Americans Becoming More Pro-Life

[Ceannairceach]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

There is no misinformation. The pro-life position is that every human being has an intrinsic right to live.

The "pro-choice" position is that prenates are human nonpersons.

I really don't believe that it is good for our society to label any human being a nonperson.

I and the rest of the pro-choice movement disagree, considering that labeling pre-birth humans as people limits the freedoms of sentient, sapient women.

[Saluterre]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

There is no misinformation. The pro-life position is that every human being has an intrinsic right to live.

The "pro-choice" position is that prenates are human nonpersons.

I really don't believe that it is good for our society to label any human being a nonperson.

But the opposing argument would be that fetuses aren't humans. Why do you believe that they are, personally speaking?

[Rick Rollin]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

There is no misinformation. The pro-life position is that every human being has an intrinsic right to live.

The "pro-choice" position is that prenates are human nonpersons.

I really don't believe that it is good for our society to label any human being a nonperson.

And I really don't believe that it is good to assist THE COMMIES in taking over America*.

*That was only partially sarcastic.

[Hallistar]

There is no misinformation. The pro-life position is that every human being has an intrinsic right to live.

The "pro-choice" position is that prenates are human nonpersons.

I really don't believe that it is good for our society to label any human being a nonperson.

I and the rest of the pro-choice movement disagree, considering that labeling pre-birth humans as people limits the freedoms of sentient, sapient women.

I have come to the conclusion that most of the reasons used in regarding fetuses as sacred are:

>The unfalsifiable idea of a soul
>The unfalsifiable idea that an abrahamic god has already laid out an entire 80+ years of life for them to live
>The notion that somehow an egg that conceived is alive
>The idea that somehow the fetus is an actual baby (Even during the first two trimesters)
>The idea that you can lose something that you never had

[Christian Democrats]

There is no misinformation. The pro-life position is that every human being has an intrinsic right to live.

The "pro-choice" position is that prenates are human nonpersons.

I really don't believe that it is good for our society to label any human being a nonperson.

But the opposing argument would be that fetuses aren't humans. Why do you believe that they are, personally speaking?

Biologically, embryos and fetuses are humans because of their unique sets of genetic material. From fertilization, no one logically can deny that a human being exists. After fertilization, however, it is necessary for the human to mature to such a point that he or she is capable of surviving independently of the mother.

The concept of a human nonperson strikes me as barbaric.

[Tlaceceyaya]

But the opposing argument would be that fetuses aren't humans. Why do you believe that they are, personally speaking?

Biologically, embryos and fetuses are humans because of their unique sets of genetic material. From fertilization, no one logically can deny that a human being exists. After fertilization, however, it is necessary for the human to mature to such a point that he or she is capable of surviving independently of the mother.

The concept of a human nonperson strikes me as barbaric.

By your definition, a sperm is a human. As is an egg.

[Dissant Machine Empire]

phail, your pole shows way more pro-choice americans

Just In

Gallup pole exposed as corrupt. Data selectivly collected in the most southern states. More at 8.

Also by your definition, sperm are people. This means that each day, hundreds of trillions of human deaths occur.....well then

[Christian Democrats]

Biologically, embryos and fetuses are humans because of their unique sets of genetic material. From fertilization, no one logically can deny that a human being exists. After fertilization, however, it is necessary for the human to mature to such a point that he or she is capable of surviving independently of the mother.

The concept of a human nonperson strikes me as barbaric.

By your definition, a sperm is a human. As is an egg.

No, those are haploid cells. They lack a full set of genetic material.

Gametes are ingredients for making human beings. Sperm cell + ovum = new human being.

In and of themselves, sperm cells and ova have almost no value.

[Page]

But the opposing argument would be that fetuses aren't humans. Why do you believe that they are, personally speaking?

Biologically, embryos and fetuses are humans because of their unique sets of genetic material. From fertilization, no one logically can deny that a human being exists. After fertilization, however, it is necessary for the human to mature to such a point that he or she is capable of surviving independently of the mother.

The concept of a human nonperson strikes me as barbaric.

The concept of a zygote with rights strikes me as moronic.

[Ceannairceach]

But the opposing argument would be that fetuses aren't humans. Why do you believe that they are, personally speaking?

