Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

[Logicman]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

FALSE. Because neither you nor anyone else can provide the slightest bit of Objectively Verifiable Evidence that an unborn human --which of course is 100% human-- qualifies as a "being", in the same way that an intelligent extraterrestrial alien might qualify as a "being". Unless and until you can prove an unborn human is also a being, The Logical Conclusion, "Logicman", is that an unborn human is a "human non-being", exactly as a human hydatidiform mole is also a human non-being, and a brain-dead human adult on full life-support is also a human non-being (because it is officially a corpse, despite the body still being almost entirely alive).

Nonsense.

Funny, but the unborn you always try to diminish always appear as functional human beings, who develop choices. You deny them that.

Not only that, but if the pro-infanticide collective had just let those babies live, you'd now have tens of millions of tax-paying teachers, physicians, scientists, etc., that would have made the world a better place and who would have funded your ubiquitous social programs. Instead, the pro-abortionists have nothing but a gruesome legacy of bloodshed and destruction.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Nonsense.

Funny, but the unborn you always try to diminish always appear as functional human beings

How is this a "functional human being"?

Not only that, but if the pro-infanticide collective had just let those babies live,

I don't know anyone who is pro infanticide.

you'd now have tens of millions of tax-paying teachers, physicians, scientists, etc., that would have made the world a better place and who would have funded your ubiquitous social programs.

I am against many social programs. I am also against increasing the population as there are too many people on the planet. We are wreaking havoc on it.

Instead, the pro-abortionists have nothing but a gruesome legacy of bloodshed and destruction.

No more so than the pro bowel resectionists, pro heart surgeryists or even the anti choicers, given the clinic bombings, killing of doctors etc.

 

[year2late]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Nonsense.

Funny, but the unborn you always try to diminish always appear as functional human beings, who develop choices. You deny them that.

Not only that, but if the pro-infanticide collective had just let those babies live, you'd now have tens of millions of tax-paying teachers, physicians, scientists, etc., that would have made the world a better place and who would have funded your ubiquitous social programs. Instead, the pro-abortionists have nothing but a gruesome legacy of bloodshed and destruction.

Interesting you go down that path.....the women who abort in general are lacking financial, social, and environmental resources to properly care for a new baby (let alone be pregnant). I have no doubt that some in a situation of poverty and poor social resources can strive to the top, but the reality is that many are remarkably unable to provide an atmosphere conducive to that type of prosperity. Growing up in a single parent home in a poor area with the single parent working multiple jobs to try to make end meet...is not really the recipe for such overwhelming success as you indicate.

Interesting that you think a million extra babies born will make things better for the nation. How many of those million a year will NEED social welfare resources for most of their childhood? Possibly life?

I would like to see abortion rates go drastically down...but painting a rosy picture when the reality for an overwhelming majority would fall way short of that is clearly not helpful.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Nonsense.

YOUR MERE CLAIM IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. All you have are Subjective dictionary definitions; you don't have any actual Objective Fact, regarding the "being" status of any unborn human.

Funny, but the unborn you always try to diminish

FALSE. THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE. They are not one iota more than what they are, and they are not one iota less than what they are. And what they are are human animal entities, totally mindless for much of a pregnancy, and having nothing more than animal-class minds for the rest of a pregnancy. BEINGS, however, are persons; they have person-class minds, and such mentation is totally irrelevant to the bodies that support that mentation. Which is why dolphins could qualify as persons, and why some extraterrestrial aliens could qualify as persons, and why True Artificial Intelligences will qualify as persons.

always appear as functional human beings,

NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. Mostly beause that word "always" is blatantly false; at least 50% of all unborn humans Naturally fail to survive between conception and becoming confirmed pregnancies, and at least another 1/6 Naturally fail to survive to become live births. The rest of the reason you are wrong is, the surviving unborn are functional only as mere-animal entities and cannot in the slightest function as "beings", persons.

who develop choices.

FALSE TWICE. First, since they cannot possibly qualify as persons, using the word "who" is a Stupid Lie. Second, you are equating "potential" with "actual". THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE; they are not what they have the potential to become, And There Is No Such Thing As A Potential That Must Be Fulfilled. Otherwise, if you happen to encounter a deep gorge where a potential bridge might one day be constructed, you should immediately drive across the potential bridge, right? It is ONLY in The Overall Abortion Debate where anyone blathers the incredible idiocy of claiming that "potential" must be treated the same way as "actual". Our unborn do not at any stage have the power to make choices, NOR is there any Objective reason why a typical healthy unborn human MUST get born, to later develop enough to be able to make choices. (The world is already overpopulated with humans, remember?)

