My argument against pro lifers

You got it whaler…….you got it.

 

You missed a crucial point "thinker" . A single sperm and a single ovum are not a living human being, a fertilized egg is. You will have a VERY difficult time finding any scientific text that will defy that fact.

Think harder!

 

Thats bull, a fertililized egg is a cell with the intent to divide into a organism. Two cells are two cells. They are cells that will grow into an organism but it isnt its own organism. I'd like to see you find actual scientific texts that say the fertilized egg is alive.

 

It is not a new life…when the sperm and egg meet…that is the beginning of a new individual. It it was life….then men could have babies…and women too without each other.

Takes an egg and sperm.

 

Its a cell. When it devolops a discernable body, then its an individual and should not be terminated.

 

So what. Show me the book that says, "if a organism of the classification homo sapien, is completely dependent on one other person for their survival, then it is not a person.

Ahhhhh, but it did reject it. My brother had a piece of glass in his hand still after the cut healed over, it took a few weeks for his body to puch it out.
Now, the unborn baby is rejected, it just takes roughly nine months.

as does the unborn baby, it has its own functioning organs, and depends on the mother only for nutrition, just as it will after he or she has left the womb.

 

so, in other words, you were rejected by your moms body, hence you werent a part of her body.
In order for the mothers body to not reject the unborn baby, it has to have a very special set of circumstances focused upon it by the mothers body. It is treated unlike anything else in her body because it is the only thing in there that isnt actually a part of her body, but her body is hosting it.

 

Independence is not the criteria for personhood. Physical dependence merely shows one major way the unborn is different from the born. Major difference.

LOL, birth is not a rejection. Some think the fetus triggers the beginning of labor, in that case, it is the "baby" wanting out.

Sigh....minimizing the role of the woman in gestating will not help your case. Pregnant women supply everything the zef needs, not only nutrition, but waste removal, temperature regulation, everything...and her body's organs suffer for it.

 

Another reason the baby needs protection.

So you are admitting the "baby" is not a part of her body, thank you soo much.
And regardless of what may trigger it, the womans body does many things to facilitate it, so actually both PERSONS are involved in getting the baby out. Her body is rejecting it at that time, or are you saying the baby crawls out?

umbilical cord, thats all, But it doesnt matter, a baby is a baby is a baby, How its fed, who does it, how much it is or isnt dependent on that person doesnt matter.

 

Please reread. Your response doesn't compute.

Please reread, your response doesn't compute. Nothing I said is an "admission" that the "baby" is not a part of her body. Her body thinks IT IS a part of her body. LOL, the woman's body does many things to "facilitate" it??? LOL, her body does ALL the work. It is not a rejection.

Obviously it doesn't matter to you, why should it? It matters to the woman to whom it is attached, the woman who is providing everything the zef needs for survival, and she is providing it to her own detriment.

 

No contraception, tough karma. Show some moral responsibility. If sustaining the life of your child was too much trouble for you, you shouldn't have had unprotected sex to begin with. If you can't afford or don't want to keep the child, put it up for adoption. End of story.

 

Who says it was "unprotected sex" that caused the unplanned pregnancy? Half of all women having abortions had used some sort of protection. Adoption isn't a cure-all, women can see that now, and they aren't going for it.

 

Translation: They're lazy and want the child to suffer because it's more convenient.

Adoption takes care of the problem - if they can't afford to support a baby, they no longer have to.

 

Adoption is an alternative to rearing a child. What is the alternative to continuance of pregnancy/childbirth? Very few women are going to go through pregnancy/childbirth just to hand over the child to someone else. Abortion doesn't cause any children to suffer.

 

Then they obviously have no problem raising it if they're willing to keep it, so why would they need abortion?

The biggest lie ever told.

 

How big a body??

A nine month unborns body? Six and a half month old body? Two week old?

what…..do tell us. LMAO

 

The pro-aborts think the bigger the body in the womb…the more it looks like a baby….the more rights it should have…..then they think abortion should not be used…to solve problems.

But then gee what happens to the woman's rights to her own body? None of this should matter to them…these definitions and points.

This should be their battle cry….

I am a proabort….I believe that women should have a right to their own bodies…it is a private decision…no matter if it is made early on or in later terms. No one has the right to deny a woman end of story.

How many here have the guts to stand on that one? I know of one pro abort…..that has.

 

So you then are in favor of a woman if she wants a late term abortion….Yes or no

 

What IS your OBSESSION with late-term abortion? They are a tiny tiny percentage of abortions performed, and they are only done for medical reasons. I.E. defining "late-term" as 3rd trimester. Women simply don't CHOOSE to have late-term abortions, those abortions are necessary for the health of the woman or the fetus isn't going to survive anyway. In those cases, I am definitely in favor of the woman. Look at Canada please, they have no law regulating abortion, and they have far less of them than the USA. Now stop BADGERING posters about late-term abortions.

 

I dont know, blood flow, brain devolopment, heart devolopment something like that.

 

You are a confused individual, i believe women should have the right to an abortion. But theres a time limit on how long a women can be prego and still abort. Sure you can have a abortion, but why abort when the baby is already that devoloped?

 

Hypocritical thinking…..if its her body…you have no right to deny her the rights to it based on your morality. You tell me I am wrong for wanting to deny her at all…and then you do it. You guys are simply crazy….that thinking is not logical…and you know it.

The heart starts beating at 2o days. My niece was born at 23 1/2 weeks…and in many places they abort that late. So don't tell me your position is sound.

 

I didnt, just asking why wait that long. Im not want to deny the intial thing but there should be and is a limit on the time you can have a abortion. I never said she couldnt have an abortion.

 

What? You make no sense.

ARe you for late term abortion or not? Should a woman lose the rights to her own body if she wants to abort at ANY TIME?

 

By your logic ALL homicide should be made legal. Obviously your opinion is asinine.