As long as we have dishonest people claiming otherwise, there can be no honest debate on the subject. A human being is a distinct human organism. Obviously a fetus/zygote/embryo meets the requirements of this definition. Abortion clearly destroys or violently kills these human beings. Everyone should be honest enough to admit these truths. Now, we can debate whether these homicides are justifiable or not. In my opinion, most are not. Most are merely homicides of convenience. A woman who becomes pregnant because of a choice she made to have unprotected sex cannot, with any credibility, claim that the fetus/embryo/zygote has attacked her in any way or is threatening her life.
Mar 13 2013, 07:20 PM Thread: The Abortion Issue - Can it be Solved? by Fugazi Replies:67 Views:474 and yet you want the minority who oppose abortion... and yet you want the minority who oppose abortion to be able to get the law changed to suit their viewpoint .. how is this any different? - - - Updated - - - with no link to evidence that... Mar 13 2013, 01:15 AM Thread: The Abortion Issue - Can it be Solved? by Pasithea Replies:67 Views:474 Actually no, all it proves is that you cannot... Actually no, all it proves is that you cannot assault a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry against her will, just like you can't force her to give birth against her will. The decision alone... Mar 12 2013, 10:41 PM Thread: The Abortion Issue - Can it be Solved? by The Amazing Sam's Ego Replies:67 Views:474 A drunk driver who caused a miscarriage (but the... A drunk driver who caused a miscarriage (but the pregnant woman live, however she had a miscarriage) was charged with homicide. Doesn't that prove that abortion laws are hypocritical and... Mar 05 2013, 06:45 PM Thread: Sorry anti-choicers abortion is here to stay by Fugazi Replies:186 Views:1,552 So you are saying that your way is the only way... So you are saying that your way is the only way for "higher beings" to learn, perhaps others are "higher beings" than you and should treat you like a dog as well .. So very narcissistic of you. ... Mar 05 2013, 06:03 PM Thread: Sorry anti-choicers abortion is here to stay by WhatNow!? Replies:186 Views:1,552 """"I'm talking about teaching people like dogs... """"I'm talking about teaching people like dogs when they are unable to learn the way that higher beings learn. """"" Teaching people like a person trains dogs??? What? WHO is unable to learn... Mar 05 2013, 05:45 PM Thread: Sorry anti-choicers abortion is here to stay by Geau74 Replies:186 Views:1,552 I'm talking about teaching people like dogs when... I'm talking about teaching people like dogs when they are unable to learn the way that higher beings learn. And please don't obscure your part in it. If you support abortion, then you are an... Mar 03 2013, 09:35 AM Thread: If killing your baby was acceptable, would more women do it? by Fugazi Replies:363 Views:3,150 It doesn't meet the criteria in any of the... It doesn't meet the criteria in any of the acknowledged theories put forward: Roe vs Wade Standard: The Planned Parenthood v. Casey Standard: In Fetal Homicide Statutes: Feb 27 2013, 07:09 AM Thread: women racked with guilt over their abortions by WhatNow!? Replies:106 Views:1,340 So you can't prove one accusation so you ignore... So you can't prove one accusation so you ignore it and start making up other stuff..... Now show proof of "shocking crime against humantiy"....That's a big accusation so I'm sure you can prove... Feb 25 2013, 03:09 PM Thread: Women share their abortion experiences by Spade115 Replies:291 Views:4,007 Adding mine in red. Adding mine in red. Feb 25 2013, 02:49 PM Thread: Women share their abortion experiences by yguy Replies:291 Views:4,007 No one is proposing that. The idea is to prohibit... No one is proposing that. The idea is to prohibit elective homicide. You misunderstand the legitimate purpose of criminal law, which is not to prevent every injustice, but to provide deterrents... Feb 25 2013, 02:01 PM Thread: Women share their abortion experiences by Spade115 Replies:291 Views:4,007 How is forcing someone to have a child productive... How is forcing someone to have a child productive if they cannot see past the crime and harm an innocent regardless? Would you think it be better for the fetus to be aborted or to be born into a... ''''' As you can see, IF you did a search you wouldn't have to start a thread with a topic that's been rehashed a hugebillion times... And there's more where that came from...
And it is all irrelevant, as homicide does not denote illegality, it simply means the killing of a human being by one or more other human beings.
Yes, so you are in the wrong forum....this is the abortion forum and has nothing to do with homicide.
I was polite(and you're not the judge of that) and I have seen all the old and erroneous arguments that accuse women who have had abortions of being murderers. They aren't , they did not murder anyone and the law says they didn't.... These "It's MURRRRRDER I tell you! " proponents ONLY say that because they want to PUNISH women who have abortions....put two and two together! It gets FOUR!
*sigh* I'm willing to debate sensitive controversial issues with people who disagree with me, but with your arguement that pro lifers are tying to punish women for sex, you're making it very hard for any productive discussions. BTW, slavery was legal in the south during the 1800s, and the holocaust was legal in germany during the 1940s.
