My take on the abortion issue.

[jallman]

How can a Zygote split and become 2 beings, unless it was 1 being before the split? A being with %100 Human D.N.A., is a Human-being. "A Human Being" is exactly the legal definition of "Person".

So according to you, a zygote is a person.
Vergiss will be very displeased.

Since all people have constitutional rights and, according to you, the zygote is a person, the zygote is protected by the Constitution.
Since the 9th. amendmet forbids anyone from invoking a right which violates the rights of another, a Mother may not invoke her 4th amendment right and abort her unborn child, because to do so would violate the zygote's 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendment rights.

Thank you for conceding the debate.

Goodbye:2wave:

A twist in the semantics of my post does not equate to a concession on the debate. And if you are going to stammer out such worthless rebuttals, it seems the concession is coming from you.

So in the interest of goodwill, because it seems the pro oppression side needs it now more than ever, let me restate my point more clearly so that you guys arent left drooling on yourselfs from the confusion.

At the time of conception, a unique human being is not formed. The fertilized egg, up to twelve (some say 15) days later, may split into two zygotes...which in turn MAY develop into two different human beings.

Never once did I indicate that the zygote was a human life. But thanks for playing...Next!

 

[Busta]

A twist in the semantics of my post does not equate to a concession on the debate. And if you are going to stammer out such worthless rebuttals, it seems the concession is coming from you.

So in the interest of goodwill, because it seems the pro oppression side needs it now more than ever, let me restate my point more clearly so that you guys arent left drooling on yourselfs from the confusion.

At the time of conception, a unique human being is not formed. The fertilized egg, up to twelve (some say 15) days later, may split into two zygotes...which in turn MAY develop into two different human beings.

Never once did I indicate that the zygote was a human life. But thanks for playing...Next!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!

 

[jallman]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!

Well, at least you got enough characters in there to make a post...thats about all that can be said for you now.

 

[vergiss]

Don't stress yourself. That guy wouldn't know what birth control was if it slapped him in the face, so he's hardly qualified to talk about anything more advanced.

 

[Fantasea]

I have no problem with your article save that again, it is simply opinion...and very biased opinion at that. And since you wont stop parroting with the broken record of "show me scientific proof" that life does not begin at conception, let me show you what a real scientific source is made of. Of course, I know this is a wasted effort as you will simply dismiss what you cannot argue with rationally, but here goes anyway:



Source: Developmental Biology, Chapter 21 Bioethics "When does human life begin"
http://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

Note, this is one of 5 different views of when human life begins (all in contradiction to the conception viewpoint), promoted by science professionals across the spectrum of disciplines. And thats just outlined in this book alone. A quick web search would have answered your whinings about scientific backing for the argument for pro choice. Now that I have put up...take your planned parenthood papers, your christian focus essays and your "opining" (gee that word does have a nice ring to it) and scurry on back to the drawing board. Come back at this argument again when you can put up some comparable evidence to support your pro oppression views.

It is not surprising that out of the choices presented in your source, you would choose to accept the one which selects the date closest to birth, which, incidentally, happens to be beyond the time at which 'preemies', albeit with some difficulty, survive.

Excerpt from: http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=DS00137

Fortunately, the outlook for premature infants has improved dramatically in recent years. Great advances have been made in the care of premature infants, and even babies born as early as 23 weeks now have a good chance of survival.

All that this argument proves is that given the limitation of the 1992 technology cited, that's the best that could be expected.

Heart beats at less than a month signify the presence of human life at that point. And, since the heart does not form spontaneously, life has to be present before the beating commenced.

Excerpt from: http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,9851,00.html

The fetal heart​

The embryonic heart starts beating 22 days after conception, or about five weeks after the last menstrual period, which by convention we call the fifth week of pregnancy. The heart at this stage is too small to hear, even with amplification, but it can sometimes be seen as a flickering in the chest if an ultrasound is done as early as four weeks after conception.

If you wish to 'lean' upon the source you cite, I would suggest that you consider more carefully the following excerpt from it which provides two 'views' affirming that human life exists much earlier:

Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins​

Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins.

Metabolic View:
The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Another slightly different though similar position maintains that the argument over when a new human life begins is irrelevant because the development of a child is a smoothly continuous process. Discrete marking points such as the fourteen day dividing line between a zygote and an embryo are entirely artificial constructions of biologists and doctors in order to better categorize development for academic purposes. This position is supported by recent research that has revealed that fertilization itself is not even an instantaneous event, but rather a process that takes 20-22 hours between the time the sperm penetrates the outermost layers of the egg and the formation of a diploid cell (Kuhse 1988).

