Why Can't the Pro-Abortionists be Honest?

[J.T]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is by definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homicide).

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible act- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When you pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You don't understand the subject and have no place in intelligent discussion of the matter.

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position. You have no place in honest discussion.



*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/patriarch_usa/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3476302)

[maineman]

why are the anti-abortionists unwilling to compromise? Why can they not say, let's outlaw all abortions after quickening? that would save thousands and thousands of those fetuses that they consider human beings.

[Missileman]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is by definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homicide).

If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible act- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When you pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You don't understand the subject and have no place in intelligent discussion of the matter.

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position. You have no place in honest discussion.



*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/patriarch_usa/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3476302)


Before any argument can take place, we'll have to define human being.

[Mr. P]

Not AGAIN. Control that seed and the women, damn! :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

... then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support.

Because the choice of communal society is for the betterment of communal society. If an individual values their own life and choices more than the future life of their own progeny then that decision will result in the betterment of society because communal resources will not be wasted on an unwanted child.

[J.T]

why are the anti-abortionists unwilling to compromise?
Because they oppose homicide.

Why aren't the anti-rapists willing to 'compromise'?

Do you always ask such stupid questions?


Why can they not say, let's outlaw all abortions after quickening?

Why is it okay to kill you before your mother notices you kicking and not after? What changes that makes killing you go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing?

they consider human beings.

Sorry, but age, race, and the colour of your skin don't decide whether or not you're human. That bullshit won't fly here.


Before any argument can take place, we'll have to define human being.
Do we have to define 'is', too?

human being

noun
Definition of HUMAN BEING

: human






²human

noun
Definition of HUMAN

: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : man; broadly : hominid

— hu·man·like adjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/styles/default/images/reference/external.jpg

human being

 
–noun 1.any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Noun

S: (n) homo, man, human being, human (any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae

[maineman]

I guess you need to learn how to accept the fact that many people, including the supreme court, don't agree with your definition of when a clump of cells crosses the line and becomes a human being.

sorry.

for me, it's kinda like calling a fertilized egg a chicken.

[Missileman]

Do we have to define 'is', too?

human being

noun
Definition of HUMAN BEING

: human






²human

noun
Definition of HUMAN

: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : man; broadly : hominid

— hu·man·like adjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/styles/default/images/reference/external.jpg

human being

 
–noun 1.any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Noun

S: (n) homo, man, human being, human (any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae

I was of course trying to see if we can arrive at a list of things that differentiate a human being from a single cell with human DNA...the dictionary quotes don't help that. For instance, I think a human being requires a brain, especially given that it separates us from other species.

[LuLu]

So how do you feel about birth control and Plan B?

[Mr. P]

I guess you need to learn how to accept the fact that many people, including the supreme court, don't agree with your definition of when a clump of cells crosses the line and becomes a human being.

sorry.

for me, it's kinda like calling a fertilized egg a chicken.

Or an acorn an Oak Tree.

[Missileman]

Or an acorn an Oak Tree.

Or a bag of flour a cake.

[fj1200]

for me, it's kinda like calling a fertilized egg a chicken.

... or a balut a duck. Oh wait, it is a duck.

[J.T]

I guess you need to learn how to accept the fact that many people, including the supreme court, don't agree with your definition of when a clump of cells crosses the line and becomes a human being.


SCOTUS doesn't get to decide at what shade one's skin makes them a human being.

'They don't look like us' won't fly here.


I was of course trying to see if we can arrive at a list of things that differentiate a human being from a single cell with human DNA...the dictionary quotes don't help that.

Yes, it does. A human being is a human. A human is a genetically human organism. A lymphocyte or a skin cell is not an organism.

This is basic biology.


you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You don't understand the subject and have no place in intelligent discussion of the matter.

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position. You have no place in honest discussion.


So, which is it with you. Are ignorant, a liar, or both?


For instance, I think a human being requires a brain

You're wrong.

Here ya go:
http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/bio%20101/bio_1_menu.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/1416037063



especially given that it separates us from other species.
Really? We're the only species with a brain?

I see you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.


The brain is the center of the nervous system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system) in all vertebrate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate) and most invertebrate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invertebrate) animals.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Shepard_0-0">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain#cite_note-Shepard-0)</sup>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain

Perhaps you should rejoin the discussion when you know what you're talking about. Until then, it's clear you have no place at the table. You are dismissed until you can ground your position in something other than ignorance.


So how do you feel about birth control and Plan B?
Both prevent pregnancy. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

Interestingly, most zygotes never implant in the first place.

Anyway, destroying the zygote is like dismembering the internet today. It's possible each will give rise to a sentient mind at some point (indeed one of the two systems is expected to, if all goes well), but that mind- that person- doesn't exist yet. It is impossible to harm a non-existent person- so, seeing as nobody but the woman taking Plan B and the parties using the condom are effected by their actions, I don't see how it's anyone's business what they do with them.

[Missileman]

Yes, it does. A human being is a human. A human is a genetically human organism. A lymphocyte or a skin cell is not an organism.

This is basic biology.



So, which is it with you. Are ignorant, a liar, or both?

You're wrong.

Here ya go:
http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/bio%20101/bio_1_menu.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/1416037063



Really? We're the only species with a brain?

I see you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain

Perhaps you should rejoin the discussion when you know what you're talking about. Until then, it's clear you have no place at the table. You are dismissed until you can ground your position in something other than ignorance.

Hey asshole...go fuck yourself! Do you want to have a debate or just sling shit? I'm capable of either.

Our brain (intelligence) does separate us from other animals. And FYI you ignorant fuck, an organism doesn't have to be multicellular. Further, a human being could be something less than a complete organism, for instance a person born without eyes isn't a complete organism, but still a human being.

[Thunderknuckles]

Before any argument can take place, we'll have to define human being.
Here's where the whole problem began. Thousands of years of human common fucking sense pushed aside due to faulty intellectualism. It's like saying a train isn't a train because it hasn't pulled out of the station yet.

[Missileman]

Here's where the whole problem began. Thousands of years of human common fucking sense pushed aside due to faulty intellectualism. It's like saying a train isn't a train because it hasn't pulled out of the station yet.

Negative. It's the application of common sense that leads to the conclusion that it takes more than a lump of cells with human DNA to comprise a human being. And to be more precise in your analogy, it's more like saying the iron ore in the ground isn't a train because it hasn't been turned into a train yet.

[LuLu]

Both prevent pregnancy. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

Interestingly, most zygotes never implant in the first place.

Anyway, destroying the zygote is like dismembering the internet today. It's possible each will give rise to a sentient mind at some point (indeed one of the two systems is expected to, if all goes well), but that mind- that person- doesn't exist yet. It is impossible to harm a non-existent person- so, seeing as nobody but the woman taking Plan B and the parties using the condom are effected by their actions, I don't see how it's anyone's business what they do with them.

They both prevent human life. Abortion is the same way. A fetus cannot survive on it's own at six weeks or even up to 12 weeks. Abortion is another way for human life to be prevented. Plan B also prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, by your definition wouldn't it already be a human? If a fetus at six weeks cannot survive on its on, and is aborted, isn't that the same thing as preventing a fertilized egg from implanting which it also can survive without doing?

[Thunderknuckles]

Negative. It's the application of common sense that leads to the conclusion that it takes more than a lump of cells with human DNA to comprise a human being. And to be more precise in your analogy, it's more like saying the iron ore in the ground isn't a train because it hasn't been turned into a train yet.
See what I mean about faulty intellectualism!?

Iron ore can become anything an intelligent human being wants it to become. The cells dividing in a mother's womb are a human life. It has no choice. That is what it is. That is it's preordained destiny unless one chooses to destroy it.

By the way, I'm OK with abortion when it is needed. I just wish people would stop with the bullshit argument about when a life becomes a life as if the cells dividing in a mother's womb could accidentally become a tonka toy.

[J.T]

a person born without eyes isn't a complete organism

:lol:


Negative. It's the application of common sense that leads to the conclusion that it takes more than a lump of cells with human DNA to comprise a human being. And to be more precise in your analogy, it's more like saying the iron ore in the ground isn't a train because it hasn't been turned into a train yet.
At what age did you stop being (a dog? a cat?) and suddenly become a human?


When you were old enough to vote Democrat?

[red states rule]

I guess you need to learn how to accept the fact that many people, including the supreme court, don't agree with your definition of when a clump of cells crosses the line and becomes a human being.

sorry.

for me, it's kinda like calling a fertilized egg a chicken.

Clump of cells eh?

http://0.tqn.com/d/pregnancy/1/7/-/C/05us12a.jpg

[red states rule]

why are the anti-abortionists unwilling to compromise? Why can they not say, let's outlaw all abortions after quickening? that would save thousands and thousands of those fetuses that they consider human beings.

Amzing how people like you who support the murder of the unborn were never aborted themselves

[J.T]

They both prevent human life.
No, they both prevent impregnation. Plan B doesn't prevent the creation of a new human being. It prevents implantation of the newly created child in your uterine wall.


Abortion is the same way.

The termination of a pregnancy prevents pregnancy? :laugh:


A fetus cannot survive on it's own at six weeks or even up to 12 weeks.
Or for the next five years... longer, in some cases.


Abortion is another way for human life to be prevented.
So I can somehow magically and retroactively prevent your existence by killing you tomorrow? :lol:
If a fetus at six weeks cannot survive on its on, and is aborted, isn't that the same thing as preventing a fertilized egg from implanting which it also can survive without doing?
By your argument, they're both the same as killing a 3-year-old or a Democrat on welfare, since none of them can survive on their own.

[red states rule]

It is very easy to be pro choice

You are not the one getting killed

[PostmodernProphet]

why are the anti-abortionists unwilling to compromise? Why can they not say, let's outlaw all abortions after quickening? that would save thousands and thousands of those fetuses that they consider human beings.

quickening....""to reach the stage of pregnancy at which the child shows signs of life."......works for me....of course, that would mean abortion would be illegal before any woman was aware she was pregnant, but I can live with that compromise.....


I guess you need to learn how to accept the fact that many people, including the supreme court, don't agree with your definition of when a clump of cells crosses the line and becomes a human being.

sorry.

for me, it's kinda like calling a fertilized egg a chicken.

it isn't a rhinoceros.....


I was of course trying to see if we can arrive at a list of things that differentiate a human being from a single cell with human DNA...the dictionary quotes don't help that. For instance, I think a human being requires a brain, especially given that it separates us from other species.

"nothing" makes for a short list.....


Hey asshole...go fuck yourself! Do you want to have a debate or just sling shit? I'm capable of either.

Our brain (intelligence) does separate us from other animals. And FYI you ignorant fuck, an organism doesn't have to be multicellular. Further, a human being could be something less than a complete organism, for instance a person born without eyes isn't a complete organism, but still a human being.

now, Miss....don't be so nasty....we already know you're the last person to be qualified as a human being, you don't have to demonstrate it.....


Abortion is the same way.

no, it simply isn't......there is no denying, scientifically, that the fetus is life.....you can pretend, for the sake of killing it, that it's life isn't as good as a "human being's" life.....but that is just pretending for the sake of killing it......

[Missileman]

See what I mean about faulty intellectualism!?

Iron ore can become anything an intelligent human being wants it to become. The cells dividing in a mother's womb are a human life. It has no choice. That is what it is. That is it's preordained destiny unless one chooses to destroy it.

By the way, I'm OK with abortion when it is needed. I just wish people would stop with the bullshit argument about when a life becomes a life as if the cells dividing in a mother's womb could accidentally become a tonka toy.

If EVERY fertilized egg became a human being, you'd have a valid argument. Some 15% of pregnancies miscarry, mostly because the cells dividing in the mother's womb are becoming something definitely NOT a viable human being.

[PostmodernProphet]

If EVERY fertilized egg became a human being, you'd have a valid argument. Some 15% of pregnancies miscarry, mostly because the cells dividing in the mother's womb are becoming something definitely NOT a viable human being.

likewise, since not every adult reaches the age of 75 we should feel free to kill them before they reach that age?.....


viable human being.

tell me though......how do you distinguish the rights of a "viable human being" from those of a "human being".....

"Viable or viability is the ability of a thing (a living organism, an artificial system, an idea, etc.) to maintain itself or recover its potentialities" - wiki

should any human being not able to maintain itself be subject to termination at will?.....is a day old birthed child "viable".......isn't your application of the term to this situation arbitrary?......

[maineman]

it isn't a rhinoceros.....

it isn't lots of things. most importantly, it isn't a chicken.

[Abbey Marie]

Negative. It's the application of common sense that leads to the conclusion that it takes more than a lump of cells with human DNA to comprise a human being. And to be more precise in your analogy, it's more like saying the iron ore in the ground isn't a train because it hasn't been turned into a train yet.

I'm sure you have seen early ultrasounds, if not early aborted fetuses. Do they really look like a clump of cells to you? Because most of us can see hands feet, heads, faces, hearts, etc.

Btw, as an aside to MM- the term is "pro-life", and your attempt to change it won't work.

[red states rule]

it isn't lots of things. most importantly, it isn't a chicken.

Coming form you that is remarkable. Given your birth was an unnatural birth

A human being gave birth to you


I'm sure you have seen early ultrasounds, if not early aborted fetuses. Do they really look like a clump of cells to you? Because most of us can see hands feet, heads, faces, hearts, etc.

Btw, as an aside to MM- the term is "pro-life", and your attempt to change it won't work.

Where is that clump of cells they are talking about?

http://mrozfamily.com/Baby%20Mroz%2020%20Week%20Sonogram.jpg

[J.T]

no, it simply isn't......there is no denying, scientifically, that the fetus is life.....you can pretend, for the sake of killing it, that it's life isn't as good as a "human being's" life.....but that is just pretending for the sake of killing it......

If what they advocate (killing a young human) isn't wrong, why do they have to lie about it and dehumanize their victims?


http://surplusknowledge.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=60


If EVERY fertilized egg became a human being

If canine familiaris zygotes ever start magically turning into humans, Mr Hovind, I will buy you a beer for disproving evolutionary science and debunking the bible (for the 284,845,571,845,971th time in history) with that singular discovery.

Until then, I'm calling you a dishonest sack of shit.


The fact is that abortionism is a religion. These people have their dogmas (humans are not humans until they decide they want them around, for instance) and they accept these dogmas on faith. They are incapable of honesty because faith, not reason, guides them.


Once the renunciation has been made, the mind, instead of operating freely, becomes the servant of a higher and unquestioned purpose. To deny the truth is an act of service...Any genuine intellectual contact which you have with him involves a challenge to his fundamental faith, a struggle for his soul.
-Arthur Koestler



Some 15% of pregnancies miscarry,

100% of humans die (well, 99.9999% if you accept the religious folks' fairy stories). What's your point?


mostly because the cells dividing in the mother's womb are becoming something definitely NOT a viable human being.


So they're not human because they're not viable human beings?


I see you moved the goalposts halfway through your post in order to create a false equivalency, and I must ask: why are you incapable of being honest?

If 'viable' is part of the definition of 'human' now, what species was my grandmother after she died? How long after her death did her DNA morph into that of some other species?

What about people on respirators or in Iron Lungs? What species do they turn into?

Abortionism has the strangest fairy stories of any religion I've ever heard of.

[PostmodernProphet]

it isn't lots of things. most importantly, it isn't a chicken.

it's a chicken....the DNA will prove it....it's just not a laying hen....

[Missileman]

If canine familiaris zygotes ever start magically turning into humans, Mr Hovind, I will buy you a beer for disproving evolutionary science and debunking the bible (for the 284,845,571,845,971th time in history) with that singular discovery.

Until then, I'm calling you a dishonest sack of shit.

Listen up you condescending prick...when cell division goes horribly wrong, and it happens frequently, you might not get a dog, but you aren't going to get a human being either. You must be some simple minded fuck if you believe otherwise.



The fact is that abortionism is a religion. These people have their dogmas (humans are not humans until they decide they want them around, for instance) and they accept these dogmas on faith. They are incapable of honesty because faith, not reason, guides them.


Once the renunciation has been made, the mind, instead of operating freely, becomes the servant of a higher and unquestioned purpose. To deny the truth is an act of service...Any genuine intellectual contact which you have with him involves a challenge to his fundamental faith, a struggle for his soul.
-Arthur Koestler




100% of humans die (well, 99.9999% if you accept the religious folks' fairy stories). What's your point?



So they're not human because they're not viable human beings?


I see you moved the goalposts halfway through your post in order to create a false equivalency, and I must ask: why are you incapable of being honest?

I haven't moved shit you stupid ass...my argument remains that it takes more than a lump of cells with human DNA to comprise a human being. If you weren't so busy building a strawman you might not have missed that fact.


I'm sure you have seen early ultrasounds, if not early aborted fetuses. Because most of us can see hands feet, heads, faces, hearts, etc.


After a certain amount of development, yes. And FYI, I'm in favor of restricting abortion to the first trimester unless the mother's health is in danger OR in cases of catastrophic defect.

[J.T]

Listen up
Are you done lying now, Mister Hovind?


you condescending prick

*yawn*

Neg repping and stamping your feet won't change the science.


...when cell division goes horribly wrong, and it happens frequently, you might not get a dog, but you aren't going to get a human being either.
What do we get? A cat? When cell division goes wrong, what species' DNA does the child's morph into?



You must be some simple minded fuck
Says the guy who thinks he changed species somewhere during his lifetime :lol:


I haven't moved shit
Yes, you have. You claimed humans start out as some species other than human. Then, to prove this, you claimed they lives in question weren't 'viable'. You jumped from 'they're not human' to 'they're not "viable" in the middle of your spiel.

Your original claim remains dishonest bullshit, so you try to change your claim halfway through your post and hope nobody's smarter than you are

.
Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. This is usually done by the "losing" side of an argument in a desperate bid to save face. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the standards can eventually evolve<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#cite_note-0)</sup> into something that cannot be met no matter what. Usually such a tactic is spotted quickly.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts



I ask again: why can't you be honest for one full post?


