Abortion is as unjust as slavery. An American historical perspective.

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by DixNickson, Mar 25, 2017.

  1. MDG045

    MDG045 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree
     
    DixNickson likes this.
  2. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I recommend that you read the OP again because it was a pro-lifer making the slavery allegation.

    Forcing anyone to do anything AGAINST their will is a form of slavery.

    And yes, you are punishing the women concerned because pregnancy causes harm to their bodies. It can even cost them their health and their lives.

    What do you intend to do if a women is so desperate to escape the slavery that you are imposing on her that she takes matters into her own hands and abortsher own fetus using a coathanger? Will you charge her with murder? Will you punish her for disobeying your enslavement?

    In essence you are enslaving women against their will and you have no right to do so.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  3. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113

    A comment placed there by a website designer has no legal standing whatsoever.
     
  4. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ya know, as if you're "poor little picked on me" routine isn't bad enough your continued ""MISREPRESENTING" of what I posted which is actually LYING, is getting sickening.

    I NEVER SAID I THINK SCIENCE SHOWS THAT ABORTIONS ARE MORAL....



    BACK THAT ACCUSATION UP WITH PROOF ????/ Go ahead! Show the proof I said that!!!

    .Now, are you lying about what I said because YOU have NO good argument at all ?
    Or are you REALLY that confused and disoriented????



    LOL, Yup, so many come here and think their "pronouncement" on abortion will just change everyone's mind and everyone will agree and then they find out it's a discussion where when ya spout off you better have something to back it up....and posters call you out when you LIE about what they say...and cherry picking what you'll address in a post shows you have no argument worth posting.....no ammo....


    Care to discuss the topic or just whine because I didn't obey your commands....much like women won't obey you commands to never have an abortion :)
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    GOOD! It saves the "baby" a horrible life which you wish on it ...


    Desperation babbling :) Ya, Gosnell and Obama plotted together in a space ship to torture fetuses and babies...




    You're wrong about both, Obama and oft destroyed "argument" based on Gosnell's murder charges.

    You Anti-Choice faction sure don't have much ammo and it's all OLD...

    Gosnell was accused of murder, not abortions.
    It's an OLD "argument" by Anti-Choicers that has nothing to do with women's right to have abortions, nothing....and NO, you have NO proof that Obama would approve of what Gosnell did...


    YOU: ""Wielding absolute power can numb the actor from the reality, anguish and pain experienced by the victim."""

    YES , that's true, but you would have men have absolute power over women ...

    ....those that want to forbid women to abort have been numbed ( and dumbed :) ) to the pain and anguish of pregnant women who do not want a child.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  6. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ya know, slave owners may not have hated their slaves but that didn't make any difference to the slaves....the results were the same, they were still slaves.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  7. Old Trapper

    Old Trapper Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,961
    Likes Received:
    707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    What Constitutional right are you speaking of? The only one mentioned in Roe v Wade was a "right to privacy". Where does the Constitution guarantee the woman the right to murder her offspring?
     
    DixNickson likes this.
  8. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many more times do I have to provide you with the exact same facts? :eek:

    1. Abortion was LEGAL when this nation was FOUNDED.

    2. The 9th Amendment protected all rights, including abortion, that had not been specifically mentioned in the BoR.

    3. Everyone has a right to privacy and yes, that includes what is happening in a woman's uterus.

    4. A fetus has NO RIGHTS because it has not been "naturally born" per the 14th Amendment.

    5. Only naturally born "persons" recognized by the Constitution can be "murdered".

    If you have a problem with any of the above there is a stipulated procedure that enables you to amend the Constitution. I recommend that you try using it and see where that gets you.
     
    Zeffy and FoxHastings like this.
  9. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Duplicate post deleted!
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
  10. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not the one insisting my beliefs be forced onto others. The way I was raised, I was never allowed to claim I cared about something if I wasn't taking action.

    You would force women to give birth while refusing to take part in the care of these additional children. You can wear a pro-life t-shirt if it makes you feel better, but you are not on the LIFE side of this issue.

    Its easy to enter text on a forum, but them the issue of taking care of millions of children comes up, that becomes someone else's problem. Your level of caring is to strong, you are willing to make them wards of the state. How nice of you.

    No progress can be made without addressing the "unwanted" part of the issue. As of now, you are on the "unwanted" side. You are in no position to insist that anyone do anything you are not willing to do.
     
    FoxHastings and Derideo_Te like this.
  11. Old Trapper

    Old Trapper Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,961
    Likes Received:
    707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I "cherry pick" nothing, I just ignore the redundant, or irrelevant, comments, and the myths that have been created to justify the murder of a human being. I would suggest you actually read some scientific studies, not just commentaries, on the beginning of human life, and what is human life. However, let me give you a quick synopsis of the issue.

