Abortion

[Dante the Marxist]

Sorry, but it does not. See above. I provided you a defnintion of the word individual. I strongly suggest that you grab yourself an english/(whatever your primary language is) dictionary before you pursue this discussion further. Clearly, your english vocabulary isn't sufficient to put together coherent thoughts.

You made no reference to the word "individual".

You have said lots of things. Problem is that as of yet, you have failed to substantiate a single one of them. The effect is that your lips are moving but nothing is coming out. Picking arbitrary physical characteristics upon which to base one's rights is right out of the racist's handbook. You have adopted ageism rather than racism for your bigotry but the mindset is identical.

Arbitrary? You mean that the ability to think is arbitrary?! There has to be a bigger reason that you oppose this. And I am not an ageist, as I supoort the right of children to live independently, have jobs, control thier education, marry, and enter into contracts.

As I pointed out earlier, your ideas with regard to unborns "resembling" lower animals is nothing more than the restatement of a quaint 19th century scientific theory known as biogenic law, or embryological paralellism. It has long since been repudiated as a complete misunderstanding of developmental biology. Odd that you would reference such outdated thinking here in the 21st century. Like your namesake, you really are behind the times.

Maybe that theory is correct. Do you realise that the 19th century was the heyday of intelligence? Most science, and I am saying MOST science, because I think that the breakthroughs in space exploration and medicine and the theory of relativity are completre works of genius, are a degeneration of the 19th century. Just because something is old does not make it useless.

In this case, the sicence only substantiates the fact that unborns are human beings as abortion is legal because the supreme court decided roe based on thier assumption that unborns were something other than human beings and stated that should their assumption be proven wrong, that their decision must be overturned as unconstitutional.

They were partly right, but not completely.

As to waving the constitution in front of a marxist, you are correct that it shows that one of us has no common sense. To see which one, look in a mirror. The fact is that you live under the constitution and ignoring the fact in favor of what you wish makes you no more than a flat earther railing against reality in favor of your wishes.

I realise that the constitution runs the place, and of course I will rail against it, because it is an outdated and oppresive document. Opposing something does not mean denying its existance.

 

[palerider]

Why bother with children born with ancephaly? They cannot enjoy thier life in any way. They are not even able to enjoy the flowers and birds, contrary to what those touching movies about retarded people making piles of money and getting the girl portray.

The ability to enjoy a right is not the basis upon which that right is protected.

As I said in the beginning, you can't rationally defend your position and now you prove it by mewling that "they" shoudn't have their rights protected because "they" can't enjoy them.

 

[palerider]

You made no reference to the word "individual".

So you can't read?

Here it is again, maybe you can find a grown up to help you with the words you don't understand.

individual - n - a single human being, as distinguished from a group.

Arbitrary? You mean that the ability to think is arbitrary?! There has to be a bigger reason that you oppose this. And I am not an ageist, as I supoort the right of children to live independently, have jobs, control thier education, marry, and enter into contracts.

Of course you are an ageist. You pick an age and support protecting their rights but those younger, you favor denying all rights based on nothing more than their age and level of development. Of course you are an ageist.

Maybe that theory is correct. Do you realise that the 19th century was the heyday of intelligence? Most science, and I am saying MOST science, because I think that the breakthroughs in space exploration and medicine and the theory of relativity are completre works of genius, are a degeneration of the 19th century. Just because something is old does not make it useless.

Sorry, but it was completely discredited before the end of the 19th century.

They were partly right, but not completely.

Sorry, but they were completely wrong. Thier assumption that unborns were something other than human beings was the basis of their decision and that assumption has long since been proven wrong both by medical science and the law.

I realise that the constitution runs the place, and of course I will rail against it, because it is an outdated and oppresive document. Opposing something does not mean denying its existance.

So you at last acknowledge that you can't rationally defend your position as it is an article of your faith.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

So you can't read?

Here it is again, maybe you can find a grown up to help you with the words you don't understand.

individual - n - a single human being, as distinguished from a group.

I meant that you did not make a reference to the word when we began to explain the word "person".

Of course you are an ageist. You pick an age and support protecting their rights but those younger, you favor denying all rights based on nothing more than their age and level of development. Of course you are an ageist.

If there is something that is even less intelligent then a chicken, then you should not expect me to start screaming about rescuing it.

Sorry, but it was completely discredited before the end of the 19th century.

I invite you to prove it.

Sorry, but they were completely wrong. Thier assumption that unborns were something other than human beings was the basis of their decision and that assumption has long since been proven wrong both by medical science and the law.

