My take on the abortion issue.

[steen]

Re: post #376
In that case, disregard #375.
Perhaps I do need to refine my linguistical distinction between science and morality. I do have one important question though: If I, or anyone ells, wish to express a philosophical idea or morale position with out using scientific terms, what would you tolerate as an acceptable common English, non-scientific word for the (forgive me) unborn child. It would be helpfull not to be colorfully labled as a propagandist just for not using a scientific vocabulary while not speaking scientifically.

As long as you specify and make it clear that there then won't be any of the deceptive lies about "but since it is a baby,..."

 

[steen]

After re-reading the exchange, I trust that you see that you are mistaken about the context.

OK

The reference to your lack of knowledge of inter-utero surgery was an unrelated statement.

Well, that wasn't a post to me.

I'd be interested in understanding what you do know about inter-utero surgery.

Some. Medical school did address it as did the high-risk OB/GYN I rotated with in my clinical rotation. I didn't see it, but he had done them before.

 

[jallman]

You seem to share Pro-Choice Danielle's affinity for selective definitions.

From Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary:


Here we see that "baby" is most commonly used to denote an infant, but is also correctly used to refer to any extremely young child. Since an unborn child (whether a fetus, embryo, or zygote) is even younger than an infant, it would be correct to refer to the child as a "baby." The word is not restricted to infants and is commonly used to refer to children younger than two. In the future, it might help you to have a better grasp of the facts before taking an arrogant and condescending tone with someone who can easily be proven right.

As interesting as that was, your point is completely invalid. Last time I checked, we dont measure a man's life pre-birth and post birth as we do a calendar with AD and BC. A baby's life begins at birth and thus, so does its aging. Before birth, you have a fetus. Before fetus, you have an embryo, and before embryo, you have a zygote. In the future, it might help if you have a leg to stand on and a coherent argument which does not rely on twists of semantics and a weak grasp of the English language before giving lectures as to the tone one should or should not take. :roll:

 

[jallman]

You may slice and dice the words any which way that suits your purposes. However, human life is a continuum which begins at conception and continues without interruption through a number of stages, first inside the womb, and later outside the womb until, barring abortion, accident, illness, or some other cause of premature death, natural death occurs in the final stage of life, advanced old age. There is no point along this continuum prior to which the occupant of a womb is not a fully human being that is progressing toward advanced old age.

In order for abortion advocates to remain faithful to their code of death before birth, they must first deny the truth which of this well understood, simple secular biological process.

The only hope they have of doing this is to promulgate the idea that all understanding of fetal knowledge for the time prior to Roe v. Wade, as well as the published findings of scientists, obstetricians, fetologists, and geneticists since then, are false and that 'their' fabricated dogma that a fetus is not a human being worthy of life, is true.

Can you say revisionism?

And you may dismiss fact with the same abandon that has become your hallmark. I revised nothing, having cut and pasted the definition from an on-line dictionary/encyclopedia (wikipedia). The fact of the matter, whether you want to admit it or not, is that there is a distinction between the developed baby with awareness, complete morphology, intellect, neural function and the undeveloped fetus which lacks all of the above. Pregnancy is a medical condition that can cure itself by giving birth or which can be relieved through the medical process of abortion.

No one can disagree that the life process is a continuum. Time is a continuum and we as humans have not been able to alter the flow of that continuum. So it stands to reason that yes, at conception, you have a point on that continuum which relates directly to the potential individual's timeline. But hell, for that matter, so does the waiting soul in the guff and so too the soul departed after death. I dont see us affording constitutional rights to ghosts any time soon though.

 

[steen]

MORE Hyperbole and Revisionist prolife Linguistics

I simply state fact which you must reject else reject abortion.

Now you are actually lying. You made hyperbolic remarks about "pro-death," and when challenged on it you didn't retract your falsehood. That is cowardly.

You now cite the semantic dishonesty which seeks to substitute a euphemism for the word which cannot withstand the disgust engendered by abortion.