You deny them that.

AND I DENY COCKROACHES THE OPPORTUNITY TO INFEST MY HOUSE, ALSO. Let's see you prove (1) that an unborn human MUST get born, and (2) that cockroaches MUST infest my house. DO NOT INVOKE STUPID PREJUDICE ABOUT THE WORD "HUMAN" as you attempt either task. Only Objective reasoning matters, not Subjective Stupid Prejudice.

Not only that, but if the pro-infanticide collective

IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ABORTION DEBATE. Unborn humans are provably very different from "infants", and should never be equated with infants.

had just let those babies live,

ANOTHER STUPID LIE; unborn humans should never be equated with "babies", either. THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE, very different from ordinary babies in cribs.

you'd now have tens of millions of tax-paying teachers, physicians, scientists, etc.,

PROPAGANDISTICALLY FALSE. Most abortions are done for economic reasons, and forcing those births to happen simply increases poverty. SHOW US THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF HIGHLY EDUCATED FOLKS COMING FROM THE GHETTOS EVERY YEAR, from all the births that already happen.

that would have made the world a better place

STUPIDLY FALSE. Since you cannot show us tens of millions of highly educated folks coming out of impoverished neighborhoods every year, from all the births that already happen.

and who would have funded your ubiquitous social programs.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Instead they would mostly have added to the rolls of those needing social assistance.

Instead, the pro-abortionists have nothing but a gruesome legacy of bloodshed and destruction.

LYINGLY FALSE. Your agenda would cause vastly MORE problems in the world.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I don't know anyone who is pro infanticide.

I'm for infanticide and Komiyr The Rat is also. There are a few other people I'm forgetting about here.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

YOUR MERE CLAIM IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. All you have are Subjective dictionary definitions; you don't have any actual Objective Fact, regarding the "being" status of any unborn human.


FALSE. THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE. They are not one iota more than what they are, and they are not one iota less than what they are. And what they are are human animal entities, totally mindless for much of a pregnancy, and having nothing more than animal-class minds for the rest of a pregnancy. BEINGS, however, are persons; they have person-class minds, and such mentation is totally irrelevant to the bodies that support that mentation. Which is why dolphins could qualify as persons, and why some extraterrestrial aliens could qualify as persons, and why True Artificial Intelligences will qualify as persons.


NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. Mostly beause that word "always" is blatantly false; at least 50% of all unborn humans Naturally fail to survive between conception and becoming confirmed pregnancies, and at least another 1/6 Naturally fail to survive to become live births. The rest of the reason you are wrong is, the surviving unborn are functional only as mere-animal entities and cannot in the slightest function as "beings", persons.


FALSE TWICE. First, since they cannot possibly qualify as persons, using the word "who" is a Stupid Lie. Second, you are equating "potential" with "actual". THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE; they are not what they have the potential to become, And There Is No Such Thing As A Potential That Must Be Fulfilled. Otherwise, if you happen to encounter a deep gorge where a potential bridge might one day be constructed, you should immediately drive across the potential bridge, right? It is ONLY in The Overall Abortion Debate where anyone blathers the incredible idiocy of claiming that "potential" must be treated the same way as "actual". Our unborn do not at any stage have the power to make choices, NOR is there any Objective reason why a typical healthy unborn human MUST get born, to later develop enough to be able to make choices. (The world is already overpopulated with humans, remember?)


AND I DENY COCKROACHES THE OPPORTUNITY TO INFEST MY HOUSE, ALSO. Let's see you prove (1) that an unborn human MUST get born, and (2) that cockroaches MUST infest my house. DO NOT INVOKE STUPID PREJUDICE ABOUT THE WORD "HUMAN" as you attempt either task. Only Objective reasoning matters, not Subjective Stupid Prejudice.


IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ABORTION DEBATE. Unborn humans are provably very different from "infants", and should never be equated with infants.


ANOTHER STUPID LIE; unborn humans should never be equated with "babies", either. THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE, very different from ordinary babies in cribs.


PROPAGANDISTICALLY FALSE. Most abortions are done for economic reasons, and forcing those births to happen simply increases poverty. SHOW US THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF HIGHLY EDUCATED FOLKS COMING FROM THE GHETTOS EVERY YEAR, from all the births that already happen.


