PDA

View Full Version : Why does a non-born to-be human has more rights than a grown human(criminal)?



Pages : [1] 2 3

kilgram
12-24-2013, 12:01 AM
Well, I am tired of the pro-life arguments. I am also pro-life, but I also believe that women has the right to choose if they want to bring term their pregnancy or not. I believe, for example that previous Spanish law where women were free to abort in the period of the first 14 weeks was really good.

Women has the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, and while the project to child is inside the woman, it is in reality a part of the woman, and more, the doctors considere that someone is dead when there is not cerebral activity, well, the fetus in the first weeks don't have cerebral activity, how can be this considered human?

In science, most scientifics considere that the fetus is human, at least from the 14th week.

So, now going to the second point. Many of those pro-life support death penalty, the biggest hipocresy ever. Firstly, as just as a short mention, does it not go against the Christian religion?

And after that, I thought that the right to life was a natural right. Well, end with the right to life of a grown person I think that it is violate his right. So, the death penalty is the most sever violation of the rights of a person, even if that person was awful. No one deserves to die.

Also death penalty adds the problem of the innocent, and if an innocent is killed there is no possible reparation, and seriously I prefer one thousand times ten criminals free rather an innocent being killed.

In conclusion, women has the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. No one can tell them what to do with their bodies and every life of grown humans is sacred and should be respected and not put in the same level of criminals, where death penalty is not justice, is vengeance.

countryboy
12-24-2013, 12:09 AM
Well, I am tired of the pro-life arguments. I am also pro-life, but I also believe that women has the right to choose if they want to bring term their pregnancy or not. I believe, for example that previous Spanish law where women were free to abort in the period of the first 14 weeks was really good.

Women has the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, and while the project to child is inside the woman, it is in reality a part of the woman, and more, the doctors considere that someone is dead when there is not cerebral activity, well, the fetus in the first weeks don't have cerebral activity, how can be this considered human?

In science, most scientifics considere that the fetus is human, at least from the 14th week.

So, now going to the second point. Many of those pro-life support death penalty, the biggest hipocresy ever. Firstly, as just as a short mention, does it not go against the Christian religion?

And after that, I thought that the right to life was a natural right. Well, end with the right to life of a grown person I think that it is violate his right. So, the death penalty is the most sever violation of the rights of a person, even if that person was awful. No one deserves to die.

Also death penalty adds the problem of the innocent, and if an innocent is killed there is no possible reparation, and seriously I prefer one thousand times ten criminals free rather an innocent being killed.

In conclusion, women has the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. No one can tell them what to do with their bodies and every life of grown humans is sacred and should be respected and not put in the same level of criminals, where death penalty is not justice, is vengeance.
Blah blah blah, we know all of the lame arguments from the pro-abortion crowd, no need to repeat them ad nauseam. :puke:

FYI, a baby growing in the uterus is not a part of the woman's body. Basic biology apparently escapes liberals.

kilgram
12-24-2013, 12:11 AM
Blah blah blah, we know all of the lame arguments from the pro-abortion crowd, no need to repeat them ad nauseam. :puke:

FYI, a baby growing in the uterus is not a part of the woman's body. Basic biology apparently escapes liberals.
True, it is worse. It is a parasite. And sometimes the natural abortion, aka miscarriage is caused because the body of the woman attacked the fetus and destroyed it.

I know, it is hard to accept.

But, even when I posted about the recent changes in the Spanish law regarding abortion, I didn't see anyone saying that law was good or not. However it was the goal of that post.

And, I am not pro-abortion. I don't like abortion. I would like to abolish it, if it was possible. But I believe people should have the possibility to abort if they believe it necessary.

countryboy
12-24-2013, 12:14 AM
True, it is worse. It is a parasite. And sometimes the natural abortion, aka miscarriage is caused because the body of the woman attacked the fetus and destroyed it.
A parasite? Project much? Like I said, basic biology escapes most liberals.

Germanicus
12-24-2013, 12:27 AM
What I am sick of is the selfish attitude that women have the choice just because the life is growing inside their bodies. What about the father? The father should have an equal say in what happens to the baby.

On top of that, society should have a say. What right is it for any citizen to take it upon themselves to bring a life into this world? How dare they in many cases.

People should have to apply for a license before they can breed and they should meet a criteria.

It is not any person exclusive right to create life in my opinion. Especially not just the female that carried the baby.

kilgram
12-24-2013, 12:36 AM
A parasite? Project much? Like I said, basic biology escapes most liberals.
It does not. It is a parasite. And obviously it is a project.

Maybe who does not grasp basic biology is not me.

kilgram
12-24-2013, 12:39 AM
What I am sick of is the selfish attitude that women have the choice just because the life is growing inside their bodies. What about the father? The father should have an equal say in what happens to the baby.
No. As a man I don't have right to decide on the body of my girlfriend. If she decides to don't bring the child, it is her decission. Maybe it leads to the end of the relation, but the decission is on her. I can't impose on her my opinion.


On top of that, society should have a say. What right is it for any citizen to take it upon themselves to bring a life into this world? How dare they in many cases.

People should have to apply for a license before they can breed and they should meet a criteria.

It is not any person exclusive right to create life in my opinion. Especially not just the female that carried the baby.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with the license topic. It is reduce freedom of people. And your last point I already answered.

iustitia
12-24-2013, 01:01 AM
A parasite is a species that leaches off of another species and benefits at the expense of the other species. A fetus is a fucking homo sapien. I'm not saying some people don't become parasites. Look at politicians and the UN. But there is no scientific debate about a fetus being human. 'Fetus' is Latin for 'offspring'. A dictionary definition of 'baby' includes 'fetus'. Contrary to what abortionists might believe, reproduction is the propagation of one's own species which is kind of important if you don't want to die out. There's no biological rationale for eliminating 1/6th of your population. A baby is the next generation, not a parasite. A mother nurturing a child isn't parasitism; if anything it's commensalism. The mother passes on her genes and the child lives to do the same. Even taking morality out of the child murder debate, there's no scientific basis to the claim that babies are parasites. I will say one thing though- if a parasite is defined as an organism that benefits at the expense of a species, then abortionists are parasites for thriving off of society's tolerance for their self-destructive bullshit at the expense of the species.


And I'm quite frankly sick of the tyranny of cliches in politics. Nobody is talking about a woman's right to affect her own body. They're talking about a woman's right to destroy the body of and end the life of her child.

peoshi
12-24-2013, 02:14 AM
On top of that, society should have a say. What right is it for any citizen to take it upon themselves to bring a life into this world? How dare they in many cases.What right is it for any citizen to take it upon themselves to prevent a life from coming into this world?

zelmo1234
12-24-2013, 03:18 AM
It does not. It is a parasite. And obviously it is a project.

Maybe who does not grasp basic biology is not me.

Well then it could be said that those living on the welfare systems are actually parasites too? should we kill them?

After all some of them do drugs and overdose and kill themselves, it is just a fact of life?

And if we are getting rid of the parasite's?

Gerrard Winstanley
12-24-2013, 04:54 AM
What I am sick of is the selfish attitude that women have the choice just because the life is growing inside their bodies. What about the father? The father should have an equal say in what happens to the baby.
In a large share of the cases I saw whilst working with the social services, the father was an AWOL drunk the mothers-to-be couldn't even contact in the first place.

Gerrard Winstanley
12-24-2013, 05:02 AM
What right is it for any citizen to take it upon themselves to prevent a life from coming into this world?
And once that life comes into this world, will you be happy if it starts claiming welfare? Or do you only care about it before it's born?

I know I'm going to rustle some jimmies now, but let's suspend all formalities. There's a serious disconnect among these pro-life advocates … who also happen to be anti-welfare, anti-tax, and believe the poor should just help themselves. I don't even need to explain why.

jillian
12-24-2013, 05:34 AM
Blah blah blah, we know all of the lame arguments from the pro-abortion crowd, no need to repeat them ad nauseam. :puke:

FYI, a baby growing in the uterus is not a part of the woman's body. Basic biology apparently escapes liberals.

that must be one of the silliest things i've ever heard.

so tell me, what happens if mom dies?

her uterus not part of her body?

points for creativity…. because your comment certainly has nothing to do with biology,

zelmo1234
12-24-2013, 05:36 AM
And once that life comes into this world, will you be happy if it starts claiming welfare? Or do you only care about it before it's born?

I know I'm going to rustle some jimmies now, but let's suspend all formalities. There's a serious disconnect among these pro-life advocates … who also happen to be anti-welfare, anti-tax, and believe the poor should just help themselves. I don't even need to explain why.

Now this is being misleading at best!

Just because people are not for a free hand out, does not mean that they do not want to help the poor.

The welfare system has actually doom an entire class of people to dire poverty with little hope.

A system that requires work, not only benefits others but brings a system that allows people to better themselves, learn a skill or trade and move from poverty to middle class and hopefully all the way to wealthy.

However there are those that would like to see the poor enslaved to the system so they have someone to rule over that is dependent on the charity of the big government

jillian
12-24-2013, 05:39 AM
Now this is being misleading at best!

Just because people are not for a free hand out, does not mean that they do not want to help the poor.

The welfare system has actually doom an entire class of people to dire poverty with little hope.

A system that requires work, not only benefits others but brings a system that allows people to better themselves, learn a skill or trade and move from poverty to middle class and hopefully all the way to wealthy.

However there are those that would like to see the poor enslaved to the system so they have someone to rule over that is dependent on the charity of the big government

free hand out? what planet do you live on?

you don't want them to be taught sex ed
you don't want readily available contraception
you don't believe in reproductive choice
but women should be forced to give birth because a bunch of right wing, radical religious men say they should?

but after you force her to give birth, she's supposed to be unable to return to the workforce for training (no daycare) or to school (no daycare) and her child is supposed to die of hunger?

the above is why the radical right is immoral.

but continue to tell us how government should be small so long as it affects your pocketbook or the size soda you can purchase.

and feel free to keep repeating the nonsense about "keeping the poor enslaved". whoever made it up should get a prize for fiction.


here's a good idea. worry about your own soul. leave everyone else's alone.

Libhater
12-24-2013, 06:00 AM
I know this is an un-Christian like thing for a pro lifer like me to say and suggest, but perhaps we should allow these women to murder their offspring, for in the end it means millions of less liberals/progressives on earth to screw up life for those of us who cherish it.

Max Rockatansky
12-24-2013, 06:25 AM
What right is it for any citizen to take it upon themselves to prevent a life from coming into this world?

We kill life all the time. We shed cells all the time and flush them down the drain.

A zygote is not a human being. It's not a child. It's not a baby. It's a zygote. Same goes for a blastocyst.

If a neighbor accidentally cut down my apple tree, does anyone here think them giving me an apple seed makes us even because in their mind the apple tree and the apple seed are the same thing?

Human beings don't just pop into existence. They grow into existence. There is a crossover point where a bunch of cells are just cells and when they become a human being. That crossover point is not at the moment of conception. Nor is it at the moment of birth. It's somewhere in between. Usually recognized as the 24th week of gestation.

zelmo1234
12-24-2013, 06:36 AM
free hand out? what planet do you live on?

you don't want them to be taught sex ed
you don't want readily available contraception
you don't believe in reproductive choice
but women should be forced to give birth because a bunch of right wing, radical religious men say they should?

but after you force her to give birth, she's supposed to be unable to return to the workforce for training (no daycare) or to school (no daycare) and her child is supposed to die of hunger?

the above is why the radical right is immoral.

but continue to tell us how government should be small so long as it affects your pocketbook or the size soda you can purchase.

and feel free to keep repeating the nonsense about "keeping the poor enslaved". whoever made it up should get a prize for fiction.


here's a good idea. worry about your own soul. leave everyone else's alone.

I think that this is a perfect example of what I sent you!

You see I actually have no issue with contraception. Schools hand out condoms, planed parent hood will provide free contraception for those that can't afford it. Now I don't think that you would force companies to provide insurance to cover it, because their are alternatives for free contraception and it is not that expensive. and of course there are some people that have a religious believe against it. I believe that this is protected in the constitution and we may differ on that opinion!

On sex -ed I don't want it to be taught that abortions is acceptable birth control because I do believe that it is the taking of a life?

However I would change the name to family education Stating that the only way to assure that you will not get pregnant is if you don't have sex, as far as we know there is only one time in history that this has failed.

and then we can go into these are the forms of birth control and there uses, as long as they understand that they are not 100% I would even go to the level of telling them how to obtain them!

I think that they should teach people what abuse is, and how to get help if they are being abused.

And I think that they should fully understand from statistics that if they choose to have sexual relations that they will not achieve as much as those that do not get pregnant! That there are consequences including STD's and even death?

Under my system of welfare there would be free daycare and vocational training as well as an opportunity to learn work ethic! and it would save tax dollars in the process

patrickt
12-24-2013, 07:39 AM
free hand out? what planet do you live on?

you don't want them to be taught sex ed
you don't want readily available contraception
you don't believe in reproductive choice
but women should be forced to give birth because a bunch of right wing, radical religious men say they should?

but after you force her to give birth, she's supposed to be unable to return to the workforce for training (no daycare) or to school (no daycare) and her child is supposed to die of hunger?

the above is why the radical right is immoral.

but continue to tell us how government should be small so long as it affects your pocketbook or the size soda you can purchase.

and feel free to keep repeating the nonsense about "keeping the poor enslaved". whoever made it up should get a prize for fiction.


here's a good idea. worry about your own soul. leave everyone else's alone.

Wow, an impressive string of lies.

kilgram
12-24-2013, 07:45 AM
I know this is an un-Christian like thing for a pro lifer like me to say and suggest, but perhaps we should allow these women to murder their offspring, for in the end it means millions of less liberals/progressives on earth to screw up life for those of us who cherish it.
Do you think that Conservative don't abort? How innocent you are xD

Do you know that during the Spanish dictatorship of Franco the rich girls went to London to abort? Yes, that Christian and Catholic women, that women of good went to London to abort. It is the reality. Conservative abort, too. And you know what? Probably they are the ones that more use of it do. Mainly because if we have to believe the stats, the states of the red belt are the ones that suffer more teen pregnancies, and in consequence, also abortions (it is a supposition from me, maybe wrong), but I doubt it.

patrickt
12-24-2013, 07:47 AM
Kilgram: "Well, I am tired of the pro-life arguments. I am also pro-life, but I also believe that women has the right to choose if they want to bring term their pregnancy or not. I believe, for example that previous Spanish law where women were free to abort in the period of the first 14 weeks was really good."

