My new favorite pro-life argument

[Montie_Claunch]

Guys, I was wondering, and ya’ll might help me understand. Why is eavryone say “potenial” human being? I thought that it was a human being. It is alive, dead things do not have cells that dived and grow (spontaeous generation was sceintificly disproven right?) and what is it other than a Human (I have never heard of a woman giving birth to a hoarse or a dog {thought It might have slipped my attention}) no matter how dependent it is (hell I am 20 and untill I graduate from college I am still dependent on my dear ol’ mum) and regardless of mental state (down syndrome kids are still kids and so was Terri Shivo). So what’s the deal? They are human, right.

 

[estesbob]

MStreeter:

My comment about the fetus being a parasite was meant to sound sarcastic. I don’t actually believe that a baby is parasitic. But, because some people actually believe it, I can understand the misunderstanding.

Keep the Faith

You are correct that some people beleive it(andf I knew you were being sarcastic). The bogus biology that comes forth from those who are pro-abortion is staggering.I have been deabting abortion on the net for 20 years and some of the recurring myths that continulaly come up are:

Fingernails and hair grow after death(thus life alone is nothing special)

The unborn child passes though a stage where it had gills

The unborn child pases though a stage where it has a tail

The newly conceived child has no gender

Conception does not occur until the fertilized egg implants(this argument was created out of whole cloth by the drug companies
in the mid 19550s when the IUD was developed.)

The unbornchild is a parasite

The unborn child is part of the mothers body

Tumors have unique DNA

Mastrubation is akin to aboption

Menstruation is akin to abortion

The unborn child feels no pain

The Anathesia a woman recieves prior to an abortion kills the unborn child.

And of course there is also a whole slew of false analogies:

The Unborn Child is like a :

A Tumor
A Chicken Egg
An acorn
An Intruder
A medical student
An ininvited Guest
A Fingernail

The pro-abortion advocates also had to create a whole new vocabulary to rationlaizre the horror they were supporting. Some of their favorite euthanisms:

Potential Person
Product of Conception
Reproductive rights
Womans right to choose
Pregnancy Termination OR when more than one child is involved “selective reduction”

I could go on and on but my point is their is nothing new under the sun as far as abortion advocates concerned.

 

[estesbob]

Ortho:

Can a fetus collect Social Security?

There is not a single person on Social Security that did not start out as a fetus.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ortho:

Can a fetus collect Social Security?

Neither can a non-US citizen who had never set foot in the US. Does that make all such people non-human?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Montie Claunch:

Guys, I was wondering, and ya’ll might help me understand. Why is eavryone say “potenial” human being? I thought that it was a human being.

Everyone isn’t saying that – only those who want to disguise murder.

Just as the Nazis de-humanized the Jews by calling them untermenschen (sub-humans), so those who push abortion must dehumanize the unborn.

 

[Like]

estesbob:

There is not a single person on Social Security that did not start out as a fetus.

:clapping:

 

[Like]

Ortho:

A clone would not have its own unique human genetic code.

Am I missing something here? Has anyone mentioned “Clone” before this?

 

[vz71]

Like:

Am I missing something here? Has anyone mentioned “Clone” before this?

No, but my argument still stands.

A tumor does not have its own unique genetic code.
The unborn does.

The facts are that the unborn exhinbits all criteria for life, AND it has its own unique HUMAN genetic code.
To destroy it is to destroy human life.

The idea that a clone could change this reasoning is fantasy.

In reality, abortion is evil, and that will not change.
Should at some point in the future science discoveries change our definitions of life, and the uniquness of each one of us, abortion will still be evil, it will still be the destruction of HUMAN life.

another .02

Z

 

[D_Quintero]

Bump
I’ve learned so much from this thread!

 

[reneeville]

Hitelen,
Your response is nothing more than a straw man. A chicken egg is still chicken, and a medical student is most certainly a fully qualified doctor at the scene of a horrible accident or disaster. You are only fooling yourself if you think of a growing child in the womb as a parasite. Nothing is further from the truth, it is our opportunity to re-create, as God intended. That little life inside is just as nurturing to the mother (and father, brother, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, et al) as the mother is to the child. God intended us to LIVE.
and for Him, I do.
Renee

Hitler made 6 million “choices”

Hitetlen:

No one in his right mind would assert that a fetus is not “alive”. It also has human DNA. But so has a malignant tumor, and not even the most ardent “pro-lifer” (aka. anti-choice) person would dare to argue that a tumor should have the right to “live”. The removal of a tumor could rightly be called “testing God” (which is a big no-no around here), because such a removal denies God the chance of performing a miracle and allowing the tumor to grow into a human being.

