The Question That "Pro-Choice" Advocates Cannot Answer

Here is the question that will be evaded or otherwise talked around instead of directly and honestly answered:

"Do you advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?"


To be clear on definitions:

"Living" means the standard medical definition of 'having a heartbeat'. IOW, "if there is a heartbeat, then there is life". No fauna with a heartbeat is ever considered to be "dead".

"Human" means 'of the homo sapiens species'. This is determined by DNA. IOW, a dog is not human... a cat is not human... a chimpanzee is not human. Rather, I am human... you are human...

 

Incorrect definition. Human life, as in "a human" is determined by brain activity combined with human DNA. The heartbeat is just an easier thing to measure, and outside of circumstances like ECMO, we can assume the brain is dead if the heart has not been functioning for a while, depending upon conditions (cold conditions do buy more time).

People with heartbeats are frequently considered dead. That is where harvested organs from donors frequently comes from. You keep the heart beating until the organ can be harvested to keep the organ healthier, but when their brain died, the person died.

Mindless tissue needs no rights and can be destroyed on consent of what owns it because it has no desires of its own to base rights upon. Things surgeons cut out like cancer, tonsils, an appendix are not separate beings even though they are comprised of separate living cells because they do not have minds of their own. Trying to give an embryo, a cancer, or a tonsil rights violates the rights of actual persons. Failing to grasp this basic fact is why you are pro-life.

 

IOW, you are attempting to reject the global medical community axiom: "if there is a heartbeat, then there is life". As you very well know, the very first thing that they do whenever checking if someone is alive is checking one's pulse.

Evasion of the question asked in the OP. I made no mention of "mindless tissue" or any of the other things you mentioned. I only made mention of 'living humans', as defined.

There is a reason why the "pro-choice" crowd absolutely refuses to answer the question precisely as it is being asked. It is because it exposes just how morally horrendous their position is.

 

I explained to you why they do that, and the exceptions to this "rule of thumb" for conditions in emergency situations. The reality is that life is determined by brain death.

Your definition is flawed, therefore your "gotcha" game is just bullshit. Here's a primer for you that acknowledges the "grain of truth" in your position:

Diagnosis of brain death - UpToDate

"
Death is an irreversible, biologic event that consists of permanent cessation of the critical functions of the organism as a whole [1]. This concept allows for survival of tissues in isolation, but it requires the loss of integrated function of various organ systems. Death of the brain therefore qualifies as death, as the brain is essential for integrating critical functions of the body. The equivalence of brain death with death is largely, although not universally, accepted [2,3].

Brain death implies the permanent absence of cerebral and brainstem functions. Although the term "brain dead" is often used colloquially in a way that erroneously encompasses patients with severe brain damage and those who remain unresponsive, in medical-legal terms its meaning is very specific.

Brain death signifies the complete, irreversible cessation of brain function, including the capacity for the brainstem to regulate respiratory and vegetative activities. It was first described in 1959, predating widespread organ donation, which has since made its codification critically necessary. While most countries have a legal provision for brain death, institutional protocols for diagnosis are not universal and are often absent, particularly in lower-income countries and in those without an organized transplant network [4].
"

 

Nope. If a person is brain-dead then the brain is dead ... but if there is a heartbeat then there is life.

You continue to evade the question asked of you.

 

No, people who have brain death but the heart is being kept beating are not alive. They are dead. Doctors do not commit murder when they stop the heart to harvest organs of a body assuming brain death was already documented. Your question is flawed like a teen asking a heterosexual teen, "Does your mom know you're gay?" It relies upon a presupposition that is false.

 

Yes, they are. The heart is still beating.

No, they aren't. They are "being kept alive".

No, it doesn't. It is a very simple straightforward question that anyone can easily answer if they weren't too afraid to answer it honestly.

Care to answer it, AS IT IS BEING ASKED?

Use the example of a 6 month old fetus (has a detectable heartbeat (even has brain activity) and is of the human species) if you must...

 

No, their tissues are being kept alive. The person died with the brain.

With the caveat that your definition of "living humans" is not a morally relevant or medically accurate one, the answer is yes. My definition of personhood is closer to what the medical establishment, and basic logic, dictates. A heartbeat is not a person. A heart is a ****ing pump. It does not indicate there is a mind present (or absent for that matter, given ECMO), or that there are desires or rights to be protected.

 

Obviously you have no children. I do. I loved my kids the moment I saw them on a sonagram. That love grew with their bodies, hands and as they kicked in the womb.
I didn't need a doctor to inform me when my kids... became my kids.

 

I have 3, soon to be 4. In my first marriage, we had a lot of unwanted losses. I felt those losses from the moment of looking at the sonogram and not seeing the heartbeat that should have been there. But the loss wasn't that of a person, it was the loss of a hope for something, like a person who discovers they cannot have children.