That's like saying you believe all people should have equal rights except slaves. You are pro-life unless the mother wants to kill. Then it's okay.

Kilgram: "So, now going to the second point. Many of those pro-life support death penalty, the biggest hipocresy ever. Firstly, as just as a short mention, does it not go against the Christian religion?"

No, sorry. The leftist position of Kilgram that it's only proper to kill innocents is sick. A man who has murdered 8 student nurses must be kept alive but an inconvenient baby, innocent of any criminal act, can be killed at the whim of the mother. Taking a human life should be justified and not a matter of convenience.

Kilgram: "Also death penalty adds the problem of the innocent, and if an innocent is killed there is no possible reparation, and seriously I prefer one thousand times ten criminals free rather an innocent being killed."

In every abortion an innocent is killed.

Kilgram: "In conclusion, women has the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. No one can tell them what to do with their bodies and every life of grown humans is sacred and should be respected and not put in the same level of criminals, where death penalty is not justice, is vengeance."

Ah, only grown human life is sacred. How convenient for you. Only innocent lives can be killed. Again, how convenient. As for the woman's right to control her body, what about the man's right to control his body. Why should he haul his body off to work to pay for a baby that the woman swore wouldn't happen? Doesn't the man have a right to control his body or should he support a lying woman and her baby for 26 years?

countryboy
12-24-2013, 08:58 AM
And once that life comes into this world, will you be happy if it starts claiming welfare? Or do you only care about it before it's born?

I know I'm going to rustle some jimmies now, but let's suspend all formalities. There's a serious disconnect among these pro-life advocates … who also happen to be anti-welfare, anti-tax, and believe the poor should just help themselves. I don't even need to explain why.
That's just not even true. I'm not calling you a liar, just a teller of non-truths. The thing is, you know full well you are spreading disinformation. You are obviously far too intelligent to NOT know you are spreading disinformation. I am sorely disappointed, seriously.

kilgram
12-24-2013, 08:58 AM
Kilgram: "Well, I am tired of the pro-life arguments. I am also pro-life, but I also believe that women has the right to choose if they want to bring term their pregnancy or not. I believe, for example that previous Spanish law where women were free to abort in the period of the first 14 weeks was really good."

That's like saying you believe all people should have equal rights except slaves. You are pro-life unless the mother wants to kill. Then it's okay.

Kilgram: "So, now going to the second point. Many of those pro-life support death penalty, the biggest hipocresy ever. Firstly, as just as a short mention, does it not go against the Christian religion?"

No, sorry. The leftist position of Kilgram that it's only proper to kill innocents is sick. A man who has murdered 8 student nurses must be kept alive but an inconvenient baby, innocent of any criminal act, can be killed at the whim of the mother. Taking a human life should be justified and not a matter of convenience.

Kilgram: "Also death penalty adds the problem of the innocent, and if an innocent is killed there is no possible reparation, and seriously I prefer one thousand times ten criminals free rather an innocent being killed."

In every abortion an innocent is killed.

Kilgram: "In conclusion, women has the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. No one can tell them what to do with their bodies and every life of grown humans is sacred and should be respected and not put in the same level of criminals, where death penalty is not justice, is vengeance."

Ah, only grown human life is sacred. How convenient for you. Only innocent lives can be killed. Again, how convenient. As for the woman's right to control her body, what about the man's right to control his body. Why should he haul his body off to work to pay for a baby that the woman swore wouldn't happen? Doesn't the man have a right to control his body or should he support a lying woman and her baby for 26 years?


An unborn is not a life.

And ok. Let's ban the abortion.

Will you provide the welfare for the child? Will you provide the help of dependency if the child has some incapacity or any malformations? Will you provide psychological help for the woman after being forced to have something she didn't want? Will you provide the help necessary to feed this child in a healthy manner? And many other things. Will you?

Or this life only has value when it is in the utterus of the woman?

countryboy
12-24-2013, 09:01 AM
that must be one of the silliest things i've ever heard.

so tell me, what happens if mom dies?

her uterus not part of her body?

points for creativity…. because your comment certainly has nothing to do with biology,
The baby, or fetus, if that makes you feel better about ripping live human beings from the womb and figuratively dashing their little heads against a tree, is NOT a part of the woman's body. He, or she, is an entirely separate entity. And you are lecturing me about my ignorance about basic biology? Thanks for proving my point.

kilgram
12-24-2013, 09:06 AM
I know that the source (http://www.upworthy.com/a-dude-trying-to-ban-abortions-is-asked-a-question-he-never-considered-its-so-obvious-it-hurts-8) of the video that I am going to link is hated, but I think it is an interesting document.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBKieGz5QiM

In summary: I never thought why a woman would want to abort.

kilgram
12-24-2013, 09:08 AM
The baby, or fetus, if that makes you feel better about ripping live human beings from the womb and figuratively dashing their little heads against a tree, is NOT a part of the woman's body. He, or she, is an entirely separate entity. And you are lecturing me about my ignorance about basic biology? Thanks for proving my point.
Can you answer the question what happens if the live of the woman is in danger?

patrickt
12-24-2013, 09:26 AM
Can you answer the question what happens if the live of the woman is in danger?

If the life of the woman is in danger the laws in the U.S. have allowed abortion as the lesser of two evils for at least 70 years. When an attempt was made to ban late-term abortions for convenience, the leftists insisted on putting in "psychological or emtional" damage as a justification for killing.

kilgram
12-24-2013, 09:28 AM
If the life of the woman is in danger the laws in the U.S. have allowed abortion as the lesser of two evils for at least 70 years. When an attempt was made to ban late-term abortions for convenience, the leftists insisted on putting in "psychological or emtional" damage as a justification for killing.
So psychological damage is not important? Noted. Tell it to doctors.

countryboy
12-24-2013, 09:31 AM
An unborn is not a life.

Do they not teach basic biology in Spain? If it is not a life, what is it? Why does it have that little pumping mechanism in it's chest pumping blood through the body. Oh wait, if it's not a life, it must not have a body, right?


And ok. Let's ban the abortion.

Many pro-lifers are not in favor of criminalizing abortion.


Will you provide the welfare for the child? Will you provide the help of dependency if the child has some incapacity or any malformations? Will you provide psychological help for the woman after being forced to have something she didn't want? Will you provide the help necessary to feed this child in a healthy manner? And many other things. Will you?

So every woman who considers murdering her unborn child requires public assistance? Can you provide even one quote from a pro-lifer suggesting we should not take care of the needy? Just one.


Or this life only has value when it is in the utterus of the woman?

Not sure what an "utterus" is, but the general gist of "pro-life" is placing value on HUMAN LIFE.

Polecat
12-24-2013, 09:40 AM
This is one issue that has no correct answer. I have come up with some ideas but all of them are wrong.

countryboy
12-24-2013, 09:44 AM
Can you answer the question what happens if the live of the woman is in danger?
I have no problem whatsoever saving a woman's life, and neither do most pro-lifers. What's your point?

Chris
12-24-2013, 09:57 AM
Why does a non-born to-be human has more rights than a grown human(criminal)?

Not sure why "criminal" is in there.

The unborn baby does not have more rights than the born mother. But the unborn baby is, biologically, alive and is a human being. We all, if we adhere to rule of law, have equal rights.

Perhaps, given those facts, the question ought to be asked why does the born mother have rights and the unborn child none?

nic34
12-24-2013, 09:59 AM
Can you answer the question what happens if the live of the woman is in danger?

If they tell you they are for abortion to save the mother, they are hypocrites and are just as "pro-abortion" as anyone.

Chris
12-24-2013, 10:18 AM
If they tell you they are for abortion to save the mother, they are hypocrites and are just as "pro-abortion" as anyone.

How is that, nic, make a claim but do defend or explain it.

countryboy
12-24-2013, 10:30 AM
So psychological damage is not important? Noted. Tell it to doctors.
You don't seem concerned about the psychological damage a woman who has an abortion suffers. Why would you even concern yourself at all?

countryboy
12-24-2013, 10:32 AM
If they tell you they are for abortion to save the mother, they are hypocrites and are just as "pro-abortion" as anyone.
Why do liberals feel the need to lie to forward their sick, twisted agenda? Can it not stand on it's own "merits"?

Chloe
12-24-2013, 10:33 AM
This topic typically gets me in trouble but in my opinion the term "pro-life" is basically a type of choice. Everybody is pro-choice when it comes to this topic. Whether you choose to not have the abortion for religious or moral reasons or just out of principle, or if you choose to have the abortion for financial reasons, age reasons, health reasons, personal reasons, family reasons, ethical reasons, or whatever, at the end of the day it's still choice. The choice affects nobody except for the mother, possibly the father, and/or their family unit, but it does not affect anybody else outside of that family. Only the person having the abortion has to live with the decision, not any of us, and because of that I think that it's completely up to them with regards to what happens to her body and family. Unless you plan on truly assisting in any way or being an advocate in realistic ways for the women and families that you would force to follow through with a pregnancy that they do not want to follow through with or cannot follow with for whatever reason is justifiable to them then perhaps it's best to stay out of their decision, or just stay out of it all together.

Chris
12-24-2013, 10:36 AM
This topic typically gets me in trouble but in my opinion the term "pro-life" is basically a type of choice. Everybody is pro-choice when it comes to this topic. Whether you choose to not have the abortion for religious or moral reasons or just out of principle, or if you choose to have the abortion for financial reasons, age reasons, health reasons, personal reasons, family reasons, ethical reasons, or whatever, at the end of the day it's still choice. The choice affects nobody except for the mother, possibly the father, and/or their family unit, but it does not affect anybody else outside of that family. Only the person having the abortion has to live with the decision, not any of us, and because of that I think that it's completely up to them with regards to what happens to her body and family. Unless you plan on truly assisting in any way or being an advocate in realistic ways for the women and families that you would force to follow through with a pregnancy that they do not want to follow through with or cannot follow with for whatever reason is justifiable to them then perhaps it's best to stay out of their decision, or just stay out of it all together.

The choice affects the living human baby too. It has equal rights. If denying those rights and ending a life is justifiable and moral, then the case need be made. I'm not hearing it.

Chris
12-24-2013, 11:04 AM
Here's the problem with the liberal argument for abortion as I see it.

The liberal argument is essentially the old libertarian argument for abortion based on the posited penumbral right to privacy which is based on the natural right to private property. That libertarian principle begins with I own my body, no one else can enslave me. Thus the argument it's my body and no one else's business. This was once vulgarly expressed as it's my body fuck society.

But that is not the libertarian argument in full. The classical liberal libertarian argument sees rights as freedoms, yes, but to be exercised with the responsibility to do no harm. The libertarian argument is thus very much a social argument, while the modern liberal argument is very much a selfish one.

Max Rockatansky
12-24-2013, 11:30 AM
The choice affects the living human baby too. It has equal rights. If denying those rights and ending a life is justifiable and moral, then the case need be made. I'm not hearing it.

Correct. A few cells do not have any rights. If they did, then any sperm ending up on a condom would want their day in court.

Chris
12-24-2013, 11:32 AM
Correct. A few cells do not have any rights. If they did, then any sperm ending up on a condom would want their day in court.

Medical science says human life begins at conception. Thus the choice affect a living human baby. I'm not speaking of potential human life.

Max Rockatansky
12-24-2013, 11:34 AM
Medical science says human life begins at conception. Thus the choice affect a living human baby. I'm not speaking of potential human life.

Medical science says your sperm and a woman's eggs are alive and are "human life". How does this change the notion that sperm in a condom are different?

A zygote is not a human baby. Please post any science links that say it is.

Chris
12-24-2013, 11:39 AM
Medical science says your sperm and a woman's eggs are alive and are "human life". How does this change the notion that sperm in a condom are different?

A zygote is not a human baby. Please post any science links that say it is.

No, medical science doesn't say sperm and eggs represent living human beings. Medical sciences says that begins with conception.

kilgram
12-24-2013, 12:20 PM
Medical science says human life begins at conception. Thus the choice affect a living human baby. I'm not speaking of potential human life.
It is not true. It is religion, but not medical science.

Max Rockatansky
12-24-2013, 12:40 PM
No, medical science doesn't say sperm and eggs represent living human beings. Medical sciences says that begins with conception.

Medical science reference that says a zygote is a living human being.

Chris
12-24-2013, 12:52 PM
Medical science reference that says a zygote is a living human being.

Not necessary since you've already conceded what comes before, sperm and egg, are living human beings.

All I need do is show sperm and egg are not, and they are not for the simple reason until they are conjoined in conception they are unique humans beings but parts of their male and female donors.

Chris
12-24-2013, 12:54 PM
It is not true. It is religion, but not medical science.

No, it is medical science. It is living, you must concede that. And unless you can show it is a cow or elephant or spider or something else you must concede it is a human being.

Chris
12-24-2013, 12:56 PM
If you guys really need the authority of medical science to see the obvious, then OK:

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]


"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


From http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Max Rockatansky
12-24-2013, 01:11 PM
Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

Dude, the key phrase repeatedly stated is "human development begins". I asked for evidence that a zygote is a human being. It isn't just as an apple seed isn't an apple tree.

Chris
12-24-2013, 01:15 PM
Dude, the key phrase repeatedly stated is "human development begins". I asked for evidence that a zygote is a human being. It isn't just as an apple seed isn't an apple tree.

Human development continues throughout life.

I gave you both an argument you cannot refute and statements from medical science you don't seem to want to see.

Max Rockatansky
12-24-2013, 01:18 PM
Human development continues throughout life.

Yes it does, but the specific line we are discussing is when a group of human cells become a human being.

