I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

windword
Oh okay, this is about unfair it is that women demonize dead beat dads, but can go get get an abortion whenever they feel like it. So, life is unfair.

Interesting, would you like me to explore some of the other things that are unfair in life?

windword
Hmm. Yours is zero. Zero is neither negative nor positive. It's zero.

Correct.

Sharing, not only can we see by science that life begins at conception, we can know, God has revealed when
He creates the soul.

Psalm 51:5 (King James Version)
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Back to modern science, how marvelous ultra-sound, abortion is decreasing, abortion mills are being closed because of ultra-sound and pro-life prayer.


*same verse, Psalm 50:7 in the Douay-Rheims Bible www...:drbo.org/

sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by colbe

 

Thanks for sharing, coble. It is nice to see somehow around here who is aware of the reality of demons. Your story was very interesting. I never heard it before. Don't worry about my shortage of crucifixes. My favorite is the beautiful St. Benedict crucifix. If you didn't know about it and the Saint Benedict medal, both are used for protection from demonic attack.


THE SAINT BENEDICT CROSS / CRUCIFIX

You are welcome. I like your posts sad_eyed_lady, they are a wonderful, for all of us at ATS.

Our Lord crucified, He is the Passover Lamb in the New Covenant. A crucifix over the front door of your house (I have 2 + 1/2 inch size above all the outside doors) is a powerful protection. A blessed crucifix is even better. Do not be shy to ask a priest to bless a medal, a holy picture, a crucifix, he will be more than happy to, you do NOT have to be Catholic. Go to the parish office and ask or check the Sunday Mass times and ask the priest after Mass. Priests process from the altar, down the aisle, to the inside entrance of the church (vestibule) or stand outside and greet people leaving Mass.

I knew about the Saint Benedict Cross/Crucifix but I need to get one for my home. I purchased one as a
wedding gift a few weeks ago.

The reason abortion can't be discussed logically is because the anti-abortion crowd bases their arguments in religious babble and knee-jerk emotional appeals. This is quite clear after making it to page 10. They definitely do not live in the real real world with the rest of us. Reminds me to be thankful that the world is heading towards rule by reason, and not fairy tales.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The reason abortion can't be discussed logically is because the anti-abortion crowd bases their arguments in religious babble and knee-jerk emotional appeals.

Wrong. That's all pro-abortion types are prepared to argue against, which is why they're the first to mention religion.

The individual human life cycle begins at conception, abortion kills that living human being.

windword
reply to post by BardingTheBard

 

No one here is asserting that a fertilized egg isn't a human Zygote.

You mean a living human being at the zygote Stage Of Life, don't you?

The same living human being killed by abortion, correct?

windword
reply to post by BardingTheBard

 

A fertilized egg is NOT a person. A zygote will, given the right circumstances, EVOLVE into a realized, autonomous human being.

Simple biological cell division, implantation and actual pregnancy, and personhood are all very different things.

Sigh, no one is denying that egg, sperm and zygote are living organisms and human. But a zygote is a not a person and an abortion can't happen until there is a pregnancy.

Personhood is a plastic legal term, I prefer to let nature, confirmed by science determine when a living being is a living being.

Your 'person' argument allowed for Jews and Slaves to be legally determined 'not a person' or have you forgotten your history books?

The operative word here is Human. As in living humans, and humans have natural rights whether a legal system recognises them or not.

reply to post by TheWrightWing

Your 'person' argument allowed for Jews and Slaves to be legally determined 'not a person' or have you forgotten your history books?

Nonsense! No one can enslave a single celled zygote, an embryo or a fetus. However, your line of thinking does lead to enslavement, forced birth and to treating women like breeding animals.

windword
reply to post by TheWrightWing

 

Nonsense! No one can enslave a single celled zygote, an embryo or a fetus. However, your line of thinking does lead to enslavement, forced birth and to treating women like breeding animals.

The point is, your sort's reliance on legal terms to determine who and who isn't a human, dehumanizes inconvenient humans to permit atrocities, like abortion, enslavement and genocide.