.my argument remains that it takes more than a lump of cells with human DNA to comprise a human being

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man

Do you need the definition of 'organism', too?

Here, we're start you out with the basics:

http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Dummies-Donna-Rae-Siegfried/dp/0764553267

http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/1416037063

.
If you weren't so busy building a strawman

:laugh:

You're funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection


After a certain amount of development, yes. And FYI, I'm in favor of restricting abortion to the first trimester unless the mother's health is in danger OR in cases of catastrophic defect.
Why? What changes?

[red states rule]

Another example of liberal double standards and liberal "justice"

It is OK toi murder the unborn but NEVER EVER waterboard a terrorist

[Missileman]

What do we get? A cat? When cell division goes wrong, what species' DNA does the child's morph into?

Now it's my turn to play your game.

Your standard for a human being is a group of cells with human DNA, no matter what form they might take. Tell me, idiot, when do we start lining up the oncologists for the electric chair?


Says the guy who thinks he changed species somewhere during his lifetime :lol:
Yes, you have. You claimed humans start out as some species other than human. Then, to prove this, you claimed they lives in question weren't 'viable'. You jumped from 'they're not human' to 'they're not "viable" in the middle of your spiel.

Again with the strawman...I never said any such thing. You must feel you have no shot at winning the argument so you deliberately mischaracterize what I've written.

You call me dishonest, yet you're the one doing all the lying in the thread. :slap:


Why? What changes?

Just the extent of development.

[red states rule]

http://images5.cpcache.com/product/340397325v4_480x480_Front.jpg

[Missileman]

http://images5.cpcache.com/product/340397325v4_480x480_Front.jpg

Where's the memorial to the BILLIONS of fetuses killed by your god?

[jimnyc]

Where's the memorial to the BILLIONS of fetuses killed by your god?

Can you show where any "god" has done so on purpose, like the thousands upon thousands of women who use abortion as a form of birth control, for example.

[maineman]

Can you show where any "god" has done so on purpose, like the thousands upon thousands of women who use abortion as a form of birth control, for example.

I would think that most devout Christian women who had a miscarriage would consider it to be God's will.

[DragonStryk72]

Hey asshole...go fuck yourself! Do you want to have a debate or just sling shit? I'm capable of either.

Our brain (intelligence) does separate us from other animals. And FYI you ignorant fuck, an organism doesn't have to be multicellular. Further, a human being could be something less than a complete organism, for instance a person born without eyes isn't a complete organism, but still a human being.

Actually, that's false, although he does need to sling insult far less. Even a person who is born without eyes is made up of millions of individual organisms, so a human being is not in itself an "organism". Since DNA determines the presence of eyes, the person in this instance would be "complete".

Actually it isn't particularly intelligence that separates us from the animals, not in the way you think. It's more our ability for self-reflection that separates us from the animals. Your dog can do a variety of tricks, but he's never going to be sitting there one day going, "Where is my life going? What is the point of fetch? Is licking my own privates really the proper way for a dog to carry on? I can't they cut off my fucking balls."

[revelarts]

Where's the memorial to the BILLIONS of fetuses killed by your god?

I don't think He ask for any help. Why are you volunteering?

How about this,
when you can create people ---and well everything--- from nothing, then you and others might have about enough authority to say which babies live and which die.
Until then stop getting in the way of God's process of bringing life, by stopping your support of killing children you and others think God made a mistake giving life to.

[Missileman]

I don't think He ask for any help. Why are you volunteering?

How about this,
when you can create people ---and well everything--- from nothing, then you and others might have about enough authority to say which babies live and which die.
Until then stop getting in the way of God's process of bringing life, by stopping your support of killing children you and others think God made a mistake giving life to.

So you think it makes sense that this god would bother to imbue a fertilized egg with a soul (for those who believe in such nonsense) and then a few days or weeks later just kill it? To what purpose?

Where do you stand on aborting pregnancies with catastrophic defects?

[Missileman]

Actually, that's false, although he does need to sling insult far less. Even a person who is born without eyes is made up of millions of individual organisms, so a human being is not in itself an "organism". Since DNA determines the presence of eyes, the person in this instance would be "complete".

Actually it isn't particularly intelligence that separates us from the animals, not in the way you think. It's more our ability for self-reflection that separates us from the animals. Your dog can do a variety of tricks, but he's never going to be sitting there one day going, "Where is my life going? What is the point of fetch? Is licking my own privates really the proper way for a dog to carry on? I can't they cut off my fucking balls."

That self-reflection is derived from higher intelligence.

What about cases of anencephaly? I contend a human being requires a brain.

[J.T]

Your standard for a human being is a group of cells with human DNA

Again I must ask: why can't you be honest?

I quoted the definition earlier. Why do you have tom lie in every single post you make?



Again with the strawman... You must feel you have no shot at winning the argument so you deliberately mischaracterize what I've written.

2177


Why are you incapable of being honest?


Just the extent of development.
So now you're saying that your earlier claims that the child suddenly turned into a human being through some magically means of transformation when the Baby Fairy waves her magic wand was bullshit?

Now you're saying the only thing that changed if the child's age/state of development?

Why not wait until the child can walk? Why is the the first trimester the magical age of wonder where killing you becomes not-okay?


Even a person who is born without eyes is made up of millions of individual organisms

:slap:

A human is a singular organism. Now, there are numerous other organisms living in/on is, but they are not part of our body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome


, so a human being is not in itself an "organism".

wha?


I contend a human being requires a brain.

You are wrong. Sorry, but Earth is not flat and is more than 6000 years old. There is no room for opinion when it comes to established scientific fact.

I quoted the definition of 'human being' earlier.

[Missileman]

So now you're saying that your earlier claims that the child suddenly turned into a human being through some magically means of transformation when the Baby Fairy waves her magic wand was bullshit?

You need to quote where I said anything even remotely like that. I really would appreciate it if you'd stop attributing your made up, ridiculous arguments to me.


You are wrong. Sorry, but Earth is not flat and is more than 6000 years old. There is no room for opinion when it comes to established scientific fact.

I quoted the definition of 'human being' earlier.

I don't recall stipulating to using your definition sparky. Maybe you'd like to fabricate another supposed response of mine where I did?



Why are you incapable of being honest?

I'm not the one attributing things not written to posters...you are.


You are wrong.

So let's start with a complete human being and we'll remove parts one at a time. How many and which pieces need to remain in order to still have a human being? For example, if we remove everything except one eyeball, is it still a human being?

[revelarts]

So you think it makes sense that this god would bother to imbue a fertilized egg with a soul (for those who believe in such nonsense) and then a few days or weeks later just kill it? To what purpose?
the purpose is beyond me. And it's beyond my pay grade to find fault with it. In a present state it's the natural order of things. whereas Adult men and women killing a growing human with intention is rightly considered a crime.



Where do you stand on aborting pregnancies with catastrophic defects?
Are you proposing to make all abortions illegal except for those who Choose to abort children with "catastrophic" defects? (parental choice not the state or dr's..)
That's not ideal but I'll vote for that law.
Are you with me?

[J.T]

You need to quote where I said anything even remotely like that. I really would appreciate it if you'd stop attributing your made up, ridiculous arguments to me.
So now you're denying that you claimed you weren't a human being when you were younger?

It's all on record, babe.




I don't recall stipulating to using your definition sparky

Of course you didn't agree to use the real definition; you people are incapable of honesty.


So let's start with a complete human being and we'll remove parts one at a time. How many and which pieces need to remain in order to still have a human being? For example, if we remove everything except one eyeball, is it still a human being?
http://www.google.com/search?q=organism

Do your own homework, toots.

[PostmodernProphet]

Where's the memorial to the BILLIONS of fetuses killed by your god?

are you god?.....


So let's start with a complete human being and we'll remove parts one at a time. How many and which pieces need to remain in order to still have a human being? For example, if we remove everything except one eyeball, is it still a human being?

a very dead one....who, like the fetus, was a living one before you began carving.....

[Missileman]

So now you're denying that you claimed you weren't a human being when you were younger?

It's all on record, babe.



Of course you didn't agree to use the real definition; you people are incapable of honesty.


http://www.google.com/search?q=organism

Do your own homework, toots.

This board comes equipped with a quote function. It's easy to use, even easy enough for a dolt such as yourself. I suggest you familiarize yourself with how to use it. Your attempts at paraphrasing what I've written are dreadful. In fact, should there ever be a "Horrible Paraphrasers Hall of Fame" you're a cinch for first ballot inductee.

So break out the quotes dumbshit...your constant lying about what I've written is getting tiresome.



Do your own homework, toots.

Too chickenshit to answer a simple question huh? I figured as much.


the purpose is beyond me. And it's beyond my pay grade to find fault with it. In a present state it's the natural order of things. whereas Adult men and women killing a growing human with intention is rightly considered a crime.

That's a really nice cop out, but I'd say it's a question that needs to be answered before passing any judgement on men and women. After all, if your god can find it just to kill billions of the unborn, I find it hard to believe the same god would find a man or woman immoral for killing one.



Are you proposing to make all abortions illegal except for those who Choose to abort children with "catastrophic" defects? (parental choice not the state or dr's..)
That's not ideal but I'll vote for that law.
Are you with me?

You'd have to include situations where the mother's life is in peril AND because I find it unacceptable to force a woman to bear an unwanted child only to have that child neglected by the birth mother or in some state-run institution, you'd also have to include adoption reform and make it easy and FREE for a couple to adopt.

What plans do you have to imprison these women who don't want to carry to term? Will you go so far as to strap them down and regulate their diet and prevent them from smoking, drinking, or doing drugs til they pop? I mean the world sure as hell doesn't need any more crack babies, right?

[gabosaurus]

What is missing from the OP's argument is common sense.
My friend Katie is a soccer referee, and often talks about rules being different once they are "put into motion." Which means you have to adapt rules to real life situations.

Let's take, for example, a 14 year old girl raped by an adult. Under the OP's definition, this girl has to carry a child for nine months, go through child birth and then have the child taken away and thrown into some anonymous nursery. Forget about the damage done to the child, but we can't "kill" anyone.

I would be interested in how the OP would approach miscarriages. The woman's body fails to sustain the life of the fetus. Can women who have miscarriages be charged with murder?

When I look at what constitutes "life," I look at what is "sustainable life." I draw that line at three months. I view late term abortions as murder. Those should be illegal.

You want fewer abortions? Allow women of all child bearing ages free access to health care and birth control. Allow teachers to teach "how" instead of just "don't."

Not that men are interested in any of this, since men can't get pregnant. It's not their problem.

[PostmodernProphet]

Allow teachers to teach "how" instead of just "don't."

are you pretending they aren't?......

[J.T]

Let's take, for example, a 14 year old girl raped by an adult.

Why can't you people be honest? According to the Guttmachter Institute (a spin-off of Planned Parenthood) ~ 1% of abortions involve rape or incest.

So how about, instead of exploiting real victims to push your own agenda, your start addressing reality and be honest about the 93% that are performed out of convenience?


Under the OP's definition
You mean the scientific definition? Facts are facts, hon.


, this girl has to carry a child for nine months, go through child birth and then have the child taken away and thrown into some anonymous nursery.

That doesn't follow from the scientific definition of what a human is at all. Why can't you people ever be honest? That's one position someone could take, but it is not the logical implication of the definition of a human being.

Why can't you people ever be honest?



Forget about the damage done to the child, but we can't "kill" anyone.

Why the quotation marks? Can't admit what you advocate? Why's that, if it's not wrong?


I would be interested in how the OP would approach miscarriages. The woman's body fails to sustain the life of the fetus. Can women who have miscarriages be charged with murder?

Another strawman. Why can't you be honest? Answer your own question: what is the legal definition of 'murder' and do we usually press such charges in cases of accidental/natural death?


When I look at what constitutes "life,"

The only correct and honest way to finish this sentence is 'I ask what it means for a system to be alive and I consult working scientific definitions of the term'.


I look at what is "sustainable life."
Then no life is alive, since all living things, if they continue their course, are guaranteed to die.



I draw that line at three months.

About 22 years old and on a respirator following a car crash? Does a woman cease to be alive, as she looks up at you and writes you a note with her one working hand, because the fire resulting from the exploding gas tank burnt her lungs and she'll die if taken off the support systems at this time?

Since she's no longer 'alive' by your (bullshit) definition, what is she?


I view late term abortions as murder. Those should be illegal.

Why? What changes?


You want fewer abortions? Allow women of all child bearing ages free access to health care and birth control. Allow teachers to teach "how" instead of just "don't."

Kinda late. That's been S.O.P. for a generation and abortions have skyrocketed. More and more of the profits are from repeat business.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6335880.ece


Not that men are interested in any of this, since men can't get pregnant. It's not their problem.
And here comes the misandry.... of course, no Whites were ever abolitionists, either :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

What is missing from the OP's argument is common sense.
My friend Katie is a soccer referee, and often talks about rules being different once they are "put into motion." Which means you have to adapt rules to real life situations.

So common sense allows intervention in the development of a new life?


Let's take, for example, a 14 year old girl raped by an adult. Under the OP's definition, this girl has to carry a child for nine months, go through child birth and then have the child taken away and thrown into some anonymous nursery. Forget about the damage done to the child, but we can't "kill" anyone.

Adoption is an anonymous nursery?


I would be interested in how the OP would approach miscarriages. The woman's body fails to sustain the life of the fetus. Can women who have miscarriages be charged with murder?

What action did they take that caused the miscarriage and is thus punishable?


When I look at what constitutes "life," I look at what is "sustainable life." I draw that line at three months. I view late term abortions as murder. Those should be illegal.

Many would agree with that except for those far right and far left. The problem is SCOTUS took away the right for individuals, via their state, to make such a decision.


You want fewer abortions? Allow women of all child bearing ages free access to health care and birth control. Allow teachers to teach "how" instead of just "don't."

Not that men are interested in any of this, since men can't get pregnant. It's not their problem.

Ah, free health care solves all. How many abortions are performed in the enlightened government health care countries? How many low income mothers who already get free health care and birth control are making the abortion decision?

[LuvRPgrl]

Because the choice of communal society is for the betterment of communal society. If an individual values their own life and choices more than the future life of their own progeny then that decision will result in the betterment of society because communal resources will not be wasted on an unwanted child.

when the communal group has UNWANTED children, that, and that alone spells the inevitable end of that community to function well, and ultimately it's demise.

As JT outline, just because it is unwanted, doesn't make it right, anymore than killing/murdering your unwanted one year old baby

As for the poster who asked why we cant compromise,,,abortion is or isnt the killing of an individual human being. THere is no compromise. If it is the killing of an indivudual human being, then it is wrong at all times, to compromise would be to allow murdering some, while saving others. If it isnt the killing of an individual human being, then there is no need to end any, at all.

There are only TWO clear cut clean demarkation points, insemenation and birth. The organism is an individual human being at one of those two points. All other points during pregnancy and are subjective in nature and are changing all the time depending upon the level of our science. Whether it is biologically human is NOT and never will be determined by our level of science.

The abortionists are all over the place on the issue.
They are extremely inconsistent. If a woman is driving to have an abortion, the abortion is legal, but if a person crashes into her and kills the baby, they are guilty of killing a human being. Hmmmmm
If a woman is pregnant, the llibs insist that she, and she alone has the decision to abort or not, yet if the man wants her to have one, and she refuses, he is obligated by law to pay child support, so she has the power to make decisions regarding his future finances and fatherhood, as she can also make it all but impossible for him to see the kid if she wants to.

They use DNA to prove humanhood and individuality of that humanhood, yet they refuse to use it in the case of a pregnancy.
They claim they want to reduce abortions, yet support its legality. Either abortion is wrong and bad and should be illegal, or there is nothing wrong with it. If it isnt the killing of a human being, why be desiring to reduce the numbers.

They often refer to the fetus as a child, yet they refuse to acknowledge its "childhood" status regarding abortions.


I guess you need to learn how to accept the fact that many people, including the supreme court, don't agree with your definition of when a clump of cells crosses the line and becomes a human being.

sorry.

for me, it's kinda like calling a fertilized egg a chicken.

Same was said about slavery


quickening....""to reach the stage of pregnancy at which the child shows signs of life."......works for me....of course, that would mean abortion would be illegal before any woman was aware she was pregnant, but I can live with that compromise.....

At the time quickening was used to decide if abortion were moral or not, and hence illegal or not, science had no way to determine if the fetus was showing signs of life until they could actually feel it move.

Today, we have the ability to determine that all the way down to the state of fertilization.

Upon fetillization, the organism is now controlling its destiny all the way til death of old age, or otherwise. The nucleus of the single cell organism is now controlling its growth and what to do with the nutrition it is receiving. Like all other living organisms, all it needs is nutrition and protection from enviormental elements that will kill it, like abortion


If EVERY fertilized egg became a human being, you'd have a valid argument. Some 15% of pregnancies miscarry, mostly because the cells dividing in the mother's womb are becoming something definitely NOT a viable human being.

Proof? and, what are they becoming?

[Missileman]

Proof? and, what are they becoming?

http://www.medicinenet.com/miscarriage/article.htm

As for the second question, which part of "not a viable human being" wasn't clear?


Upon fetillization, the organism is now controlling its destiny all the way til death of old age, or otherwise. The nucleus of the single cell organism is now controlling its growth and what to do with the nutrition it is receiving. Like all other living organisms, all it needs is nutrition and protection from enviormental elements that will kill it, like abortion

Except for the fact that 15% of these fertilized eggs never implant and another 15% are lost through spontaneous abortion without any outside interefence whatsoever. Your premise is flawed.

[jimnyc]

Not that men are interested in any of this, since men can't get pregnant. It's not their problem.

Men ARE interested in every last detail, from having sex with women, to the type of birth control, till the baby is born. The ONLY thing the overwhelming majority of us have a problem with is the women terminating pregnancies, and men not having a damn thing to say about it.

