Um no there skippy.this goes back many many threads - "value of life" is demanded by Gordy
not me
Um no there skippy.
Your post 1312
“you don't value human life, to you, it doesn't matter when people kill human life or have other human life killed
I'm not like you
that's the difference you will never understand - the value of human life”
You brought up “ value of human life” as your premise.
And oh so many posts have you avoided, deflected and strawmanned your way away from defending and explaining your premise of “ value of human life”
So again
Explain the value of a day old baby.
And the fatal flaw in his arguments.Major weakness in the foundation of his beliefs.
Heart beat laws l are a distraction ...For example.. a woman in a state with a fetal heartbeat provision.
I must challenge insistence on referring to an embryo, zygote or fetus as an “unborn child/baby”I've been clear on my views on killing unborn babies
Well unfortunately heartbeat laws are more than just a distraction. They literally are causing death and injury to women .Heart beat laws l are a distraction ...
Whether something is alive or not may, or may not be, subjective. In science,a human embryo is alive in the same sense that a banana is alive - it is a fertilized egg that has potential to become a viable stand-alone organism.
Something is not necessarily “alive” because it looks like a baby nor is electrical activity necessarily a beating heart.
Some say something is alive if it has a heartbeat. A human embryo will have a heartbeat when it is 5 weeks old & still not alive. Some women do not know they are pregnant at 5 weeks.
Heart cells cultured in a petri dish will spontaneously 'beat'. (electrical activity)
The entire 'heartbeat' argument is misleading. The zygotes heart may 'beat'; however unable to function until birth & closure of the foramen ovale.
12 weeks alive at that point? To my mind no, for many women or couples, they may not even know a fetus exists at 12 weeks.
With regard to abortion, does it matter whether the embryo or fetus is considered alive or not?
No.
Does it matter if the fetus can survive outside the womb if removed?
No.
This is around 24 weeks of pregnancy and, in many countries, abortion after this point is illegal unless the consequences of not doing so are worse than allowing the fetus to be born.
I also believe that it is the choice of the woman whether she wishes to carry a fetus to term or not, her reproductive decisions are none of my concern.
Yes it's on you...so why wont you answer it?
Um no there skippy.
Your post 1312
“you don't value human life, to you, it doesn't matter when people kill human life or have other human life killed
I'm not like you
that's the difference you will never understand - the value of human life”
You brought up “ value of human life” as your premise.
And oh so many posts have you avoided, deflected and strawmanned your way away from defending and explaining your premise of “ value of human life”
So again
Explain the value of a day old baby.
use any word you want to use - call it a kitten if you want to, it doesn't change what it isI must challenge insistence on referring to an embryo, zygote or fetus as an “unborn child/baby”
if there is a normal pregnancy, there is an unborn human life in the womb - biology 101Pregnancy begins with a small cluster of undifferentiated cells that are not, in fact, a child. The anti-choice movement calls it a child because it is essential to their spurious argument. But calling it “unborn child” does not make it so.
is it alive? is it human? its a living human - its has to be or there would be no pregnancyDuring gestation period the “unborn child” has a tail, webbed hands feet & gills.
call it a puppy, a zef, am embryo, a kitten ... the word you use doesn't matter - its a living human unbornBy no stretch of the imagination an “unborn child”.
what was it 1 day before? it was the same living unborn - no doubt about it, just a little early in developmentAt term, that small cluster has definitely grown into an unborn child.
"person" - is that a legal definition ?Somewhere on the continuum of fetal development it is reasonable to say it has become a person. That moment is difficult to define, but Roe at least made the effort.
what about the enormous consequences to the unborn ?Given the enormous consequences to the mother, it is important that we give her the right to choose her own well-being.
Matter of her choice. Is she ready/willing/able to be a mother?
Reproductive decisions belong to the lady not church/state(s).
Paraphrasing Deborah Santa Cruz, Calif.
It’s your premise. Seriously,, why can’t you be intellectually honest?you first baby doll
Why won’t you?no, its on you and Gordy - ya'll so desperately demand "what is the value of life" ? define it, tell us all here what YOU think it is
It’s your premise. Seriously,, why can’t you be intellectually honest?
