Abortion - "As early as possible, as late as necessary"

[Lyric's Dad]

Neither is a fetus.

This page is almost filled with it.

 

[Mercyme_thats me]

Lyric's Dad...I LOVE what you have to say!

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Lyric's Dad...I LOVE what you have to say!

God bless Mercyme. BTW, that is a great group. You are one of the people on here who come with wisdom defying your young age. It is refreshing to see young people shun the worldly ways and stand for what is right even though everything around them tries to drag them down. God bless and keep you.

 

[theseed]

You are aware the vast majority of ferilised eggs are aborted without direct human intervention, right? And wouldn't your line of reasoning make any woman who uses the morning after pill a mass murderer?

Also, its not as cut and dry as that, a fetus can't even feel pain up until the 20th week, cerebral cortex activity doesn't begin until the 24th week. Are you saying that an inanimate clump of cells is more important than a human life because it superficially resembles a baby?

The age of viablity is less than 24 weeks, brainwaves come much sooner. There is a heart beat in 2 weeks.

 

[theseed]

Well that's simply false. Murder is a legal term; the illegal killing of a human. Since abortion is legal, it's not murder. I realise you like to use nice inflammatory terms to try to sway the debate to your side, but you could at least TRY to be accurate.

Actually, Scott Peterson is on death row for killing a woman and her unborn child. The US Supreme Court has ruled the crime as a double homicide.

 

[rebel_conservative]

Actually, Scott Peterson is on death row for killing a woman and her unborn child. The US Supreme Court has ruled the crime as a double homicide.

so women can kill unborn babies, but men can't

 

[Electric Sceptic]

A tree is NOT a person

Neither is a fetus. Sorry, but you claimed a fetus was a person because it was alive...by that criteria, a tree is a person too. You'll hvae to do better.

Oh, and sorry to tell you, but there are many christians who support a woman's right to an abortion.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I know that it makes it easier to tell yourself that, but you are wrong.

you are compartmentalising a foetus as something somehow different from humanity, because it makes it easier for you to support abortion.

it is understandable, you don't want to wrestle with the fact that it is a child, because you have been indoctrinated into mindlessly supporting abortion. the feminist lobby in the media portray the pro-life movement as somehow anti-women (despite the fact that women are the majority in the movement).

when you break free of the shackles of political correctness, you will be able to open your eyes

What a useless post. All it says is "Your point of view is wrong because I say so, and you have been brainwashed. When you come to your senses you'll agree with me."

 

[Electric Sceptic]

If my accurate descriptive terms seem insulting then so be it. If the shoe fits.....................

If they were accurate...but they're not. You simply resort to insults when you ahve nothing better to offer. Yawn.

 

[rebel_conservative]

What a useless post. All it says is "Your point of view is wrong because I say so, and you have been brainwashed. When you come to your senses you'll agree with me."

brainwashed is a rather strong word, I think conditioned is more accurate.

you are conditioned into believing that a foetus is not human or is somehow sub-human, because this distinction makes it possible for you to support abortion. when you come to your senses, you will agree with me.

 

[rebel_conservative]

Neither is a fetus. Sorry, but you claimed a fetus was a person because it was alive...by that criteria, a tree is a person too. You'll hvae to do better.

Oh, and sorry to tell you, but there are many christians who support a woman's right to an abortion.

yes... because a tree and a human being are the same... sure... whatever

 

[Electric Sceptic]

brainwashed is a rather strong word, I think conditioned is more accurate.

you are conditioned into believing that a foetus is not human or is somehow sub-human, because this distinction makes it possible for you to support abortion. when you come to your senses, you will agree with me.

And you are conditioned into believing that a foetus is human because this makes it possible for you to condemn abortion. When you come to your senses, you will agree with me.

See how useless such an assertion is?

yes... because a tree and a human being are the same... sure... whatever

Because a tree and a foetus are both alive, which was the sole criteria given for determining whether or not it is a person.

 

[rebel_conservative]

And you are conditioned into believing that a foetus is human because this makes it possible for you to condemn abortion. When you come to your senses, you will agree with me.

See how useless such an assertion is?

it is not a useless assertion, it restricts debate to whether or not a foetus is a human being. it would be a waste of time debating abortion until we clear this up.

of course, it is simplistic - but that is because you misrepresented my argument.

Because a tree and a foetus are both alive, which was the sole criteria given for determining whether or not it is a person.

another straw man.

a foetus is - to use your argument - a 'potential human being' right?
ergo, to question whether or not this 'potential human being' is alive is surely pertinent to the abortion debate.

a tree is NOT a potential human being!!! the fact that it is alive is irrelvent.

to equate a tree and a foetus is a very disingenuous argument.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

it is not a useless assertion, it restricts debate to whether or not a foetus is a human being. it would be a waste of time debating abortion until we clear this up.

It is a completely useless assertion. The assertion wasn't about whether or not a foetus is a human being. The assertion was that people who disagree with you on that point have been brainwashed and, when they are restored to their right mind, they will agree with you.

of course, it is simplistic - but that is because you misrepresented my argument.

Simplistic? It's nonsensical and useless.

And I didn't misrepresent anything. In fact, I quoted your post, word for word, just reversing its positino.

another straw man.

Sorry, but no straw man. Perhaps you should make sure you're up with what's being discussed before you leap in and make false claims.

a foetus is - to use your argument - a 'potential human being' right?

Please cite where I have made this statement.

ergo, to question whether or not this 'potential human being' is alive is surely pertinent to the abortion debate.

Perhaps it is.

a tree is NOT a potential human being!!! the fact that it is alive is irrelvent.

Nobody has ever claimed that a tree is a potential human being. This appears to be a strawman of yours.

to equate a tree and a foetus is a very disingenuous argument.

Once again, you really should ensure that you know what's being discussed and the background of the discussion before you leap in and make silly statements.

A statement was made that a foetus is not a person. Someone stated "Of course a foetus is a person! It's alive!" From this statement, the criteria for personhood is simply to be alive. Another poster made the point that a tree was alive, but it, of course is not a person. Nobody suggested that a tree was a person - they used a tree to show that "it's alive" is not an argument for a foetus' personhood.

 

[rebel_conservative]

A statement was made that a foetus is not a person. Someone stated "Of course a foetus is a person! It's alive!" From this statement, the criteria for personhood is simply to be alive. Another poster made the point that a tree was alive, but it, of course is not a person. Nobody suggested that a tree was a person - they used a tree to show that "it's alive" is not an argument for a foetus' personhood.

being a potential human being (as most pro-choicers say, if you did'nt I apologise), a foetus being alive makes it a person.

a tree being alive does not make it a person.

 

[Cherub8]

I believe in never.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

being a potential human being (as most pro-choicers say, if you did'nt I apologise), a foetus being alive makes it a person.

a tree being alive does not make it a person.

"Being alive" does not make ANYTHING a person. That's the entire point.

 

[rebel_conservative]

"Being alive" does not make ANYTHING a person. That's the entire point.

so what - iyho - makes something a person?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

so what - iyho - makes something a person?

Who knows? It's not at issue. What is at issue is that "being alive" doesn't - or a tree woudl be a person.

 

[rebel_conservative]

Who knows? It's not at issue. What is at issue is that "being alive" doesn't - or a tree woudl be a person.

that is not an answer. what is your criteria for personhood?