By partly right I meant that they were right about thier minds being less than human minds.

So you at last acknowledge that you can't rationally defend your position as it is an article of your faith.

No I do not, I did not say anything even close.

 

[Stalin]

A difficult issue with which I have wrestled most of my life.

In nature, damaged organisms do not survive.

Similarly the old, the weak and the stupid.

Comrade Stalin

 

[palerider]

I meant that you did not make a reference to the word when we began to explain the word "person".

The word person is a legal term and has long since been defined. As I suggested, grab yourself a copy of Black's Legal Dictionary, that is the legal dictionary used by the Supreme Court. If you can, get an edition from 1972 as that is the version the Roe court had to work with. You will find that person, as it may be applied to roe is defined as "a human being"

If there is something that is even less intelligent then a chicken, then you should not expect me to start screaming about rescuing it.

As soon as you prove that your rights, or the protection of those rights is based on your intelligence, then that line of thinking will have some merit. Till then, it is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to emotion.

I invite you to prove it.

No problem.

http://www.templemount.co.il/evolution.pdf

Foremost in developing bad scientific theory based uponevolution was Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). Trained as a physician,Haeckel abandoned medical practice after reading Darwin's Origin ofSpecies. Brilliant and flamboyant, Haeckel coined many words used bybiologists today, such as phylum, phylogeny, and ecology.

When it came to explaining the origin of life, Haeckel was a profound failure. He promoted the biogenetic law, also called thetheory of recapitulation. This “law” attempted to explain similarities between human embryos and animals that are (supposedly) ourancestors. From these similarities, contrived concepts of evolution are justified.

The fertilized egg starts as one cell (our first ancestor, the single cell phase)The embryo develops into a segmented arrangement (worm phase)The embryo develops vertebrae and something that looks like gills (fish phase)The fetus develops paddle-like hands and feet, and a tail appears (amphibian)As organs reach completion, the fetus finally becomes human (human phase)

Modern biology rejects Haeckel’s theory. Stages of human embryonic development are not equivalent to these (supposed)ancestors of humans. Haeckel had no real understanding of embryonic science; scientists never discovered a worm, fish, and amphibian phase in human embryonic development. As this fraud becomes morewidely exposed, even ridiculed, expect evolutionists to pretend suchan ignorant theory was never seriously associated with Darwin.

Haeckel also deduced from his biogenic "law" that at “the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes.” The quantity and magnitude of racist quotes is impossible to summarize. Haeckel coined phrases and ideas that the Nazi party later used to justify its racist policies.

So you believe biogenic law is sound? Perhaps you are racist in addition to being ageist.

By partly right I meant that they were right about thier minds being less than human minds.

Have you ever even read roe? Are you trying to defend a position on a court decsion that you have never even read? There is no mention of their minds in the decision. The court never even addressed the issue of unborn human berings as they simply assumed that till they reached some arbitrary level of development, that they were something other than human beings. Roe upheld a woman's right to terminate a "potential human life". Now, if you like, feel free to show me a "potential human life".

No I do not, I did not say anything even close.

Of course you do. Faith is a belief in a thing that you can not prove. It is perfectly clear by now that you can't even begin to prove a basis for your position on abortion. You apparently fabricate meanings for words in your head that bear no relationship to reality and base your argument upon your personal meanings of those words.

 

[Dr.Who]

Pigs, cows, deer, elk, chicken, turkey, bear.

How do you know those are not sentient?

 

[Dr.Who]

Being a person constitutes being an individual, which means you have to have a personality, so you must have thoughts and emotions.

Sorry that is your definition but it is not the ones the courts nor I use. Why is your definition preferable to any other?

Being a person means being a human.

 

[palerider]

Sorry that is your definition but it is not the ones the courts nor I use. Why is your definition preferable to any other?

Being a person means being a human.

As with most pro choicers, he just makes it up as he goes with no basis in fact or reality.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

The word person is a legal term and has long since been defined. As I suggested, grab yourself a copy of Black's Legal Dictionary, that is the legal dictionary used by the Supreme Court. If you can, get an edition from 1972 as that is the version the Roe court had to work with. You will find that person, as it may be applied to roe is defined as "a human being"

Did your definitions that in fact helped my case come from that dictionary?

As soon as you prove that your rights, or the protection of those rights is based on your intelligence, then that line of thinking will have some merit. Till then, it is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to emotion.

So is brandishing a poster with a fetus on it screaming about god and country.