We can grow a vat of human cells and are on the verge of cloning organs like hearts and livers. Are those human beings? Of course not.

Please define a human being. If you say "human life", "human cells", "human DNA", then why doesn't a cloned heart fit that definition?

Chris
12-24-2013, 01:23 PM
Yes it does, but the specific line we are discussing is when a group of human cells become a human being.

We can grow a vat of human cells and are on the verge of cloning organs like hearts and livers. Are those human beings? Of course not.

Please define a human being. If you say "human life", "human cells", "human DNA", then why doesn't a cloned heart fit that definition?


Medical science says human life begins at conception. I gave you precisely what you asked for, yet you deny it, and want instead to argue the progressive notion of personhood, the basis of euthanasia, the Holocaust and now abortion.

Max Rockatansky
12-24-2013, 01:58 PM
Medical science says human life begins at conception. I gave you precisely what you asked for, yet you deny it, and want instead to argue the progressive notion of personhood, the basis of euthanasia, the Holocaust and now abortion.

Sorry, man, but you're just mincing words. You and I both know that both sperm and egg cells, like a zygote, are human life. I asked for the definition of a human being. You are now not only both refusing to answer that question and claiming you have but now you are accusing me of being a fucking Nazi advocating genocide. That's dishonest on your part, sir.

peoshi
12-24-2013, 02:03 PM
Correct. A few cells do not have any rights. If they did, then any sperm ending up on a condom would want their day in court. Edit: Picture removed. @peoshi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=530), if you like provide a link to your picture and put a warning- graphic above the link so people who may be offended can opt out. Does that look like a few cells or a zygote to you? Moron!

Chris
12-24-2013, 02:06 PM
Sorry, man, but you're just mincing words. You and I both know that both sperm and egg cells, like a zygote, are human life. I asked for the definition of a human being. You are now not only both refusing to answer that question and claiming you have but now you are accusing me of being a fucking Nazi advocating genocide. That's dishonest on your part, sir.

Sorry, but you were the one mincing words and now stacking up the logical fallacies. I've put up my argument backed by facts and logic. Your turn to advance an argument.

Dr. Who
12-24-2013, 09:43 PM
Does that look like a few cells or a zygote to you? Moron!
That is a near full term baby, not a zygote.

jillian
12-24-2013, 09:45 PM
That is a near full term baby, not a zygote.

and a pregnancy that far along would only be terminated in the event of a threat to the mothers life or if the fetus was so damaged that there was no reason for the mother to go through the birth.

now how about you delete his specious photo. inappropriate to post something like that. pure bullying. nothing more nothing less.

GrassrootsConservative
12-24-2013, 09:49 PM
and a pregnancy that far along would only be terminated in the event of a threat to the mothers life or if the fetus was so damaged that there was no reason for the mother to go through the birth.

now how about you delete his specious photo. inappropriate to post something like that. pure bullying. nothing more nothing less.

In your opinion. If you don't like the picture, don't look at it. Talk about bullying, sheesh. Censor everything, why don't you?

iustitia
12-24-2013, 09:50 PM
Why is it bullying to post a picture of something that isn't alive, not human and without rights? You really don't like being confronting with the policies you support.

Peter1469
12-24-2013, 10:02 PM
In your opinion. If you don't like the picture, don't look at it. Talk about bullying, sheesh. Censor everything, why don't you?

No need to censor. For all photos that can shock or offend, use a link with a warning so people can, as you say, not look at it- great suggestion, BTW Grass.

jillian
12-24-2013, 10:09 PM
No need to censor. For all photos that can shock or offend, use a link with a warning so people can, as you say, not look at it- great suggestion, BTW Grass.

no. it's vile and offensive.

i understand why certain types post those things.

always men, though. isn't that funny.

Dr. Who
12-24-2013, 10:14 PM
no. it's vile and offensive.

i understand why certain types post those things.

always men, though. isn't that funny.
The picture has been removed jillian.

iustitia
12-24-2013, 10:14 PM
Your post is a contradiction. On one hand you say it's vile and offensive, meaning there's something wrong with what's being seen. Yet then the remainder of your post is essentially a whitewash of the seriousness of the image. You seem willing to decry an abortion wrong for someone to see but not wrong to commit. Out of sight, out of mind. Why is it people that are for killing babies and denying their humanity absolutely refuse to be confronted with the results of what they support?

Peter1469
12-24-2013, 10:16 PM
no. it's vile and offensive.

i understand why certain types post those things.

always men, though. isn't that funny.

No what? If there is a link with a warning, you are going to look anyway?

I have posted videos of Pearl having his head separated from his body- but there was a link, and a warning that said don't open this if you don't want to see someone get their head cut off.

jillian
12-24-2013, 10:16 PM
Your post is a contradiction. On one hand you say it's vile and offensive, meaning there's something wrong with what's being seen. Yet then the remainder of your post is essentially a whitewash of the seriousness of the image. You seem willing to decry an abortion wrong for someone to see but not wrong to commit. Out of sight, out of mind.

the image is a false one since a pregnancy that far along would only be terminated under the circumstances i previously mentioned. it serves no purpose except to abuse.

there is no contradiction.

countryboy
12-24-2013, 10:19 PM
no. it's vile and offensive.


I think that's the point. What's the matter? Don't like to look at what you advocate? I'm not surprised.

Chloe
12-24-2013, 10:22 PM
I actually kind of agree with Jillian. If anything it's just kind of tasteless in my opinion to use a picture of someone else's dead near full term baby to make a political point. It just seems a little disingenuous to me. I don't know of that many pro choice people that are for late term abortions unless it's to protect the mothers life or something extreme like that. The picture is meant to shock obviously and appeal to peoples emotions but most abortions are not done on the type of level.

iustitia
12-24-2013, 10:22 PM
the image is a false one since a pregnancy that far along would only be terminated under the circumstances i previously mentioned. it serves no purpose except to abuse.

there is no contradiction.You're focusing on the time in rather than the question of humanity.

And again, the contradiction. Who is being abused? You don't believe babies have rights or are people, yes? So who exactly is being abused by a picture of genetic refuse? You seem more focused on feeling good about yourself than about the question of basic humanity.

jillian
12-24-2013, 10:22 PM
I think that's the point. What's the matter? Don't like to look at what you advocate? I'm not surprised.

in other words no one cares about the arguments so he does the internet version of being a shock jock?

as stated… the picture is misleading (pretty much like every anti-choice extremist's pictures of that nature).

you think your religious pov justifies any means of harassment?

yes, it's a great idea for extremists to rev up other extremists who then go out hunting for doctors.

countryboy
12-24-2013, 10:24 PM
in other words no one cares about the arguments so he does the internet version of being a shock jock?

as stated… the picture is misleading (pretty much like every anti-choice extremist's pictures of that nature).

Yeah, I get it. You don't like to look at what your side has foisted on society. I don't blame you. It's quite vile and offensive.

iustitia
12-24-2013, 10:24 PM
I was against abortion when I was an atheist. So much for the religious extremist argument.

iustitia
12-24-2013, 10:26 PM
Yeah, I get it. You don't like to look at what your side has foisted on society. I don't blame you. It's quite vile and offensive.Don't forget hypocritical and selfish.

jillian
12-24-2013, 10:39 PM
Don't forget hypocritical and selfish.

as opposed to pretending to be for "small government" except when it rams your religious views down everyone else's throats?

zelmo1234
12-24-2013, 10:40 PM
Why is it bullying to post a picture of something that isn't alive, not human and without rights? You really don't like being confronting with the policies you support.

Your signature is priceless!

zelmo1234
12-24-2013, 10:41 PM
as opposed to pretending to be for "small government" except when it rams your religious views down everyone else's throats?

Actually NO supporting states rights would let the people of the state decide, and people could travel to where their position is supported.

iustitia
12-24-2013, 10:59 PM
as opposed to pretending to be for "small government" except when it rams your religious views down everyone else's throats?When did I mention religion? And small government doesn't mean no government. Typically things like murder are a state issue.

Mr Happy
12-24-2013, 11:09 PM
Typically things like murder are a state issue.

That is right. This is a thread about abortion..

jillian
12-24-2013, 11:13 PM
When did I mention religion? And small government doesn't mean no government. Typically things like murder are a state issue.

typically, murder is defined by criminal statute.

abortion is a constitutionally protected right. so sorry.

iustitia
12-24-2013, 11:18 PM
typically, murder is defined by criminal statute.

abortion is a constitutionally protected right. so sorry.
Murder is the unjustified killing of another person with intent. Abortion - murder - is not constitutionally protected. I'd like to see your source for this, assuming you can find one outside of a court decision.

jillian
12-24-2013, 11:24 PM
Murder is the unjustified killing of another person with intent. Abortion - murder - is not constitutionally protected. I'd like to see your source for this, assuming you can find one outside of a court decision.

here you go again.

no. murder is defined legally. terminating a pregnancy is not murder no matter how many times you repeat the same thing.

i only need one court decision.

if you understood our system of government and our constitution, you'd know that.

Mr Happy
12-24-2013, 11:24 PM
Murder is the unjustified killing of another person with intent. Abortion - murder - is not constitutionally protected. I'd like to see your source for this, assuming you can find one outside of a court decision.

Abortion is not murder. You can have an opinion on that, but it is not a fact.
And, um, it is a court decision, and that is the point. Trying to take that out of the equation, well, it's kinda silly...
It's like saying I can go and shoot somebody point blank for no other reason other than I feel like it. What is wrong with that, if you take out all the murder statutes...I mean really, is that all you've got?

iustitia
12-24-2013, 11:28 PM
I don't need a statute to tell me what stealing, adultery and lying are and I certainly can tell what is or is not murder. Your legalism is a crux. The moment a law is passed or a decision is made countering your view, your position would be invalidated. That's not how rational people determine truth.

iustitia
12-24-2013, 11:30 PM
And, um, it is a court decision, and that is the point.

Courts don't make laws.

Mr Happy
12-24-2013, 11:38 PM
Courts don't make laws.

Um, yes they do. You do know who decided Roe vs Wade, right?

jillian
12-24-2013, 11:39 PM
Courts don't make laws.

they decide cases. cases determine enforceable law.

go google "common law system" and get back to us.

Mr Happy
12-24-2013, 11:39 PM
I don't need a statute to tell me what stealing, adultery and lying are and I certainly can tell what is or is not murder. Your legalism is a crux. The moment a law is passed or a decision is made countering your view, your position would be invalidated. That's not how rational people determine truth.

Unfortunately for you that is not the way the system works. If you don't like it, try and get it changed. As for your last sentence. Exactly.

Dr. Who
12-24-2013, 11:40 PM
An interesting aspect of this debate is in vitro fertilization. In the standard version of in vitro a collection of human ova are fertilized. Some such attempts are far more successful than others and a dozen or more ova are fertilized. Few women would be likely to voluntarily give birth up to twelve times sequentially, and it is necessary to implant more that one fertilized ova to try to ensure a successful pregnancy. Some doctors will implant up to eight fertilized ova, but if more than two take, selective termination is required. So this leaves two issues, should a woman who has eight ova implanted be forced to give birth to quadruplets or sextuplets, or should selective termination take place for the sake of the health of the mother and to ensure some live births? What should become of the frozen fertilized eggs if they are unwanted by the contributing parties?

jillian
12-24-2013, 11:41 PM
I don't need a statute to tell me what stealing, adultery and lying are and I certainly can tell what is or is not murder. Your legalism is a crux. The moment a law is passed or a decision is made countering your view, your position would be invalidated. That's not how rational people determine truth.

actually, you do need a statute to tell you what is a criminal action.

otherwise, you have nothing but your opinion. and thank goodness, that only applies to you. not the rest of us.

Chris
12-24-2013, 11:47 PM
no. it's vile and offensive.

i understand why certain types post those things.

always men, though. isn't that funny.

So is abortion vile and offensive. Interesting you're so shocked.

jillian
12-24-2013, 11:49 PM
So is abortion vile and offensive. Interesting you're so shocked.

except that isn't what is aborted, is it now, chris. the photo was a lie.

oops.

but thanks for showing your true colors.

keep pretending to be a libertarian. it's all good.

Chris
12-24-2013, 11:49 PM
Um, yes they do. You do know who decided Roe vs Wade, right?

They're not granted that power by the people.

The Xl
12-24-2013, 11:50 PM
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Abortion is basically murder allowed by the state. The only difference between it and this definition is the "unlawful" part.

jillian
12-24-2013, 11:51 PM
An interesting aspect of this debate is in vitro fertilization. In the standard version of in vitro a collection of human ova are fertilized. Some such attempts are far more successful than others and a dozen or more ova are fertilized. Few women would be likely to voluntarily give birth up to twelve times sequentially, and it is necessary to implant more that one fertilized ova to try to ensure a successful pregnancy. Some doctors will implant up to eight fertilized ova, but if more than two take, selective termination is required. So this leaves two issues, should a woman who has eight ova implanted be forced to give birth to quadruplets or sextuplets, or should selective termination take place for the sake of the health of the mother and to ensure some live births? What should become of the frozen fertilized eggs if they are unwanted by the contributing parties?

they couldn't care less about what really happens to either the woman or her pregnancy.

but it's worse than that… because of their warped ideas on personhood, in vitro wouldn't be acceptable. so in their minds, it's ok to force women who don't want children to be incubators to have children; but would keep women who desperately DO want children from having them.

it's beyond butt backwards.

and ever hear of snowflake babies? :cuckoo:

http://studentsforlife.org/prolifefacts/snowflake/

iustitia
12-24-2013, 11:55 PM
Um, yes they do. You do know who decided Roe vs Wade, right?No, laws are made by the Legislative Branch. Which legislates. And Roe v Wade isn't a law.


they decide cases. cases determine enforceable law.

go google "common law system" and get back to us.Do read Articles I and III of the Constitution and get back to me.