Biologically, embryos and fetuses are humans because of their unique sets of genetic material. From fertilization, no one logically can deny that a human being exists. After fertilization, however, it is necessary for the human to mature to such a point that he or she is capable of surviving independently of the mother.

The concept of a human nonperson strikes me as barbaric.

Whether they are a person or not has no bearing on if abortion is necessary or right.

[Saluterre]

But the opposing argument would be that fetuses aren't humans. Why do you believe that they are, personally speaking?

Biologically, embryos and fetuses are humans because of their unique sets of genetic material. From fertilization, no one logically can deny that a human being exists. After fertilization, however, it is necessary for the human to mature to such a point that he or she is capable of surviving independently of the mother.

The concept of a human nonperson strikes me as barbaric.

But that doesn't prove that it's living. By that logic, a human corpse should have the same rights as a human being. They're all made out of the same materials. If it's "life" can't be proved, why should it's rights be held above that of a proven human being?

[Christian Democrats]

Biologically, embryos and fetuses are humans because of their unique sets of genetic material. From fertilization, no one logically can deny that a human being exists. After fertilization, however, it is necessary for the human to mature to such a point that he or she is capable of surviving independently of the mother.

The concept of a human nonperson strikes me as barbaric.

But that doesn't prove that it's living. By that logic, a human corpse should have the same rights as a human being. They're all made out of the same materials. If it's "life" can't be proved, why should it's rights be held above that of a proven human being?

Life is metabolization, which exists in the unborn.

[Dissant Machine Empire]

If a zygote (First stage of conception, the egg with full set of genetic material) is a human as you say, it would technicaly be preforming cannibalism. Since this "human" burrows itself into the uterus and then begins to use the blood and nutritioun of the person and as such drains them. This is actually technicaly a form of canibalism (The offical definition of canibalism is to "use another human being to provide sustinence for oneself by means of taking involentary biological sustinence from another human being") and in fact, it is involentary. The mother does not go "Ok start feeding the baby.." becuase the body does it automaticaly. In 49 states, canibalism is punishable by death. Which means these zygotes and fetuses must be put do death for canibalism phail

[Hallistar]

But that doesn't prove that it's living. By that logic, a human corpse should have the same rights as a human being. They're all made out of the same materials. If it's "life" can't be proved, why should it's rights be held above that of a proven human being?

Life is metabolization, which exists in the unborn.

So if you implanted an artificial heart/used a defibrillator on someone who reached information-theoretic death, turned it on and restored blood flow to their body, making them alive in the cellular metabolic sense, does that mean they are alive in the typically accepted definition?

[Saluterre]

But that doesn't prove that it's living. By that logic, a human corpse should have the same rights as a human being. They're all made out of the same materials. If it's "life" can't be proved, why should it's rights be held above that of a proven human being?

Life is metabolization, which exists in the unborn.

But is it conscious? Is it capable of conscious thought? Metabolization occurs in plants as well, but do we place their rights above the rights of beings that are, unquestionabley, living?

[Furious Grandmothers]

But the opposing argument would be that fetuses aren't humans. Why do you believe that they are, personally speaking?

Biologically, embryos and fetuses are humans because of their unique sets of genetic material. From fertilization, no one logically can deny that a human being exists. After fertilization, however, it is necessary for the human to mature to such a point that he or she is capable of surviving independently of the mother.

The concept of a human nonperson strikes me as barbaric.

Nah. Lemme try the dictionary definition way.

human being
 
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

in·di·vid·u·al
   [in-duh-vij-oo-uhl] Show IPA
noun
1.
a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
2.
a person: a strange individual.
3.
a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.
4.
a group considered as a unit.
5.
Biology .
a.
a single organism capable of independent existence.
b.
a member of a compound organism or colony.

[Tlaceceyaya]

By your definition, a sperm is a human. As is an egg.

No, those are haploid cells. They lack a full set of genetic material.

Gametes are ingredients for making human beings. Sperm cell + ovum = new human being.

In and of themselves, sperm cells and ova have almost no value.

So people with detrimental haploidy syndrome are not human beings?

