't. If there's a medical emergency a couple of days before the expected birth they will either induce labour or do a caesarian.

 

[Hammster]

No, they cannot. In which case do you think that someone should support a process that has the potential of a woman conceiving when that process, to again use your terminology if I may, kills so many babies?

As opposed to destroying them in a test tube. Do you see a difference?

So you are purposely (hopefully) misunderstanding what I posted. If that is what you want, okay.

 

[rubyshoes]

Well, you are still confused. I think you are smart and should know what I’m talking about, so I’ll assume that I haven’t been clear and it’s not just you being obtuse on purpose.

IVF has the goal of giving couples a baby. That is a good goal. Babies are awesome. And if someday science figures out how to do it with one egg and one sperm, then great. But right now they cannot.

The abortion that the Harris team and the Democratic platform wants is nothing like that. It is advocating the actual destruction of babies in the womb as the end game.

Now, if you cannot see that there’s a difference, then we really have nothing more to discuss.

I think it’s you that are confused.

Earlier in this thread you said that you stand for all the unborn equally and repeatedly refer to embryo as babies. Specifically that the destruction of those embryos/babies was murder, evil and non justifiable.

And yet NOW you are claiming that the lives created intentionally and then discarded and destroyed via IVF are not the same and that it’s fine to discard those in the pursuit of one baby born.

if the sperm and egg meet, that is life. You claim all life matters, no matter the stage of development. That intentional destruction of that life, however early, is evil and murder. It seems you absolutely do not actually believe what you say here on this forum if you take the case that lives lost via IVF are somehow not the same.

Either life matters, or it doesn’t. Either you care for all the unborn equally, or you don’t. Apparently you don’t care that the blood of the unborn are on your hands because you yourself have said that you can justify the shed of that blood for the ‘good’ goal of ‘awesome’ babies.

How many of those unborn babies do you think is a good price to pay for one born? 1? 5? 20?

 

[o_mlly]

You used the phrase "Science does not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being", which states that it becomes a human being in the womb. That's after conception, which concedes the point that before that moment, it's not a human being.

You write, "... becomes a human being in the womb". ?

As a matter of faith, I agree. However, that claim, not a scientific one, needs at least a few more additional terms in support. I wrote that from a scientific perspective, the growing conceptus is a living (and growing) being.

You write, "... after conception, which concedes the point that before that moment, it's not a human being." ?

Before conception I think all science agrees that the separated sperm and ovum are not living beings. After conception, science is ignorant as to categorizing that that living being is a human being. So, nothing is conceded.

 

[Bradskii]

So you are purposely (hopefully) misunderstanding what I posted. If that is what you want, okay.

You said that you were pleased that women could conceive using IVF. It is great, isn't it. But you do know that in the process a number of embryos will be destroyed? So I was asking if you see a difference between them being killed in a test tube and being killed in a womb. I'm asking for clarification so that there is no misunderstanding.

 

[o_mlly]

As far as I know, abortions post viability are performed for emergencies far, far more often than for any other reason.

Exactly when does a baby achieve "post viability"? Is it OK to abort that child one day before that exact date? How about 2 days. I think you get the point.

 

[A2SG]

I am clear as to what I’m asking for. Equal protection. People shouldn’t be put to death without due process.

And I'm clear on what that would entail: special rights for embryos, not equal rights. All at the expense of the established rights of pregnant women, who would no longer have equal protection under the law.

-- A2SG, so, clearly, this isn't a legal issue...

 

[o_mlly]

If there's a medical emergency a couple of days before the expected birth they will either induce labour or do a caesarian.

You should read the chain of posts before making comments, especially the first one. See post #49

Regarding the commission of direct abortions for convenience:

And BTW, neither inducing labor nor performing a C-Section are abortive, rather they both have the opposite goal of killing the child.

 

[NxNW]

Before conception I think all science agrees that the separated sperm and ovum are not living beings. After conception, science is ignorant as to categorizing that that living being is a human being. So, nothing is conceded.

You said it becomes a human being in the womb. But conception does not occur in the womb. Therefore, according to your words, it becomes a human being sometime after conception. So we both agree on that point.

 

[A2SG]

Exactly when does a baby achieve "post viability"?

Third trimester. Roughly 24 weeks.

Is it OK to abort that child one day before that exact date? How about 2 days. I think you get the point.

Yup. You're not interested in the reality of when most abortions are performed, nor about the issues facing pregnant women.

-- A2SG, wonder if you'd see it differently if you were the pregnant woman....

 

[o_mlly]

You said it becomes a human being in the womb.

Nope. Kindly cite my post to support your claim.

 

[NxNW]

Nope. Kindly cite my post to support your claim.

"Science does not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being"

 

[Hammster]

I think it’s you that are confused.

Earlier in this thread you said that you stand for all the unborn equally and repeatedly refer to embryo as babies. Specifically that the destruction of those embryos/babies was murder, evil and non justifiable.

And yet NOW you are claiming that the lives created intentionally and then discarded and destroyed via IVF are not the same and that it’s fine to discard those in the pursuit of one baby born.

if the sperm and egg meet, that is life. You claim all life matters, no matter the stage of development. That intentional destruction of that life, however early, is evil and murder. It seems you absolutely do not actually believe what you say here on this forum if you take the case that lives lost via IVF are somehow not the same.

Either life matters, or it doesn’t. Either you care for all the unborn equally, or you don’t. Apparently you don’t care that the blood of the unborn are on your hands because you yourself have said that you can justify the shed of that blood for the ‘good’ goal of ‘awesome’ babies.

How many of those unborn babies do you think is a good price to pay for one born? 1? 5? 20?

I’ve explained it. Deliberately being obtuse isn’t flattering.

 

[Hammster]

You said that you were pleased that women could conceive using IVF. It is great, isn't it. But you do know that in the process a number of embryos will be destroyed? So I was asking if you see a difference between them being killed in a test tube and being killed in a womb. I'm asking for clarification so that there is no misunderstanding.

I said more than that. And you know it. If this is all you have, then have a great day.

 

[Bradskii]

You should read the chain of posts before making comments, especially the first one. See post #49

The one that has a comment: 'Regarding the commission of direct abortions for convenience...'?

Are you suggesting that a woman who is 8 months, 3 weeks and 5 days into a pregnancy suddenly decides it's inconvenient to have the kid and asks for an abortion? And that some doctor will say 'Sure. No problem'. Well, if you're expecting a sensible reply to that then maybe someone will be along soon who might possibly try to attempt it.

And BTW, neither inducing labor nor performing a C-Section are abortive, rather they both have the opposite goal of killing the child.

Quite right. Which is why they'd be performed at that stage.