Unfortunately for you that is not the way the system works. If you don't like it, try and get it changed. As for your last sentence. Exactly.I never talked about a system. Murder is murder. You may not like it, but that makes no difference. Moral relativism has no place in my worldview. I don't need the state to tell me right from wrong.


actually, you do need a statute to tell you what is a criminal action.

otherwise, you have nothing but your opinion. and thank goodness, that only applies to you. not the rest of us.I don't need a statute to tell me that the intentional unjust killing of another human being is the intentional unjust killing of another human being. You might, but I don't. What the state decides to do about something is not the same as whether or not something exists. If you think killing babies isn't murder then that's your opinion, and it doesn't apply to me. And thank God.

Chris
12-25-2013, 12:05 AM
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Abortion is basically murder allowed by the state. The only difference between it and this definition is the "unlawful" part.

Exactly. Again the problem is the State has a monopoly on force to create any laws it wants, administer them any way it wants, and adjudicate them in any fashion it wants. Justice is thrown by the wayside, rule of law is lost. All the while statist morons cheer it on on.

jillian
12-25-2013, 12:07 AM
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Abortion is basically murder allowed by the state. The only difference between it and this definition is the "unlawful" part.

it isn't murder. potential life isn't a "person". hence it not being part of the definition of murder.

you can call it whatever you want. it's legal and constitutionally protected. it shouldn't even be politicized. it's an issue that should only be addressed between a woman and her doctor.

Chris
12-25-2013, 12:08 AM
No, laws are made by the Legislative Branch. Which legislates. And Roe v Wade isn't a law.

Do read Articles I and III of the Constitution and get back to me.

I never talked about a system. Murder is murder. You may not like it, but that makes no difference. Moral relativism has no place in my worldview. I don't need the state to tell me right from wrong.

I don't need a statute to tell me that the intentional unjust killing of another human being is the intentional unjust killing of another human being. You might, but I don't. What the state decides to do about something is not the same as whether or not something exists. If you think killing babies isn't murder then that's your opinion, and it doesn't apply to me. And thank God.

That's the way it ought to be. Not the way it is. You can't argue moral justice with legal positivists.

Dr. Who
12-25-2013, 12:14 AM
they couldn't care less about what really happens to either the woman or her pregnancy.

but it's worse than that… because of their warped ideas on personhood, in vitro wouldn't be acceptable. so in their minds, it's ok to force women who don't want children to be incubators to have children; but would keep women who desperately DO want children from having them.

it's beyond butt backwards.

and ever hear of snowflake babies? :cuckoo:

http://studentsforlife.org/prolifefacts/snowflake/

While I can see that the unwanted embryos might be a blessing for the childless, I can also see how the genetic parents might have a problem with knowlege that they have other children growing up goodness knows where, although I can see that there might be an open adoption situation.

Dr. Who
12-25-2013, 12:23 AM
Edit: Picture removed. @peoshi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=530), if you like provide a link to your picture and put a warning- graphic above the link so people who may be offended can opt out. Does that look like a few cells or a zygote to you? Moron!

Please refrain from name calling. This is bad faith and a violation of rule number 1

Chris
12-25-2013, 12:23 AM
they couldn't care less about what really happens to either the woman or her pregnancy.

but it's worse than that… because of their warped ideas on personhood, in vitro wouldn't be acceptable. so in their minds, it's ok to force women who don't want children to be incubators to have children; but would keep women who desperately DO want children from having them.

it's beyond butt backwards.

and ever hear of snowflake babies? :cuckoo:

http://studentsforlife.org/prolifefacts/snowflake/


Personhood arguments come from the Progressive camp, jillian, and progress from euthanasia through the Holocaust to abortion.

That's a whole lot of caring.

Modern liberals are a selfish lot.

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 12:25 AM
They're not granted that power by the people.

So are you saying, under your system, the USSC has no right to decide something like Roe vs Wade? Is that what you are saying?

The Xl
12-25-2013, 12:28 AM
it isn't murder. potential life isn't a "person". hence it not being part of the definition of murder.

you can call it whatever you want. it's legal and constitutionally protected. it shouldn't even be politicized. it's an issue that should only be addressed between a woman and her doctor.

Technically, it's a human life.

Technically though, it also can be classified as a parasite throughout much of pregnancy, as bad as that sounds, and no one is obligated to give food or shelter to another person. If it can't live on its own, the mother has a right to the abortion.

It's a sticky situation any way you look at it. But let's not pretend it's not murder, even if it's Constitutional, or even justified under natural law. You're arguing semantics when you say it's not murder, and you know it.

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 12:28 AM
No, laws are made by the Legislative Branch. Which legislates. And Roe v Wade isn't a law.

Do read Articles I and III of the Constitution and get back to me.

I never talked about a system. Murder is murder. You may not like it, but that makes no difference. Moral relativism has no place in my worldview. I don't need the state to tell me right from wrong.

I don't need a statute to tell me that the intentional unjust killing of another human being is the intentional unjust killing of another human being. You might, but I don't. What the state decides to do about something is not the same as whether or not something exists. If you think killing babies isn't murder then that's your opinion, and it doesn't apply to me. And thank God.

The vast majority of abortions happen within the first three months, so I don't see them as babies.
Well, you live with what you live with, and that is up to you. As long as you don't go around telling others what to do that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion...

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 12:29 AM
That's the way it ought to be. Not the way it is. You can't argue moral justice with legal positivists.

You can argue morality with anybody.
Fail.

Chris
12-25-2013, 12:32 AM
So are you saying, under your system, the USSC has no right to decide something like Roe vs Wade? Is that what you are saying?

No such power granted. Their creating laws is called judicial activism.

Chris
12-25-2013, 12:33 AM
You can argue morality with anybody.
Fail.

Legal positivism admits no morality.

Chris
12-25-2013, 12:35 AM
it isn't murder. potential life isn't a "person". hence it not being part of the definition of murder.

you can call it whatever you want. it's legal and constitutionally protected. it shouldn't even be politicized. it's an issue that should only be addressed between a woman and her doctor.

Just got done explaining how the personhood argument comes from the Progressive camp and there you are arguing it.

Chris
12-25-2013, 12:39 AM
The vast majority of abortions happen within the first three months, so I don't see them as babies.
Well, you live with what you live with, and that is up to you. As long as you don't go around telling others what to do that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion...

Another personhood argument.

No true Scotsman, semantic games to define away the problem.

Pelosi ' pic was so horrible wasn't it.

Dr. Who
12-25-2013, 12:43 AM
Personhood arguments come from the Progressive camp, jillian, and progress from euthanasia through the Holocaust to abortion.

That's a whole lot of caring.

Modern liberals are a selfish lot.
Since the Constitution does not define a person, and clearly there was no Constitutional impediment to deny that status to native Americans, women, children and slaves, there only remains the legal definition which generally requires that someone is born. Were that definition to change, then all pre-born children should from the moment of conception, have dependent status with respect to income tax deductions and the right for parents to demand (on their behalf) that they be cared for by society - eligibility for welfare benefits accruing to dependent children. They would also have the right not to be gestated or born in prison, as they committed no crime, irrespective of the mother's crime.

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 12:55 AM
No such power granted. Their creating laws is called judicial activism.

Who needed to grant them power? I thought your system was set up with an executive, judicial and legislative branches to act as balances against each other? No?

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 12:56 AM
Another personhood argument.

No true Scotsman, semantic games to define away the problem.

Pelosi ' pic was so horrible wasn't it.

I have no problems using a 'personhood' argument within the parameters of making my point.

I have no idea what you last two sentences are alluding to

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 12:57 AM
Legal positivism admits no morality.

If indeed that was what she was arguing in the first place.
You have this incredible/despicable way of labeling people and their ideals. Is that the only way you can interact with others? I find it somewhat bizarre.

Chris
12-25-2013, 01:04 AM
Since the Constitution does not define a person, and clearly there was no Constitutional impediment to deny that status to native Americans, women, children and slaves, there only remains the legal definition which generally requires that someone is born. Were that definition to change, then all pre-born children should from the moment of conception, have dependent status with respect to income tax deductions and the right for parents to demand (on their behalf) that they be cared for by society - eligibility for welfare benefits accruing to dependent children. They would also have the right not to be gestated or born in prison, as they committed no crime, irrespective of the mother's crime.

That is legal positivism. It shuns the moral question for the legal. But legal positivism has no moral basic, no justification in what is right, only in what is might. Look at the morass of varying definitions in just what you mentioned, the law itself is an even greater tangle.

Chris
12-25-2013, 01:08 AM
Who needed to grant them power? I thought your system was set up with an executive, judicial and legislative branches to act as balances against each other? No?

Please take some time to read our Constitution. It's really quite short.


Who needed to grant them power?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


I thought your system was set up with an executive, judicial and legislative branches to act as balances against each other? No?

Yes. And each was granted limited powers, simply put, the legislative to create laws, the administrative to administer the laws, and the adjudicative to judge them. That is the balance of powers. It is not that each performs all three functions.

Chris
12-25-2013, 01:11 AM
I have no problems using a 'personhood' argument within the parameters of making my point.

I have no idea what you last two sentences are alluding to


The personhood argument is the one jillian said conservatives use, er, before she used it, and you used it.

The personhood argument has served the Progressive movement for euthanasia, the Holocaust and now abortion.

Sorry, cellphone acting up, what I was referring to was how horrible piyosi's picture made you who argument the personhood argument so horrified.

Chris
12-25-2013, 01:14 AM
If indeed that was what she was arguing in the first place.
You have this incredible/despicable way of labeling people and their ideals. Is that the only way you can interact with others? I find it somewhat bizarre.


I criticised legal positivism. It is a legal philosophy. It rejects justification arguing law justifies itself. It admits no morality. Am I not allowed to criticize a philosophy? Why are you taking that personal?

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 01:20 AM
I criticised legal positivism. It is a legal philosophy. It rejects justification arguing law justifies itself. It admits no morality. Am I not allowed to criticize a philosophy? Why are you taking that personal?

Because you appear to attributing a philosophy to me that I do not believe in.

Chris
12-25-2013, 01:22 AM
Because you appear to attributing a philosophy to me that I do not believe in.

I criticised the legal philosophy, not you. If you don't adhere to it, why would you take personal offense I criticize it? Let's get back to the topic rather than this pointless sidetrack.

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 01:24 AM
Please take some time to read our Constitution. It's really quite short.



"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."



Yes. And each was granted limited powers, simply put, the legislative to create laws, the administrative to administer the laws, and the adjudicative to judge them. That is the balance of powers. It is not that each performs all three functions.

So the USSC is allowed to judge cases like Roe vs Wade?

zelmo1234
12-25-2013, 01:34 AM
it isn't murder. potential life isn't a "person". hence it not being part of the definition of murder.

you can call it whatever you want. it's legal and constitutionally protected. it shouldn't even be politicized. it's an issue that should only be addressed between a woman and her doctor.

I would say this, just like the court decided that Zimmerman Shot Martin in Self Defense, making it Justifiable homicide.

Abortion is the legal taking of one life by another human! So in essence it is another form of justifiable homicide.

And while we should all hate the taking of a life by another, the courts get to decide which ways are legal and which are unlawful!

Chris
12-25-2013, 01:39 AM
So the USSC is allowed to judge cases like Roe vs Wade?

Not by the Constitution, iow, not by the people.

Does it do it, yes, overstepping its balance-of-power boundaries through judicial activism.

And therein is another problem with the pro-choice argument. That argument says government shouldn't dictate the matter. But it supports the court's dictating the matter. It leads to another self-contradiction.

Dr. Who
12-25-2013, 01:40 AM
Not by the Constitution, iow, not by the people.

Does it do it, yes, overstepping its balance-of-power boundaries through judicial activism.

And therein is another problem with the pro-choice argument. That argument says government shouldn't dictate the matter. But it supports the court's dictating the matter. It leads to another self-contradiction.
How else would it be decided. The Constitution does not make any such definitions.

Chris
12-25-2013, 01:42 AM
I would say this, just like the court decided that Zimmerman Shot Martin in Self Defense, making it Justifiable homicide.

Abortion is the legal taking of one life by another human! So in essence it is another form of justifiable homicide.

And while we should all hate the taking of a life by another, the courts get to decide which ways are legal and which are unlawful!


Interesting argument. :-)

Certainly the woman has a right to self-defense, if the pregnancy causes her harm.

Chris
12-25-2013, 01:45 AM
How else would it be decided. The Constitution does not make any such definitions.

Ah, but the Constitution does decide:


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's left to the states, then, or to the people.

I would argue the people. IOW, the people since it's a social or moral issue.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 05:10 AM
That is a near full term baby, not a zygote.
Agreed. Obviously the topic is more emotional than logical for those who can't tell the difference.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 05:21 AM
Murder is the unjustified killing of another person with intent. Abortion - murder - is not constitutionally protected. I'd like to see your source for this, assuming you can find one outside of a court decision.

Is a zygote a person?

Are these embryos human or animal? Which is which?
http://imageshack.com/a/img46/6633/embryos.jpg

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 05:23 AM
Interesting argument. :-)

Certainly the woman has a right to self-defense, if the pregnancy causes her harm.

Certainly a person has a right to their own body. Even a woman.

The problem is the crossover point to where a pregnant woman's fetus grows to become a human being. At that point, the fetus has rights too. That crossover point is at the 24th week by law.

Peter1469
12-25-2013, 07:03 AM
So are you saying, under your system, the USSC has no right to decide something like Roe vs Wade? Is that what you are saying?

What SCOTUS should have done was find the law in question unconstitutional, and send it back to the legislature to make a law that would pass constitutional muster. The Court ought not legislate.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 07:33 AM
What SCOTUS should have done was find the law in question unconstitutional, and send it back to the legislature to make a law that would pass constitutional muster. The Court ought not legislate.

