Political Crossfire Forums

[WsTxRedRaider06]

A thought I had earlier. Scary, I know.. :)

There are MANY avenues in which we debate abortion. There is no consensus view......there is science, there is philosophy, there is Religion, there is law, etc. I do have a question, and before you attack me, it is merely a question, and I have a habit of thinking out loud, so please, try your best and stay on topic....

When debating abortion, the pro-choice side refuses to enter into a debate or discussion, unless scientific terms are used to describe the unborn. Embryo, Fetus, etc. If I dare use the term "child" or "baby" to describe the unborn, the discussion ceases, and the only reply given is..."Oh yeah, well its not even a "child", so na ne na ne boo boo!!"(that was childish I know, but its the theme for my post.)

I speak for myself, but when using the term "child" or "baby", I simply use this term because thats what I see it as. It is my perspective. Are we not talking about the same thing? You say tomato, I say tomato(you know what im talking about)? If I say "unborn child" and you say "fetus", are we not referencing the same thing? Yes we are. You use the scientific term to describe it.

Here's my question. If Pro-Choicers insist on using these terms given by science to describe the unborn, why is it not ok to use science to define when human life begins? And if it is not mandatory to use science to define when life begins, why is it mandatory to use science to describe the unborn. And you know it is, because if I use the term "child" or "unborn child" to describe it, all meaningful discussion ends, right there.
I simply see it as a child, and call it such, you dont. You dont see it as life, and I do, and call it such. I see life beginning at conception, you dont. So why is it impossible to have a discussion with Pro-choice people, if I use a term to describe the unborn that I see fit? Is it not my perspective, just as your perspective is yours, on when life begins? Does science not describe both, yet you accept one, and not the other?

To have a reasonable and somewhat meaningful debate, I must accept the scientific term for the unborn child(oops, had to get that one in there), and get passed that, or the discussion ends. But you will not accept the scientific definition of what is alive, and apply it to the newly conceived life, and define it as life, simply because that is not your perspective. Why I ask, why must you have it your way? :)

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: why is it not ok to use science to define when human life begins I dont think any of them are saying its not okay. They simply do not grasp the fact that science has determined when a new human being is formed. They insist on referring to a human by its developmental stages because it dehumanizes the victims of abortion. Makes it easier to say than killing a baby. Meanwhile, anything that casts the unborn embryo in the human status must be blindly attacked as it reminds the reader of what we are dealing with. Never mind there is no scientific data that determines an embryo to be anything but a living growing metabolizing human.

[LostSoul3412]

AllAmericanMan wrote: I dont think any of them are saying its not okay. They simply do not grasp the fact that science has determined when a new human being is formed. They insist on referring to a human by its developmental stages because it dehumanizes the victims of abortion. Makes it easier to say than killing a baby. Meanwhile, anything that casts the unborn embryo in the human status must be blindly attacked as it reminds the reader of what we are dealing with. Never mind there is no scientific data that determines an embryo to be anything but a living growing metabolizing human.

:roll:

In the future, please keep your trolling to yourself.

[Gilbert1908]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: why is it not ok to use science to define when human life begins I dont think any of them are saying its not okay. They simply do not grasp the fact that science has determined when a new human being is formed. They insist on referring to a human by its developmental stages because it dehumanizes the victims of abortion. Makes it easier to say than killing a baby. Meanwhile, anything that casts the unborn embryo in the human status must be blindly attacked as it reminds the reader of what we are dealing with. Never mind there is no scientific data that determines an embryo to be anything but a living growing metabolizing human.

I disagree with your characterization. There is no doubt some on this site that are here to taunt and disagree simply because they have low self esteem and this forum helps them feed a needy ego. But others are sincere and logical in their approach.

I understand why some prolife people use terms like murder and describe an embryo as a child, but I disagree with doing so, for the same reasons I disagree with those who apply their "philosophy" to the discussion of when human life begins.

If your faith or philosophy compell you to call abortion murder you have every right to do so. But it does not make it any more an accurate description of the law than someone who denies the medical science that life begins at conception based upon THEIR philosophy and ignoring the science. As factual opinion alone both conclusions are simply false, as a religious belief/philosophy both may have basis in some process or school of thinking but not in the field in which the terms are defined.

If you don't know I am prolife and if you want to pop into the Christianity thread you will find me to be an orthodox Catholic posting opinions on various subjects related to religion. But I simply don't feel it is even necessary to bring up religion/philosophy in this thread until you gauge what conclusion one has drawn on the objective science.

Those who ignore the facts of the science that studies human development have no credibility as far as I'm concerned, those who acknowledge it and state a logical position based then on their philosophy are deserving of respect and a spirited discussion (pun intended).

