Abortion Debate Forum - Interesting..

Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum > Interesting..

Q: Interesting..

asked by: meblonde01 on May 10th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

"Pro-choice" arguments
"'Fetal tissue' is no more a human being, than a bolt is a Buick."

Those who argue that abortion does not kill human life must have skipped high school biology, never picked up a medical book, or else are deliberately lying. Virtually every secular medical book and even a senate hearing declare human life begins the instant of conception.
A report from Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 1981 reads: "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
A split second after conception, this one-celled forty-six-chromosomed human being possesses everything it needs to grow into an adult human except time.
It's not a blueprint of a human being. It's not a part of a human being. It is a human being. Never has a bolt grown into a Buick!
Because words are so important in this debate, Dr. Jack Wilke, the former director of "National Right to Life," warns pro-lifers to avoid emotion-laden words like "homicide" and "baby." He urges the use of "kill" and "human life." Pro-choicers can engage in wordplay arguing that a "baby" is not "mur*dered," but cannot refute--with any scientific credibility--that abortions do indeed kill human life.

A close cousin to the "it's not human life" argument is . . .

"A woman has a right to choose what she will with her own body."

Again, this pro-choice/pro-abortion argument reveals ignorance of human physiology or, again, the perpetuation of a deliberate lie.

The life growing within the mother is not her body.

It has a very different chromosome structure with a separate circulatory system and often a different blood type. There's even a fifty-fifty chance it's a different gender!
"A woman should be able to choose life in her medical care"
Only 2 percent of the one and a half million abortions performed each year in the United State were for the express purpose of saving the mother's life. The overwhelming number of abortions performed do not "save" anyone's life.

Last edited by meblonde01 on May 10th, 2007 03:21 PM; edited 1 time in total

Replies(11)

Birch

replied on May 10th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Re: Interesting..

meblonde01 wrote:

"Pro-choice" arguments
"'Fetal tissue' is no more a human being, than a bolt is a Buick."

Those who argue that abortion does not kill human life must have skipped high school biology, never picked up a medical book, or else are deliberately lying. Virtually every secular medical book and even a senate hearing declare human life begins the instant of conception.
A report from Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 1981 reads: "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
A split second after conception, this one-celled forty-six-chromosomed human being possesses everything it needs to grow into an adult human except time.
It's not a blueprint of a human being. It's not a part of a human being. It is a human being. Never has a bolt grown into a Buick!
Because words are so important in this debate, Dr. Jack Wilke, the former director of "National Right to Life," warns pro-lifers to avoid emotion-laden words like "not a nice act" and "baby." He urges the use of "kill" and "human life." Pro-choicers can engage in wordplay arguing that a "baby" is not "not a nice acted," but cannot refute--with any scientific credibility--that abortions do indeed kill human life.

A close cousin to the "it's not human life" argument is . . .

"A woman has a right to choose what she will with her own body."

Again, this pro-choice/pro-abortion argument reveals ignorance of human physiology or, again, the perpetuation of a deliberate lie.

The life growing within the mother is not her body.

It has a very different chromosome structure with a separate circulatory system and often a different blood type. There's even a fifty-fifty chance it's a different gender!
"A woman should be able to choose life in her medical care"
Only 2 percent of the one and a half million abortions performed each year in the United State were for the express purpose of saving the mother's life. The overwhelming number of abortions performed do not "save" anyone's life.

I've never heard a legitimate prochoicer argue that abortion does not kill human life.

The fetus is sustained off her body. Did you study that in biology?

Why did you have your abortion?

Tylanas

replied on May 10th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

Yeah, you clearly don't listen to any of the pro-choicers on this site.

We say it's not murder, but we fully admit it is killing.

Look, nature is full of death, and that's the bottom line in my opinion. We as people are sentient - a fetus is not, by the way - and so we have the capability to make our own choices. Note I didn't say we had the "right", just that we had the capability. Personally I do think we have the right to make our own choices but I'm sure pro-life disagrees with me. From what I've gathered, pro-life believes that humans have no basic rights except to live and breed like rabbits. Any conscious, ehtical desicion that betters themselves of society is evil if it involves death. That's what pro-life believes.

Birch

replied on May 12th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

I think it's a travesty that people can post stuff they didn't write and not give credit to it's author. I'd get kicked out of graduate school for this.

On debate sites other than this one (which is so less formal) she would be kicked off.

The site is here: http://watkins.gospelcom.net/article.htm

AyaMiyaki

replied on May 12th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

If you're going to do cut/paste jobs, at least cite your source(s) by posting the link at the bottom.

*edited because I said site instead of cite*

meblonde01

replied on May 12th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

AyaMiyaki wrote:

If you're going to do cut/paste jobs, at least site your source(s) by posting the link at the bottom.

sure! is that a rule or just a suggestion?

Birch

replied on May 12th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

meblonde01 wrote:

AyaMiyaki wrote:

If you're going to do cut/paste jobs, at least site your source(s) by posting the link at the bottom.

sure! is that a rule or just a suggestion?

It's responsible posting, and since you are so familiar with what "responsibility" is, I'm sure you would agree.

AyaMiyaki

replied on May 12th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

It's like in .english class when you were asked to write an essay. Any information you used and/or quoted must be cited and referred to. Failing to do so would be plagiarism, because you are not giving credit where credit is due and are (purposely or not) passing their words off as your own.

Citing your source is, as .birch said, responsible.

meblonde01

replied on May 12th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

AyaMiyaki wrote:

Ok, so it's a choice! So if I want to I will.. Thanks for the English lesson.. Smile

AyaMiyaki

replied on May 12th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

*blinks*

umm yes, I suppose it is a choice. Just as murder is a choice. Theft is a choice. Abusing your child is a choice. Rape is a choice.

None of the above are viewed as the right thing to do in society, but they are undoubtedly choices.

Will you choose to do the wrong thing? Do you think you will help the pro-life cause by commiting plagiarism?

*edited to avoid the filter*

meblonde01

replied on May 12th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

AyaMiyaki wrote:

Did I say I was not going to? No! I said it's a choice.. Nothing more.. Actually I would be glad to post the site or the book or the person I got the information from. I think it is Very beneficial to pro lifers.

AyaMiyaki

replied on May 12th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

meblonde01 wrote:

Did I say I was not going to? No! I said it's a choice.. Nothing more..

what you said was ".i will if I want to", which led me to question why someone would consider doing such a thing. I didn't accuse you of doing it - I asked you if you were really considering it. One would think that, after learning exactly what plagiarism is, they would recognize it as the wrong thing to do and not do it again, instead of saying "oh I have a choice, and .i'll do the right thing if I want to."

Quote:

Actually I would be glad to post the site or the book or the person I got the information from. I think it is Very beneficial to pro lifers.

.i'm glad to hear it. That's all we ask.

Learn About Us

Get Help

Join In

Do More

We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health
information:
verify here.

The site is not a replacement for professional medical opinion, examination, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your medical doctor or other qualified health professional before starting any new treatment or making any changes to existing treatment. Do not delay seeking or disregard medical advice based on information written by any author on this site. No health questions and information on eHealth Forum is regulated or evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and therefore the information should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease without the supervision of a medical doctor. Posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author, and not the administrators, moderators, or editorial staff and hence eHealth Forum and its principals will accept no liabilities or responsibilities for the statements made. Schizophrenia health sitemap.
This page was last updated on January 1, 2009.
© 2008 eForums, Inc