Agreed about legislating from the bench, but they didn't. They ruled a law unConstitutional, not write new law. The linked article talks about the 14th Amendment, but also the the 1st, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments, "as well as the penumbras, or shadows, of the Bill of Rights." Additionally, although Roe v. Wade is most often mentioned, the ruling was in conjunction with Doe v. Bolton.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/wars/cases.html

Peter1469
12-25-2013, 08:31 AM
Agreed about legislating from the bench, but they didn't. They ruled a law unConstitutional, not write new law. The linked article talks about the 14th Amendment, but also the the 1st, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments, "as well as the penumbras, or shadows, of the Bill of Rights." Additionally, although Roe v. Wade is most often mentioned, the ruling was in conjunction with Doe v. Bolton.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/wars/cases.html

They went beyond declaring a law unconstitutional. They then crafted tests to determine when abortion would be allowed; that is a legislative function.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 08:38 AM
They went beyond declaring a law unconstitutional. They then crafted tests to determine when abortion would be allowed; that is a legislative function.

Such as?

Peter1469
12-25-2013, 08:54 AM
Such as?


The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother. Controversial from the moment it was released, Roe v. Wade politically divided the nation more than any other recent case and continues to inspire heated debates, politics, and even violence today ("the culture wars"). Though by no means the Supreme Court's most important decision, Roe v. Wade remains its most recognized.

SCOTUS should have said, that the law at issue is unconstitutional for X reasons- this would basically open up abortion. The the State legislatures would have crafted new abortion laws to conform with the decision. Those laws would be challenged and may work their way back up to the Court.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 09:04 AM
SCOTUS should have said, that the law at issue is unconstitutional for X reasons- this would basically open up abortion. The the State legislatures would have crafted new abortion laws to conform with the decision. Those laws would be challenged and may work their way back up to the Court.

I see that as not new law, but as a ruling that a woman owns her own pregnant body up to a certain limit where the life growing inside her also has rights.

Peter1469
12-25-2013, 09:09 AM
I see that as not new law, but as a ruling that a woman owns her own pregnant body up to a certain limit where the life growing inside her also has rights.

That is fine in and off itself. But the Court went further and defined parameters based on certain factors- that is the part appropriate for the legislative branch.

Mainecoons
12-25-2013, 09:26 AM
Thanks Peter, your use of the abortion ruling to illustrate a very clear example of legislating from the bench is very well done and instantly understandable.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 10:08 AM
The vast majority of abortions happen within the first three months, so I don't see them as babies.
Well, you live with what you live with, and that is up to you. As long as you don't go around telling others what to do that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion...

So at three months, as far as you're concerned, it's not a baby? What is it, a collection of cells?

Here is a baby at twelve weeks. Pretty fancy "collection of cells". 5051

How about one week later? 5052
Organs fully formed, heart pumping blood. At what point does a "fetus" attain personhood in your opinion?

Also, you said, "The vast majority of abortions happen within the first three months". So, what about the rest? When do they happen?

Chris
12-25-2013, 10:12 AM
Certainly a person has a right to their own body. Even a woman.

The problem is the crossover point to where a pregnant woman's fetus grows to become a human being. At that point, the fetus has rights too. That crossover point is at the 24th week by law.

Even the unborn baby has that right. What we have here is a conflict of rights.



The problem is the crossover point to where a pregnant woman's fetus grows to become a human being.

Medical science, as I already demonstrated, says that point is conception.

Chris
12-25-2013, 10:17 AM
What SCOTUS should have done was find the law in question unconstitutional, and send it back to the legislature to make a law that would pass constitutional muster. The Court ought not legislate.

Exactly. I recognize the power of the Court to find law unconstitutional, as establish, by fiat, in Marbury v Madison.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 10:17 AM
Technically, it's a human life.

Technically though, it also can be classified as a parasite throughout much of pregnancy, as bad as that sounds, and no one is obligated to give food or shelter to another person. If it can't live on its own, the mother has a right to the abortion.

It's a sticky situation any way you look at it. But let's not pretend it's not murder, even if it's Constitutional, or even justified under natural law. You're arguing semantics when you say it's not murder, and you know it.
A parasite is an organism of one species living off the host of another species. Not sure how you can define a human reproductive process as a parasitic process. IMHO, it cannot be defined in those terms.

kilgram
12-25-2013, 10:22 AM
A parasite is an organism of one species living off the host of another species. Not sure how you can define a human reproductive process as a parasitic process. IMHO, it cannot be defined in those terms.
I have to clarify.

When I talked about being a parasite. I said it because for the human body is impossible to recognize if it is a pernicious body or something that the human body is producing. For this reason, the woman creates some protections to prevent that the defensive cells of the woman attack the embryon. And as I said, sometimes these protections are not created, so the woman's body attack it, as if it was a parasite.

So biologically speaking, it is a parasite, it is detected as it.

Chris
12-25-2013, 10:25 AM
But a living human being parasite.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 10:28 AM
I have to clarify.

When I talked about being a parasite. I said it because for the human body is impossible to recognize if it is a pernicious body or something that the human body is producing. For this reason, the woman creates some protections to prevent that the defensive cells of the woman attack the embryon. And as I said, sometimes these protections are not created, so the woman's body attack it, as if it was a parasite.

So biologically speaking, it is a parasite, it is detected as it.
Wrong Buck Owens. But you are free to continue to be scientifically illiterate. Feliz Navidad, kilgram. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-greet004.gif

kilgram
12-25-2013, 10:32 AM
Wrong Buck Owens. But you are free to continue to be scientifically illiterate. Feliz Navidad, kilgram. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-greet004.gif
I am not scientifically illiterate. It is a fact coming from science. But well.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 10:33 AM
But a living human being parasite.
Tell me, what other parasites does the human body prepare to receive? Calling a natural reproductive process a parasite is just another tool used in a lame attempt to dehumanize the baby developing in the womb.

Liberals will let nothing deter them from their perceived "right" to rip that living human baby from the womb, and dash it's tiny head against the nearest tree. Figuratively speaking, of course. :puke:

countryboy
12-25-2013, 10:35 AM
I am not scientifically illiterate. It is a fact coming from science. But well.
No, it's not. Perhaps you are right and you are not scientifically illiterate. Then you are simply spreading disinformation.

Can you produce a single scientific paper classifying a human fetus as a parasite?

jillian
12-25-2013, 10:37 AM
That is fine in and off itself. But the Court went further and defined parameters based on certain factors- that is the part appropriate for the legislative branch.

not really. the court sets standards all the time. states certainly can't be trusted with those rights.

ask the women of virginia and texas…

while the radical rightwing men on this thread shriek about how they hate government while wanting to impose their moral pov on women. (and yes, we know the odd woman does it too… but look at the thread.). it's not for government or men to legislate women's rights over their own bodies.

Mainecoons
12-25-2013, 10:43 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Amazing, simply amazing.

Folks, if you want to understand the mindset that has destroyed the American Constitution, here it is in black and white. A system that was designed to be based on the states has evolved into a place where said states can't be trusted and hence it is OK to legislate from the bench.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 10:43 AM
while the radical rightwing men on this thread shriek about how they hate government while wanting to impose their moral pov on women. (and yes, we know the odd woman does it too… but look at the thread.). it's not for government or men to legislate women's rights over their own bodies.
Nobody is trying to legislate woman's rights over their own bodies. We are simply trying to get them to realize that the tiny body growing in the womb is not "their body". Key word being "simply". But alas, even simpletons don't seem to get the point.

But continue to stamp your feet, if it makes you feel better.

jillian
12-25-2013, 10:46 AM
I see that as not new law, but as a ruling that a woman owns her own pregnant body up to a certain limit where the life growing inside her also has rights.

that's exactly what it is.

Chris
12-25-2013, 10:50 AM
Tell me, what other parasites does the human body prepare to receive? Calling a natural reproductive process a parasite is just another tool used in a lame attempt to dehumanize the baby developing in the womb.

Liberals will let nothing deter them from their perceived "right" to rip that living human baby from the womb, and dash it's tiny head against the nearest tree. Figuratively speaking, of course. :puke:


Agree. It's a metaphor that can be extended to the first years after birth and often the years before death when a human being is incapable of taking care of themselves and depend entirely on others. Should we abort them too? That was the argument of the progressive euthanasia movement, that some are stupidly subhuman and need to be sterilized, which the nazis took a step further.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 10:50 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Amazing, simply amazing.

Folks, if you want to understand the mindset that has destroyed the American Constitution, here it is in black and white.
Thanks, I went back and deleted that part of the quote from my response. Wow.....

Chris
12-25-2013, 10:51 AM
not really. the court sets standards all the time. states certainly can't be trusted with those rights.

ask the women of virginia and texas…

while the radical rightwing men on this thread shriek about how they hate government while wanting to impose their moral pov on women. (and yes, we know the odd woman does it too… but look at the thread.). it's not for government or men to legislate women's rights over their own bodies.

But it is right for a court to impose you pov and legislate away the rights of the unborn?

Chris
12-25-2013, 10:54 AM
Nobody is trying to legislate woman's rights over their own bodies. We are simply trying to get them to realize that the tiny body growing in the womb is not "their body". Key word being "simply". But alas, even simpletons don't seem to get the point.

But continue to stamp your feet, if it makes you feel better.


Great exposure of the strawman being argued.

The straw man: "while the radical rightwing men on this thread shriek about how they hate government while wanting to impose their moral pov on women."

Actually there's two in there with the emotionalism ("hate") projected.

Chris
12-25-2013, 10:56 AM
that's exactly what it is.



Who owns the unborn living human being's body? On rule of law, if you own yours, the unborn owns its, and both have equal rights.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 11:08 AM
Who owns the unborn living human being's body? On rule of law, if you own yours, the unborn owns its, and both have equal rights.

An unborn living human being has rights. A zygote does not. That's easy. The hard part is finding the dividing line between when a fetus is not a human being and when it is one.

Chris
12-25-2013, 11:11 AM
If you guys really need the authority of medical science to see the obvious, then OK:

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]


"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


From http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html


An unborn living human being has rights. A zygote does not. That's easy. The hard part is finding the dividing line between when a fetus is not a human being and when it is one.



You point was addressed already. I said I don't want to follow you in circles.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 11:13 AM
An unborn living human being has rights. A zygote does not. That's easy. The hard part is finding the dividing line between when a fetus is not a human being and when it is one.
What is the dividing line, in your estimation?

IMHO, it is better to err on the side of caution.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 11:14 AM
not really. the court sets standards all the time. states certainly can't be trusted with those rights.

ask the women of virginia and texas…

while the radical rightwing men on this thread shriek about how they hate government while wanting to impose their moral pov on women. (and yes, we know the odd woman does it too… but look at the thread.). it's not for government or men to legislate women's rights over their own bodies.

Good point and it reveals the Republicans to be hypocrites on the issue and just as Federally authoritarian as the Democrats.

It seems the Republicans want the Feds to stay out of individual rights except where it concerns gay marriage and abortion while the Democrats want Federal control over everything except gay marriage and abortion.

jillian
12-25-2013, 11:17 AM
Nobody is trying to legislate woman's rights over their own bodies.

that is a lie.



We are simply trying to get them to realize that the tiny body growing in the womb is not "their body". Key word being "simply". But alas, even simpletons don't seem to get the point.

but no one really cares what you think. if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.


But continue to stamp your feet, if it makes you feel better.

no one is stamping their feet.

we simply want you to keep government out of our bodies.

now go complain about how government saying you can only buy a 15 oz soda violates your "rights"

countryboy
12-25-2013, 11:18 AM
Good point and it reveals the Republicans to be hypocrites on the issue and just as Federally authoritarian as the Democrats.

It seems the Republicans want the Feds to stay out of individual rights except where it concerns gay marriage and abortion while the Democrats want Federal control over everything except gay marriage and abortion.
Please list all the republican bills proposing to outlaw abortion. I'll wait.....

countryboy
12-25-2013, 11:18 AM
that is a lie.




but no one really cares what you think. if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.



no one is stamping their feet.

we simply want you to keep government out of our bodies.

now go complain about how government saying you can only buy a 15 oz soda violates your "rights"
Please list all the republican bills proposing to outlaw abortion. I'll wait.....

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 11:27 AM
What is the dividing line, in your estimation?

IMHO, it is better to err on the side of caution.

Agreed regarding erring on the side of caution which is why I have to question those "pro-lifers" so enthusiastic about an express lane for death row.

From what I've read, the 24th week is the most common, medically agreed upon dividing line, but that's an average. It really goes down to brain development. When the fetus becomes sentient, self-aware, then it becomes an individual human being. At this point it's still dependent upon its mother, but now, as a human baby, it has rights too. The hard part is measuring exactly when this takes place.

http://411something.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/fetaldevelopment-copy.jpg

Chris
12-25-2013, 11:30 AM
that is a lie.




but no one really cares what you think. if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.



no one is stamping their feet.

we simply want you to keep government out of our bodies.

now go complain about how government saying you can only buy a 15 oz soda violates your "rights"



So the court legalizing abortion is a lie?


Saying "but no one really cares what you think. if you don't want an abortion, don't have one" exposes the deep-seated selfishness of modern liberalism. It's my body, right, fuck society, right (paraphrase of ravi).


We simply want you to keep government away from the unborn's body.


No comment on the off-topic left-field remark.

Chris
12-25-2013, 11:31 AM
Agreed regarding erring on the side of caution which is why I have to question those "pro-lifers" so enthusiastic about an express lane for death row.

From what I've read, the 24th week is the most common, medically agreed upon dividing line, but that's an average. It really goes down to brain development. When the fetus becomes sentient, self-aware, then it becomes an individual human being. At this point it's still dependent upon its mother, but now, as a human baby, it has rights too. The hard part is measuring exactly when this takes place.

http://411something.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/fetaldevelopment-copy.jpg



Now you're merely repeating the progressive personhood argument. It has many variations of defining away the moral issue.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 11:38 AM
Please list all the republican bills proposing to outlaw abortion. I'll wait.....There are dozens of examples over the years. Most are like Democrat attempts to reduce 2nd Amendment rights; constant encroachment as opposed to an outright ban. The Democrats try to dress it up as "common sense" rules on high capacity magazines or making anything that looks military illegal, but you and I both know that's bullshit. It's just their attempt to push further and further until they can finally ban private firearm ownership. The Republicans are no different when it comes to encroaching on a woman's right to control her own body.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/va-house-passes-personhood-abortion-bill/

Del. Bob Marshall's House Bill 1 on personhood at conception passed on a 66-32 vote. And on a 63-36 vote, the House passed a bill that requires women to have a "transvaginal ultrasound" before undergoing abortions.Opponents said the bills were unprecedented intrusions into the prerogatives and decisions not just of pregnant women but of women trying to avoid conceiving.
"The General Assembly is dangerously close to making Virginia the first state in the country to grant personhood rights to fertilized eggs," said Tarina Keene of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia.

