Fetal Pain Is A Lie: How Phony Science Took Over The Abortion Debate

I'm pretty sure we put this weak cheese down a few posts back. And I almost went for this as well.

I'm still amazed at the rationalizations the baby murders will invent to cover their crime.

 

Le sigh, if you actually bothered to read the post above you; I clearly stated:

 

I gave you a choice of two honest positions. Looks like you prefer a dishonest one.

 

Except that there are no babies, and there is no murder, and there is no crime, of course.

Incredibly, every word in your post is a lie. How sad, that you must be so totally dishonest to support your position.

 

Uh-huh...right.

Who could possibly mistake THIS (unborn child at TWENTY WEEKS development) for a HUMAN CHILD?

 

I respond to posts as i read the thread i dont read the entire thread and then go back and comment. Le sigh that...

 

More fake pictures Grok?

 

Yeah your point? That hardly makes it a "baby" lol. I'm sorry that a terribly weak argument, and this is why abortion is legal and safe. As it should be.

 

More attempts to LIE about the pics of those you seek to MURDER, but haven't the stomach/guts to LOOK AT?

 

Since when is inferring something factual? The whole article and the thread is based on we think this and we think that...

 

HAHAHAHAHA....Murder, please show me scientific proof of that and also show me where the law says abortion is murder.

 

Please explain how a photo of an unborn child at TWENTY WEEKS, clearly A HUMAN CHILD, is not a depiction of ths FACTS of this issue.



Nothing more COWARDLY than the Abortion Frenzied Left's DESPERATE NEED to NOT SEE THE VICTIMS of their craven acts.

 

Damn right it is. And the most fundamental human right of all is the right to life. Without that, all other rights are meaningless.

 

I think the bigger question should be how do you get a picture of a baby that was born after 20 weeks of a pregnancy? An alive one at that? May I need to remind you that nearly 100% of the babies don't survive if they were born THAT early in the pregnancy, and even then there have been only two confirmed cases of a baby actually surviving a 21 week pregnancy. http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=db8f33ab-33e9-429f-bedc-b6ca80f61bdc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6384621.stm

 

Would you rather see a real picture of an aborted 20 week old baby???...I'm sure I can find some.

 

And what people like you simply cannot grasp is that since "there is still a massive debate on when life actually begins," that does not make the pro-abortion position correct. Instead, what it does is simply make every position imaginable equally correct. Because no one can prove otherwise. Therefore, life can begin whenever anyone says it does. And no definition is ever wrong. Because the fleeting whims of whoever holds the power is the only thing that ultimately decides.

You see, it isn't technically a child after birth either if it isn't technically a child before birth. Because "child" is now simply a subjective term. And even people on your side of the argument recognize this as is illustrated by the Australian "ethicists" a couple of years ago who made a case for the next logical step in the abortion debate; post-birth abortion. Arguing that newborns were not people yet either.

See how this works? When you don't use common sense, you open a pandora's box where anything is justifiable. And you can't draw the line wherever it gets uncomfortable for you because you won't have any logical argument to do that with. Instead, it becomes just as logical to abort a fully grown adult woman as it does to abort a child in the womb. Scary, no? This is what happens when people push selfish agendas. The logical dishonesty comes back to bite them in the ass.

Ultimately, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, pushing for abortion is essentially arguing that it should be legal to kill anyone at any time for any reason just because. Because you are just playing with semantics that anyone else can play with too.

 

20 week REAL ultrasounds.

Look like babies to me.

There are many articles from doctors saying babies feel pain at 20 weeks into gestation, but I'm not sure why anyone who supports abortion would care. Abortion supporters don't care about the baby or whether it feels pain or not. Guess that's the whole point.

 

So close. Whether or not to allow abortion, and if so under what conditions and restrictions, is a decision a society arrives at. If you consider society at large to be "the fleeting whims of whoever holds the power", that's a unique description.

Again, so close. "Child" is not a subjective term, it is a conventional term. By convention, a fetus becomes a child at birth. This convention is a legal convention, not a biological convention.

When someone becomes a legal person is up to the law, in the same way that when someone becomes an adult is up to the law. The law tries to be reasonable, of course, but there is nothing black and white here biologically.

But is common sense determined by judicial fiat, or by popular vote, or by actual practice in the field? I feel strongly that one of the reasons abortion was legalized was because the no-abortion position could not be effectively enforced, and the damage it was doing was unacceptable.

But in practice, this is where the line MUST be drawn. Declaring the tide illegal was impossible. Trying to channel the tide usefully is actually doable, provided fanatics don't blow up the channels.

No. We have conventions for death from conception onward.

FINALLY you seem to understand the point. Religious agendas are ALWAYS selfish. Freedom-oriented agendas (you make your decisions for your life, and I'll make mine for my life) are anathema to the fanatic, who wishes to tromp on everyone else. If the fanatics had only been reasonable to begin with, most of the following conflict would have been avoided. But this is what happens when religion overrules freedom.

Reductio ad absurdum, this is correct. Might as well ask why bother having a society and laws at all, when the power belongs to those with the most guns anyway? And the answer is, there are better and worse practices, better and worse solutions to interpersonal conflict. There are always workable compromises and workarounds, if the fanatics don't blow them up.

 

Sorry Montoya, I do care!

 

Then tell me how many children have you adopted? Why are you against contraception?

 

Abortion is not contraception.

I raised my children, never had an abortion. I help raise my grandchildren and do community charity work for children.

 

So zero children. Got it.

 

Indeed, few of the so-called "pro-life" brigade are really concerned about really avoiding the "murder of infants", or they would support sex education, the tiny price of ensuring birth control is easily available, and would work to hold men as responsible for the pregnancies they create as they blame women, this making men allies instead of being smirking laughing "bystanders" of the women they impregnated..

It is apparent in ALL of the "pro-life" rhetoric is they simply wish to see women "pay the price" for being sluts" as opposed to these immoral women "getting away" with their "illicit immoral acts".

The "babies" are simply props for their deep desire to control other people's lives.

 

The Nazis started with abortion and once the German people were comfortable with killing, they moved on from there, killing the mentally handicapped, epileptics, autistic, etc., all described in Nazi propaganda as "useless eaters."

- - - Updated - - -

What a bizarre point of view.

Tell me, is this what you truly believe or are you making this up?

 

What a bizarre point of view. Psychoanalyzing an entire culture.

Plenty of people can see it, since plenty of people have their eyes open.

Before abortion was legalized, who suffered? Hint: It wasn't the middle class or wealthy, they could have abortions done clandestinely, or go to Canada. Hint: it wasn't the men, they didn't kill themselves with coat hangers.

And with contraceptives so inexpensive and effective, where is the anti-abortion push for free availability and distribution of contraceptives? Are you really interested in reducing the number of abortions to near zero, or are you more interested in making poor and young women suffer? When what you say and what you do are so very very different, which should we believe?