    As noted in scientific studies regarding conception there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life", and a human embryo that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. When one destroys a human sperm, or a human oocyte, that would not constitute abortion since neither are human beings. So, the real issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings, they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would dissolve..

    So, now we have the human "embryonic" organism formed at fertilization which is a whole human being. It is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother's and the father's chromosomes. Therefore it is not just an extension of the mother's tissue. It is a separate entity, an individual with its own identity. And, as I mentioned before, with the fertilization of the egg by the fathers sperm, the "zygote" is a genetically separate product of chromosomal arrangement, and is necessary for the viability of any species.

    Again, and scientifically speaking, there is no question as to the immediate product of fertilization. It is a newly existing human being. A human "zygote" is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It's an actual human being with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

    "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
    [O'Rahilly, Ronan and Miller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


    "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
    [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


    "[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....

    "[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....

    "I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.

    "The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
    [Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]
     
    DixNickson likes this.
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    So you presented this to the Supreme Court and they said, ""Oh, OK, we'll eliminate women's rights and give the fetus more rights based on your say so"


    Do tell me when that happens...
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am a Scientist (Chemistry and Microbiology) and have worked in the area of applied microbiology for decades so you can lose the - you are not knowledgeable argument. In addition I have taken Philosophy classes (one in which we spent a third of the class on the abortion issue) so I am familiar with both sides of the debate.

    What scientific studies on "what is human life" are you referring to ? Human life is any organism with human DNA. This is high school biology - do not need a study to tell us that.

    When human life begins is a different question. This is mostly a Philosophical question although there are scientific studies that can aid in explaining the different scientific and philosophical perspectives.

    Given that I have been having to school you in the difference between usage of the descriptive adjective an noun for of the word "human" as relating to the abortion debate .. the rest of your commentary is preaching to the choir. I know the difference. That you later on refer to "embryology" shows that you do not well understand what are the relevant subject matter domains are. The purpose of embryology is not to define what human life is, nor when human life begins. Embryology can aid us but, that is different.

    One of the subject matter domains, the sub domain of biology, called human taxonomy defines "What is a human/ Homo Sapiens". This is done on the basis of the characteristics of the organism - Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus Species.

    This (in bold) is logical fallacy. You are "assuming the premise". Whole parts of the abortion debate are based on whether or not the claim "zygote is a human being" is true. That you say "Scientifically speaking there is no question" is completely false.

    Human Taxonomy shows us that categorically - a zygote is not a Homo sapiens/ a human (human being). Do note that the compound word/phrase "Human Being" means something completely different than something that is both Human and a Being. The phrase "Human Being" means Homo Sapiens - A human.

    Developmental Biology gives 5 different perspectives on "when human life begins" - Not that just because "human life can be said to begin here" is not saying that a living human exists. Regardless - one can not claim a human exists prior to the point when human life has begun.

    Of the 5 main different scientific perspectives - Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Ecological, Neurological - only one puts the start at conception (genetic) and this perspective has fallen out of favor among scientists as stated in this chapter from a developmental biology textbook which describes each of the main perspectives.

    Regardless - claiming there is "no question" in science is a demonstrable falsehood. http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

    I can't tell you how many times I have dissected statements like this from pro-life websites.

    1) nothing in this actually states that the zygote is a human
    2) not to nit pic but - only in a very narrow definition of the term organism is the zygote even an organism but, what ever - not all human organisms are living humans/Homo sapiens.

    3) if they were to claim defacto "zygote is a human" they would need to do two things or the claim would constitute an "assumed premise" fallacy.

    a) They would have to explain "why" a zygote is a human. Despite the obviously desperate "pro life" driven attempt to make an academic sounding argument for the personhood of the zygote .... the attempt fails miserably. No legitimate "why" is given.

    - Uniqueness does not make something a human nor does being genetically distinct.
    - Most every human cell has 46 chromosomes ... each is a "genetic unity" (give me a break).

    There is no explanation of why something should be considered to be a living human on the basis of having - human DNA - which is essentially the argument they are making while trying to sound all "scientific" to confuse laymen.

    b) They would need to refute claims to the contrary (such as the scientific perspectives given above) as per "academic rigor"

    In summary - I can go as deep as you like into the science .. we can talk about "totipotency" of the zygote and subsequent daughter cells vs the nature of the differentiated cells which these cells start spitting out that actually comprise the cells that form the human but there is really no need. We did not even get into Philosophical arguments (what we value about being human such that rights should be granted) or bioethics.