Genetic View:
The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all. Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. After sperm are released they must remain in the female reproductive tract for seven hours before they are capable of fertilizing the egg. Approximately ten hours are required for the sperm to travel up to the fallopian tube where they find the egg. The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.

 

[Fantasea]

At the beginning of the 19th century, anesthics were used alot in surgery, but moralists rebelled against them saying that they were dulling the pain during labor. But is it not written in the good book that a women will give birth through pain? So basically it was pratically impossible to give medication to a woman who was giving birth in order to relieve the pain because it was contrary to God's wishes!

I believe it was Queen Victoria, who helped make this acceptable by taking the medication herself (9 children) in turn, quieting the moralists. It was a big leap forward in light of the ignorance which prevailed in those days and relied heavily on the laws of God every time beliefs were challenged.

I had to crack a smile every time I heard the late Pope John-Paul protest against cloning and stem-cell research using the cliche', "You must not play God". I always found that hipocritical and funny at the same time.

He seemed to forget how surgeons saved his life more than once, and if it wasn't for them and their, "playing God", he would've died much sooner. How could he protest against research on aging when one of his predeccesors , Pope Pius XI, was getting regular fetal ewe injections at the Paul Niehaus rejuvenation clinic in Switzerland?

Why do you cite 'ancient' examples which have no relevance when we're discussing twenty-first concepts?

"Ethics" is simply a last-grasp attempt by diest conservatives and orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance, through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and new technologies. As for pregnancy, the sex of a child is defined by the spermatazoon, or the half-plan coming from the male. So when a man transmits his sperm to a woman, if it is a male spermatazoon which combines with the woman's half-plan (ovule), then the child will be a boy, and if it was a female spermatazoon, then a little girl will see the light of day in 9 months.

I maintain that human procreation is a secular biological process in which religion is not of any consequence. Do you agree?

 

[Fantasea]

Oh I love this one. No, at conception, a new unique human being is not formed. In fact, up to 12 days later, the zygote can still split and become two completely different beings---ya know, that whole twin phenomenon. Guess I cant help it if those who oppose abortion tend to make up their science as they go along.

If human life was not present prior to the twelfth day, then nothing could happen at that point, could it?

The fact that two lives may result simply underscores the presence of life from the very beginning, doesn't it?

 

[Fantasea]

Don't stress yourself. That guy wouldn't know what birth control was if it slapped him in the face, so he's hardly qualified to talk about anything more advanced.

Is this statement indicative of the limit of your ability to discuss the subject intelligently?

 

[jallman]

If human life was not present prior to the twelfth day, then nothing could happen at that point, could it?

The fact that two lives may result simply underscores the presence of life from the very beginning, doesn't it?

No, it does not any more than the idea that millions of lives exist when you have a tube of sperm and an egg unfertilized. If you would read and COMPREHEND, I spoke to the idea you put forth that a "unique" human life is created at the time of conception. Clearly, that is not the case as the zygote can split into two...which is not a function of true human reproduction. It is a behavior more akin to bacteria and protozoans.

Now to prevent any attempt to make a claim that I am comparing human life to that of bacteria, let me say I am only comparing the behavior. Besides, I am still of the stance that it is not yet a human life anyway.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
If human life was not present prior to the twelfth day, then nothing could happen at that point, could it?

The fact that two lives may result simply underscores the presence of life from the very beginning, doesn't it?

No, it does not any more than the idea that millions of lives exist when you have a tube of sperm and an egg unfertilized. If you would read and COMPREHEND, I spoke to the idea you put forth that a "unique" human life is created at the time of conception. Clearly, that is not the case as the zygote can split into two...which is not a function of true human reproduction. It is a behavior more akin to bacteria and protozoans.

Now to prevent any attempt to make a claim that I am comparing human life to that of bacteria, let me say I am only comparing the behavior. Besides, I am still of the stance that it is not yet a human life anyway.

Your attempt to split a hair has failed.

 

[Busta]

Don't stress yourself. That guy wouldn't know what birth control was if it slapped him in the face, so he's hardly qualified to talk about anything more advanced.

Notice how vergiss has to resort to attempted personal insults because she is unable to compeat intellectually....

 

[jallman]

It is not surprising that out of the choices presented in your source, you would choose to accept the one which selects the date closest to birth, which, incidentally, happens to be beyond the time at which 'preemies', albeit with some difficulty, survive.