But if you are going to argue from only a philosophical point on a matter which has aspects of medical science and objective terminology then you lack the same credibility of those you accuse of accusing you.

[cap'n queasy]

I agree with that characterization. It is obviously correct.

It nothing but a dehumanization tactic that makes it easier to accept something is nothing less than murder of the most innocent in a society. Which is what infanticide is. Children are our most valuable asset, it hard to convince someone it's desirable to kill them.

Calling them something else makes it a bit easier.

[Prole]

RedRaider, reversing your question, why do you as someone who refers to science (in terms of speciation) as a source of determining personhood and/or legal protection, insist on using such unscientific terms like "baby" and "child"?

I can't speak for all pro-choicers, but I don't think that any of us are truly denying that a preborn human is biologically human. We simply disagree that being of the human species alone is what makes one human in the moral sense. Preborn humans, depending on stage of development, lack some or many of the characteristics that arguably are important for personhood, most importantly (to pro-choicers) sentience and/or independence.

You can use terms like "baby" all that you want, but constant reiterating that all who are pro-choice are "baby killers" is a desperate appeal to emotion rather than reason, similar to a pro-choicer calling an anti-choicer a "destroyer of women's rights." Both terms are technically valid, but in truth, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that both are simply an attempt to confound others with emotionally tainted phrases.

Continually referring the abortion as murder, or a preborn human as a baby, is basically the equivelant of saying "abortion is WRONG!" at every possible opportunity. We all know what everyone thinks of abortion and the worth of a preborn human; screaming it at every opportunity is hardly necessary. I suppose that you're entitled to say it. But it is tiresome and ineffective, and resorting to such juvenile measures does little more than reveal your own frusterations and shortcomings.

[LostSoul3412]

cap'n queasy wrote: I agree with that characterization. It is obviously correct.

It nothing but a dehumanization tactic that makes it easier to accept something is nothing less than murder of the most innocent in a society. Which is what infanticide is. Children are our most valuable asset, it hard to convince someone it's desirable to kill them.

Calling them something else makes it a bit easier.

Why is this attack always made again those who are pro-choice? Just because we don't see an embryo as a human being, does not mean that it is easier to kill, because there is no death involved. I have said repeatedly, and I will say so again: I do not support abortion. However, I do support the choice of the mother. There is a difference. The "dehumanization" theories only apply to those who are pro-abortion (which is very different than pro-choice), and to the mothers who choose to have an abortion.

So if you absolutely must attack someone, because your arguments fail to prove themselves otherwise, then at least attack the appropriate party, and leave the "Pro-Choicers" out of it.

[LostSoul3412]

Prole wrote: RedRaider, reversing your question, why do you as someone who refers to science (in terms of speciation) as a source of determining personhood and/or legal protection, insist on using such unscientific terms like "baby" and "child"?

I can't speak for all pro-choicers, but I don't think that any of us are truly denying that a preborn human is biologically human. We simply disagree that being of the human species alone is what makes one human in the moral sense. Preborn humans, depending on stage of development, lack some or many of the characteristics that arguably are important for personhood, most importantly (to pro-choicers) sentience and/or independence.

You can use terms like "baby" all that you want, but constant reiterating that all who are pro-choice are "baby killers" is a desperate appeal to emotion rather than reason, similar to a pro-choicer calling an anti-choicer a "destroyer of women's rights." Both terms are technically valid, but in truth, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that both are simply an attempt to confound others with emotionally tainted phrases.

Continually referring the abortion as murder, or a preborn human as a baby, is basically the equivelant of saying "abortion is WRONG!" at every possible opportunity. We all know what everyone thinks of abortion and the worth of a preborn human; screaming it at every opportunity is hardly necessary. I suppose that you're entitled to say it. But it is tiresome and ineffective, and resorting to such juvenile measures does little more than reveal your own frusterations and shortcomings.

:tu:

You may not speak for all pro-choicers, but you have my support.

Great post.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I agree with that characterization. It is obviously correct.

It nothing but a dehumanization tactic that makes it easier to accept something is nothing less than murder of the most innocent in a society. Which is what infanticide is. Children are our most valuable asset, it hard to convince someone it's desirable to kill them.

Calling them something else makes it a bit easier.

Why is this attack always made again those who are pro-choice? Just because we don't see an embryo as a human being, does not mean that it is easier to kill, because there is no death involved. I have said repeatedly, and I will say so again: I do not support abortion. However, I do support the choice of the mother. There is a difference. The "dehumanization" theories only apply to those who are pro-abortion (which is very different than pro-choice), and to the mothers who choose to have an abortion.