And yeah, it's exciting to see and feel the fetus kick, but that isn't in itself proof that it's a conscious act rather than a reflex.

 

People that like to see the murder of unborn children usually don' like animals either.
Do you have a dog?
My condolences on the child you lost. That must have been horrifyingly painful. I hope the obvious bitterness it has caused heals someday.
Be well.

 

lol, I don't think "like" is the word for pro-choicers any more than pro-lifers like to restrict women. It's a matter of who has rights and why. An embryo doesn't have rights because it has no mind - it cannot suffer, think, or feel.

We have cats. I miss having dogs. I grew up with 12-21 of them around at a time (depending upon whether we had litters of puppies). Hopefully we'll get dogs in a year or two. They're just higher maintenance than cats and the kids were previously too young to be of much help. I definitely love animals, but maybe not as motivated for the responsibility of them as my parents were.

Yes it was painful, but again, not because it was a person, but because I was looking forward to him/her becoming one. It's not bitter, just sad.

 

Millions of Americans disagree with you and believe the unborn to be people with rights. Are you aware that if you murder a pregnant woman in New York you are charged with a double homicide because the unborn child is considered a person?

This is an endless disagreement. That's why I thought the Supreme Court's decision to let each state decide the issue for themselves was a wise and appropriate decision.

 

Well yes I’m aware it’s controversial. That doesn’t tell us who is right, though. It doesn’t even mean the truth is a gray area. It’s just logic about morality, combined with medical knowledge. One or both are often lacking in many.

 

Unborn kids have rights too. That's not in the realm of doctors... or plumbers for that matter. Parents are better experts on the subject.

 

Well this thread got you nowhere, gfm, didn't it? You don't get to impose your definitions on the rest of us.

 

Good point. No one has the definitive answer. That's why the VOTERS IN EACH STATE will decide... a fair and appropriate solution.

 

Women decide to bear or not. Every month a fertile woman does not become inseminated, a live egg passes out of her and "dies". Every time a fertilized egg develops and is born, it and all that grows from it eventually dies. Men and infertile women do not have this choice. It is human and logical that the population concerned with the question, fertile females, be allowed to choose as nature has provided. Education may provide help in making that choice. Force should not be.

 

That was not my point. You end up using words that I never used to make some point of your own and then you are claiming its mine. I wrote this: "Well this thread got you nowhere, gfm, didn't it? You don't get to impose your definitions on the rest of us" I did not use the phrase " No one has the definititive answer" I did not type any of those words in the post you quoted. I think it best you let me tell you what my point is, and not try to restate it for me. You do a shitty job of it.

 

The unborn have the right to live too. There is no right or wrong answer here, that's why letting the VOTERS in each state decide is an appropriate solution.

I am still flabbergasted about this whole thing. In my day we had things like condoms, diaphragms, IUD's and THE PILL. Are these items no longer available?

 

Your post did not say who you were talking to. Using the "reply" prompt will make that easier to discern. You really should learn how to use such tools to prevent confusion.

 

Utterly disingenuous, and meaningless question-- what does that have to do with abortion? Answer to your query: no, no one but sadists & psychopaths advocate for the killing of living, innocent people, who have no wish to die. However, Pro-Choice advocates-- obviously, or so one would assume-- do not think of an undeveloped fetus, as a "living human." So now you have to prove that case. IOW, your trick question got you nowhere; you're at the exact same spot as you would have been, had you started by saying, "fetuses are people."


Mod edit at members request

 

As you know, the "global medical community," does not accept your premise, that a less than half formed (& usually not more than a one-third gestated) fetus, is a human being.

 

I answered your question. Now it is your turn to answer a simple, straightforward question: do you support forcing any woman to house, feed, and support in every possible way, never being even apart from, any other living human who attaches him or herself, to the woman's abdomen?

Or are you going to try to evade answering?

 

Gee, all your arguments are losers, aren't they? "Parents are better experts on the subject"-- are you aware that the majority of abortions, are with women who already have kids? Let me do the math for you: that means that they are parents. And guess what? Most people still want abortion to be legal. Even women (and men) who would not personally want to have their own child aborted, feel that they do not have the right to make that decision, for others.

Your lack of knowledge on the subject is noteworthy, and especially "ironic," let's say, in that you speak about it, as if your opinion is authoritative, and the only valid one.


EDIT: Funny side-note-- AARguy just replied to me in another thread, calling my post against sanctioning incestuous relationships-- by granting them normalized status, through legalizing marriage of siblings-- "psychobabble." So this Pro-Lifer, is also apparently pro-incest. Who ever could have guessed?