More deceptive nonsense. "Child" is still a developmental stage beginning after birth. As for your claim that abortion can not "withstand the deceptive lie you promote, you should know by now that the status of the fetus is irrelevant. You can call it anything you want and it still wouldn't impact the woman's right to control her own bodily resources. That is an aside to you being unable to make your argument without resorting to deceptive revisionist linguistics and distortions, without you being outright dishonest.

Sure doesn't bode well for your cause.

See the previous response.

See the previous answer.

A feeble attempt at humor changes nothing.

No humor at all. Merely contrasting your dishonest term with another one to provide an example of how dishonest you really are when using such hyperbolic revisionist linguistics.

For all of recorded time, a pregnant mother was said to be “with child”, “carrying a child”, expecting a child”.

Please provide evidence for that lie.

There has never been a “fetus shower”.

And my wife calls our dog her "baby." So? Endearing terms have little to do with reality. Are you saying that my dog is a baby or a child?

After Roe v. Wade, the medical term for a child in the womb was euphemistically introduced into the vernacular as a means of masking the truth from the unknowing populace – that a child dies in every abortion procedure.

Huh? What paranoid deception are you spewing? The CORRECT and ACCURATE terms, namely embryo and fetus have been around for a long time. That prolifers desperately have tried to push emotional arguments, masking that they really have no cause and argument in the real world, well that of course is pathetic, but it also shows the serious level of deception and lies the PL are willing to go to for pushing their agenda of misogynistic enslavement of women under the fundies theocratic thumb.

De-humanizing a victim makes its extermination palatable to those who don’t know any better.

There is nothing "dehumanizing" about using embryo or fetus. Your reluctance to refer to these terms except in the abstract merely shows you to be hardcore into the deception that the PL spews, shows you to be habitually and deliberately purveying this deception. It shows the extend of your dishonesty.

A “live” what, pray tell. Everything must be something.

Live fetus, live embryo. So? Are you afraid of those words? Because they are the death of your emotional hyperbole, such a dose of facts and reality intruding into your fantasy and misrepresentation for emotional platitudes?

Early in the game, in the Roe v. Wade era, the two sides were proud to be known as Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion.

Ah, another prolife "because I say so" postulation. Yes, I am getting quite used to see them. They are cropping up every time PL want to portray their wishful thinking as "facts."

Since the outcome of abortion can only be death,

Not to the patient.

Yes, JUST LIKE IN CANCER SURGERY, the non-sentient tissue dies off when removed. Is that what you are yammering about? Cancer surgery being pro-death?

the soubriquet Pro-Death was fairly applied.

Well, then you are, of course, pro-slavery, as you seek to enslave the woman's body. And as you have not come out against tumor removal, you must also be pro-death. And so on, yadda, yadda yadda.

Are we done with the incredibly stupid word games that PL are so dependent on? Prolife revisionist linguistics and hyperbole is a bore, it is deceptive and dishonest. Yet, you seem hell bent on continuing your misrepresentations, presumably because you don't have any arguments outside of such a venue. How pathetic and lame......

(......Yes, the rest of your stupid and infantile diatribe is not addressed. More of the same lies and hyperbole is still lies and hyperbole......)

As I said, no one can change the truth.

Yet you try.

The plain, simple, biological truth is that human life begins at conception. No one has ever proven otherwise. Can you?

Yes. You are lying. "Human life" began about 4-6 mill years ago, up until 125,000 years ago depending on how you count it (hominid vs H. sapiens). Everything since then is merely an extension of existing life. There are no non-life components that suddenly generate new life.

You know, full well, what I’m talking about.

Yes, the PL lies, distortions, revisionist linguistics and hyperbole. That's what I said.

Now, are you done with the deceptions, the hyperbole, the dogma, or are we going to waste more time on the nonsense you spew in posts like this?

