A Conception's Right To Life

[Mare Tranquillity]

And yet, she, like you, can't come up with a rational argument in support of her positon. You guys just stand around and pat each other on the back till the cows come home and roe is struck down. Your outrage will be all the sweeter because you simply would not see it coming.

Your denial does not make our positions any less rational. Your "no sir, no sir" position makes you sound like George Bush, he mistook stubborness for being right too.

 

[top gun]

palerider;82724]Really. The key word is individuals. Introduction of war and war related issues into a discussion on abortion is a logical fallacy known as a red herring. Sorry, but you lose again. But what else is new? If you had a rational argument in support of your position, you would have made it already.

Not at all you're just squirming as usual. An innocent little child killed by what was forecasted to be definite & foreseen collateral damage has no due process. You were whining about due process. I just easily pointed out that isn't always a factor.

You can't win... you lost years ago.

If you had done your research, you would know that was patently untrue. Of course it is soon to change. For the past 36 years, the argument has revolved around a woman's theoretical right to terminate a potential human being. No court has stated that a woman has the right to kill another human being. Cases are on the way that will force the court to consider what is being terminated rather than the theoretical right to termiate it and Justice Blackmun already predicted the outcome in the original roe decision. Do you need to see it again?

My friend I told you years ago when Bush and the Republican even had FULL control... ain't never gonna happen! And one reason is because nobody really wants it to happen. Those who pushed this would only be quickly put out of office and legislation would breeze through allowing a woman's right to choose.

Keep on screamin'... after all this time and you have nothing knew you amuse me.

Sorry, but I won't indulge you in your logical fallacies. Red herrings are not welcome here. If you can't argue your case on the face of the facts, then you can't argue your case.

You are getting nowhere fast... but then that's the pattern you're stuck in I guess... you don't know any better.

None the less; they do represent legal precedent for allowing one human being to use another's bodily resources. Take a look at roe if you want to see "completely different things" being used to justify their decision. Hell, they reference the Bible for a supreme court decision.

No... not "none the less"! The difference between your twin analogy and woman to fertilized egg is competely faulty and withoout comparison nor merit.

And who's to say there wouldn't be a hundred other things on the woman's side the court wouldn't reconsider. It's not going to happen... I'm kinda starting to feel sorry for ya.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. If a pair of twins are sharing a heart for example, DNA tests would determine that it belongs to the body of one, but not the other. They are separate individuals even though they are connected and sharing resources.

UR insane. There is NO comparison to this and a woman at time of conception... NONE!

You're way to invested in this loosing battle my friend. I'll be around. Let's take another year... or two years... or three years... however much you want... and see if I don't continue to be in line with the courts continuing ruling.

I have no doubt... and I do understand you are emotionally upset about that.

Time will tell.

 

[top gun]

And yet, she, like you, can't come up with a rational argument in support of her positon. You guys just stand around and pat each other on the back till the cows come home and roe is struck down. Your outrage will be all the sweeter because you simply would not see it coming.

Pale I want to help you. Get out of the house for awhile, go have a drink or go out to eat... something. You must be very lonely just you and the computer?

That's the problem with being a "One Trick Pony"... after so long no one really cares to watch that one trick anymore.

 

[palerider]

Not at all you're just squirming as usual. An innocent little child killed by what was forecasted to be definite & foreseen collateral damage has no due process. You were whining about due process. I just easily pointed out that isn't always a factor.

Sorry topgun. I don't squirm. There is no need. I can provide credible material to support each and every part of my argument while to date, you have provided nothing that supports yours. I am perfectly comfortable with my position because it is fully supported. Your fantasy that I am squirming is nothing more and nothing less than your own disccomfort with the fact that you simply can't support your arguments. Were we in a court of law, you would be laughed out for lack of evidene and your worthyness at the bar would be in serious question.

And what you pointed out was nothing but a logical fallacy. A red herring proves nothing and your red herring seems to be trynig to prove that two wrongs make a right. Logical fallacy heaped upon logical fallacy.