It's too bad you can't get the correlation between making something unlawful and the FACT that it would PUNISH the offenders (EyeROLLSUPREME) ...and the whole "slavery blahblah-holocaustblah blah STILL have nothing to do with a women's right to chose...nothing....
At the risk of being accused of dishonesty....I must disagree with your position in favor of reality. Opinions on the term "Human Being" vary and should therefor (to me at least)...should bow to consensus in the sciences. "Every one of us began from a dot. A fertilized egg is roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence. The momentous meeting of sperm and egg generally occurs in one of the two fallopian tubes. One cell becomes two, two become four, and so on—an exponentiation of base-2 arithmetic. By the tenth day the fertilized egg has become a kind of hollow sphere wandering off to another realm: the womb. It destroys tissue in its path. It sucks blood from capillaries. It bathes itself in maternal blood, from which it extracts oxygen and nutrients. It establishes itself as a kind of parasite on the walls of the uterus. By the third week, around the time of the first missed menstrual period, the forming embryo is about 2 millimeters long and is developing various body parts. Only at this stage does it begin to be dependent on a rudimentary placenta. It looks a little like a segmented worm. By the end of the fourth week, it's about 5 millimeters (about 1/5 inch) long. It's recognizable now as a vertebrate, its tube-shaped heart is beginning to beat, something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail. It looks rather like a newt or a tadpole. This is the end of the first month after conception. By the fifth week, the gross divisions of the brain can be distinguished. What will later develop into eyes are apparent, and little buds appear—on their way to becoming arms and legs. By the sixth week, the embryo is 13 millimeteres (about ½ inch) long. The eyes are still on the side of the head, as in most animals, and the reptilian face has connected slits where the mouth and nose eventually will be. By the end of the seventh week, the tail is almost gone, and sexual characteristics can be discerned (although both sexes look female). The face is mammalian but somewhat piglike. By the end of the eighth week, the face resembles that of a primate but is still not quite human. Most of the human body parts are present in their essentials. Some lower brain anatomy is well-developed. The fetus shows some reflex response to delicate stimulation. By the tenth week, the face has an unmistakably human cast. It is beginning to be possible to distinguish males from females. Nails and major bone structures are not apparent until the third month. By the fourth month, you can tell the face of one fetus from that of another. Quickening is most commonly felt in the fifth month. The bronchioles of the lungs do not begin developing until approximately the sixth month, the alveoli still later. So, if only a person can be murdered, when does the fetus attain personhood? When its face becomes distinctly human, near the end of the first trimester? When the fetus becomes responsive to stimuli--again, at the end of the first trimester? When it becomes active enough to be felt as quickening, typically in the middle of the second trimester? When the lungs have reached a stage of development sufficient that the fetus might, just conceivably, be able to breathe on its own in the outside air? " http://2think.org/abortion.shtml
I've never debated with a pro choicer who was as close minded and thick headed as you are. You don't even try to argue against my position, you just ignore it and ignore my arguement TOTALLY. Here are the parallels between the nazi holocaust/slavery and ABORTION. Slavery during the 1800s was motivated by skin color predjudice and racism. To be more specifically, the slave owners dehumanized the slaves and treated them in a way that they wouldn't treat another human being, by claiming that they weren't on the same level as any other person. The Nazis dehumanized the jews and other minorities, and, to them, that justified genocide. Even some pro choice arguements are very similar to the nazi's arguements. "a fetus/embryo can't think or make decisions, so it's not a person". The nazis used similar arguements against handicapped people.
Ahh well, this happens on the internet. Rude comments, without any meaningful discussion. I've changed my stance. You were just dismissing the other guy with rude ad hominem arguements. If your arguements were a bit harsh like mine, but you offered some depth like i did, then that would be different.
Ironic. So far, so good. Less than obvious. A zef is NOT an individual so long as it is attached to a woman and depends upon that attachment for its life. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism Definition noun, plural: organisms (Science: Biology) An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. . You can declare your opinion, now if you could only convince us that it is an INFORMED opinion. Whether a woman uses birth control or not has no effect on whether she is being endangered by the pregnancy. Whether a woman CHOOSES to have sex or not has no effect on whether she is endangered by the pregnancy. Your statement, however, reveals that you believe the woman to be at fault, she is to be blamed, for the pregnancy, so she should be forced to continue it. For punishment.
You believe that an unborn human being is not a person because it depends on the mother for survival, and therefore it's a part of her body. However, in the other thread, you defended late term abortions (a totally viable fetus that doesn't need the mother to survive, what difference does its location make in it's personhood, really?), if the fetus had a disability, because it would be too hard for the parents to raise such a child. If you believe that a fetus that's not viable is not a person because it depends on the mother for survival, then, by that logic, a viable fetus is a person. By your twisted logic, a late term abortion because the fetus/baby (which is totally viable and is a person at that point) has a disability, and it would be too hard for the parents to raise that child, by your twisted logic that's justified. That's exactly what the nazis said. Pro choicers are no different than the nazis.
