|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:46 pm
With these new findings, the pro-life side has pretty much won. The only thing we have to do is spread the word of this study done by various ppl, including the Japanese! Best study ever!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:37 am
That's an interesting one, isn't it? But there are a few things. That's an older study, and it doesn't really prove much. First off, whenever anyone brings it up, "That's too old," and secondly, it's talking about a 32 week old fetus, which is in the third trimester. Most people who are pro-choice in America aren't too happy with elective abortion in the third trimester anyway. I know some of that happens in the second trimester, but still, people tend to discount it. Abortion rights aren't really based on the fetus not being alive, or a person. A fetus could be as aware and developed as a full grown adult and there would still be people backing elective abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:21 pm
If this were on a Zygote, I'd be totally happy.
Anyway we've won the third trimester, now for the first two. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:39 pm
I wouldn't say we have. You can get around the third trimester restrictions. Then there's the fact that over 90% of people who get a prenatal diagnosis of down syndrome abort. Disabled people are people too. But not when they've got the wrong number of chromosomes, apparently. Then they don't deserve the right to live, because their parents can't deal with handicapped children but don't want to give them up for adoption, so it's okay to kill them at a point where it's not really okay to kill those without any disabilities. American eugenics lives on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:16 pm
Yaaaaaaaaaay America xp
Huh, I thought this wasn't just the third trimester. sweatdrop
And actually, you can get an abortion in the third trimester is you are temporarly depressed. According to Tiller anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:28 pm
See, they dehumanize it, but the evidence is there.
True, it's an older study, but a lot of the things it adresses makes sense.
I think many of the choicers accept the fact that it is a human being, which is why they seem to have shifted their focus from "It's not a human being" to "It may be, but it's still in violation..." you know the spiel.
I bring up third trimester abortions in the debate, and I usually ask if it bothers the person, and if so, why.
It gets them to hopefully ask questions in their heads about what makes a human.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:46 pm
Oh god, one of them brought up the "It's not techically a person, legally, so that makes it not murder, so it's ok" idea in my effective speaking class...
NEVER challenge me with poor logic and hackneyed arguments on a subject I care about.
My response- "So, since a fetus is not a person by law and it is acceptable to kill them... In the 1800's, black people were not considered people, legally. Does this justify slavery? In Germany, Jews were not considered people. Does this justify the holocaust?" Her response was a complete red herring on how she wasn't against adoption.
Lol logical mind destruction. (That's what I call it when someone destroys an opponent with logic so badly, they can't think straight for the next hour or so)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:22 pm
divineseraph Oh god, one of them brought up the "It's not techically a person, legally, so that makes it not murder, so it's ok" idea in my effective speaking class... NEVER challenge me with poor logic and hackneyed arguments on a subject I care about. My response- "So, since a fetus is not a person by law and it is acceptable to kill them... In the 1800's, black people were not considered people, legally. Does this justify slavery? In Germany, Jews were not considered people. Does this justify the holocaust?" Her response was a complete red herring on how she wasn't against adoption. Lol logical mind destruction. (That's what I call it when someone destroys an opponent with logic so badly, they can't think straight for the next hour or so) Emotional blackmail! Emotional blackmail! scream Actually, by their logic, I'm technically not a person yet either. Because my brain isn't fully developed. 3nodding (according to one pc i debated, she agreed they were human, and alive, but not 'persons' because they don't think like we do stressed )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:06 pm
masumi5 divineseraph Oh god, one of them brought up the "It's not techically a person, legally, so that makes it not murder, so it's ok" idea in my effective speaking class... NEVER challenge me with poor logic and hackneyed arguments on a subject I care about. My response- "So, since a fetus is not a person by law and it is acceptable to kill them... In the 1800's, black people were not considered people, legally. Does this justify slavery? In Germany, Jews were not considered people. Does this justify the holocaust?" Her response was a complete red herring on how she wasn't against adoption. Lol logical mind destruction. (That's what I call it when someone destroys an opponent with logic so badly, they can't think straight for the next hour or so) Emotional blackmail! Emotional blackmail! scream Actually, by their logic, I'm technically not a person yet either. Because my brain isn't fully developed. 3nodding (according to one pc i debated, she agreed they were human, and alive, but not 'persons' because they don't think like we do stressed ) Aboriginals don't think like we do. They have a different perspective of spacial reality. Enslavement! But yes, that's equivocation. Seriously though, how they live is irrelevant. I don't care how they live, how does that make it more acceptable to kill them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:24 pm
divineseraph masumi5 Emotional blackmail! Emotional blackmail! scream Actually, by their logic, I'm technically not a person yet either. Because my brain isn't fully developed. 3nodding (according to one pc i debated, she agreed they were human, and alive, but not 'persons' because they don't think like we do stressed ) Aboriginals don't think like we do. They have a different perspective of spacial reality. Enslavement! But yes, that's equivocation. Seriously though, how they live is irrelevant. I don't care how they live, how does that make it more acceptable to kill them? K, I think I get what you're saying. See, compared to most fully developed adults, a newborns....erm, thought-proccess is a little primal. Likewise, children can't reason like we can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:49 am
Pro-abortionists usually argue one of two points:
1) It's not a person.
2) WHATEVER it is, it should not be allowed in the woman's body if she doesn't want it there.
I'm happy to see that all of the people here understand life better than that...
Pro-abortionists are immature children who think selfishly. Most of the time. (I hate to generalize.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:00 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
