Abortion

[dahermit]

There is no shortcoming of the language.

De taunt, panache, ad hoc, lazier faire, are all foreign words that have become infused in the English language due to the fact that there are not the economy of words (full sentences must be employed) with exactly the same meaning in the English language. Also, consider that until modern times, a thing was either biologically "alive" or "dead". Something was "alive" if it took in nutrients, expelled waste, and had cell division. Anything that did not do those things was "dead". There was no description in our language for legal purposes that would accurately describe something that was neither alive nor dead. Given that, is a frozen embryo "alive" or "dead"? Does our constitution contain any reference to such a state? Is a frozen embryo a live human being with rights? Or, is it a dead human? A scientist may say that it is in a state of, "suspended animation" but are those "legal", terms? So, it would seem that our language (especially legal definitions) have limitations.

Can you prove a soul? If you can prove a soul, can you prove when it enters the body?

Of course I cannot. There is no soul. It never enters the body.

The ego needs love too.

Self love?

 

[palerider]

Also, consider that until modern times, a thing was either biologically "alive" or "dead". Something was "alive" if it took in nutrients, expelled waste, and had cell division. Anything that did not do those things was "dead". There was no description in our language for legal purposes that would accurately describe something that was neither alive nor dead. Given that, is a frozen embryo "alive" or "dead"? Does our constitution contain any reference to such a state?

Do you suppose science is unable to use full sentences if more than a single word were needed to describe what an unborn is? Since an unborn at any stage of development takes in nutrients, expells waste, and is in the process of cell division, I don't quite understand what your problem with the language is. They are clearly alive.

As to frozen embryo's. They are dead. They may be revived, but while they are immersed in liquid nitrogen, they are dead. Putting them into liquid nitrogen constitues killing them as surely as if I immersed you. If I could thaw you out and revive you, I may not be guilty of murder, but if my revival efforts fail, then I have killed you as surely as if I put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger.

Of course I cannot.

I didn't think so.

There is no soul. It never enters the body.

I have never denied that the soul exists. In fact, I believe I have one. But its existence can not be proven and is in fact an article of my faith and therefore has no place in a rational argument. If my the soul were the basis of my argument, then my argument would not carry any weight at all.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Sorry, but sentience is not what differentiates us from apes. The potential for sentience is what separates us from the lower animals. A child born ancephaleptic has no brain waves, will never have brain waves and will only live a very short period of time and yet, is considered by science, the law, and the philosophers to be as much a human being as you. The fact that that child was born with a terrible defect that left it without a brain or perhaps just enough primitive brain to cause organ function does not alter the fact that it is a human being. A damaged human being, but a human being none the less.

Being a human being is a matter of kind, not degree. If it were a matter of degree, those who achieve higher levels of whatever characteristic you care to claim makes us human beings would be more human than those who achieve to a lesser degree. We know biologically and legally that this is not true. One human being may be better or worse than another, or more or less developed, or mature, but not more human.

Killing an unborn human being at any stage of development is different than killing a chimp because the unborn human being is, in fact, a human being. The only thing that is like killing a chimp, is killing a chimp.

"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.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company), 2-18.

"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

It may well be that you "believe" that until a child manifests an arbitrary characteristic that it is not a human being, but your personal beliefs are meaningless in the face of hard scientific evidence to the contrary. If you base your claim on the arbitrary selection of a characteristic, you might as well say that a child isn't a human being until the sutures in it's skull harden, or till the third permanant molars erupt, or perhaps till the growth plates in the long bones harden at which time we are fully mature.

Feel free to provide some credible proof to support your claim if you like. I for one would be very interested in seeing it.



Are you saying that the state of science has anything to do with what the child is? And it doesn't matter whether you support me or not. What matters is whether or not you can support your own argument. If you can't, then you reveal yourself as one who is doing no more than expressing your faith and suggesting that the law be a reflection of that faith. I have shown a rational scientific basis for my position and can provide an equally rational legal basis. Can you prove that your position is anything more than an article of your faith?

Your scientific basis is no more rational than mine. You have no proof of your argument, all you have is a bunch of useless qoutes. You need hard evidence to avoid being a hypocrite. Legal basis? I mean a post-revolutionary society when I discuss the policies that I have in mind. Legality is the dillusions of a bunch of slave-owning quakes.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

If you can rationally defend your argument, step on up and do it. If it really is nothing more than an article of your faith, that you can't rationally defend, simply state as much. Which will it be?

You, sir, are a hypocrite. It is impossible to produce hard evidence on an internet forum.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Golly, Pale, it nice to see you pontificating again. Even though I agree with you on the ultimate value of abortions, I think that your overbearing arroagance probably pushes more people away than it draws in. But, that aside, I thought that you might like to comment about this article on "baby soup" supposedly being made, sold, and eaten in China. Bear in mind that this is not for the faint of heart or stomach, it's very graphic in the way that cannibalism always seems to be.

http://www.doomdaily.com/2009/shocking-images-show-“baby-soup”-in-china/

I have had hunters tell me that it's okay to kill as long as you eat what you kill. I never believed that, and this article has done nothing to change my mind.

 

[palerider]

Your scientific basis is no more rational than mine. You have no proof of your argument, all you have is a bunch of useless qoutes. You need hard evidence to avoid being a hypocrite. Legal basis? I mean a post-revolutionary society when I discuss the policies that I have in mind. Legality is the dillusions of a bunch of slave-owning quakes.

I see you think like marx as well. That is to say you ignore reality in favor of what you wish.

I have proven that unborns are living human beings at any stage of development. Now, if you have some credible evidence to the contrary, by all means, lets see it. Your word hardly carries enough weigh to be seriously considered.

As to your postevolutionary societies and policies, let me know when they come around. Till then, you lose.

