A Conception's Right To Life

[Chip]

Re: Chip

You continue to equate a clump of cells with a living human being.

You continue to belittlingly demean newly conceived human beings with the irrelevant ad hominem of "a clump of cells" simply so you can advocate murdering them with abortion and not feel guilty for doing so.

You continue to refuse to admit that you've read the opening post in this thread that clearly presents the science of the matter that unconjecturably has presented long ago that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

You continue to refuse to post a logical, rational, premise and conclusion presentation in accurately in-context scientific terms to refute the accurate valid science of the opening post.

You dismiss all contrary comments as irrelevant.

False.

I dismiss irrelevant commentary as irrelevant.

Until you pony up the scientific presentation in the similar form as the opening post that substantively refutes the science of the opening post, your pro-abortionist's sophistry remains simply irrelevant.

You engage in ad hominem attacks.

Absolutely false as stated with implication.

You need to read the opening post in this thread, and especially catch that part at the bottom of the opening post where it states that the psychology of the posters is fair game in this thread.

Your purpose is apparently not to hold any sort of dialogue, but appears to be to provide those who disagree with you with a lecture.

Your adolescent conclusion is erroneous.

I'm waiting for you to read the opening post and pony up a valid scientific retort.

Only then is topically relevant dialogue possible with you.

You came into this thread as if you could ignore the science of the opening post and simply spew your ubiquitous moral relativistic utilitarian pro-abortionist sophistry all over this thread and not be called on it's erroneousness and your emotional denial of the reality of murderous abortion.

Your expectations are thusly unrealistic, and justifiably so.

Can you provide us with any substantive reasons why we should take you seriously?

Irrelevant.

Your projection here, however, is good advice for me to simply dismiss your presentation as inconsequential until you can address the topical relevancy of the science of the opening post with an equally valid premise-conclusion scientific presentation of your own.

 

[Chip]

Re: Chip

Now can we start discussing sentience, and at what stage sentience that might reasonably be called begins, and what criteria might be used to make that judgement?

DNA and life scientists do not employ a "sentience test" to determine if an entity is human and alive and is thus a human being.

The "sentience test" is thus just another in a long list of pro-abortionist sophistries whereby the sophister employs the egregious bias of ageism in a ludicrous attempt to justify murdering that person on demand.

Your idiosyncratic sophistrical attempt is therefore rejected by science itself.

You can start discussing sentience all you want, but your mental masturbation might only make you feel better, a little less guilty, maybe, for a short while ... until you realize how topically irrelevant "sentience" truly is in the matter.

 

[samsara15]

Chip, the Wiki article you quote does not say what you claim it does at all, and you have twisted it to say what you want it to mean. You misquote scientists to serve your purposes. 'Ageism"? You folks are forced to create new, amusing, terms in order to support your ideas! I feel no guilt. If you feel guilt, it should be about War and Capital Punishment, not abortion.

Please feel free to dismiss me as irrelevant, Chip, if it so pleases you to do so - I find your views equally irrelevant.

Nonetheless, people such as me vote also, stupid and/or misinformed though we may be, and you may have noted that supporters of your views did not fare very well in the elections recently. Do you wonder why that might be? Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be somewhat extreme?

 

[samsara15]

One other point, Chip. If you want to go anywhere with this POV, then like it or not, and apparently you do not like it, me and lots of people similar to me are the very people you need to persuade, because we are the supporters of abortion who vote against your views, and if you can get anywhere with us, your view will carry the day. Based on what I have seen so far, you ar not headed in that direction.

 

[palerider]

It's easy to see you are too emotionally invested to face nearly any of the realities of the situation you are in. It's like watching you treading water floating in the ocean AFTER your ship has already sank screaming... Don't worry my boat is about to resurface and save me.

You believe that pointing out your logical fallacy indicates that I am emotionally invested? Are you on crack? It is you who is so emotionally invested that you disregard the facts and throw reason out of the window and present one logical fallacy after anoher in an attempt to justify your postion.

Not happening my friend.

What isn't happening is you presenting a rational argument in support of your position.

Boy you do have problems with numbers![/qipte]

No problems here.

According to the Gutmacher Institute (a liberal body by the way) 31% favor abortion being "generally" available on demand while 69% favor restricting abortion. The more detailed the poll, the fewer who favor abortion on demand. Some highly detailed polls offering a large number of choices reveal that given sufficient choices, as few as 9% favor abortion on demand.
A recent Harris poll stated that 82% favored some restriction on abortion and 9% favored abortion on demand. It is you who has the problem with numbers.
But then, it is you who is overemotional to the point that you disregard facts in favor of what you wish.

Unfortunately for you an abortion ban isn't written into the Constitution and even if it were the system is set up with an easy remedy to amend it.