The concept of human rights takes a back seat to all efforts of creating a progressive utopia. Sacrificing individuals for the greater good is a time honoured tradition of leftist 'progressives'... how 'progressive' is human sacrifice, again?

All you have to do is learn facts about progressive hero Margaret Sanger, who was admired by and inspired Adolf Hitler, another well known advocate of utopia via massive, powerful state that knows what is best for everyone.

Leftism hasn't changed one bit in a hundred years. I suppose that's what your sort refers to as "Forward".

Call it "Choice" to pretend abortion is not what it factually is: Killing living human beings.

reply to post by TheWrightWing


"Life" doesn't begin at fertilization, as life is a cycle, in which no beginning or end point that can be identified. You can call a fertilized egg a person all day long, doesn't make it so. An acorn is Not an Oak tree. And, as another poster said, a caterpillar it's NOT a butterfly. The product of a living, breathing and autonomous human person begins with a chemical reaction that kicks off an evolutionary process, from egg to zygote, to fetus, to baby. There is no denying this. A fertilized egg, a zygote, represents a potential pregnancy, and a potential human person.

Abortion terminates a pregnancy. There is NO pregnancy before implantation.

The question of when life begins is an eternal one, debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries, and likely destined to forever elude consensus. However, on the separate but closely related question of when a woman is considered pregnant, the medical community has long been clear: Pregnancy is established when a fertilized egg has been implanted in the wall of a woman's uterus.
www.guttmacher.org...

The definition is critical to distinguishing between a contraceptive that prevents pregnancy and an abortifacient that terminates it. And on this point, federal policy has long been both consistent and in accord with the scientists: Drugs and devices that act before implantation prevent, rather than terminate, pregnancy.

There is no way to have a logical conversation on abortion, when the pro-life agenda is eliminate contraceptives! Legally and medically, contraceptives and abortion are two different things. But, you refuse to acknowledge that, and want to send women's rights to be self determined in family planning, rather than being forced into parenthood by chance, back to the dark ages. This is the true agenda of the "pro-life" community, to assert control over women's sexuality through imposing an arbitrary morality, shame and laying down roadblocks to access to safe and affordable family planning choices.

If the pro-lifer community truly believes that "life begins at conception" and that a fertilized egg is a person, then their arguments to ban abortion from implantation, or from the time when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, or after 20 weeks, is all disingenuous. It's all just a veiled and continuous attempt to chip away at reproductive rights, until we are all walked backwards to their original goal of banning contraception and forced births. This is why the pro-choice community must remain vigilant, and can't take anything for granted. These forced birthers will do and say anything to push their agenda.

"Life" doesn't begin at fertilization, as life is a cycle, in which no beginning or end point that can be identified. You can call a fertilized egg a person all day long, doesn't make it so. An acorn is Not an Oak tree. And, as another poster said, a caterpillar it's NOT a butterfly. The product of a living, breathing and autonomous person begins with a chemical reaction that kicks off an evolutionary process, from egg to zygote, to fetus, to baby. There is no denying this. A fertilized egg, a zygote, is a potential pregnancy, and a potential human being.

A zygote isn't a tiny person that growing to a bigger person, it is a single cell encoded with a DNA blueprint, instructions, all of which must be followed and unfolded, in order to realize the final product, an autonomous person.

windword
reply to post by TheWrightWing

 

"Life" doesn't begin at fertilization, as life is a cycle, in which no beginning or end point that can be identified.

A human life does, the cycle is defined as having a beginning and and end. The end of course, being death which is a condition that has been long identified. I am (not) surprised you've never heard of that.

I see you have no issues relying on cultivated ignorance to support your assertions. Most folks would find that a disturbing trait to possess.

reply to post by TheWrightWing

A human life does,

A sperm and an egg are "human life". The necessities required for the existence of a realized human person go farther back and deeper than fertilization. Did you know that the shell of your body, the egg from which you sprouted, was fully viable and intact when your mother was in your grandmother's womb?

the cycle is defined as having a beginning and and end. The end of course, being death which is a condition that has been long identified.