[No Water No Moon]

Because of misinformation. You'll get more people to support the proposal of "LET'S NOT KILL BABIES!" than "A woman should be able to decide what she can do with her body or not, including terminating a pregancy." Social freedoms are being limited because one side is painting the discussion as "pro baby murder vs. anti baby murder," when that's simply not the case.

Not to mention that if life begins at conception, when do we stop? Is a sperm a person? Al Madrigal had a great report on that: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

There is no misinformation. The pro-life position is that every human being has an intrinsic right to live.

The "pro-choice" position is that prenates are human nonpersons.

Was this an attempt at parody?

I mean - you said "there is no misinformation", and then made statements about BOTH factions that were untrue, so this has GOT to be parody, no?

[Ifreann]

But the opposing argument would be that fetuses aren't humans. Why do you believe that they are, personally speaking?

Biologically, embryos and fetuses are humans because of their unique sets of genetic material. From fertilization, no one logically can deny that a human being exists. After fertilization, however, it is necessary for the human to mature to such a point that he or she is capable of surviving independently of the mother.

The concept of a human nonperson strikes me as barbaric.

Considering a foetus or embryo to be human doesn't change my position on abortion. Of course, I have this weird idea that other people don't have a right to my body without my permission for the entire duration that they would use it, and therefore by principle of equality, pregnant women's bodies may not be used without their permission. Not by a human nonperson, not by a born human person, not by an unborn human person, not by the Black Goat Of The Woods With One Thousand Young, Shub'Niggurath.

Neither calling it human, nor calling it a person, nor calling it a baby makes a blind bit of difference.

[Desperate Measures]

Biologically, embryos and fetuses are humans because of their unique sets of genetic material. From fertilization, no one logically can deny that a human being exists. After fertilization, however, it is necessary for the human to mature to such a point that he or she is capable of surviving independently of the mother.

The concept of a human nonperson strikes me as barbaric.

Considering a foetus or embryo to be human doesn't change my position on abortion. Of course, I have this weird idea that other people don't have a right to my body without my permission for the entire duration that they would use it, and therefore by principle of equality, pregnant women's bodies may not be used without their permission. Not by a human nonperson, not by a born human person, not by an unborn human person, not by the Black Goat Of The Woods With One Thousand Young, Shub'Niggurath.

Neither calling it human, nor calling it a person, nor calling it a baby makes a blind bit of difference.

What if it was a puppy? How could you not let a nice, cute and cuddly puppy hijack your body?

[Blakk Metal]

By your definition, a sperm is a human. As is an egg.

No, those are haploid cells. They lack a full set of genetic material.

Gametes are ingredients for making human beings. Sperm cell + ovum = new human being.

In and of themselves, sperm cells and ova have almost no value.

By your argument, neither are people with Down Syndrome.

[Christian Democrats]

No, those are haploid cells. They lack a full set of genetic material.

Gametes are ingredients for making human beings. Sperm cell + ovum = new human being.

In and of themselves, sperm cells and ova have almost no value.

So people with detrimental haploidy syndrome are not human beings?

You made up that condition. There is no such thing as a haploid human.

No, those are haploid cells. They lack a full set of genetic material.

Gametes are ingredients for making human beings. Sperm cell + ovum = new human being.

In and of themselves, sperm cells and ova have almost no value.

By your argument, neither are people with Down Syndrome.

People suffering from Down syndrome lack no genetic material; they have a third 21st chromosome (extra genetic material).

[Blakk Metal]

So people with detrimental haploidy syndrome are not human beings?

You made up that condition. There is no such thing as a haploid human.

There are 7 recorded cases of such.

By your argument, neither are people with Down Syndrome.

People suffering from Down syndrome lack no genetic material; they have a third 21st chromosome (extra genetic material).

One can still use that argument on men. After all, they don't have two X-chromosomes like a real person would.

[Xeng He]

You know what is unscientific and just plain awful about the pro-life/pro-choice debate?


Both sides seem to act as if the fetus is an unchanging thing that never, ever, develops a nervous system within the womb after conception, even if the fetus has been in the womb longer than say...a baby born prematurely, and is thus actually more developed.

It really aggravates me.

[Christian Democrats]

You made up that condition. There is no such thing as a haploid human.

There are 7 recorded cases of such.

Link?