Abortion still under control in Poland

The abortion question is based purely on religion, not on science.
While I realize that many scientists believe or believed in G-d, e.g. Albert Einstein, and that science and religion are both seeking the same truth, certain physical laws, hard, cold facts simply cannot be denied.

One fact is that abortion is NOT "murder", which suggests in this country anyway, a methodical, brutal end of a human life of which the victim is aware (even while asleep, it has been proven!). Abortion is the ending of a "life which has not yet begun", two completely different realities.

Another fact is that women who seek abortion do so with a sense of almost malevolent glee, mad killers intent on going on some sort of spree. Nothing in my experience could be further from the truth.

Lastly, if abortion can save a woman's life from rape, something not intended by the woman, then by all means go for it.

Wrong again mate.
The anti abortionists tend to be religious freaks, but not all of them, and the pro abortionists tend to have a scientific outlook, but not all of them.

Bottom line is that the folks who stand intimidatingly with "BABY KILLER" banners in front of many US abortion clinics, are by and large religious fanatics, probably with zero education, the rest likely illiterates!

Murder is a legal term. Killing is a matter of fact and biology. Not every killing is murder but every murder is killing. Abortion is killing.

In the sense of ending that life which has not yet begun, most assuredly!
Killing?? Yes! Murder?? Absolutely not.

Seems your conflating two separate, if related, concepts, Rich.

That's the stupidest argument ever since you are not in their heads. Their education is not only irrelevant but a clue that we instinctively detect and detest evil.

You don't need to be a Ph.D. to know right from wrong and your opinion about abortion is no better than that of a guy who dropped out after the third grade.

One doesn't have to be a PhD to know right from wrong, so what's your excuse?

That sentence is nonsensical. Mine makes perfect sense but since you are having difficulties let me try again...
You don't need to be a Ph.D. to know...= anybody, regardless of his education, knows...
Better now?

Same difference! You likely have no PhD and seem to know neither fact from fiction.
A person can be over educated and just plain stupid or under educated and show some good ol' fashioned horse sense!
Apparently, you show neither, save for often acting like a horse's ass LOL

Motto of this post? Education or schooling is never a guarantee of intelligible and cogent argumentation, but it sure can help:-)

@lyzko 'Abortion is the ending of a "life which has not yet begun", two completely different realities'.

So your intellect actually allows you to believe that life begins at birth?

Nor necessarily will.

How else can the murderers justify their killing of defenseless human beings.

The analogy's not applicable. Life exists before birth, but not as a conscious being!

Ok I think that is an important distinction, so to rephrase: 'Abortion is the ending of a life that has begun but is not yet a fully conscious being'.

Not not conscious at all. Not a person.

lame excuse, those are lame excuses. the same pattern of thought used by slave owners. You are in a good company.

Did the6 say that slaves were not sentient beings?

Which would qualify as killing a helpless life.
How barbaric !

So abortion is the ending of a life that has begun but is not conscious and consciousness is the dividing line between a person and a non person and the assumption is that consciousness occurs at the moment of birth? when the baby opens their eyes for the first time?

talking tools.

There is no real difference in terms of cognitive abilities between a first-trimester, second-trimester, third-trimester, or even a born baby in the first nine to twelve months. Sure, inside the womb the baby is asleep, whereas outside it is awake and screaming, but in terms of memory, thought processes, intelligence, etc. there is no difference at all. It is a purely instinctive creature at this point, which is why we do not have any memories from this period of our lives.

So, if you claim that it's okay to kill unborn babies because human life that isn't conscious yet (but will be in a matter of months) is worthless and " not a person", then you automatically claim that it's also okay to kill babies before their first birthday. Also, patients in a coma are no longer human persons and can be terminated at will, even if there is still a chance they might recover.

Of course, pro-murder zombies operate on (ironically enough) baby-logic, where hiding something from sight (in this case, inside the woman's belly) makes it "not real", whereas taking the same thing outside magically makes it real again. Even though it is no more and no less conscious than it was before.

For much of that period their is no brain. Where do these 'cognitive abilities' come from?

As far as I know, embryologists say that a fertilised human ovum becomes a proper human organism after around 2 weeks of the conception, when the clumped cells are no longer clones of themselves but differentiate and specialize to form an interdependant whole. At that point, dividing the clump would not result in two smaller clumps, but rather in death.

What does that even mean?

Are they sentient? No.

The question remains as to whether the gov't. or the individual woman should be free to choose the right over her OWN body!

Naturally, enlightened, free-thinking folk would agree. Don't know about the rest of you people. Men should have nothing to say, after all, it's women who do the childbearing, men who do the inseminating.

Why people who post here are not only stupid but lazy? Read again this topic and that question should be aswered.

It's the baby's life as well we are talking here about so it just can't be that simple. Banging that particular drum will just stir up us unenlightened, non-free thinking Neanderthals even more with that glaring omission.

Which is one of the many reasons that civilised countries allow it.

Another is the fact that if it's banned, it ALWAYS happens anyway (as it does by the thousand in Poland every year) without regulation or regard to either the woman's life or the stage of the foetus's development.

That they have brain. And other organs. You claimed they don't. BTW, all this sh*it about whether fetuses ought to be considered "human" or not, based on science of all things, is to hand the argument to lefists, since one is accepting their premises, that human beings are just defined by biology, to argue against a point that makes no sense without realizing that the entire reason lefists want abortion is to prove those premises in the first place. Lefists support abortion in order to affirm the notion that humans are nothing more than biological machines.


Who gives a sh*it about whether a fetus is sentient or not? What difference does that even make? The fetus is destined to be a human being. Disrupting the process of its development is the same as killing the person, because we, as religious individuals, do not believe that human beings are mere biological machines and we do not believe human births occur by "accident", and that ought to be the end of the argument.

No. They do not have a brain "throughout the first trimester". Nor do they have thoughts of consciousness until after they're born.

As you know.


Doctors, policymakers, judges.