The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.
The Personhood Debates
Debate 6: The 180 Movie
Finish this sentence: "It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when..."
. . . it's before the end of the first trimester.
You are almost certainly almost as pro choice as I am.
When the fetus is a product of incest.
. . . When the mother's life is in endangered.
When the fetus is found to be so malformed that it will only suffer if born.
. . .When the fetus is the product of rape
. . . When the mother is a crack addict.
You are mistaken, Mr. Skeptic. I am firmly opposed to abortion in every single one of those circumstances, because abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent person. None of those situations provides justification for killing someone.
Let me make sure I understand: Let's say your daughter is a diabetic who develops a condition in pregnancy called hyperemesis gravidarum (uncontrollable vomiting associated with pregnancy). She becomes malnourished and dehydrated in spite of intravenous therapy and other treatment, threatening heart failure, among other things. The only cure for this conditino at the moment is an abortion. Either that or she will certainly die. Which is it?
The 9 year old child: This is a true story. The little girl was raped by her step father. Her little body would not survive a 9 month pregnancy. And you will still force this little girl to . . . Die?
By the way, she did abort and was excommunicated from her church for it.
The child of a crack addict: Are you willing to adopt this child? I'll answer that: hell no or you would have one of these kids now. Instead, you will force this woman to have this child, the child will be born into poverty, suffer abuse and neglect and will have all sorts of problems simply from being born addicted to crack. Adn you will force this woman to bear that child.
A woman goes thogh the most horrible thing she can imagine and is raped by a stranger. You will actually force this woman to go through 9 months of pregnancy to deliver this monster's child.
Are you really that much of a monster, sir? Really?
The answers to each of your questions all hinge upon a single foundational question. Is the unborn child a person? I have prepared a free, 16 page booklet which answers this question in the affirmative by examining evidence from the Bible, the law, the courts and science. If I am correct in that conclusion, then I must also be correct in my complete opposition to abortion. Here is a link to the booklet:
I don't need to read a 16 page stream of nonsense to determine that you are a monster, sir. Thank the gods there are not more of you.
That's very interesting. I was under the impression that you were willing to examine the evidence for any position before arriving at a conclusion. Isn't that one of the foundational tenets of skepticism?
There is no amount of evidence that would cause me to support the death of a child because she was raped by her stepfather. Only a biblical worldview would allow for such evil.
OK, I glanced over your booklet. It is stupid, deluded, not based in either fact or science and is meaningless without the use of a bible as a Rosetta stone.
Once again, that is very interesting. Would you mind pointing out to me exactly which part of the Scientific section is not based on facts?
The fact that "life begins at conception" is based strictly on personal assumptions generally guided by biblical foundations even though the bible is wholly mute on the enter abortion debate except in Deuteronomy somewhere where God commands his children to kill babies.
Really? The last time I read my booklet, it contained evidence from several different scientists proving that life begins at conception. Did you overlook that section?
There is nothing special about the act of conception. It is a chemical reaction that results in a biotic process.
By your definition, growing skin cells in a petri dish is protected "life." If you scrape some cells from the inside of your mouth, you commit murder.
Answer this: We have the capability of producing a human fetus by "simply" zapping a stem cell into dividing. No one has claimed to have cloned a human yet but we've successfully done it with other animals.
So once we "zap" a cell to cause it to start the development of a fetus, would it be "murder" to smash the petri dish with a hammer?
You're just full of interesting comments today, Mr. Skeptic. The point of the booklet is not that there is something special about conception (although I could certainly argue that there is). The point is that there is nothing special about birth. The life that exists after birth is the same life that existed before birth.
I am still very curious as to which part of the scientific section of the booklet is not based on facts.
"The life that exists after birth is the same life that existed before birth. "
So by that definition, it is "murder" to abort a pig embryo. In fact, it's "murder" to kill ANY living thing.
No sir, it is "murder" to kill HUMAN life. An embryo is no more "human" than your pancreas at one point then is so much more than that at another. When you are able to understand why that is you will be ready to leave, grasshoppah.
