Abortion Warnings?

[talloulou]

Though the second claim has error to it. However try and see if a 3 month old fetus will be able to live outside of the womb unassisted.
Also try and see if a 25wk old fetus will live outside the womb unassisted. Point is individuality.

No clearly as an embryo is an organism an embryo has individuality! So that can't be the point. The point is more that the womb is designed to house developing humans and when you engage in sexual activity you run the risk of creating life a human organism to be exact. Now you can use birth control and hope that you have complete control over your reproductive process but you never really do....not 100%.

So the point is that the embryo is an organism. How would it be classified? As a homosapien. Are there homosapiens who aren't humans?

Is your appendix an organism with individuality?

Is your blood an organism?

How 'bout your teeth?

hmmm so it doesn't come down to individuality what it comes down to is the mothers willingness to nourish the developing human in her womb or her willingness to have it sucked out like one would squeeze a pimple. That's the point.

A human organism is a human organism regardless of what stage of development it is at!

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
The locus argument is nothing more than a feeble attempt to create a diversion from a fact which cannot be disproved.

Once conception occurs, a chain of life events commences which has an actuarial probability span of more than seven decades unless it is interrupted by a natural or unnatural event.

It is correct to say that a child in utero cannot live outside the womb unassisted. But of what import is that?

Even after its birth, the very same child cannot live unassisted until years later. And, after a period of unassisted living, the very same child, as an aged adult in its declining years, will once more be unable to live unassisted. Additionally, there may also be intervening periods during which, due to incapacity, unassisted living is not possible.

Do we euthanize persons who are unable to live unassisted? Your argument, by extension, says we should, since abortion is nothing more than euthanasia performed on a child in utero.

Find another argument.

Your entire argument here is nothing but purposely misrepresenting my useage of the word "unassisted". It is quite clear that my use of the word assistance is in reference to mechanical life support.
An out right lie on your behalf.

You are quick to leap to the accusation of "lie" aren't you? As anyone experienced in the art of discussion will tell you, that is not a defense of one's position, but an admission that one's position is indefensible.

However, once more, you are incorrect in your understanding , interpretation, and analysis of my writings.

"Mechanical life support"? Even in your wildest dreams, you can't possibly bend, twist, distort, and stretch my words that far.

Tell me, what mechanical assistance does a recently born, fully developed child require? What mechanical assistance does this child require until it matures to the point of self-sufficiency? What mechanical assistance does a fully functioning but frail and possibly mentally impaired senior citizen require? What mechanical assistance is required by the vast majority of ill or injured persons who are temporarily unable to care for themselves?

Without manual assistance from other humans, all will die of starvation or exposure.

You have a habit of ignoring the heart of a post, seizing upon an obscure point, and denying even that.

Refute this:

"Once conception occurs, a chain of life events commences which has an actuarial probability span of more than seven decades unless it is interrupted by a natural or unnatural event."

 

[FallingPianos]

Refute this:

"Once conception occurs, a chain of life events commences which has an actuarial probability span of more than seven decades unless it is interrupted by a natural or unnatural event."

I dont think anyone is refuting it, because no one disagrees with it. it simply isnt relevant.

 

[steen]

Yes except very young child includes fetus in many dictionaries.

Fetus does not include "young child," so that's just nonsense and evidence of how pro-life, dishonest sophistry and revisionist linguistic hyperbole is making debate on this subject meaningless. There is no debate when the pro-life premise is starkly dishonest and deceptive.

Do you really think people are fooled by your incredible lack of substance in debate at times?

You really should stop talking to the mirror, talloulou; we could begin to see you as not entirely stable.

 

[steen]

Oh and for that matter where was fetus ever under parasite or parasitic in any dictionary?????????????

Oh and where is pregnancy related to slavery anywhere other than planned parenthoods website?????

