A commercial that liberals would love if it was true.

[Argonath]

What else would you call the murder of millions?

Masturbation

 

[battleax86]

It's late, so I'll get to your post in this thread and the "Parents" thread tomorrow.

 

[battleax86]

As I pointed out presenting reflexes as conscious movement is very dishonest. It is a lie

And as I've already pointed out in another thread, embryos as young as seven weeks have been known to bend the upper body to one side and make a quick backward motion with the hand when their lips are stroked. This would indicate more than an involuntary reflexive reaction, but a conscious effort to brush away whatever was stroking the child's lips. Also, fetuses as young as 18 weeks old are known to move without stimuli. This flies in the face of your claim that their movement is purely reflexive and not conscious until the 26th week.

There is no child, your revisionist linguistic prolife dishonest hyperbole none withstanding.

Do you consider Webster's Dictionary to be revisionist lingustic pro-life dishonest hyperbole?

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/

1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3 usually childe /'chI(&)ld/ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : DESCENDANT
5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6 : PRODUCT, RESULT <barbed wire... is truly a child of the plains -- W. P. Webb>
- with child : PREGNANT

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.

That aside, nobody has denied that the embryo or fetuses are made up of live cells. Do you always provide "evidence" of irrelevant points? Pay attention next time. :roll:

ROFL, if you had been paying attention, you would have realized that I was responding to this post:

And would you like to explain how you kill something if it isnt alive? You dont realize how redundant your argument is, it all comes down to weither or not it is considered life which is a matter of opinion.

Once again, PAY ATTENTION. It will keep you from looking like a fool over and over again.

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.

To begin with, after some research, I did find my original belief that the gene was missing was slightly incorrect. Some tumors are caused by an inherited defect in genes known as tumor suppressors. Now, you were correct in stating that other tumors are formed by genetic mutations.

Yes, it does.

No, it does not. A mutated gene is a defective version of the same gene. An unborn child, by contrast, has a completely different genetic code.

Well, neither does an embryo. So you are OK with abortions up until the fetal stage. OK, that's good to know.

That, my friend, is false. An embryo does have independent bodily systems in the form of independent growth, an independently functioning brain and nervous systems, and an independent cardiovascular system. A tumor has none of these things. Even its defective growth depends on the host's blood.

Neither is the embryo or fetus.

Yes, they are, as I have shown repeatedly.

So? The potential is not the actual. An acorn is not an oak tree.

I never claimed that it was. My point was that a tumor doesn't even have that potential.

Ah, more deceptive and lame revisionist linguistic hyperbole. How deceptive of you.

LOL. See above the definition of child.

Not when it is an embryo.

Yes, an embryo does have unique DNA and independent bodily systems. I'm surprised that you're unaware of this basic scientific fact.

"Child" now? Not even "unborn" child? Yup, now you are obviously way off.

Your style of arguing is amusingly pathetic. "Child" would also include "unborn child." That's just common sense.

Yes, the born child is a separate individual, the umbilical cord is long gone. So? Children have no relevance to the issue of abortions.

See above for the relevance of children. As for the umbilical cord, that is not required for individuality any more than separation from their sibling is required for the individuality of a Siamese twin.

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."

Why do I need to deal with something that is already a given? Of course a tumor is alive. However, it is not a human individual, it has no independent bodily, it does not have a different human genetic code, and it cannot be legitimately compared to an unborn human being.

Sure seems like you "forgot" to deal with that point, the center of the discussion! How cowardly of you.

LOL Whether or not a tumor was "alive" was never the issue. You are one sad, strange little man.

Well, yes, born children certainly are individuals. That has nothing to do with abortions.

If you had taken that quote in context, you would have seen that I was referring to the unborn child.

SIGH! Because there is an umbilical cord and uterus maintaining many of the functions involved in homeostasis.!!!!

OK, if that's the case, please provide evidence of it. Furthermore, please provide evidence that a human does not have homeostasis until the umbilical cord is cut.