You can't win... you lost years ago.

Lost years ago? The real fight hasn't even started. To date, the argument has revolved around a woman's theoretical right. The real fight begins when attention turns to what is being terminated.

Tell me topgun, what credible evidence do you suppose that the pro choice side can present that proves that unborns are something other than living human beings? What do you suppose thier argument will consist of. What I have presented to prove that unborns are living human beings is just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine day after day after day of the top scientists in their fields testifying that unborns are living human beings and providing ream upon ream of research to prove it.

Your whole argument rests on a faulty assumption made by judges with an agenda that unborns were not human beings. Neither you, nor anyone on the pro choice side can offer up anything at all to support that faulty assumption.

Justice Blackmun saw the handwriting on the wall 36 years ago when he wrote: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

At that time, there was no case that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment and our scientific knowledge with regard to developmental biology was quite small and very unclear when compared to what we know today.

Today, a large body of case law can be sited that holds that unborns are persons within the meaning of the 14th amendment. People are in prison having been charged separately and specifically for killing unborns and one can not even be charged, much less tried and convicted in this country for any sort of criminal homicide unless one has, in fact, killed a person. Thirty four states have legislated laws that recognize unborns as human beings and federal law recognizes unborns at any stage of development as living human beings.

What is your argument against the case law, the state and federal laws and sciene topgun? "Its legal?" Good luck with that.

My friend I told you years ago when Bush and the Republican even had FULL control... ain't never gonna happen! And one reason is because nobody really wants it to happen. Those who pushed this would only be quickly put out of office and legislation would breeze through allowing a woman's right to choose.

You seem to be under the impression that the president, or congress, or the senate can reverse a supreme court decision. You should check the constitution.

Keep on screamin'... after all this time and you have nothing knew you amuse me.

Unlike you, I don't need anything new. My argument remains unscathed. It is fully supported by both science and the law. It is you and yours who keep trying something new.

And I suppose Copernicus and Galileo amused the church for a time as well. Be amused. As I said, it will make your outrage at being wrong all the sweeter for me.

You are getting nowhere fast... but then that's the pattern you're stuck in I guess... you don't know any better.

My arguments are fully supported by science and the law. I don't need to guess. Yours are supported by exactly squat. Who is really guessing?

No... not "none the less"! [/B]The difference between your twin analogy and woman to fertilized egg is competely faulty and withoout comparison nor merit.

There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. If you knew the first thing about developmental biology, you would know that the term fertilized egg is one that in common usage lets people who really don't know jack about biology pretend that they do. We have known for quite some time that there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. We know beyond conjeture that upon the completion of fertilization, a new human being exists.

That being said, I have made no analogy between women and fictitious creatures like fertilized eggs. Have you ever read legal arguments? In a case about 9 years ago over the separation of conjoined twins, the judges themselves compared the pair of twins to men jumping out of an airplane, one with a good chute and one without and the one without grabbing onto the leg of the one with the chute causing both to fall at a deadly speed. The argument was whether the one with the chute had the right to shake the other off. What could possibly be more different from conjoined twins than men jumping from a plane.

In all instances we are talking about a clash of rights between individuals and in all circumstances, the right of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other.

And who's to say there wouldn't be a hundred other things on the woman's side the court wouldn't reconsider. It's not going to happen... I'm kinda starting to feel sorry for ya.

So name a few. Name a right that one human could invoke that would trump the right of another human being to live other than the right to self defense if the one is an imminent threat to the life of the other. If there are "a hundred" other things, you really shouldn't have any problem listing off a few. Lets hear them.

Your pity is misplaced. It is really self pity projected onto me. I can support my argument while you have nothing but your own uneducated, uncorroborated, unsupported opinion.

UR insane. There is NO comparison to this and a woman at time of conception... NONE!

Of course you can provide some credible evidence to support your claiim that the mother and child are not separate individuals? Of course you can't because it is settled science. Insane is attempting to refute hard science with an uneducated opinion.