Oh I see Steen logic requires that Steen accept what Steen feels like accepting and everything that is unacceptable to Steen becomes hyperbole and lies. Yeah I'd like to see how that went over on some legit debate.

Wow, a public meltdown. Poor you.

 

[steen]

You may rest easy; there is no scientific fact, of which I'm aware, which supports the claim that a fetus is a human being.

The reason for this is that the term "being" is not a scientific term, but a socio/political term.

That's what I have been saying all along. :lol:

I am pleased that you finally admit that when pro-lifers claim that there is biological/scientific evidence for the unborn as a "being" of any kind, that they then are lying.

Thank you, that was much appreciated.

You have repeatedly stated that human life begins at conception and is present in the womb at every stage. Your contention, however, is that this human life does not become a "being" until a particular developmental milestone is achieved.

Embryologists, biologists, fetologists, obstetricians, and genetecists all agree with you that human life begins at conception. They all understand that the human life which results at conception is the same life which will expire in old age unless there is some premature cause of death. They make no value distinction between the numerous and varied stages of growth, development, and decline which occur between conception and old age. Names are assigned to distinguish each stage for ease of identification and discussion.

Science, of course, is NOT about a "value distinction," so there is no need why any scientist should do so.

But again, thanks for exposing that when pro-lifers call on science to "prove" the value of the unborn, they are being dishonest and deceptive.

They don't point to a milestone and say, "Aha; that live human thing in there is now a live human being!"

Because they wouldn't use a sociopolitical term such as "being." Yes, we clarified that.

It is in the arena of social and political conduct, however, that was spawned the concept of "being" and its related terms such as person and personhood.

I am pleased that you now reject the silly claim of these terms in any way being related to science or biology.

As you may recall having read in this forum, the killing of a human being, or a person, especially a very young one, particularly a child in utero is repugnant.

Wow, this right after you admitted that "being" doesn't apply to the fetus pr science? I must also thus thank you for admitting that your claim is utterly without scientific merit.

What was the Pro-Death crowd to do?

Who? The ones who are "pro-death" are the ones who deliberately seek to kill. That would be Army of God and other fundie pro-life domestic terrorist groups. That would be the pro-death crowd. Your argument about them sure is weird, but whatever rocks your boat.

They scrambled around and, whether accidentally or on purpose, I dont know, they settled on the same justification for eliminating unwanted humans as did some other folks who shall remain nameless. It simply declared a child in utero to be a non-person.

That's is not my impression of Army of God. Perhaps you read their website wrong?

This is the sole support for Roe v Wade.

Not as it is written, it isn't.

One may not kill a person; socially and politically, that is totally unacceptable.

You may as long as the killing is legal. But then, legally, the unborn is not a person, so that is utterly irrelevant to the abortion debate and to Roe vs Wade.

One may kill a non-person; socially and politically, that is totally acceptable.

The embryo and fetus would fall under this.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea

Refute this:

"Once conception occurs, a chain of life events commences which has an actuarial probability span of more than seven decades unless it is interrupted by a natural or unnatural event."

I dont think anyone is refuting it, because no one disagrees with it. it simply isnt relevant.

If no one disagrees with the statement, then there can be no justification for abortion except on emotional, social, or political grounds.

Since when do emotional, social, or political grounds justify the deliberate termination of human life?

 

[afr0byte]

Since when do emotional, social, or political grounds justify the deliberate termination of human life?

People quite frequently justify the death penalty and wars and such on political, emotional, or social grounds.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Since when do emotional, social, or political grounds justify the deliberate termination of human life?

People quite frequently justify the death penalty and wars and such on political, emotional, or social grounds.

How is this germane to a discussion of abortion?

I have noticed that the usual tactic, when one cannot put up a defense, is to drag a red herring across the trail in an attempt to confuse the hounds.

Your attempt has failed.

 

[afr0byte]

How is this germane to a discussion of abortion?

I have noticed that the usual tactic, when one cannot put up a defense, is to drag a red herring across the trail in an attempt to confuse the hounds.