Nope, your "because I say so" postulation is not evidence of individual beings.

I have already provided you evidence through links and the dictionary. If you actually want to see the evidence of my claims, it's in Post #411 of the "My Take on Abortion" thread.

So?

So you asked for evidence and I provided it. It's kind of funny that your only response is "So?"

Why? because I point out the dishonesty in the PL arguments?

No, because you falsely accuse pro-life posters of dishonesty.

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.

Maybe if you would actually show how we are lying, then I wouldn't consider you to be a false accuser.

Actually, the definition you chose was not a legal one. There IS a legal definition that you ignored.

No, I did not ignore it. Any illegal killing is murder, as the definition states. YOU are attempting to ignore the other definition of murder which shows that murder can also be an unjustified killing, not just an illegal one.

Hence, when you talk about 'legal murder," you are dealing with the legal definition.

Wrong. When I talk about "legal murder," I am talking about a form of murder that is legal, not something that is legally considered to be murder. The definition shows that there is, indeed, such thing as a legal murder.

So once again, we see dishonest revisionist linguistics from the PL.

So once again, we see steen attempting to call Webster's Dictionary "dishonest revisionist linguistics."

Oh? I was right.

No, you weren't, as I have shown above.

So where do you get off trying to divert away from your dishonesty?

Friend, I don't need to divert away from anything because I have not been dishonest. You are the one attempting to divert the conversation from a discussion on the facts to a discussion about me and your false accusations of dishonesty.

Are you also a coward who won't stand by your own statements?

I stand by every statement that I've said in this forum except the one about a missing gene in tumors, as I have since found that one to be incorrect.

 

[battleax86]

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.

Boy, did you even read the page?

Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): within 13 to 24 weeks after LMP

This surgical abortion is done during the second trimester of pregnancy. Because the developing fetus doubles in size between the thirteenth and fourteenth weeks of pregnancy, the body of the fetus is too large to be broken up by suction and will not pass through the suction tubing. In this procedure, the cervix must be opened wider than in a first trimester abortion. This is done by inserting laminaria a day or two before the abortion. After opening the cervix, the doctor pulls out the fetal parts with forceps. The fetus' skull is crushed to ease removal.

In this procedure, the head is crushed and the body pulled apart. There is even photographic proof of this procedure.

http://www.antiabortionsigns.com/malachicard.jpg

As for the acid procedure, I didn't have time to post another link at the time. It's here under "Saline."

Now, something else that WAS on the site was this:
"What Are Some of the Other Risks of Abortion?
Abortion may increase the risk of Breast Cancer..."

We already established that to be an outright lie.

They cited a peer-reviewed 1994 study from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. If you want to dispute that finding, by all means do so, but you cannot legitimately call it a lie.

SO this is just another prolife lie-site. No surprise there, just more confirmation that PL almost always lie. How pathetic.

Until you can prove that the abortion procedures listed are lies, then your argument is pathetic.

 

[vergiss]

Uh huh... who decided that convincingly-fake foetus is called Malachi, anyway?

 

[Argonath]

Now that you mention it, it does look fake. . .

 

[steen]

And as I've already pointed out in another thread, embryos as young as seven weeks have been known to bend the upper body to one side and make a quick backward motion with the hand when their lips are stroked. This would indicate more than an involuntary reflexive reaction, but a conscious effort to brush away whatever was stroking the child's lips.

Ah, would it indicate that? There are ONLY reflexes until the thalamocortical tract connects at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. Before then, there is no possibility for the brain to generate a response because it is not receiving the stimulus.

This is a known medical FACT. PL trying to make nonsense claims to get around this are merely showing their dishonesty.

Also, fetuses as young as 18 weeks old are known to move without stimuli. This flies in the face of your claim that their movement is purely reflexive and not conscious until the 26th week.

They are not moving to stimuli that YOU gave.

