W
- Status
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
A good video. I found his t-shirt distracting though. 
He’s actually much too intelligent for most pro-abortion people to understand.
He’s actually much too intelligent for most pro-abortion people to understand.
E
edwest2
Guest
If not, what are they?
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
O
Oxford_Cleric
Guest
Precisely. They’re not ants, or orangutans, or elephants, or eagles, or turtles, or fruit bats, or…
Oh, wait. They’re zygotes or blastocysts, or whatnot…
Modern people rejoice with unspeakable joy over the birth of pandas, don’t they?
E
estesbob
Guest
Of course-what else could they be?
T
tuscany
Guest
DNA, The Church, logic and common sense all say yes they are.
W
wondrousgnat
Guest
I remember way back to the time I was in school in the 1950s. Teachers told us that a fetus has gills just like a fish. (This was proven wrong.) Even tho I was about 10 at the time and not a church person I had problems with that argument. I did not know of any woman who gave birth to a fish…
Of course in those days the one thing I knew was that you don’t argue with your teacher.
Actually it was the beard, not the shirt that I found distracting.
Of course in those days the one thing I knew was that you don’t argue with your teacher.
Actually it was the beard, not the shirt that I found distracting.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I was pretty unimpressed with the video. It would not convince anyone who was pro choice to even reconsider their position. Making the debate about whether or not a fetus is a human does not address the arguments of pro choicers. No one is arguing that a fetus doesn’t have human DNA or won’t develop into a fully formed homosapien. The question is does the fetus have the same value and significance as the woman carrying it. That’s the question that needs to be addressed by pro lifers.
F
fbl9
Guest
very well put:thumbsup:
one of the early arguements put forward by pro-choice is that the fetus is a part of the woman’s body therefores she could do as she wished.
But this shows that the fetus is already an individual in that it has it’s own seperate dna.
E
estesbob
Guest
No-the question is does human life deserve the full protection of the law. Pregnancy is not a disease and the needs of the child and the needs of the mother are not in conflict.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Yep, that is the issue. Does it deserve full protection of the law? But to convince pro-choicers you are going to have to point to more than human DNA, and I think that’s why the two sides lack any real meaningful communication.
The pro-lifers like to point to the DNA and talk about how it will develop into a fully formed baby. At the same time the pro-choicers are saying that they are going to need some evidence that as a fetus it is significant enough to warrant the same legal protections that the mother has. No one is arguing that it doesn’t have human DNA or that it won’t eventually be a baby. What we want to know is why it deserves those protections now, especially when those protections can harm another person’s life.
Basically what it comes down to is that for me to ever get to the point where I would be able to tell a woman “No, you cannot have that abortion” I would need to see compelling evidence that the fetus is just as significant and valuable as she is.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
You admit that the fetus is human
Yet simultaneously you admit that the pro-choice movement requires more evidence because just because that although human, the fetus does not deserve the most basic right, the right to life.
When is the arbitrary date/ time that the fetus deserves to have its right to life respected? And also, are there any other humans that can have their right to life, arbitrarily not respected?
What about preemies…what are they considered?
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
IMO it isn’t right to tell a woman that although she is a thinking, feeling individual, who has made and impact on the world around her and has people that love her and count on her, that she has her own unique experience and outlooks, she is worth no more than an undeveloped organism that while it may have human DNA is not aware of its own existence, has no vested interest in living, and it doesn’t have any of the same characteristics that I listed about the woman above.
That’s what terrifies me so much about the pro-life movement. That it reduces women to the level of an undeveloped fetus that isn’t even aware of its own existence. When I look at myself, my mom, my nieces, and think of my future daughters, I see so much more in them than that.
If the pro-life movement is going to convince people, here is what is has to address:
- On what grounds is the fetus equal to a woman? Why is it just as valuable as she is? A woman is more than DNA, so its going to take far more than “its technically human” to convince people.
- What will happen to the women that have their lives, health, and families destroyed by unwanted pregnancies?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Mary_Gail_36
New member
An embryo is human. It is smaller, less developed but still human.