STUPIDLY FALSE. Since you cannot show us tens of millions of highly educated folks coming out of impoverished neighborhoods every year, from all the births that already happen.


HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Instead they would mostly have added to the rolls of those needing social assistance.


LYINGLY FALSE. Your agenda would cause vastly MORE problems in the world.

What a load of nonsense. You're still not seeing the proper perspective. You can't discuss the topic of abortion properly while ignoring the divine, who creates men.

As the Lord told the Prophet Jeremiah,

"BEFORE I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5

Now answer the ultimate question: What divine insight does a pro-abortionist think they have to where they can destroy in a mother's womb that which God is in someway instrumental in creating???

Answer the question?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I'm for infanticide and Komiyr The Rat is also. There are a few other people I'm forgetting about here.

He hasn't been here in a long time. I didn't know you are pro infanticide. Ok, so one person currently posting is.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

What a load of nonsense. You're still not seeing the proper perspective. You can't discuss the topic of abortion properly while ignoring the divine, who creates men.

Oh, yes we can. Not everyone believes in your god.

BEFORE I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5

That is speaking to ONE person, and has nothing to do with abortion.

Now answer the ultimate question: What divine insight does a pro-abortionist think they have to where they can destroy in a mother's womb that which God is in someway instrumental in creating???

Your god is only relevant to it's adherents.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

What a load of nonsense.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Facts are Facts. Many abortion opponents claim I write nonsense, but NOT ONE HAS SPECIFIED ANY DETAILS --and supported those details with evidence.

You're still not seeing the proper perspective.

PROVE IT. Many perspectives are possible, but according to Relativity, none is more "proper" than the others. On the other hand, It Is Logically Obvious that the **best** perspective is the one that includes the greatest amount of Facts, and excludes the greatest amount of irrational blatherings.

You can't discuss the topic of abortion properly while ignoring the divine,

I DON'T. See Section 8 of this document (which I wrote).

who creates men.

AN UNPROVED CLAIM. There is ZERO evidence for it, so why should anyone believe it?

As the Lord told the Prophet Jeremiah,

NOT QUITE. God did not sit down somewhere and write the Bible. HUMANS wrote it, and humans lie. Why should anything in the Bible be believed, unless it can be supported with independent evidence? For example, archaeologists have found a cemetery near the ancient city of the Philistines --and it turns out the Bible LIED --they were much more artistic and less brutish than claimed by Biblical propaganda. THEREFORE see this more-accurate statement:

Someone CLAIMED the Lord told the prophet Jeremiah:

BEFORE I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5

YES, THAT IS THE CLAIM. But whether or not the claim is true, that's another thing altogether!

DO YOU REALIZE THAT EVEN IF THE CLAIM IS TRUE, IT SPECIFICALLY APPLIES ONLY TO JEREMIAH??? Nothing about that claim indicates God ever creates any other human body in the womb (although we might suspect God did that for Jesus)! REMEMBER: God knows everything, which means God knows exactly how DNA is able to construct living bodies without any assistance whatsoever. On what basis does God NEED to create any living body when God knows Nature can do it just fine? PLUS, anyone so idiotic as to insist God is always involved in human body-development, inside the womb, should realize that that so-called "perfect" God GETS IT WRONG AT LEAST 2/3 OF THE TIME. That's the best-of-all reason for anyone to stop blathering such sheer idiocy about God and wombs, and Accept Fact, that DNA does the job, and DNA is sometimes faulty.

Now answer the ultimate question:

FALSE. That actually is a Stupid Loaded Question. It requires the reader to accept-without-reason a flawed assumption built into the question --the assumption that God is involved in human womb-development.

What divine insight

GOD IS NOT AS STUPID AS ABORTION OPPONENTS. Is that insightful enough for you? God knows all about how the Universe works, and that includes every aspect of biology and DNA. God doesn't need to lift a metaphorical finger, to help DNA do its Natural thing inside the womb.

does a pro-abortionist

NOT APPLICABLE TO MOST PRO-CHOICERS HERE. A pro-abortionist is someone who wants abortions done. A pro-choicer lets others decide whether or not they want abortions done. How is it that abortion opponents cannot understand that simple difference? Has brain-washing with Religious Propaganda lowered their IQs that much?

think they have to where they can destroy in a mother's womb that which

COMMITS ASSAULTS WORSE THAN PARASITES AND FICTIONAL VAMPIRES? No other reason need apply! Because no woman MUST tolerate an avoidable assault.