When the women have a baby without consulting the fathers - will you also say then that it's not their problem to the fathers?

[LuvRPgrl]

http://www.medicinenet.com/miscarriage/article.htm

As for the second question, which part of "not a viable human being" wasn't clear?

so, its BECOMING a "not viable human being"? then what is it until it becomes that?


That's a really nice cop out, but I'd say it's a question that needs to be answered before passing any judgement on men and women. After all, if your god can find it just to kill billions of the unborn, I find it hard to believe the same god would find a man or woman immoral for killing one.




You'd have to include situations where the mother's life is in peril AND because I find it unacceptable to force a woman to bear an unwanted child only to have that child neglected by the birth mother or in some state-run institution, you'd also have to include adoption reform and make it easy and FREE for a couple to adopt.

What plans do you have to imprison these women who don't want to carry to term? Will you go so far as to strap them down and regulate their diet and prevent them from smoking, drinking, or doing drugs til they pop? I mean the world sure as hell doesn't need any more crack babies, right?

This coming from a person who thinks its ok to strap a person down and draw their blood just because they were driving a vehicle. Gotta love the hypocracy

[Missileman]

so, its BECOMING a "not viable human being"? then what is it until it becomes that?

Nothing more than a lump of cells with no potential to ever become a human being.


This coming from a person who thinks its ok to strap a person down and draw their blood just because they were driving a vehicle. Gotta love the hypocracy

That's a huge distortion of what I wrote and you know it. I suppose the lie you just told was easier to write than a coherent, logical response to the rest of the post. As I recall, it's not an unusual tactic for you.

[red states rule]

http://images3.cpcache.com/product/361939623v4_480x480_Front.jpg

[avatar4321]

http://images3.cpcache.com/product/361939623v4_480x480_Front.jpg

No. We need to cut spending and pay it off ourselves.

Abortion needs to be stopped because life is precious and all of us have a fundamental right to life.

[red states rule]

No. We need to cut spending and pay it off ourselves.

Abortion needs to be stopped because life is precious and all of us have a fundamental right to life.

I agree with both but in the meantime we need workers paying taxes to at least keep up with the interest payments

[J.T]

Nothing more than a lump of cells with no potential to ever become a human being.
wait... first it becomes something 'with no potential to ever become a human being'... and then it goes on to become a human being?

Abortionism truly is a religion


Once the renunciation has been made, the mind, instead of operating freely, becomes the servant of a higher and unquestioned purpose. To deny the truth is an act of service...Any genuine intellectual contact which you have with him involves a challenge to his fundamental faith, a struggle for his soul.
-Arthur Koestler

[Missileman]

wait... first it becomes something 'with no potential to ever become a human being'... and then it goes on to become a human being?

Abortionism truly is a religion


Once the renunciation has been made, the mind, instead of operating freely, becomes the servant of a higher and unquestioned purpose. To deny the truth is an act of service...Any genuine intellectual contact which you have with him involves a challenge to his fundamental faith, a struggle for his soul.
-Arthur Koestler


Nice how you totally remove the context and then make another strawman. Are you capable of anything else, because so far, it's all you've brought to the table.

[gabosaurus]

Nice how you totally remove the context and then make another strawman. Are you capable of anything else, because so far, it's all you've brought to the table.

I think strawmen are all he is capable of bringing to the table.

[fj1200]

when the communal group has UNWANTED children, that, and that alone spells the inevitable end of that community to function well, and ultimately it's demise.

That was my crack at A liberal argument for abortion, valuing the community over the individual. Whether it's a harbinger of the demise of society is a function of their short-term thinking. ;)


Except for the fact that 15% of these fertilized eggs never implant and another 15% are lost through spontaneous abortion without any outside interefence whatsoever. Your premise is flawed.

Not so, outside interference is the premise. When fertilized eggs do not make it to full term, for whatever reason, with no outside interference then so be it.

[Missileman]

Not so, outside interference is the premise. When fertilized eggs do not make it to full term, for whatever reason, with no outside interference then so be it.

So you would cede yourself authority over the other 70% of pregnancies?

[fj1200]

So you would cede yourself authority over the other 70% of pregnancies?

No, two parents were blessed with that authority.

[LuvRPgrl]

Except for the fact that 15% of these fertilized eggs never implant and another 15% are lost through spontaneous abortion without any outside interefence whatsoever. Your premise is flawed.

Nope, those are merely two examples of a human not being able to survive certain elements, just as some babies die right after birth, are stillborn, etc etc.

If the fertilized egg failed to implant, then either the baby fetus didnt perform well enough to get implanted, or the mothers body failed in its job to implant it, in which case, the baby wasnt taken care of properly enough to survive, not any different than if the mothers body kills the infant under a large host of other possibilities. In which, these are cases in which the fertilized egg baby was not provided with proper nutrition or protection from the elements of nature, which can include parts of the mothers body.

Reading further, FJ's response may be better than mine...


That's a huge distortion of what I wrote and you know it. I suppose the lie you just told was easier to write than a coherent, logical response to the rest of the post. As I recall, it's not an unusual tactic for you.

You do support mandatory blood testing if a cop "suspects" one of drunk driving. With so many crooked cops, its impossible to deny that some completely sober people driving will be forced to give blood. See revelarts
video on cops confiscating money when the driver has done NOTHING ILLEGAL

[red states rule]

I think strawmen are all he is capable of bringing to the table.

The world according to liberals like Gabby

http://images3.cpcache.com/product/225626783v16_480x480_Front.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

As for the second question, which part of "not a viable human being" wasn't clear?

relevance?.....


Nice how you totally remove the context and then make another strawman. Are you capable of anything else, because so far, it's all you've brought to the table.

translation "how am I going to claw my way out of this one".....face it Miss......you believe that which does go on to be born, grow up, have children of it's own.....has no potential to be a human being......


So you would cede yourself authority over the other 70% of pregnancies?

if by "ceding authority" you mean keeping people from killing their unborn children.......positively!.......

[LuvRPgrl]

That's a really nice cop out, but I'd say it's a question that needs to be answered before passing any judgement on men and women. After all, if your god can find it just to kill billions of the unborn, I find it hard to believe the same god would find a man or woman immoral for killing one. ?

Since it is a hypothetical where U acknowledge the existence of a creatopr of human life, it is His, the lifes belong to him, not to the women and men who go through the process of procreation, hence it is His right to do what He wants with that life.
Again, assuming there is a God and Heaven, those lifes are better off anyways, But dont go claiming, then the babies we abort are better off also, because it simply isn't our call to make.






You'd have to include situations where the mother's life is in peril AND because I find it unacceptable to force a woman to bear an unwanted child only to have that child neglected by the birth mother or in some state-run institution, you'd also have to include adoption reform and make it easy and FREE for a couple to adopt.?

The circumstances of what will occur afterbirth does not affect the morality or lack of, regarding the act of abortion



What plans do you have to imprison these women who don't want to carry to term? Will you go so far as to strap them down and regulate their diet and prevent them from smoking, drinking, or doing drugs til they pop? I mean the world sure as hell doesn't need any more crack babies, right?

yet another irrelevant issue as to the morality.....abortion

[Missileman]

No, two parents were blessed with that authority.

Does that imply you're okay with the decision of the two parents if they decide to abort?


Nope, those are merely two examples of a human not being able to survive certain elements, just as some babies die right after birth, are stillborn, etc etc.

If the fertilized egg failed to implant, then either the baby fetus didnt perform well enough to get implanted, or the mothers body failed in its job to implant it, in which case, the baby wasnt taken care of properly enough to survive, not any different than if the mothers body kills the infant under a large host of other possibilities. In which, these are cases in which the fertilized egg baby was not provided with proper nutrition or protection from the elements of nature, which can include parts of the mothers body.

Reading further, FJ's response may be better than mine...

The latter 15% of failed pregancies are often the result of chromosomal abnormality. Why can't you understand that if the blueprint (DNA) is severely flawed, the result of the construction is NOT going to be a human being?


You do support mandatory blood testing if a cop "suspects" one of drunk driving. With so many crooked cops, its impossible to deny that some completely sober people driving will be forced to give blood. See revelarts
video on cops confiscating money when the driver has done NOTHING ILLEGAL

I support mandatory blood testing IF, there is probable cause, i.e. erratic driving, smell of alcohol, failed sobriety test, and the suspect then refuses to comply with a breath test to establish proof of DUI. Your contention that a sober person is going to meet all those requirements is PURE BULLSHIT FANTASY! A sober person will comply with the breath test.


Since it is a hypothetical where U acknowledge the existence of a creatopr of human life, it is His, the lifes belong to him, not to the women and men who go through the process of procreation, hence it is His right to do what He wants with that life.
Again, assuming there is a God and Heaven, those lifes are better off anyways, But dont go claiming, then the babies we abort are better off also, because it simply isn't our call to make.

Assuming you consider your god to be just, and assuming your god implants a soul into a human being at the moment of conception (a popular argument), the fact that some 30% of these souls never see the light of day implies that abortion is a just act, unless you can also believe your god is capable of being unjust, at which point one would have to ask who in their right mind would worship such a deity.





yet another irrelevant issue as to the morality.....abortion

So you'd have no problem imprisoning a pregnant woman and forcing her to carry to term. You have a lot of nerve railing about morality.

[LuvRPgrl]

The latter 15% of failed pregancies are often the result of chromosomal abnormality. Why can't you understand that if the blueprint (DNA) is severely flawed, the result of the construction is NOT going to be a human being?

SO? How would that prove the organism wasn't human, or an individual?
Just because it died at a young age, and never was very fit, not too much unlike someone born with severe defects, just not quite as severe as the ones that die early

[logroller]

SO? How would that prove the organism wasn't human, or an individual?
Just because it died at a young age, and never was very fit, not too much unlike someone born with severe defects, just not quite as severe as the ones that die early

There really isn't a clear or perfect answer to the whole abortion issue-- that's why govt should stay the f out of it. That includes funding it. Its an elective procedure and unless the fetus can live outside the womb, its not an individual.
Is it Human? I'd say aborting an unwanted child isn't all that "human." Let see-- a head, two arms, two legs, ten fingers, ten toes. That's what a human is right? Or is it something more? Humans, by and large, are a loving social being. Of course humans, mankind, whatever you want call us have a duality, where man is selfish, even willing to kill for self-preservation. It's a fine line to walk and there's always faults, but through the freedom of choice we succeed or fail, both as individuals and as a society. Impose your will on another and both fail.

So far as severe defects, is that the responsibility of the public? I have a family cancer risk. Which I could premise as a defect-- should govt treat my cancer should I get it?

Don't get me wrong, I think abortion is a stupid behavior; but stupid exists, and will continue to as long govt protects people from their own behavior!

[Missileman]

SO? How would that prove the organism wasn't human, or an individual?
Just because it died at a young age, and never was very fit, not too much unlike someone born with severe defects, just not quite as severe as the ones that die early

We're not talking about a cleft pallet or a club foot, we're talking about a no head, no organs, no form whatsoever type result.

[red states rule]

http://images4.cpcache.com/nocache/product/379873944v2147483647_480x480_Front.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

The latter 15% of failed pregancies are often the result of chromosomal abnormality. Why can't you understand that if the blueprint (DNA) is severely flawed, the result of the construction is NOT going to be a human being?

query: is the gay gene sufficient to consider homosexuals to be something other than human beings?......

[LuvRPgrl]

We're not talking about a cleft pallet or a club foot, we're talking about a no head, no organs, no form whatsoever type result.

You should try reading my posts several times before commenting on them. I clearly stated that the ones that die EARLY have severe defects.
However,

It doesnt make them any less human.

Logrollers consideration that having ten fingers, etc is what makes one human, well, what about amputees?

Protection of the life of its citizens is the top priority of the govt, so, the govt should be involved inprotecting those who are the least capable of protecting themselves.

The whole question always comes down to , is the fetus an individual human being or not? When does the fertilized egg become an IHB?

There are really only two certain demarcation lines that wont change. Fertilization and birth.
The different phases of viability will change as science advances. I could hardly believe that anyone would say that the time a IHB comes into existence is determined by the level of advancement of our science, and it changes as science advances.

Then, on the other hand, very, very few would say the 8-1/2 month old fetus/baby is not a viable IHB (Individual human being)

Those who do believe that the 8-1/2 month old fetus is an IHB, would either have to believe that its status as an IHB occurs either at fertilization, or at some point in pregnancy.

Again, if they try to claim its during the pregnancy period, that is completely subjective, subject to change, inconsistent, and probably dependent on science, and definately dependent of the developement of the baby in utero, of which all babies develope at different rates.

This would cause the point of IHB to be variable, in which case, aborting at virtually anytime would allow for the POSSIBLITY that the fetus is an IHB, and we couldnt know for sure. If we dont know for sure, we have to err on the side of caution and assume it is an IHB


query: is the gay gene sufficient to consider homosexuals to be something other than human beings?......

At times they sure act different than..... :)

[Missileman]

You should try reading my posts several times before commenting on them. I clearly stated that the ones that die EARLY have severe defects.
However,

It doesnt make them any less human.

And you should read mine more closely, because I never said they weren't human, I said they would never be a viable human being. One of my skin cells is human, it is not however a human being. You seem very close to arguing that any collection of tissue with human DNA is a human being no matter its form or viability. That's not logical ground.


There are really only two certain demarcation lines that wont change. Fertilization and birth.

There are other clear lines between fertilization and birth that you ignore because it suits your argument.

[LuvRPgrl]

There are other clear lines between fertilization and birth that you ignore because it suits your argument.

Yet you don't name any of them. Again, you assume something. You say I ignore them, IF they do exist, I have never heard of them and hence I cant ignore something I do not know about. You are simply a liar, and not a good one at that.

[logroller]

Yet you don't name any of them. Again, you assume something. You say I ignore them, IF they do exist, I have never heard of them and hence I cant ignore something I do not know about. You are simply a liar, and not a good one at that.

If I may interject: How about the physical ability to sustain life functions outside the womb as the point of viability and consideration of right to life

[gabosaurus]

If I may interject: How about the physical ability to sustain life functions outside the womb.

You are making too much sense for extreme fundamentalists to understand. They wish only to debate semantics.

[logroller]

You should try reading my posts several times before commenting on them. I clearly stated that the ones that die EARLY have severe defects.

Logrollers consideration that having ten fingers, etc is what makes one human, well, what about amputees?

There are really only two certain demarcation lines that wont change. Fertilization and birth.
The different phases of viability will change as science advances. I could hardly believe that anyone would say that the time a IHB comes into existence is determined by the level of advancement of our science, and it changes as science advances.

Then, on the other hand, very, very few would say the 8-1/2 month old fetus/baby is not a viable IHB (Individual human being)

Those who do believe that the 8-1/2 month old fetus is an IHB, would either have to believe that its status as an IHB occurs either at fertilization, or at some point in pregnancy.

This would cause the point of IHB to be variable, in which case, aborting at virtually anytime would allow for the POSSIBLITY that the fetus is an IHB, and we couldnt know for sure. If we dont know for sure, we have to err on the side of caution and assume it is an IHB

Its ironic i would overlook this post!
Though I agree with all your statements, I, at the same time, realize reason plays a significant role. I mean, 8 month and 2 month-old fetuses are developmentally different. To say fertilization and birth are the only lines seems unreasonable. What about implantation, nervous stimulation and response. Anybody who's felt or seen a baby's kick on the mother's stomach can reason there is an actual being inside far more easily than morning sickness or a baby bump.

[Abbey Marie]

query: is the gay gene sufficient to consider homosexuals to be something other than human beings?......

And the fearless award goes to... Prophet.


If I may interject: How about the physical ability to sustain life functions outside the womb as the point of viability and consideration of right to life

A newborn will die without some mother's milk. Even a toddler will die without someone to feed it. Yes, these have developed all the parts needed to survive, but in all three cases (fetus, newborn, toddler), there is death without some sort of sustainability. In fact, the fetus will survive if the mom just goes on doing what she normally does to live herself. The babies need active, purposeful care.

[Missileman]

Yet you don't name any of them. Again, you assume something. You say I ignore them, IF they do exist, I have never heard of them and hence I cant ignore something I do not know about. You are simply a liar, and not a good one at that.

I apologize...there is indeed a difference between ignoring and ignorance. I mistakingly gave you the benefit of the doubt and applied the former. I should have realized that statements like "there are only two clear lines of demarcation" are born of the latter. My bad!

[red states rule]

Remember this folks

Guns do not kill people. Abortion clinics kill people

[J.T]

Humans, by and large, are a loving social being.

Where did you study biology?


And you should read mine more closely, because I never said they weren't human, I said they would never be a viable human being. One of my skin cells is human, it is not however a human being. You seem very close to arguing that any collection of tissue with human DNA is a human being no matter its form or viability. That's not logical ground.
Go to the local middle school. Ask a science teacher what an organism is.


If I may interject: How about the physical ability to sustain life functions outside the womb as the point of viability and consideration of right to life
Viability is a moving target, and therefore meaningless.

[Missileman]

Go to the local middle school. Ask a science teacher what an organism is.

Where exactly in my post did I use the term "organism"?

BTW, you never did answer whether an eyeball is a human being.

[J.T]

Where exactly in my post did I use the term "organism"?

BTW, you never did answer whether an eyeball is a human being.

:lol:

Go to the local library and ask for a dictionary. Look up 'human being' and 'eyeball'.

[Missileman]

:lol:

Go to the local library and ask for a dictionary. Look up 'human being' and 'eyeball'.

I'm aware of the difference, you however are arguing like you'd equate the two.

[fj1200]

Does that imply you're okay with the decision of the two parents if they decide to abort?

What would make you think that?


You are making too much sense for extreme fundamentalists to understand. They wish only to debate semantics.

How DARE you take away the right to choose from a woman!!!