Neither is a right to abortion. Your point? You have no point. You are a parrot on a stick repeating its legal as if that represented a rational argument.

In a democracy right & wrong (from a legal perspective) is determined by it's people. The majority have a right to create rules and laws that they wish to be governed by. Since not everyone will agree this is the best system there is.

So slavery was right? According to you, slavery was just and right. Is that what you are saying/

As far as slavery it was wrong and just like the Anti-Woman ban on women's reproductive rights was overturned 36 years ago.

So now you contradict yourself. First you say that whatever the majority favor is right and then you admit that whatever the majority favor isn't necessarily just or right. Then you go on to suggest, with no supporting evidence that one's right to live is less fundamental than one's theoretical right to not be inconvenienced. It is all fallacy and emotion with you isn't it?

Not at all. The fact that you say that you are not does not change that fact that you are. You present the textbook religious line.

Do feel free to provide any religious argument from me. You lie topgun. When it is clear that you can't present a rational argument, you jump straight to lying and fabricating about your opponent.

Well as we've covered this ground thousands of times you know that there are all kinds of exemptions in law for killing... even killing the innocent. The killing at times comes from the pregnancy as well. Maybe all pregnancies should be terminated because this sometimes happens. But in reality it's a personal judgment call... and that judgement is called Pro-Choice.

Of course we went over it and you lost back then, and you will lose again. First, you seem to be fallaciously arguing that two wrongs somehow can make a right. Then you beg the question and simply assume that those being "killed" are being killed without judicial review. Still no rational argument from you..

Yes you are a very bad looser and hate the 36 year precedent of women's reproductive rights so in your down time from Clinic Creeping you type the word "fallacy" a lot to make yourself believe time they are a changin'!

Typical juvenile response. Do you type it with a pee wee herman accent? You have yet to present a rational argument and it is you who has resorted to lying in an attempt to score a point. It is you who is the bad loser. Having yourfallacy pointed out results in you lashing out against me. That is poor losing towelie. Rationally exposing your fallacies and irrationalities does not constitute bad losing, it constitutes winning.

No actually slaves were considered human beings that could be owned as property... be it with a perceived worth of only 3/5 the value of White people. [/qote]

Sorry, but once again, you simply lack the historical knowledge required to make a rational argument. No black was ever considered 3/5th of a human being. The 3/5th compromize was an agreement between the north and the south in which 3/5ths of the slave poplation would be counted only for enumeration purposes for the distribution of taxes and the appoointment of members of the house of representatives. The south wanted all of the slaves to count towards tax distribution and the number of representatives they got in the house. The 3/5th conpromize had nothing to do with the humanity of slaves or of their human rights. They were not considered to be human beings until after the civil war.

Yep... me and that United States Supreme Court for the last 36 years... just one big fallacy fest! Must really make you mad that they just ignore all your BS.

You don't seem to realize that the facts are not being ignored. Federal law is on a head on collision with itself. Under federal law, unborns are both human and non human, persons and non persons. Do feel free to offer up a rational resolution to that topgun. Again, keep on believing. Nothing will be finer for me than to see your reaction to being completely blindsided even after you have been exposed to the facts.

Doesn't say conception... you are reading into that. At the time of creation refers to WHEN ALL THINGS BEGAN... THE BEGINING OF TIME not a sexual act resulting in pregnancy. And again in the period, life "as a full person" was considered at birth.

Conception and creation are synonyms. Dictionaries and thesarus from the period are availble. Avail yourself to them and become educated. Denial on your part or your own intelletual limitations doesn't change that fact.

 

[palerider]

I have proven your definition of human refers to the dead. Reductio ad absurdum

And I pointed out to you that the law also recognizes the dead as both human and persons. You still have not supported a single part of your argument with anything beyond your own opinion and your opinion doesn't constitute proof of anything.

T

hat argument has nothing to do with your three points, nor my arguments. It is a digression that goes into legal terminology of death.

You were the one who is trying to prove that the fact of death somehow invalidates the legal definition of person. The fact is that the attempt to bring death into the discussion was nothing more than a red herring on your part. I only humored you because I knew beforehand that the law recognizes the dead as persons and humans.

You are the one who considers dead humans to be covered by the constitution. That is the basis of your arguments.[/qote]

I never said that dead humans are covered by the constitution. That is your fabrication.

You are the one carrying on that silly argument. I am showing you how silly it is.

Well, you are showing how silly you are and how desperate you must be to make some sort of point no matter how invalid. Tell you what. If you figure out how to kill the dead, then we can have a discussion about their right not to be killed.

