Abortion

[yoda89]

So, your preferred method of "murdering people" is ok, but mine is not. Is it just the fact that I don't have a penis that makes my method immoral, or do the boobs factor into it?

Moving on from men are always sexist bit. Yeah he killed people for a living. People who don't really care about him used him for their own personal gain. Same can be said about abortion. Tit for tat. I killed for your freedom and I kill for my freedom. But it's what you define as a person. If it isn't a baby until it pops out go for. If it is keep it in. It's your body. Grab the coat hanger. Frankly there are too many ones that are already born who seem to be in the hole to care for. But of course we ignore them once they pop out. So why not stop the production line. China tried it.

He probably called the people he killed sand ***** and your call fetuses not people. Just desensitizing your actions. Perfectly normal response into today's modern world.

Point is you can join hands and kill together. At the end of the day if you can kill something and be okay with yourself go for it. But if it isn't a real person it's not even killing.

 

[Walkntune]

I am not for abortions. Not against or judge those who are and have had them.

 

[Alceste]

Moving on from men are always sexist bit. Yeah he killed people for a living. People who don't really care about him used him for their own personal gain. Same can be said about abortion. Tit for tat. I killed for your freedom and I kill for my freedom. But it's what you define as a person. If it isn't a baby until it pops out go for. If it is keep it in. It's your body. Grab the coat hanger. Frankly there are too many ones that are already born who seem to be in the hole to care for. But of course we ignore them once they pop out. So why not stop the production line. China tried it.

He probably called the people he killed sand ***** and your call fetuses not people. Just desensitizing your actions. Perfectly normal response into today's modern world.

Point is you can join hands and kill together. At the end of the day if you can kill something and be okay with yourself go for it. But if it isn't a real person it's not even killing.

I don't call abortion killing, and I don't call a blastocyst or fetus a person. The fact that we don't mourn or grieve or have funerals for first trimester miscarriages the vast majority of the time, although up to half of pregnancies end this way, proves that I'm of the majority view.

I just came from a person's funeral, incidentally. Over half of it was spent remembering her life and her character, celebrating how she affected us all in or own lives and sharing our memories of her.

How can you talk this way about a life that never even began?

Those who are killed in combat leave grieving families who remember the person who was. For that reason, I think soldiers have a lot more to answer for than women who choose to induce a miscarriage and prevent a life from beginning in the first place.

 

[yoda89]

I don't call abortion killing, and I don't call a blastocyst or fetus a person. The fact that we don't mourn or grieve or have funerals for first trimester miscarriages the vast majority of the time, although up to half of pregnancies end this way, proves that I'm of the majority view.

Those who are killed in combat leave grieving families who remember the person who was. For that reason, I think soldiers have a lot more to answer for than women who choose to induce a miscarriage and prevent a life from beginning in the first place.

The fact still remains that you are desensitized to what could be a human life. Since you do not consider it a being yet. Then you feel no remorse when it makes a thump at the bottom of a biohazard bin as this weeks medical trash. Which is the price of being pro-choice. That thump and the haunting what ifs. What if this really had developed into a person with friends and children. What if was an innovator? Maybe he or she would grow up to be an jerk. Then your doing a justice am I right? Sad thing is that woman will always have a connection to that piece of medical waste. Because it's evoluntary and biological.

So you can choose to desensitize yourself by stating its nothing but trash. But what still remains are the waste basket, the what ifs, and the haunting memories.

But so remains the haunting memory of soldiers pulling of a trigger and taking another persons life. The regret they feel. But usually they call them sand ***** and view them as inferior. They do this so they can get the job done. Just the desensitization to the act. Just as the desensitizing describing of something that would have had friends and family as merely outdated moldy takeout.

I'm not saying your stance is wrong but you sure are being pretty lose with the term killing.

 

[Falvlun]

The fact still remains that you are desensitized to what could be a human life.

"Could be" and "Is" are two very different things. One exists in reality. The other only exists in the imagination.