A question to all of you: Would you call a dish of scrambled eggs - a fried chicken? The eggs are potential chickens, not real chickens.

Another question: Would you call a medical student a fully qualified doctor? The medical student is a potential doctor, nothing more.

In every facet of live you all understand the difference between a potential and the final result. Why is this stubborn resistence when it comes to such an obvious difference as fetus vs. full human? (A fetus is actually a parasitic being feeding off the mother’s body and gives nothing physical in return.)

And a final question: when speaking of abortion I have yet to see a “pro-lifer” NOT calling it the “murder” of an innocent baby. Regardless of the misuse of the word “baby” here, why do you call them “innocent”? Are they not guilty of the original sin? They are guilty in the eyes of God, are they not?

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Actually I am without “sin”, because “sin” is a religious concept, which I do not accept.

Having been closed “Free will revisited”, we meet again here… congratulations! It is amazing (and sad) to confirm again the link that brings together atheism, relativism and mass murdered!

 

[Lorarose]

Remember…at the time this was written, slavery was legal.
The author owned slaves.

So…it is a matter of defining what is “human”

 

[LilyM]

Hitleten, let’s consider a situation which is at least highly possible in theory, I don’t know whether any actual cases have occurred only because I’m too lazy to look them up.

Let’s say a pregnant woman is involved in a car crash, and to all intents and purposes dies - no independent brain function, heart function, no anything that could be interpreted as a sign of life. Clearly no-one would consider the woman to still be alive.

Let’s say that nevertheless she is put on a heart-lung machine and whatever other machines are necessary to mimic all of the functions of a living person, would the fetus/embryo/baby not continue to live and grow, regardless of whether it is a few hours old, a few days old or 6 months old or whatever? THAT is what I would define as being ‘independent’. A tumour automatically dies when its host does, a fetus/embryo/baby does not.

As for your chicken/egg/med student/doctor analogy - whatever label you give an unborn it is worthy of respect and, in my opinion and lots of people’s, has rights, among which is the right to be allowed to develop and be born. No-one, no matter how bad their circumstances, seriously wishes to have never been born if they are in their right minds.

 

[Hitetlen]

reneeville:

Hitelen,
Your response is nothing more than a straw man. A chicken egg is still chicken, and a medical student is most certainly a fully qualified doctor at the scene of a horrible accident or disaster.

Is that right? Having just completed an entry exam and not one hour of lecturing and now he is now qualified to be a doctor? I sure hope he will not try to “treat” me! And next time when you eat an omelette, try to convince yourself that you eat fried chicken.

reneeville:

You are only fooling yourself if you think of a growing child in the womb as a parasite.

I did not say that it is a parasite, I said it exhibits a parasitic behavior, by drawing sustenance from the host, while giving nothing in return. Big difference.

 

[Hitetlen]

LilyM:

Hitleten, let’s consider a situation which is at least highly possible in theory, I don’t know whether any actual cases have occurred only because I’m too lazy to look them up.

Let’s say a pregnant woman is involved in a car crash, and to all intents and purposes dies - no independent brain function, heart function, no anything that could be interpreted as a sign of life. Clearly no-one would consider the woman to still be alive.

Let’s say that nevertheless she is put on a heart-lung machine and whatever other machines are necessary to mimic all of the functions of a living person, would the fetus/embryo/baby not continue to live and grow, regardless of whether it is a few hours old, a few days old or 6 months old or whatever? THAT is what I would define as being ‘independent’. A tumour automatically dies when its host does, a fetus/embryo/baby does not.

Incorrect. In your hypothetical scenario the tumor would be also kept alive.

LilyM:

As for your chicken/egg/med student/doctor analogy - whatever label you give an unborn it is worthy of respect and, in my opinion and lots of people’s, has rights, among which is the right to be allowed to develop and be born. No-one, no matter how bad their circumstances, seriously wishes to have never been born if they are in their right minds.

The examples I gave were given to show the difference between a potential and the realized potential.

 

[LilyM]

Hitetlen:

Incorrect. In your hypothetical scenario the tumor would be also kept alive. ]

You’re right, but my main concern was to show the absurdity of your argument that the born can be raised by ‘anyone’ (including a machine) and therefore were human whereas presumably the unborn couldn’t (and therefore weren’t?) - conceiveably they could as well, so you have to find another point of differentiation.

You don’t appear to have really addressed the argument that the unborn has the full DNA of a human, different from its mothers and its fathers (meaning it is more than simply an extension/mutation of their own bodies as a tumor or other diseases are).

