TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

Donho50 said……….

“Again, I see very little light between our points of view. My point is that more people in this country want access to legal abortion in some form than those who would like it abolished all together. As long as that sentiment holds true, the best we can hope for is minimizing these occurences through restrictions on late term abortion,”

You answered…….

“I understand, I think there is room for both of our reproaches.”


I say……👿

So…….there is “room” to save the babies that are “late term”……..At what point does a baby become late term? At what point does this baby become, a real live baby, worth saving? If a baby is only 23 weeks, I guess it’s OK to reach in there and pull that baby out one leg, then one arm, then put the little body parts in a trash bag!…As long as we don’t allow anyone to sell those little body parts……but, if he/she is 24 weeks or older…..there is a stay in the death sentence? 😰

I believe in compromise when it comes to politics, between conservative policies and liberal policies………the decision of when its OK to kill God’s most precious gift, cannot be comprised on! This is not political! Jesus Christ gave His life for any and all that accepted Him to be their Savior………..There is no compromise in either decision!

And for anyone that thinks that a Christian’s religion should be kept out of this…..Think again! Our religion and our faith should be first and foremost in every step and in every decision of our life! The decision is ours! Jesus assured us that we are granted FREE WILL! Remember this…..Decisions have consequences!

This is my Opinion………everyone has the right to have and express their own!

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

My very dear Lady.
I agree with what you say. My approach, and belief, is that ANY abortion for any reason OTHER than if it is the only way to save a woman's life should be illegal and never tolerated.
However, I do see Donho's point. We should and must take the best we can get, and save as many children as possible. That is what I meant about there being room for both approaches. But NONE of us should be satisfied until abortions are a horrid memory, and has taken it's deserved place with in the past with the holocaust and the inquisition. Until that wonderful day, some Americans will continue to be barbarians, and the fight against them and abortions will continue.
As to religion, again I agree with you. My Christianity is part of every decision I make. Nevertheless, the best argument we have is that a preborn child is a human being biologically and medically. If that is true (and it IS!) then aborting one is murder.

I think it is interesting that, thus far, not a single person has posted to this thread and presented evidence that a fetus is NOT a human being. My personal opinion is that denying a preborn child's humanity was and is being done ONLY as a means to justify abortions. I'm sure that conviction will continue unabated, but so far I have seen nothing presented to scientifically support that opinion.

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert

There is nothing scientific to support the theory that a fetus is not living tissue.Human egg ,human sperm ,. Equal human fetus. No question. But. Does it have a soul? Does it need one? If you don't believe in God. You probably do not believe in a soul. Democrats have a hard time defining what a woman is. Should we let them define what a human is? On a legal matter, if you kill a pregnant woman you will be charged with two murders. So the courts have already decided that the killing of a fetus is murder. Why should it be different when a doctor does it?

DamnYANKEE

VERY true ,but you'll play hell to get'em to admit it . They now ALL try to pin this an GOP members . the old tell a LIE long enuf

Ricktloml

I am with you both. I will add, I will not adopt the attitude that I need to accept abortion, (for any reason other than the life of the mother.)

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Agreed.

DamnYANKEE

I LUV IT . RIGHT ON DAVE

nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert

It's kinda funny, but mostly sad that
A bacteria is proof of life on Mars
But a heartbeat isn't life on Earth.

David L Loc: Central Wisconsin

Thanks. Your compliment is appreciated

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

It has now been five days since I started this thread. I consider it a success because we had some very good and enlightening discussion on the topic.
I would like to express my appreciation to all of you who participated in what remained a respectful and polite examination of what an abortion is, and isn't. Thank you all.

I remain, however, fascinated by the fact that NOT A SINGLE ONE of our leftwing friends on OPP took the opportunity of this thread to present arguments or evidence that a fetus is NOT a human child. Not a one. What happened to all of those who so vigorously argue that abortion is NOT killing a child over the past few years? It makes me wonder why they would NOT chime in their opinions.
The only conclusion that seems reasonable is that they can NOT do so. They have nothing. Which leads to the next logical step, that their convictions in this manner is result based rather than evidence based.
In other words, I strongly suspect that they start out with the firm conviction that they want abortion legal, so therefore it MUST be only removing unwanted tissue, and therefore the tissue CAN NOT and MUST NOT be recognized as a living child. This is very common in left wing arguments, discussions, beliefs, and policies. The end justifies the means. A primary source of evil in this world of ours.