Your attempt has failed.

The death penalty is a deliberate terminition of human life. Seems to apply to your previous question.

 

[FallingPianos]

If no one disagrees with the statement, then there can be no justification for abortion except on emotional, social, or political grounds.

yes, exactly

Since when do emotional, social, or political grounds justify the deliberate termination of human life?

the death penalty, war, euthenasia, taking someone off life support...

they've justified it for a very long time.

 

[jfuh]

You are quick to leap to the accusation of "lie" aren't you? As anyone experienced in the art of discussion will tell you, that is not a defense of one's position, but an admission that one's position is indefensible.

However, once more, you are incorrect in your understanding , interpretation, and analysis of my writings.

"Mechanical life support"? Even in your wildest dreams, you can't possibly bend, twist, distort, and stretch my words that far.

Tell me, what mechanical assistance does a recently born, fully developed child require? What mechanical assistance does this child require until it matures to the point of self-sufficiency? What mechanical assistance does a fully functioning but frail and possibly mentally impaired senior citizen require? What mechanical assistance is required by the vast majority of ill or injured persons who are temporarily unable to care for themselves?

Without manual assistance from other humans, all will die of starvation or exposure.

You have a habit of ignoring the heart of a post, seizing upon an obscure point, and denying even that.

Refute this:

"Once conception occurs, a chain of life events commences which has an actuarial probability span of more than seven decades unless it is interrupted by a natural or unnatural event."

The relevance of any of this being? All I see here is more circular reasoning over many points already gone over. And again you are now purposely mis-representing my useage of the word assistance. Now you're clearly twisting my useage of mechanical life support. Which was clearly for the intent of support of a 3 month old zygote or hell 20wk old fetus. So yes you are being extremely dishonest now and flat out lieing.

 

[jfuh]

If no one disagrees with the statement, then there can be no justification for abortion except on emotional, social, or political grounds.

:2rofll: :2funny:
The entire reason for pro-life rhetoric is emotional, social, and political grounds. It's the only reason why there's even an issue about abortion.
As are the pro-death penalty crowd, anti-gay marriage, anti-evolution and pro- torture crowd. Don't believe me? So how do you respond to the factual basis of the fertilized egg being a parasite to the mother?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
How is this germane to a discussion of abortion?

I have noticed that the usual tactic, when one cannot put up a defense, is to drag a red herring across the trail in an attempt to confuse the hounds.

Your attempt has failed.

The death penalty is a deliberate terminition of human life. Seems to apply to your previous question.

OK. If you insist in forcing the criminal death penalty to fit into the discussion of abortion, I will, of course, agree that the death penalty is a deliberate terminination of human life. Nevertheless, it is a penalty usually reserved for those judged to be of adult capacity who have been duly convicted of a heinous crime and sentenced to capital punishment. If carried out, the execution occurs only after many years of exhaustive appeal.

In the case of abortion, what we have is a child in utero receiving capital punishment for the offense of making its presence known at an embarrassing or inopportune time. The execution is summary.

I don't see this as equal justice. Perhaps you can explain how the punishment fits the crime.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
You are quick to leap to the accusation of "lie" aren't you? As anyone experienced in the art of discussion will tell you, that is not a defense of one's position, but an admission that one's position is indefensible.

However, once more, you are incorrect in your understanding , interpretation, and analysis of my writings.

"Mechanical life support"? Even in your wildest dreams, you can't possibly bend, twist, distort, and stretch my words that far.

Tell me, what mechanical assistance does a recently born, fully developed child require? What mechanical assistance does this child require until it matures to the point of self-sufficiency? What mechanical assistance does a fully functioning but frail and possibly mentally impaired senior citizen require? What mechanical assistance is required by the vast majority of ill or injured persons who are temporarily unable to care for themselves?

Without manual assistance from other humans, all will die of starvation or exposure.