The latter 15% of failed pregancies are often the result of chromosomal abnormality. Why can't you understand that if the blueprint (DNA) is severely flawed, the result of the construction is NOT going to be a human being?

You seem to be basing your entire position on that 15-30% but of the abortions that take place after that point (Most? I don't know) ARE terminating a viable mass of cells that will be born. You still need to determine a point where that mass of cells does become human.

[Missileman]

What would make you think that?

You said the authority lies with them, right?


You seem to be basing your entire position on that 15-30% but of the abortions that take place after that point (Most? I don't know) ARE terminating a viable mass of cells that will be born. You still need to determine a point where that mass of cells does become human.

The mass of cells is human, IMO though, you don't get a human being until a significant amount of development occurs.

[fj1200]

You said the authority lies with them, right?

For you to ask the question was a serious misread of my other posts here.


The mass of cells is human, IMO though, you don't get a human being until a significant amount of development occurs.

Then once you get past the 30% mark then the vast majority of feti(?) have reached viability and you know they will advance to birth if left to their natural development. At what point are you willing to give them the benefit of a right to the property that they have in their life?

[Missileman]

For you to ask the question was a serious misread of my other posts here.



Then once you get past the 30% mark then the vast majority of feti(?) have reached viability and you know they will advance to birth if left to their natural development. At what point are you willing to give them the benefit of a right to the property that they have in their life?

I draw the line at first trimester. Others will draw it differently.

[fj1200]

I draw the line at first trimester. Others will draw it differently.

But based on what? If it is an arbitrary point then there is a breakdown in the logic. I'll grant you that not all fertilized eggs are viable and they will miscarry but do the remainder have any right beyond the choice of the mother?

[LuvRPgrl]

I draw the line at first trimester. Others will draw it differently.

"Significant amount of developement" and "first trimester",,,very arbitrary, vague,... what exactly occurs to determine when it becomes a human being, what is "significant',

Your ;notion, like I said earlier, is completely arbitrary and subjective, subject to revision, change and at the mercy of science.

[red states rule]

Looks like those who are pro-life are only pro life when the life is on Death Row

[J.T]

The mass of cells is human, IMO though, you don't get a human being until a significant amount of development occurs.
Your opinion doesn't matter because there is no room for opinion when it comes to established and verifiable scientific facts. You can cry about Earth being 6000 years old and flat all you want, but you remain an idiotic and dishonest moron.

The reality is simple. The Zygote constitutes a new human organism created by the fusion of a spermatozoon and an ovum. This new organism is a living system. Life begins at conception- at the time at which a new living creature comes into existence. This is biology; there is no room for your religion.


I draw the line at first trimester.
Why? What fundamental aspect of your nature changes that made crushing your skull in cold blood go from being an okay thing to being a not-okay thing

[PostmodernProphet]

If I may interject: How about the physical ability to sustain life functions outside the womb as the point of viability and consideration of right to life

she cannot sustain her own life functions.......no right to life!...
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeuzV8_si7a6EjiaNBxFIwayZS5e_Jo qjI_mPTR5EaE2kdAU9j

[Missileman]

do the remainder have any right beyond the choice of the mother?

IMO, no. But even with that answer, I'd still restrict abortions to the 1st trimester with exceptions for mother's health and catastrophic defect.

What's your position on abortion to save the mother's life?


"Significant amount of developement" and "first trimester",,,very arbitrary, vague,... what exactly occurs to determine when it becomes a human being, what is "significant',

Your ;notion, like I said earlier, is completely arbitrary and subjective, subject to revision, change and at the mercy of science.

First trimester is hardly vague.

[logroller]

she cannot sustain her own life functions.......no right to life!...
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeuzV8_si7a6EjiaNBxFIwayZS5e_Jo qjI_mPTR5EaE2kdAU9j

Oh come on... you know she's functioning very well; and quite beautiful I might add, though that's not a consideration in the matter. :thumb:

Using such emotional plays are no help. That's like the arguments about rape victims. Its just unproductive to the debate.

[LuvRPgrl]

IMO, no. But even with that answer, I'd still restrict abortions to the 1st trimester with exceptions for mother's health and catastrophic defect.

What's your position on abortion to save the mother's life?

That becomes life vs. life, not convience vs. life, so at that point, it becomes the parents decision, obviously more to the mother.


First trimester is hardly vague.

AGAIN, putting words in my mouth. No wonder you think you win so many debates here, you argue against yourself.

What event happens at the end of the first trimester that constitutes the idea that the fetus suddenly becomes a human being?

And virtually with all pregnancies, you wouldn't be able to determine the end of the first trimester down to the day, as pregnancies vary in length from woman to woman, and birth to birth by the same woman.


Oh come on... you know she's functioning very well; and quite beautiful I might add, though that's not a consideration in the matter. :thumb:

Using such emotional plays are no help. That's like the arguments about rape victims. Its just unproductive to the debate.

Virtually all arguements from the pro abortionists community are emotional ploys.

My body, my choice,,,,simply not true

Its just a blob of cells, ,,,, simply not true

Rape and incest,,,,,so, I hate to say it, but fact is, if the baby is born and say one day old, and the mother then finds out for a fact that it was the result of rape or incest, does she have the right to kill it then.

What PMP is saying is that the baby in the picture is as dependent on others for nutrition and safety as the "fetus" baby is. The only difference is how the nutrition is given to it, and what they are using for shelter/protection.

[Missileman]

AGAIN, putting words in my mouth.

Putting words in your mouth, my ass!


"Significant amount of developement" and "first trimester",,,very arbitrary, vague,...

Word for word quote.

[LuvRPgrl]

Putting words in your mouth, my ass!



Word for word quote.

weak. In other words, I have no answer.

[Missileman]

weak. In other words, I have no answer.

IOW, you don't deny that you made ANOTHER false accusation against me.

[J.T]

IMO, no. But even with that answer, I'd still restrict abortions to the 1st trimester with exceptions for mother's health and catastrophic defect.
Why?

[LuvRPgrl]

IOW, you don't deny that you made ANOTHER false accusation against me.

Yawn..... I said the events occuring during the pregnancy are all vague, inconsistent, etc. etc. with no clear demarcation line. Again, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN,WHAT OCCURS AT THE END OF THE FIRST TRI MESTER THAT MAKES YOU BELIEVE IT SUDDENLY IS A HUMAN BEING, AND/OR WORTH SAVING?

Yawn.....

[Missileman]

Yawn..... I said the events occuring during the pregnancy are all vague, inconsistent, etc. etc. with no clear demarcation line. Again, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN,WHAT OCCURS AT THE END OF THE FIRST TRI MESTER THAT MAKES YOU BELIEVE IT SUDDENLY IS A HUMAN BEING, AND/OR WORTH SAVING?

Yawn.....

So if I again state that the first trimester is hardly vague, are you going to accuse me of putting words in your mouth AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN,?

[LuvRPgrl]

So if I again state that the first trimester is hardly vague, are you going to accuse me of putting words in your mouth AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN,?

IT wont be answering the question at hand. What occurs.....

[Missileman]

IT wont be answering the question at hand. What occurs.....

The first trimester is hardly vague.

[J.T]

The first trimester is hardly vague.
What changes between the night of the last day of the first trimester and the morning of the first day of the second?


Why can't you answer the question?

Because your position is based on faith and grounded in the religion or abortionist, making reason something for you to fear.

[Missileman]

What changes between the night of the last day of the first trimester and the morning of the first day of the second?


Why can't you answer the question?

Because your position is based on faith and grounded in the religion or abortionist, making reason something for you to fear.

I've answered this question at least once in this thread.

And you've yet to answer mine.

[J.T]

Yet more evasion.

Why can't you people ever be honest?

[LuvRPgrl]

I've answered this question at least once in this thread.

And you've yet to answer mine.

Answer the question, or admit you are wrong

[red states rule]

Choose life - your mother did

[Missileman]

Answer the question, or admit you are wrong

As I previously stated, I have already answered this question in this thread.

[CSM]

Choose life - your mother did

In some cases, that was a poor decision at best!

[NightTrain]

I rarely jump into abortion discussions.

For those of you debating "when life starts", the answer is : At conception.

I realize that there is a time lag in discovering when the female is pregnant and there are a host of other concerns; but no one can dispute that the moment of conception is the beginning of life when the sperm fertilizes the egg - to say anything otherwise is stupid, and you all know it.

Sure, you can debate all you want about quickening, knowledge of the pregnancy, whether it's legal, safe, financially prudent, or if the mother feels like being pregant - the fact remains that life starts at the moment of conception and anyone claiming otherwise is a fool.

I posted the following in 2003 on USMB back in the day. Today, my son is a 14 year old boy that looks exactly like I did at his age, he has his learner's permit, girls that are fawning all over him, and makes mistakes like we all did at that awkward age. I wouldn't trade him for the world, and there were medical professionals almost demanding that we kill him prior to his birth due to inadequate medical training.

Here is what I posted in 2003 :

My personal opinion formed when Misty became pregnant with Ricky back in '96.

We went in for an ultrasound, and the tech was cheerful and bubbly. Then suddenly she got real quiet & I could see she was disturbed... she kept focusing the screen on Ricky's head, but wouldn't answer me when I asked her what was wrong. Then she got up, told us to stay there, and left.

After a few minutes, a doctor came in, and they looked & took pictures of the ultrasound. They flat out wouldn't tell me what was up.

About a week later, they called us back in. The doc sat us down and explained that the baby had some sort of hideous genetic disorder and would be severely retarded, have massive defects, would be in constant agony, etc.. they could tell this by looking at the cysts in the brain. I forget the term for this, but it's flat out scary shit. Neither of us have any relatives that have problems that we know of, and he was puzzled about that. Anyway, the doc said that the best thing to do was abort the pregnancy. I immediately shook my head, and that fucker put his hand up to me and told me I had nothing to say about it! Misty said no, too. He described how it was going to be for him, and it was truly frightening.

Anyway, we agreed we'd come back in for another ultrasound in 3 weeks.

We came back again, and there was another woman doing the ultrasound. She was bubbly & excited to see him moving around, and finally I asked her about the cysts in his brain. She gave me a puzzled look and focused in on the brain - there wasn't anything there! I was dumbfounded. I asked her what happened to the terrible genetic deformation, and she had no idea what I was talking about, so I explained what happened on our last trip in.

She got kinda pissed, and explained that technology is moving so fast these days, they're seeing things that they've never seen before, so they don't know how to interpret what they're seeing! She assured us he was perfectly normal.

Now when I look at Ricky, who is a perfect little boy & my pride and joy, I shudder at what almost happened to him before he ever had a chance to experience life.


That's what I wrote in 2003.

I had about 12 posts quoted in this thread alone that I wanted to respond to, but just decided to post this instead.

MM, I think you have some great notions, but you are dead wrong on this. I think this is due to your atheist beliefs.

We all have souls; we all have a purpose. Whether that is reproducing someone down the line that has an important role in events or a direct role with our actions / reactions is impossible to say.

Consider this : Where would we be if Michelangelo or Einstein or Khan or Ford or Wright or Tesla or a multitude of other influential people had been aborted?

Surely you can agree that the world would be a very different place had they all been aborted.

It is not our right to kill our babies; I really can't believe that any civilized human would dispute this.

[LuvRPgrl]

I rarely jump into abortion discussions.

For those of you debating "when life starts", the answer is : At conception.

I realize that there is a time lag in discovering when the female is pregnant and there are a host of other concerns; but no one can dispute that the moment of conception is the beginning of life when the sperm fertilizes the egg - to say anything otherwise is stupid, and you all know it.

Sure, you can debate all you want about quickening, knowledge of the pregnancy, whether it's legal, safe, financially prudent, or if the mother feels like being pregant - the fact remains that life starts at the moment of conception and anyone claiming otherwise is a fool.

I posted the following in 2003 on USMB back in the day. Today, my son is a 14 year old boy that looks exactly like I did at his age, he has his learner's permit, girls that are fawning all over him, and makes mistakes like we all did at that awkward age. I wouldn't trade him for the world, and there were medical professionals almost demanding that we kill him prior to his birth due to inadequate medical training.

Here is what I posted in 2003 :

My personal opinion formed when Misty became pregnant with Ricky back in '96.

We went in for an ultrasound, and the tech was cheerful and bubbly. Then suddenly she got real quiet & I could see she was disturbed... she kept focusing the screen on Ricky's head, but wouldn't answer me when I asked her what was wrong. Then she got up, told us to stay there, and left.

After a few minutes, a doctor came in, and they looked & took pictures of the ultrasound. They flat out wouldn't tell me what was up.

About a week later, they called us back in. The doc sat us down and explained that the baby had some sort of hideous genetic disorder and would be severely retarded, have massive defects, would be in constant agony, etc.. they could tell this by looking at the cysts in the brain. I forget the term for this, but it's flat out scary shit. Neither of us have any relatives that have problems that we know of, and he was puzzled about that. Anyway, the doc said that the best thing to do was abort the pregnancy. I immediately shook my head, and that fucker put his hand up to me and told me I had nothing to say about it! Misty said no, too. He described how it was going to be for him, and it was truly frightening.

Anyway, we agreed we'd come back in for another ultrasound in 3 weeks.

We came back again, and there was another woman doing the ultrasound. She was bubbly & excited to see him moving around, and finally I asked her about the cysts in his brain. She gave me a puzzled look and focused in on the brain - there wasn't anything there! I was dumbfounded. I asked her what happened to the terrible genetic deformation, and she had no idea what I was talking about, so I explained what happened on our last trip in.

She got kinda pissed, and explained that technology is moving so fast these days, they're seeing things that they've never seen before, so they don't know how to interpret what they're seeing! She assured us he was perfectly normal.

Now when I look at Ricky, who is a perfect little boy & my pride and joy, I shudder at what almost happened to him before he ever had a chance to experience life.


That's what I wrote in 2003.

I had about 12 posts quoted in this thread alone that I wanted to respond to, but just decided to post this instead.

MM, I think you have some great notions, but you are dead wrong on this. I think this is due to your atheist beliefs.

We all have souls; we all have a purpose. Whether that is reproducing someone down the line that has an important role in events or a direct role with our actions / reactions is impossible to say.

Consider this : Where would we be if Michelangelo or Einstein or Khan or Ford or Wright or Tesla or a multitude of other influential people had been aborted?

Surely you can agree that the world would be a very different place had they all been aborted.

It is not our right to kill our babies; I really can't believe that any civilized human would dispute this.

I know my POV is completely different than yours, cuz you experienced that & didn't.
I'm sure you were so overwhelmed with joy at the good news, that you probably forgot all about the doc.

Buttt,,,,,,,,,,,,had that guy raised his hand to me and said that, and maybe you did, I would have had a SERIOIUS PROBLEM with that and told him to vacate the room immediately. And then, after the good news, right now, I feel like I would have gone back to him and......maybe the dude shouldn't be a doc

[NightTrain]

I know my POV is completely different than yours, cuz you experienced that & didn't.
I'm sure you were so overwhelmed with joy at the good news, that you probably forgot all about the doc.

Buttt,,,,,,,,,,,,had that guy raised his hand to me and said that, and maybe you did, I would have had a SERIOIUS PROBLEM with that and told him to vacate the room immediately. And then, after the good news, right now, I feel like I would have gone back to him and......maybe the dude shouldn't be a doc

I was reading my post and thinking about how less thorough my posts were back then... there are many gaps in that story.

I called the hospital later and told them my story, and I never heard back from them (which wasn't expected) but I did hear a few years later that the doctor that tried to bully us into aborting Ricky was fired, and my complaint was one of the reasons for doing so.

I was enraged when he put his hand up to me and told me it wasn't my decision to make. The hell it wasn't! As soon as he saw my gut instinct was "NO", he tried to shut me down and convince Misty. When he pulled that, I had no other recourse but to get aggressive, and he left the room right about then.

Incompetent bastard. I'd still love to punch him in the face. Hard.

Both of us agonized over that horrible decision that had been thrust upon us for 3 weeks. Both of us called every member of our families and grilled them, trying to find out where the genetic disorder came from and to get info on it, only to find out later that there was no genetic disorder - only people using new technology and not understanding what it was telling them.

I cringe to think of how many babies were killed due to that doctor's incompetence. My son would have been one of them if I hadn't had a violent gut reaction to protect him - if I hadn't been there, she would have followed his advice to abort.

[LuvRPgrl]

I was reading my post and thinking about how less thorough my posts were back then... there are many gaps in that story.

I called the hospital later and told them my story, and I never heard back from them (which wasn't expected) but I did hear a few years later that the doctor that tried to bully us into aborting Ricky was fired, and my complaint was one of the reasons for doing so.

I was enraged when he put his hand up to me and told me it wasn't my decision to make. The hell it wasn't! As soon as he saw my gut instinct was "NO", he tried to shut me down and convince Misty. When he pulled that, I had no other recourse but to get aggressive, and he left the room right about then.

Incompetent bastard. I'd still love to punch him in the face. Hard.

Both of us agonized over that horrible decision that had been thrust upon us for 3 weeks. Both of us called every member of our families and grilled them, trying to find out where the genetic disorder came from and to get info on it, only to find out later that there was no genetic disorder - only people using new technology and not understanding what it was telling them.

I cringe to think of how many babies were killed due to that doctor's incompetence. My son would have been one of them if I hadn't had a violent gut reaction to protect him - if I hadn't been there, she would have followed his advice to abort.

I actually had a feeling about that
Calling corp about bad management often works. I once got an entire staff replaced by complaining.

U do need to let go of that anger now though. Just think, if he hadn't done that, you probablly wouldn't have appreciated your son's health as much as you did/do now.

Romans:"God uses ALL things for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose"

[fj1200]

IMO, no. But even with that answer, I'd still restrict abortions to the 1st trimester with exceptions for mother's health and catastrophic defect.

I guess I still don't understand the arbitrary nature of your position. Life has been created and at some point he/she will be granted rights and protections.


What's your position on abortion to save the mother's life?