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/gop-ignores-2012-lessons-pushes-harsh-anti

On Thursday, the Republican-controlled House in Arkansas green-lighted a bill, 80-10, to prohibit abortions at 20 weeks into a pregnancy. And in a separate move, the state House approved a bill, 68-20, that would ban abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy if a fetal heartbeat is detected (with the exception of rape, incest and life of the mother).

If the latter bill passes, it would become one of the strictest abortion laws in this country.

jillian
12-25-2013, 11:41 AM
So the court legalizing abortion is a lie?

yes, actually. it didn't legalize it. it held that the law attempting to criminalize it was unconstitutional.

but since when is that relevant to you. you think laws on any subject you don't like are unconstitutional and go on about "natural law".

but you think it's ok for government to interfere in the most basic rights of individuals.

in other words, you're a hypocrite.

at least with certain posters they truly live up to their purported "values" and acknowledge that they might not like it, but it's not government's business.

someone who wasn't a pretend libertarian would know that, too.



Saying "but no one really cares what you think. if you don't want an abortion, don't have one" exposes the deep-seated selfishness of modern liberalism. It's my body, right, fuck society, right (paraphrase of ravi).

"society" thought it ok to intern japanese american citizens. "society" thought jim crow was ok and would vote for it again in some places if "society" could. the point of the Court is to tell "Society" to take a hike when it tramples on our rights.

you should learn more about the commerce and general welfare clauses to alleviate your concerns about the ACA and more about our legal system so you stop stamping your feet about "natural law".



We simply want you to keep government away from the unborn's body.

they aren't people. they have no rights…. which is why the wackos are so desperate to pass "personhood" laws. the actual question is when does the right of GOVERNMENT exceed my own. try understanding that.

but please, tell us again how we should then starve those children after they're born by allowing the "free market" to operate.

half the people around are barely capable of running their own lives and you think you should run the lives of others?

that's funny from the person who doesn't care who has medical care in the "free market".



No comment on the off-topic left-field remark.

some type of sentence structure might be helpful in comprehending what you're attempting to say there.

Mister D
12-25-2013, 11:46 AM
Actually, it was the U.S. government that "thought it ok to intern Japanese American citizens" and to establish Jim Crow. According to you, there was nothing inherently wrong with those actions. That's your logic.

Mainecoons
12-25-2013, 11:52 AM
Jillian's support for the rule of men, liberal men only of course, versus the rule of law is very consistent here. Her opinions and fantasies need to be regarded in that context. This is a person who is quite happy with government making it up as they go along with no regard for legal constraints.

You can't reason with that mentality. You either defeat it or it defeats you. There is no middle ground.

Mainecoons
12-25-2013, 11:53 AM
Actually, it was the U.S. government that "thought it ok to intern Japanese American citizens" and to establish Jim Crow. According to you, there was nothing inherently wrong with those actions. That's your logic.

Well before that, it thought it was OK to start a war between the states and get a crony Supreme Court to ratify it after the fact.

In reality, the Constitution didn't even make it to 100 years.

Mister D
12-25-2013, 11:55 AM
Jillian's support for the rule of men, liberal men only of course, versus the rule of law is very consistent here. Her opinions and fantasies need to be regarded in that context. This is a person who is quite happy with government making it up as they go along with no regard for legal constraints.

You can't reason with that mentality. You either defeat it or it defeats you. There is no middle ground.

Honestly, I don't think she always realizes what she is actually arguing for.

Chris
12-25-2013, 11:59 AM
yes, actually. it didn't legalize it. it held that the law attempting to criminalize it was unconstitutional.

Which in effect legalized it.


you think laws on any subject you don't like are unconstitutional and go on about "natural law".

Please stop misrepresenting my thinking. Unlike you, I don't emotionalize everything as like and dislike, love and hate.


but you think it's ok for government to interfere in the most basic rights of individuals.

Please stop misrepresenting my thinking. It's dishonest on your part.


in other words, you're a hypocrite.

That's based on your misrepresentation of my thinking, iow, there is no basis at all for the ad hom.


someone who wasn't a pretend libertarian would know that, too.

Please stop lying. --Why are you afraid to address what I say with any semblance of intellectual honesty?



"society" thought it ok to intern japanese american citizens. "society" thought jim crow was ok and would vote for it again in some places if "society" could. the point of the Court is to tell "Society" to take a hike when it tramples on our rights.

Except it was government that did all that with the full support of the Court. --Nice historical revision. You know, I detect a pattern here: You misrepresent what I say and think, you misrepresent history, and then proceed to argue based on misrepresentations.



you should learn more about the commerce and general welfare clauses to alleviate your concerns about the ACA and more about our legal system so you stop stamping your feet about "natural law".

More misrepresentation. I know these clauses, for example how the general welfare clause limits the commerce clause--something you don't recognize. No one's stomping their feet here but you, jillian, with your misrepresentations and denials.




they aren't people. they have no rights.

Just another progressive personhood argument. Medical science says conception demarks the onset of human life. So let's see, your religious-like progressive philosophy vs the facts of medical science....



but please, tell us again how we should then starve those children after they're born by allowing the "free market" to operate.

By feeding, clothing, sheltering, educating and etc them through the wealth and prosperity created by the free market.

Let's look at the logic of your argument. Basically, boiled down to simplicity, it says abortion is justified because living might entail suffering. By that logic, why don't we euthanize the stupid to keep them from producing more suffering, why don't we exterminate Jews for the evil suffering they cause--do you begin to see the absurdity of your "reasoning" yet?




that's funny from the person who doesn't care who has medical care in the "free market".

Another gross misrepresentation of my thinking. Is that the only way you can argument your points, jillian, with incessant misrepresenting straw men?



some type of sentence structure might be helpful in comprehending what you're attempting to say there.

My comment makes perfect sense.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 12:00 PM
Agreed regarding erring on the side of caution which is why I have to question those "pro-lifers" so enthusiastic about an express lane for death row.

From what I've read, the 24th week is the most common, medically agreed upon dividing line, but that's an average. It really goes down to brain development. When the fetus becomes sentient, self-aware, then it becomes an individual human being. At this point it's still dependent upon its mother, but now, as a human baby, it has rights too. The hard part is measuring exactly when this takes place.

http://411something.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/fetaldevelopment-copy.jpg
I asked you for YOUR opinion. What is it?

Chris
12-25-2013, 12:05 PM
Jillian's support for the rule of men, liberal men only of course, versus the rule of law is very consistent here. Her opinions and fantasies need to be regarded in that context. This is a person who is quite happy with government making it up as they go along with no regard for legal constraints.

You can't reason with that mentality. You either defeat it or it defeats you. There is no middle ground.


Or you let it speak out and with a little exposure defeat itself. It really is self-defeating to misrepresent history and others.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 12:08 PM
I asked you for YOUR opinion. What is it?

I gave it to you. Self-awareness and the current science on determining that point fetal development.

jillian
12-25-2013, 12:11 PM
Or you let it speak out and with a little exposure defeat itself. It really is self-defeating to misrepresent history and others.

so don't do it.

Chris
12-25-2013, 12:12 PM
so don't do it.

What, expose your misrepresentations of history, law, others, and the absurdity of your opinions on abortion?

jillian
12-25-2013, 12:13 PM
Jillian's support for the rule of men, liberal men only of course, versus the rule of law is very consistent here. Her opinions and fantasies need to be regarded in that context. This is a person who is quite happy with government making it up as they go along with no regard for legal constraints.

You can't reason with that mentality. You either defeat it or it defeats you. There is no middle ground.

you really should stick to whining about the health care law.

your opinion on what women should be able to do with their body doesn't have the same validity as the supreme court decisions which protect our rights.

see how it works.

great document… keeps you from making blacks go to separate schools to satisfy white supremacists; keeps states from criminalizing the purchase of contraception; keeps old men from infringing on the personal morals of woman and gays.

beautiful document. i applaud it. i look forward to them getting it away from people like you before it's damaged for generations.

Chris
12-25-2013, 12:14 PM
I gave it to you. Self-awareness and the current science on determining that point fetal development.

That's been answered several times.

Mainecoons
12-25-2013, 12:15 PM
Or you let it speak out and with a little exposure defeat itself. It really is self-defeating to misrepresent history and others.

I see no evidence it is being defeated. Jillian's disregard for the rule of law is hardly unique, particularly in the liberal states.

What we need to do is let the liberal states go their own "rule by man" way and let the rest of us restore Constitutional and limited government. Then we'll find out who is right in the context of which style of government creates the greatest good for the greatest number.

You aren't going to change the liberal mentality. To them, the Constitution is just an obsolete document written by old white men.

Mainecoons
12-25-2013, 12:16 PM
you really should stick to whining about the health care law.

your opinion on what women should be able to do with their body doesn't have the same validity as the supreme court decisions which protect our rights.

see how it works.

great document… keeps you from making blacks go to separate schools to satisfy white supremacists; keeps states from criminalizing the purchase of contraception; keeps old men from infringing on the personal morals of woman and gays.

beautiful document. i applaud it. i look forward to them getting it away from people like you before it's damaged for generations.

Nice rant and a very solid confirmation of my assessment of your attitudes towards the rule of law and the Constitution. Thanks for the candor.

Chris
12-25-2013, 12:18 PM
you really should stick to whining about the health care law.

your opinion on what women should be able to do with their body doesn't have the same validity as the supreme court decisions which protect our rights.

see how it works.

great document… keeps you from making blacks go to separate schools to satisfy white supremacists; keeps states from criminalizing the purchase of contraception; keeps old men from infringing on the personal morals of woman and gays.

beautiful document. i applaud it. i look forward to them getting it away from people like you before it's damaged for generations.



Wrong word. Validity of argument on the abortion issue is not determined by what you happen in your subjective opinion to agree or disagree with. It has instead to do with the logic of the argument. And comparing your misrepresentation of maine's arguments (same as your misrepresentation of mine) to your appeal to authority carries no logic at all.

Chris
12-25-2013, 12:19 PM
I see no evidence it is being defeated. Jillian's disregard for the rule of law is hardly unique, particularly in the liberal states.

What we need to do is let the liberal states go their own "rule by man" way and let the rest of us restore Constitutional and limited government. Then we'll find out who is right in the context of which style of government creates the greatest good for the greatest number.

You aren't going to change the liberal mentality. To them, the Constitution is just an obsolete document written by old white men.


Alas, Buckley may have been right, all we can do is stand athwart history, yelling Stop!

McCool
12-25-2013, 12:22 PM
Well, I am tired of the pro-life arguments. I am also pro-life, but I also believe that women has the right to choose if they want to bring term their pregnancy or not. I believe, for example that previous Spanish law where women were free to abort in the period of the first 14 weeks was really good.

Women has the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, and while the project to child is inside the woman, it is in reality a part of the woman, and more, the doctors considere that someone is dead when there is not cerebral activity, well, the fetus in the first weeks don't have cerebral activity, how can be this considered human?

In science, most scientifics considere that the fetus is human, at least from the 14th week.

So, now going to the second point. Many of those pro-life support death penalty, the biggest hipocresy ever. Firstly, as just as a short mention, does it not go against the Christian religion?

And after that, I thought that the right to life was a natural right. Well, end with the right to life of a grown person I think that it is violate his right. So, the death penalty is the most sever violation of the rights of a person, even if that person was awful. No one deserves to die.

Also death penalty adds the problem of the innocent, and if an innocent is killed there is no possible reparation, and seriously I prefer one thousand times ten criminals free rather an innocent being killed.

In conclusion, women has the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. No one can tell them what to do with their bodies and every life of grown humans is sacred and should be respected and not put in the same level of criminals, where death penalty is not justice, is vengeance. the unborn has more rights because he or she didn't do anything wrong.

Mainecoons
12-25-2013, 12:23 PM
Yup, Chris.

:grin:

What's really funny here is that I take the libertarian view regarding abortion and I have posted same here many, many times. Yet Jillian persists in claiming I want to legislate on this matter.

This is a really good example of what happens when perceptional distortion caused by one's extreme beliefs reaches the level of mental illness. She literally cannot see things on the page or computer monitor as they are actually written. After they go through her filter, they end up entirely different.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 12:25 PM
I gave it to you. Self-awareness and the current science on determining that point fetal development.
Sooo, 24 weeks? Give me a number.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 12:30 PM
the unborn has more rights because he or she didn't do anything wrong.

My dog hasn't done anything wrong. Does she have rights? I'm going hog hunting in a couple of weeks. Do they have rights?

No. They're animals. So what makes the difference between an animal and a human being. Walking upright on two legs? Being able to talk? Human DNA? It's not as easy a question to answer when supercomputers, the cloning of human beings and the potential of encountering an alien race are included in the conversation.


.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 12:31 PM
Sooo, 24 weeks? Give me a number.

Is this your way of deflecting away from the Republican attempts to limit if not ban abortion that I answered earlier? Repeatedly asking me the same question which has been answered previously?


Agreed regarding erring on the side of caution which is why I have to question those "pro-lifers" so enthusiastic about an express lane for death row.