You have a habit of ignoring the heart of a post, seizing upon an obscure point, and denying even that.

Refute this:

"Once conception occurs, a chain of life events commences which has an actuarial probability span of more than seven decades unless it is interrupted by a natural or unnatural event."

The relevance of any of this being? All I see here is more circular reasoning over many points already gone over. And again you are now purposely mis-representing my useage of the word assistance. Now you're clearly twisting my useage of mechanical life support. Which was clearly for the intent of support of a 3 month old zygote or hell 20wk old fetus. So yes you are being extremely dishonest now and flat out lieing.

This response is as vacuous as vacuous can be.

Care to try again?

If so, try to be civil. Surely, you can find words that will enable you to formulate a refutation or, at least, a defense of your position, without having to resort to accusation and insult.

That is, of course, assuming that you do, indeed, have a position which may be defended. Thus far, that seems not to have been the case. Perhaps a sense of futility is the reason you have been driven to coarseness in your writings.

What a pity.

 

[Fantasea]

:2rofll: :2funny:
The entire reason for pro-life rhetoric is emotional, social, and political grounds. It's the only reason why there's even an issue about abortion.
As are the pro-death penalty crowd, anti-gay marriage, anti-evolution and pro- torture crowd. Don't believe me? So how do you respond to the factual basis of the fertilized egg being a parasite to the mother?

I respond by suggesting that you educate yourself on the subject. You may begin here:

Why a Human Embryo or Fetus
is Not a Parasite

by Thomas L. Johnson
Libertarians for Life
Copyright 1974, Thomas L. Johnson​

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

 

[talloulou]

So how do you respond to the factual basis of the fertilized egg being a parasite to the mother?

Haven't seen any factual basis. Only seen dictionary meanings stretched and we all know prochoicers don't respect the dictionary anymore than they respect the human organism in the womb.

One day hopefully the whole argument will be televised. And you guys can all scream parasite, cargo, clump of cells....."

"Abortion is the no different than removing cancer or an appendix."

"You see we've decided a human is always a human but some of them aren't people or beings and that's why we can dismember them and place their parts in a slop bucket.

And then you can all whine when the pictures come out....."No fair....they're all fake." "All those pictures are doctored abortion doesn't look like that."

And then one of you can scream porn....the dead human organisms are porn. And I will just set back....have a beer....and watch Roe vs Wade go up in flames!

 

[ngdawg]

I respond by suggesting that you educate yourself on the subject. You may begin here:

Why a Human Embryo or Fetus
is Not a Parasite

by Thomas L. Johnson
Libertarians for Life
Copyright 1974, Thomas L. Johnson​

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

You forgot to mention both disclaimers at the bottom, the first being:
When some people claim preborn children are parasites, they mean "parasite" in its pejorative, that is, in its social-ethical sense. Prof. Johnson's article addresses only the biological meaning of "parasite.
And the second alluding to the fact that that was a pro-life site.
Still waiting on the no-agenda postings from sites....guess I better find something to kill all the time I'll have.
Oops! I said 'kill'....

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I respond by suggesting that you educate yourself on the subject. You may begin here:

Why a Human Embryo or Fetus
is Not a Parasite

by Thomas L. Johnson
Libertarians for Life
Copyright 1974, Thomas L. Johnson​

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

You forgot to mention both disclaimers at the bottom, the first being:
When some people claim preborn children are parasites, they mean "parasite" in its pejorative, that is, in its social-ethical sense.

What this means is that those in the Pro-Death crowd have no difficulty in bending, twisting, or otherwise distorting words and their meanings to produce euphemisms which will help them advance their cause.

Truth is simply suppressed, ignored, or garbled whenever expedient or when it will help to seduce into the Pro-Death camp those who take everything at face value without bothering to look under the rug, as it were.

Prof. Johnson's article addresses only the biological meaning of "parasite".

Which is, of course, the correct thing to do.