So if you absolutely must attack someone, because your arguments fail to prove themselves otherwise, then at least attack the appropriate party, and leave the "Pro-Choicers" out of it.

What choice are supporting by supporting the mother's right to choose an abortion?

How is possible to support the right to a thing but not the thing itself.

How can you NOT support abortion but support the right to have an abortion?

Do you at leaset see the duplicitousness of such a position.

What if I were to state my opposition to capital punishment that way?

I do not support capital punishment but I support the right of the state to choose.

[AllAmericanMan]

LostSoul3412 wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I dont think any of them are saying its not okay. They simply do not grasp the fact that science has determined when a new human being is formed. They insist on referring to a human by its developmental stages because it dehumanizes the victims of abortion. Makes it easier to say than killing a baby. Meanwhile, anything that casts the unborn embryo in the human status must be blindly attacked as it reminds the reader of what we are dealing with. Never mind there is no scientific data that determines an embryo to be anything but a living growing metabolizing human.

:roll:

In the future, please keep your trolling to yourself.

I was answering the posters question, if you have a hard time swallowing it thats your business.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Why is this attack always made again those who are pro-choice?

Because it is the bald-faced facts of the matter.

If you are uncomfortable with it, that should tell you something about what you support.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: because there is no death involved

Patently ridiculous.

[Gilbert1908]

Prole wrote: RedRaider, reversing your question, why do you as someone who refers to science (in terms of speciation) as a source of determining personhood and/or legal protection, insist on using such unscientific terms like "baby" and "child"?

I can't speak for all pro-choicers, but I don't think that any of us are truly denying that a preborn human is biologically human. We simply disagree that being of the human species alone is what makes one human in the moral sense. Preborn humans, depending on stage of development, lack some or many of the characteristics that arguably are important for personhood, most importantly (to pro-choicers) sentience and/or independence.

You can use terms like "baby" all that you want, but constant reiterating that all who are pro-choice are "baby killers" is a desperate appeal to emotion rather than reason, similar to a pro-choicer calling an anti-choicer a "destroyer of women's rights." Both terms are technically valid, but in truth, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that both are simply an attempt to confound others with emotionally tainted phrases.

Continually referring the abortion as murder, or a preborn human as a baby, is basically the equivelant of saying "abortion is WRONG!" at every possible opportunity. We all know what everyone thinks of abortion and the worth of a preborn human; screaming it at every opportunity is hardly necessary. I suppose that you're entitled to say it. But it is tiresome and ineffective, and resorting to such juvenile measures does little more than reveal your own frusterations and shortcomings.

As you and I have discussed this subject many times you know that I disagree with your conclusions but share the approach with regard to the application of language. Ignoring or negating facts, or attempting to demonize sincere people does less to change minds and hearts than a substantive exchange of ideas.

I happen to believe abortion is wrong and if I could waive a magic wand I would make it go away. Unfortunately I do not have such power so I choose to do my best to pursuade those, like yourself, who are clear thinking sincere people who have an opposing and to my way of thinking misguided positions, to rethink what the hold to be true.

Plus, who is better than "the dude"?

[AllAmericanMan]

Prole wrote: RedRaider, reversing your question, why do you as someone who refers to science (in terms of speciation) as a source of determining personhood and/or legal protection, insist on using such unscientific terms like "baby" and "child"?

I can't speak for all pro-choicers, but I don't think that any of us are truly denying that a preborn human is biologically human. We simply disagree that being of the human species alone is what makes one human in the moral sense. Preborn humans, depending on stage of development, lack some or many of the characteristics that arguably are important for personhood, most importantly (to pro-choicers) sentience and/or independence.

You can use terms like "baby" all that you want, but constant reiterating that all who are pro-choice are "baby killers" is a desperate appeal to emotion rather than reason, similar to a pro-choicer calling an anti-choicer a "destroyer of women's rights." Both terms are technically valid, but in truth, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that both are simply an attempt to confound others with emotionally tainted phrases.

Continually referring the abortion as murder, or a preborn human as a baby, is basically the equivelant of saying "abortion is WRONG!" at every possible opportunity. We all know what everyone thinks of abortion and the worth of a preborn human; screaming it at every opportunity is hardly necessary. I suppose that you're entitled to say it. But it is tiresome and ineffective, and resorting to such juvenile measures does little more than reveal your own frusterations and shortcomings.

Words are our servants, not our masters. If I choose to refer to the unborn human as an unborn baby, that description remains accurate in my eyes and conveys the message I want to convey.