I'm against using exceptions to create the rule; To use rape/incest/life of the mother arguments to ensure that convenience can rule the day is wrong. I don't mind the exceptions but if those exceptions are so minuscule then maybe they don't need to exist at all.


I posted the following in 2003 on USMB back in the day. Today, my son is a 14 year old boy...

Amazing story.

[NightTrain]

I actually had a feeling about that
Calling corp about bad management often works. I once got an entire staff replaced by complaining.

U do need to let go of that anger now though. Just think, if he hadn't done that, you probablly wouldn't have appreciated your son's health as much as you did/do now.

Romans:"God uses ALL things for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose"


That is the kind of righteous anger that needs to be held on to. When I hear about people casually talking about killing their offspring, I get a very bad attitude.

Just from my experience I know there have been millions of babies killed just due to incompetence, just here in America.

It is a sick, twisted thing that someone would willingly allow their child to be killed on every level.

I understand that there are certain circumstances like incest and rape, which is the pillar of pro-killer debate, which needs to be discussed and I don't have the answer to that.

But killing your child is criminal, outside of incest and rape.

[Abbey Marie]

Every day, hundreds of women aged 34+ are pushed into getting amniocentesis "in case" their baby has Down's syndrome, etc.

The dirty secrets are:
1. The risks from the amnio exceed the chances of getting the defect.
2. By their own admission, IF YOU ASK, there is little if anything the doctors can do by knowing ahead of time. The entire reason for the test is to abort if you don't like the results.

[Missileman]

I guess I still don't understand the arbitrary nature of your position. Life has been created and at some point he/she will be granted rights and protections.



I'm against using exceptions to create the rule; To use rape/incest/life of the mother arguments to ensure that convenience can rule the day is wrong. I don't mind the exceptions but if those exceptions are so minuscule then maybe they don't need to exist at all.

I asked, because either the unborn has a right to live or it doesn't. If it does, then the mother's right to life is at best, equal to that of the unborn. Tie goes to? Neither? Let them both die needlessly?

If there are exceptions to the rule, maybe the rule isn't as good as it needs to be.

[NightTrain]

I asked, because either the unborn has a right to live or it doesn't. If it does, then the mother's right to life is at best, equal to that of the unborn. Tie goes to? Neither? Let them both die needlessly?

If there are exceptions to the rule, maybe the rule isn't as good as it needs to be.


The baby has a right to live; of course it does.

But if both lives are in danger and one life has to be chosen over the other, of course the decision is with the mother... when has that ever been different?

[Missileman]

The baby has a right to live; of course it does.

But if both lives are in danger and one life has to be chosen over the other, of course the decision is with the mother... when has that ever been different?

I'm playing devil's advocate, and no I'm not being punny. It is however evidence that the abortion issue isn't as black and white as some suggest. Abortion as a matter of necessity can be subjective also.

[NightTrain]

I'm playing devil's advocate, and no I'm not being punny. It is however evidence that the abortion issue isn't as black and white as some suggest. Abortion as a matter of necessity can be subjective also.

It is black and white.

Unless there is a legitimate medical need, an abortion should not be performed. Period.

If the child is unwanted by the mother / father, the child should go to a state run orphanage.

Ideal? Nope.

But it's a hell of a lot better than a coat hanger at 2 months, and I'd wager that both you and I would rather give the Orphanage a whirl than the wire.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm playing devil's advocate, and no I'm not being punny. It is however evidence that the abortion issue isn't as black and white as some suggest. Abortion as a matter of necessity can be subjective also.


I don't think anyone is saying it is black and white. Very little we must decide is. That doesn't mean lines cannot be drawn.

And if we draw that line at the life of the mother, rape and incest, very, very few abortions will be performed. And that loss of income will not be tolerated by the abortion industry. It's blood money in the most real sense of the phrase.

[J.T]

Every day, hundreds of women aged 34+ are pushed into getting amniocentesis "in case" their baby has Down's syndrome, etc.

The dirty secrets are:
1. The risks from the amnio exceed the chances of getting the defect.
Source?


In facilities where amniocentesis is performed regularly, the rates are closer to 1 in 400.25%?

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/prenataltesting/amniocentesis.html


15-20% of recognized pregnancies result in miscarriage. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/266317-overview#showall


The incidence of Down syndrome is estimated at one per 800 to one per 1000 birthshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Epidemiology

So if we ignore the frequency of miscarriage overall, the procedure does seem to cause a rate of miscarriage higher than the rate of Down's. However, two points:
-Is there any reliable information regarding what the rate of Down's truly is/would be if we counted those aborted upon its discovery?
-.25% is still very small and far below what would be considered a significant risk.


By their own admission, IF YOU ASK, there is little if anything the doctors can do by knowing ahead of time. The entire reason for the test is to abort if you don't like the results. How is that a 'dirty secret'? Hell, how is it even a secret?

[gabosaurus]

So much lack of common sense in this thread.

[Missileman]

I don't think anyone is saying it is black and white. Very little we must decide is. That doesn't mean lines cannot be drawn.

And if we draw that line at the life of the mother, rape and incest, very, very few abortions will be performed. And that loss of income will not be tolerated by the abortion industry. It's blood money in the most real sense of the phrase.

You're willing to allow murder(your word) based on your prerequisites. In for a penny, in for a pound.

[gabosaurus]

You're willing to allow murder(your word) based on your prerequisites. In for a penny, in for a pound.

How about if we allow everyone to own guns, but you have to agree to never shoot anyone? Wouldn't that prevent a lot of murders?

If you are not a woman, and you have no female children, obviously you will never understand what is involved in all this.
But that the ConRep male for you. It's OK to kill anyone, as long as they have been born first.

[NightTrain]

So much lack of common sense in this thread.

That's why you are here.

To put a shining, dazzling, blinding bit of brilliance on this pile of manure.




































...oh wait...

[Abbey Marie]

You're willing to allow murder(your word) based on your prerequisites. In for a penny, in for a pound.

No, exactly not "in for a penny, in for a pound". Not even close- those are your words and interpretation. If you think saving a mother's life is all the same as an abortion for convenience, I can't help you.

[Missileman]

No, exactly not "in for a penny, in for a pound". Not even close- those are your words and interpretation. If you think saving a mother's life is all the same as an abortion for convenience, I can't help you.

It's either murder or it's not. You might call saving the mother's life justifiable homicide although the unborn hasn't really committed an offense that justifies it, or you might call it self defense. But the rape/incest abortions that you'd allow with your line would be murder just as much as an abortion for convenience using my line in the first trimester if you truly consider abortion to be murder.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm playing devil's advocate, and no I'm not being punny. It is however evidence that the abortion issue isn't as black and white as some suggest. Abortion as a matter of necessity can be subjective also.

That question posed to us, unlike questions posed to U, has been asked and answered. I know that actually answering a direct question with a direct answer is foreign to U, but thats what was done.

Read through the thread again, using a search tool. U will find it.

[red states rule]

How about if we allow everyone to own guns, but you have to agree to never shoot anyone? Wouldn't that prevent a lot of murders?

If you are not a woman, and you have no female children, obviously you will never understand what is involved in all this.
But that the ConRep male for you. It's OK to kill anyone, as long as they have been born first.

Another example of liberal logic

Can't waterboard terrorists but you can kill an unborn child

You can protect the rain forests but the unborn can be slaughtered by the millions

We must save those lives on Death Row while supporting Murder on Demand of the unborn

Your logic makes s figure eight look like a straight line Gabby

[Missileman]

That question posed to us, unlike questions posed to U, has been asked and answered. I know that actually answering a direct question with a direct answer is foreign to U, but thats what was done.

Read through the thread again, using a search tool. U will find it.

It appears that you have a new strategy to avoid answering questions and that is to accuse me of not. You should at least pick a post that has a question in it, stupid.

[fj1200]

I asked, because either the unborn has a right to live or it doesn't. If it does, then the mother's right to life is at best, equal to that of the unborn. Tie goes to? Neither? Let them both die needlessly?

If there are exceptions to the rule, maybe the rule isn't as good as it needs to be.

Of course it does. I don't think anyone will argue having that exception, or rape, or incest, but you didn't respond to my posit of the exceptions being instituted in order to sustain the convenience.


I'm playing devil's advocate, and no I'm not being punny. It is however evidence that the abortion issue isn't as black and white as some suggest. Abortion as a matter of necessity can be subjective also.

The basic question IS black and white.

[fj1200]

So much lack of common sense in this thread.

There is plenty of common sense. Just because legalized abortion has completely changed the basic question of having a child and societal behaviors doesn't mean there isn't any common sense. It's just that you don't agree with the basic question being argued and value your interpretation of convenience over a child.

[fj1200]

How about if we allow everyone to own guns, but you have to agree to never shoot anyone? Wouldn't that prevent a lot of murders?

If you are not a woman, and you have no female children, obviously you will never understand what is involved in all this.
But that the ConRep male for you. It's OK to kill anyone, as long as they have been born first.

So much lack of common sense in this post.

[Missileman]

Of course it does. I don't think anyone will argue having that exception, or rape, or incest, but you didn't respond to my posit of the exceptions being instituted in order to sustain the convenience.



The basic question IS black and white.

See post #185

[fj1200]

See post #185

See post #170.

[Missileman]

See post #170.

Then your position should be no abortions ever, no? Let the chips fall where they may if the pregnancy is potentially lethal to the mother. That would be a "black and white" position.

[fj1200]

Then your position should be no abortions ever, no? Let the chips fall where they may if the pregnancy is potentially lethal to the mother. That would be a "black and white" position.

And what is this minuscule percentage by which we need to define the whole debate? BTW, I have no problem saving a life no matter which life that would be.

[LuvRPgrl]

I've answered this question at least once in this thread.

And you've yet to answer mine.

You're a liar and stupid.

Saying "the first trimester is hardly vague" is not an answer to this question:

What occurs DURING the transistion from the first to second trimester that is a clear demarcation point?

you said there are more than just conception and birth. Name one.
Saying "first trimester" is just a period of time, not any specific event. It is a long list of events that together make the first trimester.
WHAT EVENT OCCURS TO MAKE IT A HUMAN AND IS A CLEAR DEMARCATION POINT.

Saying U have already answered it is a lie. If you don't answer it, its simply proof that you spoke out of your ass and are not trying to cover your ass.


Then your position should be no abortions ever, no? Let the chips fall where they may if the pregnancy is potentially lethal to the mother. That would be a "black and white" position.

The mother has the choice if both lives are in danger. Rape and incest are emotionally laden questions that only are brought up to embroil those emotions. It is disengenious at best and those who bring it up DONT REALLY CARE ABOUT THE WOMEN OF INCEST OR RAPE, they are just using them as pawns

anymore than NOW uses woman all the time which we know for a fact cuz they don't come to the support when conservative women are attacked.


If there are exceptions to the rule, maybe the rule isn't as good as it needs to be.

Extending that logic, then virtually all rules aren't as good as they need to be.

[Missileman]

And what is this minuscule percentage by which we need to define the whole debate? BTW, I have no problem saving a life no matter which life that would be.

Does it really matter how few? And how would you know for certain that an abortion performed for convenience isn't saving lives...imagine if Hitler or Dahmer had been aborted, for instance.


You're a liar and stupid.

Saying "the first trimester is hardly vague" is not an answer to this question:

I never said it was, dipshit. I have however answered the question elsewhere in this thread.


What occurs DURING the transistion from the first to second trimester that is a clear demarcation point?

you said there are more than just conception and birth. Name one.
Saying "first trimester" is just a period of time, not any specific event. It is a long list of events that together make the first trimester.
WHAT EVENT OCCURS TO MAKE IT A HUMAN AND IS A CLEAR DEMARCATION POINT.

Saying U have already answered it is a lie. If you don't answer it, its simply proof that you spoke out of your ass and are not trying to cover your ass.

I don't share your opinion that time isn't a clear line. As a matter of fact, time is one of the more precise ways to measure something.

[fj1200]

Does it really matter how few? And how would you know for certain that an abortion performed for convenience isn't saving lives...imagine if Hitler or Dahmer had been aborted, for instance.

Or [insert genius of the day strawman]... :rolleyes:

It matters how few if that is your argument for legality for all. Killing to save lives... it seems you're grasping.

[Missileman]

Extending that logic, then virtually all rules aren't as good as they need to be.

It's very easy to write a rule so that no exceptions are required.

[fj1200]

I don't share your opinion that time isn't a clear line. As a matter of fact, time is one of the more precise ways to measure something.

Time is a precise way of measuring something PRECISE, not an arbitrary point in time. Precisely measuring the arbitrary is still arbitrary.

[Missileman]

Killing to save lives... it seems you're grasping.

Isn't that EXACTLY what an abortion to save the mother's life is?

[fj1200]

Isn't that EXACTLY what an abortion to save the mother's life is?

You're comparing the remote possibility of a homicidal dictator (with zero evidence by which to judge the unborn) being aborted to the heart wrenching situation (minuscule chance BTW) of choosing between the life of a mother and the life of a child and by extension arguing for the convenience of abortion? I just can't argue from that starting point.

[LuvRPgrl]

I never said it was, dipshit. I have however answered the question elsewhere in this thread..

Then why R U acting like a COWARD and won't show us the answer, I missed it if you did. I looked and couldn't find it, please show it again.





I don't share your opinion that time isn't a clear line. As a matter of fact, time is one of the more precise ways to measure something.

To measure SOME THINGS, not all. A precise point in time is. You said there is a clear demarcation point, point means a specific time, not period of time. So name it, or remain a LIAR & COWARD.


It's very easy to write a rule so that no exceptions are required.

Which DOES NOT invalidate rules with exceptions. Don't you get tired of saying dipshit things over and over, running and dodging, try answering a question you COWARD

Originally Posted by Missileman
"I've answered this question at least once in this thread.

And you've yet to answer mine."


You're a liar and stupid.
Saying "the first trimester is hardly vague" is not an answer to this question:

What occurs DURING the transistion from the first to second trimester that is a clear demarcation point?you said there are more than just conception and birth. Name one.
Saying "first trimester" is just a period of time, not any specific event. It is a long list of events that together make the first trimester.
WHAT EVENT OCCURS TO MAKE IT A HUMAN AND IS A CLEAR DEMARCATION POINT.

Saying U have already answered it is a lie. If you don't answer it, its simply proof that you spoke out of your ass and are not trying to cover your ass.

[Missileman]

You're comparing the remote possibility of a homicidal dictator (with zero evidence by which to judge the unborn) being aborted to the heart wrenching situation (minuscule chance BTW) of choosing between the life of a mother and the life of a child and by extension arguing for the convenience of abortion? I just can't argue from that starting point.

The only difference between my line and yours are numbers and motive. If you truly believe that the unborn have a right to life, then the deaths associated with your line should be as reprehensible and unacceptable to you as my line.

[J.T]

It's either murder or it's not. You might call saving the mother's life justifiable homicide


If it's justifiable homicide, it's not murder.

By definition.

Why can't you people ever be honest?


Does it really matter how few? And how would you know for certain that an abortion performed for convenience isn't saving lives...imagine if Hitler or Dahmer had been aborted, for instance.
Or Jesus :thumb:

[Missileman]

If it's justifiable homicide, it's not murder.

By definition.

Why can't you people ever be honest?

As is your wont, another strawman. I didn't say justifiable homocide is murder.

[LuvRPgrl]

The only difference between my line and yours are numbers and motive. If you truly believe that the unborn have a right to life, then the deaths associated with your line should be as reprehensible and unacceptable to you as my line.

You dont have a line.Originally Posted by Missileman
"I've answered this question at least once in this thread.

And you've yet to answer mine."You're a liar and stupid.
Saying "the first trimester is hardly vague" is not an answer to this question:

What occurs DURING the transistion from the first to second trimester that is a clear demarcation point?you said there are more than just conception and birth. Name one.
Saying "first trimester" is just a period of time, not any specific event. It is a long list of events that together make the first trimester.
WHAT EVENT OCCURS TO MAKE IT A HUMAN AND IS A CLEAR DEMARCATION POINT.

Saying U have already answered it is a lie. If you don't answer it, its simply proof that you spoke out of your ass and are not trying to cover your ass.

[Kathianne]

You dont have a line.Originally Posted by Missileman
"I've answered this question at least once in this thread.

And you've yet to answer mine."You're a liar and stupid.
Saying "the first trimester is hardly vague" is not an answer to this question:

What occurs DURING the transistion from the first to second trimester that is a clear demarcation point?you said there are more than just conception and birth. Name one.
Saying "first trimester" is just a period of time, not any specific event. It is a long list of events that together make the first trimester.
WHAT EVENT OCCURS TO MAKE IT A HUMAN AND IS A CLEAR DEMARCATION POINT.

Saying U have already answered it is a lie. If you don't answer it, its simply proof that you spoke out of your ass and are not trying to cover your ass.

I'm not sure of the whole thread, but I do know the MM has used the quote feature throughout and for some reason Luvrp chose to disregard it in midst of debate.

May or may not mean anything. Though it was he throwing around 'coward' and such in red color because it was so important to point out.

[J.T]

As is your wont, another strawman. I didn't say justifiable homocide is murder.
[QUOTE=Missileman;474802]It's either murder or it's not. You might call saving the mother's life justifiable homicide although the unborn hasn't really committed an offense that justifies it, or you might call it self defense. But the rape/incest abortions that you'd allow with your line would be murder just as much as an abortion for convenience/QUOTE]

:slap:

[Missileman]

[QUOTE=Missileman;474802]It's either murder or it's not. You might call saving the mother's life justifiable homicide although the unborn hasn't really committed an offense that justifies it, or you might call it self defense. But the rape/incest abortions that you'd allow with your line would be murder just as much as an abortion for convenience/QUOTE]

:slap:

That's right dickhead...go back to school and learn English. I clearly made the distinction between murder in the last sentence and justifiable homicide in the 2nd. You removed the last line and changed the context of what I wrote.

