A Conception's Right To Life

[palerider]

I remember the US prior to Roe vs Wade in the era of coat hanger wire abortions and numerous other horrifying stories when a woman could not get a legal abortion.

This is a lie. A blatant lie. You remember no "era of the coathanger" as no such era ever existed. The CDC and planned parenthood have dismissed the coathanger as a myth, and those who fabricated the original story have come forward and admitted that it was a marketing scheme. The fact that you, and many others "remember" an era that never existed is testament to the power of effective marketing. Do feel free to provide some credible materials to substantiate your "memory.

Just remember, there is not a country or a province in this world where abortions occur on a very regular basis. Its legality or illegality is not a consideration to a desperate woman who is willing to undergo any trauma to abort the baby.

Pure crap. It is estimated that 1 in 5 pregnancies are terminated by abortion across the world. I would be interested in seeing you square that fact, with your fantasy that abortion does not occur on a very regular basis. Your attempt at making a case is one of the most pitiful I have ever seen. It is apparently founded entirely on claims that are fabricated entirely from whole cloth.

Those who wish to abolish Roe vs. Wade will have the blood and unnecessary death of many young women on their hands if their efforts are successful in outlawing abortions. Oh, yea, the fetus always perishes with the mother.

When the number reaches a billion, let me know. And exactly what does where a killing happens have to do with whether it is justifiable or not?

 

[palerider]

Truer words have never been spoken.

Your personal knowledge explaining the true situation around the world is very insightful and something others should take into consideration when speaking on this topic.

Perhaps you could provide some credible information to substantiate his "true words". He certainly isn't going to be able to and neither are you. The coathanger is a myth and 1 in 5 pregnancies being terminated world wide put the lie to his suggestion that abortion is a rare occurance.

 

[palerider]

You know what my good Christian brother said when confronted with the information in your excellent post, Hobo? He said, "It serves them right, it's God's punishment on them for trying to kill their babies."

Nice guy, compassionate, poorly educated, but FAITHFUL.

Your "good christian brother" clearly is unaware of the facts as well. he is buying into a fantasy and is cheering the deaths of people who never died. Maybe ignorance just runs in your family.

 

[palerider]

Your dogmatic view of this issue has blinded you to all logic. However the definition of when life begins and when life ends is still an open question, whether you look at it from an ethical, legal or scientific point of view.

The only fool's folly on my part is to continue discussing this subject with you.

Sorry, but it isn't an open question. Do feel free to provide some credible information that suggests that the question is open. Before you point to the musings of philosophers or theologians, I would ask for you to bring forward examples of theologians or philosophers being asked what species a creature belongs to or whether it is alive or not. Obviously you are not going to be able to provide such examples because none exist. Science is the only source qualifed to say what a creature is and whether or not it is alive. That being said, do feel free to provide some credible science that suggests that unborns at any stage of development are something other than human beings or are not alive.

You have even less hope than lagboltz (who has none at all) of corroborating any part of your argument.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Human bodies are not property and may not be owned. You do not own your own body but in the eyes of the law are a caretaker. Even if you did own you body and could apply property rights, a quick review of the laws with regard to trespassers would show you that if you kill a trespasser that does not represent an iminent threat to your life, you are guilty of a crime ranging from manslaughter to murder.
Sorry, that simply is not justification to kill. Refer to conjoined twins to see your argument break down in practice.

Wow! Did you just get laid off at work? All these posts make your previous attempts pale in comparison.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your "good christian brother" clearly is unaware of the facts as well. he is buying into a fantasy and is cheering the deaths of people who never died. Maybe ignorance just runs in your family.

You are beyond the pale with this one.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is addressed to the Pale Chip,
I disagree with you and all the learned verbiage doesn't change the simple fact that YOU are men and YOU will never be victims of the coercion you wish to use against women.

You may quote science, religion, tradition, or your granny's biscuit recipe and none of it will change the ugly fact that no one wants the babies you are trying to make OTHER people birth and care for.

Do I recognize the saddness of this situation? Of course, and to that end I've never had an abortion. I don't intend to try to convince you, nor should you try to convince me--we disagree and there it will remain till the culture we live in makes a committment to caring for all the mother's and babies (in which case I'll support the new way) or till you guys get reincarnated as women and learn what the world is really like from our position. Have a nice day.

And if you two could get together to write a response I bet it will be a doozy. With Pale's overbearing, self-important rhetoric propped up with Chip's Pop Psychological jargon--whew! You guys might be formidable... but still not convincing.

 

[Chip]

Your dogmatic view of this issue

Your statement is erroneous and inapplicable.

Just like it is not dogma to say that the earth is round, not flat, that people of color are human beings, not property, etc., it is not dogma to state that science has determined beyond rational conjecture that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception. All these statements are simply true, as a matter of fact, about which no rational person "debates".

It is not dogma to recognize science as the valid reference for determining if someone exists and is alive. Determining if an entity is alive is solely science's realm.

It is not dogma to reject your erroneous moral relativistic utilitarian mental masturbatory ramblings for the sophistry they truly are.

A part of the definition of dogma is "characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles".