And I resent the comparison with a tumor - pregnancy is NOT a disease and a baby is NOT strictly parasitical. Instead the mother’s bodily capacities and functions (assuming that she and the baby are both healthy to begin with) grow with and because of the pregnancy. Usually they adapt perfectly well to deal with any demands the baby makes. More interestingly, they do so after the birth as well - the composition of her breast milk changes in accordance with the baby’s needs at different ages among other things.

Hitetlen:

The examples I gave were given to show the difference between a potential and the realized potential.

Your point being? I am a potential 35-year-old (being only 32) - does that mean my parents have the right to prevent me becoming an ACTUAL 35-year-old simply because they’ve decided I’m inconvenient to them - in spite of the fact that I neither asked to be conceived by them nor born to them? Sheesh!

 

[Hitetlen]

LilyM:

You’re right, but my main concern was to show the absurdity of your argument that the born can be raised by ‘anyone’ (including a machine) and therefore were human whereas presumably the unborn couldn’t (and therefore weren’t?) - conceiveably they could as well, so you have to find another point of differentiation.

Until ectogenesis comes into existence, the zygote/fetus is biologically dependent on the woman. When the child is born, the biological dependence ceases, and anyone can provide the necessary sustenance. The biological independence comes with separation, whether it is natural or artificial.

LilyM:

You don’t appear to have really addressed the argument that the unborn has the full DNA of a human, different from its mothers and its fathers (meaning it is more than simply an extension/mutation of their own bodies as a tumor or other diseases are).

As long as you define humans ONLY through their DNA’s the problem persists. A tumor has human DNA. To argue that it is not unique is preposterous. Identical twins have the same DNA, and no one would argue that only one of them is human, since the other one has the same DNA. The fundamental difference is that a tumor cannot grow into a human being, while the zygote can - if the implentation occurs, if it does not abort spontenously, if it survives the trauma of the birth.

LilyM:

And I resent the comparison with a tumor - pregnancy is NOT a disease and a baby is NOT strictly parasitical. Instead the mother’s bodily capacities and functions (assuming that she and the baby are both healthy to begin with) grow with and because of the pregnancy. Usually they adapt perfectly well to deal with any demands the baby makes. More interestingly, they do so after the birth as well - the composition of her breast milk changes in accordance with the baby’s needs at different ages among other things.

Pregnancy is not a disease, it is not caused by microbes, but it is an abnormal condition, and if the woman does not wish to deal with it, it is her prerogative to prevent it. Contrary to religious assertions, we are the sole proprietors of our own body, and we should be allowed to do with it whatever we damn well please.

LilyM:

Your point being? I am a potential 35-year-old (being only 32) - does that mean my parents have the right to prevent me becoming an ACTUAL 35-year-old simply because they’ve decided I’m inconvenient to them - in spite of the fact that I neither asked to be conceived by them nor born to them? Sheesh!

I just love these red herrings, especially in the morning.

 

[LilyM]

Hitetlen:

The fundamental difference is that a tumor cannot grow into a human being, while the zygote can - if the implentation occurs, if it does not abort spontenously, if it survives the trauma of the birth.

My point PRECISELY. A zygote has the potential to grow into a human being - that is hardly a negligible difference! We give scholarships to schoolkids because they have the potential to do well in their studies and benefit society - IF they complete their schooling, IF they don’t get hooked on drugs and alcohol after finishing school and IF they don’t get run over by a bus on the way to their school graduation ceremony. Potential has to be respected and protected, and potential life is just as important as actual life. Give me one convincing reason why it ISN’T.

Hitetlen:

Pregnancy is an abnormal condition, and if the woman does not wish to deal with it, it is her prerogative to prevent it. Contrary to religious assertions, we are the sole proprietors of our own body, and we should be allowed to do with it whatever we damn well please.]

Talk about red herrings! We are NOT in all circumstances proprietors of our own body. We are NOT allowed to do whatever we please with them and damn the consequences. That’s why suicide is illegal, that’s why euthanasia is illegal, that’s why there is a minimum age (and other restrictions) set for sex and smoking and gambling, that’s why self-administration of narcotic drugs is illegal in many places.

AND that’s why for the most part both parents of a child are legally liable to support that child, because pregnancy is a NATURAL and FORESEEABLE side effect of having sex, regardless of contraception etc, because contraception fails often even if properly used. IF YOU DON’T WANT A CHILD, DON’T HAVE SEX! That’s the ONLY guarantee! Otherwise you should be liable for the consequences.

Pregnancy is not ‘abnormal’ either - it is what women are biologically designed to do - just like puberty or menopause or any other life stage.