Once again, long-time well-established medical FACT is the until the thalamocortical tract connects at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, there are ONLY reflexes. You can SPECULATE and BELIEVE all you want as PL do all the time, but as long as you ignore facts, your arguments will stand as the typical PL dishonesty. Yes, I know that you would WANT your beliefs to be reality. Unfortunately for your credibility, they are not.

Do you consider Webster's Dictionary to be revisionist lingustic pro-life dishonest hyperbole?

I consider it to be vague and unspecific.

ROFL, if you had been paying attention, you would have realized that I was responding to this post:

And that makes my observation invalid? yes, I can understand that you are afraid of my point and will do everything you can to avoid answering it, but hey, show a bit of backbone here.

Once again, PAY ATTENTION. It will keep you from looking like a fool over and over again.

Please focus on the converstaing here and stop talking to the mirror, pelase.

No, it does not. A mutated gene is a defective version of the same gene. An unborn child, by contrast, has a completely different genetic code.

It is a different version of the parental genes. It is not "completely different. Every gene is from one of the parents, unless it mutated. In that sense, it is no different than a tumor.

That, my friend, is false. An embryo does have independent bodily systems in the form of independent growth,

As does a tumor.

an independently functioning brain and nervous systems,

FLATOUT a LIE. There is no functioning brain at the embryonic stage

and an independent cardiovascular system.

Ah, yes. The umbilical cord, that is just a figment of our imagination, right? SHEESH! Your moral fervor doesn't make up for lack of facts. Go and actually LEARN something about this, would you! And no, grabbing lies from prolife sites doesn't consrtitute education.

A tumor has none of these things.

It has some, and some of them the embryo doesn't even have. So your argument is nonsense. Damn, you "Lost another one to Science."

Even its defective growth depends on the host's blood.

And the embryo's growth doesn't come from the umbilical cord resources? The embryo and fetus have resources beamed in from outer space? Your argument is turning downright stupid now.

Yes, they are, as I have shown repeatedly.

No, they aren't, as I have shown repeatedly.

I never claimed that it was. My point was that a tumor doesn't even have that potential.

You have claimed that the embryo is a child, which would be the same as claiming that the acorn is a tree. How lame of you to deny this example of your deceptive revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

Yes, an embryo does have unique DNA and independent bodily systems. I'm surprised that you're unaware of this basic scientific fact.

"unique" in what way? Are you claiming that the DNA of an embryo is not merely a combination of the parenmts DNA? What "basic scientific fact" tells us otherwise? Oh, yeah, that's right. None <snicker>

Your style of arguing is amusingly pathetic. "Child" would also include "unborn child." That's just common sense.

Ah, corpses include undead corpses. So you admit to not only being an undead corpse, you are also an actual corpse. Yes, it is fascinating to witness the insane claims that PL revisionist linguistics is defending.

See above for the relevance of children. As for the umbilical cord, that is not required for individuality

Yes it is. It is evidence of lacking independent function, lack of independent homeostasis.

any more than separation from their sibling is required for the individuality of a Siamese twin.

So what part of the siamese twin is the individual?

Why do I need to deal with something that is already a given? Of course a tumor is alive. However, it is not a human individual,

Neither is the embryo or fetus.

it has no independent bodily,

Neither is the embryo or fetus.

it does not have a different human genetic code,

Neither is the embryo or fetus. It is merely a recombination of the parents.

and it cannot be legitimately compared to an unborn human being.

AH, a "because I say so" PL pathetic claim based on losing the argument. Uhum.

If you had taken that quote in context, you would have seen that I was referring to the unborn child.

But there is no such thing outside of the overheated fantasy mind of the prolifers.

OK, if that's the case, please provide evidence of it. Furthermore, please provide evidence that a human does not have homeostasis until the umbilical cord is cut.

Independent oxygenation is the easy one. Case closed.

I have already provided you evidence through links and the dictionary. If you actually want to see the evidence of my claims, it's in Post #411 of the "My Take on Abortion" thread.

BABY: AN infant. a newborn child (Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 25th ed.) So you can yammer about your evidence all you want.