Yes, you are correct that the dead have rights. The 14th amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

And that has nothing at all with any part of our discussion. I am not arguing for unborns to have the rights of citizens.

As you said, the dead are humans. Therefore they are persons according to Black.

And?

14th Amendment Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

So according to your argument, representation for states should be based on the population of the cemeteries too. Pregnant women should be counted twice.

Beggiing the question and assuming that I said that the constitution protects the dead. You are desperate aren't you?

So by your argument, dead people of both sexes have the right to vote.

Check the rolls. Dead republicans very often vote democrat and dead democrats vote neary every cycle.

I am still waiting for a credible argument. You can't explain away the absurdities to which your argument leads.

Your argument is logical fallacy. You are begging the question and simply assuming that I have said a thing that I have not said. In addition, it represents a strawman that you have set up on your own. Bring forward a quote from me stating that the dead are protected by the constitution, or get yourself a new argument.

 

[palerider]

This isn't true either, Pale, a number of countries and some States allow physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients in great pain.

When unborns request abortion, let me know. And killing a patient isn't a medical procedure. It is killing a patient.

 

[palerider]

A zygote is not yet a human being.

Prove that and you are the hero of the pro choice movement. So lets see your proof. I can provide plenty of credible material stating explicitly that unborns at any stage of development are human beings, lets see your credible material that states explicitly that the offspring of two human beings is something other than a human being.

It is merely a clump of dividing human cells. It cannot think, and it cannot form the concept 'I". It denigrates the definition of a human being to label a fertilized egg as a human being.

First, there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, neither egg nor sperm exist as such. In their place is a new human being. Now lets see your proof to challenge this scientific fact.

It shows a deep and abiding contempt for those who have been murdered in the sad course of human history to label a three month human embryo a human being.

Primarily it shows a profound lack of education on the topic of developmental biology on your part; and a tendency towards hysterical handwringing.

 

[samsara15]

An unborn has no opinion, because it has very little 'mind' with which to have an opinion, so that argument is a straightforwad appeal to emotionalism, simple demagogueism.

 

[palerider]

I will fill you in. Essentially the argument of the anti-choice movement represented here is that scientists refer to "human zygotes". They are human because of the deoxyribonucleic acid, a chemical template for humans.

Blatant lie. Scientists refer to human beings. Even when they refer to the zygote, they state that it is a human being.

The next step is that Black's Law Dictionary defines "person" as "human", therefore any mention of person in the constitution means human, and therefore a zygote. They also consider that frozen zygotes and dead people are human too.

More lies. Black's defines person as a human being.

How do you expect to score a point in this debate if you find that you must lie about the most basic elements?

 

[Pandora]

An unborn has no opinion, because it has very little 'mind' with which to have an opinion, so that argument is a straightforwad appeal to emotionalism, simple demagogueism.

Using that line of thought a newborn is the same, they are as helpless as an unborn. they will not survive without help.

 

[palerider]

My problem is that I have just finished taking a biology course. What emerges from meiosis is not yet a human being, by my definition of the term.

Your problem is that you believe your personal definition has any bearing on the issue.

It is not yet concious, in any sense of the way we define consciousness. DNA is not yet a human being.

If you have just finished a course in biology, you should realize that a zygote is more than DNA.

What apparently drives the anti-abortion people seems to be emotion, not reason. Emotion so strong that it will attempt to use any means to achieve ideological victory.

You also aren't very observant. It is the anti choice side that is sticking to hard scientific and legal facts. It is the pro choice side that is lying, attacking, and arguing one logical fallacy after another and you are no different. If you had looked at this thread, what would be apparent is that one side is presenting facts and then supporting them with credible materials and one side is not. Which side is apparently stuck with nothing more than an emotional defense?

 

[palerider]

Re: Chip

You continue to equate a clump of cells with a living human being. You dismiss all contrary comments as irrelevant. You engage in ad hominem attacks. Your purpose is apparently not to hold any sort of dialogue, but appears to be to provide those who disagree with you with a lecture. Can you provide us with any substantive reasons why we should take you seriously?

My position is that an unborn at any stage of development is a human being. I hold an advanced degree in a biological science but even so, would never expect for anyone to accept my statement without corroborating evidence so here is just a small sample of the corroborating evidence that I have to offer:

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company), 2-18.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

So there is some of my evidence. Medical shool textbooks used to teach the subjects of embryology, fetology, developmental biology, and OB/Gyn and highly respected, peer reviewed medical journals.

Now I will congratulate you on completing a course in biology, but if I as one who holds an advanced degree in a biological science don't expect that my claims be taken at face value, surely you as one who completed a course in biology don't expect that your claims will be taken at face value do you?

