1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Abortion??? anyone??

Discussion in 'House of Debates' started by XxTinaxX, Dec 28, 2006.

  1. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,847
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Palerider is not your usual sort of person. He will never ever change his mind in an argument even when you have undeniable proof. He will simply ignore it and try to take you on a worthless tangent.

    I have dealt with him at great length on the physics of climate change and showed where he didn't understand the physics. Backed into a corner he will start lashing out personally. Finally he put me on ignore. I have a feeling he won't be back here for a while.
     
  2. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,550
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Abigail and Brittany each have their own drivers license....Laskhi is an individual who unfortunately absorbed and killed her siblings...their parts are supported by her body, but arms and legs are not people.
     
  3. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,550
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The child is not at fault either...and yet you would support killing it for the crime of its father?
     
  4. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,550
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You just love to fail, don't you? Look at the US code prior to the Roe decision...it clearly stated, the same as the legal dictionary that a person was a human being...the US code was changed after roe in order to support a flawed and illegal court decision...if the decision were valid, the code would not have needed to be changed.

    Sorry guy, but I am right and am always right regarding this topic....it was the most reprehensible decision the court ever made and has resulted in more deaths than all of the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries together...altering the US code to support the decision only smears blood across the hands of congress as well.
     
  5. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,550
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Wasted thanks...he was wrong....The US code was altered to support the court's decision...had the decision been valid, or legal, the code would not have needed altering.
     
  6. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,550
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
     
  7. samsara15

    samsara15 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Moonbase 2B
    You ar wrong and have always been wrong, Pale, except in your imagination. A one trick pony.
     
    Lagboltz likes this.
  8. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,847
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    As I said to Fedor50,
    Palerider will never ever change his mind in an argument even when you have undeniable proof. He will simply ignore it and try to take you on a worthless tangent or repeat the same thing over and over as though repetition is a good argument.
     
  9. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,550
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Sorry, but the codes say what the codes say and you can never change the fact that the US code was altered to support a court decision...There is no rational argument in support of abortion if the mother's life is not in imminent danger, but feel free to try.

    As to being a one trick pony...clearly you have not read my posts on political philosophy or other topics...but then you are one of those who operate from a position of emotion aren't you...never bother to actually research a thing before you make a pronouncement on it...
     
  10. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,550
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    lagboltz,...all one need do to convince me is provide hard evidence...a thing that you are not familiar with and the reason you can't convince me that the emperors clothes are beautiful to behold..
     
  11. fedor50

    fedor50 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    A zygote has human DNA, so it's a human zygote; like a sperm has human DNA, so it's a human sperm. It isn't an 'individual' because it's not biologically capable of existing independently from the mother.

    Sorry, looks like you are wrong again :(
     
  12. fedor50

    fedor50 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    No convincing necessary. You still have yet to rebuttal these FACTS:
    • A zygote is not capable of biological independence - one of the qualifiers for being an organism.
    • A zygote is not the end product of the reproductive cycle; as this is the process by which a new individual/organism is created, this implies that a zygote is not yet an organism.
    • A zygote is united ('formed into a single whole') with the mother, both semantically (dictionary link to 'placenta') and biologically (microchimerism).
    • A zygote is described as 'developing into' an organism, which strongly implies it is not yet one.
    These are ALL hard evidence and bullet-proof FACTS that you have yet to successfully rebuttal.
     
  13. fedor50

    fedor50 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Individual:Biology .a.a single organism capable of independent existence.

    Viability: b.(of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.

    Just to pre-empt the standard responses:

    1. Note that my first definition is in the 'biology' section. As such, it's talking about biological independence, not social/emotional/financial etc. To suggest otherwise would be the case is to suggest that there are very few 'individuals' in this world; clearly this is not the case.

    2. Also given the biological nature of the definition, it doesn't make sense to read 'exist' as simply 'all the atoms would still be present' - for one thing, this could apply to anything, so the phrase would be grammatically redundant and pointless to include in a definition (like defining a wall as 'a structure that is red if it's covered in red paint'). As we are discussing biology, to biologically exist is to have life or animation; live..

    A ZEF is not an individual until viability.
     
  14. fedor50

    fedor50 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Wrong Answer!

    Allow me to answer the question FOR YOU:

    The difference is that Abigail and Brittany have two separate self-awarenesses, feel pain separately from each other and, as such, are considered to be two different people. Lakshmi, on the other hand, only has one self-awareness and is therefore considered to be one person. Extrapolate that back further and you'll see that something without any self-awareness is not considered a person at all.

    Number of self-awarenesses = number of people.

    Would you like to try again?
     
  15. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,847
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Good heavens. That is one of the most convoluted things I've ever seen from you. (Warning: hyperbole and sarcasm alert.) Since Laskhi "killed" her sibling she should be tried for murder. That would be the first prenatal murder ever brought to trial.
     
Loading...

Share This Page