You brought up “value of life”
Now you want others to define it for you?
Because you can’t defend your own statements.
Why won’t you?
YOU BROUGHT IT UP!!!
Why should we have to define the velue of life when it is your assertion?no, its on you and Gordy - ya'll so desperately demand "what is the value of life" ? define it, tell us all here what YOU think it is
An embryo/fetus.use any word you want to use - call it a kitten if you want to, it doesn't change what it is
What does biology have to do with abortion?if there is a normal pregnancy, there is an unborn human life in the womb - biology 101
If there is an abortion, there is no more pregnancy either. Your point?is it alive? is it human? its a living human - its has to be or there would be no pregnancy
So what?call it a puppy, a zef, am embryo, a kitten ... the word you use doesn't matter - its a living human unborn
A fetus.what was it 1 day before? it was the same living unborn - no doubt about it, just a little early in development
Yes, also "personhood.""person" - is that a legal definition ?
Again, What does biology have to do with abortion?again - its a living human unborn - biology
Irrelevant.what about the enormous consequences to the unborn ?
That's your problem!I'm anti-abortion - killing unborn human life is unacceptable to me, no different than killing it 1 minute after birth or 1 month after
Least of all you!seems nobody wants to define the value of life - why ?
Yes, go ahead and explain the value of life!if its so easy - do it, go ahead
Not at all. We simply dismiss your argument and feelings as nonsense and a lie since you cannot articulate your own position. You're the one continuously dodging the challenge to define the value of life.ya'll are in a tiffy about, not me
Because he's being dishonest and all his rhetoric about "value of life" has been nothing but a lie! It's just a disingenuous excuse to push misogyny under a sanctimonious guise in favor of his own narrative.Why won’t you?
YOU BROUGHT IT UP!!!
maybe I shouldn't - tell me what yours is your definition of value of life is?Why should we have to define the velue of life when it is your assertion?
That is because it is not easy. Which is because it is not a question. It is simply a meaningless statement at best, a deliberate distraction at worst.seems nobody wants to define the value of life - why ? if its so easy - do it, go ahead
ya'll are in a tiffy about, not me
no, its on you and Gordy - ya'll so desperately demand "what is the value of life" ? define it, tell us all here what YOU think it is
Seems odd that hewont answer, since almost the only thing his position is based on is "the value of human life" and he brings it up constantly...yet cannot articulate it. Major weakness in the foundation of his beliefs.
and yet over and over and over you, Gordy, Lursa and others are the ones talking about it
Lie 2not me
you're not wrongThat is because it is not easy. Which is because it is not a question. It is simply a meaningless statement at best, a deliberate distraction at worst.
again I don't really disagreeI take the nihilist position in the idea that there is no such thing as value. It is simply another lie we are all brought up to believe in.
For example we can look at something simple like a vase and say that it has some value. But break it down to even its atomic level and you will not find anything in the vase that can be said to be value.
It is a concept and a vague one that is completely reliant on the individuals subjective wants and needs. Thus what one person may value another may not.
With abortion a person who wants a child , needs to be a parent will value the life of the unborn child. But another who values climbing the corporate ladder may only see a child as an inconvenience and place no meaningful value on that life of a fetus.
In the case of this thread you are not asking us what is the value of life. Instead you are trying to impose your values on everyone else.
The question that should be asked is why your subjective opinion of what has value is worth my consideration.
No, it is never a part of my arguments...lie 1. It's part of yours, which is why Gordy asked you to define it. Why cant you? So I just ask you to do so.
Or quote where I base my arguments on it? I have one standard "response": I value the unborn but I value all born people more.
Lie 2
so you've never demanded me to define value of human life? yes, yes you have, haven't you ?
More like you can't because your assertion us just BS and a lie!maybe I shouldn't
Life:maybe I shouldn't - tell me what yours is your definition of value of life is?
I said it was never part of my arguments, which you implied. And I've said you should answer Gordy's question. Look at you, typing all that to hide behind and still not answering the question...about the primary foundation of YOUR position.
Why cant you? I can see it must be a very weak 'foundation.' No wonder you wont answer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?