Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Abortion is wrong the mother must bare the child

#11
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:The DNA isn't unique to an individual cell then, is it?

The DNA of our body's cells are unique relative to any other cells in existence. They are carriers of unique DNA which collectively make up our selves. Hence the wrongness of your definition.

Quote:In biology, an organism is any organic, living system that functions as an individual entity. All organisms are composed of cells (cell theory).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

An organism refers to a living thing that has an organized structure, can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis.

Then an embryo is not an organism since it doesn't react to stimuli or reproduce. It does not function as an individual entity either. Interesting when you actually look at the meaning of the words you're quoting.
Reply
#12
Syne Offline
Your willful ignorance knows no bounds.

An embryo is the early stage of development of a multicellular organism. In general, in organisms that reproduce sexually, embryonic development is the part of the life cycle that begins just after fertilization and continues through the formation of body structures, such as tissues and organs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor...Id=4857703

An embryo is a multicellular eukaryote organism in its early stages of development.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/embryo


But by all means, keep lying to yourself and sounding like a complete rube.
Reply
#13
Magical Realist Offline
LOL

"Calling someone a rube is another way of saying, "You sound like an idiot and you don't know what you're talking about." This word implies a lack of sophistication, manners, education, and culture. Rubes are usually from rural areas, and they’re also known as bumpkins, hayseeds, hicks, yahoos, yokels, and hillbillies. This is an insulting word, so use it cautiously — though it's probably fine to use it jokingly with your friends."---- https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rube


[Image: 518930.jpg]
[Image: 518930.jpg]

Reply
#14
Syne Offline
Duh. How many times do I have to tell you you're completely ignorant of very basic science for you to not understand that that literally makes you "sound like an idiot." Don't want to sound like a rube? Quit saying things that run counter to basic science.

This is the portion of the discussion with MR where he tries to distract with copious whining about insults because he has no informed argument. Once he's repeated his ignorance many times, this is the only thing he has to fall back on. Notice, while he's attacked my use of words, like organism, he lacks the intellectual honesty to even attempt to post definitions of his own...or any scientific source that he thinks actually supports his nonsense. Simply because there are none.
Reply
#15
C C Offline
(May 5, 2022 09:42 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: In the case of rape give away the child

Ironically, Canada completely prohibited abortion sooner than the US, in 1869. Before that, abortion up to the point of quickening was acceptable in the overall British North American colonies, and the first century of the independent United States. 

The contemporary politics of it (supposedly involving theistic beliefs on one side and left oppression theories on the other -- though also reframed as generic philosophy engagement), was manufactured and introduced in the 20th century. 

In the US, it was primarily physicians (not Christian fundamentalists) who incrementally across the latter third of the 1800s to 1910 got all "casual" (or non-rape and non-medical complications related) abortions banned even in the first trimester.

Religion didn't become a serious activist factor until the 1950s and '60s, when the Catholic Church spawned a "right to life" movement that eventually transitioned to a secular facade. In the 1980s, Protestants and the Republican Party attached themselves earnestly to the issue.

The 1950s and 60s was also when the New Left (making the transition from the fading Communist Party and Marxist activism in general) appropriated abortion crusade as part of its expanded social justice package -- just a "natural" consequence of its emerging women's liberation and feminist philosophy sub-movements.   

Depending on how much it mimics or exceeds New York's Reproductive Health Act, the now confirmed threat of SCOTUS overturning of Roe vs Wade could actually be the best thing that ever happened to the pro-abortion (patriarchal defiance) and pro-choice crowds. Since the "impending menace" has unleashed more resolve than ever by Democrats to get the "Women’s Health Protection Act" (abortion rights bill) passed, and whatever replaces it via numerous attempts in the future, if it doesn't get the votes in the coming week. 

"WHPA is a bill that aims to codify Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that grants protections for a woman's right to abortion, at the federal level. The bill prohibits governmental restrictions on access to abortion services, according to the Congressional Research Service."

Potentially sweeping away all the challenges and special conditions rules that have decreased abortion clinics and attempts to degrade access to abortion in some states (i.e., ranging from 2nd trimester abortions made difficult to late 1st trimester abortions being abbreviated to 6 and 8 weeks).

Historical overview synopsis
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/829631
Reply
#16
Syne Offline
The criteria of quickening was obviously just a lack of understanding the biology and using the only diagnostic tool available at the time. Bringing it up now would just seem to be a last gasp ploy by pro-abortion supporters. That would be akin to an anti-vaxxer bring up leeching or blood letting, pretending that modern medicine hasn't long since deemed them objectively harmful. Just as modern science now knows a fetus is a human life, and killing it is objective harm (contrary to the Hippocratic oath).

According to a CNN poll ( https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/06/politics/...index.html ), the "impending menace" has driven more Republican voter resolve than Democrat, not changing the strong GOP lead in the upcoming mid-terms. Like in Obama's campaign about "hope and change," hope for a better world is always a stronger motivator than anger and hate. In this case, Democrats want the status quo...in a sense, wanting to "conserve" it. So on this issue, Republicans are the real progressives, driving change in society.

There is zero chance a pro-abortion bill is passed federally. The Democrats have to have every Democrat vote to get rid of the filibuster, and several Democrats have repeatedly said they wouldn't do that. That means they would need 60 votes in the Senate, when at most, they only have 50 plus maybe three RINOs.


No idea why so many leftists pieces of crap just can't be happy with killing babies in their own states, rather than try to force that abomination on people who don't share their values nor live anywhere near them. It's called "voting with your feet," where you simply move to areas where the population better aligns with your values. You know, instead of crap leftists moving to Texas to avoid the California taxes they voted for and then whine about Texas laws. Guess what, you don't get to be a cancer in your home state and just spread your malignancy to others completely unchecked.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How to move beyond our endless disagreements over abortion policies C C 1 82 Nov 16, 2023 02:41 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Biology won’t solve your problems with abortion (philosophy of biology) C C 1 111 Oct 7, 2021 06:51 PM
Last Post: Syne
  In order to exist, Reality must be free of Paradox Ostronomos 2 568 Jul 28, 2018 02:44 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  Science and metaphysics must work together C C 8 1,814 Dec 6, 2017 07:52 PM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)