Abortion??? anyone??

[Zynni]

well personally i think it's a woman's choice

so if someone has something to say to this


please do! lol don't be mean please

Do you have any reasoning for your stance, or did you just pick a hot button issue? Why is it a woman's choice? What about the father's choice? When does it stop being a choice and start being a person? At what point in the pregnancy should it be too late? Are you okay with "partial birth abortion"?

 

[palerider]

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

And the failure continues....the word zygote, like the words, embryo infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, and old geezer are just words used to describe a human being at a particular stage of development, while words like arm, leg, ear, nose, etc, when used in reference to human beings merely describe parts of human beings.

 

[palerider]

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.

Already did...you going to resort to lies now? We have already been through this and like all pro choicers, when your arguments fail, you slink away and then return with the same arguments all over again as if you haven't already seen them go down in flames already....

You are not capable of biological independence either...remember the definition of independent? Not dependent; not depending or contingent up on something else for existence, operation, etc. You are no more biologically independent than an unborn...without the nutrients held within other creatures, you wither and die.

• 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.

Neither is a born child, or a born teenager, or a born adult till such time as they are actually involved in the reproductive process...till you have fathered or mothered a child you are not an end process either....semantics is a miserable path to take if winning a debate is your aim...

• zygote is united ('formed into a single whole') with the mother, both semantically (dictionary link to 'placenta') and biologically (microchimerism).

The placenta belongs to the child...and again, the placenta is not hard linked to the mother's body....the connection is more akin to velcro...irrelevant argument any way as there is no requirement that you not be attached to another individual in order to be a human being....you already brought up a couple of people who share a single body...both are legal human beings and individuals.

• zygote is described as 'developing into' an organism, which strongly implies it is not yet one.

A toddler is a developing organism...implications only have meaning if you put them in to the larger context...all these arguments already lost...are you claiming that you don't remember?

These are ALL hard evidence and bullet-proof FACTS that you have yet to successfully rebuttal.

None of those are hard evidence of anything other than for my first point...being that you pro choicers slink away when your arguments fail and then pop up again with the same failed arguments over and over as if you didn't already see them go down in flames at least once already.

 

[palerider]

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..

Again, you are not capable of independent existence either if you want to play semantics...neither is one of the individuals of many pairs of conjoined twins....viability is not a requirement to be either an individual or a human being...it is a pointless point to try to make...anyone on life support is not viable and yet, they are human beings.

A ZEF is not an individual until viability.

Sorry guy, every dependent twin in a pair of conjoined twins proves you wrong...Neither independence nor viability are requirement for being an individual human being.

How long before you trot out all the rest of your failed arguments again? You don't think I remember the answers I gave you before?

 

[palerider]

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.

Can you not read? Didn't I say just that? Lakshmi absorbed her sibling...she is an individual human being...her sibling's parts are kept alive by her body in much the way a transplant is kept alive...but it is not a human being... Self awareness, however is not a requirement for being a human being...remember, you already lost that point as well...every child born with hydranencephaly proves you wrong....being born with no brain pretty much precludes the possibility of being self aware and yet, those children are considered to be human beings....again, self awareness is not a prerequisite for being a human being...you have already seen these arguments crash and burn once already....are you some sort of masochist repeating them again? You know how dishonest is is to keep trying failed arguments in the hope of simply fooling someone else with them?

Would you like to try again?

You are the one who keeps trying...and failing...with the same tired old arguments no less...nothing new...nothing original....nothing valid....there is no rational, scientifically valid argument that can make a non human out of a human being.

 

[palerider]

Do you have any reasoning for your stance, or did you just pick a hot button issue? Why is it a woman's choice? What about the father's choice? When does it stop being a choice and start being a person? At what point in the pregnancy should it be too late? Are you okay with "partial birth abortion"?

They can't form rational arguments for their position...see fedor50's arguments for example, he saw all those same points go down in flames a couple of months ago and here he is trotting them out again as if his previous failure never happened...they are large on rationalization but very weak on rationality. It is all emotion for them and they are perfectly willing to say anything no matter how stupid or outrageous in an attempt to justify their stance...there is no intellectual sewer so foul that they will not drag their intellect through it in an attempt to defend their stance on this issue.

 

[palerider]

To the goober who believes that a twin who absorbed its sibling is guilty of murder....could you point to a law that governs biological accidents? Murder is defined as killing with intent. If a twin being absorbed by its sibling is murder, then a mother whose body isn't capable of supporting a pregnancy is also a murderer. You think biology=intent? Some arguments go beyond stupid...congratulations...you just made one.

 

[Lagboltz]

To the goober who believes that a twin who absorbed its sibling is guilty of murder....