 

[Hitetlen]

LilyM:

My point PRECISELY. A zygote has the potential to grow into a human being - that is hardly a negligible difference! We give scholarships to schoolkids because they have the potential to do well in their studies and benefit society - IF they complete their schooling, IF they don’t get hooked on drugs and alcohol after finishing school and IF they don’t get run over by a bus on the way to their school graduation ceremony. Potential has to be respected and protected, and potential life is just as important as actual life. Give me one convincing reason why it ISN’T.

Because potential does not equal realized.

LilyM:

Talk about red herrings! We are NOT in all circumstances proprietors of our own body. We are NOT allowed to do whatever we please with them and damn the consequences. That’s why suicide is illegal, that’s why euthanasia is illegal, that’s why there is a minimum age (and other restrictions) set for sex and smoking and gambling, that’s why self-administration of narcotic drugs is illegal in many places.

And I vehemently disagree with all these restrictions imposed by power-hungry politicians.

LilyM:

AND that’s why for the most part both parents of a child are legally liable to support that child, because pregnancy is a NATURAL and FORESEEABLE side effect of having sex, regardless of contraception etc, because contraception fails often even if properly used. IF YOU DON’T WANT A CHILD, DON’T HAVE SEX! That’s the ONLY guarantee! Otherwise you should be liable for the consequences.

That is only your opinion, nothing more. To show how ridiculuos your resoning is, observe: “The only way to avoid having a car accident, is not getting into a car. If you get into a car, you consented to be in an accident, and you had better deal with the consequences. You have only yourself to blame.”

LilyM:

Pregnancy is not ‘abnormal’ either - it is what women are biologically designed to do - just like puberty or menopause or any other life stage.

Having sex for its own sake is not abnormal either. To restrict is to pure procreation is just crazy. But if you wish to do that, I will not object, it is your business. Why do you try to take over my decisions and force me to do something I do not consent to?

 

[LilyM]

Hitetlen:

Because potential does not equal realized.

You didn’t read my argument properly - regardless of whether it’s potential life or realized life, it has inherent value even from a rational human standpoint, not just a religious one. The embryonic and fetal stages are a necessary and inevitable part of the development of a human being, and I’m sure that there are a fair number of atheists who happily accept that they have inherent value. You may not believe it, but it is hardly invalid or stupid to believe in the inherent value of human life.

People choose one set of beliefs over another, and in a democratic society this means some people get imposed on. Murderers clearly believe that life never has inherent value and that they are justified in taking it away - in a democratic society where a large number, if not a majority, of people believe this is wrong, for better or worse murderers are inconvenienced by this belief.

Hitetlen:

And I vehemently disagree with all these restrictions imposed by power-hungry politicians.]

So you think it’s fine for people of any age and in any circumstances to smoke, drink, take drugs, and have sex? Does that include rape and incest? Where do you draw the line? Don’t criticise us for defining life as beginning nine months earlier than you do or as including more inherent obligations than you do - in reality your critieria are just as arbitrary as anybody else’s.

Hitetlen:

That is only your opinion, nothing more. To show how ridiculuos your resoning is, observe: “The only way to avoid having a car accident, is not getting into a car. If you get into a car, you consented to be in an accident, and you had better deal with the consequences. You have only yourself to blame.”]

I DO know that driving is a risky activity, and I do take precautions because of its consequences - I buy insurance, I drive at a sensible speed and don’t drive when impaired by alcohol or medications. I also accept that in spite of all of these precautions I may get into an accident anyway.

Having sex is like knowing that EVERY TIME I get behind the wheel I have at least a 1 in 100 chance of getting in an accident no matter what the precautions I take. Furthermore the two possible results of getting in an accident are either a) eliminating an unborn human being or b) supporting another human being for at least 16-18 years. Those high odds and serious consequences might just possibly make me rethink driving at all! If I chose to drive anyway, then those are the risks and yes I have to accept them.

Hitetlen:

Having sex for its own sake is not abnormal either. To restrict is to pure procreation is just crazy. But if you wish to do that, I will not object, it is your business. Why do you try to take over my decisions and force me to do something I do not consent to?

To someone who values human beings even before their birth, to permit abortion and to see an unborn as merely an appendage to its mother is just as crazy. And we’re all forced to do plenty of things we don’t consent to. Are you not restricted as to how and where you can drive, drink, smoke? Are you not ‘forced’ to wear clothes in public even if you believe in nudism? Do you not have to put your pets on a leash in lots of public places?

As I said in my opening paragraph, living in a society means accepting some restrictions and impositions. Sometimes they will run contrary to your personal beliefs, sometimes they will reflect your beliefs and impose on others instead. Grow up and accept that the world doesn’t dance to your tune.