 

[steen]

Here we see that "baby" is most commonly used to denote an infant, but is also correctly used to refer to any extremely young child. Since an unborn child (whether a fetus, embryo, or zygote) is even younger than an infant,

As "baby" in your definition referred to infant, trying to extrapolate back before the "infant" stage is merel more lame prolife revisionist linguistic hyperbole. And it is as lame as first time it was spewed.

And I still find it pathetic that you are unable to hold an honest argument on the facts instead of resorting to your deceptive trickery.

LAME!:spin: :thumbdown :lamo :laughat:

 

[steen]

You may slice and dice the words any which way that suits your purposes. However, human life is a continuum which begins at conception

A lie. It begins before conception. Certainly, sperm and egg are alive.

There is no point along this continuum prior to which the occupant of a womb is not a fully human being

There is no "being" without individual existence. Your claim is false, as there is no individual existence, no homeostasis until birth.

In order for abortion advocates to remain faithful to their code of death before birth,

I see you are still addicted to your revisionist linguistic hyperbole and misrepresentations. How sad that you are so adverse to honesty.

The only hope they have of doing this is to promulgate the idea that all understanding of fetal knowledge for the time prior to Roe v. Wade, as well as the published findings of scientists, obstetricians, fetologists, and geneticists since then, are false and that 'their' fabricated dogma that a fetus is not a human being worthy of life, is true.

Why are you lying?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
You may slice and dice the words any which way that suits your purposes. However, human life is a continuum which begins at conception and continues without interruption through a number of stages, first inside the womb, and later outside the womb until, barring abortion, accident, illness, or some other cause of premature death, natural death occurs in the final stage of life, advanced old age. There is no point along this continuum prior to which the occupant of a womb is not a fully human being that is progressing toward advanced old age.

In order for abortion advocates to remain faithful to their code of death before birth, they must first deny the truth which of this well understood, simple secular biological process.

The only hope they have of doing this is to promulgate the idea that all understanding of fetal knowledge for the time prior to Roe v. Wade, as well as the published findings of scientists, obstetricians, fetologists, and geneticists since then, are false and that 'their' fabricated dogma that a fetus is not a human being worthy of life, is true.

Can you say revisionism?

And you may dismiss fact with the same abandon that has become your hallmark. I revised nothing, having cut and pasted the definition from an on-line dictionary/encyclopedia (wikipedia). The fact of the matter, whether you want to admit it or not, is that there is a distinction between the developed baby with awareness, complete morphology, intellect, neural function and the undeveloped fetus which lacks all of the above. Pregnancy is a medical condition that can cure itself by giving birth or which can be relieved through the medical process of abortion.

No one can disagree that the life process is a continuum. Time is a continuum and we as humans have not been able to alter the flow of that continuum. So it stands to reason that yes, at conception, you have a point on that continuum which relates directly to the potential individual's timeline. But hell, for that matter, so does the waiting soul in the guff and so too the soul departed after death. I dont see us affording constitutional rights to ghosts any time soon though.

The time may be sooner than you think.

For openers, twenty-four states already have laws protecting unborn children from violent crimes and would allow prosecutors to bring murder charges in cases of violence where a baby dies, even if the mother survives.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C000-099/0010000205.HTM

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200402\CUL20040211c.html

A Califoria initiative:
1136. (SA2005RF0069)

Expansion of Constitutional Definition of a Person to Include the Unborn, and Related Rights. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 04/07/05 Circulation Deadline: 09/06/05 Signatures Required: 598,105
Proponent: Tom Furrh (760) 207-3115

Amends the State Constitution to provide that each unborn person, upon conception, has the inalienable right to life while in the womb.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3292767&dopt=Abstract

 

[Fantasea]

Re: MORE Hyperbole and Revisionist prolife Linguistics

Now you are actually lying. You made hyperbolic remarks about "pro-death," and when challenged on it you didn't retract your falsehood. That is cowardly.
More deceptive nonsense. "Child" is still a developmental stage beginning after birth. As for your claim that abortion can not "withstand the deceptive lie you promote, you should know by now that the status of the fetus is irrelevant. You can call it anything you want and it still wouldn't impact the woman's right to control her own bodily resources. That is an aside to you being unable to make your argument without resorting to deceptive revisionist linguistics and distortions, without you being outright dishonest.

