No, of course not, crushing their heads, chopping off their limbs, or dissolving their bodies in acid isn't classified as torture. :roll:vergiss said:Yep. Because all foetuses are tortured, starved and humiliated for months before the actual abortion - not to mention conscious and aware enough to notice. :roll:
Yes, I do, but I have a feeling that you don't. Most first trimester abortions involve using suction to pull apart the child's body and remove the child from the womb. Tell me, how is being ripped apart and thrown into a vacuum any better than being gassed or shot?vergiss said:Um. Do you have any idea of the anatomy of a first-timester foetus, and the procedure involved?
Do you remember any sensation from the infant stage of your development? Do you remember coming home from the hospital or being breast-fed? I don't think so, either. :lol:vergiss said:And do you remember any sensation from that stage of your own development? I think not. :lol:
vergiss said:Foetuses hardly have an ideology.
Nor are they placed in slave camps and made to suffer for months or years on end. There are some things worse than death, you realise.
vergiss said:And do you remember any sensation from that stage of your own development? I think not. :lol:
Really? Lets take a look at that science, shall we?battleax86 said:No, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of scientific fact.
Hmm, that would be like "pre-dead corpses. revisionist prolife linguistic hyperbole is not scientific.Unborn children..
That's per reflexes. I trust you know what a reflex is, and why that is not sign of consciousness or sentience?..have the ability to move on their own.
And that also is an automatic, non-sentient activity. I trust you understand that automatic muscle movements are not sign of consciousness or sentience? As such, what is the point of bringing it up?Their hearts beat.
"alive"? Sure, there are live cells. That doesn't mean sentience, awareness or ability for sensation of any kind. So what is the relevance? After all, even a tumor is "alive."They are rapidly growing from the moment of conception. All of these things prove that they are alive.
That would be individual function, homeostasis, individual existence.Tell me, sargasm, do you believe that someone is only alive after they have been born? If so, what is different about that child a moment after birth that makes him or her into a human being,
There was no baby before birth, and as there was no individual, there was no "being," prolife revisionist linguistics none withstanding.if the baby wasn't a human being a moment before birth?
ANOTHER oxymoron. Nice Going there with revisionist linguistics. It sure seems like PL are INCAPABLE of an honest, straightforward argument without resorting to those dishonest trickeries and deceptions.battleax86 said:No, I was merely giving another example of legal murder.
More deceptive revisionist linguistics, claiming an embryo or fetus to be "people."You are (rightfully) offended over the deaths of 6 million people, but you expect me not to be offended over the deaths of 40 million people (in the U.S. alone)?
Please explain what abortion procedure involves the description you just provided. Not even THAT can you be honest about, huh? How pathetic.:roll:battleax86 said:No, of course not, crushing their heads, chopping off their limbs, or dissolving their bodies in acid isn't classified as torture.
As the embryo or fetus is non-sentient, it is very different.battleax86 said:Yes, I do, but I have a feeling that you don't. Most first trimester abortions involve using suction to pull apart the child's body and remove the child from the womb. Tell me, how is being ripped apart and thrown into a vacuum any better than being gassed or shot?
That doesn't negate that you are trying to outright lie and claim early sensation ability in the embryo. Why do you need to lie to make your argument? Is it because your cause for oppressing women is not strong enough on its own, without such lies?Do you remember any sensation from the infant stage of your development? Do you remember coming home from the hospital or being breast-fed? I don't think so, either. :lol:
Actually, the NAZI were all about the State controlling everything, whereas PC is about letting the individual make their own choices. In FACT, the PL are much more like the NAZI in their desire to control persons.blogger31 said:No but the PC sure have an ideology, just like the Nazis did. I am not comparing Jews and fetuses, I am comparing Nazis and the PC.
MUST you lie? It is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that until the sensory nerves actually are connected to the brain's cortex, there is no possibility for sensation of any kind. And that connection doesn't happen until the ned of the 26th week of pregnancy. So you can spew that prolife outright lie as much as you want, but rest assured that you will be exposed as a liar every time.Also there is no certain research done on fetal pain, so you cannot speak as if the fetus feels no pain.
steen said:MUST you lie? It is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that until the sensory nerves actually are connected to the brain's cortex, there is no possibility for sensation of any kind. And that connection doesn't happen until the ned of the 26th week of pregnancy. So you can spew that prolife outright lie as much as you want, but rest assured that you will be exposed as a liar every time.
steen said:Actually, the NAZI were all about the State controlling everything, whereas PC is about letting the individual make their own choices. In FACT, the PL are much more like the NAZI in their desire to control persons.