[J.T]

I clearly made the distinction between murder in the last sentence and justifiable homicide in the 2nd


It's either murder or it's not. You might call saving the mother's life justifiable homicide although the unborn hasn't really committed an offense that justifies it, or you might call it self defense. But the rape/incest abortions that you'd allow with your line would be murder just as much as an abortion for convenience


Make up your mind.

Answer the question.

Why can't you people ever be honest?

[fj1200]

The only difference between my line and yours are numbers and motive. If you truly believe that the unborn have a right to life, then the deaths associated with your line should be as reprehensible and unacceptable to you as my line.

Numbers and motive? If that's what you need to tell yourself. The unborn have a right to life, that is the starting point; you're starting point is that they do NOT. So which is the better moral starting point?

[logroller]

Numbers and motive? If that's what you need to tell yourself. The unborn have a right to life, that is the starting point; you're starting point is that they do NOT. So which is the better moral starting point?

Though I applaud your retort, I see the starting point as vague. Merely "unborn" seems too broad a qualification. Not to belabor a hyperbolic point, but there are instances of deformities in utero, determined by modern med tech like amino and sonar, which may not naturally miscarry but carry with them little, if any, chance of survival. I'm not suggesting abortion is the answer, but having never experienced such a situation, I've thus not had an instance of consideration, and I feel its naive for me to say it should be criminal to pursue such an alternative.

[red states rule]

http://images7.cpcache.com/product/101919067v43_480x480_Front.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm aware of the difference, you however are arguing like you'd equate the two.

it only sounds that way to someone who can't tell the difference between a fetus and an eyeball.....


Oh come on... you know she's functioning very well; and quite beautiful I might add, though that's not a consideration in the matter. :thumb:

Using such emotional plays are no help. That's like the arguments about rape victims. Its just unproductive to the debate.

not at all......the argument has been raised that the non viable have no right to life......when does a human actually become viable......I've heard that in the slums of Brazil eight or nine year old orphans survive on the streets......could they do it at five?.....two?.....

[red states rule]

[QUOTE=J.T;475008]

That's right dickhead...go back to school and learn English. I clearly made the distinction between murder in the last sentence and justifiable homicide in the 2nd. You removed the last line and changed the context of what I wrote.

Amazing how some think allowing a woman to suck her baby into a sink is a constitutionally protected right.

[PostmodernProphet]

IOW, you don't deny that you made ANOTHER false accusation against me.

it's not a false accusation at all.......the reason why you believe the passing of some 90 day mark is significant, as opposed to the 83rd day, or the 97th day is obviously both arbitrary and vague.......


The first trimester is hardly vague.

but your rationale for selecting it, obviously is.....and that's the issue you are dodging.....


As I previously stated, I have already answered this question in this thread.

yet oddly, no one here knows what the answer was or where you provided it.....

[Missileman]

Numbers and motive? If that's what you need to tell yourself. The unborn have a right to life, that is the starting point; you're starting point is that they do NOT. So which is the better moral starting point?

I'm not sure you can claim the moral high ground standing on a pile of bodies even if it is a fraction of the other pile.




Amazing how some think allowing a woman to suck her baby into a sink is a constitutionally protected right.

What exactly does that comment have to do with justifiable homicide or murder?

[PostmodernProphet]

If you are not a woman, and you have no female children, obviously you will never understand what is involved in all this.

if you've never been aborted, obviously you will never understand what is involved in all this.....

[LuvRPgrl]

yet oddly, no one here knows what the answer was or where you provided it.....

She wont answer it cuz he doesn't have one

[fj1200]

Though I applaud your retort, I see the starting point as vague. Merely "unborn" seems too broad a qualification. Not to belabor a hyperbolic point, but there are instances of deformities in utero, determined by modern med tech like amino and sonar, which may not naturally miscarry but carry with them little, if any, chance of survival. I'm not suggesting abortion is the answer, but having never experienced such a situation, I've thus not had an instance of consideration, and I feel its naive for me to say it should be criminal to pursue such an alternative.

Retort? :rolleyes:

So what is your basis for granting the authority of terminating life then?


I'm not sure you can claim the moral high ground standing on a pile of bodies even if it is a fraction of the other pile.

You don't even seem to acknowledge the moral dilemma.

Interesting take on the outcomes when choice trumps nature.

The War Against Girls (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576361691165631366.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read)

In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad. Between 104 and 106 is the normal range, and that's as far as the natural window goes. Any other number is the result of unnatural events.

Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China's and India's populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107. But the imbalance is not only in Asia. Azerbaijan stands at 115, Georgia at 118 and Armenia at 120.

What is causing the skewed ratio: abortion. If the male number in the sex ratio is above 106, it means that couples are having abortions when they find out the mother is carrying a girl. By Ms. Hvistendahl's counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence.
...
Ms. Hvistendahl argues that such imbalances are portents of Very Bad Things to come. "Historically, societies in which men substantially outnumber women are not nice places to live," she writes. "Often they are unstable. Sometimes they are violent." As examples she notes that high sex ratios were at play as far back as the fourth century B.C. in Athens—a particularly bloody time in Greek history—and during China's Taiping Rebellion in the mid-19th century. (Both eras featured widespread female infanticide.)
...
This is where choice leads. This is where choice has already led. Ms. Hvistendahl may wish the matter otherwise, but there are only two alternatives: Restrict abortion or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it.

[LuvRPgrl]

JT started and ran a great thread here. The silence from the left is deafening, and even righties who support abortion.

When they are honest, this is the enevitable conclusion.
Not to start another debate in this thread, but the same thing happens with evolution, micro evolution in particular, the info from science we have today pretty much, well, no, completely shuts down the idea of the primordial soup.

[logroller]

Retort? :rolleyes:

So what is your basis for granting the authority of terminating life then?
dont be a hater fj:poke:
Free choice-- the basis of human civilization.

I find mothers who don't take care of their bodies to do far more harm to children than those who abort. I know everybody's gonna get all pissy, life is precious and all that, but what about building a stronger and better world; does that matter any less. I wouldn't advise anybody to get an abortion; I think its just stupid, but likewise, I don't want stupid people reproducing either--so it works itself out with free choice.


JT started and ran a great thread here. The silence from the left is deafening, and even righties who support abortion.

When they are honest, this is the enevitable conclusion.
Not to start another debate in this thread, but the same thing happens with evolution, micro evolution in particular, the info from science we have today pretty much, well, no, completely shuts down the idea of the primordial soup.

Your's was 233rd post-- hardly deafening.

[PostmodernProphet]

dont be a hater fj:poke:
Free choice-- the basis of human civilization.

I find mothers who don't take care of their bodies to do far more harm to children than those who abort. I know everybody's gonna get all pissy, life is precious and all that, but what about building a stronger and better world; does that matter any less. I wouldn't advise anybody to get an abortion; I think its just stupid, but likewise, I don't want stupid people reproducing either--so it works itself out with free choice.

one of the least likely indicators of a "strong and better world" is evidence it's population is willing to kill it's own children.......

[J.T]

Free choice-- the basis of human civilization.

No, sorry, that is wrong. The natural state is one of total liberty and freedom of choice. Civilization is founded on the restriction of certain liberties (such as the liberty to rape logroller's mother, beat logroller with a rock, and steal logroller's property) in accordance with the social contract and the infliction of the weak's will upon the strong (an inversion of the natural state).

The rest of your post is basically a pseudo-eugenic argument put forth by Planned Parenthood this whole time: Negroes are stupid and can be manipulated into making themselves extinct.

[fj1200]

dont be a hater fj:poke:
Free choice-- the basis of human civilization.

Don't hate the player. ;) I thought life was the basis of civilization.


I find mothers who don't take care of their bodies to do far more harm to children than those who abort. I know everybody's gonna get all pissy, life is precious and all that, but what about building a stronger and better world; does that matter any less. I wouldn't advise anybody to get an abortion; I think its just stupid, but likewise, I don't want stupid people reproducing either--so it works itself out with free choice.

I see you're agreeing with my original argument; see post #5.

[LuvRPgrl]

dont be a hater fj:poke:
Free choice-- the basis of human civilization.

I find mothers who don't take care of their bodies to do far more harm to children than those who abort. I know everybody's gonna get all pissy, life is precious and all that, but what about building a stronger and better world; does that matter any less. I wouldn't advise anybody to get an abortion; I think its just stupid, but likewise, I don't want stupid people reproducing either--so it works itself out with free choice.

Yep, over 230 posts, yet they never answered the question.
All they could come up with was "its already been answered", they wouldnt even give us a post # to find the answer, because it doesn't exist, because there is no answer.
The deafening is in regards to hearing the answer and the lack of posts the last few days

Free choice for humans, all humans? Then the unborn child should have a choice. That again takes us to the question, WHEN does it become an INDIVIDUAL living human organism?
As for choice, we do know that during abortions, the child fights to stay alive, only beings wanting to choose life will do that.

[Missileman]

Yep, over 230 posts, yet they never answered the question.
All they could come up with was "its already been answered", they wouldnt even give us a post # to find the answer, because it doesn't exist, because there is no answer.
The deafening is in regards to hearing the answer and the lack of posts the last few days

Free choice for humans, all humans? Then the unborn child should have a choice. That again takes us to the question, WHEN does it become an INDIVIDUAL living human organism?
As for choice, we do know that during abortions, the child fights to stay alive, only beings wanting to choose life will do that.

But I did answer the question of how I arrived at the first trimester restriction. You chose to ignore my answer. I also said there are clear lines between conception and birth, for example, the start of the fetal heartbeat. You chose to pretend that because I didn't enumerate all of those lines that they don't exist. Further, you then asked me to provide an event that marks the end of the first and beginning of the second trimester. Having never made a claim that such an event exists, I chose to ignore the question.

I find it remarkable that you piss and moan about unanswered questions while continually avoiding answering mine.


Interesting take on the outcomes when choice trumps nature.

The War Against Girls (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576361691165631366.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read)

This is a practice that should be illegal. Gender is not a birth defect. Further, all of these abortions are taking place well after the first trimester.

[Abbey Marie]

Yep, over 230 posts, yet they never answered the question.
All they could come up with was "its already been answered", they wouldnt even give us a post # to find the answer, because it doesn't exist, because there is no answer.
The deafening is in regards to hearing the answer and the lack of posts the last few days

Free choice for humans, all humans? Then the unborn child should have a choice. That again takes us to the question, WHEN does it become an INDIVIDUAL living human organism?
As for choice, we do know that during abortions, the child fights to stay alive, only beings wanting to choose life will do that.

The bolded section is one of the saddest, most upsetting statements ever made. :( And one that everyone needs to see.

[revelarts]

This is a practice that should be illegal. Gender is not a birth defect. Further, all of these abortions are taking place well after the first trimester.

So your for abortion only in the 1st trimester.
all others should be outlawed?

[NightTrain]

As for choice, we do know that during abortions, the child fights to stay alive, only beings wanting to choose life will do that.


The bolded section is one of the saddest, most upsetting statements ever made. :( And one that everyone needs to see.

Absolutely, Abbey.

It is truly horrifying.

[Missileman]

So your for abortion only in the 1st trimester.
all others should be outlawed?

With exceptions for life of the mother and catastrophic defect, yes.

[J.T]

WHEN does it become an INDIVIDUAL living human organism?

At the very moment it comes into existence.

This is basic biology. At creation, the organism is an individual living human organism.

Sometimes it splits into multiple systems, which then go on to develop into two distinct organisms (identical twins).

I don't see why they have difficulty grasping this stuff, unless it is in fact a matter of faith for them.


This is a practice that should be illegal.
Why?

Gender is not a birth defect.
And?


Further, all of these abortions are taking place well after the first trimester.

And? What changed between the night of the last day of the first trimester and the morning of the first day of the second trimester?


With exceptions for life of the mother and catastrophic defect, yes.
Why?

[LuvRPgrl]

But I did answer the question of how I arrived at the first trimester restriction. You chose to ignore my answer..

Ignore,? How the hell can I ignore something I havent seen?
AGAIIN, tell me the post number so I can read it,


I also said there are clear lines between conception and birth.

Yea, so name a few and what supports your opinion.

,
for example, the start of the fetal heartbeat. You chose to pretend that because I didn't enumerate all of those lines that they don't exist..

Pretend? Ha, if you dont enumerate any of them, what else can we do. And its not just me, others have asked you.


Further, you then asked me to provide an event that marks the end of the first and beginning of the second trimester. Having never made a claim that such an event exists, I chose to ignore the question. .
Oh, I see, for you its ignore, for me its pretend.
YOU???? IGNORE A QUESTION???? Ha, its a cold day in hell folks.
If you ignore it, as you now admit, its cuz there isn't one.
First U say there is a clear line of demarcation at the end of the first trimester, now you say there isn't, which is it? Semantics will get you nothing but negative points.




I find it remarkable that you piss and moan about unanswered questions while continually avoiding answering mine.[/QUOTE]

I never saw anything about a ;heartbeat in any of your posts, care to share that with us? Where is that post?

I'm not gonna fall for your word games. I asked you a question, you don't answer a question with a question. You AVOID a question with a question.


But I did answer the question of how I arrived at the first trimester restriction. ...
... Further, you then asked me to provide an event that marks the end of the first and beginning of the second trimester. Having never made a claim that such an event exists, I chose to ignore the question.

. Hmmmmmmm


The bolded section is one of the saddest, most upsetting statements ever made. :( And one that everyone needs to see.

Even as a single cell, EVERYTHING about it screams, I want to LIVE !!!!!

[logroller]

No, sorry, that is wrong. The natural state is one of total liberty and freedom of choice. Civilization is founded on the restriction of certain liberties (such as the liberty to rape logroller's mother, beat logroller with a rock, and steal logroller's property) in accordance with the social contract and the infliction of the weak's will upon the strong (an inversion of the natural state).

The rest of your post is basically a pseudo-eugenic argument put forth by Planned Parenthood this whole time: Negroes are stupid and can be manipulated into making themselves extinct.

Our country was found on personal liberty, not dogmatic oppression. You may CHOOSE not see that way, as demonstrated by your hyperbole-- but bring that shit my way and I'll show you sam colt's contribution to personal liberty and eugenics.


Yep, over 230 posts, yet they never answered the question.
All they could come up with was "its already been answered", they wouldnt even give us a post # to find the answer, because it doesn't exist, because there is no answer.
The deafening is in regards to hearing the answer and the lack of posts the last few days
So far as "answering the question", its loaded, perhaps you should rephrase-- as being pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion.


Free choice for humans, all humans? Then the unborn child should have a choice. That again takes us to the question, WHEN does it become an INDIVIDUAL living human organism?
Ok Mr. Extreme. We should pull that child out at 12 weeks and ask them if they want to live or not--let em choose.Right?


As for choice, we do know that during abortions, the child fights to stay alive, only beings wanting to choose life will do that.

We? Have you had or been witness to an abortion? I haven't, I don't know that. I do know that my son turned blue an hour after birth-- the scariest moment in my life. I guess he was "fighting to stay alive", poorly; but I don't think that was a choice. He didn't ask to be intibated(sp).


At the very moment it comes into existence.

This is basic biology. At creation, the organism is an individual living human organism.

Sometimes it splits into multiple systems, which then go on to develop into two distinct organisms (identical twins).

I don't see why they have difficulty grasping this stuff, unless it is in fact a matter of faith for them.

What about a test tube conception; does it have a right to life?

[Missileman]

First U say there is a clear line of demarcation at the end of the first trimester, now you say there isn't, which is it?



Quote it...I NEVER said any such thing.

[PostmodernProphet]

But I did answer the question of how I arrived at the first trimester restriction.

which post?.....

[revelarts]

(1st Trimester) With exceptions for life of the mother and catastrophic defect, yes.

Well JT's question Why does apply.
Seeing the day after 1st Trimester seems a bit arbitrary.
And the fact is that many women don't even know by then.

But Abortion Docs and Planned Parenthood don't share your line in the sand.


What about a test tube conception; does it have a right to life?

I know this wasn't directed at me but,

Frankly Yes, yes it does.
Test tube conceptions whole purpose is to bring forth a human being.
the fact that it does it and discards many living humans as a by product of the process is a silent horror.

[J.T]

Since marry never consented and was never given a choice... Jesus was a rape baby...

did he have a right to his existence?

[Missileman]

Well JT's question Why does apply.


Restricted abortion is better than unrestricted abortion. A policy of "no abortions ever" is unrealistic, invasive, unenforceable, and places women's health at risk.

[J.T]

Restricted abortion is better than unrestricted abortion. A policy of "no abortions ever" is unrealistic, invasive, unenforceable, and places women's health at risk.
Quit evading the question, coward.

What changes? Why is it okay to kill your baby in cold blood one day and not the next?

[revelarts]

Since marry never consented and was never given a choice... Jesus was a rape baby...

did he have a right to his existence?

Ummm have you been reading the Mormon Bible or something?

Or maybe Alister Crowley's friends.


I'm guessing that your not a lapsed roman Chatholic becuase they quote Mary directly from the Bible.

the angel appears, makes the announcement of a Miracle birth, Mary says "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." And it's a miracle conception completely non sexual- When Jesus turned 5 fish into hundreds did he force fertilize the 5 to create more. Did he use a defibrillator on Lazarus to raise him from the dead. Why are you putting natural limitation on Supernatu...

OHhhh Wait... ARE You deliberately being Provocative? Hmm Ohh , Ho Ho your a Pistol JT. , ho ho ho ho.

You might burn in hell for it but... ho ho ho
just kidding.

God has saved worse than you.

[fj1200]

Restricted abortion is better than unrestricted abortion. A policy of "no abortions ever" is unrealistic, invasive, unenforceable, and places women's health at risk.

The very act of an abortion places the mother's health at risk, now and in the future. I recall sending Psychoblues a link awhile back.