Excerpt from: http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=DS00137

Fortunately, the outlook for premature infants has improved dramatically in recent years. Great advances have been made in the care of premature infants, and even babies born as early as 23 weeks now have a good chance of survival.

All that this argument proves is that given the limitation of the 1992 technology cited, that's the best that could be expected.

Do you comprehend anything you read? Or is it your practice to find some inane point in a post and start speaking to this rather than the main idea that was put forth? What does the survival rate of preemies have to do with anything remotely close to what we were discussing except that they were the test subjects used in the article due to limitations with using EEG in the womb?

I am not being a smartass, but if you were making a relevant point, please restate it because I missed it entirely.

Heart beats at less than a month signify the presence of human life at that point. And, since the heart does not form spontaneously, life has to be present before the beating commenced.

And what does this have to do with the price of rice in China? The article, had you not dismissed the point and zeroed in on something else totally irrelevant, concerned itself with nueral patterns in a developed brain and those of the fetus. Dismissiveness of the facts put forth is not a surprise by now from you, though.

If you wish to 'lean' upon the source you cite, I would suggest that you consider more carefully the following excerpt from it which provides two 'views' affirming that human life exists much earlier:

As I said in my post, the view I quoted was but one of several opposing views. We already know you believe life begins at conception, so you are not stating anything new by pulling from the article. Besides, I already intimated that this view point was present in the article. Parroting the same information over and over again does not win a debate unless you wish simply to annoy. However, since you did pull from my own source, allow me to point out some points from the excerpt you chose.

Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins​

Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins.

Metabolic View:
The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Another slightly different though similar position maintains that the argument over when a new human life begins is irrelevant because the development of a child is a smoothly continuous process. Discrete marking points such as the fourteen day dividing line between a zygote and an embryo are entirely artificial constructions of biologists and doctors in order to better categorize development for academic purposes. This position is supported by recent research that has revealed that fertilization itself is not even an instantaneous event, but rather a process that takes 20-22 hours between the time the sperm penetrates the outermost layers of the egg and the formation of a diploid cell (Kuhse 1988).

That being said, does this make a "morning after" pill acceptable to pro oppressionists? If not, please state why.

Genetic View:
The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all. Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. After sperm are released they must remain in the female reproductive tract for seven hours before they are capable of fertilizing the egg. Approximately ten hours are required for the sperm to travel up to the fallopian tube where they find the egg. The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.

So clearly, by your own post and quoting of the FIRST source I put forth, you have already discounted the moment of conception as the beginning of human life. Now please...continue. You are making my job easier and easier.

 

[jallman]

Your attempt to split a hair has failed.

And like your friend Busta...the only thing to be said for this rebuttal is that you got enough characters in there to make a post at all.

:applaud Good job, good job.

Now, would you care to give some support to this statement, or are we done here?

 

[jallman]

Notice how vergiss has to resort to attempted personal insults because she is unable to compeat intellectually....

Notice how busta parrots back everything Fantasea says...and with bad spelling too.

:rofl

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
It is not surprising that out of the choices presented in your source, you would choose to accept the one which selects the date closest to birth, which, incidentally, happens to be beyond the time at which 'preemies', albeit with some difficulty, survive.

Excerpt from: http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=DS00137

Fortunately, the outlook for premature infants has improved dramatically in recent years. Great advances have been made in the care of premature infants, and even babies born as early as 23 weeks now have a good chance of survival.

All that this argument proves is that given the limitation of the 1992 technology cited, that's the best that could be expected.

Do you comprehend anything you read? Or is it your practice to find some inane point in a post and start speaking to this rather than the main idea that was put forth? What does the survival rate of preemies have to do with anything remotely close to what we were discussing except that they were the test subjects used in the article due to limitations with using EEG in the womb?

Your source states brain waves occur at 25 weeks; my source states that 23 week 'preemies' survive. What do those brainless kids do in the intervening two weeks?

I am not being a smartass,

I know; you lead me to suspect just the opposite.

but if you were making a relevant point, please restate it because I missed it entirely.

I trust you found the point stated above.

Quote:
Heart beats at less than a month signify the presence of human life at that point. And, since the heart does not form spontaneously, life has to be present before the beating commenced.

And what does this have to do with the price of rice in China?[/quote]Absolutely nothing. However, the absence of a heartbeat is universally accepted as a sign of death and the presence of a heartbeat is universally accepted as a sign of life, is that not correct?

The article, had you not dismissed the point and zeroed in on something else totally irrelevant, concerned itself with nueral patterns in a developed brain and those of the fetus.

