Abortion: The Facts

""".....and address all the refutations""""


LOL! Didn't think ya could.....

 

If, as you claim, they are fake responses you should have absolutely no trouble refuting them, please do so or is it more a fact you simply cannot.

 

All I need to do is repeat the FACTS in the OP:

The big problem with the abortion discussion in America today is that it always revolves around legal decisions and not scientific fact. Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood, human flesh, human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is a human life. That is science. That is fact.

What is all too often being focused on instead though is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person and therefore whether or not the child in the womb has the right to live and not be killed as all persons do. Does anyone know what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, scientifically they were human beings like anybody else, but the law denied them personhood and thus their rights could be denied them, and that is what is being done here too. Today, just as then, the law flies in the face of scientific fact.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.

And one other thing: It is also a fact that the DNA of the child in the womb is unique and different from the mother's DNA, which blows out of the water the argument that "I can do what I want with my body", because its not the woman's body, it is an entirely seperate person, with the right to life. The child in the womb, scientifically, is a unique person.

So, what do we call it when someone snuffs out the life of of an innocent person? In a civilized society, we call it murder.

 

Again, making the point....that you won't accept that you were refuted.

And what exactly is a "fake" response???



BTW, again, if you will answer a few simple questions....directly and honestly? I can show how you are either incredibly extremist in your views....or that you don't REALLY think abortion is "murder".

Game?

 

A response that pretends to be a response but is not, and one that is not factual.

 

Or a fact you won't accept...so it must be "fake", right?

Again....up for my challenge?

 

Tell me, when did murder become a scientific or biological FACT and not a legal position?

Still not understanding English I see, do you know the difference between human adjective and human noun, from you comments it would appear you don't as you interchange them as if they mean the same thing. Here let me help you out

Human Adjective - Relating to or characteristic of humankind:
Human Noun - A human being

All of the things you outlined; human blood, human flesh, human DNA are all using the word human as an adjective, ie it is describing the blood, flesh and DNA as being human, not that it is A human(noun) being.

Talk about contradicting yourself, firstly you claim you "don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says" but then claim killing a fetus is murder, which is purely a legal term . .so which is it, you don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says or you only care when it suits your arbitrary opinion and as such feel it is ok to flip-flop between not caring and caring.

Now when you have decided whether you want to care or not then you can move on and try to prove that an abortion is the "unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." .. because I know you cannot.

so what, the uterus IS part of the woman's body and as such she has full and complete control over who or what she allows to use it.

 

The same can be said of you and your responses, you have not even attempted to refute any of the comments to your OP .. therefore it must be assumed you have nothing that can refute them so resort to just repeating the same tired old dogma.

 

Fugazi, again....I think I can prove that CC doesn't REALLY think abortion is "murder", as he claims. (Or I can prove something else just as well)

 

I'm not sure what you're expecting or what it is you think you can say that refutes everything, but I do want to remind you of something.

As pro-choicers, we've heard all the brow beating, shaming, and admonishment there is to hear. So lets recap.

We know we're going to hell. We've been reminded we have no morals, that we're terrible people who support murder, and that we'll condone anything if it feels good. We've already been notified that we hate men, we hate children, and we worship women. We've been made aware that we're part of the downfall of society. And, we're proud sponsors of the American Holocaust. /end sarcasm

So, if that weak sauce is all you've got to bring to the table, save yourself the time and just leave it in the bottle.

 

You think you are being clever when comparing abortion to slavery, but you are not. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with slavery if black people had no higher brain developed. Well, they do happen to have a brain and are sentient. Foetuses dont, not until late term.

 

To be honest GC I find threads like this nothing more than an opportunity to educate rather than an opportunity to debate.

 

Naturally, such a demonstration wouldn't matter to CatholicCrusader....

but it would be (as you note) educational to others on how "pro-life" rhetoric doesn't often match up with their ACTUAL beliefs....in other words, more dishonesty from the "pro-lifers".

Or, if we are very lucky, it DOES match up to the rhetoric....and shows the radicalism of some of the "pro-lifers".

And if nothing happens and they refuse to debate it?....it proves that they themselves realize the "trap" that their words put them in.

 

Oh I'm not really that interested in what CC has to say as most of it comes straight out of the pro-life 101 manual and has been blown apart on numerous occasions.

That is the point, to show those who are open minded that for the most pro-lifers talk equally well from their ********s as they do from their mouths, and BOTH spew crap.

Some of them are radical .. hence why I give them radical back.

Some never debate, they just keep saying the same things and when challenged stick their fingers in their ears and chant "la la la"

 

Sure, we've encountered BOTH types on this Forum.

From misogynists who dreamed of "airport ultrasounds" to make sure women weren't "leaving the country to kill their babies".....

to naive, indoctrinated younger types who talk of "controlling evil women" and then contradict themselves by saying "No, I don't want to control anybody".....and then back to "Yes, I DO want to control some people"....and then rapidly try to change the subject to something he feels more comfortable "debating".....

or just the ordinary ones who scream "Abortion is murder!!!!"...but take to the hills (figuratively) when asked to defend that rhetoric.

 

I think the "crusade" is over

 

You are confused. The first thing to comment on is "human life".