From what I've read, the 24th week is the most common, medically agreed upon dividing line, but that's an average. It really goes down to brain development. When the fetus becomes sentient, self-aware, then it becomes an individual human being. At this point it's still dependent upon its mother, but now, as a human baby, it has rights too. The hard part is measuring exactly when this takes place.

http://411something.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/fetaldevelopment-copy.jpg

McCool
12-25-2013, 12:42 PM
My dog hasn't done anything wrong. Does she have rights? Sure. Your dog has the right to not be beaten by a sadistic master. Besides, we're not talking about Fido. We're talking about a human being. I realize priorities can get fuzzy for some people when comparing the two, but trust me; an unborn human life is still more important than your pet's.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 12:49 PM
Sure. Your dog has the right to not be beaten by a sadistic master. Besides, we're not talking about Fido. We're talking about a human being. I realize priorities can get fuzzy for some people when comparing the two, but trust me; an unborn human life is still more important than your pet's.

Disagreed. Dogs have no more rights than the turkey I'm going to eat later today. What there is are laws against animal cruelty, bu the animals themselves have no rights. Neither does a cloned human kidney nor a zygote.

Again, for about the fifth time, at some point in it's development a fetus grows to become a human being with rights. By current law, based on medical science, that stage is the 24th week.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 12:58 PM
Is this your way of deflecting away from the Republican attempts to limit if not ban abortion that I answered earlier? Repeatedly asking me the same question which has been answered previously?
I'm not deflecting anything. Can't you give me a number? Go back and read our exchange, you never answered the question. Why can't you give me a number? My question to you has nothing to do with partisan politics. Where did I ever mention anything about "republican" anything? Sheesh, if you don't want to answer a simple question, just say so.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 01:26 PM
I'm not deflecting anything. Can't you give me a number? Go back and read our exchange, you never answered the question. Why can't you give me a number? My question to you has nothing to do with partisan politics. Where did I ever mention anything about "republican" anything? Sheesh, if you don't want to answer a simple question, just say so.

Please list all the republican bills proposing to outlaw abortion. I'll wait.....
Why don't you like 24 weeks as a number?

Why are you avoiding the Republican stance on abortion as noted earlier?

countryboy
12-25-2013, 01:32 PM
Why don't you like 24 weeks as a number?

This is why I don't like 24 weeks as a number.

5054

Mainecoons
12-25-2013, 01:33 PM
Maybe not just Republicans?

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

As to the 24 weeks number, it should be kept in mind that not every baby develops at the same speed and also identifying when pregnancy starts isn't very easy.

Outlawing abortion would work about as well as outlawing drugs and guns. Better to teach than to force, better to expand contraception than to pretend people are going to stop having sex and getting pregnant.

On matters moral, we must satisfy ourselves with leading and teaching and realize that you can't force it.

Personally, I find abortion odious and immoral but I find government in people's bedrooms a great deal more so.

You can't legislate morality. No one could look at contemporary American society and not realize it is in big trouble morally. But government can't fix that. Some things just have to be learned the hard way.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 01:35 PM
Why are you avoiding the Republican stance on abortion as noted earlier?

I wasn't avoiding it, I didn't see your response.

Unlike you avoiding giving us an answer as to when you think personhood is attained. Which you still haven't done.


There are dozens of examples over the years. Most are like Democrat attempts to reduce 2nd Amendment rights; constant encroachment as opposed to an outright ban. The Democrats try to dress it up as "common sense" rules on high capacity magazines or making anything that looks military illegal, but you and I both know that's bullshit. It's just their attempt to push further and further until they can finally ban private firearm ownership. The Republicans are no different when it comes to encroaching on a woman's right to control her own body.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/va-house-passes-personhood-abortion-bill/


http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/gop-ignores-2012-lessons-pushes-harsh-anti

Those are state measures. I was talking Federal. Why do you hate the Constitution?

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 01:42 PM
This is why I don't like 24 weeks as a number.

5054so, if it looks like a human being, it must be human being? What if it doesn't look human, can we treat it as less than human?

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 01:43 PM
Why do you hate the Constitution?

Now you are exactly in the same league as Chris. Merry Christmas, CB.

Mainecoons
12-25-2013, 01:43 PM
Well you already know that it looks like a human a whole lot sooner than 24 weeks.

Chris
12-25-2013, 01:44 PM
Maybe not just Republicans?

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

As to the 24 weeks number, it should be kept in mind that not every baby develops at the same speed and also identifying when pregnancy starts isn't very easy.

Outlawing abortion would work about as well as outlawing drugs and guns. Better to teach than to force, better to expand contraception than to pretend people are going to stop having sex and getting pregnant.

On matters moral, we must satisfy ourselves with leading and teaching and realize that you can't force it.

Personally, I find abortion odious and immoral but I find government in people's bedrooms a great deal more so.

You can't legislate morality. No one could look at contemporary American society and not realize it is in big trouble morally. But government can't fix that. Some things just have to be learned the hard way.


Very well said.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 01:44 PM
Maybe not just Republicans?

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

As to the 24 weeks number, it should be kept in mind that not every baby develops at the same speed and also identifying when pregnancy starts isn't very easy.
Agreed both Republicans and Democrats are authoritarian and dictatorial. I addressed this earlier. Same goes with the 24 week number.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 01:46 PM
Well you already know that it looks like a human a whole lot sooner than 24 weeks.

Correct. As proven in post #162. If something looks like a human being, do we automatically give it rights?

Agreed regarding erring on the side of caution which is why I have to question those "pro-lifers" so enthusiastic about an express lane for death row.

From what I've read, the 24th week is the most common, medically agreed upon dividing line, but that's an average. It really goes down to brain development. When the fetus becomes sentient, self-aware, then it becomes an individual human being. At this point it's still dependent upon its mother, but now, as a human baby, it has rights too. The hard part is measuring exactly when this takes place.

http://411something.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/fetaldevelopment-copy.jpg

countryboy
12-25-2013, 01:47 PM
so, if it looks like a human being, it must be human being?
Sorry, but that image is a human being. No amount of leftist bullshit can change that fact.

But, just for shits and giggles, if you think it's not a human being, what exactly is it?

countryboy
12-25-2013, 01:49 PM
Now you are exactly in the same league as Chris. Merry Christmas, CB.
Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too Max.

Chris
12-25-2013, 01:58 PM
Now you are exactly in the same league as Chris. Merry Christmas, CB.

Yes, waiting for you to come up with a rational argument.

peoshi
12-25-2013, 02:33 PM
Edit: Picture removed. @peoshi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=530), if you like provide a link to your picture and put a warning- graphic above the link so people who may be offended can opt out. Does that look like a few cells or a zygote to you? Moron!

I really don't care if they are offended or not,peter. If they are too chickenshit to face up to what they are supporting then they have no business commenting on it!

McCool
12-25-2013, 02:39 PM
Disagreed. Dogs have no more rights than the turkey I'm going to eat later today. What there is are laws against animal cruelty, bu the animals themselves have no rights. Neither does a cloned human kidney nor a zygote. Yes, in a screwed up world, you are correct. Just please don't sound like you revel in this twisted kind of thinking. I, for one, am in the "Let's make things right" camp.


Again, for about the fifth time, at some point in it's development a fetus grows to become a human being with rights. By current law, based on medical science, that stage is the 24th week. Again, for possibly the billionth time. I know what the laws are, but some laws were just meant to be overturned, and the right to murder our human unborn is one of those.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 02:47 PM
Yes, in a screwed up world, you are correct. Just please don't sound like you revel in this twisted kind of thinking. I, for one, am in the "Let's make things right" camp.

Again, for possibly the billionth time. I know what the laws are, but some laws were just meant to be overturned, and the right to murder our human unborn is one of those.

Billionth time? That's a lot. In fact, that's 31.7 years of saying it once each second. How am I supposed to take you seriously if you throw things like at as refutation of my comment about repeating something five times?

However, such exaggeration fits neatly with a purely emotional argument where you make accusations of reveling in calling a zygote a cell instead of the mantra "it's a human being" as the other pro-lifer's here have done either in act or implication.

Chris
12-25-2013, 03:02 PM
Billionth time? That's a lot. In fact, that's 31.7 years of saying it once each second. How am I supposed to take you seriously if you throw things like at as refutation of my comment about repeating something five times?

However, such exaggeration fits neatly with a purely emotional argument where you make accusations of reveling in calling a zygote a cell instead of the mantra "it's a human being" as the other pro-lifer's here have done either in act or implication.

Or as indeed medical science has said human life begins at conception. Science is such an emotional thing.

peoshi
12-25-2013, 03:04 PM
That is a near full term baby, not a zygote.No shit...and it is dead as the result of an abortion.

Or resident experts seem to think an abortion is simply taking a pair of tweezers and plucking a booger off the wall of the uterus.:rollseyes:

Chris
12-25-2013, 03:10 PM
Wonder will Gosnell get the death penalty?

peoshi
12-25-2013, 03:16 PM
If it was up to jillian or RW he would not even be charged.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 03:18 PM
If it was up to jillian or RW he would not even be charged.

Now you're a liar. I have never indicated such a thing nor would I support such an action. Gosnell performed illegal abortions and should be treated as a mass murderer. You, sir, like a few others on this forum are a dishonest poster and a slanderer.

As it is, Gosnell pled a deal in order to escape the death penalty and is serving life in prison without parole.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/justice/pennsylvania-abortion-doctor-trial/index.html

Chris
12-25-2013, 03:22 PM
Oh, come on, an "honest" response would be to say no I don't think that but this _________, whereby you would present a subjective and arbitrary definition of what it means to be a person.

McCool
12-25-2013, 03:28 PM
Billionth time? That's a lot. In fact, that's 31.7 years of saying it once each second. Yes. That is a lot. Especially when you factor in how many times like minded people have argued the same thing. You see, people who think like you need to hear it all the time. If there was such a way to bombard you with this argument, trust me, I would be 100% behind it.


How am I supposed to take you seriously if you throw things like at as refutation of my comment about repeating something five times? I don't think you even take yourself seriously. And seriously, what have you told me five times that I seem to be missing?


However, such exaggeration fits neatly with a purely emotional argument where you make accusations of reveling in calling a zygote a cell instead of the mantra "it's a human being" as the other pro-lifer's here have done either in act or implication. There's nothing irrational coming from here. The only irrational thinking I see is coming from your side.

Show me where it states a human isn't a human at conception.

Mister D
12-25-2013, 03:47 PM
Gentlemen, please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPamW-WUf50

peoshi
12-25-2013, 03:48 PM
Now you're a liar. I have never indicated such a thing nor would I support such an action. Gosnell performed illegal abortions and should be treated as a mass murderer. You, sir, like a few others on this forum are a dishonest poster and a slanderer.

As it is, Gosnell pled a deal in order to escape the death penalty and is serving life in prison without parole.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/justice/pennsylvania-abortion-doctor-trial/index.html

You support mass murder when you support abortion for convenience,doofus.:rollseyes:




A zygote is not a human being. It's not a child. It's not a baby. It's a zygote.

That crossover point is not at the moment of conception. Nor is it at the moment of birth. It's somewhere in between. Usually recognized as the 24th week of gestation

"Your Baby in Week 16 of Pregnancy (http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/video/pregnancy-week-16)

Your baby now weighs in at a whopping three to five ounces, and he's four to five inches in length. The bones that are now in place in his ears means he can probably hear your voice as you talk to your partner and pals and sing in the car. While he’s getting used to your voice, the tiny muscles in his body, especially the ones in his back, are gaining strength, so he can straighten out a little more. And thanks to his developing facial muscles, your baby is capable of making a few expressive frowns and squints, even at this early stage. (Don’t worry, those frowns have nothing to do with the sound of your voice!) And his eyes are finally working, making small side-to-side movements and perceiving light (although the eyelids are still sealed). "

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-16.aspx

But it is just a "zygote", right?

Mister D
12-25-2013, 04:18 PM
Perhaps part of the problem is that few of you deal honestly with your discussion partners' positions? This is easily as true of abortion as it is with anything else on this forum. Of course the extremists don't help clear the air with allegations of mass murder or comments like "it's my body so I'll do what I want".

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 04:40 PM
I don't think you even take yourself seriously. And seriously, what have you told me five times that I seem to be missing?

My mistake for assuming you actually read my comments before jumping in with your own. My apologies. I'll never make that assumption of you again.

Dr. Who
12-25-2013, 05:58 PM
You support mass murder when you support abortion for convenience,doofus.:rollseyes:





"Your Baby in Week 16 of Pregnancy (http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/video/pregnancy-week-16)

Your baby now weighs in at a whopping three to five ounces, and he's four to five inches in length. The bones that are now in place in his ears means he can probably hear your voice as you talk to your partner and pals and sing in the car. While he’s getting used to your voice, the tiny muscles in his body, especially the ones in his back, are gaining strength, so he can straighten out a little more. And thanks to his developing facial muscles, your baby is capable of making a few expressive frowns and squints, even at this early stage. (Don’t worry, those frowns have nothing to do with the sound of your voice!) And his eyes are finally working, making small side-to-side movements and perceiving light (although the eyelids are still sealed). "

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-16.aspx

But it is just a "zygote", right?

No name calling please!

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 06:13 PM
Or as indeed medical science has said human life begins at conception. Science is such an emotional thing.

Science doesn't prove anything, right?

Chris
12-25-2013, 06:19 PM
Science doesn't prove anything, right?

I was asked what medical science says. As opposed to personal opinion.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 06:21 PM
Science doesn't prove anything, right?

Unfortunately, as you've noted, some will put politics over science if it suits their interest.

Want to put a missile through a particular second story window half a world away? Science is fucking awesome!!!

Want to present medical evidence that a person is brain dead or a fetus has the brain function of an earthworm? Then they are hacks who don't know what they are talking about.

Silly, but that's how political extremists operate; they pick and choose what science they accept based on emotional appeal, personal agendas and politics.

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 06:32 PM
Unfortunately, as you've noted, some will put politics over science if it suits their interest.

Want to put a missile through a particular second story window half a world away? Science is fucking awesome!!!

Want to present medical evidence that a person is brain dead or a fetus has the brain function of an earthworm? Then they are hacks who don't know what they are talking about.

Silly, but that's how political extremists operate; they pick and choose what science they accept based on emotional appeal, personal agendas and politics.

I know. And he doesn't realise that he is doing it. Well, he probably does, but the cute thing here is, he always has an out.

