It's not possible the human life begins at conception? When a human heart pushes blood through arteries and veins return them back to recirculate? When pain sensations develop?
Not "possible", you say?
Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate
- Thread starter Wrangor
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
It's not possible the human life begins at conception? When a human heart pushes blood through arteries and veins return them back to recirculate? When pain sensations develop?
Not "possible", you say?
No one is advocating aborting children.
Wait...stop it. You ACTUALLY believe that at conception, there is blood running through a heart? Wow. Explains so much...
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
This is the part where I know you don't believe what you are saying, and you're insecurely lashing out. You can't possibly be dumb enough to have missed the punctuation between those two different sentences (clearly marking the end of one reference to a point in time, and the beginning of a separate reference to another). You're not this dumb, but disappointingly apparently that dishonest.
Get more defensible policies, and you won't have to feign confusion so frequently to avoid defending them.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I think he's saying it's possible that life could begin before 28/29 weeks since the human heart is pushing blood through proper circulation at the 10/11 week mark, in response to the comment that life could not "possibly" begin before 28/29 weeks.
Then why have the procedure at all?
Right. Thank you.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
I knew a couple of girls in high school in the 80s who got pregnant and had abortions at Reynolds. Buena Vista girls from 2-parent families who made good grades and went to college and then got married and have beautiful families now.
I know a couple who have a couple of great kids who got pregnant recently in their early 40s and labored over the decision but ultimately decided to terminate.
fucking murderers, right in our midst. :rulz:
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
The major discussion issue going on here IMO is that JHMD believes pro-choicers are engaging in some ongoing attempt at euphemisms to cover up the discomfort pro-choicers are feeling. For me that's a false assumption since I don't believe that an abortion is killing a baby/person - I believe it is a fetus. I don't need to engage in euphemisms to talk about abortions and the fetus because I don't find it to be a barbaric or immoral process in the least. Therefore I have no reason to need to couch my opinions to "feel better about myself" or whatever other lines were thrown out yesterday alluding to pro-choicers feeling morally "icky." I don't feel icky about my stance in the least. I think reasonable minds can and do differ on abortion (and view abortion differently than I view same-sex marriage or a belief in evolution for instance), but I think for the most part people are just talking past each other on here.
Calling abortion the "slavery of our generation" and saying that pro-choicers are equivocating because of discomfort with their own position is not fruitful to discussion. The former is almost certainly a gross hyperbole (although kudos for consistency on viewing abortion as murder and taking everything in stride that goes along with that initial proclamation) while the latter is fallacious since many pro-choicers do not find abortion barbaric and therefore wouldn't need to equivocate over discomfort.
Calling abortion the "slavery of our generation" and saying that pro-choicers are equivocating because of discomfort with their own position is not fruitful to discussion. The former is almost certainly a gross hyperbole (although kudos for consistency on viewing abortion as murder and taking everything in stride that goes along with that initial proclamation) while the latter is fallacious since many pro-choicers do not find abortion barbaric and therefore wouldn't need to equivocate over discomfort.
You don't see any insecurity in the proclamation that life couldn't "possibly" begin before the author declares it to be so? No insecurity in foreclosing the possibility of dissenting opinions? That's the absolute certainty called for in filling out a Pyongyang scorecard. Forgive me if I sense a little.
I appreciate that you're willing to push your chips in without apology, and also capable of acknowledging there is at least the remote possibility that others may be reasonable in not agreeing.
I use the term "slavery of our generation" because denying the humanity (in my view, also incorrectly in this century as it was in the 19th) was the same tactic employed. The baby/fetus is the "property" of the mother over which she has sole sovereignty also sounds a bit familiar.
DeaconSig
Well-known member
You certainly seem intolerant of dissenting opinions on this issue. So are we to assume you are insecure on your position?
I'm entirely insecure in the idea that another person could look at a third trimester baby and not see human life; to me that's an intolerable position.
What do you think about the following sentence: "Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute, and is subject to some limitations; and that, at some point, the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach." (emphasis added)
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
RevDeac06
OGBoards Chaplain
Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't noticed anyone advocating that position.
Look no farther than this very thread.
RevDeac06
OGBoards Chaplain
Care to share a quote?
RChildress107
Well-known member
Not possible that personhood begins before being capable of supporting consciousness.
We went through this on page 68.