God is in someway instrumental in creating???

A STUPID LIE, ALMOST 100% OF THE TIME. God might have deigned to get involved in the creation of a few humans among the many billions that have lived in all of human history, like Jeremiah and Jesus. That's two. Abraham's son Isaac could make three. Just plain "three". Out of tens of billions (and Adam doesn't count HERE because no womb was involved!). Can you provide any data about others? The percentage rate for God's NON-involvement in unborn-human development appears to be something like 99.9999999% --and possibly more.

Answer the question?

SEE ABOVE.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Facts are Facts. Many abortion opponents claim I write nonsense, but NOT ONE HAS SPECIFIED ANY DETAILS --and supported those details with evidence.


PROVE IT. Many perspectives are possible, but according to Relativity, none is more "proper" than the others. On the other hand, It Is Logically Obvious that the **best** perspective is the one that includes the greatest amount of Facts, and excludes the greatest amount of irrational blatherings.


I DON'T. See Section 8 of this document (which I wrote).


AN UNPROVED CLAIM. There is ZERO evidence for it, so why should anyone believe it?


NOT QUITE. God did not sit down somewhere and write the Bible. HUMANS wrote it, and humans lie. Why should anything in the Bible be believed, unless it can be supported with independent evidence? For example, archaeologists have found a cemetery near the ancient city of the Philistines --and it turns out the Bible LIED --they were much more artistic and less brutish than claimed by Biblical propaganda. THEREFORE see this more-accurate statement:

Someone CLAIMED the Lord told the prophet Jeremiah:


YES, THAT IS THE CLAIM. But whether or not the claim is true, that's another thing altogether!

DO YOU REALIZE THAT EVEN IF THE CLAIM IS TRUE, IT SPECIFICALLY APPLIES ONLY TO JEREMIAH??? Nothing about that claim indicates God ever creates any other human body in the womb (although we might suspect God did that for Jesus)! REMEMBER: God knows everything, which means God knows exactly how DNA is able to construct living bodies without any assistance whatsoever. On what basis does God NEED to create any living body when God knows Nature can do it just fine? PLUS, anyone so idiotic as to insist God is always involved in human body-development, inside the womb, should realize that that so-called "perfect" God GETS IT WRONG AT LEAST 2/3 OF THE TIME. That's the best-of-all reason for anyone to stop blathering such sheer idiocy about God and wombs, and Accept Fact, that DNA does the job, and DNA is sometimes faulty.


FALSE. That actually is a Stupid Loaded Question. It requires the reader to accept-without-reason a flawed assumption built into the question --the assumption that God is involved in human womb-development.


GOD IS NOT AS STUPID AS ABORTION OPPONENTS. Is that insightful enough for you? God knows all about how the Universe works, and that includes every aspect of biology and DNA. God doesn't need to lift a metaphorical finger, to help DNA do its Natural thing inside the womb.


NOT APPLICABLE TO MOST PRO-CHOICERS HERE. A pro-abortionist is someone who wants abortions done. A pro-choicer lets others decide whether or not they want abortions done. How is it that abortion opponents cannot understand that simple difference? Has brain-washing with Religious Propaganda lowered their IQs that much?


COMMITS ASSAULTS WORSE THAN PARASITES AND FICTIONAL VAMPIRES? No other reason need apply! Because no woman MUST tolerate an avoidable assault.


A STUPID LIE, ALMOST 100% OF THE TIME. God might have deigned to get involved in the creation of a few humans among the many billions that have lived in all of human history, like Jeremiah and Jesus. That's two. Abraham's son Isaac could make three. Just plain "three". Out of tens of billions (and Adam doesn't count HERE because no womb was involved!). Can you provide any data about others? The percentage rate for God's NON-involvement in unborn-human development appears to be something like 99.9999999% --and possibly more.


SEE ABOVE.

You don't know God or the Bible very well. More verses on God creating life.

Deny it all you want but your denials don't mean squat to me.

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lif...at-the-bible-says-about-the-beginning-of-life

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Facts are Facts. Many abortion opponents claim I write nonsense, but NOT ONE HAS SPECIFIED ANY DETAILS --and supported those details with evidence.

Even prochoice posters like myself claim you write nonsense, and I gave you many examples, starting with your nutty placenta theory. But, you don't respond like a normal person. You've created completely bogus arguments with so many things wrong that they don't even justify a response.

