Ina thrwad on an disccusisonboard, other than this one, I am debatign Abrrtion.

The man I debate claimed that I wasa Hypoctire since I do nothign to speak agasint " Spontaneous Abortion', or miscarriage.

Likewise, he claimed I was hypoctitically redefinign words when I claled the fetus a child and a baby.

He also accused me of only thinkign of it as a person when convienent.

Hiw whole argument stems for the notion that I am agaisnt owmens rights, but why woudl I want ot deny womens rights? And why must he asusme this is my motive?

Sorry, this is a rant relaly, but it does get frustrating...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 31, 2004

Answers

bump

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 31, 2004.

"The man I debate claimed that I wasa Hypoctire since I do nothign to speak agasint " Spontaneous Abortion', or miscarriage."

A: How utterly absurd! It's hypocritical to oppose people being murdered, because some people will still die of natural causes??? What has this guy been smoking?

"Likewise, he claimed I was hypoctitically redefinign words when I claled the fetus a child and a baby".

A: Maybe he should invest in a good dictionary. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language ... "child" - second definition - "an unborn infant; a fetus".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 31, 2004.

Hwere is a post by hoim, featuring quotes form my earlier argument.

---------------------\

Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- You arent pro womens rights, you are pro infanticide. You see, that is the whole reason to objec tto Abortion int eh first place. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Then I'm affraid you're TERRIBLY confused. Abortion doesn't involve the killing of an infant.

Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- You completely ignore the pro-life side of the issue, which is fundamentlaly concenred withthe rights of the baby, which at leats 50% of the time is goign to be a gurl. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

No babies involved, my friend. Babies are born. They don't infringe a woman's fundamental right to body integrity.

Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- THOSE women dont get rights, they get killed. The boys that are aborted dont get rights, they get killed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

What gives an embryo/fetus the right to inject a woman with hormones, force her to eat/excrete for it, etc.?

Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Bysupportign the womens rights to their own body, you condmen soemone else to death because their body happens to be inside another persons bodyt ofr a few months, and deny them their basic right of life. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Uh, if you really consider abortion to be the "death" of a "person", why aren't you pushing for virtually ALL research dollars to go towards stopping spontaneous abortion, which "kills" litterally 50% of all "people"? Yes, that's right, 1/2 of all "people", as you define them, die before the woman even knows her egg has been fertilized. The fact is, people like yourself only define a fertilized egg as a "person" when it's convenient. Why are we spending all this money fighting petty little diseases like cancer, which don't claim half as many "people" as spontaneous abortion, which by your reasoning is by far the #1 killer of all "people"?

Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Befofre you say I am opposed to womens rights, can you tell me why you sont care about the babies rights? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

I do care about "babies". But "babies" have nothing to do with abortion. For, you see, I also don't blur the difference between a fertilized egg and a sentient, independent "person" when I think it will help my argument.

Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Of ourse, you may not want to call it a baby and accuse me of memetics again, btu oen thing is for sure, and as you work in the medical proffession, you shoudl know this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

First, I don't work in the medical profession.

Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The fetus is a living human being fully developed Cellular proccesses are operational, at conception, and the Zygote contains 100% of the genetic mateiral nessisary to be called Human. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

So does a HeLa culture. And it's only a "human being" if the above if all you require, in which case you've got to fight for the "rights" of HeLa cultures as well. Pretty silly if you ask me.

Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- I cannot support a womans right to murder her own chuld. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Me either. Fortunately, an embryo is not a "child" and abortion isn't "murder", unless you do some conveniant redefining, which only leads you to dilemmas like the ones I've mentioned.

Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- This is not because I am opposed to womens rights, but becaUSE i SEEK TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF OTHERS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

So, what are you doing to lower the rate of spontaneous abortion? Also, even if we DO consider a fertilized egg a "person" (which is ridiculous for the reasons mentioned), what gives a person the "right" to live at the expense of another's body?

Quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- whereas you look at ONLY the owoman as thoguh she is the only one that matters, I take into consideration both, and frankly, unless the woman is in serious risk of death formt he pregenency, giving Birth will not adversely affect her medical health, whereas Abortion will, invatiabley, destory all health the chuild has. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

I support FOREMOST the individual's fundamental right to body integrity, period. I also refuse to engage in hypocritical redefinitions of terms.

-Nick

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 01, 2004.

The Holy Father not only has failed to excommunicate Catholic pro- aborts, he is mute as Cardinal Ratzinger's statement is leaked to the press and as Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., claims that the statement, which he says he has not seen, is not the full story of what Ratzinger told him and the other American bishops. This is just a total mockery of Catholicism. How can cardinals be permitted to publicly contradict each other on such a grave matter as protecting the integrity of the Eucharist?

The Church must speak out with one voice on this most important matter, or it will suffer greatly in the future.

-- Borstal (algora@msn.com), August 01, 2004.

Thats nice... but the Holy Fathr is not the topic of this thread...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 01, 2004.

The plainest way of rebuttal is this:

You were a fetus, and as such a human being inside your mother's womb. We have to assume this, since you're living today and nobody can say you are a giraffe or a bear. Your mother did not conceive a bear or a girrafe. She conceived just you, a person who lived nine months inside her. You are living proof of this.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 01, 2004.

