Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DynamiteCop!

Has anyone here been involved in an abortion?

Recommended Posts

Show me once where I've argued that abortion is bad because of what it is going to be or said that 'it is going to be a human child'? Where? Never. Because my argument is and always is that an unborn child is a living human at any stage. You're just making shit up. 

 

Conception is that START of the life process. That is a biological fact.

 

Your argument is about consciousness but it's so weak that you're scared to say it. 

 

Say it Jerry. When you do I'll return to the merry go round, but if you're too pussy to stand by your own words then you're not worth shit. 

Just say 'Life is consciousness, self awareness and ability to feel pain, anything outside of that isn't murder and isn't killing life'. Do it, since you're so sure of your argument.

 

I'm clearly telling you my view. Life begins at conception. Your argument against that is that consciousness begins at 24-26 weeks...um ok, i know. 

So till you can make your view clear I'm hopping off. Enjoy the last word, since that's what constitutes 'winning' to you, since it's definitely not the content of those words. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

Show me once where I've argued that abortion is bad because of what it is going to be or said that 'it is going to be a human child'? Where? Never. Because my argument is and always is that an unborn child is a living human at any stage. You're just making shit up. 

 

Conception is that START of the life process. That is a biological fact.

 

Your argument is about consciousness but it's so weak that you're scared to say it. 

 

Say it Jerry. When you do I'll return to the merry go round, but if you're too pussy to stand by your own words then you're not worth shit. 

Just say 'Life is consciousness, self awareness and ability to feel pain, anything outside of that isn't murder and isn't killing life'. Do it, since you're so sure of your argument.

 

I'm clearly telling you my view. Life begins at conception. Your argument against that is that consciousness begins at 24-26 weeks...um ok, i know. 

So till you can make your view clear I'm hopping off. Enjoy the last word, since that's what constitutes 'winning' to you, since it's definitely not the content of those words. :D

Caught you. Again.

 

No.

 

No.

 

No.

 

Conception is a clump of cells.

 

Using universally agreed upon biological assessments, prove to me that a clump of cells on Day 1 is considered a biologically living being.

 

If you don't do it, you just lose this entire argument. That's checkmate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, me taking an English 1301 class in my freshman year of college is the START of the PROCESS in becoming a Doctor.

 

So you see...............you might as well start calling me a Doctor right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except you asked me, 'When does life start', idiot :D 

 

Another moronic analogy to add to the litany of them. 
Got plenty of those yet no balls to make his statement of what life is to him.

 

I'll wait

 

:cmpunk1:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Living being" isn't a scientific term. A zygote is a living organism. 

 

How can anyone over the age of 10 not know this?

 

https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Living_thing

 

Do I get into this? I guess I will.

 

I'm pro-choice and I've done pro-choice lobbying but Jerry's going to make me rethink my position because how can anything possibly be right if Jerry agrees with it?

 

But for what it's worth, having debated this in good faith endlessly with educated conservative Christians and Jews, I think it's ultimately a pretty simple issue. 

 

The core question is which qualities must a living organism possess in order to be granted a legal right to life. Stating it must possess a H.S. Sapian genome doesn't make sense. What if other higher-order intelligent life exists (or we create it; see China's new Crispr monkey) that doesn't possess that genome? You need to concisely define the criteria. 

 

And then usually the debate ends up focusing on: it must either possess higher intelligence or it must possess the potential for higher intelligence.

A zygote possesses the potential for higher intelligence but a six month old fetus actually possess higher intelligence--the cerebral cortex comes online towards teh end of the fifth month.

 

My position is that by practicing birth control (even the rhythm method), we're preventing the creation of beings that would ultimately possess higher intelligence, therefore if birth control is moral, it should logically be moral to also kill a zygote/fetus before its cerebral cortex comes online. 

And the Catholic Church agreed on a variation of that position until fairly recently. The Church along with its  top theologians like Augustine and Aquinas agreed that abortion should be allowed up until "the quickening" (when the fetus begins moving on its own) because they presumed that was when ensoulment occurred. They didn't think it occurred at conception.

 

That said, it's a lot easier rationalized than lived through, and I'm a big believer in "legal, safe, rare."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, madmaltese said:

Except you asked me, 'When does life start', idiot :D 

 

Another moronic analogy to add to the litany of them. 
Got plenty of those yet no balls to make his statement of what life is to him.

 

I'll wait

 

:cmpunk1:

And my analogy fits perfectly.

 

This person's path to being a Doctor, THE PROCESS, begins with the first college class.

 

Assign the properties of something from the future to something today.

 

You think science allows that logic?

 

Already did explain life to you. A being that has consciousness, core parts of the nervous system and vital organs developed in order to be a viable organism outside of its womb or any life support.

 

Meaning that if it dies, it didn't die because something from its body is under-developed. You already know that I've provided this answer, and that I've said that its multiple things that need to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also worth pointing out that birth control pills are abortifacients. They don't prevent the egg from being fertilized, they prevent it from attaching to the walls of the uterus. 

 

Just something to consider if you're in the camp that thinks the right to life should be granted at conception--you may want to start using condoms instead.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Saucer said:

"Living being" isn't a scientific term. A zygote is a living organism. 

 

How can anyone over the age of 10 not know this?

 

https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Living_thing

 

Do I get into this? I guess I will.

 

I'm pro-choice and I've done pro-choice lobbying but Jerry's going to make me rethink my position because how can anything possibly be right if Jerry agrees with it?

 

But for what it's worth, having debated this in good faith endlessly with educated conservative Christians and Jews, I think it's ultimately a pretty simple issue. 

 

The core question is which qualities must a living organism possess in order to be granted a legal right to life. Stating it must possess a H.S. Sapian genome doesn't make sense. What if other higher-order intelligent life exists (or we create it; see China's new Crispr monkey) that doesn't possess that genome? You need to concisely define the criteria. 