 

[palerider]

You, sir, are a hypocrite. It is impossible to produce hard evidence on an internet forum.

Impossible for you as your argument is nothing more and nothing less than your own crackpot fantasy. I understand your frustration. I used to be pro choice as well and one simply can't form a rational argument in support of such a position. The facts simply don't support you. Interesting to note that in defense of your own position you apparently realize this and stay as far away from fact as possible.

dahermit suggested to you that you get your ducks in a row so that you don't end up looking quite so ignorant. You should have taken his advice. At this point you are a flat earther railing against medical school textbooks on the subjects of embryology, fetology, and developmental biology.

 

[palerider]

Golly, Pale, it nice to see you pontificating again. Even though I agree with you on the ultimate value of abortions, I think that your overbearing arroagance probably pushes more people away than it draws in. But, that aside, I thought that you might like to comment about this article on "baby soup" supposedly being made, sold, and eaten in China. Bear in mind that this is not for the faint of heart or stomach, it's very graphic in the way that cannibalism always seems to be.

http://www.doomdaily.com/2009/shocking-images-show-“baby-soup”-in-china/

I have had hunters tell me that it's okay to kill as long as you eat what you kill. I never believed that, and this article has done nothing to change my mind.

I will pass on the article but will take your word for it. I don't rubberneck at auto accidents either. I have seen enough human blood and guts to last me a few lifetimes so have no interest in seeing more.

I only kill what I plan to eat but I don't believe that killing beings with an inherent right to live can be rationalized. China is just an example of modern liberal thinking taken to its natural end.

 

[dahermit]

As to frozen embryo's. They are dead. They may be revived, but while they are immersed in liquid nitrogen, they are dead. Putting them into liquid nitrogen constitues killing them as surely as if I immersed you.

"Dead" embryos that can and are routinely shown to be "alive" when thawed? Not logical. Death is permanent. If a person were to be tried for killing an embryo by the act of immersing it in liquid nitrogen, would most certainly be vindicated if that "living" embryo (thawed), were presented to the court. You are not likely to get any of the fertility clinic doctors who routinely do the freezing procedure to agree to testify in court that the embryos stored in liquid nitrogen are "dead". And, their expert testimony is likely to carry more weight than your opinion that they are dead.

If I could thaw you out and revive you, I may not be guilty of murder, but if my revival efforts fail, then I have killed you as surely as if I put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger.

The difference is that the "act" of putting a grown human being into liquid nitrogen results in that person's death. The damage is in the freezing process (the cells are broken by the expansion of water turning to ice), not that revival efforts fail. You would be convicted of murder for the act of putting me in liquid nitrogen.

In an embryo, for some reason (I cannot remember why), the cells do not break when frozen and the cells are viable when thawed. No harm, no foul.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I will pass on the article but will take your word for it. I don't rubberneck at auto accidents either. I have seen enough human blood and guts to last me a few lifetimes so have no interest in seeing more.

I only kill what I plan to eat but I don't believe that killing beings with an inherent right to live can be rationalized. China is just an example of modern liberal thinking taken to its natural end.

Now communists are liberal? Liberal seems to have become the newest buzzword for anything that anybody doesn't like.

I would call it homocentrism myself, you know, where you blindly assume that humans have intrinsic value and everything else is there for you to kill, cremate, and consume. It would be interesting for me to see you use your much vaunted logic to prove that animals have any less inherent right to life than humans.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

I see you think like marx as well. That is to say you ignore reality in favor of what you wish.

I have proven that unborns are living human beings at any stage of development. Now, if you have some credible evidence to the contrary, by all means, lets see it. Your word hardly carries enough weigh to be seriously considered.

As to your postevolutionary societies and policies, let me know when they come around. Till then, you lose.

You have produced no evidence for your argument, and thus I have no need to counter your evidence with my evidence, because you have no evidence for me to counter.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Impossible for me as my argument is nothing more and nothing less than my own crackpot fantasy. You understand my frustration. I am pro life, and I simply can't form a rational argument in support of such a position. The facts simply don't support me. Interesting to note that in defense of my own position I realize this and stay as far away from fact as possible.

dahermit suggested to me that I should get my ducks in a row so that I don't end up looking quite so ignorant. I should have taken his advice. At this point, I am a flat earther railing against facts proven by the masses on the subjects of embryology, fetology, and developmental biology, and am instead swaying in favor of a few old guys who think that people will believe everything they say because they have a PHd.

I adjusted your qoute to show what you are actually thinking. You want to have power over others, in this case, teen mothers, and thus you have a mental disorder. You aught to go see a doctor.

 

[palerider]

I adjusted your qoute to show what you are actually thinking. You want to have power over others, in this case, teen mothers, and thus you have a mental disorder. You aught to go see a doctor.

Of course you did. That is because you are, at your core, a liar. You can't rationally defend your own postion, and you can't effectively argue against mine, so you alter mine so far from reality that even you can make a response of sorts.

When you can either rationally defend your own position, or make a coherent rebuttal against what I actually wrote, let me know. Till then, you have lost as miserably as any pro choicer I have ever spoken to. In fact, you have lost more miserably than any pro choicer I have ever spoken to.

 

[palerider]

You have produced no evidence for your argument, and thus I have no need to counter your evidence with my evidence, because you have no evidence for me to counter.

My argument was that unborns are human beings at any stage of development. The references I provided are more than credible and they substantiate my claim. In the real world, that constitutes evidence. You have revealed yourself to be a liar of the worst sort so at this point, nothing you say can be taken with even a mild level of seriousness.

 

[palerider]

Now communists are liberal? Liberal seems to have become the newest buzzword for anything that anybody doesn't like.

Of course they are. Modern liberalism and communism go hand in hand. Look at what your liberal president has done with regard to taking control of companies. Government assuming control of the means of production is first order communism