What don't you understand about

(... Warning: hyperbole and sarcasm alert...)

hy·per·bo·le (hī-pûr′bə-lē) n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

Do you get it yet? It was a joke on you saying a twin killed her sibling. What you said is a silly way of expressing a non-intentional biological happenstance. Do you get it now?

 

[fedor50]

The placenta belongs to the child...and again, the placenta is not hard linked to the mother's body....the connection is more akin to velcro...irrelevant argument any way as there is no requirement that you not be attached to another individual in order to be a human being....you already brought up a couple of people who share a single body...both are legal human beings and individuals.

As the link to the MEDICAL DICTIONARY in my post shows, the connection between the ZEF and the uterine wall is far more than mere 'attachment'.

Placenta: "the vascular organ in mammals except monotremes and marsupials that unites the fetus to the maternal uterus "

Note (again) that definition of 'unite': "to join, combine, or incorporate so as to form a single whole or unit."

As I've also mentioned before, the ZEF also often receives far more than just oxygen and nutrients - maternal immune cells, too.

Are you going to argue with the medical dictionary now too Pale Rider?

 

[palerider]

hyperbole --- statements thrown into a serious argument when no rational rebuttal is possible.

 

[palerider]

As the link to the MEDICAL DICTIONARY in my post shows, the connection between the ZEF and the uterine wall is far more than mere 'attachment'.

Placenta: "the vascular organ in mammals except monotremes and marsupials that unites the fetus to the maternal uterus "

And fail and fail and fail....two pieces of velcro are united even though they are separate entities with no hard connection....we have been through all this before and your arguments are doomed to crash and burn this time just as they did the first time...and just as all those before yours crashed and burned. Biology is biology and here is what the "attachment" between mother and child looks like:

As you can see, there is no hard attachment...the arrangement is, once again, precisely analogous to velcro. Any exchange between mother and child is across cell walls, not via direct connection as is, say, the blood supply to your kidneys.

[quote =fedor50] Note (again) that definition of 'unite': "to join, combine, or incorporate so as to form a single whole or unit."[/quote]

Then clearly, the word is not being used in the context of its primary definition....the second definition of unite is "cause to adhere" as is the case with glue, or VELCRO...velcro unites without causing a hard attachment. Semantics is the weakest form of argument....the illustration above, of the chorionic villi above showing no hard attachment between the child and its mother is an example of a hard argument...you can semanticize till the cows come home but none of it will alter the biological facts which is the basis for my argument....

As I've also mentioned before, the ZEF also often receives far more than just oxygen and nutrients - maternal immune cells, too.

Again, that does not alter the fact that there is no hard attachment to the mother...and even if there were...even if the child were attached to the mother via actual arteries and veins, your argument would still fail since every pair of conjoined twins proves that such attachments do not render one something other than an individual...your arguments are weak...weak...weak...because they are nothing more than the result of word play...they do not address biological fact and therefore can never succeed in an argument upon which winning or losing is determined by actual biology.

Are you going to argue with the medical dictionary now too Pale Rider?

As you can see, there is no need...why do you think that there is more than one definition for a word? And once again, every pair of conjoined twins that ever existed proves your semantic argument wrong...each of the twins is an individual regardless of the nature of their attachment...whether it is merely via a piece of skin and each is capable of normal life if they are separated or if they share vital organs and systems such that one can not live without the other....the fact remains that each is still an individual human being. Face it fedor50...there is no rational argument that will get you around the biological facts...playing with words in an effort to win an unwindable argument is just dumb. There is no....I repeat NO rational, scientifically sound argument for allowing one individual to kill another for reasons that amount to nothing more than convenience. If the child represents an imminent threat to its mother's life, then she has the right to defend herself, but other than that particular, and quite rare case, there is no rational defense for abortion. But feel free to keep trying...there is a certain entertainment value in seeing to what degree you will debase your intellect......in seeing how far you will drag it through the sewer in an attempt to defend an argument that you know before you even write it (if you are half as smart as you seem to think you are) is a loser....by all means, carry on....but biology is biology and doesn't give a whit what sort of semantic BS you throw at it....it remains exactly what it is.

 

[Lagboltz]

hyperbole --- statements thrown into a serious argument when no rational rebuttal is possible.

Hey Pale, since when were you ever able to give a rational rebuttal?

 

[cashmcall]

All this talk about Code this and Code that
How is a pro-lifer like myself suppose to explain why we shouldn’t kill children.. I can’t

I don’t know.

I don’t know how else to explain this. Can I really formulate an argument that will explain why we shouldn’t murder children? If you don’t immediately recognize that the slaughter of babies is something severely troubling, I’m not sure that I can offer any insights to help you understand....