MUST you lie? It is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that until the sensory nerves actually are connected to the brain's cortex, there is no possibility for sensation of any kind. And that connection doesn't happen until the ned of the 26th week of pregnancy. So you can spew that prolife outright lie as much as you want, but rest assured that you will be exposed as a liar every time.
vergiss said:It's like trying to say you can switch on a light, without the cords actually being connected to the bulb.
The fetus has never been "a human" regardless of your false claims.blogger31 said:First of all do a history lesson, the NAZI govt justified many of the things they did by reducing the Jew or any other group to a inferior, undeserving, lower class of human through propaganda. The PC has justified the killing of the unborn, by reducing the unborn to a inferior, undeserving, lower class of human through propaganda.
You are flat-out LYING. You are pushiong legislation specifically to control others access to a legal medical procedure. Why must PL always lie that much? It is always the same. Lie after PL lie after PL lie and misrepresentation. Must you ALWAYS do that?The PL is all about choice as well and doesn't look to control anyone,
And the embryo or fetus have never been a human.PL just doesn't see killing a human as a choice.
Yes, that has solidly been proven in several posts by now, including up above.So I am a liar?
You have likely gone to prolife selective sources that are outdated, biased and at times outright false.I take it then that you assume I have not done my homework on this?
Lets do that. You are in MY field now. :lol:Well let's just see what I have discovered about fetal pain shall we.
What you are describing is a reflex. And no, it doesn't need the thalamus to do so. That is regulated through the spinal cord at the level where the sensory nerve comes in, and through the reflex arch immediately sends a signal back out the motor nerve. Sending the signal all the way up the spinal column and through the tracts to the thalamus would cause a very slow reflexive response. The thalamus' role in reflexes is to coordinate the signal path in the spine so the reflex is even more efficient next time. But it is not part of the actual sensory/motor reflex arch. And despite prolife lies, it is not the necessary structure for sensation.According to the British Medical Journal a fetus can feel at 8 weeks.
By this age the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.
Hmm, with all the revisionist linguistics and lies the PL spew all the time, what are you talking about here? What do you mean with "infant”? Some PL claim the zygote to be an infant, and in any case, the PL claim that any stage can be described through the descriptors of other stages.Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away.
Are you using gestational or pregnancy age here?Try sticking an 8 week old human fetus
A nice reflex, yes, with no cortical involvement whatsoever. So? Physiological response is not dependent on awareness and sensation. Again, reflexes are not evidence of sensation.in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away.
What is "suggested" is false. It has long been known that reflexes are not the same as sensation. Now, your source is 25 years old. Got anything new?A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus. Volman &amp; Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Journal, Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234.
Well, the correct description would be that the signal travels THROUGH the spinal cord to the brain's cortex.Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain.
Hmm, you forgot to tell us how old the source is. It also is a textbook, and thus is not a peer-reviewed scientific source. That aside, the signal that goes to the spinal cord and then back out is still called the reflex arch and has no sensation involved whatsoever. The signal that goes to the brain's cortex is not possible until the connection to the brain's cortex is actually made. That final connection is called the "Thalamocortical tract," and it doesn't connect until the 26th week of pregnancy.These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured. Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427
The rooting REFLEX, yes. Still a reflex."Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week.
Another 25-year-old source. and again, the claim that skin sensitivity to touch being the same as the fetus being able to feel pain is bogus.At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." S. Reinis &amp; J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980
And this is downright false. Now, your source IS about 30 years old, but its claim is false. Sensation is processed in the secondary sensory cortex of the parietal lobe. Unless the signal reaches this center, there is no ability to perceive and "feel" pain, no ability for awareness of the stimulus. I would suggest that next time you CLAIM to have done research, you go out and look up the books yourself and get current sources rather than rely on selective extracts from biased prolife lie sitesBut early on there is no cerebral cortex for thinking, therefore no pain?
The cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and (see above) is functioning at 8 weeks. Even complete removal of the cortex does not eliminate the sensation of pain. "Indeed there seems to be little evidence that pain information reaches the sensory cortex." Patton et al., Intro. to Basic Neurology, W. B. Saunders Co. 1976, p. 178
Again, stress response is not evidence of sensation of pain. Such stress hormonal releases happens during surgery under full anesthesia. Are you claiming that people feel pain DURING surgery?Data in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, gave solid confirmation of such pain. It is known that the fetal umbilical cord has no pain receptors such as the rest of the fetal body. Accordingly, they tested fetal hormone stress response comparing puncturing of the abdomen and of the cord.
And not one word on how this is evidence of “feeling pain.” Nice try.They observed "the fetus reacts to intrahepatic (liver) needling with vigorous body and breathing movements, but not to cord needling. The levels of these hormones did not vary with fetal age." M. Fisk, et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, Pg. 77
And they are talking about fetal sensation AT BIRTH. You know, at 40 weeks of pregnancy. NO abortions occur at that time. Nobody has ever denied that the fetus has sensation at birth.Another excellent British study commented on this:
"It cannot be comfortable for the fetus to have a scalp electrode implanted on his skin, to have blood taken from the scalp or to suffer the skull compression that may occur even with spontaneous delivery. It is hardly surprising that infants delivered by difficult forceps extraction act as if they have a severe headache." Valman &amp; Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980
Sofar, we are noting that you are merely perpetuating the lies and are rather deceptive and dishonest in the process.Now if this isn't enough to show that your liar accusation is clearly false,
Yeah, all from that same page.here is more that trumps your BS 26 week claim.
Congressional hearings are political, not scientific. Nice try but just more drivel.This really hit the fan during the 1996 debate in the U.S. Congress over a law to ban partial birth abortions. Pro-abortionists had claimed that the anesthetic had already killed the fetal baby. Top officials of the U.S.
Society for Obstetric Anesthesia &amp; Perinatology vigorously denied this explaining that usual anesthesia did not harm the baby. D. Gianelli, Anesthesiologists Question Claims in Abortion Debate, Am. Med. News, Jan. 1, ’96
This brought the issue of fetal pain into the news, and testimony was given to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House of Representatives.
"The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without doubt a partial birth abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant. R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery &amp; Brain Research, Case Western Univ. [/B]
Uhum. Yes, keep up your lies. While you are at it, would you mind providing some actual scientific evbidence for your claim? Or will you merely continue your lies about fetal pain?So be rest assured everytime you post something ignorant like that, and try to claim someone as a liar I will expose you as nothing more then a false accuser who has not done their own homework on both sides of the issue.
We have. All you did was plagiarizing a prolife known lie-site and claim it to be evidence Just more prolife lies.blogger31 said:It appears some people far more qualified then you disagree, do your homework.
Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks' gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.
To recap. The thalamocortical tract connects at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. Before that time, no stimulus reach the brain’s cortex where sensation is realized and processed
See Post #411 of the "My Take on Abortion" thread.steen said:Really? Lets take a look at that science, shall we?
When you can tell me how the term "unborn children" is inaccurate, then you can claim it to be hyperbole.steen said:Hmm, that would be like "pre-dead corpses. revisionist prolife linguistic hyperbole is not scientific.
The ability to independently move does indeed indicate that the child has some level of consciousness. If you are talking about "sentience," in the sense of self-awareness, that does not come until months after birth, but if you are talking about "consciousness and sentience" in that the child is able to react to his or her surroundings, then yes, the child is conscious and sentient.steen said:That's per reflexes. I trust you know what a reflex is, and why that is not sign of consciousness or sentience?
I never claimed that a heartbeat was a sign of sentience, genius. I mentioned it as proof that the child was alive. Pay attention next time. :roll:steen said:And that also is an automatic, non-sentient activity. I trust you understand that automatic muscle movements are not sign of consciousness or sentience? As such, what is the point of bringing it up?
You seem to be erroneously equating "human life" with "consciousness and sentience."steen said:"alive"? Sure, there are live cells. That doesn't mean sentience, awareness or ability for sensation of any kind. So what is the relevance?
