What is wrong with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy?

Babies are capable of living outside their mother's womb months before the end of a standard term of pregnancy.

Are you saying that those babies aren't human just because their mother hasn't got around to giving birth?

 

So when honor killings were legal, that wasn't human slaughter?

It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.

 

If the anti-choice people are able to find one woman who died as a result of restrictions on abortion who said it's OK, I'm willing to listen.

Oh, sorry, forgot, fetuses matter more than women.

 

Yeah, the mother is just holding it in.

 

As a zygote is not just one cell OF a greater organism,... the zygote IS the organism itself. "A human zygote" most definiately IS "a human" being.

If you disagree that a human in the zygote stage of their life, growth, aging and development is a "human being?" Please tell me what kind of "being" it really is.....

Then explain to me how you can make the case that real "human beings" can "morph" out of an organism (like a zygote) that is NOT a "human being" and into an organism that "IS."

 

Perpetuating a stupid line of reasoning will not make it better with time.

 

The same thing that is wrong with an abortion at any time. Its a medical procedure that willing kills people/future people.

My mind is pro-choice, and my heart is pro life. My mind wins this battle, but my heart still thinks it is wrong.

 

The zygote is not "a human" (NOUN)

A zygot is a human organism. The name of that organism is a eukariotic cell.

The kind of cellis a human cell. (human used as an adjective .. not a noun describing the type of cell)

The word "human" in the term "human being" - (descriptive adjective) describes the type of being.

If your claim is that a human cell is a "being" then all human cells are "human beings"

None of these cells is "a human" (NOUN)

All cells are human beings buy your definition. Got it.

The cell "creates" other cells. Over time, the sum total of cells will have sufficient human characteristics (brain function and heart beat) such that could be classified as "a living human"

There is no living human (noun) in the early stages of pregnancy.

If your wish is to force your belief on women - That a living human exists in the early stages of pregnancy and so the pregnancy should not be terminated- Then you should be able to show at least that a living human exists.

Descriptive adjectives that apply to all human cells are not sufficient proof that a living human exists.

 

Hilarious.

You seem to think that if you repeat a faulty premise enough times ( a living baby exists in the early stages of pregnancy), that makes it true.

Do you not know that anything based on a false premise is also false ?

 

Funny stuff !

You seem to think that if you repeat a faulty premise enough times ( a living baby exists in the early stages of pregnancy), that makes it true.

Do you not know that arguments based on a false premise are false ?

 

I bet you're glad your mommy didn't abort you? You now get to go around making cool posts justifying killing babies who will never be given the same chance that your mommy gave you.

sad indeed

or, do you wish that your mommy had aborted you?

 

This is the best and "only" significant argument against abortion in the early stages of pregnancy that holds any water. IMO.

It can be argued that there is value in the human that could potentially be created.

How can the value of a "potential" person be quantified such that the value of this potential can be weighted against the value we place on the rights of the mother to control over her own body ?

Each sperm cell has the potential to become a person .. does this have value as well ?

There is also a problem with your wording People/future people. It should be worded ( kills future people)

It is impossible to kill a future person .. because that person does not exist.

It is also impossible to kill a person who is not alive and there is no living human that exists in the early stages of pregnancy.

Termination of an early term pregnancy prevents a person from coming into existence... same as a condom or morning after pill.

 

What is sad is your inability to learn. What part of "false premise" do you not get ? (killing babies)

I did not exist at the time my mommy made her decision.

If I was alive at the time my mommy made her decision, prehaps my thoughts would have had an impact on her decision, but I wasn't.

What is your claim here ?

"Presumed thoughts of a potential human that might exist in the future are valued more than the rights of a woman to control over her body"

 

Your denials are what they are Gift.

It's the moment of "Conception" that makes your biological father your "biological father."

It's conception that begins a new human organism's journey through life.

Thankfully, I don't have to prove it to YOU to know that it's been proven to others.

 

Of course I deny claims that can not be substantiated.

So what .. there is no claim here in relation to the issue at hand.

I can only presume what your claim might be:

This claim is unsupported. (What is your support for this claim ?)

Is this "new human organism" a living human at conception ? (what is your support for this claim)

If others wish to believe unsubstantiated claims are proof of anything, that is sad.

Where is the substantiation for your claims ?

 

Here's are some of the many references which support our claims, Gift.

http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/157849-right-life-reference-thread.html

Please provide a source which supports your denials.

 

I have already refuted all claims on your reference post and provided solid references. This you know all too well so quit hiding.

Which claim have I not refuted ? Just one

 

I'm not asking you to refute anything, Gift.

I asking for the references you think support YOUR claims.

I've already provided a link the the references we use to support ours.

That's all.

 

One just has to love your reasoning ability chuz.

Here let me put it in terms that may help you grasp it.

You say an orange is a purple fruit. I say it is orange and produce an orange to prove it. That refutes your assertion and supports mine. See how that works? What refutes your assertions supports those made by the opposition.
There IS an exception and you are well familiar with that too. When a reference shows that you lied, but even that in an indirect way supports the opposition. Hope that helped...

 

Still looking for those links, Prom.

You know, the ones that support YOUR claims as these links (http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/157849-right-life-reference-thread.html) support ours.

 

Yes, exactly. Just as there is clearly a difference between a toddler and a full grown adult. So what is wrong with slavery in the early stages of life? Like say, once a black person reaches the age of 18, then it is no longer legal to use them as a slave. What baffles me is those that want to grant adult rights like freedom to a mere child.

 

I am not the one who is claiming the zygote is a Person and wanting to force this belief on pregnant women by making laws against abortion in the early stages of pregnancy based on my personal belief. It is up to you to give support for your claim.

You have no support for this claim that I have not refuted.

Stop hiding and give one argument that I have not trashed with references.

Make it a good one .. make it your best.

I am fully capable of picking one of the arguments you have in support of your position on your reference thread of you are not capable of supplying one but remember when I find one of the dumber ones to refute it puts the validity of your whole reference thread into question.

Just thought I would give you the opportunity to put your best foot forward.

 

A toddler is a person, and adult is a person, both meet the classification criteria for homo sapien.

A single cell at conception does not .. it meets the classification criteria for single celled eukaryote.


I agree that children need parenting as they are not old enough to make informed choices.

 

I have supported my claims on numerous occasions.

(most recently here; Planned Parenthood Facebook Discussion Group )

I understand that you THINK you have refuted them. But, the truth is you haven't.

Incessant whinning does not a rebuttal make.

And I'm still wanting to see the references that you base YOUR claims upon. You have placed yourself in the unfortunate position of having to prove a negative.

 

It is you that needs to support your claim .. I am not the one trying to force my beliefs on others.

This post is completely disingenuous. Do you actually read or know anything about the authors you post on your reference page ?

Here is what Derbyshire really says:

http://bham.academia.edu/StuartDerby...55/Foetal_Pain

No significant brain function = no living human.

Lower threshold for pain - nevermind higher level stuff 11 weeks.

Prior to 11 weeks .. no living human