You're way to invested in this loosing battle my friend. I'll be around. Let's take another year... or two years... or three years... however much you want... and see if I don't continue to be in line with the courts continuing ruling.

Every day science provides more facts to prove me right. Every day the body of legal precedent establishing, beyond question, the personhood of the unborn. Every day my case gets stronger while yours grows more mewlingly weak.

I have no doubt... and I do understand you are emotionally upset about that.

It is you who is making the enotional argument, not me,

Time will tell.

Check your history, time always favors the side who has the facts on their side.

 

[palerider]

Pale I want to help you. Get out of the house for awhile, go have a drink or go out to eat... something. You must be very lonely just you and the computer?

NAh. It just takes minutes to tear your arguments down. I type about 115 words per minute. Don't worry about me, I have a full social life.

That's the problem with being a "One Trick Pony"... after so long no one really cares to watch that one trick anymore.

Specialization. That is the key to winning. It is why every argument you and yours put up is so easily shown to be fallacious. I know the facts while you are left trying to fabricate one plausable argument after another.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Specialization. That is the key to winning. It is why every argument you and yours put up is so easily shown to be fallacious. I know the facts while you are left trying to fabricate one plausable argument after another.

Specialization is for insects. Too narrow a viewpoint makes you myopic. I think Top Gun is right, until the world makes places for all the babies--something which you not only deny the need for, but won't even discuss. As long as all the onus is put on women there will be abortions, you make the situation worse not better with your demands for draconian laws to punish women alone for the crimes of the whole culture. The Nazis blamed the Jews, whites have blamed blacks, the blame-game is an old one and you are carrying on a foul, religious tradition deeply-rooted in Christianity even though you attempt to spin it as being "rational".

 

[palerider]

Specialization is for insects. Too narrow a viewpoint makes you myopic.

Sorry, but you are wrong. There is simply too much to know and do these days and no one can do it all. Each person must find what they are best at and do it to the best of their ability.

I own a few dozen acres of land and run a small farm in additon to my regular job, and do most of the work here from caring for the livestock to making horseshoes, to reparing the tractor to building my wife a new sunroom on the house, in additon, I play a pretty mean classical guitar and am not to bad with a set of watercolors. There isn't much place in the world today for that sort of diversity. If I were not a specialist at work, there would be no place for me in the field of biochemistry. All fields are too big now and no one can know it all. Specialization is what brought us out of the jungle and speialization is what will take us to the stars.

I think Top Gun is right, until the world makes places for all the babies--something which you not only deny the need for, but won't even discuss.

I don't deny it and discussion is pointless. The fact that children are living in bad conditions is not a justification to kill. It is a completely irrational argument and stinks of elitism.

The Nazis blamed the Jews, whites have blamed blacks, the blame-game is an old one and you are carrying on a foul, religious tradition deeply-rooted in Christianity even though you attempt to spin it as being "rational".

The nazis blamed jews for fictitious offenses. I don't know what whites have blamed blacks for and much of the blame that modern blacks place on whites is alsofor fictitious ofenses. There is nothing fictitious about the 40 million children that have been killed in the past 36 years for reasons that very rarely amount to more than convenience.

You can claim my argument is religious all you like but until you can show any part of it that is, that is just another fabrication on your part. You have no rational argument and simply go about making up whatever you believe you can get to stick to the wall.

 

[top gun]

palerider;82819]

Lost years ago? The real fight hasn't even started. To date, the argument has revolved around a woman's theoretical right. The real fight begins when attention turns to what is being terminated.

My poor misguided friend. I've cut out all the pathetic "palerider" anti-woman repetitious rhetoric and just cut to the chase.

All of your "opinions" have been around for yeeeeeeeeears.

That being the case your pipe dream that... cases are snaking through the court system to overturn Roe as we speak is obviously way outdated.

The High Court has been open and doing it's business for 36 YEARS since the Roe decision. Every single case you make to overturn Roe has been out there in the public domain for yeeeeeeeears!