 

And then usually the debate ends up focusing on: it must either possess higher intelligence or it must possess the potential for higher intelligence.

A zygote possesses the potential for higher intelligence but a six month old fetus actually possess higher intelligence--the cerebral cortex comes online towards teh end of the fifth month.

 

My position is that by practicing birth control (even the rhythm method), we're preventing the creation of beings that would ultimately possess higher intelligence, therefore if birth control is moral, it should logically be moral to also kill a zygote/fetus before its cerebral cortex comes online. 

And the Catholic Church agreed on a variation of that position until fairly recently. The Church along with its  top theologians like Augustine and Aquinas agreed that abortion should be allowed up until "the quickening" (when the fetus begins moving on its own) because they presumed that was when ensoulment occurred. They didn't think it occurred at conception.

 

That said, it's a lot easier rationalized than lived through, and I'm a big believer in "legal, safe, rare."

 

 

As thoughtful as this post is I don't agree with the back end of its logic to any degree. Prevention is a hell of a lot different than termination, there's no potential for life until bonding. You're preventing the act of bonding from being able to transpire therefore there's no potential, not ceasing it once it already has. At that point it's just an impenetrable egg and sperm independent of each other. This is no different than the prevention of a chemical reaction like mixing bleach with hydrochloric acid to make chlorine gas, separate they're innocuous stable liquids and can sit right beside each other and you, but once mixed you've started a chemical reaction which has changed their composition to create something new which is extremely toxic to be around.

 

From conception new cells are being formed of unique DNA, cells which are of neither the mother or the father but rather a mixture of both creating a strand that is unique to you. Your entire genetic code is pre-determined at conception, what color eyes you'll have, your skin tone, your hair color, whether you'll be male or female etc. So prevention is not the same as termination, termination would be the analogical comparative of neutralizing that chemical reaction once started, not preventing it from ever occurring. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i jizzed in an egg, then threw it away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Saucer said:

It's also worth pointing out that birth control pills are abortifacients. They don't prevent the egg from being fertilized, they prevent it from attaching to the walls of the uterus. 

 

Just something to consider if you're in the camp that thinks the right to life should be granted at conception--you may want to start using condoms instead.
 

This is so incorrect it's laughable, birth control prevents sperm from bonding with an egg and fertilizing it. It also increases mucus production in the cervix which makes passage for sperm near impossible, on top of this it stops ovulation from occurring so there's no production and release of eggs from the ovaries. 

 

It's a tri-tier preventative contraceptive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nya` said:
  • suicide =/= murder

You said all that.

 

I don't care about your feelings, Deeno.  White nationalists feelings' don't concern me.  I'm just happy that you did the right thing because now my daughter won't grow up in a world where your kids are running around spouting your bullshit.

 

8 hours ago, madmaltese said:

Nothing Dyno is saying here is out of line to warrant that. 

I'm not the one who aborted his kid.  That was him.  Not my fault conservatives and alt-righters think their case is special, get their abortions, then go back to protesting it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nya` said:

This is so incorrect it's laughable, birth control prevents sperm from bonding with an egg and fertilizing it. It also increases mucus production in the cervix which makes passage for sperm near impossible, on top of this it stops ovulation from occurring so there's no production and release of eggs from the ovaries. 

 

It's a tri-tier preventative contraceptive. 

 

They also prevent fertilized eggs from attaching to the walls of uterus. The pro-choice argument is that the medical community generally defines the beginning of pregnancy as implanation, so therefore they don't act as abortifacient, but if the egg is fertilized, and the pill caused implantation not to occur, logically, it's an abortifacient.

 

In those instances, the pill was the cause of preventing a fertilized egg from further developing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McWicked said:

You said all that.

 

I don't care about your feelings, Deeno.  White nationalists feelings' don't concern me.  I'm just happy that you did the right thing because now my daughter won't grow up in a world where your kids are running around spouting your bullshit.

 

I'm not the one who aborted his kid.  That was him.  Not my fault conservatives and alt-righters think their case is special, get their abortions, then go back to protesting it.  

so much this..... that last paragraph is what gets me and conservatives. 

 

They always preach this "pro life" mantra... turn around have abortions because their situation was somehow unique. 

 

Then they turn back around and are back to preaching pro life pro life.... but somehow their abortions are ok... but everyone else's is soooo horrible and sooo inhumane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nya` said:

This is so incorrect it's laughable, birth control prevents sperm from bonding with an egg and fertilizing it. It also increases mucus production in the cervix which makes passage for sperm near impossible, on top of this it stops ovulation from occurring so there's no production and release of eggs from the ovaries. 

 

It's a tri-tier preventative contraceptive. 

That's one type .... then you also have plan Bs that do exactly what Saucer described. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nya` said:

This is how sick you people are, you're joking about this shit, real shit that actually happened to someone. The fuck is wrong with you?

"Something that happened"..... that something that happened what a CHOICE YOU MADE. :interesting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Goukosan said:

so much this..... that last paragraph is what gets me and conservatives. 

 

They always preach this "pro life" mantra... turn around have abortions because their situation was somehow unique. 

 

Then they turn back around and are back to preaching pro life pro life.... but somehow their abortions are ok... but everyone else's is soooo horrible and sooo inhumane. 

Its always about OTHER PEOPLE not being responsible..........therefore we should pass laws that FORCE them.

 

We just heard examples of this earlier in the thread. Apparently the women is responsible for both sides of the equation when sex is happening.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, -GD- said:

i have performed a few

What'd you do? Pound the fetus to death?

 

Spoiler

giphy.gif

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jehurey said:

What'd you do? Pound the fetus to death?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

giphy.gif

 

that's hot! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×