Case in point -- once I mentioned there were no "virgin births" and you started posting everything from religious tenets to unproven scientific supposition. Yet, my comment was NOT a factor in making my point. You should have known that. You should have been able to figure out the main point and stick with that --- not drag us into a ridiculous side argument where you linked to dystopian novels.

You simply cannot uphold your end of a discussion -- not rationally -- and people just shake their heads.

Now, do NOT sink back into the stupidity of trying to prove virgin births are a remote possibility. It's not relevant. Not now. Not when you did it the first time.

When you figure out how to address the crux of a discussion, rather than lead posters down the merry path, you might be worth debating. Until then -- nope.

 

[joG]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

There is nothing moral about trying to mandate that a woman stay pregnant...

True. One doesn't need moral arguments to justify illegality of abortion. As a matter of fact, the purely sociolegal logic seems stronger.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

True. One doesn't need moral arguments to justify illegality of abortion. As a matter of fact, the purely sociolegal logic seems stronger.

Abortion is legal.

 

[joG]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Abortion is legal.

I don't believe I said anything of the sort. Maybe you should read and then answer.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I don't believe I said anything of the sort. Maybe you should read and then answer.

Abortion is legsl.

What you said is irrelevant.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Even prochoice posters like myself claim you write nonsense, and I gave you many examples, starting with your nutty placenta theory.

YOU CALLED IT NUTTY BUT PROVED NOTHING. That's what I was talking about, the lack of evidence to support a claim. Claims are cheap, but proof matters!

But, you don't respond like a normal person.

THANK YOU. That's why my arguments are better than yours!

You've created completely bogus arguments with so many things wrong that they don't even justify a response.

A WORTHLESS EXCUSE TO ACTUALLY SPECIFY EVEN ONE OF THOSE "WRONG" THINGS --and then prove it was actually wrong. If your Generic Denunciation was even slightly accurate, you would be able to pick one of those things you claim is wrong, and explain in detail, with evidence, showing why it is wrong. But neither you nor any abortion opponent ever does that. Therefore I get to conclude you-all are simply blathering Stupid Lies about my arguments.

Case in point -- once I mentioned there were no "virgin births" and you started posting everything from religious tenets to unproven scientific supposition.

I INCLUDED MORE THAN THAT. Some births have actually happened to virgins where semen landed on the outside of woman's body, instead of the inside, and migrated from there. A woman is considered to be a virgin if her hymen is intact, but the hymen includes a hole for menstrual flow, and that hole can let sperm through. Which means you blathered a too-generic claim, as I mentioned several times. Other ways in which virgin births COULD happen are simply icing on the cake, of the evidence you blathered a too-generic claim.

Yet, my comment was NOT a factor in making my point.

YOUR POINT WAS A TOO-GENERIC CLAIM, something about abstinence from sexual intercourse **always** being effective contraception. NOPE. Not when men who donate to sperm banks can legitimately be described as abstaining from sexual intercourse, yet still manage to become fathers.

You should have known that.

WHAT I KNOW HERE IS THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN FREELY BLATHER TOO-GENERIC STATEMENTS. And you don't like getting proved wrong. Tsk, tsk!

You should have been able to figure out the main point and stick with that

YOUR MAIN POINT WAS IDIOTIC, TOO. Something about letting men impregnate women irresponsibly, and letting others pay for their stupidity.

--- not drag us into a ridiculous side argument where you linked to dystopian novels.

TELLING STUPID LIES ABOUT MY LINK(s) GETS YOU NOWHERE. The particular link you found offensive simply pointed out a similarity between something I wrote about, which is actually happening in the world, and the topic of a particular dystopian novel of the "if this goes on" type. Whoop-te-do. The FACTS about a certain thing actually happening in the world remain Facts.

You simply cannot uphold your end of a discussion -- not rationally

ANOTHER UNPROVED/WORTHLESS CLAIM. Tsk, tsk!

-- and people just shake their heads.

TOO BAD FOR THEM. I care not at all what they think about Facts they overlooked when creating idiotic arguments.

Now, do NOT sink back into the stupidity of trying to prove virgin births are a remote possibility. It's not relevant. Not now. Not when you did it the first time.

FOR ANY CLAIM YOU MAKE A REPLY IS RELEVANT. You want to harp on something you claim is an error; I choose to show you are the one making the error.

When you figure out how to address the crux of a discussion, rather than lead posters down the merry path, you might be worth debating. Until then -- nope.