[logroller]

I know this wasn't directed at me but,

Frankly Yes, yes it does.
Test tube conceptions whole purpose is to bring forth a human being.
the fact that it does it and discards many living humans as a by product of the process is a silent horror.

This isn't a one-on-one debate-- your comments are welcome.

This invites a whole plethora of additional issues. I'm inclined to agree with you Rev, I think it is the same thing. But at the same time, who's responsibility is it: the lab assistant, the doctor, the genetic parents, the invitro parents(if diff than genetic), society, govt?

[Missileman]

Quit evading the question, coward.

What changes? Why is it okay to kill your baby in cold blood one day and not the next?

I'll answer your question AFTER you've answered mine.

[Missileman]

The very act of an abortion places the mother's health at risk, now and in the future. I recall sending Psychoblues a link awhile back.

Not nearly as much as a back alley abortion.

[logroller]

The very act of an abortion places the mother's health at risk, now and in the future. I recall sending Psychoblues a link awhile back.

There are risks associated with having children too, now and in the future; but who bears the prime responsibility, the individual or society? Classic slippery slope really-- do we want govt dictating our behaviors and bearing the responsibility for results? I don't.

[J.T]

I'll answer your question AFTER you've answered mine.
:lol:

The OP was there before any question you're about to pretend to have ever asked anyone.

Why can't you ever be honest, coward? Answer the question.


Not nearly as much as a back alley abortion.

Why can democrats always find a back-alley babykiller willing to shove their beloved coathanger into her uterus and scrape away at her insides,... but never a back-alley condom salesman willing to smuggle prophylactics across the border into the non-existent Land Where Condoms are Ne'er to be Found?

Maybe if you took 1/10th the effort you put into finding someone willing to kill your baby and instead used in to control your urge to rip off your pants and fuck everyone in sight in the hopes of having your first creampie gangbang before summer break, you wouldn't have these problems in the first place.

[J.T]

do we want govt dictating our behaviors
Nop, not at all. Rape and serial murder should be totally legal...

[Missileman]

:lol:

The OP was there before any question you're about to pretend to have ever asked anyone.

Why can't you ever be honest, coward? Answer the question.

I've already answered several of your questions in this thread...I'll answer this one AFTER you've answered mine.




Why can democrats always find a back-alley babykiller willing to shove their beloved coathanger into her uterus and scrape away at her insides,... but never a back-alley condom salesman willing to smuggle prophylactics across the border into the non-existent Land Where Condoms are Ne'er to be Found?

Maybe if you took 1/10th the effort you put into finding someone willing to kill your baby and instead used in to control your urge to rip off your pants and fuck everyone in sight in the hopes of having your first creampie gangbang before summer break, you wouldn't have these problems in the first place.

I'm all for using birth control to reduce the numbers of abortions...problem is the thumpers would rather teach just say no.

[PostmodernProphet]

if nothing else, J.T. has finally answered the question of whether someone can be opposed to abortion for other than religious reasons......

[logroller]

Nop, not at all. Rape and serial murder should be totally legal...

If your gonna quote me, get the context. "and accepting the responsibility" was at the end for a reason. OK, we punish rape and serial murder, govt(society) bears the responsibility for the incarceration. SO if a woman wants an abortion and cant get it-- does gvt bear the responsibility to help her raise and care for that child?

[fj1200]

Not nearly as much as a back alley abortion.

Then it's disingenuous to argue for abortion as being "for womyn's ;) health" when abortion seems to be causative to higher health risks later on.


There are risks associated with having children too, now and in the future; but who bears the prime responsibility, the individual or society? Classic slippery slope really-- do we want govt dictating our behaviors and bearing the responsibility for results? I don't.

PB argued that he was pro-abortion because it was in the best interest of women's health even when it was shown that abortion was contrary to women's health.

[Missileman]

Then it's disingenuous to argue for abortion as being "for womyn's ;) health" when abortion seems to be causative to higher health risks later on.

Guess it depends on your source.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/safety_of_abortion.html

[PostmodernProphet]

Then it's disingenuous to argue for abortion as being "for womyn's ;) health" when abortion seems to be causative to higher health risks later on.


the death rate from legal abortion is .7 deaths per 100k abortions.....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051566

since Roe v Wade, there have been over 49 million abortions.....

when have you ever seen anything about a woman dying from an abortion in any news report on the issue....

the left is simply not being honest about the issue....

I have made 24 posts to this thread......most of them were questions directed at Missileman......he didn't respond to a single one of them......

[logroller]

the death rate from legal abortion is .7 deaths per 100k abortions.....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051566

since Roe v Wade, there have been over 49 million abortions.....

when have you ever seen anything about a woman dying from an abortion in any news report on the issue....

the left is simply not being honest about the issue....
and what's the maternal death rate among live births? a quick search returned 11 per 100k-- 13 times times higher.

[LuvRPgrl]

and what's the maternal death rate among live births? a quick search returned 11 per 100k-- 13 times times higher.

What ;is the death rate of children targeted for abortion?

In an abortion, at least one life is almost guaranteed to be killed.

[logroller]

Then it's disingenuous to argue for abortion as being "for womyn's ;) health" when abortion seems to be causative to higher health risks later on.



PB argued that he was pro-abortion because it was in the best interest of women's health even when it was shown that abortion was contrary to women's health.
I'm against abortion, but that doesnt mean I'm for its prohibition. See my post re: maternal death rates being higher among live births; I wouldn't use these facts as support for either side. "Lies, damned lies and..."


What ;is the death rate of children targeted for abortion?

In an abortion, at least one life is almost guaranteed to be killed.

Again with the killing of. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. I sympathize with your point of view, but I've drawn a line in the sand regarding freedom vs protection on this issue. Whatever losses are endured are less than those forgone through additional government encroachment. I choose my battles carefully, and, IMHO, enforcing pro-life is a far worse solution.

[PostmodernProphet]

and what's the maternal death rate among live births? a quick search returned 11 per 100k-- 13 times times higher.

????....so the fact that there are health consequences to having a child justifies ignoring the fact there are health consequences to legal abortions?.......

[revelarts]

Frankly Yes, yes it does.
Test tube conceptions whole purpose is to bring forth a human being.
the fact that it does it and discards many living humans as a by product of the process is a silent horror.


This invites a whole plethora of additional issues. I'm inclined to agree with you Rev, I think it is the same thing. But at the same time, who's responsibility is it: the lab assistant, the doctor, the genetic parents, the invitro parents(if diff than genetic), society, govt?

All of the above?
Probably should start with that assumption and work our way down. Different levels different devils.

[gabosaurus]

So tell me, when they outlawed alcohol, did people stop drinking? How about drugs?
If you think abortion is a "big business" now, wait until you outlaw it.

I will state how I feel about abortion.
I feel it should be allowed under certain guidelines. I don't think it should be allowed after three months. And I don't think any woman should have more than one.

I will offer a parallel example. Let's suppose your 13 year old son is showing one of your guns to a friend and ends up blowing his head off. Would you allow the law to throw your son in jail for the rest of his life. Or would you want the authorities to allow that he made a stupid, youthful mistake?

I would say one teen girl out of 100 has sex wanting to get pregnant. No pregnant teen girl wants an abortion. But they can't handle kids. They made a mistake.

If you can't comprehend that, then I feel sorry for you.

[LuvRPgrl]

So tell me, when they outlawed alcohol, did people stop drinking? How about drugs?
If you think abortion is a "big business" now, wait until you outlaw it.

I will state how I feel about abortion.
I feel it should be allowed under certain guidelines. I don't think it should be allowed after three months. And I don't think any woman should have more than one.

I will offer a parallel example. Let's suppose your 13 year old son is showing one of your guns to a friend and ends up blowing his head off. Would you allow the law to throw your son in jail for the rest of his life. Or would you want the authorities to allow that he made a stupid, youthful mistake?

I would say one teen girl out of 100 has sex wanting to get pregnant. No pregnant teen girl wants an abortion. But they can't handle kids. They made a mistake.

If you can't comprehend that, then I feel sorry for you.

I can understand that your analogies are false.

OBFUSCATION, the act of deliberately causing confusion so no conclusion wil be the outcome o the discussion, because those wishing to obfucate, know they are wrong.
INCLUDES:
Answering questions with questions
Ignoring questions
Changing the subject
Red Herrings
Straw men

OK, lets sstart over. MY ORIGINAL statement was

THERE ARE ONLY 2 CLEAR, DISTINCT, NON MOVING AND NON ARBITRARY POINTS, FERTILIZATION AND BIRTH, THAT I KNOW OF.

HENCE, ANY other line drawn in the sand, is arbitrary, subject to change as science changes, emotional.

Now MM, answer the question.

I asked first, if you have a question, answer mine and follow it with your question, otherwise you are guilty of obfuscation and are by default admitting you got nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch,

[Kathianne]

So tell me, when they outlawed alcohol, did people stop drinking? How about drugs?
If you think abortion is a "big business" now, wait until you outlaw it.

I will state how I feel about abortion.
I feel it should be allowed under certain guidelines. I don't think it should be allowed after three months. And I don't think any woman should have more than one.

I will offer a parallel example. Let's suppose your 13 year old son is showing one of your guns to a friend and ends up blowing his head off. Would you allow the law to throw your son in jail for the rest of his life. Or would you want the authorities to allow that he made a stupid, youthful mistake?

I would say one teen girl out of 100 has sex wanting to get pregnant. No pregnant teen girl wants an abortion. But they can't handle kids. They made a mistake.

If you can't comprehend that, then I feel sorry for you.

What if same teen is raped multiple times, each resulting in pregnancy? Should the assumption be that she is using 'rape' to claim multiple abortion or she just defies all odds?

One of the problems with your examples. How would having an abortion result in an uplifting of 'young teen girls' self-esteem, so that they avoid unprotected sex that might result in another pregnancy? Would you then say they should be denied?

[logroller]

????....so the fact that there are health consequences to having a child justifies ignoring the fact there are health consequences to legal abortions?.......

That is absolutely not the point. There are risks to inherent risks to pregnancy--period. You can most greatly reduce the health risks by not becoming pregnant, merely not having an abortion doesn't reduce your risk; au contraire, the risks are actually greater if you have a live birth.


I can understand that your analogies are false.

OBFUSCATION, the act of deliberately causing confusion so no conclusion wil be the outcome o the discussion, because those wishing to obfucate, know they are wrong.
INCLUDES:
Answering questions with questions
Ignoring questions
Changing the subject
Red Herrings
Straw men

OK, lets sstart over. MY ORIGINAL statement was

THERE ARE ONLY 2 CLEAR, DISTINCT, NON MOVING AND NON ARBITRARY POINTS, FERTILIZATION AND BIRTH, THAT I KNOW OF.

HENCE, ANY other line drawn in the sand, is arbitrary, subject to change as science changes, emotional.

Now MM, answer the question.

I asked first, if you have a question, answer mine and follow it with your question, otherwise you are guilty of obfuscation and are by default admitting you got nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch,

Well your statement is false for starts, and second, you asked no question.

[gabosaurus]

I can understand that your analogies are false.

OK, lets sstart over. MY ORIGINAL statement was

THERE ARE ONLY 2 CLEAR, DISTINCT, NON MOVING AND NON ARBITRARY POINTS, FERTILIZATION AND BIRTH, THAT I KNOW OF.

HENCE, ANY other line drawn in the sand, is arbitrary, subject to change as science changes, emotional.


This statement makes you appear to be even less of a human being than you already allege to be.
What you are saying is that any condition that makes a woman pregnant needs to be accepted without challenge. You are pregnant, your tough luck. Live with it.

The religious extremists that I know of care ZERO about what happens to a baby after it is born. Their only demand is that it is carried to term and delivered.
If the newborn is then thrown in a dumpster or left to rot in a landfill, they could care less. If the child is abused and beaten to death, they don't care.
Death after birth is always preferable to death in the womb. Right?
Such sick people you are.

[Missileman]

I can understand that your analogies are false.

OBFUSCATION, the act of deliberately causing confusion so no conclusion wil be the outcome o the discussion, because those wishing to obfucate, know they are wrong.
INCLUDES:
Answering questions with questions
Ignoring questions
Changing the subject
Red Herrings
Straw men

OK, lets sstart over. MY ORIGINAL statement was

THERE ARE ONLY 2 CLEAR, DISTINCT, NON MOVING AND NON ARBITRARY POINTS, FERTILIZATION AND BIRTH, THAT I KNOW OF.

HENCE, ANY other line drawn in the sand, is arbitrary, subject to change as science changes, emotional.

Now MM, answer the question.

I asked first, if you have a question, answer mine and follow it with your question, otherwise you are guilty of obfuscation and are by default admitting you got nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch,

You quote Gabby and then shoot a question at me(kinda)? As I recall, I said there are other lines between conception and birth. I've already given one such line, start of fetal heartbeat. As such, I've answered your question. Capiche?

[J.T]

So tell me, when they outlawed alcohol, did people stop drinking? How about drugs?
If you think abortion is a "big business" now, wait until you outlaw it.


History shows an increase in abortions after it SCOTUS said it had to be legal.

This is because it wasn't always the 'easy solution' to avoid responsibility that the abortion industry markets it as today.


Again, why is it you insist you'll always find a hitman for hire to kill your baby and scrape your insides out with a coathanger, yet you can never find a condom, and IUD, or spermicidal foam or lubricant?

If you took 1/10 of the effort it takes to find a hitman specializing in the unborn and applied it towards finding prophylactics or exercising some self-control and keeping your pants on and not engaging in unprotected sexual activity outside a committed relationship with someone you're prepared to start a family with, you wouldn't have these problems.

You go through even more effort to get pregnant and kill your babies instead of taking the easy route. Why is that, unless killing your babies is a key part of your bizarre faith like some sort of sacrifice to Molech?



I will state how I feel about abortion.
I feel it should be allowed under certain guidelines. I don't think it should be allowed after three months.

Why?

And I don't think any woman should have more than one. Why?


I will offer a parallel example. Let's suppose your 13 year old son is showing one of your guns to a friend

Why did the parents allow their children access to a firearm?


and ends up blowing his head off. Would you allow the law to throw your son in jail for the rest of his life. Or would you want the authorities to allow that he made a stupid, youthful mistake?

I'd want the parents investigated on suspicion they failed to take reasonable precautions with their firearms. I'd also want an investigation into the homicide to determine whether the death was accidental or intentional. If intentional, then the DA must determine whether we have a case of murder or manslaughter to take before the courts.

No, if your 13-year-old son puts a gun to a neighbor's head and squeezes the trigger, he shouldn't be allowed to get away with 'a stupid, youthful mistake'. Little killers become big killers and idiots like you are why MS-13 and other gangs recruit early and use their youngest members to commit many murders.



I would say one teen girl out of 100 has sex wanting to get pregnant. No pregnant teen girl wants an abortion.

Lies. If they didn't want abortions, they wouldn't be having them- let alone more than one.


But they can't handle kids.

That's what families are for. Or adoption. PLenty of good people who would make excellent parents cannot have children and would love to give your child a good home. All you have to do is not kill your baby and everyone can be happy- you don't have to be responsible for yourself, a loving couple gets a child they could not otherwise have the joy of rearing, and your son or daughter gets a loving home instead of being torn limb from limb with a pair of forceps and thrown in a dumpster as medical waste.


Why do you feel this need to kill babies? Why do you go through so many hoops to come up with an excuse to kill your children and those of other people?


You quote Gabby and then shoot a question at me(kinda)? As I recall, I said there are other lines between conception and birth. I've already given one such line, start of fetal heartbeat. As such, I've answered your question. Capiche?
So now you're saying the heartbeat is what makes it not okay to kill someone in cold blood?


So if I were to shoot Dick Cheney (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/dick-cheney-gains-new-lease-life-loses-pulse) in the head...?

[fj1200]

This statement makes you appear to be even less of a human being than you already allege to be.
What you are saying is that any condition that makes a woman pregnant needs to be accepted without challenge. You are pregnant, your tough luck. Live with it.

The religious extremists that I know of care ZERO about what happens to a baby after it is born. Their only demand is that it is carried to term and delivered.
If the newborn is then thrown in a dumpster or left to rot in a landfill, they could care less. If the child is abused and beaten to death, they don't care.
Death after birth is always preferable to death in the womb. Right?
Such sick people you are.

Your new avatar fits your recent posts to a T.

[Missileman]

So now you're saying the heartbeat is what makes it not okay to kill someone in cold blood?

I never suggested anything of the sort, this is just another of your lies, even if you framed it as a question.

[J.T]

I never suggested anything of the sort, this is just another of your lies, even if you framed it as a question.
So now you're claiming the heartbeat has nothing to do with anything?

Then why'd you bring it up in the first place?


Can you please stick to one line of bullshit?

[logroller]

So now you're claiming the heartbeat has nothing to do with anything?

Then why'd you bring it up in the first place?


Can you please stick to one line of bullshit?

Are you really this stupid or just trying to pick afight regardless. A beating heart is necessary condition for a human to be alive. That's why MM mentioned it. He was refuting an earlier statement regarding fertilization and birth being the only significant milestones to fetal development; which is an unreasonable assumption. If Dick Cheney's heart were not beating, technically, he would be dead; therefore, shooting him would not be murder.

[J.T]

Are you really this stupid or just trying to pick afight regardless. A beating heart is necessary condition for a human to be alive.

So Dick Cheney's not alive?


That's why MM mentioned it.

Because he fails biology forever?

If Dick Cheney's heart were not beating, technically, he would be dead
And yet it's not (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/dick-cheney-gains-new-lease-life-loses-pulse) and he's not.



therefore, shooting him would not be murder.
Good to know :thumb:

[gabosaurus]

So under that logic, shooting JT would not be murder. Since obviously he doesn't have a heart.

[PostmodernProphet]

So tell me, when they outlawed alcohol, did people stop drinking? How about drugs?
If you think abortion is a "big business" now, wait until you outlaw it.

I will state how I feel about abortion.
I feel it should be allowed under certain guidelines. I don't think it should be allowed after three months. And I don't think any woman should have more than one.