Because, as presented in the opening post, science has proved its assertion with the proven principles of the scientific method, it does not thereby qualify as dogmatic.

Your masturbatory rambling, on the other hand, is most certainly characterised by assertion of unproved and unprovable principles.

Thus it is your presentation, Hobo1, that qualifies as dogma.

has blinded you to all logic.

Your statement is obviously false.

Your statement is also obviously a projection of yourself.

However the definition of when life begins and when life ends is still an open question,

It is only an open question to moral relativistic utilitarian pro-abortion sophisters who are in emotional denial of the commonly known and obvious fact that, as science has proven beyond rational conjecture, a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

There is no rational question of this matter.

The matter of when a person begins to live that person's life is a closed subject.

whether you look at it from an ethical, legal or scientific point of view.

Erroneous.

Here you, a pro-abortion sophister, attempt to negate the value of science, the right answer, by including it in a "multiple question" list with ethics and legislation, the wrong answers, claiming that the supposedly correct answer is "all of the above", which, of course, is obviously the wrong answer.

You are in obvious error, Hobo1, and your sophistry of justification belittlement fails miserably.

Ethics does not authoritatively decide the scientific matter of whether an entity is alive.

Legislation does not authoritatively decide the scientific matter of whether an entity is alive.

Only science has the authority to answer the scientific question of, in this relevant case, whether a person is alive at conception.

And science has answered that air-tightly with a resounding YES!

Your belittlement by association sophistry has been defeated, Hobo1.

The only fool's folly on my part is to continue discussing this subject with you.

Obviously false.

Continuing your pro-abortionist sophistry would indeed be a fool's folly because it is so easily defeated by appeal to unconjecturable facts.

But continuing such would not be your only fool's folly.

The fact that you presented the previous sophistry itself is also a fool's folly.

 

[Chip]

This is addressed to the Pale Chip,
I disagree with you and all the learned verbiage doesn't change the simple fact that YOU are men and YOU will never be victims of the coercion you wish to use against women.

You are free to disagree ... and I am free to rebut your disagreeing arguments with sound hard facts.

Your demeaning belittlement with "learned verbiage" simply means that you can find no words of your own to refute the clear and concise scientific presentation I've made from the opening post and throughout.

You are in error, once again, with your assumption that I am making women victims of coercion.

I realize how important it is to you and your misanthropy to conjure up with fantasy some female co-victims to polarize with us "evil men".

But the fact remains that when it comes to being pro-abortionist, it is indeed men who control women to commit murderous abortion which thereby damages a woman for life. Indeed, Top Gun, Dawkinsrocks, Lagboltz, Hobo1, all are men who are arguing the pro-abortionist perspective, arguing for control of women's uteruses once a newly conceived person is present, and it is just Palerider and me arguing against their advocation of the diabolical control of women ...

... And, Mare, keep in mind that you were once physiologically male yourself, and you are also arguing the pro-abortion position to diabolically control women.

You would do well to lose your "poor us" victim mentality. It's dumbing you down.

You may quote science, religion, tradition, or your granny's biscuit recipe

Irrelevant, inapplicable and erroneous in your guilt-by-association assumption.

No one rationally quotes, religion, tradition or recipes to determine when a person begins to live.

The answer to your implied multiple-choice question is simply not all of the above as you would choose.

People rationally quote only science, the valid reference in this matter, to determine when a person begins to live.

Thus the answer to your implied multiple-choice question is A, science.

That is the only right answer.

and none of it will change the ugly fact that no one wants the babies you are trying to make OTHER people birth and care for.

Erroneous and inapplicable.

You have no idea who would not want to adopt the babies born to those who do not want them. You are thus in error when you say that no one wants those babies. In fact, many infertile couples would give the world to raise one of these children.

A truly ugly fact in this matter is the fact that you completely ignore your murderous pro-abortion position, saying as you in effect do, that it would be better to murder these people pre-natally than to allow them the opportunity to enjoy living in the home of truly loving adopted parents.

And another truly ugly fact in this matter is the fact that you advocate murderous abortion as birth control.

And another truly ugly fact in this matter is the fact that you advocate murderous abortion as population management.

You ignore the foundational overriding right-to-life truth that makes murderous abortion wrong, simply to meet your social planning objective.

That's meniacally ugly, Mare.

Again, the only person coercing women is the pro-abortionist.

People who don't want to raise and care for children or adopt them out simply need to prevent co-creating newly conceived people. That way they don't have to murderously abort them, murderous abortion being the ugliest fact of this matter.

Do I recognize the saddness of this situation? Of course,

Whether you recognize the sadness of murderous abortion is a matter of rational conjecture.

That you obviously think it's sadder for a child to have less than a perfect world of parenting than to murder that person to prevent that person from enduring less than a perfect world of parenting, that's what's truly sad, Mare, and the fact of your position in the matter renders your statement that you find murderous abortion sad to be suspect.

and to that end I've never had an abortion.

Part of your statement here is a laughable lie.

Your implication is that you, as a non-sexually functing surgically modified transsexual, have never had an abortion, though you "could have had if you had gotten pregnant".