The Pro-Death crowd cannot do this because it would damage their position by shedding light on the truth. They attempt to convince the ignorant that a child in utero is nothing more than a parsite. Sadly, ignorant persons swallow that.

And the second alluding to the fact that that was a pro-life site.

How does this effect the biological veracity of the piece? If you refer to any secular biology text, you will find confirmation of the biological references made by the author.

Still waiting on the no-agenda postings from sites....guess I better find something to kill all the time I'll have.
Oops! I said 'kill'....

If you're waiting until it appears, for example, on a Planned Parenthood website, you will wait until, as my grandfather used to say, "Till apples grow on cherry trees."

In the meantime, you could spend some of that time you're looking to kill by further educating yourself on the finer points of the human reproduction.

If you do, you'll find that it is neither social, nor political, but simply biological.

 

[ngdawg]

What this means is that those in the Pro-Death crowd have no difficulty in bending, twisting, or otherwise distorting words and their meanings to produce euphemisms which will help them advance their cause.

Truth is simply suppressed, ignored, or garbled whenever expedient or when it will help to seduce into the Pro-Death camp those who take everything at face value without bothering to look under the rug, as it were.
Which is, of course, the correct thing to do.

The Pro-Death crowd cannot do this because it would damage their position by shedding light on the truth. They attempt to convince the ignorant that a child in utero is nothing more than a parsite. Sadly, ignorant persons swallow that.

How does this effect the biological veracity of the piece? If you refer to any secular biology text, you will find confirmation of the biological references made by the author.

If you're waiting until it appears, for example, on a Planned Parenthood website, you will wait until, as my grandfather used to say, "Till apples grow on cherry trees."

In the meantime, you could spend some of that time you're looking to kill by further educating yourself on the finer points of the human reproduction.

If you do, you'll find that it is neither social, nor political, but simply biological.

hello??? you're addressing someone who spent ten years in the care of fertility specialists-considered among the best in the country. don't tell ME how reproduction works, I can run circles around anything you have to offer up. the words used was parasitic-like. you and your ilk are the twisters here-biologically speaking, the similies were not outlandish at all. But, your penchant for twisting and putting words in others' cyber-mouths have taken the meaning wrong...as usual.

 

[Fantasea]

hello??? you're addressing someone who spent ten years in the care of fertility specialists-considered among the best in the country. don't tell ME how reproduction works, I can run circles around anything you have to offer up. the words used was parasitic-like. you and your ilk are the twisters here-biologically speaking, the similies were not outlandish at all. But, your penchant for twisting and putting words in others' cyber-mouths have taken the meaning wrong...as usual.

Congratulations on having kept that a well concealed secret. I can't imagine that anyone reading your contributions would have ever guessed.

However, no matter what, a child in utero is not a parasite. Do you agree?

 

[ngdawg]

Congratulations on having kept that a well concealed secret. I can't imagine that anyone reading your contributions would have ever guessed.

However, no matter what, a child in utero is not a parasite. Do you agree?

I never disagreed. It *is* parasitic in nature in order to survive. And I never kept that a secret, which proves how much you pay attention. It's been a major part of my posts throughout DP.

 

[Fantasea]

I never disagreed. It *is* parasitic in nature in order to survive. And I never kept that a secret, which proves how much you pay attention. It's been a major part of my posts throughout DP.

I'm sure that a person of your obvious intelligence could find a word which is more accurately descriptive of the relationship between a child in utero and its mother than "parasite" or one of its derivatives.

 

[afr0byte]

I'm sure that a person of your obvious intelligence could find a word which is more accurately descriptive of the relationship between a child in utero and its mother than "parasite" or one of its derivatives.

You may not like the word, but it pretty accurately describes the situation.

 

[BodiSatva]

I agree.
I posted to this fact quite extensively with Talloulou in the other thread.
Terminology does nothing to detract from value in this instance.