The Question That "Pro-Choice" Advocates Cannot Answer

(Unbelievable). That might be a fair & appropriate solution, if the specific question were put voters in each state. But there is nothing compelling lawmakers to do this (other than conscience, that is). Since everywhere this has happened, the Pro-Choice vote has triumphed-- including in Red states like Kentucky, Montana, and Kansas, and Purple ones like Michigan and (in the vote to prevent the legislators' attempt to raise the bar for voters, from 50% to 60%, for the abortion question on the ballot in November) in Ohio. So Pro-Life legislators in most Red States, have not allowed the voters to decide, and will not give them the chance, if they can avoid it.

 

No, AAAguy,there was no 'who' confusion. Don't make **** up now. There was a very big confusion on which words I used. They were the exact same words regardless of who you may have thought they were addressed to. You still quoted it. You still got every single one of them wrong.

This sentence: "Well this thread got you nowhere, gfm, didn't it? You don't get to impose your definitions on the rest of us" Does not look anything like this sentence: " No one has the definititive answer". Not one word is shared between the two, and the meanings of the two sentences are entirely different. There is no galaxy in which one of them expresses agreement with the other. As for the conclusion you decided to draw, it was crap too. Nothing about my post could lead you to believe that states deciding the abortion issue was a reasonable conclusion to draw. Try harder. Do better - at least when you quote my material.

 

Color me surprised. I didn't expect an answer, although you still try to soften it with a bunch of irrelevancies instead of sticking to the terminology contained within the question.

So your answer is yes, you do advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

I assume that you won't take this same position if the subject is yourself, am I right?

 

I don't take the same position if the subject is a thinking, feeling human being with a mind, unlike your invalid definition. Morality is all about harm to others. There is no other if there is no mind.

 

I understand that you don't like the question because it makes you feel very uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean it is "disingenuous" or "meaningless". It is a very clear, simple, straightforward question.

Abortion is a subset of the superset being asked about in the question. Are you familiar with set theory?

So the "pro-choice" crowd are sadists and psychopaths? Interesting...

This is where the "pro-choice" crowd typically tries to retreat... They wish to talk about "fetuses" as if they are not 'living humans', but the term "fetus" simply refers to a specific stage of the life cycle for certain species (such as humans). Two questions:

1) What species is the "fetus", if not human?
2) What does the detectable heartbeat of the "fetus" signify, if not that the "fetus" is living?

Are you going to answer the question?

 

Bogus position assignment. Stop evading the question asked in the OP.

 

No you didn't.

It's not "my turn" for anything. You have yet to answer my question in the OP.

 

Interesting word choice. There can't be a "loss" of something unless that something is first had. So, the question becomes, what did you have that you now no longer have?

IOW, the loss of a child... the loss of a child that would've normally developed from a fetus into a newborn... but the lack of a heartbeat (signifying life) informed your doctor (and yourself) that your child, that was once developing into a newborn, was no longer alive (thus, no further life stage development). Sorry for your loss.

It WAS the loss of a living human. The child that was once developing inside of its mother's womb was no longer developing anymore. This became known because there was no detectable fetal heartbeat present (which signifies the presence of life).

It was the loss of a child.

Kicking is something that living humans do, not something that dead humans do. Obviously, your child (a living human) was once alive, developing into a newborn, until it no longer had a detectable heartbeat. Then your child was dead and was no longer developing into a newborn.

Irrelevant.

 

I'm not sure if we there's any room for agreement or debate if we can't agree on the foundation of morality, which is harm to beings with minds. There's just no common ground to start from. It's like trying to argue morality with a bible thumper. They erroneously believe the bible is the source of morality, rather than logical derivations from harm to others, much like you erroneously believe a biological pump is a person. I find your position self-evidently insane and I'm not sure how to fix that. How can you care about "harm" to things that have no feelings?

 

"Rights" are not mentioned in my question, and are thus irrelevant to it.

Seems rather odd to feel such grief over losing "some tissue"...

 

Doesn't seem odd at all. How do you think a woman who wants children feels when she finds out she can't have children? That's not the loss of a child. It's loss of hope for a future child. It's sad, but I wouldn't call it devastating on the order of losing an actual child.

Rights are relevant to the abortion debate, and that's what this is about. One must determine who has what rights to determine what should be permitted legally. Rights are derived from morality, which is determined by logic.

 

I get to define the words within my own question so that it is unambiguously crystal clear as to precisely what I am asking.

Care to answer the question?

 

Why are you trying to remove men (and infertile women) from the conversation? They are as much human as anyone else, tend to be more logical/rational rather than emotional, and without a man there can't be a child.

 

IOW, precisely what every single "pro-choice" person has been doing towards me throughout this entire thread?

That was my whole point of making this thread btw... to show that "pro-choice" people simply cannot bring themselves to directly answer the simple question that I am asking without diverting their answer towards all sorts of irrelevant terminology that is not mentioned in the question that I asked.

 

There's no room for discussion if you refuse to address what I actually type, assigning bogus positions to me.