Please let me know if anyone thinks my conclusions are invalid. I would like to know why you think so.
Randy

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

I am the furthest one can be from left wing, but, I see your conclusions as invalid. You begin your stance by defining the definitions in such a way to draw a particular conclusion that a fertilized egg is, in fact, a human being. Fair enough on it's face. Then you proceed to challenge others to dispute your stance while following your definitions. You challenge others to prove a negative. To prove a fertilized egg is "not" a human being while following your definition of what is a human being. A definition being that of what is a "human being" as opposed to what defines a "potential human being". A very simple one word variance that can make all the difference in one's position on the subject. On top of that your final conclusion is to assign particular motivations to positions that disagree. And you go one step further by declaring that anyone that disagrees with you is evil. Where is the upside or even the motivation to have an open discussion where the game is rigged and the outcome pre-decided.

From the outset you were never interested in an open discussion. You appeared interested in an opportunity for accolades for your perceived virtues and to shoot down those who may disagree. From those two goals, this thread has been a success.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Thank you, Stycker, for your evaluation. As you might expect, I disagree with certain points you made. Please allow me to explain why.
In the first place, the whole point of this thread was to concentrate on the science. Science, for many reasons, supports that a preborn child is a human being. The pro-abortionists claim it is not, but have never presented credible reasons, at least to my knowledge. Thus far their argument is either a variation of "It just isn't, PERIOD!" or the claim that it is not 'viable' or that it is not alive until it is independent and breathing on it's own. I find none of these arguments convincing.
Now, to the points you make that I disagree with:
You say:
"Fair enough on it's face. Then you proceed to challenge others to dispute your stance while following your definitions. You challenge others to prove a negative. To prove a fertilized egg is "not" a human being while following your definition of what is a human being."
My reply:
I did not ask for absolute proof....I asked for evidence or justification of what they believe. A reasonable request.
You say:
"a potential human being" as though there is a difference.
My reply:
The only difference is if we are defined that way. Is a baby who can not feed itself a human? What about a 1st grader that can not reproduce? What about a teenager who has not fully developed? What about an elderly person who can no longer reproduce? What about a disabled person who can no longer feed or care for themselves? What about a person who requires a respirator to survive? And finally, what about a fetus? These are all different stages in a human being's life, IMO. None of them are less human for being 'potential' or past their prime or damaged.
You say:
"On top of that your final conclusion is to assign particular motivations to positions that disagree."
My reply:
Yes I did. I stand by that because that is the only explanation that makes sense to me. Do you have another one?
You say:
"And you go one step further by declaring that anyone that disagrees with you is evil."
My reply:
Not at all. You are misreading, I assume. Lots of people disagree with me, and I can understand and respect that......especially if they can produce a credible reason. My statement was VERY specific that the position that THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS is a primary source of evil in today's world. And it is, and I stand by that statement as well.
You say:
"Where is the upside or even the motivation to have an open discussion where the game is rigged and the outcome pre-decided."
My reply:
I started this thread being very frank about my opinion. I invited anyone who wanted to post THEIR opinions, and justify them. THAT is what we do on OPP. We learn from each other by disagreeing and attempting to justify our own positions. NOTHING was pre-decided because it is a discussion about views and evidence to support them.
You say:
"From the outset you were never interested in an open discussion. You appeared interested in an opportunity for accolades for your perceived virtues and to shoot down those who may disagree."
My reply:
I am repeating myself here, but I guess I must. I presented MY opinion, and invited those who disagreed to respond. Preferably with evidence or at least reasons for their disagreement. What is that if NOT open discussion?
As for accolades, I do not recall presenting any virtues at all. I was simply presenting MY strongly held opinions and the reasons behind them. Shooting disagreements down? Not quite, though if unconvinced I would and did respond honestly and tried to justify my reasons. As I am doing with your own disagreements.

Strycker, I do sincerely thank you for your honest assessment, and for your opinions. Even though I think you are wrong in your conclusions, you approached it bluntly and politely, and I appreciate that.
How, if you do not mind my asking, do YOU personally feel about the subject? Do you think a fetus is or is not a human?

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

One last thing. I really AM interested in alternate theories and reasons, and would still like to hear them. But I will respond, honestly and politely, if I do not find the argument convincing.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

I won't go back and rehash the different points of view. I do give you the credit for mostly standing behind your convictions. Especially in as that you think a woman should be legally held responsible for her decisions to have an abortion. Though I wholeheartedly disagree with that stance, I respect you for stating it concisely and bluntly. Few other are willing to do so. Most are willing to compromise on their willingness to call it murder in order to advance their agenda. If one believes abortion is murder then I do not understand how one accepts some murder as a compromise. Makes no sense to me and only weakens their stated convictions.

As far as my personal opinion on the subject I have more or less already stated it and you have already dismissed it. I do not see a fertilized egg at the moment of conception as a human being. I see it as a cell containing the building blocks, DNA, to become a human being but that it is not yet a human being. A human being is much more than just DNA. The building of a house starts with a blueprint, but, a blueprint is not a house. It does not become a house until some time after someone decides to build it or when someone fails to stop the construction.