Why Can't the Pro-Abortionists be Honest?

[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.

[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-Hum.../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-Hum.../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, veto <killed the amendment> c : to mark for omission; also : delete d : annihilate, 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-Hum.../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?