Out of the five examples you cited, you chose to ignore four and settle on the one that most closely fits the opinion you have been expressing. My contention is that other of the examples appear to carry more weight.

Dismissiveness of the facts put forth is not a surprise by now from you, though.

That sentence appears to me to be convoluted in the same sense as an old Patti Page tune.

Throw mama from the train a kiss, a kiss
Wave mama from the train a goodbye
Throw mama from the train a kiss a kiss
And don't cry, my baby, don't cry

How I miss that sweet lady with her old-country touch
Miss her quaint broken English called *Pennsylvania Dutch*
I can still see her there at the station that day
Calling out to her baby as the train pulled away

Throw mama from the train a kiss, a kiss
Dry mama all your tears, won't you try?
Throw mama from the train a kiss, a kiss
And eat mama up all her pie

Can't believe that she's gone now, it's a lonely old town
Yet I know that her heavenly love keeps looking down
'cause whenever I happen to be passing through
I could swear she was there with the warmth I once knew

And I
Throw mama from the train a kiss, a kiss
Wave mama from the train a goodbye
Throw mama from the train a kiss, a kiss
And she throws one back from up high​

Quote:
If you wish to 'lean' upon the source you cite, I would suggest that you consider more carefully the following excerpt from it which provides two 'views' affirming that human life exists much earlier:

As I said in my post, the view I quoted was but one of several opposing views.

So what's your beef?

We already know you believe life begins at conception, so you are not stating anything new by pulling from the article. Besides, I already intimated that this view point was present in the article.

I don't see hou could have avoided that.

Parroting the same information over and over again does not win a debate unless you wish simply to annoy.

I don't know about that. It usually requires several blows of the hammer to drive a nail home, doesn't it?

However, since you did pull from my own source, allow me to point out some points from the excerpt you chose.


Quote:
Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins
Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins.



Quote:
Metabolic View:
The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Another slightly different though similar position maintains that the argument over when a new human life begins is irrelevant because the development of a child is a smoothly continuous process. Discrete marking points such as the fourteen day dividing line between a zygote and an embryo are entirely artificial constructions of biologists and doctors in order to better categorize development for academic purposes. This position is supported by recent research that has revealed that fertilization itself is not even an instantaneous event, but rather a process that takes 20-22 hours between the time the sperm penetrates the outermost layers of the egg and the formation of a diploid cell (Kuhse 1988).


That being said, does this make a "morning after" pill acceptable to pro oppressionists? If not, please state why.

I disagree with any attempt to wilfully destroy human life, even in its earliest stages

Quote:
Genetic View:
The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.

Quote:
Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all. Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. After sperm are released they must remain in the female reproductive tract for seven hours before they are capable of fertilizing the egg. Approximately ten hours are required for the sperm to travel up to the fallopian tube where they find the egg. The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.


So clearly, by your own post and quoting of the FIRST source I put forth, you have already discounted the moment of conception as the beginning of human life.

Nothing of the sort. I merely use your own source of information to show you that human life begins far, far earlier than you opine.

Now please...continue. You are making my job easier and easier.

Had this information been available to Justice Harry Blackmun, he wouldn't have to have gone through that "speculation" business, and Roe v. Wade would have gone the other way, don't you think?

 

[jallman]

Your source states brain waves occur at 25 weeks; my source states that 23 week 'preemies' survive. What do those brainless kids do in the intervening two weeks?I know; you lead me to suspect just the opposite. I trust you found the point stated above.And what does this have to do with the price of rice in China?

Absolutely nothing. However, the absence of a heartbeat is universally accepted as a sign of death and the presence of a heartbeat is universally accepted as a sign of life, is that not correct? Out of the five examples you cited, you chose to ignore four and settle on the one that most closely fits the opinion you have been expressing. My contention is that other of the examples appear to carry more weight.That sentence appears to me to be convoluted in the same sense as an old Patti Page tune.