The fact of the matter is that you, while you were physiologically a male, could never have gotten pregnant.

The fact of the matter is that since your surgery to make you physiologically female resulted in damage that prevents you from ever becomming pregnant, as you've previously admitted, so to state that you've "never had an abortion" as if you could have and simply would never choose it, is dishonest based on your lack of full disclosure that you could never have an abortion because you could never become pregnant.

But ... if you are stating your position as a man who has previously co-created as a man with a woman a newly conceived person, then your statement would hold merit if you declined to commit murderous abortion with her.

You need to be clear about what you mean, Mare, if you wish to be believed instead of laughed at.

I don't intend to try to convince you, nor should you try to convince me--

You can't convince me of anything. The facts and truth alone convince me ... and the've convinced me that I have accurately presented them.

I have no illusions that I can convince a utilitarian moral relativist of the intrinsic value of an ontological honest foundation that respects the truth with which to epistemologically gather accurate facts.

I discuss the matter, and I debate your erroneous presentation, to thereby educate the many people who read this thread and are not posting in it.

we disagree and there it will remain till the culture we live in makes a committment to caring for all the mother's and babies (in which case I'll support the new way)

Yes, we disagree.

I am against murdering people because they live in a less than ideal environment.

You advocate murderous abortion to prevent people from living in a less than ideal environment.

Oh, we disagree -- and do we.

(in which case I'll support the new way)

Translation: "I, Mare, am threatening everyone with murderous abortion until you make everyone's environment a perfect place to live."

Wow -- really rational, Mare.

I doubt anyone will cave to your terrorist blackmail ransom.

or till you guys get reincarnated as women and learn what the world is really like from our position.

Irrelevant hyperbole.

And your continued co-victimization with women who can by nature become pregnant ... is rather amusing ... and sad.

Have a nice day.

Translation: "F*** off. "

That's what you're really saying, Mare, and I know it.

It is, of course, irrelevant.

And if you two could get together to write a response I bet it will be a doozy. With Pale's overbearing, self-important rhetoric propped up with Chip's Pop Psychological jargon--whew! You guys might be formidable...

Erroneous and topically relevant ad hominem.

The fact that you resort to slander via attempted character assassination sans impossible-to-obtain rational proof, without posting any relevant topic matter, only means that the facts of truth which we present have obviously reduced you to a state of psychological surrender, and unjustified character bashing is the only thing you have left before complete capitulation.

but still not convincing.

Translation: "I, Mare, am done -- I just can't handle any more truth."

 

[Hobo1]

"Only science has the authority to answer the scientific question of, in this relevant case, whether a person is alive at conception.
And science has answered that air-tightly with a resounding YES!
Your belittlement by association sophistry has been defeated, Hobo1." ~Chip​

From your knowledge of science, do you believe that a virus is alive?

 

[Chip]

"Only science has the authority to answer the scientific question of, in this relevant case, whether a person is alive at conception.
And science has answered that air-tightly with a resounding YES!
Your belittlement by association sophistry has been defeated, Hobo1." ~Chip​

From your knowledge of science, do you believe that a virus is alive?

Irrelevant and divertive.

I will not "assist" you in your concoction of more sophistry.

You need to read the opening post in this thread that presents the unconjecturable scientific presentation that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

Then you need to attempt posting scientific refutation that is germane and directly responsive to the points stipulated in the opening post.

Attempt to do that.

That's relevant.

 

[Dr.Who]

You have responded here to my statement that "Our rights exist whether or not[]erstandably, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

If your psychological depth analysis of MT's innermost thoughts and feelings is correct then you are dealing with some very soul-touching issues and insensitivity could be deeply hurtful. If not you are just a blowhard.

Do you suppose that some care toward a fellow human being could be called for?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Translation: "I, Mare, am done -- I just can't handle any more truth."

Truth, schmuth, your "truth" is totally irrelevant. Women shoud have the choice. When you say that men like Top are controlling women to commit murder, that's a lie. All any of us are saying is that women should have the choice--not be forced either way. You and your Pale friend wish to force women and deny them a choice.

I'm not arguing with any of your "truth", I'm just saying that I disagree with your coercive conclusion.

What your posts say is that women need to be controlled or they will make incorrect choices--that's patriarchal dog-fuzz, and nothing more. Let women choose.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The fact of the matter is that since your surgery to make you physiologically female resulted in damage that prevents you from ever becomming pregnant, as you've previously admitted, so to state that you've "never had an abortion" as if you could have and simply would never choose it, is dishonest based on your lack of full disclosure that you could never have an abortion because you could never become pregnant.

Full disclosure? Gimme a f'king break, I've given more full disclosure than any one of you. It's no secret, I post who and what I am with no restrictions. I must be doing a good job of it too, because you seem to have all the information, don't you? And what do you do with that information? You try disingenuously to attack me. Cheap shot, Pop.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If your psychological depth analysis of MT's innermost thoughts and feelings is correct then you are dealing with some very soul-touching issues and insensitivity could be deeply hurtful. If not you are just a blowhard.

Do you suppose that some care toward a fellow human being could be called for?

Thank you.