All you need to do is refrence my "when a human becomes human" thread to see how pro choicers refute the biological fact that an embryo is a human.
Some pro choicers have opened their eyes enough to disagree solely on a philosphical ground of when a human becomes a person, but clearly not all.

I do not go around shouting baby killer. Im not screaming anything at every oppertunity, except the fact that an unborn human is indeed human.
Sometimes I might get emotional in such a debate, as can be expected when talking about the deaths of a million humans a year.
I dont see it as juvenile or desperate, I see it as the truth that must be comprehended ASAP to stop these deaths of innocent human lives.

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: What choice are supporting by supporting the mother's right to choose an abortion?

The choice of abortion itself. A mother's freedom from pregnancy, and parents' decisions with their potential child. It is my personal opinion that government should stay out of the families of Americans, and that no one else has any right to tell another what to do with their own bodies.

Gilbert1908 wrote: How is possible to support the right to a thing but not the thing itself.

Simple, because I support the choice, not the action. I am not arguing whether or not a mother should have an abortion, that's their decision to make, however, I argue that the option should be made available to the mother.

Gilbert1908 wrote: How can you NOT support abortion but support the right to have an abortion?

Through the choice of the individual. Choice is the tenant of liberty, and even if I disagree with a mother's choice to have an abortion (which I do), I can still respect their decision none the less, as it is their body, their choice, and not mine.

Gilbert1908 wrote: Do you at leaset see the duplicitousness of such a position.

If you feel that way about the position of pro-choice, then I hope this post can clarify some misunderstandings.

Gilbert1908 wrote: What if I were to state my opposition to capital punishment that way?

You mean to allow the government to use it, but disagree with it? That would be perfectly acceptable, under the argument that security is more important than freedom, even though both are good things to have.

Gilbert1908 wrote: I do not support capital punishment but I support the right of the state to choose.

See above.

[LostSoul3412]

AllAmericanMan wrote: I was answering the posters question, if you have a hard time swallowing it thats your business.

Then do not criticize and attack steen for his comments, lest you be branded a hypocrite.

[LostSoul3412]

cap'n queasy wrote: Because it is the bald-faced facts of the matter.

If you are uncomfortable with it, that should tell you something about what you support.

I should feel bad about my ideals because my opponents resort to attacks against me in an attempt to change me?

On the contrary... that only enforces my resolve.

[AllAmericanMan]

LostSoul3412 wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I was answering the posters question, if you have a hard time swallowing it thats your business.

Then do not criticize and attack steen for his comments, lest you be branded a hypocrite. I dont stand there and call everyone full of s**t. If I believe youre wrong, I say so and I give an explanation. As such Im not attacking you Im attacking your views directly.

[WsTxRedRaider06]

I think my point was more to the fact that it is impossible to carry on a discussion when I use "my word". I have found that using the term "unborn" dosent generate the response that using the term "child" or "baby" or "unborn baby" does, and reasonable discussion continues. Why is it that throwing the word "child" in their, hits such a nerve, that all discussion about a topic ends, and the only argument presented is "its not a child!".

Im not talking about someone calling someone a "baby killer"....I can see the offense taken by pro-choicers...Thats exactly the same thing as someone calling me an "enslaver of women". So as we can see, these tactics to pry on the emotions of others, and make others out to look like bad people, happen on both sides of the debate.

Often the argument is brought up that calling it an "unborn child" is the same thing as someone calling me an "un-dead human". And I say you are exactly right. It is the same thing.....I am an un-dead human. True. It is an Un-born child. True?

So...hmmmmm.....im complaining about arguing over meaningless terms and not sticking to the issue at hand, and here I go and make an entire thread about it :lol:

[AllAmericanMan]

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: I think my point was more to the fact that it is impossible to carry on a discussion when I use "my word". I have found that using the term "unborn" dosent generate the response that using the term "child" or "baby" or "unborn baby" does, and reasonable discussion continues. Why is it that throwing the word "child" in their, hits such a nerve, that all discussion about a topic ends, and the only argument presented is "its not a child!".

Im not talking about someone calling someone a "baby killer"....I can see the offense taken by pro-choicers...Thats exactly the same thing as someone calling me an "enslaver of women". So as we can see, these tactics to pry on the emotions of others, and make others out to look like bad people, happen on both sides of the debate.

Often the argument is brought up that calling it an "unborn child" is the same thing as someone calling me an "un-dead human". And I say you are exactly right. It is the same thing.....I am an un-dead human. True. It is an Un-born child. True?

So...hmmmmm.....im complaining about arguing over meaningless terms and not sticking to the issue at hand, and here I go and make an entire thread about it :lol:

Who was it Plato? "Words our are servants, not our masters"