    The Scientific and Philosophical and Bioethical FACT (at least according to these areas of domain expertise - embryology not being one of them) is that "Experts Disagree".

    Do you agree that "Experts Disagree".
     
    Derideo_Te and FoxHastings like this.
  14. NCspotter

    NCspotter Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2015
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Then educate me: where exactly did the word "sex" stem from?
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
  15. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From the Online Etymology Dictionary:


    """sex (n.) [​IMG]
    late 14c., "males or females collectively," from Latin sexus "a sex, state of being either male or female, gender," of uncertain origin. "Commonly taken with seco as division or 'half' of the race" [Tucker], which would connect it to secare "to divide or cut" (see section (n.)). Meaning "quality of being male or female" first recorded 1520s. Meaning "sexual intercourse" first attested 1929 (in writings of D.H. Lawrence); meaning "genitalia" is attested from 1938. """
     
  16. NCspotter

    NCspotter Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2015
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    The form of the word I was referring to was the verb form, so the last one. Intercourse is the act of reproduction, though BC means that it doesn't always result in reproduction.
     
  17. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The last one is genitalia...


    Intercourse is intercourse and reproduction is reproduction that's why there's TWO different words.

    Sexual reproduction is not a verb form.

    NOPE, sex is sex and reproduction is reproduction or there wouldn't be TWO different words...:)

    DUH, even without BC sexual intercourse doesn't always result in reproduction.....
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  18. Old Trapper

    Old Trapper Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,961
    Likes Received:
    707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I suppose some time when you have a rational answer, not just some one liners from a pro-abortion site. For instance, and as I pointed out before, the 14th. was in reference to citizenship, not the right to life (Do you understand the difference?" As to the woman's "right to privacy", show me where that gives the woman sole control over what you seem to think is her "property". Tell me though, if the father of the child does not want the child, or the responsibility, can he cause a miscarriage, and not be criminally charged?

    But you see, I can understand how a certain type of person would support the killing of a defenseless child, kind of like kicking a dog.
     
    DixNickson likes this.
  19. Old Trapper

    Old Trapper Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,961
    Likes Received:
    707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    As I have said in the past, and will do so again in the future, the decline of morals in this country allows for numerous decisions by the USSC that violate the concept of the Constitution, e.g the Kelos decision, and the concept of "Public Use" in the "Taking Clause" of the Fifth Amendment. Then there was the Citizens United decision which determined that a corporation is a "Person". Strange is it not how a corporation which requires a license from the State is a "person", and the unborn child is just a piece of garbage unless the "mother" determines otherwise.

    BTW, where has anyone suggested that the mother has not the right to life?
     
    DixNickson likes this.
  20. Old Trapper

    Old Trapper Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,961
    Likes Received:
    707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Until the mother wants to abort it, right.
     
  21. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False XXX :) It is still human life up until the point it becomes a dead human cell. The mothers wants do not change the status of the zygote. Should she take action on the basis of those wants ... then the cell ceases to be alive.

    So .. I take it you agree with my claim that "Experts Disagree" as to whether or not the zygote is a human ?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  22. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Foxxy, that is rich! You complaining about misrepresentation! Just saying, Glass houses Sister Stone.
     
    The Mandela Effect likes this.
  23. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No where.....I didn't so I don't know what you're referring to...



    And what has that, and your post, got to do with the post of mine you quoted : ""So you presented this to the Supreme Court and they said, ""Oh, OK, we'll eliminate women's rights and give the fetus more rights based on your say so"


    Do tell me when that happens...""""""
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  24. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    This post is so empty you can hear echoes in it.......don't have much , do you:)
     
  25. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    If you think the following is just "one liners from a website" why don't you take them one by one and prove them wrong...Ya, I know you've never proven anything, maybe this would be a start:

    ""How many more times do I have to provide you with the exact same facts? :eek:

    1. Abortion was LEGAL when this nation was FOUNDED.

    2. The 9th Amendment protected all rights, including abortion, that had not been specifically mentioned in the BoR.

    3. Everyone has a right to privacy and yes, that includes what is happening in a woman's uterus.

    4. A fetus has NO RIGHTS because it has not been "naturally born" per the 14th Amendment.

    5. Only naturally born "persons" recognized by the Constitution can be "murdered".

    If you have a problem with any of the above there is a stipulated procedure that enables you to amend the Constitution. I recommend that you try using it and see where that gets you.""""""




    I can understand how a certain type of person needs to have control of women even if it can only EVER be from a distance :)
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.

Share This Page