Throw mama from the train a kiss, a kiss
Wave mama from the train a goodbye
Throw mama from the train a kiss a kiss
And don't cry, my baby, don't cry

How I miss that sweet lady with her old-country touch
Miss her quaint broken English called *Pennsylvania Dutch*
I can still see her there at the station that day
Calling out to her baby as the train pulled away

Throw mama from the train a kiss, a kiss
Dry mama all your tears, won't you try?
Throw mama from the train a kiss, a kiss
And eat mama up all her pie

Can't believe that she's gone now, it's a lonely old town
Yet I know that her heavenly love keeps looking down
'cause whenever I happen to be passing through
I could swear she was there with the warmth I once knew

And I
Throw mama from the train a kiss, a kiss
Wave mama from the train a goodbye
Throw mama from the train a kiss, a kiss
And she throws one back from up high​

So what's your beef?I don't see hou could have avoided that.I don't know about that. It usually requires several blows of the hammer to drive a nail home, doesn't it? I disagree with any attempt to wilfully destroy human life, even in its earliest stages


Nothing of the sort. I merely use your own source of information to show you that human life begins far, far earlier than you opine. Had this information been available to Justice Harry Blackmun, he wouldn't have to have gone through that "speculation" business, and Roe v. Wade would have gone the other way, don't you think?

[/QUOTE]


This debate has ended with the pro oppression side having failed miserably to meet the burden of proof which Fantasea himself demanded. You have lost this debate with your inane refusal to address the points. You have lost this debate with your failure to really make a point of your own. Your rebuttals have called for scientific answers to the pro choice side and when provided, you dismissed the true topic of the article and homed in on the most irrelevant parts. Your own sources have been disproven as invalid opinion by heavily biased authors. You have failed to produce one shred of objective scientific fact except that which I provided for you. When faced with an irrefutable point, you have broken down into nonsensical drivel as exhibited by your last post...quoting some irrelevant song lyrics? You sir, have been broken in half in this debate and it is time for you to save a little face and concede or redeem yourself and approach a continued exchange with whatever credibility you can muster at this point.

 

[Fantasea]

This debate has ended with the pro oppression side having failed miserably to meet the burden of proof which Fantasea himself demanded. You have lost this debate with your inane refusal to address the points. You have lost this debate with your failure to really make a point of your own. Your rebuttals have called for scientific answers to the pro choice side and when provided, you dismissed the true topic of the article and homed in on the most irrelevant parts. Your own sources have been disproven as invalid opinion by heavily biased authors. You have failed to produce one shred of objective scientific fact except that which I provided for you. When faced with an irrefutable point, you have broken down into nonsensical drivel as exhibited by your last post...quoting some irrelevant song lyrics? You sir, have been broken in half in this debate and it is time for you to save a little face and concede or redeem yourself and approach a continued exchange with whatever credibility you can muster at this point.[/QUOTE]Ah, the Viet Nam tactic; declare peace and go home. My, my.

I can understand your distress at having your own source tossed back at you as refutation of your opinion that human life doesn't begin until quite late in the pregnancy.

Since you always refuse to accept what you think as information from a biased source, I figured you would willingly accept information from the source which you provided yourself. Alas, you reject that, too.

When one is able to reject out of hand the findings of the world's foremost geneticist, the man whose accomplishments include identifying the gene responsible for Down's syndrome, that life begins at conception, nothing, absolutely nothing will diminish the degree of his intransigence.

 

[Busta]

Notice how busta parrots back everything Fantasea says...and with bad spelling too.
:rofl

Notice how jallman has to resort to attempted personal insults because he is unable to compete intellectually....
You fell right into that trap, didn't ya!!! LOL
You really think that I don't know how to push the button labeled "spell check"?

 

[jallman]

Notice how jallman has to resort to attempted personal insults because he is unable to compete intellectually....
You fell right into that trap, didn't ya!!! LOL
You really think that I don't know how to push the button labeled "spell check"?

Oh puh-leaase. There was no trap laid and even had there been, you have yet to post anything pertaining to the topic that I have seen so far. Try speaking to the issue at hand rather than making these juvenile posts concerning others' intellectual prowess. And, for the record, when a blatant observation is made, there is no insult except that which you infer. These guerrilla swipes at real posts like vergiss, fantasea, and myself are hardly what I would consider intellectual competition.

 

[Busta]

Oh puh-leaase. There was no trap laid and even had there been, you have yet to post anything pertaining to the topic that I have seen so far. Try speaking to the issue at hand rather than making these juvenile posts concerning others' intellectual prowess. And, for the record, when a blatant observation is made, there is no insult except that which you infer. These guerrilla swipes at real posts like vergiss, fantasea, and myself are hardly what I would consider intellectual competition.

I caut you in a slip-up and responded with no less maturity than you have already demonstrated yourself. We could have continued on but vergiss (and then you) started in with the personal insults.
Don't like my self defense? Too bad!

 

[jallman]

Ah, the Viet Nam tactic; declare peace and go home. My, my.

