Why should I oppose abortion? GIVE ME A VALID REASON.

Equally as arbitrary, as you well know.

If viability had any merit, the woman would be able to remove the child in utero and lay it on a table to fend for itself after that point is reached.
It is actually illegal to do so; therefore, "viability" is just more pro abortion nonsense.

 

There is nothing arbitrary about being able to sustain your own life with your own organs, as YOU well know.

How do you come up with this senseless drivel? What is it supposed to mean?

 

Again, if this is actually true, why can't a woman remove the child in utero at that point and let him/her fend for his/herself? It can support itself with its own organs right?

Viability is actually contradictory as abortion is prohibited after that threshold, yet the child is allegedly able to support him or herself.

The arbitraty part is that all children in utero do not reach this stage at precisely the same age, yet there is a definite age threshoold set.

"Viability" is a hoax at best!!!

 

You are free to believe any nonsense at all. Viability is the minimum threshold. Much like the very premature babies if they survive for any extended period of time their lives will amount to little more, if, than existence. Viability is the point the fetus becomes a unique organism. At that point it is capable of maintaining homeostasis.
Oh yea, you do not know what an organism is, but look it up, you might learn something.

 

We agree, for the first time I can remember. Cause for celebration?

I'm not smearing her, I'm just clarifying that she did have racist views yet did not promote bigotry or discrimination. The quote I provided states just that.

 

I see you have no rebuttal for the fact that 'viability" is both arbitrary and contradictory. Well everyone else already knew you comments were verbal diarreah anyway.

 

The human life cannot exist without support by someone after birth, so that part of your argument is not valid.

Of course she can place whatever value on the human life developing insider her in order to justify an abortion. I still say having an abortion for convenience would degrade the value of human life.

 

All I said was she had racist views.

 

What I’ve been saying is the following:
 Each human life begins at fertilization (science has determined this, not me).
 There is value in each human life that is also tied to our own value.
 Since each human life has value, each human life deserves protection regardless of what phase of development that human life is in.
 Abortions for convenience degrade the value of human life since the very act of it conveys that the convenience of one human life has a greater value than the human life being terminated.

Basically, summed up by:

Fertilization and after = a human life = value = deserving protection.

Abortion for convenience = degradation of the value of human life.

Are you honestly saying that my life has no value? If you had the opportunity and the capacity to save the life of someone other than those in your family (let’s say a complete stranger) you wouldn’t do so?

Your comparison is not an answer to the question it just demonstrates that you have a higher responsibility to those whom specifically rely on you for the protection of their life just as I do for my family. That, combined with the fact that you and I both have emotional attachments to them.

 

That is the basic Blue State mentality. We saw wit with the guy in NY a while back who was hit by a car and people just watched him lie in the street dying.

 

By your logic, can the red state mentality be defined by the men who chained a black man to the back of their truck and drug him to death?

 

Surprise, we might even have more areas of agreement that we discover in our discussions. I would hope people would not attempt to smear a dead woman, but unfortunately many seem to think they can discredit PP by discrediting her. Let us please give her credit for bringing affordable birth control to millions of poor women and fighting the legal system that opposed that. I'm sure she had numerable faults, we all do.

 

Despite her sinister motivation to do so?

 

Oh please. If you are really this incapable of intelligent discussion, at least to not make a fool of yourself repeatedly. There hardly is a need for you to confirm what is evidenced by your past posts.

 

You have repeated this several times now, even though it is not in dispute.

You have repeated this also and I asked you several times why, or where is the value coming from? You have yet to show anything to that effect.

But you have not offered ANYTHING to demonstrate that.

How does it devalue life and what is the net effect other than your perception?
As for the convenience part? When was the last time you did anything because it was inconvenient? Everything we do IS for our convenience. This nation was born out of the inconvenience of being subjects of King George and a lot of people died for that convenience. Please do not argue inconvenience if you can not grasp its meaning.

Not always or not under all circumstances. There are no absolutes. Still that does not define an absolute value of all life.

The net effect is that at least under certain circumstances your life is less valuable than that of my family members. sine the exact opposite also exists for you, it follows that the value, or rather the significance of the life of any human is subjective.

 

It is you who refuses to stay on topic and address the actual posts, instead of claiming they say something they clearly do not. I have to attribute this to mental illness. Bless your heart!

 

I have clearly explained my position regarding viability and if I did not, would gladly try to clarify. You on the other hand, unable to discuss the subject revert to your usual drivel. The uninformed tangents to survival if removed from the womb is not addressing viability.

 

I oppose abortion for the same reason I oppose the death penalty. I don't feel we have the right to take someone's life.

You say the unborn child has no right to life basically because it is not developed enough to have an interest in its existrence. This is an assumption on your part and is in no way proven. The unborn child has an averse reaction to pain. This would tend to indicate that it does indeed have an interest in its existence.

Using your criterium of just how interested the unborn child is in its existence would, through its logical extension mean that the severly mentally retarded should have no rights to existence and that killing them should be allowed and not constitute murder since they too, have no interest in their existence other than that exhibited by the unborn child, ie. an aversion to pain.

You also say, this interest in its own existence emerges only after a few months after being born. Again, carrying your views to their logical extension means that you see nothing wrong with killing a one week old child, or a one month old child, or, indeed, any child you feel has not reached the point where it has an interest in its own existence.

Your post has carried the pro-abortion creed to its logical conclusion, ie. I don't want the child and I will decide what rights to existence it has. If I want it dead, it will (*)(*)(*)(*) well be dead.

All I can say is, How unbelievably sad.

 

But is the fetus "someone" and if so by what standard and how widely accepted is that standard and is it sufficient to be the basis of public policy and ultimately the outlawing abortion?

There is not much doubt about that part. The valid questin is if it is a compelling reason?

The fetus feels no pain in the first trimester.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/abort...y-ownership-excuse-flawed-13.html#post4602536


Absolutely YES, it is!

 

No it is not and you repeatedly lying will not make it so either.

 

viability is not completely arbitrary .. it is arbitrary within certain boundaries.

Define viability and I will give you the boundaries.

 

It is arbitrary, as you admit, which is unacceptable as a threshold for basic human rights.

 

Others have and do dispute it. I'm glad you don't.

The value in each human life is in many ways based on the value we place on our own life. Our experiences in our life tend to make it obvious to us that other human life has value as well.

I think what it comes down to is the potential of a human life. That has value. When someone dies early in life that we didn’t know personally, there is still a sense of grief for the loss of a human life, based on what the human life had potential to still accomplish and experience. Take away all of our other subjective levels of value we place on different humans and there is still an inherent value based on the potential for each human life.

I think you know what I’m talking about when I say abortions for convenience. Let’s not confuse the issue.

OK, let me change it to on-demand abortions instead of abortions for convenience. Done.

Is that an answer to both questions? Are you saying that my life has no value? You’re talking about varying levels of subjective value we place on human life. I say there is a certain "base level" (for lack of a better word/phrase) of the value of all human life.

Yes, from your perspective my life is less valuable than your family members, which is a comparative analysis you are doing. However, that does not mean that my life has zero value. My point is that there is still a "base level" of value for all human life no matter how we each subjectively regard family or those close to us.

 

It is not arbitrary beyond certain boundaries

Give me a your definition of viability and I will tell you where the boundary is.