I will offer a parallel example. Let's suppose your 13 year old son is showing one of your guns to a friend and ends up blowing his head off. Would you allow the law to throw your son in jail for the rest of his life. Or would you want the authorities to allow that he made a stupid, youthful mistake?

I would say one teen girl out of 100 has sex wanting to get pregnant. No pregnant teen girl wants an abortion. But they can't handle kids. They made a mistake.

If you can't comprehend that, then I feel sorry for you.

I'm curious.....is it your contention that we want to put women in jail for the rest of their lives for having an abortion, or is it your contention that bringing the pregnancy to term is a life sentence......


You quote Gabby and then shoot a question at me(kinda)? As I recall, I said there are other lines between conception and birth. I've already given one such line, start of fetal heartbeat. As such, I've answered your question. Capiche?

I thought you said you were willing to abort up to the first trimester?......


Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing and your baby's heart is pumping blood

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

[fj1200]

I'm against abortion, but that doesnt mean I'm for its prohibition. See my post re: maternal death rates being higher among live births; I wouldn't use these facts as support for either side. "Lies, damned lies and..."

It was an excellent stat as rebuttal. I was referring, however, to post-birth health.

[logroller]

...OBFUSCATION, the act of deliberately causing confusion so no conclusion wil be the outcome o the discussion, because those wishing to obfucate, know they are wrong.
INCLUDES:
Answering questions with questions
Ignoring questions
Changing the subject
Red Herrings
Straw men...

I asked--

Are you really this stupid or just trying to pick afight regardless?

Your response--

So Dick Cheney's not alive?

In one line you managed to commit nearly all of the aforementioned examples of obfuscation. :lame2:

[LuvRPgrl]

You quote Gabby and then shoot a question at me(kinda)? As I recall, I said there are other lines between conception and birth. I've already given one such line, start of fetal heartbeat. As such, I've answered your question. Capiche?

Now that wasn't so painful, was it??

[LuvRPgrl]

Are you willing to make some abortions illegal but not try to enforce the law?
Apparently so, or, you must be accussing me of something you yourself would otherwise have to be guilty of yourself.

MM stated:"So you'd have no problem imprisoning a pregnant woman and forcing her to carry to term. You have a lot of nerve railing about morality. "

Then you say:



This is a practice that should be illegal. Gender is not a birth defect. Further, all of these abortions are taking place well after the first trimester.

[LuvRPgrl]

You quote Gabby and then shoot a question at me(kinda)? As I recall, I said there are other lines between conception and birth. I've already given one such line, start of fetal heartbeat. As such, I've answered your question. Capiche?

Your debating technique is DISENGENUOUS AT BEST.

Nonetheless, that is a seperate issue, which is precisely what you want to do, discuss non abortion issues.

OK, having gone back and re read the entire thread. You stated you already answered the question posed to you by several posters. Q was (paraphrased), "what occurs at the point of time where the 1st trimester ends, and/or what makes the fetus suddenly become human?"

In and about pages 8-10 you harped that you had already answered the question. Yet when the question was posed again by me, you finally said, "already answered, this is what I previously stated - a fetal heartbeat" (paraphrased)

In and about pages 8-10 the question was posed to you numerous times by numerous posters and you consistently tried to claim you already answered it, now you say that answer was "fetal heartbeat", yet when I reread the entire thread again up to page 10 or thereabouts, you NEVER made such a statement.

SO, you spent a majority of the pages in this thread dodging the question.

Three problems with your "fetal heartbeat" test for if it is a human being or not.

It is arbitrary and vague in the sense that just exactly when that occurs is different in various women, often undetectable even though it is occuring, or undetectable with available equipment. Which would mean you would be ok with killing a baby simply because the equipment needed to determine if it has a heartbeat yet, is not available. Imagine doing that with a "born" child. YOu would be considered evil by most.

It is detected much earlier than your "precious" first trimester occurs, so you are inconsistent in what you state you believe is the test for humaness.

WHY? The heart is merely a pump, it can be replaced with an artificial device which will keep a human alive, so, a human can exist without a natural heart. It will be the inevitable conclusion that viability and ability to insert a needed artificial heart will be achieved by science one day, even to the point they can do both at every single stage of pregnancy.

This is as assured as our landing on the moon. Only a 100 years previous to achieving the event, it was not even dreamt of, much less considered possible.

Lastly, your attempt to dodge and obfuscate the issue is so obvious. After you deny this, I will respond with the PROOF in another post.

[logroller]

The question IMHO is simply "When does life begin?"

It's really a philosophical question, not scientific in fact. There is no "point in time" where life begins. If you prescribe to religious beliefs, life never ends either-- as one has everlasting life through Him. Man seeks to make sense of what life is and implement rules so everybody has the best life possible. To answer your question re:1st trimester, it is arbitrary; but what rules aren't? You've got to draw a line somewhere. Thall shall not commit murder-- but killing is believed to be different than murder, right? So answer me this--Why is killing different than murder?

[fj1200]

The question IMHO is simply "When does life begin?"

It's really a philosophical question, not scientific in fact. There is no "point in time" where life begins.

I think it is "When is the soul imbued to the fetus?" I disagree that there is a point in time where the life began, when two cells met...

[J.T]

The question IMHO is simply "When does life begin?"

Conception


It's really a philosophical question, not scientific in fact.
Bullshit.

The conceptus is the beginning of a new human life. This is the scientifically verified reality.


http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/1416037063


There is no "point in time" where life begins.

Yes, there is. A human life begins at the moment a living human organism comes into existence. This is the moment at which the concepts forms with the merging of ovum and spermatozoa. At this moment, a new organism is formed. This organism if both alive and human, making it a living human organism- a living human being. Prior to this event, this living human did not exist. Thus this marks the beginning of this human life.

Also, Earth orbits Sol, Earth is not flat, and Germs cause disease. There, you should be all caught up.

[J.T]

I think it is "When is the soul imbued to the fetus?"
No, it's not. That's not even a valid question until you first prove the soul exists. Then you must prove that it is imbued top the foetus at some point. Only then can you ask when this occurs.

So go on. Prove this 'soul' you speak of exists. Begin by defining exactly what it is. Then describe how it can be detected/measured by repeatable, verifiable means in accordance with the scientific method.

[logroller]

Conception

Bullshit.

The conceptus is the beginning of a new human life. This is the scientifically verified reality.


http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/1416037063

Yes, there is. A human life begins at the moment a living human organism comes into existence. This is the moment at which the concepts forms with the merging of ovum and spermatozoa. At this moment, a new organism is formed. This organism if both alive and human, making it a living human organism- a living human being. Prior to this event, this living human did not exist. Thus this marks the beginning of this human life.

Also, Earth orbits Sol, Earth is not flat, and Germs cause disease. There, you should be all caught up.

Thanks. How about the rest oh wise one. What's the difference between killing and murder?

[J.T]

Thanks. How about the rest oh wise one.
Well, let's see. Earth is an oblate spheroid, evolution is real and makes getting rid of the common cold a real challenge, race exists, females are the 'default' mode of human development, and the A-bomb didn't ignite the atmosphere and kill us all.

Did I miss anything?


What's the difference between killing and murder?

¹kill

verb \ˈkil\
Definition of KILL

transitive verb
1
a : to deprive of life : cause the death of b (1) : to slaughter (as a hog) for food (2) : to convert a food animal into (a kind of meat) by slaughtering

2
a : to put an end to <kill competition> b : defeat (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defeat), veto (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veto) <killed the amendment> c : to mark for omission; also : delete (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delete) d : annihilate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annihilate), destroy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/destroy) <kill an enemy>

3
a : to destroy the vital or essential quality of <killed the pain with drugs> b : to cause to stop <kill the motor> c : to check the flow of current through

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kill


¹mur·der

noun \ˈmər-dər\
Definition of MURDER

1
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

[fj1200]

No, it's not. That's not even a valid question until you first prove the soul exists. Then you must prove that it is imbued top the foetus at some point. Only then can you ask when this occurs.

So go on. Prove this 'soul' you speak of exists. Begin by defining exactly what it is. Then describe how it can be detected/measured by repeatable, verifiable means in accordance with the scientific method.

Wrong. Different cultures have different opinions on abortion and I would bet that those opinions are based on the spirituality of the individual. It's the exact question to ask but since we are a widely diverse culture there will be no agreement on the answer.

But... if you want the scientific answer to life, it can begin scientifically at only ONE point. ;)

[J.T]

Wrong.

Okay, please tell me at what age the magical hygacialerashtem grows from your skull. I will not prove that this ever happens at all. It happens because I say it does. The only question is at what age this happens.

So go on, tell me when he magical hygacialerashtem grows from your skull, making flight possible and granting you your human rights.


Different cultures have different opinions on abortion
So? They also have different views on genital mutilation of young girls. What's your point?


and I would bet that those opinions are based on the spirituality of the individual.
Wrong. Social views held by cultures cannot be based upon individual spirituality, you twit. Your personal superstition an only effect your personal views. Culture-level 'opinions' (cultures don't have 'opinions', you idiot- they have societal norms, standards, laws, and ethics) are based on common ethics (oft based on shared heritage and mythology) and the social contract.


It's the exact question to ask

You never proved this 'soul' exists. Hence it never enters the body at all, making your question invalid. Prove it exists. Then you can go about showing that it ever enters the body.


but since we are a widely diverse culture there will be no agreement on the answer.

There is no answer,. Your 'question' is nonsense.


But... if you want the scientific answer to life, it can begin scientifically at only ONE point. ;)

So now you're going to go with 'J.T is right' because you've been shown to be an idiot? Well, at least you've the sense to finally admit that you were an idiot to ever argue with me on this one in the first place.

All par for the course with you people.

[revelarts]

As to the when life begins questions, most secularist don't want to touch (or disregard) the "soul" issue.
But when it comes to the scientific and cultural issue most folks want to haggle.
In the haggling most honest people will say, based on their viewpoint there's room for debate.
my question is at that point is,

Why not give the fetus the benefit of the doubt?

If there is ANY question as to when life begins why not ASSUME that it could start at conception?
And Give them the full protection of the law.

It would seem to me the scientifically and "modern western culturally", the best and right thing to do.

[J.T]

If there is ANY question as to when life begins
It's not. The science is settled.

http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/072164662X


why not ASSUME that it could start at conception?
And Give them the full protection of the law.

Is being 'alive' all necessary for the 'full protection of the law'? How, then, can family members 'pull the plug' on and kill a braindead family member?

[revelarts]

It's not. The science is settled.

http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/072164662X


I agree,




Is being 'alive' all necessary for the 'full protection of the law'? How, then, can family members 'pull the plug' on and kill a braindead family member?

This is a good question? But a lil different.
When has a person died?


That's a whole nuther thread but part of my answer is , depends on the "the plug" and several other things.
Similar to fetuses dying in utero, there's a natural process that, IMO, we shouldn't extra-heroically try to overcome.

[J.T]

When has a person died?


When they cease to exist, usually as a result of the death or destruction of the system from which they were emergent.

[fj1200]

So? They also have different views on genital mutilation of young girls. What's your point?

Any point I make you will surely miss.


Wrong. Social views held by cultures cannot be based upon individual spirituality, you twit. Your personal superstition an only effect your personal views. Culture-level 'opinions' (cultures don't have 'opinions', you idiot- they have societal norms, standards, laws, and ethics) are based on common ethics (oft based on shared heritage and mythology) and the social contract.

Based on the cultural views of the spiritual individuality of the baby being born. Basic english pwns you. When does that child become imbued.


You never proved this 'soul' exists. Hence it never enters the body at all, making your question invalid. Prove it exists. Then you can go about showing that it ever enters the body.

I never intended to, the point is cultures have different views on that issue which would drive the decision.


There is no answer,. Your 'question' is nonsense.

Ignorance on your part is not nonsense on my part.


So now you're going to go with 'J.T is right' because you've been shown to be an idiot? Well, at least you've the sense to finally admit that you were an idiot to ever argue with me on this one in the first place.

Do you really believe this crap that you type? You're a condescending idiot who clearly does not know how to engage with other human beings.

[Missileman]

Your debating technique is DISENGENUOUS AT BEST.

Nonetheless, that is a seperate issue, which is precisely what you want to do, discuss non abortion issues.

OK, having gone back and re read the entire thread. You stated you already answered the question posed to you by several posters. Q was (paraphrased), "what occurs at the point of time where the 1st trimester ends, and/or what makes the fetus suddenly become human?"

Actually, I was asked on several occasions why I draw the line at the first trimester and I did answer it quite clearly why I draw the line there.


In and about pages 8-10 you harped that you had already answered the question. Yet when the question was posed again by me, you finally said, "already answered, this is what I previously stated - a fetal heartbeat" (paraphrased)

Actually, you wrote that there are only 2 clear lines of demarcation within a pregnancy, conception and birth. I replied there are several others in between. You tried, unsuccessfully, to then insinuate that I declared that there is a clear line of demarcation at the end of the first trimester. I never wrote or implied any such thing. After watching you mix up 2 different points for long enough, I provided a clear line of demarcation between conception and birth, the start of the fetal heartbeat, as an example to prove my point that there are lines other than conception and birth.



In and about pages 8-10 the question was posed to you numerous times by numerous posters and you consistently tried to claim you already answered it, now you say that answer was "fetal heartbeat", yet when I reread the entire thread again up to page 10 or thereabouts, you NEVER made such a statement.

SO, you spent a majority of the pages in this thread dodging the question.

Actually, as explained above, YOU spent the majority of the thread confusing 2 separate points.


Three problems with your "fetal heartbeat" test for if it is a human being or not.

It is arbitrary and vague in the sense that just exactly when that occurs is different in various women, often undetectable even though it is occuring, or undetectable with available equipment. Which would mean you would be ok with killing a baby simply because the equipment needed to determine if it has a heartbeat yet, is not available. Imagine doing that with a "born" child. YOu would be considered evil by most.

It is detected much earlier than your "precious" first trimester occurs, so you are inconsistent in what you state you believe is the test for humaness.

WHY? The heart is merely a pump, it can be replaced with an artificial device which will keep a human alive, so, a human can exist without a natural heart. It will be the inevitable conclusion that viability and ability to insert a needed artificial heart will be achieved by science one day, even to the point they can do both at every single stage of pregnancy.

This is as assured as our landing on the moon. Only a 100 years previous to achieving the event, it was not even dreamt of, much less considered possible.

Lastly, your attempt to dodge and obfuscate the issue is so obvious. After you deny this, I will respond with the PROOF in another post.

When you stop trying to read more into my arguments than what I've written, you won't have to argue against a position that I haven't taken.

[PostmodernProphet]

The question IMHO is simply "When does life begin?"

It's really a philosophical question, not scientific in fact. There is no "point in time" where life begins. If you prescribe to religious beliefs, life never ends either-- as one has everlasting life through Him. Man seeks to make sense of what life is and implement rules so everybody has the best life possible. To answer your question re:1st trimester, it is arbitrary; but what rules aren't? You've got to draw a line somewhere. Thall shall not commit murder-- but killing is believed to be different than murder, right? So answer me this--Why is killing different than murder?


well no.....the question of when "life" begins is certainly scientific.....when cells are replicating themselves they are obviously alive.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Any point I make you will surely miss.


if you base a point on a shaky foundation and it topples over you can't dismiss it as something we missed.....

[fj1200]

if you base a point on a shaky foundation and it topples over you can't dismiss it as something we missed.....

Ouch. If you miss the point I wasn't clear enough, if j.t misses the point then the meds are off.

Granted the whole concept was shaky but based in different cultures different views on life.

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually, I was asked on several occasions why I draw the line at the first trimester and I did answer it quite clearly why I draw the line there.



Actually, you wrote that there are only 2 clear lines of demarcation within a pregnancy, conception and birth. I replied there are several others in between. You tried, unsuccessfully, to then insinuate that I declared that there is a clear line of demarcation at the end of the first trimester. I never wrote or implied any such thing. After watching you mix up 2 different points for long enough, I provided a clear line of demarcation between conception and birth, the start of the fetal heartbeat, as an example to prove my point that there are lines other than conception and birth.




Actually, as explained above, YOU spent the majority of the thread confusing 2 separate points.



When you stop trying to read more into my arguments than what I've written, you won't have to argue against a position that I haven't taken.

So, at least U R consistent, continued obfuscation and lies. Better to argue about who said what when, and fail to prove it, then actually debate the real topic.

[LuvRPgrl]

This is absolutely hilarious. You did the same thing minutemaid did, first claim that enforcing a law prohibiting abortion cannot be done, then go on to inform us of which abortions you think should be illegal (even though we can't enforce the law you propose).

At least you two are both consistently inconsistent.


So tell me, when they outlawed alcohol, did people stop drinking? How about drugs?
If you think abortion is a "big business" now, wait until you outlaw it.

I will state how I feel about abortion.
I feel it should be allowed under certain guidelines. I don't think it should be allowed after three months. And I don't think any woman should have more than one.

I will offer a parallel example. Let's suppose your 13 year old son is showing one of your guns to a friend and ends up blowing his head off. Would you allow the law to throw your son in jail for the rest of his life. Or would you want the authorities to allow that he made a stupid, youthful mistake?

I would say one teen girl out of 100 has sex wanting to get pregnant. No pregnant teen girl wants an abortion. But they can't handle kids. They made a mistake.

If you can't comprehend that, then I feel sorry for you.

[Missileman]

So, at least U R consistent, continued obfuscation and lies. Better to argue about who said what when, and fail to prove it, then actually debate the real topic.

And as usual, you totally miss the point. I'm not going to debate from a position I haven't taken. Only a total idiot would expect me to.

BTW, since you just accused me of lying...quote which part was a lie and post the proof of it. I'll wager you can't and come up with some bullshit reason why you don't. Laying off one of your strawmen to (paraphrasing) doesn't make it a non-strawman