 

I am afraid I've no alternative but to call this answer of yours, "clueless," for you to think that I would confuse the words "disingenuous," or "meaningless," with being a description of something that makes me "feel very uncomfortable." So I will try to correct you, but I have a feeling, it is going to be like teaching calculus to a chicken:
1) Your question did not make me feel "very uncomfortable." Do you know what evidence I can give, of this? That I'd answered your question, in my first post! DUH! What is your proof, that I was "very uncomfortable?" Oh-- nothing at all? Well, let's test your reasoning ability: if I answered your question, straightaway, and you can offer no sign given by me, that I was at all uncomfortable-- much less very uncomfortable-- then which of our contentions is supported, and which is baseless? IOW, to any objective observer, which of us wins this point?

I will continue, with my list of corrections to this very first section, of your first reply, after you have shown that you have any at all facility, for rational thought, by answering this first point: whether or not your assumptive allegation, of my great discomfort with your question, has any basis in fact. If you cannot even grasp that reality, why should I even bother trying to explain anything, to someone who is demonstrably lost in his personal fantasy world?

 

The heart is a pump, a tool to keep nutrients flowing to the brain and other organs. A tool whose functions can be replicated artificially (ECMO), or replaced with another one (heart transplant), without changing who the person is. The mind is in the brain. The mind is the person. If you can't get those things, your position cannot be called informed or valid.

 

They would, logically, 'recluse' themselves.

 

I have said since about a year after Roe V Wade was decided that people come down on the issue depending on when they believe life begins.
If you believe life begins at or shortly after conception, you will be anti abortion.
If you believe life begins at or close to live birth, you will support abortion.

If neither of these statements include you, you necessarily either support infanticide or government control of women's bodies.

Some time back the media made a huge deal about the case of Celeste Burgess. This 18 year old aborted her baby in part because she wanted to be able to wear her favorite jeans again. Her boyfriend was then tasked with taking the body, burning it, and burying the remains. She wanted a doctor assisted abortion, but of course in Nebraska, abortions are no longer legal, so she had to go do it herself with mom's and boyfriends help.

The initial media circus was all about how poor Celeste was hounded by an aggressive DA and she was charged with concealing or abandoning a dead body, and in a plea agreement got 90 days and two years of probation. Her mom was also charged and convicted as an accessory. The essential point was that poor Celeste self aborted her fetus and the facist law went after her cause no more Roe V Wade.

Then other facts came out. For example, the baby was at 29 weeks and most likely would have survived birth at that point. And a "medical" (read prescription drug) abortion at that stage of maternity is almost guaranteed to fail, so that the result is a live birth, not an abortion. We can only hope that baby was dead when the boyfriend burned it. But most telling was that this all occurred before Roe V Wade was overturned.

That's right.
BEFORE ROE V WADE WAS OVERTURNED

Celeste did indeed seek a doctor for an abortion, but she was so far along that even with Roe V Wade the abortion was illegal, because as noted above, the fetus almost certainly would survive if delivered, and wanting to wear a particular pair of Levis is not considered a medical reason to abort.

This is how low the sides are prepared to go to sell their agenda.
And its largely why the issue won't be settled anytime soon.
18-year-old Nebraska woman sentenced to 90 days in jail for burning fetus after abortion (nbcnews.com)

 

You will find it easier if you use English. "GFM" isn't English. Is that some sort of newspeak or kidspeak. Its hilarious that you post that others can't define things when you post unknown stuff like GFM... good f'n morning? great f'n moment? George Foxnard Marshall?

States deciding the abortion issue for themselves is a very appropriate solution. Tyrants who want to kill babies are just as bad as tyrants that want to force women into things. Letting the states decide is as good a solution as we'll see.

I still wonder why folks don't use condoms, diaphragms, IUD's or THE PILL and just avoid the conflict altogether. Oh well.

 

Every method of prophylaxis has a failure rate. Plus, some rapists don't use condoms!!!

Also, you are totally missing the fact that abortion can be a required element of women's healthcare. And, current law in various states is blocking that healthcare.

 

GFM plus some numbers is the name of who posted this thread. Don’t know what it stands for though.

A good solution is letting doctors decide. They are the ones wrapped up in being experts on life, death and ethics. Usually, they are smart and knowledgeable enough to know an embryo isn’t a person.

Neither people nor those methods are perfect. IUD is the best on average, but some have problems with them and rarely they fail.

 

First of all, I do NOT agree that a fetus is a person. A fetus is a potential, not yet realized.

Beyond that, healthcare issues for a woman and for the woman's fetus are not separate, and can conflict in serious ways.

 

This is reminiscent of slave holders defining the humanity out of their slaves. This is why modern pro-lifers see themselves as the successors to 19th century anti-slavery abolitionists.

 

Doctors have no spewcial abilities in the realm of morality or right and wrong. They are technicians. Exceptional technicians, admittedly, but technicians. They have no special authority to determine life and death... just the ability to make each possibility happen.

You say an unborn child is not a person. Your OPINION is just that.. an OPINION. And millions disagree with you. Its best to let the VOTERS determine their own laws. Nothing in this life is perfect. But using a condom, an IUD, a diaphtragm or THE PILL regularly would save THOUSANDS, if not millions of lives.

Are you aware that in New York, a person that murders a pregnant woman is charged with TWO murders because the

"modern pro-lifers see themselves as the successors to 19th century anti-slavery abolitionists"??? Where'd you get that horse defecation?

I have never met anyone that drew similarities between abortion and slavery. There is NOTHING good about slavery. Saving the lives of the unborn is a laudable pursuit but the anti-abortionists have some good points too. There is no clear right and wrong. That's why leaving the issue to the VOTERS in each state is an appropriate solution.