One question pro-abortionists refuse to answer

Post Reply New Topic

Then using your logic (that I agree with, by the way) you can see what an arbitrarily laughable notion it is that sentient life begins at conception, correct?

That's the problem with both pro-life and pro-choice sides; they are marred by these arbitrary divisions of what qualifies as "sentient life" (and that's an important detail; biological life is present at conceptions, but a bacteria, for example, is also alive in the same way).

which is why i'm asking for a bottom line of how abortion hurts society as a whole. because "life" is too abstract to be defined due to all the various nuances and situations possible. i mean would no abortion mean that rape victims are forced to carry their assailant's hellspawn?

We've gone over this. An arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere whether it's birth or conception or whatever. I can't explain to you why a 9 months minus one day fetus should be treated differently than a baby and you can't explain to me why a fertilized egg is the same as a newborn. Arbitrary.

Abortion shall remain legal because it is beneficial to society as a whole, and most level headed people agree that no rape victim should be forced to carry the child of their attacker, and they don't have to.

I understand Zendell's point, but in my opinion it is overturned by the fact that the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. I believe the good outweighs the bad, and evidently, so does the Supreme Court.

Ah, how sophisticated, indeed aloof a response.



Intellectual barbarism, ftl.

Would you say that to 3-year-old? "Johnny, you were nothing but a burden of meaningless cells on your mommy's body, until a certain legally-defined time in her pregnancy."

If only those who are for aborting human burdens would practice what they preach and abort themselves!
I mean, just because liberals contribute nothing to society doesn't make them fair game, so why should a baby be?
I mean, geez, if the right to life is based on sentient performance, Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton better watch their backs!

Last edited by Ragtime on 31 Mar 2008, 4:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

i'll take that as a compliment. i'd rather be intellectual than someone who is no better than cattle.

and as for barberism....i have a van dyke. not sure if that'd count since it's not a fully-on beard.

Being smarter than a cow only makes you culpable.
It doesn't increase your value, it only adds liability.

of course it increases value. i'm more likely to contribute to society in a positive way and better society and make life better and easier for future generation.

the cattle that we're now breeding today full of anti-intellectual garbage won't do anything more than leave the world in a worse off position than it was before because they didn't care so long as they had what they wanted in front of them.

but whatever...the cattle can go back to their american idol and next top model and all that other garbage.

I know, I am proud!

Sorry, I am afraid barbarity does get the job done!


No, it is typically impolite to do so, just like calling your mother in law fat to her face. Now, she might indeed be a hulking cow, but you sure as heck don't do that.


We aren't about aborting ourselves, only others! Don't you get the distinction?

Legal issues, we then have to go through all of this mess about proving whether or not they were a liberal. Fetuses in wombs though? Crystal clear!

'Tis a sad thing it isn't.

"Burden" has a sentimental value ("sentimental" as in "has to do with emotion", not as in "stoopid, lol").
It is not a burden if it is not classified as a bad experience, preferably by the person carrying it.
The same applies to "meaningless".

I am prepared to agree that said Johnny was a lump of cells, or gathering of cells.
But almost nothing is ever "nothing but". Even I could classify as a lump of cells.

I would not tell said Johnny the proposed statement.
Because it is phrased in a rude and possibly hostile way.
And because I doubt a 3-year old's mental capacity, because I have prejudice against 3-year olds, because I don't know much about 3-year olds, and I have arbitrarily decided that they are probably dumb.

But I would gladly study up on biology and tell him about it if he seemed interested enough.
I would not tell him stork-related stories about it.

As I said before, very, very few abortions are due to pregnancy resulting from rape. Almost none, actually.

No rape victim should be forced to care for the child of their attacker. Therefore, women who are victims of rape should be allowed to kill such children after they are born. Would you agree with that? The question is whether it should be legal to kill children. I don't see how rape has any relevance. Why should the child suffer because his mother got pregnant as the result of rape?



