Abortion: Right or Wrong?

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your posts are generally sufficiently arcane to be incomprehensible.

This is a reflection of the indefensible views you hold.

Try science, it's much better than superstition

 

[numinus]

This is a reflection of the indefensible views you hold.

LMAO.

One need not put up an elaborate defense against your impotent attacks in the first place.

You really are over-estimating your chances here.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Of course I am

You believe in a deity for which there is no evidence and I would bet that you have made him your lord and saviour which is a pretty good indication of your ability to discern truth from fiction.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Your posts are generally sufficiently arcane to be incomprehensible.

You're just NOW realizing that, Dawkins?

 

[numinus]

Of course I am

You believe in a deity for which there is no evidence and I would bet that you have made him your lord and saviour which is a pretty good indication of your ability to discern truth from fiction.

My ability to discern truth rests in logic, which I provided a mountain of, and you provided nothing whatsoever.

Which only proves what I have said all along -- AGAINST INVINCIBLE STUPIDITY, EVEN GOD CONTENDS IN VAIN.

 

[numinus]

You're just NOW realizing that, Dawkins?

What I said is NOT obscure, NOR secret, NOR obsolete, NOR esoteric.

If you must know, I am talking about plato's idealist philosophy, the theory of the natural rights of man, and the idea of modern constitutionalism -- general education topics in most undergraduate courses in most colleges and universities.

That you find it arcane, in my opinion, suggest the lack of higher education on your part, not to mention on that of your friend's, dawkinsrocks. After all, cowboy rednecks in your part of the world have little use for an education in the classics.

HEE-HAW!

 

[palerider]

Try science, it's much better than superstition

Odd that you would now seek refuge in science. There is no hiding place for the likes of you in science. You have proven yourself to be a flat earther who disregards science in favor of his own pseudoreligious dogma.

"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.

These are just a few although practically every textbook on the subjects of embryology, fetology, human developmental biology, and OB/gyn say the same thing. LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY, EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, these are science dawkins. Not soft science, but hard science; advanced degree hard.

You suggest that someone "try science" beause "it is much better than superstition". I would like to see some of the science you suggest he try. I would like to see any credible science at all that supports your argument. The fact is that your entire argument is nothing more than an expression of superstitious dogma. You are unable to wrap your mind around the scientific facts so you glom on to a meaningless soundbite like 'brainless cells' and wave it around like a religious icon.

Lets see your science dawkins.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You can quote all the stuff you like.

None of it explains why aborting a few brainless cells is wrong.

So cut the verbiage from your oh so boring posts and explain, in your own words, what is wrong with aborting a few brainless cells.

Try to avoid emotive terms like 'child' when referring to the foetus.

Oh and try to make your explanation consistent with your view that a corpse is a human being and you don't mind actual people being executed or killed in war.

Off you go.

Knock yourself out.

 

[palerider]

You can quote all the stuff you like.

"stuff"? Hard and credible science that proves you wrong is "stuff"? I laugh in your face.

None of it explains why aborting a few brainless cells is wrong.

It explains why unborns are exactly as human as you. As to whether it is right or wrong to kill them, you would have to ask whether it is right or wrong to kill anyone; the law says that self defense is the only valid reason for one human bing to kill another.

By the way einstein. A fetus is not brainless. By the time the child may be correctly called a fetus, it has a brain. I understand that you are completely ignorant on the topic of human developmental biology, but it isn't rocket science and even someone like you should be able to at least learn the basics.

So cut the verbiage from your oh so boring posts and explain, in your own words, what is wrong with aborting a few brainless cells.

I have. Sorry you are unable to wrap your mind around it. Funny that someone of your obviously limited intellectual wattage would present intelligence as a requisite to be a human being.

Try to avoid emotive terms like 'child' when referring to the foetus.

Arent you just the very shining definition of a hypocrite? Asking that we avoid "emotive" language when you son't seem to be able to finish a thought without saying "brainless cells". Do show me such a term in either a scientific text or a legal brief. Both science and the law identify them as children. Do provide some substantiation for your request.

Oh and try to make your explanation consistent with your view that a corpse is a human being and you don't mind actual people being executed or killed in war.

Reference to war in a discussion on the topic of abortion, is, as I have already explained to you, a logical fallacy. It is a red herring and in no way alters the facts as they apply to abortion. I understand that concepts like logical fallacy must be difficult for you to grasp, but do be a good lad and try.

 

[numinus]

Good god!

Is there any way to impose an iq requirement on the membership of this forum???

Dawkinsrocks alone pulls down the iq average of the members by at least 10 points. Quite frankly, it is embarassing.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

As you say palerider a foetus is as human as an actual person.

But also as human as a corpse.

So please try again.

Why has a few brainless cells the right to life?

To be fair it wouldn't suprise me if you were to defend the right to life of a corpse.

You are arguments are that confused.

Numinus, your insults are neither funny nor clever.

I wouldn't mnd if they were but they just make you sound stupid

 

[vyo476]

Good god!

Is there any way to impose an iq requirement on the membership of this forum???

Dawkinsrocks alone pulls down the iq average of the members by at least 10 points. Quite frankly, it is embarassing.

Knock it off, numinus. You know the rules. Try following them.

 

[Libsmasher]

- Is a fetus a member of the species homo sapiens, or is it some other species? Is it crabgrass? Is it an elephant? No, it is homo sapiens, a human being.

- Is it alive or dead? Unquestionably, it is alive.

- It is a live human being.

- To get around their logical dead end, given the above, pro-abortionists invent a novel construct - "personhood". In this construct, human beings who are not "persons" can be killed. Where does the definition of "person" come from? The completely arbitrary fiat of judges.

- Any thoughtful person will be able to see that using this artificial "personhood" concept superposed on human beings, in the future other human beings may be excluded from being "persons" in the same arbitrary way (the severly disabled? the elderly?) with the same consequences.

 

[SW85]

Why has a few brainless cells the right to life?

If it were merely a few brainless cells there would be no need to abort it, now would there?

 

[Libsmasher]

If it were merely a few brainless cells there would be no need to abort it, now would there?

Quit trying to confuse him with logic.