WHEN THE CRUX DEPENDS ON IDIOTIC CLAIMS AND ASSUMPTIONS, pointing each one of them is not-hardly a wrong thing to do.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You don't know God or the Bible very well.

REALLY? Can you show us some evidence that God actually did sit down somewhere and write the Bible? Because so far as I know, NO ONE MAKES THAT CLAIM. It is always "humans wrote it while feeling inspired" --which actually translates to "humans wrote it while CLAIMING to be inspired". In many cases there is no way that anyone prove they were actually inspired, and not simply lying.

HERE'S SOMETHING FOR YOU TO KEEP IN MIND. Any claim you make about the Bible is something YOU need to prove. No one ever needs to deny it or disprove it, because The Default Assumption Is, in a Debate no claim is acceptable unless it can be supported with Verifiable evidence.

More verses on God creating life.

MORE UNPROVED CLAIMS? In a Debate, all such claims are worthless unless supporting evidence can be provided.

Deny it all you want

NO NEED. "Denial" requires claiming something is not true. But no one needs to do that if an arbitrary claim cannot be supported with evidence in the first place.

IT IS A FACT THAT HUMANS WROTE THE BIBLE. IT IS A FACT THAT HUMANS LIE. AND IT IS A FACT THAT TRUTHS CAN USUALLY BE PROVED. Have fun!

but your denials don't mean squat to me.

SINCE I'M NOT MAKING A DENIAL, your blatherings qualify as "less than squat".

****ADDENDUM****
Somewhere in my postings to you I should have pointed out the "ignorance" factor. Thousands of years ago humans knew lots less than what we know today, about how the Universe works. And so human imagination was invoked to devise explanations for children, who very often ask "why?" incessantly. Here is an example of that. The Creation Story in the Bible is simply another example of that. And all claims that God is involved in human development in the womb is yet-another example of that. Many many things are routinely blamed on God, even today. Hurricanes, for example. Even though we actually have better explanations, involving the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere and the Earth's oceans.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

The way YOU CHOOSE TO LIVE YOUR LIFE is based on two factors. We live in a nation, which via our Constitution has documented our rights, which includes the right of SELF-DETERMINATION and LIBERTY. And every way that you choose to exercise YOUR rights of self-determination is based on your own personal interests. This is why Freedom is selfish.

But you want to deny women their exact same rights by wanting government to control how many children a woman MUST have.

Women have the right to selfishly choose NOT to give birth as a result of a given pregnancy.

Right, which is why I will continue to point out that the ONLY difference worth discussing in the abortion debate is the humanity of the unborn. Those who are pro-choice believe that the unborn are not humans worthy of protection while those who are pro-life see the unborn as fellow human beings protected by natural rights as detailed in our founding documents.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I always laugh at the selfish "claim" any argument you make for selfishness can easily be made right back at you but its funny that some peoples hypocrisy only lets it work in one direction.Just like your claim of"when the mothers life is in danger" its intellectually dishonest.

Removable Mind made the argument that my pro-life beliefs were problematic because abortion didn't effect me, this indicated that RM thinks that beliefs that are not self-serving are not worth having. My question back to Removable Mind was whether they held any beliefs that weren't selfish in nature in order to test whether their belief is logically consistent or illogically situational.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Right, which is why I will continue to point out that the ONLY difference worth discussing in the abortion debate is the humanity of the unborn. Those who are pro-choice believe that the unborn are not humans worthy of protection while those who are pro-life see the unborn as fellow human beings protected by natural rights as detailed in our founding documents.

You can believe that with all your hearts desire, but I find valuing the yet to be born over the born to be illogical and harmful to both women and societies.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You can believe that with all your hearts desire, but I find valuing the yet to be born over the born to be illogical and harmful to both women and societies.

I don't value the yet to be born over the the born, I believe preserving life has more intrinsic value than protecting convenience. One of the primary faults I find in the pro-choice movement is that they so easily find a moral superiority of convenience over life. In order to protect their self image they resort to dehumanizing of the unborn, as you have done.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

YOU CALLED IT NUTTY BUT PROVED NOTHING. That's what I was talking about, the lack of evidence to support a claim. Claims are cheap, but proof matters!

I would say the fact that prochoicers do NOT use your arguments is proof that your arguments are off-the-wall loony.