 

[Willamena]

The fact still remains that you are desensitized to what could be a human life. Since you do not consider it a being yet. Then you feel no remorse when it makes a thump at the bottom of a biohazard bin as this weeks medical trash. Which is the price of being pro-choice...

Not really "the price," as there is every opportunity for the pro-choice proponent to promote the discouraging of abortions.

 

[yoda89]

"Could be" and "Is" are two very different things. One exists in reality. The other only exists in the imagination.

So by this definition do you think what happens naturally as imaginary. This is not an argument of "well I cannot prove that it will not happen or it is not, but hey its unlikely." We are discussing a process that happens. If you put an acorn into the ground. Would it be my to imagination that it is becoming a tree. It is reproduction it is not imaginary.

Unless you do not define it as a tree yet. In which case its okay to crush the acorn or eat them. This does not remove the fact that it is naturally it is something and you are stopping the process. Therefore it can be defined as life and is and so is the human who has his life cut short.

What you define it as does not change the fact that it exists. The cycle of life has begun. Yet you do not accept this and do not define it as killing. Many tend to do this to better cement your opinion. But the fact is a rusty coat hanger or a sawed off shotgun both end the cycle of life.

But by your definition you are correct that if you think something is not even alive you can throw it in the dumpster without thinking twice.

Now we could get into what is life. Is a human beings life cycle more important than a deer's. If I shoot a pregnant deer its simply shooting one deer. It hasn't been born yet so it doesn't matter. Because that's what you telling me. Its not outside so its just waste.

 

[Falvlun]

So by this definition do you think what happens naturally as imaginary. This is not an argument of "well I cannot prove that it will not happen or it is not, but hey its unlikely." We are discussing a process that happens. If you put an acorn into the ground. Would it be my to imagination that it is becoming a tree. It is reproduction it is not imaginary.

Unless you do not define it as a tree yet. In which case its okay to crush the acorn or eat them. This does not remove the fact that it is naturally it is something and you are stopping the process. Therefore it can be defined as life and is and so is the human who has his life cut short.

What you define it as does not change the fact that it exists. The cycle of life has begun. Yet you do not accept this and do not define it as killing. Many tend to do this to better cement your opinion. But the fact is a rusty coat hanger or a sawed off shotgun both end the cycle of life.

But by your definition you are correct that if you think something is not even alive you can throw it in the dumpster without thinking twice.

Now we could get into what is life. Is a human beings life cycle more important than a deer's. If I shoot a pregnant deer its simply shooting one deer. It hasn't been born yet so it doesn't matter. Because that's what you telling me. Its not outside so its just waste.

If I cut an acorn in half, would you claim that I cut down a tree?

 

[yoda89]

Not really "the price," as there is every opportunity for the pro-choice proponent to promote the discouraging of abortions.

Promoting an action and discouraging an action isn't really a stance at all.

For example, if a person said I am against cannabis legalization but I'm encouraging it. Or, if a person said I am for same sex marriage but I don't encourage it. I'm for euthanasia but I really discourage it. I am okay with people having guns but I discourage it. I'm pro-life but I encourage abortions. Maybe its just me but its sounds like a person who cant make up their mind.

I see your point of encouraging a persons choice but I'm discourage that choice. But its a weak argument. One in which you are sitting on the sidelines. Which is fine but its in the middle.

But this doesn't really have to do anything with the price I defined. Because I'm talking about the experience of the abortion. I've never been part of an abortion but I know people who have. Dated some who have. For those with a conscious it isn't to pleasant. Then I pointed out that people tend to desensitize it by saying it wasn't a real being anyways so it isn't defined as killing. Many people use this to get through the pain. Which is sometimes necessary for a period of time. But its also used to further promote pro-choice.

