A Conception's Right To Life

[samsara15]

Palerider, where is your quote within this article? The one you cite on the Limit of Viability. The article appears to mainly deal with fetuses 22-25 weeks old. I fail to see your quote.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/22/1597

 

[Chip]

Please feel free to dismiss me as irrelevant, Chip, if it so pleases you to do so

Partially erroneous.

I don't find "you" irrelevant, Samsara15 -- on the contrary, being the pro-abortionist that you are, you are quite relevant.

What I find irrelevant and so easily dismiss is the way you continually stray from the point of the topic of this thread, which you do, I would guess, because you simply have nothing credible scientifically with which to reply.

Actually, though, what would really please me is for you to stay on-topic, so ...

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

I find your views equally irrelevant.

Irrational.

My views are spot-on topically.

That you would find them topically irrelevant is, obviously therefore, irrational of you.

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

Nonetheless, people such as me vote also, stupid and/or misinformed though we may be,

That was refreshing -- likely true on all counts -- ... though, still, topically irrelevant.

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

and you may have noted that supporters of your views did not fare very well in the elections recently.

Unsupported and irrelevant.

BHO's victory only means that McCain and Palin were deemed comparitively more unfit to govern in general. That's not a referendum in support of murderous abortion. To think so is ludicrous.

That some measures finally appeared on the ballots to declare the scientific truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception and thus are endowed with the unalienable right to life is a major step in and of itself.

Keep in mind, that new revelation takes time to become the norm.

The scientific reality presented in the opening post is only about thirty years old.

If you recall your history, once scientists determined that Earth was more round, not flat, it took a lot longer than that for the truth of it to be the majority view, as the handful that held power was too busy pandering to remain in power to support the newly revealed truth.

Likewise, though polls show that the majority today, without benefit of recently reading the science of the opening post, know that a human being begins to live at the moment of conception, and that with benefit of reading the science of the opening post the majority ascends percentage wise well into the nineties, it will take awhile before the power factions and those who pander to them for money give way to the overwhelming vast majority who support the scientific truth of the personhood of the newly conceived.

But, as history shows, where science speaks out in new revelation, people eventually accept that revelation as the way things are.

You pro-abortionists would do well to heed the truth now. It will save you much lifestyle readjustment and psychotherapy later.

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

Do you wonder why that might be?

Implication irrelevant.

As I just pointed out, round-Earthers, those who told the truth of the matter, did not receive immediate majority rule.

Neither did those who revealed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not vice versa as the erroneous powerful did at the time.

Progress takes time.

Regardless, polls do show that a growing majority, even without the benefit of specific relevant scientific review provided by the opening post in this thread, still accurately believe that a person begins to live at the moment of conception.

Once the presentation of the opening post in this thread makes its way into every home in America, what do you think will be the results? That's right: science will, once again, just like it did with regard to planetary shape and revolution, change the minds of the erroneous.

Tick tock, Samsara15.

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

Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be somewhat extreme?

No, because it's obvious that the truth is never "extreme".

on any scale, the truth in the middle is simply that, no matter how many people recognize the fact of it.

It's the ends of the scale, the dualistic polemic erroneous positions, that are, by definition, extreme.

Yours is an extreme position: you support murderous abortion. The support of murder is always extreme, as it violates the centered truth of the right to life of the murdered ... and the murder weapon used, in this case abortion, is irrelevant to the fact of murder itself.

Clearly, it is your view which is extreme, and, erroneous in its irrationalizations.

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

... Or be accurately judged merely another pro-abortionist sophister along with your predecessors in this thread.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Re: Chip

My position is that an unborn at any stage of development is a human being.

....And, most-people are well-aware of "conservatives'" concern for human beings.

​

"Some people have complained about this funding as "Our tax dollars being used" to promote "child killing". This funding is not to "encourage" poor countries to do abortions but instead this is to help poor clinics improve conditions for safe abortions.

Where were these people when "Our tax dollars" were used for Iraq war killing 4200+, wounded 30,000+ young Americans and killer 1.3 million+, wounded over 2 million Iraqis who nothing to do with 9/11." - Roger, NYC​

 

[samsara15]

Yep, we pro-abortionists are all stupid and evil, Chip, and can't see the logic of your rational, well-thought out position. Drat, I thought we might fool someone!

 

[Chip]

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.

You have no point, Samsara15, only, obviously, an over-inflated ego.

As I posted above, you are in the minority in America.

The majority, even without benefit of immediate previous review of the science in the opening post in this thread, believes that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, as polls show.

It will take just a little more time before science wins this one too, just like it did against the flat-Earthers and the geocentrics a few hundred years ago.

The majority is already in support of "my" view, as you call it.

That you think that utilitarain moral relativists and their "whatever benefits me regardless of the harm it does to others" attitude will ever ultimately win out against truth-respecting ontologists-ethicists, who so scientifically base their fact-based epistemology, is not only unsupposted in the progress of human history, but so outright laughable as well.

Indeed, very soon, it will be the overwhelming vast majority who supports the truth as I have posted.

Tick tock, Samsara15.