The fact of the matter is that human's must kill life to survive. Life in of itself is not considered sacred by humans.

Human life (notice that human is used as a descriptive adjective and here in lies part of your confusion). Human life is not necessarily a person, child, living human and so on. A human can be described as an example of "human life" but so can a human skin cell.

Clearly a human skin, heart, or bone cell are not living humans. The question then is how should we distinguish between what type of human life constitutes a living human and what does not.

This is fallacy. (Assuming the premise). You are assuming that any human life in the womb is a child/living human.

Your claim that a single cell at conception is a living human is given without support. Anyone can make a claim but that does not make this claim true.

What Science claims that the zygote is a living human ? I have been debating this issue for decades and never heard any science that backs up your claim.

The domain science (relevant fields of Biology) claims that the zygote is a single human cell or a single eukaryotic cell.

Biology gives specific characteristics required for an organism to make it into the club "Homo sapiens". Membership in the club "Homo sapiens" requires memberships in a bunch of other clubs. (Animalia, Chordata, Mamalia and so on). The zygote does not have the requisite characteristics for membership in the aforementioned clubs so it is not taxonomically classified as a Homo sapiens.

According to the "Domain Science" if an organism is not a Homo sapiens it is not a living human.

You again commit the same fallacy of assuming that a living human actually exists at all stages in the womb. Almost every human cell contains a complete strand of human DNA. Having human DNA does not necessarily make that entity a living human and neither does uniqueness.

You have not made an argument showing why the claim that a zygote is a living human is true. All you have done is assumed your premise which is logical fallacy.

In a civilized society laws are not made on the basis of naked claims and fallacy.

You have not made any arguments proving that your claim "its a child/living human" is true. I have certainly not covered all the various arguments either.

I can tell you that of the 5 main perspectives on "when human life begins" there is only one perspective (genetic perspective) that puts it at conception and this perspective has fallen out of favor due to various problems. https://www.franklincollege.edu/science_courses/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf You can find the various perspectives in this article.

Keep in mind that stating "human life begins here" does not mean a living human exists at that point. The beginning of a building is not necessarily a building. At the zygote stage not a single cell in the structure of the human being created exists.

The best point you can achieve, be it from a scientific, ethical, philosophical, or even religious perspective is "Experts disagree"

Experts disagree = We do not know

While it is one thing to hold a personal belief, it is quite another to force that belief on another human through law.

We have a constitution that respects the individual rights and freedoms of women. To abridge these rights one needs to have at least something on the other side of the scales of justice and that something better be significant to outweigh the rights of the woman.

How then do we value "I don't know" against the value of the rights of a woman ?

Should we really make laws on the basis of "I don't know" ? For example: I do not know that sending Bob the sodomizer over to our house for a weekly treatment will not do you some good. Therefor lets make this a law.

Really ? Do you really think that "I don't know" a good basis for making laws?

 

Murder is a legal term, not a scientific term.

It's not that simple. Killing a human life is invariably homicide, but there are many cases where it isn't murder, even if the victim is "innocent".

I think you're oversimplifying this issue

 

Rubbish. That's like comparing doctor assisted infanticides to natural crib deaths.

 

If CC was right about on thing, it was this. A zygote/fetus/infant/adult are all stages in a human organism's biological life cycle. You can't point to a single human being who had skin/heart/bone cell in the diagram of their individual life cycle.

Science classifies species based on their characteristics when they're at their "fully developed" stages. A butterfly is the same species it was when it was a caterpillar, which is the same species it was when it was an egg. To suggest that the human organism (or any organism) changes species between the time of conception and some arbitrary, undefined point in the future is baseless, anti-science and absurd.

 

What we have is a human being who has the right to decide what happens to her body.
That's it, one human being, and she gets to choose.

 

In truth the scientific community has generally refrained from entering the debate on abortion and science doesn't define when human life begins.

We can, of course, drop the discussion of the law and the US Constitution by simply eliminating all laws that address abortion completely. Is that what you propose? We can simply remove any issue of law by not having any laws to discuss. I'm Pro-Life/Pro-Choice and wouldn't advise that but it is one way to end the legal discussion.

 

This is just another form of the same fallacious argument. Without getting into whether or not the zygote is even an organism (by some more rigorous definitions it is not), this argument is silly simply on the basis that "being stage in the life cycle of a human does not make that entity a human".

I never suggested that a human organism changes species. Those are your words not mine. My claim is simply that the zygote is not a Homo sapiens according to taxonomy.

Your argument here rests on semantics and misleading use of the term "development". What is meant by "fully developed" given that human development is a continuous process.

You have not shown that at the zygote stage a living human exists. So talking about the development of some human (as if it exists) is fallacy. This is assuming the premise. It is fallacious because you have not supported this premise.

The butterfly/caterpillar analogy is flawed as the zygote does not undergo metamorphosis transforming itself into a human. You claim the caterpillar is the same species as the butterfly. Great. What you have not shown is that the zygote is a Homo sapiens.

The fully developed stage of a zygote is a zygote and it is classified taxonomically as a single celled eukaryote. A human being is not a "single celled eukaryote"

 

Wow. There's nothing I can say to this except it illustrates perfectly the pro-ignorance and anti-science logic behind your stance. You fail basic middle school biology.