So you asked for evidence and I provided it. It's kind of funny that your only response is "So?"

But you DIDN'T provide evidence. All you did was spewing a bunch of revisionis linguistics and claiming that this wishful thinking was "facts."

No, because you falsely accuse pro-life posters of dishonesty.

Nope, PL dishonesty is well-established. Claims about breast cancer. Claims about fetal pain. Claims about unique mental illnesses after abortions. Claims of D&X abortions at term etc. All proven lies, all claims that PL continue to spew after they are proven as lies.

YEs, PL lies, this is established and very well documented. Your denial is a lie in itself. LAME.

Maybe if you would actually show how we are lying, then I wouldn't consider you to be a false accuser.

See above for examples.

No, I did not ignore it. Any illegal killing is murder, as the definition states. YOU are attempting to ignore the other definition...

Oh, the "other"? The non-legal one you seek to use as justification for legal arguments against abortion. Yes, I always knew you were dishonest.

Wrong. When I talk about "legal murder," I am talking about a form of murder that is legal, not something that is legally considered to be murder. The definition shows that there is, indeed, such thing as a legal murder.

AH, I get it. You are talking about an "oxymoron."

Friend, I don't need to divert away from anything because I have not been dishonest.

Oh, I have already shown multiple deliberately dishonest claims from you in this post alone, besides your usual revisionist linguistic deceptions. You denying an established fact merely makes you look even more dishonest

You are the one attempting to divert the conversation from a discussion on the facts

Oh? The FACTS are that nobody can be forced to give their bodily resources against their will. THAT is the facts. You haven't even STARTED on the facts yet, being to busy spewing your deceptive revisionist linguistic hyperbole about irrelevant stuff regarding the embryo.

to a discussion about me and your false accusations of dishonesty.

Nothing false about it, it is well-documented throughout my posts including this one.

I stand by every statement that I've said in this forum except the one about a missing gene in tumors, as I have since found that one to be incorrect.

So you stand by all your other lies, misrepresentations and deceptions. How about the lie that the embryo has a functioning brain? Somehow I am not surprised.

 

[steen]

Boy, did you even read the page?

Yes, the word "acid" didn't occur anywhere on the page.

In this procedure, the head is crushed and the body pulled apart. There is even photographic proof of this procedure.

Ah, fetal porn. Yes, the PL loves that ****. :lol:

As for the acid procedure, I didn't have time to post another link at the time.

Ah, how nice to tell us. "Didn't have time"? The world was ending?

It's here under "Saline."

Ah, saline abortions? Yeah, they haven't been done for more than a decade. Your stuff really is up to date, isn't it. Why does a site describe a procedure that is not done anymore? Could it be that the site likes the emotional impression, regardless of homesty? Well, lets take a look at the site's honesty. Lets look at what it says about breast cancer. That is always a sure way of telling whether it is a prolie site.

Yes, sure enough, at the bottom, it claims that there is no consensus. It is not as bad as SOME sites who outright claims a connection, but thsi site does lend credence to older studies that have been directly disproved.

They cited a peer-reviewed 1994 study from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. If you want to dispute that finding, by all means do so, but you cannot legitimately call it a lie.

Yes, I can. By now, the NON-EXISTENCE of such a link is firmly established. Deliberately using old, outdated data to support your claims, merely because the new, accurate data disproves your claim, that is evidence of deliberate lying. Did you miss the evidence that I provided earlier? here is the post where all the evidence is gathered:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3331

Today even pondering a connection is an outright lie, as the evidence against it is solid.

Until you can prove that the abortion procedures listed are lies, then your argument is pathetic.

Well, not my fault that you (1) list claims not form the source you sited, and (2) Procedures are listed that are not done.

Until you stop posting falsehoods and deceotions, and until you start being honest about what you post, and not using deceptive, lying sources, you simply have no credibility left. Anybody willing to spew lie after lie merely to have an argument simply isn't worth dealing with.

 

[Argonath]

Amen, Brother!!! Say It Loud, Say It Proud!!