Lets see some credible material stating explicitly that the offspring of two human beings is at some point, something other than a human being. Either provide the evidence or admit that you were mistaken when you said that early unborns are not human beings. Are you grown up and intelligent enough to admit when you are wrong?

 

[palerider]

Re: Chip

Very good.

Now can we start discussing sentience, and at what stage sentience that might reasonably be called begins, and what criteria might be used to make that judgement?

Prove that sentience is what makes a human being, a human being. Lagboltz tried it and found that he couldn't support the argument. Maybe you will fare better.

 

[Chip]

Chip, the Wiki article you quote does not say what you claim it does at all,

Erroneous and irrelevant.

I have not quoted a "Wiki article", despite you pro-abortionist's continued lame attempt to stipulate such an irrelevant absolute nothing.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation, then post it.

and you have twisted it to say what you want it to mean.

False.

Since your premise is false, your conclusion is false.

The clear, accurate, scientific reality is derived purely from an accurate application of the scientific method presents beyond rational conjecture that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, and that is what I've posted in the opening post, pure and simple.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation, then post it.

You misquote scientists to serve your purposes.

False on both counts.

I'm not misquoting anyone.

I chose to defend the legitimate science of the opening post against the ubiquitous sophistry presented by you pro-abortionists, "it" does not defend my "purposes", ... though your projection here indicates that you concoct your pro-abortionist's sophistry in hope of serving your purposes.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation, then post it.

'Ageism"? You folks are forced to create new, amusing, terms in order to support your ideas!

False.

We aren't "forced" to do anything.

And, ageism isn't new, though you'd like to belittling demean it with such a fantasy to suit your pro-abortionist purposes.

The fact is that age descrimination -- ageism -- happens all the time ... and my guess is that you pro-abortionists are specifically just as murder-happy with regard to the very old as you are with regard to the very young here.

Why you people are so obsessed with lopping off the chronological ends of the human race is an interesting study in phobia-based neurotic competition for what you may deem as scarce material resources.

But murder by any other name would smell as foul.

And the fact that you find it amusing to be called on your murderous advocation by the precise bias -- ageism -- that you employ as an irrationalization for murderous abortion ... really does imply a sociopathic element to your position.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically refutation to the opening post, then post it.

I feel no guilt.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

If you do feel guilt from time to time regarding your support of murderous abortion, then that's normal, and to your credit.

If you don't feel guilt about your support of murderous abortion, then such emotional detachment is reflective of psychopathology.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically refutation to the opening post, then post it.

If you feel guilt,

I feel no guilt about any of my pro-life positions.

Your assumption is, as usual for a pro-abortionist, erroneous.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically refutation to the opening post, then post it.

it should be about War

False, and, irrelevant.

Here you illustrate further the typical pro-abortionist tactic of straying from the point to escape a losing argument.

But, briefly, I feel no guilt about war because I don't support non-defensive war. I oppose the Iraq war because that was merely GWB and the neo-cons murderous thievery of Iraq's oil distribution rights. No matter how much we needed to receive our continuous share of Iraqi crude that Saddam was planning on selling to the Chinese as soon as sanctions against him changing trading partners ended, Bush's blatant murderous attack to prevent the depression-causing loss of that irreplaceable light sweet Iraqi crude is inexcusable.

I also oppose the tactics employed in Afghanistan to ferret out Osama bin Laden, tactics which employ indiscriminate bombing that cost the lives of innocent people, many of whom are little children.

So you see, Samsara15, I have nothing here to feel guilty about.

You, murderous pro-abortionist, on the other hand ... ... .

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically refutation to the opening post, then post it.

and Capital Punishment,

False, and, irrelevant.

Here, once again, you illustrate further the typical pro-abortionist tactic of straying from the point to escape a losing argument.

But, briefly, I feel no guilt about capital punishment because I oppose capital punishment, plain and simple. Capital punishment is merely state-sponsored murder, as premeditatively intentionally killing an un-armed convict who is bound and guarded and thus presents no immediate threat to anyone simply cannot be irrationalized as "self defense" in any sense of the word, and thus, true to my pro-life philosophy, I find such sociological murder to be horrific.

So you see, Samsara15, I have nothing here to feel guilty about here either.

Now don't you feel silly about your erroneous assumptions? You should.

You, murdeorus pro-abortionist, on the other hand ... ... .

Your diversions remain irrelevant. The subject is about the right to life of pre-natal people. Try to stick to the topic, if you can.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically refutation to the opening post, then post it.

not abortion.

Obviously erroneous.

It is beyond rational common sense to assume that I would feel guilty about abortion!?

You are obviously projecting again, as logically the only people who should feel guilt in this matter are those pro-abortionists who support murderous abortion.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically refutation to the opening post, then post it.