A tumor is made of cells carrying the same DNA of the person to whom it is attached (minus the gene telling the cells to stop growing, of course). It has neither separate DNA nor does it have any independent bodily systems. It is not a person and never will be. An unborn child, by contrast, has both a completely different human genome and independent bodily systems. That child is a separate human individual and will remain so forever. Thus, your comparison of a tumor to an unborn child is not legitimate.steen said:After all, even a tumor is "alive."
The child, by virtue of his or her independent bodily functions, already exists as an individual. As for homeostasis, please provide evidence that a human does not attain this until birth.steen said:That would be individual function, homeostasis, individual existence.
Yes, there was, as I have already shown.steen said:There was no baby before birth, and as there was no individual, there was no "being," prolife revisionist linguistics none withstanding.
You're the last person who has any right to be talking about dishonesty, but, once again, I refer you to Post #411 of the "My Take on Abortion" thread.steen said:So that's it. Nowhere was there evidence of the "Science" you promised. Did you "forget" about the science? Or did you merely use that as a term to try to lend credence to your unscientific claims? (I hope not, as that would be dishonest.)
No, "legal murder" is not an oxymoron. From Webster's:steen said:ANOTHER oxymoron. Nice Going there with revisionist linguistics. It sure seems like PL are INCAPABLE of an honest, straightforward argument without resorting to those dishonest trickeries and deceptions.
Now, what were you saying about dishonesty and trickery? It seems that you need to take the beam out of your own eye before attempting to remove the imaginary speck in mine.Main Entry: murder
Inflected Form:mur£dered ; mur£der£ing \*m*r-d(*-)ri*\
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE *murders French* d : to defeat badly
intransitive verb : to commit murder
synonyms see KILL
Here you go. What's pathetic is how misinformed you are.steen said:Please explain what abortion procedure involves the description you just provided. Not even THAT can you be honest about, huh? How pathetic. :roll:
Nope, I understand it. I just point out that it is false.blogger31 said:It appears you have a real issue with understanding what point is being made,
:rofl Nothing like a good ad hominem to lead off with, eh!doesn't surprise me though, many far left liberals do. Many jump the gun and call anything that disagrees with their ideology a lie, and any research that doesn't agree with them false and bias evidence. Anyway let's move on shall we....
Ah, your sophistry, contrary to the reality of the NAZI and PL being similar in wanting to control women’s' fertility.First of all I see your lack of response to the similar methods used by the Nazi party and PC movement to justify their killings.
Nope. "a human" is an individual. The fetus is not an individual. Case closed.Second you will have to have strict proof that a fetus is not a human.
Biology is about the species issue. Nobody has denied the H. sapiens species of the fetus.Simple biology
Common sense is that something connected to the woman's body with blood vessels and being maintained by the woman's bodily homeostasis is not an "individual." Because then you would have to claim that your kidney or liver are "individuals."and common sense disagree.
Another deception, distortion and dishonest misrepresentation. Again, there has been no argument against the species of the fetus. So why the dishonesty? Why the sophistry? Must be because your argument is to weak without such dishonesty, to weak to stand on its own per facts. Yes, very telling...Two humans usually reproduce a human, if you have evidence that the fetus is of some other species please present it as you will have evidence contrary to the entire scientific and medical field of practice.
Ah, but there IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that it is unable to even physically feel pain before the end of the 26th week of pregnancy.Next you need to get a hold on my viewpoint. Read back in the thread and I never claimed that a fetus could feel pain. I said there is no conclusive evidence that says they can't.
And I am still waiting for the scientific evidence.To prove this point one only needs to find medical evidence contrary to your claim.
They lied about the data and tried to use very old speculations from before the data was in as "evidence" of how the actual now-researched data is wrong. That's dishonest. That is deliberate lying.Whether you like the site or not, their claims are backed up by studies from a medical journal.
But your SITE misrepresented the data. The prolife lie-site lied a lot. THEIR claims were not supported by the scientific data.Now I don't know if you are even aware, but they don't just publish anything in a medical journal.
Well, you DIDN'T quote your source. You were deceptively plagiarizing.It is quite a far cry from just quoting something from a website with no source included as you are trying to make it look.