You see, this is the problem. This is why we can’t come to any agreements. This is why our arguments are fruitless. They don’t have to be — arguing could be a rather worthwhile activity. But a constructive argument, or debate, or dialogue, or whatever you want to call it, requires both parties to have some shared concept of right vs wrong and fact vs fiction. Without that, neither side can appeal to the other, because they both exist in entirely different universes.

So, me personally, I’m livin’ over here in a world where it’s never OK to execute a baby, any baby, for any reason. In fact, in my universe — a universe we might call “reality” — the murder of children could be, classified as THE worst thing ever. It is the worst of all that is bad. It is the lowest of low. It is the ugliest of ugly. It is the Pinnacle of Wrong. If it isn’t wrong to kill children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.

Let me say that again, because it’s a crucial point:
If it isn’t wrong to kill children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.
Literally anything else.

 

[Lagboltz]

All this talk about Code this and Code that
How is a pro-lifer like myself suppose to explain why we shouldn’t kill children.. I can’t

I don’t know.

I don’t know how else to explain this. Can I really formulate an argument that will explain why we shouldn’t murder children? If you don’t immediately recognize that the slaughter of babies is something severely troubling, I’m not sure that I can offer any insights to help you understand....

You see, this is the problem. This is why we can’t come to any agreements. This is why our arguments are fruitless. They don’t have to be — arguing could be a rather worthwhile activity. But a constructive argument, or debate, or dialogue, or whatever you want to call it, requires both parties to have some shared concept of right vs wrong and fact vs fiction. Without that, neither side can appeal to the other, because they both exist in entirely different universes.

So, me personally, I’m livin’ over here in a world where it’s never OK to execute a baby, any baby, for any reason. In fact, in my universe — a universe we might call “reality” — the murder of children could be, classified as THE worst thing ever. It is the worst of all that is bad. It is the lowest of low. It is the ugliest of ugly. It is the Pinnacle of Wrong. If it isn’t wrong to kill children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.

Let me say that again, because it’s a crucial point:
If it isn’t wrong to kill children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.
Literally anything else.

That quote came from The Matt Walsh Blog. You should cite that as a reference.

I quite agree that you should never kill children or babies. However this essay does not mention abortion of fetuses in the first trimester which seems to be what this thread is about. From what read the author is blowing in the wind because killing or murdering children is already looked upon by 99.999999% of us as wrong. Technically the author leads us to assume that for him abortion in the first trimester is OK.

 

[palerider]

All this talk about Code this and Code that
How is a pro-lifer like myself suppose to explain why we shouldn’t kill children.. I can’t

I don’t know.

I don’t know how else to explain this. Can I really formulate an argument that will explain why we shouldn’t murder children? If you don’t immediately recognize that the slaughter of babies is something severely troubling, I’m not sure that I can offer any insights to help you understand....

You see, this is the problem. This is why we can’t come to any agreements. This is why our arguments are fruitless. They don’t have to be — arguing could be a rather worthwhile activity. But a constructive argument, or debate, or dialogue, or whatever you want to call it, requires both parties to have some shared concept of right vs wrong and fact vs fiction. Without that, neither side can appeal to the other, because they both exist in entirely different universes.

So, me personally, I’m livin’ over here in a world where it’s never OK to execute a baby, any baby, for any reason. In fact, in my universe — a universe we might call “reality” — the murder of children could be, classified as THE worst thing ever. It is the worst of all that is bad. It is the lowest of low. It is the ugliest of ugly. It is the Pinnacle of Wrong. If it isn’t wrong to kill children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.

Let me say that again, because it’s a crucial point:
If it isn’t wrong to kill children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.
Literally anything else.

The point of my bringing up the code was to demonstrate that the court, and the government knew that the roe decision was terribly flawed...the court was very careful and deliberate to never call unborns human beings although the science of the time was quite clear that they are...the court referred to unborns as "potential" human beings as if they possessed the potential to be human beings or maybe something else. Then in their decision, they stated quite clearly that if it were ever demonstrated that unborns were, in fact, human beings then roe must be overturned as they would have the same right to due process as any other human being.

The next year, legalistas got busy changing the US code to say that a person was someone who was born...the year earlier, the code just said that a person was a human being....then the legal dictionaries were altered to reflect the change in the code...all of which was pointless because the decision was made when the old code was in effect.

A moral arguent, while valid, can never be taken seriously by a pro choicer as they are without morals...or highly selective morals at best....in order to demonstrate that the roe decision was one of the most flawed decisions the court has ever made, you must be aware of the legalities involved and the care the court took in never calling unborn human beings anything other than potential humans even though even back then science was pretty clear that unborns were human beings at whatever stage of development they happened to be in...we are human beings from the time we come into existence...we don't start out as something else and then metamorphose into human beings..

The only way to actually move this argument forward is based on the legalities involved and the hard science which in no way supports the pro choice side of the argument.