I INCLUDED MORE THAN THAT. Some births have actually happened to virgins where semen landed on the outside of woman's body, instead of the inside, and migrated from there. A woman is considered to be a virgin if her hymen is intact, but the hymen includes a hole for menstrual flow, and that hole can let sperm through. Which means you blathered a too-generic claim, as I mentioned several times. Other ways in which virgin births COULD happen are simply icing on the cake, of the evidence you blathered a too-generic claim.

There you go again. You really can't help yourself, can you?

TELLING STUPID LIES ABOUT MY LINK(s) GETS YOU NOWHERE. The particular link you found offensive simply pointed out a similarity between something I wrote about, which is actually happening in the world, and the topic of a particular dystopian novel of the "if this goes on" type. Whoop-te-do. The FACTS about a certain thing actually happening in the world remain Facts.

You linked to A Handmaid's Tale, which is a dystopian noverl.

If you want someone to read your links -- link to peer-reviewed research. Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Those who are pro-choice believe that the unborn are not humans worthy of protection while those who are pro-life see the unborn as fellow human beings protected by natural rights as detailed in our founding documents.

BUT ONLY ONE OF THOSE TWO CLAIMS NEEDS TO BE PROVED. And so I've asked more than one abortion opponent to prove the Positive Claim that an unborn human qualifies as a "being", in the same way that an intelligent extraterrestrial alien might qualify as a being. So far they have all failed to offer anything. Without such proof, or even evidence supporting the claim, an unborn human is just a human animal, and nothing more than a human animal. It is a human NON-being.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I don't value the yet to be born over the the born, I believe preserving life has more intrinsic value than protecting convenience. One of the primary faults I find in the pro-choice movement is that they so easily find a moral superiority of convenience over life. In order to protect their self image they resort to dehumanizing of the unborn, as you have done.

You have again condemned women for having the right to freedom (including, but not limited to reproductive freedom) and self-determination and support government having the right to tell women how many children they must have.

The vast majority of pregnancies are brought to full term. Positive population growth is healthy.

You know what's more dehumanizing? Not acknowledging the near 10 million children under the age of 5 who significantly suffer and die EACH YEAR from PREVENTABLE causes. What about these children? BORN child!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I don't value the yet to be born over the the born, I believe preserving life has more intrinsic value than protecting convenience.

EASILY PROVED WRONG. First, the phrase "intrinsic value" is an oxymoron and does not actually exist. The word "intrinsic" refers to a property that is inherently part of something, like the hardness of a diamond --but ALL valuations are Subjective, Arbitrary, and Relative. Humans do not have intrinsic value, period. And that particular negative statement is easy to prove: just recall any emergency incident in History where the announcement was made, "Save the women and children first!" What happened to the equal "intrinsic value" of the men? And what about the boys who are saved, but grow up to become equally-discardable men? An intrinsic property does not change with time!

SECOND, consider a human adult that is brain-dead and on full life-support. The human body is almost completely alive (except for 3-pound brain), and you just blathered about "preserving life" being important. NOPE! The doctors and the scientists and even the lawyers all agree that when the brain is dead, the person is dead, too. The mindless living human body is irrelevant. Well, since for much of a pregnancy an unborn human is equally mindless (and only has an animal-level mind for the rest of the pregnancy), there is no reason to claim its life is important. ESPECIALLY since the world is currently overpopulated with humans. I'm quite sure you cannot specify even ONE reason why an average healthy unborn human MUST get born in this day-and-age. (For the survival of the species we only need maybe 10,000 births a year, which makes NONE of the rest, roughly 130 million per year necessary.)

One of the primary faults I find in the pro-choice movement is that they so easily find a moral superiority of convenience over life.

THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO ALL THE ARGUMENTS. Because the only reason any woman needs to terminate a pregnancy, at any time during the pregnancy, is this: An unborn human commits assault upon her body at least 4 different ways, and qualifies as "worse than any parasite" by doing that. No woman MUST tolerate avoidable assault! (and therefore we routinely kill parasites; why should entities that act worse be treated differently when unwanted?)

In order to protect their self image they resort to dehumanizing of the unborn, as you have done.

RIDICULOUSLY FALSE. I full recognize the human-ness of our unborn. I also recognize that That Fact Means Nothing. Our human-ness is NOT the thing that gives us the power to declare ourselves to be special. And so I despise the Stupid Prejudice exhibited by abortion opponents, about the word "human", because Stupid Prejudice has throughout History turned humans into monsters as bad as any portrayed in fiction, like these.