Two abortion clinic workers plead guilty to murder

[Cerpin Taxt]

Because an unfertilized egg's potential is no more than a dead unfertilized egg.

False.

Barring an external hindrance to its development, a fertilized egg will mature into a child and then an adult human being.

No, it won't.

Apparently, to be a Christian you have to bear a lot of false witness.

 

[Atreus21]

Barring an external hindrance to fertilization, an unfertilized egg will become a fertilized egg.
Same logic.

No, they require sperm, which is external. They don't self-fertilize.

 

[Orignal Earl]

False.


No, it won't.

Apparently, to be a Christian you have to bear a lot of false witness.

He ignored my post, that was pretty christian of him

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No, they require sperm, which is external. They don't self-fertilize.

But they do self abort all of the time.

Sometimes it's because the mother isn't even aware that she is pregnant and uses certain medication that is going to stop the pregrnacy such as birth control.

If you are going to be consistent, you must be for the banning of female hormonal birth control but i doubt you are.

You like the thought of intent more than the thought of an aborted life and you like to punish women more than you ever cared about any aborted fetus.

It's not like you're not completely transparent, you are.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

True, but it's used as a measure of individuality, as that is the determiner of whether or not the child is abortable (sic) by your definition. When outside the womb, an infant is no more an individual (in terms of its dependence on others) than it was inside the womb. Is it therefore no less abortable?

Legally they are.

I'd say that at week 25 when they are as alive as anyone born is is where i draw the limit.

Cerebral cortex activity beyond random impulse matters to those born so why shouldn't it matter to those yet to be born?

You can't very well kill a person that is not alive per the definition of clinical death, can you? If you think you can then abortions is the least of your worries, there are thousands being murdered every day in hospitals by doctors or relatives then.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, they require sperm, which is external. They don't self-fertilize.

Yeah, and fertilized eggs require uteri and nourishment, which are external. They don't self-metabolize.

In order to be a conservative like Atreus21 you have to ignore the facts and delude yourself into believing obvious falsehoods.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, and fertilized eggs require uteri and nourishment, which are external. They don't self-metabolize.

In order to be a conservative like Atreus21 you have to ignore the facts and delude yourself into believing obvious falsehoods.

Not to mention the significant percentage of embryos that the body itself aborts for various reasons.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'd like to see Atreus21 support his premise that consent to sex amounts to consent to pregnancy, noting foremost that consent to the violations to bodily integrity inherent in pregnancy must be explicit, and only slightly secondly that consent must be given to a person -- one cannot give consent to a non-person, and especially one that doesn't exist.

It is clear that Atreus21 believes that a sexually active woman deserves to serve out a 9-month sentence as an involuntary incubator for daring to engage in a non-negligent and consensual act simply because he does not feel that women should enjoy the right to do so, even while men, by a certain fortuity of nature, could never be subject to such a punishment.

Atreus21 is a classic misogynist primarily because he is a conservative Christian, and such misogyny is a pervasive attitude among people holding those backwards and destructive beliefs.

 

[halik]

Why are people here making scientific arguments when then motivation is clearly dogmatic? The pro life folks are being disingenuous about their motivation.

 

[Atreus21]

But they do self abort all of the time.

Sometimes it's because the mother isn't even aware that she is pregnant and uses certain medication that is going to stop the pregrnacy such as birth control.

If you are going to be consistent, you must be for the banning of female hormonal birth control but i doubt you are.

You like the thought of intent more than the thought of an aborted life and you like to punish women more than you ever cared about any aborted fetus.

It's not like you're not completely transparent, you are.

No, if a child self-aborts then that's beyond the mother's control and not her responsibility or anyone else's.

 

[Atreus21]

Not to mention the significant percentage of embryos that the body itself aborts for various reasons.

Which I addressed in John's post. I'm only concerned with acts that deliberately seek to destroy someone. If the body aborts the child through some natural process over which the mother had no control, there's no wrongdoing. That's like saying that someone who dies of old age has been murdered.

 

[Atreus21]

There's been an awful lot of mention of Christian motives. Can someone point to a single point of mine in this thread that is concretely rooted in any religious dogma?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There's been an awful lot of mention of Christian motives. Can someone point to a single point of mine in this thread that is concretely rooted in any religious dogma?

The idea that conception is the beginning of personhood is exactly that, woman-hater.

Oh, and the idea that sex is negligent and deserves punishment (for women, that is).

 

[Atreus21]

Legally they are.

Why should the law not extend the individuality requirement to children already born? The child is no less dependent on its parents for its support. What difference does location make?

I'd say that at week 25 when they are as alive as anyone born is is where i draw the limit.

Why? What happens between 24 weeks and 6 days, and 25 weeks that grants the child the right to life?