I am more developed, more educated than my toddler. I have more rights than he does in the sense that I can vote, I can legally drink alcoholic beverages, I can marry, I can own property.
Am I worth more than my toddler? Is he worth less? If we are of equal worth, what has he done or what is capable of that makes him of equal worth?
If he is not of equal worth, do I have the right to kill him? When did he earn the right to be alive?
I am more developed, more educated than my toddler. I have more rights than he does in the sense that I can vote, I can legally drink alcoholic beverages, I can marry, I can own property.
Am I worth more than my toddler? Is he worth less? If we are of equal worth, what has he done or what is capable of that makes him of equal worth?
If he is not of equal worth, do I have the right to kill him? When did he earn the right to be alive?
O
Orogeny
Guest
What if one of your future children are born with a condition that prevents them from being aware of their own existence? Will you consider terminating their lives on that basis?
I’m not trying to argumentative, I am sincerely interested in your answer.
Peace
Tim
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I’m also not trying to debate the morality of abortion, because I feel like its disrespectful on this forum. But what I’m doing on this thread is pointing out why these arguments that the pro-life side finds really compelling aren’t having the impact that they want on us.
As far as having a child born with that condition, no, I wouldn’t kill them. BUT, they are not living inside anyone else. A conversation about euthanizing the mentally disabled, people in comas, etc. has never really worked with me because they aren’t living inside someone else. Now if a severely mentally disabled man moves into my body then yes, I’m going to have a very serious discussion with my doctor putting an end to that.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
We could get into the philosophy of when people become “full” humans, but I don’t see the point. You don’t have the right to kill your toddler because A. At this point he has a vested interest in living, and B. even more importantly, you aren’t giving up any of your physical autonomy because of his existence. If two beings share a body one will have to have veto power over the other, and it should be the one who has an interest in living.
H
HansTrappist
Guest
We know that the fetus exists in time and space (Being). We also know that it is human (genetically). We also know that it is alive and growing from the moment of conception. In other words, the fetus is a living human being. Peter Singer would not even dispute this basic scientific fact.
There is no doubt among educated pro-aborts that the fetus is a living human being. They deny that it should be granted legal protection as a person. But the burden of proof rests with the pro-aborts. It is they who must PROVE that the unborn entity is NOT a human person before they can be justified in killing it.
The death of the 50 million unborn children murdered by abortion is a human holocaust that makes Hitler’s holocaust look like small beer and puts those political leaders in our country who have supported the abortion holocaust on demand in in the running with Stalin and Mao for the top spot on history’s list of all-time mass murderers.
That’s why I take the media’s preaching on “gun violence” with a grain of salt.
There is no doubt among educated pro-aborts that the fetus is a living human being. They deny that it should be granted legal protection as a person. But the burden of proof rests with the pro-aborts. It is they who must PROVE that the unborn entity is NOT a human person before they can be justified in killing it.
The death of the 50 million unborn children murdered by abortion is a human holocaust that makes Hitler’s holocaust look like small beer and puts those political leaders in our country who have supported the abortion holocaust on demand in in the running with Stalin and Mao for the top spot on history’s list of all-time mass murderers.
That’s why I take the media’s preaching on “gun violence” with a grain of salt.
H
HansTrappist
Guest
We know that the fetus exists in time and space (Being). We also know that it is human (genetically). We also know that it is alive and growing from the moment of conception. In other words, the fetus is a living human being. Peter Singer would not even dispute this basic scientific fact.
There is no doubt among educated pro-aborts that the fetus is a living human being. They deny that it should be granted legal protection as a person. But the burden of proof rests with the pro-aborts. It is they who must PROVE that the unborn entity is NOT a human person before they can be justified in killing it.
The death of the 50 million unborn children murdered by abortion is a human holocaust that makes Hitler’s holocaust look like small beer and puts those political leaders in our country who have supported the abortion holocaust on demand in the running with Stalin and Mao for the top spot on history’s list of all-time mass murderers.
That’s why I take the media’s preaching on “gun violence” with a grain of salt.
- Status