Why Can't the Pro-Abortionists be Honest?

[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

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 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]</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-Dummie.../dp/0764553267

http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Hum.../dp/1416037063

.

If you weren't so busy building a strawman

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
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.

Why? What changes?

Just the extent of development.

[red states rule]

[Missileman]

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.

Mirror.jpg


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

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?