Prolife lies are now "poor liberal debate"?But then again that is another tactic of a poor liberal debate.
Huh? No I don't. Why lie about it? Oh, yes....You say none can be explored further
And again, the research didn't warrant the conclusions made by the prolife lie-sites, and was also contradicted by current research. So your site is a lie-site that deliberately is using old data that it then misrepresents.which shows how poor your debate is, everyone of those can be reviewed from the original source. It is called doing a search on that journal, or doctor, etc, etc.
:rofl Very funny. YOU plagiarized from their site, that is what you are guilty off. THE SITE is guilty of misrepresentation of data as well as deliberately picking outdated data with no regard for current findings because these findings contradicts their political, non-scientific lies.Apparently you are not familiar with what is a source. The site is not the source of the information, the site compiled the information from the sources,
The director testifying at a political hearing makes the claim political. The source is not a peer-reviewed scientific source, which makes it non-scientific Your ignorance of this is astonishing.another clear statement showing poor debate. Then you show a clear lack of fundamental understanding to the source when you say a political hearing is not scientific, but the source is clearly not a political source unless you consider the Director of Neurosurgery and Brain research political.
Exactly. While this IS from a congressional hearing before Subcommittee on the Constitution of the US House of Representatives., the lie-site didn't clarify that it was.Let's see that source again. R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery &amp;amp; Brain Research, Case Western Univ. HMMM, no mention of the congressional panel being the source.
No contradiction. The fibers take 3+ weeks to grow.Not to mention a priceless recap in point two contradicting yourself:
Nope. The connection happens at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. The ability to process and feel pain was by a review study found to possibly not emerge before the 29th week. That doesn't negate that the actual connection doesn't connect until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. It means that while the exact date for when the fetus can FEEL pain is not known, it IS known that it cannot physically happen until the nerve connection between the sensory nerves and the brain's cortex actually connects, when the brain actually gets plugged in.So many weeks in the above example you showed as evidence yet you seem to be able to say without a shadow of a doubt that the connection and pain happen in week 26, I have to ask why mention week 29 and 30? It appears you are not even sure.
Nope. Consensus is not the point in science. Facts are. Political sway over consensus is irrelevant to the FACT that the thalamocortical tract doesn't connect until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy.So finally as said before I only need to find counter evidence that shows your statement is not a consensus
Irrelevant. Debate doesn't prove science; facts do.to prove that there is no conclusive undebated studies on when a fetus feels pain.
Oh, yeah. CNN. The scholarly, scientific journal, right?
Because he doesn't WANT it to be. Where is HIS peer-reviewed, scientific facts? Opinions are not facts. If he as a prolife fundie doesn't WANT the study to be true, then he doesn't. That doesn't change the FACT of the study being a peer-reviewed, scientific study."They have literally stuck their hands into a hornet's nest," said Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a fetal pain researcher at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, who believes fetuses as young as 20 weeks old feel pain. "This is going to inflame a lot of scientists who are very, very concerned and are far more knowledgeable in this area than the authors appear to be. This is not the last word -- definitely not."
Yes, is it at week 29 or 30? There IS factual evidence and scientific consensus that this does certainly NOT occur BEFORE the 26th week of pregnancy, as there is no connection from the sensory nerves to the brain's cortex before that time. Nobody believe that this is the actual time that the fetus feels pain, as the brain has to learn to interpret the signals that it receives. It is this learning curve that there is disagreement about. There is no scientific disagreement over the growth of the thalamocortical tract.Dr. Nancy Chescheir, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University and a board director at the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, said the report "will help to develop some consensus" on when fetuses feel pain. "To date, there hasn't been any."
But she isn't. Your point is about my minimum date. This is not addressed anywhere as a controversy, because it has already been established.Isn't this one interesting, here Dr. Chescheir makes my point for me,
Except the consensus that it does NOT occur prior to the 26th week of pregnancy.this report apparently is only going to help develop some consensus. It appears as I have said there is not a consensus on fetal pain.
