Why should I oppose abortion? GIVE ME A VALID REASON.

Actually some do, while it seems that you are stuck on talking points fed to the mindless.

 

Studying history means a little research into the accuracy of who said what.

http://trustblackwomen.org/2011-05-...et-sanger-and-the-african-american-community-

•Among the quotations frequently and incorrectly credited to Sanger is, “More children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief issue of birth control.” It is so widely misattributed to her that it appeared on the wall of an International Center for Photography exhibit on eugenics. Another common offender showed up in a recent fundraising letter from Priests for Life: “Colored people are like human weeds and have to be exterminated.” The historian Esther Katz, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University, explains that Sanger never said anything of the sort. [9]

 

Human is subjective, self-referring definition which can easily be applied a zygote. For example free dictionary simply says 'of, or referring to characteristics of human'. Other dictionaries say similar. If you look at the definition of zygote on wiki, it talks about 'a human zygote'. It's not hard to make this work, because much of it is subjective. There is no scientific criteria for inherent value, because science is no in the business of describing inherent value.

Whatever word you use for a life that begins in the womb and eventually walks and talks like you and me is irrelevant. There is no scientific monopoly on the definitions.

 

Whaler17 already responded to this. The problem is that you do not see the point that marks the beginning of a human life as significant.

My apologies about the link, hopefully this one works better.
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

 

Please explain who you would describe as the experts on this subject matter and that your methodology for proving a human life exists is accepted by these experts. Also, please provide some quotes from those experts that would counter the quotes I provided.

 

Correct I do not and you have offered nothing in an attempt to convince me or anyone that it is in fact significant. Repeating what it is does not impart significance.

 

There are no Subject Matter Experts on what is a Homo Sapien ?
None that define what an Organism is or isnt ?

Of course there is .. Biology is the domain science.

I will tell you what is not "subject matter expertice" though. A common language dictionary.

The question of "when human life begins" is a different topic where I will agree that this is more of a philosophical question.

If you are talking about concepts such as an organism, or a homo sapien .. definately there are SME's

 

Hey but you profess to be one...

 

So facts are now "talking points fed to the mindless?" Oh how I wish that were true.

 

Nice. The director of the "Margaret Sanger Papers Project" said something. That's amusing. But keep killing black babies. They'll only grow up to be welfare whores and murderers, right?

 

Who is forcing black women to have abortions?

 

Who better to know if a quote is accurate? Just admit it, you bought into a lie. Black women have the same right to abortion that any other woman has.

 

If those characteristics which you consider to be the essence of humanness emerge "only after the first few months of being born," as you assert, then it begs the question: What would be morally repellent about the act of infanticide, if the child in question were less than a "few months" old?

 

I’m not certain you have read all of my posts, so I doubt you could say I have not explained more detail to others about my view on abortion.

The point at which a new human life begins is of obvious significance. From fertilization and on each human life goes through various stages of development; once fertilization occurs, that human life is on the same path we are all on, the path of human development. Human development involves a process by which a human becomes biologically mature, a process that continues in old age. Any other type of human life that is not on this path is not a developing human and therefore not a human life or a human being.

I’ve made the argument in this thread that there is value (I’m not talking about monetary value) in each human life. No matter which phase of development a human life is on, that human life has value. To perform on-demand or convenience abortions degrades the value of a human life and thereby degrades our own value. In addition, using other stages after fertilization for accepting these types of abortions does not provide the clearest, definable criteria that each human life deserves and demonstrates a lack of responsibility and caring for the value of each human life.

 

While I agree there are quotes from Margaret Sanger taken out of context or misattributed, she did have racist views. She believed lighter-skinned people were superior to darker-skinned people. Although, so did many people during her time.

 

I have not read all your posts, but read enough and you are repeating it here too, to see that you are lacking an argument. At best you are using circular reasoning.
Describing what the process of fertilization is, is not reasoning, nor is stating what the zygote is.

If it is it is not obvious and even if it was obvious then you should not have such great difficulty explaining it. In reality it is only your belief.

How? You seem to be stuck on talking points not reasons.

 

And you can support that with what?

 

Please explain how my reasoning is circular.

It is not just me that thinks that fertilization is the beginning of a new human life. Experts in embryology have stated so. What else is to explain, other than this: fertilization is the beginning of a new human life. The fact that it marks the beginning of a new human life makes it significant.

I already explained how. Each human life has value. Do you not think there is value (not monetary value) in each human life?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

Source from Wiki:

 

The important thing is that she did not use those "beliefs" to discriminate in any way, she served women equally. Another important thing to recognize is that her views don't have any impact today--she's DEAD and has been for years. Please stop trying to smear PP with some remote association.

 

When the human life is within a woman and it cannot exist without that woman, it is up to her what value that life has. She is not obligated to sustain that life when it is always detrimental to her to do so.

 

From the same source:
"Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination."

It seems after all that she was not.

 

You keep repeating that the life that stars at fertilization is significant because it starts at fertilization and because it is human.

So what? Just because it starts it is not magically important.

Why is that life important?

That is the circular reasoning.

Using circular reasoning, nothing valid.

Why?

No, it depends on circumstances. I value the life of my family far more than yours and would have no reservations letting you dies to save them. So much for the value of your life to me. I am certain you feel the same way as it should be, which in turn invalidates your declaration of absolute value.

 

But some arbitrary "sentience" threshold is magically important?

 

I do not know, I have never argued sentience. Care to talk about viability?