No problem.

http://www.templemount.co.il/evolution.pdf

Foremost in developing bad scientific theory based uponevolution was Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). Trained as a physician,Haeckel abandoned medical practice after reading Darwin's Origin ofSpecies. Brilliant and flamboyant, Haeckel coined many words used bybiologists today, such as phylum, phylogeny, and ecology.

When it came to explaining the origin of life, Haeckel was a profound failure. He promoted the biogenetic law, also called thetheory of recapitulation. This “law” attempted to explain similarities between human embryos and animals that are (supposedly) ourancestors. From these similarities, contrived concepts of evolution are justified.

The fertilized egg starts as one cell (our first ancestor, the single cell phase)The embryo develops into a segmented arrangement (worm phase)The embryo develops vertebrae and something that looks like gills (fish phase)The fetus develops paddle-like hands and feet, and a tail appears (amphibian)As organs reach completion, the fetus finally becomes human (human phase)

Modern biology rejects Haeckel’s theory. Stages of human embryonic development are not equivalent to these (supposed)ancestors of humans. Haeckel had no real understanding of embryonic science; scientists never discovered a worm, fish, and amphibian phase in human embryonic development. As this fraud becomes morewidely exposed, even ridiculed, expect evolutionists to pretend suchan ignorant theory was never seriously associated with Darwin.

Haeckel also deduced from his biogenic "law" that at “the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes.” The quantity and magnitude of racist quotes is impossible to summarize. Haeckel coined phrases and ideas that the Nazi party later used to justify its racist policies.

So you believe biogenic law is sound? Perhaps you are racist in addition to being ageist.

For one, they said that it has been disproven, but they are not showing evidence that it has.

Also, just because the inventor of a theory is racist does not make the theory racist.

Have you ever even read roe? Are you trying to defend a position on a court decsion that you have never even read? There is no mention of their minds in the decision. The court never even addressed the issue of unborn human berings as they simply assumed that till they reached some arbitrary level of development, that they were something other than human beings. Roe upheld a woman's right to terminate a "potential human life". Now, if you like, feel free to show me a "potential human life".

Well, now that you are calling fetuses potential human life, I might feel obliged not to abort them. If the woman wants the fetus out, then perhaps it can be moved to a different enviroment until it is born, and then adopted.

Of course you do. Faith is a belief in a thing that you can not prove. It is perfectly clear by now that you can't even begin to prove a basis for your position on abortion. You apparently fabricate meanings for words in your head that bear no relationship to reality and base your argument upon your personal meanings of those words.

You havent done much proving either.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

How do you know those are not sentient?

Because it has been scientifically proven.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Because it has been scientifically proven.

I would be interested in seeing some documentation on this.

 

[palerider]

Did your definitions that in fact helped my case come from that dictionary?

No definition I have provided has helped your argument anywhere other than in your imagination.

So is brandishing a poster with a fetus on it screaming about god and country.

More fallacious appeals to emotion. Your whole argument is falling down around your ears.

For one, they said that it has been disproven, but they are not showing evidence that it has.

Actually, they showed evidence right there in the link I provided you. Sorry the material was over your head.

Well, now that you are calling fetuses potential human life, I might feel obliged not to abort them. If the woman wants the fetus out, then perhaps it can be moved to a different enviroment until it is born, and then adopted.

You really aren't very bright are you? And you have never read roe. And you don't have a clue with regard to constitutional law. Is this childish game really the best you are capable of?

You havent done much proving either.

No part of my argument remains unsupported while no part of yours has yet been supported. Sorry guy, you lose.

 

[palerider]

Because it has been scientifically proven.

Do you know the definition of sentient? Unsurprising that you don't, as you seem to have a very frail grasp of the language. Here are some entries from various dictionaries:

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
sentient - adj -1 Having sense perception
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Encarta World English Dictionary
sentient - adj - 1. conscious: capable of feeling and perception

Cambridge International Dictionary
sentient - adj - 1. able to experience physical and possibly emotional feelings

Webster's Dictonary circa 1913
sentient - adj - of sentire to discern or perceive by the senses. See Sense.] Having a faculty, or faculties, of sensation and perception. Specif. (Physiol.), especially sensitive; as, the sentient extremities of nerves, which terminate in the various organs or tissues.

 

[palerider]

I would be interested in seeing some documentation on this.

Don't ask him for documentation; he makes it up as he goes. As you can see from the various definitions of sentient that I have provided, most animals from insects up are sentient as they are capable of perception. Further proof that sentience is not what makes a human being a human being.