Oh, this ought to be interesting. There is SOLID consensus that abortion doesn't cause breast cancer. Take a look at the evidence here:This subject works much like the whole breast cancer issue,
Except that it now has solidly been documented that abortion doesn’t cause breast cancer, and that the PL who still claim it does, against all current studies, are using older, erroneous and weak studies. So yes, there very much is a consensus. Here is what the American Cancer Society states:both sides can find many different sources claiming breast cancer is caused from abortion as well as the claim being phony, but not have a consensus one way or the other.
There is consensus about when it can NOT feel pain.So I simply state again there is no consensus on fetal pain so you nor vergiss can make a claim that a fetus does not feel pain during abortion because there is no conclusive study that says for sure.
I find your claim funny. Who is it that is more qualified? Those who make political statements at an invited political hearing? Oh, yeah, babe.It appears you still need to do your homework, at every corner I can find someone more qualified then you that disagrees with you. But again I figure you will resort to attacking me again instead of the message presented to you.
As I pointed out presenting reflexes as conscious movement is very dishonest. It is a liebattleax86 said:The ability to independently move does indeed indicate that the child has some level of consciousness.
There is no child, your revisionist linguistic prolife dishonest hyperbole none withstanding.I never claimed that a heartbeat was a sign of sentience, genius. I mentioned it as proof that the child was alive. Pay attention next time. :roll:
Really? That gene vanished into thin air. A tumor is the result of multiple genetic mutations and changes in a cell. It is radically different than the original cells. Your ignorance of biology is duly noted.A tumor is made of cells carrying the same DNA of the person to whom it is attached (minus the gene telling the cells to stop growing, of course).
Yes, it does.It has neither separate DNA
Well, neither does an embryo. So you are OK with abortions up until the fetal stage. OK, that's good to know.nor does it have any independent bodily systems.
Neither is the embryo or fetus.It is not a person
So? The potential is not the actual. An acorn is not an oak tree.and never will be.
Ah, more deceptive and lame revisionist linguistic hyperbole. How deceptive of you.An unborn child,
Not when it is an embryo.by contrast, has both a completely different human genome and independent bodily systems.
"Child" now? Not even "unborn" child? Yup, now you are obviously way off. Yes, the born child is a separate individual, the umbilical cord is long gone. So? Children have no relevance to the issue of abortions.That child is a separate human individual and will remain so forever.
Sure it is. Your lame sophistry didn't address reality, as sophistry so rarely does. Next time, perhaps you can deal with what is written rather than what is cooked up in your overheated prolife belief system? Next time, perhaps you can deal with the fact that the tumor is 'alive." Sure seems like you "forgot" to deal with that point, the center of the discussion! How cowardly of you.Thus, your comparison of a tumor to an unborn child is not legitimate.
Well, yes, born children certainly are individuals. That has nothing to do with abortions.The child, by virtue of his or her independent bodily functions, already exists as an individual.
SIGH! Because there is an umbilical cord and uterus maintaining many of the functions involved in homeostasis.!!!!As for homeostasis, please provide evidence that a human does not attain this until birth.
Nope, your "because I say so" postulation is not evidence of individual beings.Yes, there was, as I have already shown.
Why? because I point out the dishonesty in the PL arguments? Yeah, good one. All PL have to do is to stop lying, and we wouldn't have to go over this time after time when PL lie.You're the last person who has any right to be talking about dishonesty,
So?but, once again, I refer you to Post #411 of the "My Take on Abortion" thread.
Actually, the definition you chose was not a legal one. There IS a legal definition that you ignored. Hence, when you talk about 'legal murder," you are dealing with the legal definition. So once again, we see dishonest revisionist linguistics from the PL. Not that we are at all surprised anymore. There are to many PL liars who have lied to much for this to be surprising anymore.No, "legal murder" is not an oxymoron. From Webster's:
What I said above.Now, what were you saying about dishonesty and trickery?
Oh? I was right. So where do you get off trying to divert away from your dishonesty? Are you also a coward who won't stand by your own statements?It seems that you need to take the beam out of your own eye before attempting to remove the imaginary speck in mine.
Well, I looked and nowhere saw a procedure that involved "crushing their heads, chopping off their limbs, or dissolving their bodies in acid." In fact, the word "acid" doesn't occur even once on the page. So you lied AGAIN. No surprise there.