"Then I'm affraid you're TERRIBLY confused. Abortion doesn't involve the killing of an infant."

A: Well it obviously involves the killing of something. Clearly what is in the mother's uterus is alive. What sort of living being can two human parents produce other than a human being? Are you suggesting that a human being born at 6 months gestation IS an infant, but a human being killed at 8 months gestation is NOT an infant? Are you suggesting that identity as a human being or as an infant depends entirely on WHERE you are, not WHAT you are? That is completely irrational. It's like saying that if you take a toaster from the kitchen into the living room it becomes a radio.

"No babies involved, my friend. Babies are born. They don't infringe a woman's fundamental right to body integrity."

A: Again, you are claiming that a baby is defined only by WHERE it is located, not by its degree of physical development? Not by its physical characteristics? Born at 6 months = baby, but unborn at 8 months = no baby?? You can have a non-baby that is two months more advanced in developement than a baby?? How utterly absurd! Moving a living being from the mother's body to outside her body causes that being to become something he/she wasn't a few moments before, even though he/she is anatomically, physiologically, and genetically identical? How utterly ridiculous!

"What gives an embryo/fetus the right to inject a woman with hormones, force her to eat/excrete for it, etc.?"

A: It was the woman who participated in a reproductive act. It was HER choice, not the infant's choice, which brought the infant into existence. Once a human being exists, he/she has the same rights as any other human being, and these rights are inalienable.

"Uh, if you really consider abortion to be the "death" of a "person", why aren't you pushing for virtually ALL research dollars to go towards stopping spontaneous abortion"

A: I fully support all such research. However, there is obviously no justification for ALL research dollars going toward this particular health need. There are many other causes of human death and pain, and individuals suffering from those conditions have exactly the same right (no more, no less) as preborn humans to have research devoted to their particular health needs.

"I do care about "babies". But "babies" have nothing to do with abortion. For, you see, I also don't blur the difference between a fertilized egg and a sentient, independent "person" when I think it will help my argument"

A: A baby ten minutes before birth is exactly as "sentient" as the same baby 10 minutes after birth. There is NO difference, a fact you are quite willing to blur to suit your own purposes. Furthermore there are plenty of adults who have lost sentience through illness or injury, but are still fully human. (Of course I realize that the same people who are pushing for the dehumanization of preborn children are also pushing for the dehumanization of such adults). Obviously sentience is merely a smokescreen to divert the uninformed from the real issues.

"So does a HeLa culture. And it's only a "human being" if the above if all you require, in which case you've got to fight for the "rights" of HeLa cultures as well."

A: A cell culture carries the genotype of the individual who donated the original cells - no-one else. The cells are obviously part of THAT individual. The preborn child, from the moment of conception, carries a unique genotype which has never existed before, a genotype vastly different from that of either his/her mother or his/her father, the genotype of a new individual who has never existed until that moment, and who thereafter has the same rights as his/her mother or father, or any other individual human being.

"Fortunately, an embryo is not a "child" and abortion isn't "murder", unless you do some conveniant redefining, which only leads you to dilemmas like the ones I've mentioned"

A: A "child" is a human being below the age of puberty. You can learn this from any good dictionary. The unborn child is clearly a being, is necesarily human, and is well below the age of puberty.

"what gives a person the "right" to live at the expense of another's body?"

A: There is no such right. And therein lies the inherent evil of abortion; for it is not the mother's body which is destroyed in abortion, but the body of another completely distinct human being, the body of her son or daughter.

"I support FOREMOST the individual's fundamental right to body integrity, period. I also refuse to engage in hypocritical redefinitions of terms."

A: Sure you do - provided the individual is of an acceptable age and/or currently lives in an acceptable location. Anyone who doesn't meet your arbitrary requirements can be freely destroyed. And I assume that as a moral liberal you are also in favor of expanding the definition of "non-human" to additional people, thereby allowing yourself and society at large to live more freely at the expense of the lives of still other helpless individuals.

As for "hypocritical redefinitions of terms", this is the stuff your position is made of. No sane person, faced with the grim reality of one third of our innocent children being torn limb from limb or burned to death for the convenience of their parents, could stomach the stench. Which is why those who most vehemently support abortion try so desperately to distance themselves from the very name of that which they champion, hiding behind silly, insubstantive terms like "pro-choice" (which doesn't define any subset of society, since every sentient person values the right to make choices). In the bizarre world of pro-abortion activists, "women's health centers" are places where children are brutally slaughtered, and their mothers permanently scarred, physically, psychologically and spiritually (not to mention the substantial number who have died there along with their children). In the doublespeak of the abortion industry, "products of conception" or "fetal matter" means a little girl or boy who has not yet moved out of the uterus. (I'm a product of conception, aren't you??). "Reproductive rights" means legalization of murder. Don't talk to me about "hypocritical redefinitions of terms"

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 01, 2004.

i have so many points to make, but at this junction, i think only this one is necessary:

Fortunately, an embryo is not a "child"

isnt that similar to what hitler said about the jews?

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), August 01, 2004.

Zarove, you are unintelligable.

-- man (man@man.com), August 01, 2004.

Yewt people seem to respond to me...it must be a Miracle...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 01, 2004.