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

And stop embarrassing yourself with such easily defeated irrelevant rubbish.

 

[Chip]

Yep, we pro-abortionists are all stupid and evil, Chip, and can't see the logic of your rational, well-thought out position. Drat, I thought we might fool someone!

Translation: "We pro-abortionists aren't all that ignorant but we are utilitarianly immoral, and our attendant emotional detachment necessary to be so utilitarian prevents us from accepting the truth of the right to life of newly conceived people, lest we experience a flood of guilt we don't think we can emotionally survive."

Yes, Samsara15, you are that obvious ... you just don't realize it.

 

[samsara15]

I said we were evil, and you said we were immoral, so what makes you think we have any conscience? Next thing you know, we'll be supporting voluntary euthanasia as well. What next, in the pursuit of 'Utiitarianism'? Eugenics?

What makes you think you are a saint, because of your ideas on this subject?

Where do you get the idea that your opinion represents any majority?

We are not defeated until we go away, Chip. You can declare victory until doomsday, but it is not victory when we still hold the field.

 

[Chip]

Neither did those who revealed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not vice versa as the erroneous powerful did at the time.

I recently unintentionally and inadvertently swapped subjects in clause.

The correct presentation should have read: "Neither did those who revealed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, not vice versa as the erroneous powerful did at the time.".

 

[Chip]

I said we were evil, and you said we were immoral, so what makes you think we have any conscience? Next thing you know, we'll be supporting voluntary euthanasia as well. What next, in the pursuit of 'Utiitarianism'? Eugenics?

What makes you think you are a saint, because of your ideas on this subject?

Where do you get the idea that your opinion represents any majority?

We are not defeated until we go away, Chip. You can declare victory until doomsday, but it is not victory when we still hold the field.

Topically irrelevant and mostly erroneous.

I don't know what makes you think you can just waltz in here and post any old pro-abortionist sophistry and think that such is topically germane.

This thread isn't subject and titled "Any Old Think You Want It To Be About Abortion".

This thread is about the science that declares the newly conceived person's right to life.

The right to life foundational to all people isn't in question here.

The sophistrical irrationalizations people employ in support of murderous abortion aren't topically germane.

If you want to wax extemporaneously, find another thread.

But please, try to focus on the topic set by the opening post in this one.

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

If you can't do that, then please be respectful of the thread, and in lieu of purposely posting digressive diversion with the intent of derailing the thread, please post your commentary elsewhere.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

But, as history shows, where science speaks out in new revelation, people eventually accept that revelation as the way things are.

Obviously.....but, still, you're insisting The Majority thinks like you.

​

 

[Chip]

Obviously.....but, still, you're insisting The Majority thinks like you.

​

Irrelevant and erroneous.

I'm not "insisting that 'The Majority' thinks like "me".

I'm saying that polls show that the majority believes that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

That statement is true.

What is it with you pro-abortionists? Must you always pounce erronouesly on irrelevancies? Have you nothing in substantive response to the opening post in this thread?

Regardless, you, Mr. Shaman, have shown yourself throughout this forum to be sadly trapped in the self-defeating paradigm of the Democrat-Republican dualism, so, being thereby controlled by polarization and oppositional defiance to post one-liner irrelevancies, I'm not going to expect you to stay on topic in this thread.

Nevertheless, I will remind you anyway to stay on topic in this thread.

If you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[samsara15]

Nothing in your original post supports the idea that a zygote is a human being. That is all your own interpretation. A zygote is a living organism, yes, and it will be a human being in nine months, if it survives that long. No more conclusions can be supported by your original post. A living organism is not entitled to the same protections as a living human being, and it denigrates actual living human beings to say it is.

 

[Chip]

Nothing in your original post supports the idea that a zygote is a human being. That is all your own interpretation. A zygote is a living organism, yes, and it will be a human being in nine months, if it survives that long. No more conclusions can be supported by your original post. A living organism is not entitled to the same protections as a living human being, and it denigrates actual living human beings to say it is.

Absolutely false.

But I highlight the centerpiece of your erroneousness to particularly distinguish this sophistry-base obvious error.

That your error is so laughably absurd should really embarrass you.

What makes something a being is it's existence as a singularity.

That a zygote, a signularity, is a living organism makes it, ipso facto, a living being.

That a zygote in a human being's womb is obviously human, as well as unmistakably human scientifically, logically, rationally, makes that zygote a living ... human ... being.

It really is that simple, Samsara15 -- science has clearly spoken the truth of it.

You do make me laugh, though.

 

[samsara15]

I'm glad I amuse you Chip. You certainly know how to be condescending.

 

[palerider]

Palerider, where is your quote within this article? The one you cite on the Limit of Viability. The article appears to mainly deal with fetuses 22-25 weeks old. I fail to see your quote.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/22/1597

I don't see it there either. I trusted someone else for the NEJM articles and evidently the trust was misplaced so I withdraw that reference.

The textbooks, however I can vouch for because I have read them myself. I see that you still contend that unborns are not human beings even though you have not provided a single bit of credible information to support that claim. Doesn't that strike you as holding an emotionalist position?