Your "science" is science-based observations filtered through the lens of biblical delusion. It is "not science" in the same way that your "6000 year old earth" is not science. No, I do not expect you to understand that. Anyone that would advocate killing a 9 year old child instead of allowing her to abort is so deluded that I only have ridicule for you.
And you didn't answer this: So once we "zap" a cell to cause it to start the development of a fetus, would it be "murder" to smash the petri dish with a hammer?
You missed the point. If the life that exists after birth is the same life that existed before birth, then it would only be murder to kill a pig embryo if it is murder to kill a pig after it is born. By the same token, if the life of a person is a human life after birth, then it would also have been a human life prior to birth.
I understand that you think that my booklet lacks scientific evidence, but I suspect that you have not really read it in order to verify that thought. I would certainly prefer to believe that you came to that conclusion after rigorous study of the evidence presented, but you have a bit of a history of refusing to consider evidence contrary to your opinion. If you want to make a claim that the scientific evidence I presented is not really scientific, then you will need to provide a quote of the evidence which you are rejecting and a valid explanation of how that particular evidence fails to qualify as being scientific.
As for your question about "zapping" stem cells into fetuses, I'll ignore the gross oversimplification and say that the situation which you describe would constitute murder according to the evidence which I presented in the booklet.
"The last time I read my booklet, it contained evidence from several different scientists proving that life begins at conception."
and " I would certainly prefer to believe that you came to that conclusion after rigorous study of the evidence presented"
You quote anti-choice scientists who have clear biases against women's rights who, amazingly, had opinions that "life begins at conception." They ere opinions based on philosophical arguments, not "science." I'm not surprised you cannot grasp that subtle difference.
Thanks for the clarification of the petri dish "life" (and of course is an oversimplification. Do I need to write a ****ing book?). Yes, you are certainly consistent in your delusion. I will give you that, Immoral, hateful, heartless but certainyl consistent.
And one more direct question for which a direct answer is requested:
In the case of the 9 year old rape victim: She almost certainly would have died well before the fetus was viable. Her pregnancy didn't know she had a tiny body that could not handle the stress.
So you would side with the Catholic Church in this matter and watch BOTH of them die rather than allow her family to make a choice?
And what if your wife was a diabetic as I described earlier? Would you require both she and the baby die in order to remain consistent
Perhaps you missed my previous answer. Here it is again: "I am firmly opposed to abortion in every single one of those circumstances, because abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent person. None of those situations provides justification for killing someone."
Now, you state that the unborn child of a 9 year old rape victim should be killed because the 9 year old "almost certainly would have died" if the baby had been allowed to live. Notice that you did not state that the 9 year old "certainly would have died," but rather that she "almost certainly would have died." Her death in this situation is not certain; it is just made more likely.
I have provided evidence (which you have yet to disprove) that the unborn child is just as much a human being as the 9 year old girl. This means that you are arguing that a person should be intentionally killed for no other reason than that his life increases the likelihood that another person will die.
You call me immoral, hateful and heartless; but unless you can prove that the unborn child differs significantly from the 9 year old girl, then it is you who fits that description. My position is that no innocent person should be intentionally killed. You, on the other hand, are arguing for the intentional killing of many innocent people. It is obvious that you must first prove that unborn children are not really people before you can claim that your position is just.
You have attempted to prove that point by claiming that the scientists that I quoted were anti-choice and that they presented false claims because of that philosophy. Would you mind explaining which of the scientists that I quoted was anti-choice, how you know that that particular scientist was anti-choice and what evidence you have that he presented false claims because of his anti-choice philosophy?
And what if your wife was a diabetic as I described earlier? Would you require both she and the baby die in order to remain consistent? Or do you simply place the whole matter in your god's hands and hope for the best?
Just trying to see of there is a limit to your depravity.
I wouldn't have to do anything in that case. My wife would ask the doctors to save the baby at all costs.
You avoided the question as I knew you eventually would.
In these kinds of situations, the symptoms often happen before the fetus is viable - as early as 10 weeks. So either the fetus is aborted or the mother dies.