Why I made the graphic point of her desensitizing matters was due to the fact that she was stating to a ex-soldier that what he did was worse. When in fact they both end human life cycles. I can understand why someone would be pro-choice. But that isn't a simple choice. People make it a simpler choice by ignoring the fact that it has begun the cycle of life. Many pro-choice advocates say no it isn't so what's the big deal. I'm saying it isn't so easy and it doesn't make your better than a soldier.

But neither is pro-life in which you decline someone's freedoms and force them to do something. Soldiers desensitize themselves when they are about to kill someone. So do many pro-choice and that in no way make you a better. Life's is life. You can be pro-choice. Don't ignore the actions or think it is superior. Accept and take in your stances.

 

[DallasApple]

Unless you do not define it as a tree yet. In which case its okay to crush the acorn or eat them. This does not remove the fact that it is naturally it is something and you are stopping the process. Therefore it can be defined as life and is and so is the human who has his life cut short.

No its not a "tree"..I will not deny its "life" .Stopping the process of it becoming a tree.That is not the "same" as chopping down a tree..

No one can tell me..'Im the same" as when I was the second my mothers egg met my father's sperm..Sure that was my beginning.Yes I had "life"..to grow in the propper environment...but I was not a complete (not even close) being..I wasn't a cake..I had the ingredients to be a cake.

The mother is the baker.The oven.In a sense she threw the batter away.Not the cake or the bread loaf.

 

[Curious George]

Promoting an action and discouraging an action isn't really a stance at all.

For example, if a person said I am against cannabis legalization but I'm encouraging it. Or, if a person said I am for same sex marriage but I don't encourage it. I'm for euthanasia but I really discourage it. I am okay with people having guns but I discourage it. I'm pro-life but I encourage abortions. Maybe its just me but its sounds like a person who cant make up their mind.

I see your point of encouraging a persons choice but I'm discourage that choice. But its a weak argument. One in which you are sitting on the sidelines. Which is fine but its in the middle.

But this doesn't really have to do anything with the price I defined. Because I'm talking about the experience of the abortion. I've never been part of an abortion but I know people who have. Dated some who have. For those with a conscious it isn't to pleasant. Then I pointed out that people tend to desensitize it by saying it wasn't a real being anyways so it isn't defined as killing. Many people use this to get through the pain. Which is sometimes necessary for a period of time. But its also used to further promote pro-choice.

Why I made the graphic point of her desensitizing matters was due to the fact that she was stating to a ex-soldier that what he did was worse. When in fact they both end human life cycles. I can understand why someone would be pro-choice. But that isn't a simple choice. People make it a simpler choice by ignoring the fact that it has begun the cycle of life. Many pro-choice advocates say no it isn't so what's the big deal. I'm saying it isn't so easy and it doesn't make your better than a soldier.

But neither is pro-life in which you decline someone's freedoms and force them to do something. Soldiers desensitize themselves when they are about to kill someone. So do many pro-choice and that in no way make you a better. Life's is life. You can be pro-choice. Don't ignore the actions or think it is superior. Accept and take in your stances.

No, you can be pro-choice and discourage abortions. You are creating a false dichotomy.

And the cycle of life begins at mitosis if it does not begin at viability. Why is every sperm not sacred? You can say that life begins at fertilization but what evidence do you have? You can say that the egg replicates, is organized, etc... but so do skin cells. The simple truth is that before viability the fetus is not only dependent on the mothers body- it is a part of the mothers body. If she wants to have that portion medically removed it is her choice in the absence of a compelling interest otherwise. You do not have a right to tell her what to do with her body. It is really that simple. At any point before viability, the state cannot have an interest in the child so the state cannot tell her what to do either. You are giving precedence of a future interest- a potential human being over a present right- the right of autonomy in one's own body.

 

[yoda89]

If I cut an acorn in half, would you claim that I cut down a tree?

