Senate The US Politics discussion

All you are doing is noting different developmental states of humans. A human fetus. A human infant. A human adolescent. A human adult. ECT. All are human beings. Just at different stages of life.

Something, internally or externally, has to happen to end that life.

There's no religion involved. No moral judgement.

Just facts.

And the facts support that abortion is murder. There's no room for any other objective conclusion unless it involves subjective reasoning. Which is the opposite of just facts.

"Clinging" has a pejorative ring to it. We "cling" to useless or outdated notions.

"Placing faith in" would be a neutral or even positive connotation.

 

itt, J-Rod doesn't jerk off

 

Democrat Heidi Heitkamp incorrectly names sexual assault victims .

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...al-assault-survivors-open-letter-legal-action

 

Facts support objectively that abortion is termination of human life. Murder is a legal definition for a subdivision of terminations of human life, and therefore inevitably subjective.

EDIT - Going to amend that.

Facts support objectively that abortion is termination of life before birth. The term does not apply only to humans.

 

Your facts have been outed to me as totally phony because you apply them inconsistently. Fertilization clinics are committing murder by your logic, but you're only uncomfortable by that murder. You make judgment calls too because even in your mind this issue isn't black and white, you just have no self-awareness about it or you don't care about consistency. Either way, your virtue signaling isn't working with me. Try it on someone else.

 

McConnell would only turn on Trump if his financiers told him to.

 

I've said it before, and probably here, if I were in charge I'd outlaw the practice of creating a human that won't be allowed to live. It's barbaric.

Either it's murder or it ain't.

And the intentional end of an innocent human life is murder.

However the intent is for the fetuses to live. That's the intent, as far as I know. Implant 5 and hope that they live.

The fact that not all of them will in most all cases, in my understanding, is the part that makes me uncomfortable. But none are intentionally killed.

But even if applied inconsistently, that wouldn't make the facts wrong. They would still be facts.

 

yay, this again.

 

When most women get abortions the fetus is microscopic the brain isn't formed hardly anything is formed. at that stage there is no pain for the fetus. why does no one get up in arms when a man masturbates what about all those killed sperm? why is it ok for a guy to do that but a woman cant have an early trimester abortion or take birth control? In very rare cases where the mothers life is in jeopardy do they do a late trimester abortion and IMHO that is understandable a living woman's life is more important and valuable then an unborn baby this isn't the Dark Ages. another bad result in denying women abortions is back ally abortions by shady doctors these back ally abortions would be on the rise if abortions were illegal and that will cause way more deaths then Abortion not just fetus's but women losing there lives as well for shady medical practices. I also find it hypocritical that most people against abortions are men. Men have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body that is between a woman and her doctor. This is misconstrued as a biblical thing but nowhere in the bible does it tell women not to have abortions.

 

So you'd outlaw breeding? We're all doomed to die from the moment we're conceived.

 

I guess you'd only be uncomfortable by cloning human beings knowing that most clones would die in the process. The intent there is to create life after all.

You apply the facts hypocritically. That's the point, and that is why this is a value discussion, not a fact discussion. You want to condemn total strangers as murderers based on this hypocritical value system, and you want to force that hypocritical value system on everyone.

If you cared about human life as much as you proclaim, you would care about the lives of the people that choose to terminate pregnancy. You would care to understand why they make the decisions they make and what kind of circumstances give rise to those decisions.

If you cared about science as much as you proclaim, you would acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between a fetal life that cannot survive outside of the body of another human being, and a human being. As far as my value system is concerned, in that false equivalency, you have devalued human life. You're not impressing me with supposedly superior respect for life. The "pro-life" position you seem to espouse doesn't respect human life outside of a fetus the way it should be respected.

Not to mention the fact that a decent percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage, which is just nature's abortion. Lot's of people choose to keep getting pregnant, miscarriage after miscarriage, fully knowing their chances of a successful pregnancy are minimal. I guess their choice is barbaric as well.

 

How does this even make any sense?

You don't recognize that there is a difference between a human being and human tissue?

I'm not demanding anything. I'm only answering the question I was asked.

How did that get turned into me making demands?

Have I said anything that was anti-science?

 

This is how I read this.

yet somehow i still DISAGREE

 

Eating a human is something done in such bad taste...

 

Well Yeah. You gotta cook 'em first.

 

It makes perfect sense if you ever took a course at college on human anatomy and reproduction, in early trimester the fetus is very timy almost microscopic it does not have a fully formed brain or organs it is not yet a complete human being there for has no brain and if you believe in this sort of thing it doesn't have a soul yet. I am Buddhist I believe when a baby is aborted it just gets reincarnated into something/someone else.

 

@Lordban,

Someone who is brain dead would seem to fit all your criteria for what you define as exhibiting human life, but brain death is now pretty much the universally accepted definition of the death of a person. In pre-scientific times, we didn't know the association between the brain and thinking and other types of consciousness, and so, they didn't make this distinction. With a modern understanding of neurology, we can now say that once a person's mind stops functioning then they are now gone, dead, not with us any more, even if their body keeps going.

There is a period in prenatal development when the embryo has no brain at all. If brain death is a logical definition for when death occurs since "the person" stops existing at that point, then wouldn't it also be logical to also say that an embryo that has no brain at all doesn't possess human life?

 

Scientifically speaking, how is a human fetus any less of a human being than a human adolescent, just as an example? I'm not asking how they are different, I'm asking; What is it about those differences that science would say make a fetus less human than an adolescent?

 

This is a ridiculous argument. Sperm left alone do not turn into humans.

Because it is two completely separate things. An equal counter argument would be if men got mad at women for menstruating because it kills the egg in the womb. Eggs by themselves don't turn into humans either.

Heck, many pro-lifers aren't even upset about women/men using contraceptives as they prevent the union of sperm and egg. It's the termination of a fertilized egg, the termination of what will eventually become a person, is what pro-life advocates abhor.

​

 

Is this serious? I'm curious, do you have children? Since the pro-life contingent such as yourself tend to speak in hyperbole accusing people of murder, allow me to point out that I find this question totally ridiculous and offensive in the way the intent behind it devalues a child's life.

I think abortion is a very serious moral question, and I am not wading into the trap of arguing that a human fetus isn't life because I don't agree with that and it's a strawman anyway. But compared to a human child? A human child is alive, on its own, not dependent on another human being's body to survive. It's an independent life with total sentience in a way that a fetus is not. A fetus needs someone else's body to sustain it, and sometimes that fetus's presence in that other human body can have life-altering or even ending consequences. It's a parasite of sorts, if you want to get grossly scientific. That other human body is alive on its own, often already a mother, definitely a daughter, perhaps a sister, a friend. If you value the life of the fetus over the life of the woman housing the fetus, that's your value system, and it's one I vehemently disagree with to my very core.

 

some pro life people are against birth control so yea its the same thing. I am talking about Born Again Christians and other crazy religions.

 

A new born baby is not on it's own. It is totally helpless and can not survive on it's own if it's not feed and sheltered by it's parents.

 

abortion thread