Yet no case has come to the Supreme Court and overturned Roe... and that's with years & years of even total Conservative Republican control. Your dog just ain't hunting my friend!

I'm willing to wait and watch your continuing upset if that's what you want...

But it's actually much more exciting to watch our new President walk hand in hand with his loving wife & his beautiful daughters down Pennsylvania Ave.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sorry, but you are wrong. There is simply too much to know and do these days and no one can do it all. Each person must find what they are best at and do it to the best of their ability. I own a few dozen acres of land and run a small farm in additon to my regular job, and do most of the work here from caring for the livestock to making horseshoes, to reparing the tractor to building my wife a new sunroom on the house, in additon, I play a pretty mean classical guitar and am not to bad with a set of watercolors. There isn't much place in the world today for that sort of diversity. If I were not a specialist at work, there would be no place for me in the field of biochemistry. All fields are too big now and no one can know it all. Specialization is what brought us out of the jungle and speialization is what will take us to the stars. I don't deny it and discussion is pointless. The fact that children are living in bad conditions is not a justification to kill. It is a completely irrational argument and stinks of elitism. The nazis blamed jews for fictitious offenses. I don't know what whites have blamed blacks for and much of the blame that modern blacks place on whites is alsofor fictitious ofenses. There is nothing fictitious about the 40 million children that have been killed in the past 36 years for reasons that very rarely amount to more than convenience. You can claim my argument is religious all you like but until you can show any part of it that is, that is just another fabrication on your part. You have no rational argument and simply go about making up whatever you believe you can get to stick to the wall.

I think the elitism is being shown by the person in this discussion who is blaming others and denying any culpability. The claim to clean hands is elitist nonsense.

It's nice to know that we disagree on so many subjects, my pale friend, it gives us lots to argue about. If you knew only one field in biochemistry, then you would be specialized. Knowing the broad range of things you listed makes my point for me very nicely. Thank you.

 

[palerider]

My poor misguided friend. I've cut out all the pathetic "palerider" anti-woman repetitious rhetoric and just cut to the chase.

All of your "opinions" have been around for yeeeeeeeeears.[/auote]

Perhaps you can provide the case law to prove it. Of course you can't because it has never come before the court. I am afraid that I can't explain why it took the anti abortion on demand side so long to figure out the key to overturning wade, but at long last, they did. The first cases should be ariving at the supreme court within the year.

Like I said. You keep on wishing and believing and I will stick to the facts.

 

[palerider]

I think the elitism is being shown by the person in this discussion who is blaming others and denying any culpability. The claim to clean hands is elitist nonsense./quote]

I have never killed a child nor had any part iin killing a child. And if the ones being blamed are indeed guilty, exactly what is the problem. The elitist believes that certain people are above blame. That describes you, not me.

It's nice to know that we disagree on so many subjects, my pale friend, it gives us lots to argue about. If you knew only one field in biochemistry, then you would be specialized. Knowing the broad range of things you listed makes my point for me very nicely. Thank you.

Actually it proves you wrong but I wouldn't expect for you to see it. Way back when we were beasts in the fields, we did it all, and as a result, we were just beasts iin the field. Then someone must have communicated the idea that if you will do this thing for us, then I will do that thing for us and the result is that more will get done. I get better clothes and you get more food. Specialization. And specialization. And specialization. How well do you believe you would do if you had to find your own food in the wild, make your own clothes and tools from what you could find in the wild, and treat your own illnesses with what you could find in the wild? I was trained to do it and trained others to do it and can tell you from painful experience, that you wouldn't do very well at all. Specialization is what brought us out of that and specialization has been behind every advance mankind has ever made.

By the way, the broad range of things I do at home would not make a very good living for me. They don't amount to much more than hobbies. It is my specialization that makes it possible for me to get beyond being a scratch farmer.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have never killed a child nor had any part iin killing a child. And if the ones being blamed are indeed guilty, exactly what is the problem. The elitist believes that certain people are above blame. That describes you, not me.