When is that end? Is it when the heart stops beating? Is it when brain waves cease? Is it when hair and fingernails stop growing? Is it when the decaying body is no longer recognizable, even though bacteria and other life persists within the corpse? Is it when the soul exits the body? Is there life after death? Is there life before birth? What is life and what is death?

No, science has not determined the point of true individual death, just as they haven't determined the point of the beginning of individual life.

reply to post by windword


Every comical assertion you offer can easily be refuted by a child.

I find it interesting that a certain sort reliably mistakes persistent, obvious ignorance for making a point.

That predictable strategy from pro abortion types like yourself is very telling.

reply to post by TheWrightWing

Every comical assertion you offer can easily be refuted by a child.

Well then, bring on the child, because, so far, you haven't refuted anything. You just keep asserting your very narrow and pragmatic opinion and complaining about scientific and legal jargon.

That predictable strategy from pro abortion types like yourself is very telling.

Do tell............

TheWrightWing
The operative word here is Human. As in living humans, and humans have natural rights whether a legal system recognises them or not.

Where is your evidence that "humans have natural rights whether a legal system recognises them or not"? Rights and freedoms are dependent on the society within which the person grows up in.

Dark Ghost
Where is your evidence that "humans have natural rights whether a legal system recognises them or not"? Rights and freedoms are dependent on the society within which the person grows up in.

Incorrect. Human rights are a conclusion from observing nature, predate and exist independently of any society, law, technology or government.

Good governments recognise them. No government can decree them.

Being a natural inhabitant of this universe, humans have a fundamental right to life.

It is natural for humans to live and they have every right to expect to be allowed to live, and not be killed by the act of another.

Killing an innocent human is a violation of that human's natural right to life.

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Dear Dark Ghost,

You may be correct in thinking that each society recognizes and protects human rights differently. Those are the rights the State chooses to protect or not.

But the writings of societies across time and space reflect the same principles. Things like: respect the elderly, don't steal from your own people, don't murder the innocent, take care of your family, and many more show up in the words of the Vikings, Egyptians, Ancient Chinese, Jews, and many others.

C.S. Lewis describes them as examples of the tao in a famous essay. Others may consider it part of the Natural Law, but it does indeed exist.

With respect,
Charles1952

TheWrightWing
Incorrect. Human rights are a conclusion from observing nature, predate and exist independently of any society, law, technology or government.

Source? Where does it state that from merely observing nature one is entitled to human rights? Don't non-human beings also deserve rights?

Good governments recognise them. No government can decree them.

Being a natural inhabitant of this universe, humans have a fundamental right to life.

So then does any other being, but many are killed for food or sport. What makes humans extra special and more worthy of extra rights and protections?

It is natural for humans to live and they have every right to expect to be allowed to live, and not be killed by the act of another.

It is also natural for humans to die, as is the case with any other animal.

Killing an innocent human is a violation of that human's natural right to life.

What authoritative document are you basing this statement on? The Bible?

charles1952
But the writings of societies across time and space reflect the same principles. Things like: respect the elderly, don't steal from your own people, don't murder the innocent, take care of your family, and many more show up in the words of the Vikings, Egyptians, Ancient Chinese, Jews, and many others.

Just because they share common themes does not make each principle part of the same "central law system". Those "principles" are simply ones that have served mankind well in terms of survival and building a good society. It does not indicate they are derived from some central set of laws.

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Dear Dark Ghost,

I'm having trouble following your thinking here. Please offer a little clarification, if you'd be so kind.

Humanity has a history of knowing and respecting a certain set of principles regarding morality and behavior. This is instilled regardless of society.

Individual societies pass laws which sometime protect and sometime endanger these principles whether they're survival adaptations or not. By the way, care for the elderly is not a survival principle. The elderly cost more than they produce.

If you want to say they're not part of a central law system, you have that right, but since everyone has a similar set, why not call that set a central law system?

Oh, and as far as building a good society? That's a particularly weak statement since there are vast differences, even today, over what constitutes a "good" society. May I suggest that it is a society which closely matches the tao or natural law?

With respect,
Charles1952