That being said, I wonder why he used that example in his post if he wasn't trying to make a point? Either he was making a point or he wasn't. If he was, then he must believe in which case he is being hypocritical about what he 'thinks' science is. If he wasn't why post it in the first place.

Back on topic, as stated, most abortions happen within the first 8-12 weeks. I think abortion should be the last option, but if somebody takes that option that is their business.

jillian
12-25-2013, 06:38 PM
I was asked what medical science says. As opposed to personal opinion.

your conceot that two cells has the same rights as an adult woman is *your* personal opinion based upon an emotional response.

on any other subject you'd say there shouldn't even be a government, much less governmental intrusion.

iustitia
12-25-2013, 06:47 PM
your conceot that two cells has the same rights as an adult woman is *your* personal opinion based upon an emotional response.

on any other subject you'd say there shouldn't even be a government, much less governmental intrusion.

So rights are determined by how many cells one has?

jillian
12-25-2013, 06:49 PM
So rights are determined by how many cells one has?

no. they are determined by whether they are "people".

i don't really care what your own religion dictates on that subject. you simply, thank goodness, have no right to subject anyone else to your beliefs. the supreme court happens to agree.

have you figured out yet what that means?

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 06:56 PM
I know. And he doesn't realise that he is doing it. Well, he probably does, but the cute thing here is, he always has an out.

That being said, I wonder why he used that example in his post if he wasn't trying to make a point? Either he was making a point or he wasn't. If he was, then he must believe in which case he is being hypocritical about what he 'thinks' science is. If he wasn't why post it in the first place.I think he knows, but is intentionally being deceptive at best. Previously I asked for definitions of when a person becomes a person, a human being. Those questions went unanswered. What was often posted in lieu an answer to that question was the deceptive answer of "human life". Human tissue and cells such as sperm and eggs are "human life". So is zygote and, of course, a human being. While a human being is human life, human life isn't always a human being. It can be a cloned kidney, an amputated arm, a blood sample or a zygote.

When those specific terms are deliberately confused, it's dishonest and the reason why I refuse to continue a discussion with someone on a particular subject when they are deliberately being dishonest.



Back on topic, as stated, most abortions happen within the first 8-12 weeks. I think abortion should be the last option, but if somebody takes that option that is their business.Agreed. Legal up to the 24th week, but a last resort. Obviously educated and contraceptives are the first resort. Plan B fits in there too.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 07:00 PM
So rights are determined by how many cells one has?
That, and brain function, it would seem.

countryboy
12-25-2013, 07:01 PM
Previously I asked for definitions of when a person becomes a person, a human being. Those questions went unanswered.
That's funny, because you never did answer me when I asked you the same thing. And yet you have the unmitigated gall to accuse someone else of the same thing. Wow.....

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 07:02 PM
I think he knows, but is intentionally being deceptive at best. Previously I asked for definitions of when a person becomes a person, a human being. Those questions went unanswered. What was often posted in lieu an answer to that question was the deceptive answer of "human life". Human tissue and cells such as sperm and eggs are "human life". So is zygote and, of course, a human being. While a human being is human life, human life isn't always a human being. It can be a cloned kidney, an amputated arm, a blood sample or a zygote.

When those specific terms are deliberately confused, it's dishonest and the reason why I refuse to continue a discussion with someone on a particular subject when they are deliberately being dishonest.


Agreed. Legal up to the 24th week, but a last resort. Obviously educated and contraceptives are the first resort. Plan B fits in there too.

It's his style of posting <shrug>.

The only problem with contraception is getting the bible thumpers on board and to get rid of the abstinence-only claptrap...

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 07:04 PM
That's funny, because you never did answer me when I asked you the same thing. And yet you have the unmitigated gall to accuse someone else of the same thing. Wow.....

You must be reading a Twilight Zone version of this thread because I have seen him post on at least two occasions that 24 weeks seems to be his line in the sand..

iustitia
12-25-2013, 07:08 PM
Why is it that anytime a person makes rational arguments against abortion, or even questions a statement made that's scientifically, legally or ethically dubious --- religion has to be attacked?

I've never once mentioned God, the Bible, Lucifer, the Ten Commandments, or the Garden of Eden. Can anyone point to where religion has been consistently brought up by anyone except jillian?

Chris
12-25-2013, 07:13 PM
your conceot that two cells has the same rights as an adult woman is *your* personal opinion based upon an emotional response.

on any other subject you'd say there shouldn't even be a government, much less governmental intrusion.

And your concept only some have rights is merely your opinion.

Difference: I've presented a rational argument, you've offered an opinion.

On this social issue too I think there should be no government involvement. I have always held this position.

Mister D
12-25-2013, 07:16 PM
Why is it that anytime a person makes rational arguments against abortion, or even questions a statement made that's scientifically, legally or ethically dubious --- religion has to be attacked?

I've never once mentioned God, the Bible, Lucifer, the Ten Commandments, or the Garden of Eden. Can anyone point to where religion has been consistently brought up by anyone except jillian?

Jillian has a small stock of replies on certain topics that she will direct even at avowed atheists. If you disagree with her you are an extremist and usually a religious extremist.

Mr Happy
12-25-2013, 07:16 PM
And your concept only some have rights is merely your opinion.

Difference: I've presented a rational argument, you've offered an opinion.

On this social issue too I think there should be no government involvement. I have always held this position.

I see your 'argument' as nothing more than an opinion, too. And isn't that what this is all about? These boards?

Chris
12-25-2013, 07:17 PM
Why is it that anytime a person makes rational arguments against abortion, or even questions a statement made that's scientifically, legally or ethically dubious --- religion has to be attacked?

I've never once mentioned God, the Bible, Lucifer, the Ten Commandments, or the Garden of Eden. Can anyone point to where religion has been consistently brought up by anyone except jillian?


Some people are rational, some are emotional. Some talk about ideas, some talk about people--paraphrase of Eleanor Rosevelt.

Mister D
12-25-2013, 07:19 PM
Sadly, some folks simply cannot discuss certain topics without getting far too emotional. Lord knows race is one of them. Abortion is another.

jillian
12-25-2013, 07:19 PM
Why is it that anytime a person makes rational arguments against abortion, or even questions a statement made that's scientifically, legally or ethically dubious --- religion has to be attacked?

I've never once mentioned God, the Bible, Lucifer, the Ten Commandments, or the Garden of Eden. Can anyone point to where religion has been consistently brought up by anyone except jillian?

your argument isn't rational. it isn't based on our means of evaluating case law. you discount precent. you ignore the power of the supreme court. yet you call yourself iustitia. you assert positions that are extra-judicial and have no bearing

the reason i dismiss your "arguments" is they are not "rational". they are based on your opinion. and why would you have to mention your religious beliefs for everyone to understand that your "judgment" is a religiously-based one. your emotional assertions are only that. you're entitled to your opinion.

i am entitled not to be subjected to it.

jillian
12-25-2013, 07:19 PM
Sadly, some folks simply cannot discuss certain topics without getting far too emotional. Lord knows race is one of them. Abortion is another.

yes, the anti-choice activists really should stop trying since they're incapable of separating their own emotional desires from legal reality.

Max Rockatansky
12-25-2013, 07:21 PM
It's his style of posting <shrug>.

The only problem with contraception is getting the bible thumpers on board and to get rid of the abstinence-only claptrap...

Which is not possible IMO because those religious leaders against abortion don't want the pregnancies to stop. Genesis 35:11 says "Be fruitful and multiply" and that is what they seem to be pushing even if it brings more harm than good.

The logical disconnects in saying a single-celled organism is a human being and must be preserved even at the cost of the mother's life then turning around and advocating the death penalty for criminals who could be easily locked up boggles the mind.

Mister D
12-25-2013, 07:21 PM
yes, the anti-choice activists really should stop trying since they're incapable of separating their own emotional desires from legal reality.

As you realize, I had you in mind. :grin:

jillian
12-25-2013, 07:26 PM
Which is not possible IMO because those religious leaders against abortion don't want the pregnancies to stop. Genesis 35:11 says "Be fruitful and multiply" and that is what they seem to be pushing even if it brings more harm than good.

The logical disconnects in saying a single-celled organism is a human being and must be preserved even at the cost of the mother's life then turning around and advocating the death penalty for criminals who could be easily locked up boggles the mind.

i think it's more than that (although that is probably part of it). I see it as an intentional effort by an almost entirely male group to dominate and control women. these same types of people post about how "family values" are deteriorating because women work. they resent every effort at equal pay for equal work. disdain women as "feminazis" and "sluts". they enjoy humiliating women and subjecting them to disgusting non-consensual, expensive, unnecessary, and invasive medical tests in order to subject women who dare to assert their constitutionally protected rights to humiliation and violation. these "anti-government" types then turn around and say those things are ok. (I take special note of the few true small government supporters on this board who understand people's moral choices are not up for their control and commend them for it).

they talk about "personhood" instead of where GOVERNMENT has the right to intervene in our private lives. something that is anathema to them when supporting the unwanted children in question is discussed.

Mister D
12-25-2013, 07:27 PM
i think it's more than that (although that is probably part of it). I see it as an intentional effort by an almost entirely male group to dominate and control women. these same types of people post about how "family values" are deteriorating because women work. they resent every effort at equal pay for equal work. disdain women as "feminazis" and "sluts". they enjoy humiliating women and subjecting them to disgusting non-consensual, expensive, unnecessary, and invasive medical tests in order to subject women who dare to assert their constitutionally protected rights to humiliation and violation. these "anti-government" types then turn around and say those things are ok. (I take special note of the few true small government supporters on this board who understand people's moral choices are not up for their control.

they talk about "personhood" instead of where GOVERNMENT has the right to intervene in our private lives. something that is anathema to them when supporting the unwanted children in question is discussed.

:laugh:

Mister D
12-25-2013, 07:27 PM
I rest my case.

There is no point in discussing the matter further with such people on either side.

iustitia
12-25-2013, 07:39 PM
your argument isn't rational. it isn't based on our means of evaluating case law. you discount precent. you ignore the power of the supreme court. yet you call yourself iustitia. you assert positions that are extra-judicial and have no bearing

the reason i dismiss your "arguments" is they are not "rational". they are based on your opinion. and why would you have to mention your religious beliefs for everyone to understand that your "judgment" is a religiously-based one. your emotional assertions are only that. you're entitled to your opinion.

i am entitled not to be subjected to it.

le sigh. You said "two cells" don't have the same rights as an adult woman. I asked if you were insinuating that our rights are determined by how many cells we have. Your response was about my religion. Understand? You brought up something I never mentioned.

As for your diatribe... your arguments are not based on laws which are written, but on rulings which are judged. I strictly interpret the Constitution based on the letter as well as the original intent of its authors, rather than on what activist judges decry it to mean. This is because the Constitution is a contract, and contracts do not change unless agreed to by the parties involved (amendment). I believe in a fixed body of law, crucial for a republic. You seem to believe that essentially all that's needed to change the Constitution is, not the will of the people or the states, but merely 5 men in robes. Precedent matters if we're discussing the original intent of the law, sure. It doesn't mean that once a judge makes a ruling it's legitimate until time ends.

I ignore the Supreme Court because for most of its history it's ignored, violated and rewritten the Constitution and has been packed with liars, crooks, mental patients, thugs, anti-semites, perverts, racists, cronies and radicals. Because they're men. Unelected lawyers who not only deny the supremacy of the Constitution but also blatantly ignore what is right. Slavery, segregation, forced sterilization, concentration camps, and infanticide. That's the record of the courts, that's the record of the oligarchy you would have me accept as legitimate. Justice is not determined by judges.

Captain Obvious
12-25-2013, 07:53 PM
'scuse me while I whip this out.

Simple quiz for the baby-in-a-blender crowd, what happens when human sperm meets human egg - what is the outcome virtually 100% of the time?

When human sperm meets human egg you get a:

a) Shoe
b) Baby
c) Pez dispenser
d) Chris 's collection of Yngwie Malmsteen's Christmas guitar solos

None of the baby-killing crowd has gotten it right so far. Funny how that works.

Chris
12-25-2013, 07:53 PM
I see your 'argument' as nothing more than an opinion, too. And isn't that what this is all about? These boards?

You do? What is my argument that your commenting on. Can you tell me?

Mister D
12-25-2013, 07:56 PM
'scuse me while I whip this out.

Simple quiz for the baby-in-a-blender crowd, what happens when human sperm meets human egg - what is the outcome virtually 100% of the time?

When human sperm meets human egg you get a:

a) Shoe
b) Baby
c) Pez dispenser
d) @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) 's collection of Yngwie Malmsteen's Christmas guitar solos

None of the baby-killing crowd has gotten it right so far. Funny how that works.

You, sir, are a Christian extremist who wants to subjugate women! :angry:

Chris
12-25-2013, 07:57 PM
your argument isn't rational. it isn't based on our means of evaluating case law. you discount precent. you ignore the power of the supreme court. yet you call yourself iustitia. you assert positions that are extra-judicial and have no bearing

the reason i dismiss your "arguments" is they are not "rational". they are based on your opinion. and why would you have to mention your religious beliefs for everyone to understand that your "judgment" is a religiously-based one. your emotional assertions are only that. you're entitled to your opinion.

i am entitled not to be subjected to it.


His argument is very rational. He takes premises that are true and draws a conclusion from them. My only disagreement with it was it is an "ought" argument against your "is" opinion--I'll explain if you need it.

Not meeting your personal criteria isn't decisive, especially when all you do is present an opinion without argument, explanation, justification.

Captain Obvious
12-25-2013, 07:59 PM
You, sir, are a Christian extremist who wants to subjugate women! :angry:

A "Catholic" dear sir, a Catholic...

jillian
12-25-2013, 08:01 PM
His argument is very rational. He takes premises that are true and draws a conclusion from them. My only disagreement with it was it is an "ought" argument against your "is" opinion--I'll explain if you need it.

Not meeting your personal criteria isn't decisive, especially when all you do is present an opinion without argument, explanation, justification.

no. you just agree with her. hence your claim that the arguments are "rational".