Elitism AND denial, nice! No one is above blame, not you or me.

Actually it proves you wrong but I wouldn't expect for you to see it. Way back when we were beasts in the fields, we did it all, and as a result, we were just beasts iin the field. Then someone must have communicated the idea that if you will do this thing for us, then I will do that thing for us and the result is that more will get done. I get better clothes and you get more food. Specialization. And specialization. And specialization. How well do you believe you would do if you had to find your own food in the wild, make your own clothes and tools from what you could find in the wild, and treat your own illnesses with what you could find in the wild? I was trained to do it and trained others to do it and can tell you from painful experience, that you wouldn't do very well at all. Specialization is what brought us out of that and specialization has been behind every advance mankind has ever made.

By the way, the broad range of things I do at home would not make a very good living for me. They don't amount to much more than hobbies. It is my specialization that makes it possible for me to get beyond being a scratch farmer.

Did you have a point to make?

 

[top gun]

palerider;82940]

Perhaps you can provide the case law to prove it. Of course you can't because it has never come before the court.

EXACTLY... thank you! In 36 long years it's never come before the High Court even though every single principle you espouse has been out there in the public domain (that means people have known about it) for most all of that time.

If this isn't some deep dark secret, everybody has heard about it, and still Roe stands... Then that dog won't hunt!

It's either not seen as a winable case or the High Court just simply won't hear it. Either way Roe stands.

Maybe you should consider adopting some children and actually try helping someone in that way. Just a thought...

 

[palerider]

Elitism AND denial, nice! No one is above blame, not you or me.

And yet, you just railed at me for placing blame on those who kill children rather than simply stating that yes, they are to blame for killing children.

Did you have a point to make?

Only that I am right and you, typically, are not. Emotionalism is what you rely on instead of intellect and your emotions will almost always steer you wrong.

 

[palerider]

B]EXACTLY... thank you![/B] In 36 long years it's never come before the High Court even though every single principle you espouse has been out there in the public domain (that means people have known about it) for most all of that time.

As I said, I can't explain why it has taken so long for the legal eagles to see the key to overturning roe. It has been there since day one. Maybe they had to wait until a body of legal precedent existed that actually answered the question of the personhood of the unborn. I couldn't say. That, however, isn't the issue. The issue now is that they have seen it and the issue is being pressed and the fact is, top gun, there is no longer a defense for the pro choice position. If there were, it could be found out on the internet and everyone on the pro choice side would be using it.

Your argument, and the argument of every pro choicer is based on the same flawed assumption that roe was decided on and there are just no facts that support that assumption that unborns are something other than living human beings.

Maybe you missed, or simply ignored the fact that recently, the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld a law requiring that abortion providers inform women seeking abortion that they were, in fact, considering killig a living human being. Numerous other states are pushing the same laws. Planned parenthood is appealing them as quickly as they can. Are you able to see where this is going? Eventually, the Supreme Court is going to have to make a ruling not on a woman's theoretical right to kill an unborn, but what an unborn actually is. The perponderance of the evidence is so great that even a court with a pro choice agenda won't be able to deny the facts.

Upon the Supreme Court upholding a states requirement that abortion providers inform women that abortion kills a living human being, the clock begins ticking in earnest for roe because at that point, even the Supreme Court has held that unborns are living human beings and therefore, in the eyes of the law, persons.

But hey, you keep on believing.

By the way, the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the law based on the very sort of evidence that I have been providing all along. WHen the facts are laid out, they simply can not be denied. Denied by a rational person anyway, and to the best of my knowledge, no one is accusing you of being rational.

Maybe you should consider adopting some children and actually try helping someone in that way. Just a thought...

Maybe you should come to the realization that red herrings don't constitute actual argument. What I do, or don't do for children (which you haven't the faintest idea one way or another) is irrelavent to the topic of abortion. If that sort of whining logical fallacy is the best you can do, why evern bother.