I can understand your distress at having your own source tossed back at you as refutation of your opinion that human life doesn't begin until quite late in the pregnancy.

Since you always refuse to accept what you think as information from a biased source, I figured you would willingly accept information from the source which you provided yourself. Alas, you reject that, too.

When one is able to reject out of hand the findings of the world's foremost geneticist, the man whose accomplishments include identifying the gene responsible for Down's syndrome, that life begins at conception, nothing, absolutely nothing will diminish the degree of his intransigence.

First and foremost, I am not distressed at all since my argument still has the backing of the Supreme Court. But let me point something out to you. In the above posts, I accepted the information from my own source. I, in no way rejected that information, as you would believe. And it is not only my opinion that human life does not begin at conception...it has basis in hard science that is quantifiable and qualifiable. This is something you have, thus far, been unable to provide to back your opinion. Show me an undeniable life activity in a zygote that is shared with a late term fetus. This invocation of secular science was, after all, your challenge to start with.

As for my acceptance of my own source...I accept my own source fully. There were how many other views on when human life begins in my source in contrast to your conception argument? And besides, within your own quotation, I bolded further sections which refuted your argument...let me repeat...within your own quote from a source I handed you. I am simply stating, if you have nothing left to offer except drivel and quotations of song lyrics that have nothing to do with anything we are discussing, then the debate has ended with you failing to meet the burden you placed upon your opponent. In effect, you have defeated yourself, so I can't even claim credit. A pity, because I was really boning to win this one on my own merit.

 

[jallman]

I caut you in a slip-up and responded with no less maturity than you have already demonstrated yourself. We could have continued on but vergiss (and then you) started in with the personal insults.
Don't like my self defense? Too bad!

You caught me in no slip up except that which you created in your small mind. But as I am convinced that even these small victories probably come few and far between to you, who am I to deny you whatever sense of deluded satisfaction you take from them...so be proud little man, be proud. Further, I only came to vergiss's defense when I saw you making attacks on one of my allies in this debate, so take that how you will.

Now, more to the point. I debate with fantasea because he provides me with a level of intellectual sparring and competition that, though sometimes heated and I totally disagree with him, gives me pause to reflect on my own views. Vergiss, well it goes without saying that I give her my respect because she is on my team in this and she makes some points I dont even think of myself. Now if you would like to join in the DEBATE on the issues of ABORTION and contribute to the discussion, I would love to hear you out. However, if all you intend to do is inflame, take it to the basement and I will be more than happy to continue to shred you there. But, in this particular forum, this discussion is closed.

 

[Busta]

LOL
I love you, buddy....
First you post:
"You caught me in no slip up except that which you created in your small mind. But as I am convinced that even these small victories probably come few and far between to you, who am I to deny you whatever sense of deluded satisfaction you take from them...so be proud little man, be proud. Further, I only came to vergiss's defense when I saw you making attacks {Yup, COUNTER attacks. It's called self defense} on one of my allies in this debate, so take that how you will."

And then you post:
"However, if all you intend to do is inflame, take it to the basement and I will be more than happy to continue to shred you there"

Guy...you just shredded yourself....this is too easy!!!

"But, in this particular forum, this discussion is closed".

Yup...D.O.A. as soon as you and vergiss started in with the insults.

Maybe when you divelop at least a remedial level of civility I shall give you a run for your money.

 

[jallman]

LOL
I love you, buddy....
First you post:
"You caught me in no slip up except that which you created in your small mind. But as I am convinced that even these small victories probably come few and far between to you, who am I to deny you whatever sense of deluded satisfaction you take from them...so be proud little man, be proud. Further, I only came to vergiss's defense when I saw you making attacks {Yup, COUNTER attacks. It's called self defense} on one of my allies in this debate, so take that how you will."

And then you post:
"However, if all you intend to do is inflame, take it to the basement and I will be more than happy to continue to shred you there"

Guy...you just shredded yourself....this is too easy!!!

"But, in this particular forum, this discussion is closed".

Yup...D.O.A. as soon as you and vergiss started in with the insults.

Maybe when you divelop at least a remedial level of civility I shall give you a run for your money.

The invitation is open any time you want to take it. But please, if you do decide to bring it...check all delusions at the door...and do remember that spell check thingy.:spank:

 

[Busta]

The invitation is open any time you want to take it. But please, if you do decide to bring it...check all delusions at the door...and do remember that spell check thingy.:spank:

Yah...I'm such a bad speller that I often confuse the computer....ya gotta love that.
Anyway, on with the show.