 

[zsdersw]

Why should the law not extend the individuality requirement to children already born? The child is no less dependent on its parents for its support. What difference does location make?

Unborn, it's dependent on the biological mother; no one else can care for it. After birth, any adult can provide for it. This has been explained to you before, so why don't you get it?

Why? What happens between 24 weeks and 6 days, and 25 weeks that grants the child the right to life?

Ability to survive outside of the uterus, as determined by the most most common time at which this occurs among a vast majority of fetuses.

 

[zsdersw]

Atreus, obviously you're not open to changing your views on abortion and neither is anyone who believes differently... so don't ask questions the answers to which you will neither believe nor accept.

 

[Atreus21]

Unborn, it's dependent on the biological mother; no one else can care for it. After birth, any adult can provide for it. This has been explained to you before, so why don't you get it?

Because the difference is minor. A child's individuality should not depend on whom the child is dependent, but only on the fact that the child is completely dependent. It makes no sense to say that I'm an individual if I depend on one person, but an invalid if I depend on another. Individuality, I would think, would be a measure of how independent you are, not on whom you depend.

Ability to survive outside of the uterus, as determined by the most most common time at which this occurs among a vast majority of fetuses.

So I guess those that are viable, unknown to us, before 24 weeks, well....they didn't make their viability known to us. They're just casualties of the system?

 

[Atreus21]

Atreus, obviously you're not open to changing your views on abortion and neither is anyone who believes differently... so don't ask questions the answers to which you will neither believe nor accept.

I've changed political positions before. I've changed my position on drug legalization, and to some extent my position on gay marriage.

But I've yet to see adequate justification for killing one's own children barring that it will save the mother's life.

 

[fskimospy]

Which I addressed in John's post. I'm only concerned with acts that deliberately seek to destroy someone. If the body aborts the child through some natural process over which the mother had no control, there's no wrongdoing. That's like saying that someone who dies of old age has been murdered.

My point wasn't to the rightness or wrongness, it was to the idea that embryos are on the way to being children so long as they aren't subject to external factors like abortion. In reality, lots of embryos are aborted naturally.

 

[Atreus21]

My point wasn't to the rightness or wrongness, it was to the idea that embryos are on the way to being children so long as they aren't subject to external factors like abortion. In reality, lots of embryos are aborted naturally.

For which no one can reasonably be held responsible.

 

[fskimospy]

For which no one can reasonably be held responsible.

Not trying to talk about responsibility.

 

[zsdersw]

Because the difference is minor. A child's individuality should not depend on whom the child is dependent, but only on the fact that the child is completely dependent. It makes no sense to say that I'm an individual if I depend on one person, but an invalid if I depend on another. Individuality, I would think, would be a measure of how independent you are, not on whom you depend.

Yes, it does make sense. Biologically, the unborn are dependent on precisely one person, no more no less. After birth their dependence is of a much different kind; they do not need an umbilical cord. Their dependence is one of keeping life functions going, not forming them in the first place, as happens in the womb.

So I guess those that are viable, unknown to us, before 24 weeks, well....they didn't make their viability known to us. They're just casualties of the system?

Yes, they are. Government and law do not deal in absolutes because we're not a society of absolute people with absolute desires, beliefs, and opinions.

 

[zsdersw]

I've changed political positions before. I've changed my position on drug legalization, and to some extent my position on gay marriage.

Good for you, but...

But I've yet to see adequate justification for killing one's own children barring that it will save the mother's life.

... you will never change your position on this because you believe life, in the eyes of the law, must begin at conception.

Don't pretend to have an open mind on this subject when you really do not.

 

[Atreus21]

Yes, it does make sense. Biologically, the unborn are dependent on precisely one person, no more no less. After birth their dependence is of a much different kind; they do not need an umbilical cord. Their dependence is one of keeping life functions going, not forming them in the first place, as happens in the womb.

Then I guess we just disagree on the necessity of that requirement. I don't see why that difference should separate those who can be legally killed from those who legally cannot be killed.

Yes, they are. Government and law do not deal in absolutes because we're not a society of absolute people with absolute desires, beliefs, and opinions.

It's not dealing with absolutes to say that a system which accidentally kills human beings as part of its normal operation is uncivilized.

 

[Atreus21]

Good for you, but...



... you will never change your position on this because you believe life, in the eyes of the law, must begin at conception.

Don't pretend to have an open mind on this subject when you really do not.

You might as well chastise me for not having an open mind about murder or rape. No sane person has an absolutely open mind.

When I witness a child being murdered in real life, I don't consider the validity of the reasons the murderer had for killing the child out of a desire to be "open minded". Should Americans have had an open mind about slavery or the holocaust? Do you profess to be open minded about discrimination against homosexuals?

Open-mindedness has its place. But without convictions we cease to use our brains.