Just Abortion theory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being alive doesn't make something a human being.

Having human DNA doesn't make something a human being.

Nevertheless, unless you're mandating that parents are forced by law to give their organs/blood/marrow to their kids (no exceptions), forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term isn't justifiable. Especially when there are so many beings on this earth that lack support and resources.

Researchers have identified three genes that appear to have been activated in humans alone, adapted from DNA that serves no function in other species.

Human DNA is specific to humans alone. An unborn babu has human DNA. An unborn baby is alive. Are you seriously trying to argue an unborn baby is not a human?

Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species.

Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live. The right to live doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

It is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

No, humans are not a person until they are born alive.

Is this a person? No. It’s a potential person.


Who is the person in this photo?

Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species.

Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

Arguments against the personhood of the unborn are shrouded in rationalization and denial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being alive doesn't make something a human being.

Having human DNA doesn't make something a human being.

Nevertheless, unless you're mandating that parents are forced by law to give their organs/blood/marrow to their kids (no exceptions), forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term isn't justifiable. Especially when there are so many beings on this earth that lack support and resources.

Researchers have identified three genes that appear to have been activated in humans alone, adapted from DNA that serves no function in other species.

Human DNA is specific to humans alone. An unborn babu has human DNA. An unborn baby is alive. Are you seriously trying to argue an unborn baby is not a human?

Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species.

Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live. The right to live doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

It is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

No, humans are not a person until they are born alive.

Is this a person? No. It’s a potential person.


Who is the person in this photo?

Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.

Semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her.

Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human must be human from the beginning.

The first photo shows all human embryos. No people.

The second photo only has one human. No people.

[Anonymous]

Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being alive doesn't make something a human being.

Having human DNA doesn't make something a human being.

Nevertheless, unless you're mandating that parents are forced by law to give their organs/blood/marrow to their kids (no exceptions), forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term isn't justifiable. Especially when there are so many beings on this earth that lack support and resources.

Researchers have identified three genes that appear to have been activated in humans alone, adapted from DNA that serves no function in other species.

Human DNA is specific to humans alone. An unborn babu has human DNA. An unborn baby is alive. Are you seriously trying to argue an unborn baby is not a human?

Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species.

Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live. The right to live doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

It is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

No, humans are not a person until they are born alive.

Is this a person? No. It’s a potential person.


Who is the person in this photo?

Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.

Semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her.

Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human must be human from the beginning.

The first photo shows all human embryos. No people.

The second photo only has one human. No people.

Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species.

Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

I disagree with this. I think “capable of being born alive” is sufficient. I don’t see a difference in personhood from the moment before birth to the moment after. But I think the fact that we disagree highlights that there is not an objective measure and therefore a woman’s choice should be hers to make.
I also do not even think that the moment life begins should be the defining issue. Even if we concede for the sake of argument that it’s a baby at conception, that does not mean we should force a woman to give her body to support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Tell us what you really think that “lifestyle” is. Don’t be shy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Yeah her “lifestyle” of making a living & going to school. How dare her!

[Anonymous]

It’s not a women’s duty to pop out babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

I disagree with this. I think “capable of being born alive” is sufficient. I don’t see a difference in personhood from the moment before birth to the moment after. But I think the fact that we disagree highlights that there is not an objective measure and therefore a woman’s choice should be hers to make.
I also do not even think that the moment life begins should be the defining issue. Even if we concede for the sake of argument that it’s a baby at conception, that does not mean we should force a woman to give her body to support it.

You could argue that viability give partial personhood.

But still legally not a “person”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Yeah her “lifestyle” of making a living & going to school. How dare her!

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.

Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice.

Yes, Susan B. Anthony Was Pro-Life
She and Elizabeth Cady Stanton railed against abortion in the pages of their paper.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-b-anthony-was-pro-life-elizabeth-cady-stanton-roe-abortion-dobbs-decision-11655151459

In fact, it’s the pro-choice groups that have it wrong. During their lifetimes, both women vociferously condemned abortion. They certainly wouldn’t have embraced the use of their names to promote what they termed “foeticide.”

Stacy Schiff wrote, "There is no question that [Anthony] deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement.

“No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death.”
– Susan B Anthony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Yeah her “lifestyle” of making a living & going to school. How dare her!

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.

Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice.

Yes, Susan B. Anthony Was Pro-Life
She and Elizabeth Cady Stanton railed against abortion in the pages of their paper.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-b-anthony-was-pro-life-elizabeth-cady-stanton-roe-abortion-dobbs-decision-11655151459

In fact, it’s the pro-choice groups that have it wrong. During their lifetimes, both women vociferously condemned abortion. They certainly wouldn’t have embraced the use of their names to promote what they termed “foeticide.”

Stacy Schiff wrote, "There is no question that [Anthony] deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement.

“No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death.”
– Susan B Anthony

And banning abortion robs women of their bodies, dignity & ability to make a living for an extended period of time.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s cute how forced-brothers think that a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant, but is, is going to abstain from alcohol or drugs, exercise, take prenatal vitamins or not eat Shrimp.

They also think she’s going to gleefully surrender the baby at it’s birth to a white, straight, married Christian couple rather than flush the baby down a toilet, throw it in a sewer, throw it in a dumpster, leave it in a “safe haven box,” or attempt to raise it until it gets taken by CPS into foster care.