I would have to liked to have heard your responses. But let's go with the simple"If I cut an acorn in half, would you claim that I cut down a tree." I don't think you read it throughout. First of all the natural process as I said before is not imaginary. Secondly it is really definable to ones opinion just like anything else. You also never answered my question about killing a pregnant deer is it killing one or two deer? Is the one inside merely just waste and doesn't constitute life? But I digress

Your also using simple extremes. The defintion of an acorn and a tree are different. Thus they are different. Yet at the same course they are not. They are in a life cycle. We also discuss matters which are closer to us. Human beings and that brings me to the point of ones desentization. Which is critically in tossing aside responsibility and sense of loss.

But an acorn is an acorn. But without an acorn we cannot have oak trees. Just as without pregnancy we cannot have humans. To state that it is useless would mean the cycle is useless. Which it is not and should be respected. Now if you do believe that the process doesn't mean anything that's your opinion. But without it you would not be here asking what happens when you chop an acorn in half.

 

[yoda89]

No its not a "tree"..I will not deny its "life" .Stopping the process of it becoming a tree.That is not the "same" as chopping down a tree..

No one can tell me..'Im the same" as when I was the second my mothers egg met my father's sperm..Sure that was my beginning.Yes I had "life"..to grow in the propper environment...but I was not a complete (not even close) being..I wasn't a cake..I had the ingredients to be a cake.

The mother is the baker.The oven.In a sense she threw the batter away.Not the cake or the bread loaf.

You are defining when something is alive. Which is highly debated and is on the big discussion of when it becomes an illegal abortions. Which varies state to state. The "human" by your definition does not have "life." There are various opinions on when it is a human. Other say it is when sperm meets egg. It's opinion.

But the fact is even if you do not define it as a human yet. No matter the opinion at a certain point it will become one. You can claim its only batter. But you need batter to make a cake. Give no symbolism and respect to the process and you have no human. So It is disturbing to hear someone say 'that **** don't matter' because it does.


You must have a sweet tooth. First key lime pie and now cake. You must be a good cook

 

[McBell]

You are defining when something is alive. Which is highly debated and is on the big discussion of when it becomes an illegal abortions. Which varies state to state. The "human" by your definition does not have "life." There are various opinions on when it is a human. Other say it is when sperm meets egg. It's opinion.

But the fact is even if you do not define it as a human yet. No matter the opinion at a certain point it will become one. You can claim its only batter. But you need batter to make a cake. Give no symbolism and respect to the process and you have no human. So It is disturbing to hear someone say 'that **** don't matter' because it does.


You must have a sweet tooth. First key lime pie and now cake. You must be a good cook

Now you have gone off into left field.

Of course it is alive.
if either the sperm or egg is not alive, conception does not take place.

 

[Falvlun]

I would have to liked to have heard your responses. But let's go with the simple"If I cut an acorn in half, would you claim that I cut down a tree." I don't think you read it throughout. First of all the natural process as I said before is not imaginary. Secondly it is really definable to ones opinion just like anything else. You also never answered my question about killing a pregnant deer is it killing one or two deer? Is the one inside merely just waste and doesn't constitute life? But I digress

Your also using simple extremes. The defintion of an acorn and a tree are different. Thus they are different. Yet at the same course they are not. They are in a life cycle. We also discuss matters which are closer to us. Human beings and that brings me to the point of ones desentization. Which is critically in tossing aside responsibility and sense of loss.

But an acorn is an acorn. But without an acorn we cannot have oak trees. Just as without pregnancy we cannot have humans. To state that it is useless would mean the cycle is useless. Which it is not and should be respected. Now if you do believe that the process doesn't mean anything that's your opinion. But without it you would not be here asking what happens when you chop an acorn in half.

I've never claimed that a fetus is useless. I've simply asserted that it does not have full personhood, and therefore, does not have the rights of a person.

An acorn is not yet a tree. A fetus is not yet a person. If you destroy an acorn, you have not cut down a tree. If you destroy a fetus, you have not murdered a person.

A fetus is living. But so is my liver. So is a sperm. The mere fact of life does not confer personhood.

 

[Willamena]

Promoting an action and discouraging an action isn't really a stance at all.

That's true, but that's not what I said. I talked about promoting only one side, the discouraging.

