Abortion??? anyone??

[palerider]

Let's not resort to this...he does it, but don't you too.



It has everything to do with what SHE wants. Also to justify my "philosophy" with our American way, let me quote the Declaration of Independance...



All men are indeed equals, and men in this generic term includes women. A woman feels she does not wish to have a child, so she opts for termination. The argument then arises that this child does not have the choice of pursuing happiness. But alas, the child cannot pursue happiness, since as a fetus it has NO CONCEPT of happiness, it has no concept of anything and thus, her right to this supersedes that of the intangible, and what is suggest as nonexistent, consciousness. Your arguments revolve around the right of a non conscious life form in lieu of the right of a conscious and able minded individual. Let's take for example a comatose victim, is it right to pull the plug? If so, why, if not, why not? It is the termination of a "human" life as you call the fetus, it differs only in age, but not in what it is as a person.

Volunteering is never a forced choice, and by your very words the use of her internal organs to support a fetus is purely voluntary, she has the right to cease the voluntary use thereof.

You have attributed a quote to me that I did not make.

 

[palerider]

And a feotus is not a baby or a child but you keep rolling out this ludicrously emotive language to prop up your ridiculous and hypocritical views.

I don't see many pro-ligers campaigning to stop the US killing innocent actual people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oops forgot. They aren't American and only American lives count.

"the proposition that 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.)

"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

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, vii.

Now I do invite you eagerly and wholeheartedly to provide some credible science that says that unborns at any stage are something other than human beings. Your uneducated opinion, or faith, intellectual limitations, or whatever, don't hold much value in the face of hard science.

In addition, your reference to wars in other countries constitutes a logical fallacy. It is known as a false dilemma and as such has as much validitiy in this discussion as if you never said it. In fact, as far as this debate is concerned, you didn't ever say it.

If you can't make a rational argument and are limited to logical fallacy and your faith, why even bother?

 

[palerider]

Do you grasp that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means? By that definition, no they cannot be wrong. We have no choice in the matter. Unless that is, you want to hold your breath until they see that you are not going to stand for it. Asleep during Government class?

The court said that a woman has the right to end a potential human life. Can you prove what unborns are "potential human lives" As I said, if the court says specifically that you have the right to raise chickens on your property, it does not give you the right to raise ducks and the court has absolutely no authority whatsoever to call a duck a chicken.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

A couple of cells with no brain is not a human being

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And it certainly isn't a person or a child or any of the other emotive monikers that are used in an effort to skew the argument

 

[r0beph]

You have attributed a quote to me that I did not make.

Yeah thta was federal farmer, I got confused during reply, since it flips the order of posts I just grabbed the wrong name... apologies.

 

[palerider]

A couple of cells with no brain is not a human being

Once more in case you didn't get it. Your inability to wrap your mind around the FACT that an unborn at any level of development doesn't change the fact that they are, indeed, human beings. The fact that you can't look at credible science and understand what it is saying only highlights your own intellectual shortcomings and has no bearing on the facts at all.

 

[palerider]

And it certainly isn't a person or a child or any of the other emotive monikers that are used in an effort to skew the argument

I suggest you read some federal law as federal law recognizes unborns at any stage of development as both children, and human beings.

 

[palerider]

Yeah thta was federal farmer, I got confused during reply, since it flips the order of posts I just grabbed the wrong name... apologies.

No sweat. I have been known to do that also. Just wanted to clarify.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You keep spouting but nothing's coming out.

A human being is much more than a few cells without a brain.

That is why abortion is legal in most civilised countries so imploring me to look at law is not going to get you very far.

Where do you stand on the death penalty, the war against Iraq, hunting and other forms of life taking?

 

[palerider]

You keep spouting but nothing's coming out.

A human being is much more than a few cells without a brain.

That is why abortion is legal in most civilised countries so imploring me to look at law is not going to get you very far.

Where do you stand on the death penalty, the war against Iraq, hunting and other forms of life taking?

You are a funny guy. Your statement with regard to abortion in other countries is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to popularity and as such, that statement has no meaning.

Your question about war, hunting, death penalty, constitutes both a false dilemma and a red herring. Again, logical fallacy with no meaning in this debate.

What we are left with is what we had in the beginning. Your intellectual limitations that don't allow you to wrap your mind around hard, biological fact.

 

[palerider]

A couple of cells with no brain is not a human being

"the proposition that 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.)

"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

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, vii.

Again, I invite you to provide some credible science that supports your faith.

 

[dahermit]

Take a look sometime at the majority decision from roe v wade. There is no decision there that gives a woman the right to kill another human being.

The fact is that whenever the child was mentioned by the court, it was called a potential human life. In order to justify their decision, they had to assume that it was not a human being because they knew perfectly well that to admit that the child was alive and human was to admit that it was a living human being and in the eyes of the law, all living human beings are persons and all persons in this country are entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment.

The court said that a woman has the right to end a "potential human life". If the court says that a woman has the right to end a "potential human life" I would have to agree. It isn't "potential human lives" however, that women are terminating when they have abortions. They are killing living human beings. If you want to justify the decision, you are going to have to show, in some real way, that unborns are only "potential human lives".

I am so relieved! Here I though that the Roe v. Wade ruling made abortion legal. I guess that there are not thousands of abortions being performed in the U.S. now. I do not, "want to justify the decision..." It is what it is, semantics will not result in stooping abortions. In other words, you are correct in what you say, but your correctness on the wording of the decision is without effect on the practice.

When I say innocent, I mean that the child has done nothing for which its life should be forfiet.
I don't argue sin. I argue human rights and the law. I can see why you would want to get away from the superior arguments of human rights and the law into a theological discussion where no one's argument is any more powerful than the other but, alas, such is not the case.

I wonder who posted this:" ...From the time fertilization is complete, the unborn is alive and since they can be nothing but a human, and they have done nothing to anyone, from that point they are innocent human beings. "They don't lose their innocence until after they are born..." Have they done something "unlawful" now that they are born? If not, then the innocence you speak of must be absence of sin.
Seems like the religious doctrine of original sin is bestowed when a child is born, to me.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

A foetus created by humans is of the same species but it is not immediately a person, child, baby, adult or anything else that we genuinely understand to be a person.

A few cells with no brain is just not a person and nobody really thinks it is.

The anti-abortionists can't concede this very obvious point because their house of cards then falls down.

Fortunately most governments understand this which is why abortion is generally a legal choice available to a pregnant woman

 

[r0beph]

A foetus created by humans is of the same species but it is not immediately a person, child, baby, adult or anything else that we genuinely understand to be a person.

A few cells with no brain is just not a person and nobody really thinks it is.

The anti-abortionists can't concede this very obvious point because their house of cards then falls down.

Fortunately most governments understand this which is why abortion is generally a legal choice available to a pregnant woman

Personage is defined by the existence of a conciseness. For example, no one feels bad (well, family often does) pulling the plug on a coma victim. The only difference here is that the child has the ability to one day become a person, the coma victim was already a person, but no longer. But I see no difference in this given the state of the conscious mind of a fetus.