Really? Are you saying that you know of a documented case in which it was absolutely certain that both the mother and the baby would die if the baby was not killed first?
YES. It is rare but it happens. Mothers who have Type 1 diabetes have 20-times the risk of dying from all sorts of complications from pregnancy.
Mothers with high BP are also at very high risk and it certainly does come down to a choice between mother and baby and the choice must sometimes be made quite suddenly.
These are just two examples of "high risk" pregnancies. I am asking you to make the choice for all these women under all circumstances (which is exactly what you seem to want to do).
Will you answer the question?
And back to the 9 year old: Will you imprison her for 10 to 15 years like any other murderer?
Is that the best you can do Mr. Skeptic? I asked you for a single documented case in which it was absolutely certain that both the mother and the baby would die if the baby was not killed first. You replied with a generic, undocumented claim for increased risk of death. There is a huge difference between increased risk and absolute certainty. Can you cite a single case in which the death of both individuals was absolutely certain to occur?
As for the 9 year old, she would most likely be tried as a juvenile accessory to murder and only be sentenced if the prosecutor could prove that she was consenting to the abortion. The doctor who performs an abortion, however, would be tried for first degree murder.
Here is one for you, IL: The mother chose, as was her right, and she gave her life so her baby could live. What if the mother chose differently? Would you refuse her? Would you also charge her with murder? http://erlc.com/article/life-digest-young-mother-refuses-care-dies-giving-baby-life/
What if a mother refuses a caesarean section and the baby dies? Murder?
You are purposefully being obtuse, IL. I know if and you probably know it at some level. I do not know how to search for a case where a mother would "absolutely" die if she did not abort. I imagine that is because no one has developed a time machine that we cold rewind and play with different outcomes. You are simply avoiding the question and we both know why that is.
Daring to answer truthfully will illuminate an inconsistency. The fact is that you are also "pro choice." You and I only differ in the degrees.
Thank you, Mr. Skeptic. I hadn't discovered that particular case yet. I'll add it to my other accounts of mothers who sacrificed their own lives in order to let their children live. To answer your questions, let me reiterate once again that I firmly oppose abortion in all cases because abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent person. The punishment for abortions should be identical to that which would be prescribed for equivalent actions taken against a two year old child.
You have once again made a claim without providing any supporting evidence. What evidence can you present for your claim that I am pro-choice?
"What evidence can you present for your claim that I am pro-choice?"
That you refuse to directly answer my questions. You dodge and feint and say "everything but" yet refuse to actually answer the question. It is wholly transparent to everyone but you.
I understand why you would do such a thing. I really do. You are a cowards and do not want to face the ugly truth that if you were to speak freely, you would say, "My daughter's/wife's life is less important to me than a baby so, YES, I will allow my wife/daughter to die rather than making a choice that might kill the fetus."
"I'll add it to my other accounts of mothers who sacrificed their own lives in order to let their children live."
No ****. The question was, what if YOU had to make the choice? What would you choose?
I answered that for you so we cool.
I have answered your questions several times. I have repeated over and over again that I am firmly opposed to abortion in all cases. It is you who has refused to answer the questions. Here, let me list for you all the questions that you have yet to answer:
"Would you mind pointing out to me exactly which part of the Scientific section is not based on facts?"
"Did you overlook that section?"
"I am still very curious as to which part of the scientific section of the booklet is not based on facts."
"If you want to make a claim that the scientific evidence I presented is not really scientific, then you will need to provide a quote of the evidence which you are rejecting and a valid explanation of how that particular evidence fails to qualify as being scientific."
"Would you mind explaining which of the scientists that I quoted was anti-choice, how you know that that particular scientist was anti-choice and what evidence you have that he presented false claims because of his anti-choice philosophy?"
You said that my supposed refusal to answer your questions was evidence of cowardice on my part, so does your obvious refusal to answer my questions mean the same thing about you? Are you a coward who is afraid to face the truth that the unborn child is just as much a person as the mother who is carrying him?
I answered all of those and you are a ****ing heartless moron. Adios.