Is there any scientific evidence that it makes a difference? The baby develops from conception. If the baby is non-human during the first trimester but human in later trimesters, then provide some proof of when the baby becomes human.



I believe it was a 5-4 decision. I believe the 4 conservative justices opposed abortion and the 5 liberal ones favored it. Some members of the Supreme Court care more about their personal agenda than they do about the Constitution or what's best for our country.

That wasn't my question. I was asking about why the location of the baby (inside or outside of the womb) should make a difference for the same amount of time after conception. It's more than arbitrary to allow the killing of a 6 months old inside the womb when it's considered murder if the child is outside the womb.

Regarding your response of "you can't explain to me why a fertilized egg is the same as a newborn" I shouldn't have to. The burden of proof is on the person who wants to take away life. If I set the arbitrary line at 2 years old and you objected, should you have to provide evidence to protect these children or should the evidence be required of the person who wants to kill 2 year olds?

Under Roman law, fathers could kill disobedient children, and I believe other cultures in the past gave parents power over their children's lives. In our own culture, children still have few if any legal rights. If you want to deny the right to vote to five-year-olds, and I object, should the evidence be required of the one who wants to protect equal rights of all or the person who wants to disenfrachise a sizable portion of the population.?

actually, the burden of proof is on the effect it has on society. which to the best of my knowledge, there is none.

laws are made to protect society and encourage healthy societal habits. now to the best of my knowledge, abortion does not effect society in a negative way and we're not in a population decline to where we need to be forcing people to pop out kids.


if life is your argument, then i want to see you go vegan because a life is a life no matter whether it's a chicken or a baby or a cow, we all breathe, we all eat, we all s**t, we all f**k (well...some of us). prove to me where your moral line is there. my point is pretty damned clear: it doesn't hurt society then it isn't a crime. same with smoking pot, same with hookers, same with non-evangelical religious wackos who don't push their faith into legislation (people have a right to their own religion...just not the right to force it on everyone else).

so where are you drawing your "which life is valuable" line. chickens? cows? how about elephants or dolphins? i have no problem with where my morals lay because they're grey and they sit in just the right area to not mess up society. you, on the other hand, have absolutely nil with regards to mental capacity toward critical thinking (most likely a biproduct of your schooling and/or brainwashing via religion) and so you immediately conform to the absolutist stance.

If it's aborted early on then the question is moot as there is insufficient neural development for sentience.



Well, it's human genetically, but not morphologically. Again, for my answer, see above. If there is insufficient neural development then it is still alive, but lacks the sentience and human brain functions that a fetus will develop much later in development. I eat meat; I think it's okay to kill less advanced creatures if it's for an adequate reason.



Just because you don't agree with someone's views doesn't mean it's made for the wrong reason. I may not agree with your view, but I know that you wish the best for humanity and human rights.



Then I take it you're a vegetarian, right? And you're completely against the killing of animals, right? Because if you are completely against the taking of life, irregardless of it's sentience (unlike myself) then you should be. When we slaughter an animal for food, we are ending the life of a creature much, much more advanced and capable of thinking and feeling than a blastocyst that pro-life people are guarding against stem-cell research. It's not a black and white issue, there's no "right" and "wrong," and I laugh at the person (on either side of the issue) who claims to know all the answers. We're just people trying to do the best for the rest of our fellow humans, and it's important that everyone considering this issue, pro-life or pro-choice, Christian or atheist, should keep in mind.

I'm sorry Zendell, I respect your opinion, but I'm a man of science, I just don't buy into this magic sperm theory that an embryo has the same rights as a grown human immediately from the moment of conception (just as I don't believe a baby is any less human a moment before birth). I have to think and contemplate this issue, and analyze each aspect of the process. I wish it was as simple as abortion = murder = wrong for me, but it's not. I'm not going to change your mind, and you probably aren't going to change mine. Plus, as a person who is generally pro-abortion, I answered the question that you created this thread to ask.