I've seen you make this fallacy multiple times now and I would like to point it out to you in the hopes that you will learn to avoid making this fallacious argument again in a proper debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy Now if you wish to continue with this nonsense we could argue that pro-lifers are just like the Nazis because they want to control the choices women make over their own reproduction. The Nazis forced aryan women to give birth against their wills and they forced minority women of their choices to have abortions against their wills. The pro-life crowd, much like the Nazis, wish to create state and government control over women's personal and individual choices regarding their own bodies. Perhaps you will take a step back and realize what an idiotic red herring this is for both sides and stop using it. Thank you. Oh and on one more note you should read up on Godwin's Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
Women who abort fetuses with disabilities do so before viability. The latest test for Down's syndrome is 20 weeks, and it can be done at 15 weeks. Viability is set at 24 weeks. Very late-term abortions are only done because the woman's life is threatened or the fetus has anomalies incompatible with life.
How many months defines a "very late term abortion". How many months is 24 weeks, exactly? Wait, some other pro choicers told me that it's 25-28 weeks? Contradictions, I sense.
Yes, there are wide variations in what is described as "late-term abortion." Some using as early as 16 weeks to be termed "late-term." Late-term should properly be described as 3rd trimester.
What's the latest that a legal third trimester abortion has ever been preformed? Are elective third trimester abortions illegal in every state, or just some of them? They should ban elective third trimester abortions with federal law.
I have no idea, you'll have to google that for yourself. Stay away from pro-life sites, they will all suggest that women flock to have abortions the day before delivery because they just forgot they were pregnant. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf HIGHLIGHTS:  41 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.  21 states impose prohibitions at fetal viability.  4 states impose prohibitions in the third trimester.  16 states impose prohibitions after a certain number of weeks, generally 24 weeks or during the third trimester; 8 of these states ban abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization or its equivalent of 22 weeks after the womans last menstrual period on the groundsthat the fetus can feel pain at that point in gestation.  The circumstances under which later abortions are permitted vary from state to state.  28 states permit later abortions to preserve the life or health of the woman.  10 states unconstitutionally ban later abortions, except those performed to save the life or physical health of the woman.  3 states unconstitutionally limit later abortionsto those performed to save the life of the woman.  Some states require the involvement of a second physician when a later-term abortion is performed.  13 states require that a second physician attend the procedure to treat a fetus if it is born alive in all or some circumstances.  10 states unconstitutionally require that a second physician certify that the abortion is medically necessary in all or some circumstances.
The whole arguments fails because your premise is wrong .. Abortion is not, nor ever will be a homicide, even when abortion was illegal in the US it was treated as a minor criminal act prior to "quickening" (around 16-20 weeks - 4-5 months), and actually you are wrong on the definition of a human being - - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/human+being a fetus is not a man, woman, or child .. it is a fetus, and does a fetus meet the criteria of being a human being? It certainly has the potential to meet the criteria, but so does an acorn have the potential to be an oak.. if what you say is correct then all acorns are in fact oaks, just as all chicken eggs are chickens .. really doesn't make sense.
A human being is a distinct human organism ? This is convoluted and very ambiguous language. First off .. being "distinct" has nothing to do with anything. Every organism is distinct so there is no point including this in your premise. "A human being is a human organism" will do just fine. By some biological definitions a single human cell does not really qualify as an organism but if we go with definitions where a single cell is an organism then your premise is false as a single human cell is not a human being. Well, unless you are using the term "human" as a descriptive adjective and "being" to mean any living entity that exists. Thus a single human cell would be both human and a living entity. The other use of the term human being is as the noun "human being" a compound word meaning a living human. This is what I mean by convoluted language because the meaning you are intending is not clear. Please restate your definition so that it is clear what you are talking about. " A living human is a human organism" would work. If his is what you mean ? As stated above it is unclear whether or not a zygote meets the your initial definition as the definition was so convoluted and ambiguous. If you wish to claim that a zygote (the single cell at conception) is a living human, then define what a living human is and how the zygote meets that definition. Claiming that a living human is a "human organism" is obviously true. This however, does not make all human organisms, living humans. If we claim that a single human cell is a human organism, then the claim that all human organisms are living humans is obviously false. Heart and blood cells are single human cells but these by no means constitute a living human. Living humans have certain characteristics for example, all are members of the club "homo Sapiens" Single human cells and embryo's are not members of this club, lacking sufficient characteristics required for membership in this club. In the later stages of pregnancy it could be argued that the fetus has achieved sufficient characteristics for membership but certainly not at the zygote or embryo stage.
Same with all those bovinicidal maniacs. Cows are so nice, happily wandering around eating grass and moo-ing. Why would anyone want to kill these beautiful creatures. Round these maniacs up and throw them behind bars I say !