"Pro-choice" means you support the choice, regardless of whether you promote having or discouraging abortions--but it also does not deny the opportunity to promote either having or discouraging.

But this doesn't really have to do anything with the price I defined. Because I'm talking about the experience of the abortion. I've never been part of an abortion but I know people who have. Dated some who have. For those with a conscious it isn't to pleasant. Then I pointed out that people tend to desensitize it by saying it wasn't a real being anyways so it isn't defined as killing. Many people use this to get through the pain. Which is sometimes necessary for a period of time. But its also used to further promote pro-choice.

Why I made the graphic point of her desensitizing matters was due to the fact that she was stating to a ex-soldier that what he did was worse. When in fact they both end human life cycles. I can understand why someone would be pro-choice. But that isn't a simple choice. People make it a simpler choice by ignoring the fact that it has begun the cycle of life. Many pro-choice advocates say no it isn't so what's the big deal. I'm saying it isn't so easy and it doesn't make your better than a soldier.

But neither is pro-life in which you decline someone's freedoms and force them to do something. Soldiers desensitize themselves when they are about to kill someone. So do many pro-choice and that in no way make you a better. Life's is life. You can be pro-choice. Don't ignore the actions or think it is superior. Accept and take in your stances.

That's a fine point.

 

[Alceste]

The fact still remains that you are desensitized to what could be a human life. Since you do not consider it a being yet. Then you feel no remorse when it makes a thump at the bottom of a biohazard bin as this weeks medical trash. Which is the price of being pro-choice. That thump and the haunting what ifs. What if this really had developed into a person with friends and children. What if was an innovator? Maybe he or she would grow up to be an jerk. Then your doing a justice am I right? Sad thing is that woman will always have a connection to that piece of medical waste. Because it's evoluntary and biological.

So you can choose to desensitize yourself by stating its nothing but trash. But what still remains are the waste basket, the what ifs, and the haunting memories.

But so remains the haunting memory of soldiers pulling of a trigger and taking another persons life. The regret they feel. But usually they call them sand ***** and view them as inferior. They do this so they can get the job done. Just the desensitization to the act. Just as the desensitizing describing of something that would have had friends and family as merely outdated moldy takeout.

I'm not saying your stance is wrong but you sure are being pretty lose with the term killing.

I live in the world that is, not the world that could have been. It's pointless to speculate, and there's nothing haunting for me in the thought that one human being in particular never got born. There are seven billion born human beings actually living on this planet. Do you care about every single one of them? Does anybody? We're all going to die anyway. Not existing in the first place is a peaceful way to go. I just don't get what the big deal is. If a woman doesn't want a child, why force her to bring another human being into the world against her will? Do we really need more people?

 

[yoda89]

Now you have gone off into left field.

Of course it is alive.
if either the sperm or egg is not alive, conception does not take place.

Yes it varies from the original but debates do evolve. The connections are there between the acorn and oak tree.

It is the person debating myself to be able to say to this doesn't matter. Opinions vastly differentiate in at which point life begins. I am merely asking that people realize that they are killing a potential human and accept it. People disagreeing tend to respond with 'its not a human, so it does not matter.' That's an opinion easily disregarded by another. I'll leave that debate up to the people who shout out until no one is listening.

But there are prices. A) the horrible experience and B)the what ifs. My point is many people simply ignore these by disregarding the life cycle by desensitizing themselves. I've met many who have had abortions. The ones I have met don't really view there not being a price.

 

[DallasApple]

Opinions vastly differentiate in at which point life begins. I am merely asking that people realize that they are killing a potential human and accept it.

I fully accept its a "potential" human that is being killed and accept that.And I will never call that "murdering' a child ..a "baby" or a "person.

 

[yoda89]

Try an experiment. Put a "potential " human in a jar and put it in your living room. Now put a couple of acorns in a jar next to it. See how you feel about the "potential" baby. Are they the same and how do they make you feel?