Sure doesn't bode well for your cause.
See the previous answer.
No humor at all. Merely contrasting your dishonest term with another one to provide an example of how dishonest you really are when using such hyperbolic revisionist linguistics.
Please provide evidence for that lie.
And my wife calls our dog her "baby." So? Endearing terms have little to do with reality. Are you saying that my dog is a baby or a child?
Huh? What paranoid deception are you spewing? The CORRECT and ACCURATE terms, namely embryo and fetus have been around for a long time. That prolifers desperately have tried to push emotional arguments, masking that they really have no cause and argument in the real world, well that of course is pathetic, but it also shows the serious level of deception and lies the PL are willing to go to for pushing their agenda of misogynistic enslavement of women under the fundies theocratic thumb.
There is nothing "dehumanizing" about using embryo or fetus. Your reluctance to refer to these terms except in the abstract merely shows you to be hardcore into the deception that the PL spews, shows you to be habitually and deliberately purveying this deception. It shows the extend of your dishonesty.
Live fetus, live embryo. So? Are you afraid of those words? Because they are the death of your emotional hyperbole, such a dose of facts and reality intruding into your fantasy and misrepresentation for emotional platitudes?
Ah, another prolife "because I say so" postulation. Yes, I am getting quite used to see them. They are cropping up every time PL want to portray their wishful thinking as "facts."
Not to the patient.

Yes, JUST LIKE IN CANCER SURGERY, the non-sentient tissue dies off when removed. Is that what you are yammering about? Cancer surgery being pro-death?
Well, then you are, of course, pro-slavery, as you seek to enslave the woman's body. And as you have not come out against tumor removal, you must also be pro-death. And so on, yadda, yadda yadda.

Are we done with the incredibly stupid word games that PL are so dependent on? Prolife revisionist linguistics and hyperbole is a bore, it is deceptive and dishonest. Yet, you seem hell bent on continuing your misrepresentations, presumably because you don't have any arguments outside of such a venue. How pathetic and lame......

(......Yes, the rest of your stupid and infantile diatribe is not addressed. More of the same lies and hyperbole is still lies and hyperbole......)

Yet you try.
Yes. You are lying. "Human life" began about 4-6 mill years ago, up until 125,000 years ago depending on how you count it (hominid vs H. sapiens). Everything since then is merely an extension of existing life. There are no non-life components that suddenly generate new life.
Yes, the PL lies, distortions, revisionist linguistics and hyperbole. That's what I said.

Now, are you done with the deceptions, the hyperbole, the dogma, or are we going to waste more time on the nonsense you spew in posts like this?

All of the foregoing is merely an unfounded denial of what I wrote. There is not a single fact contained therein.

Whatever you disagree with, you simply call a lie.

 

[jallman]

Perhaps, now would be the time for all of us to summarize his or her stance on the issue, the foundations for that stance, and streamline the debate while we are free of juvenile, hostile posts. No rebuttals just yet, just a clear and concise restatement of our main points...and then the rebuttals or introduction of new evidence or lines of thought. Anyone interested? Take the floor!:idea:

 

[Fantasea]

Perhaps, now would be the time for all of us to summarize his or her stance on the issue, the foundations for that stance, and streamline the debate while we are free of juvenile, hostile posts. No rebuttals just yet, just a clear and concise restatement of our main points...and then the rebuttals or introduction of new evidence or lines of thought. Anyone interested? Take the floor!:idea:

This is post #394 in this thread. Including this one, 84 of them are mine. Anyone who doesn't know my position and the foundations for same has not been paying attention.

How about a response to #391?

 

[jallman]

This is post #394 in this thread. Including this one, 84 of them are mine. Anyone who doesn't know my position and the foundations for same has not been paying attention.

How about a response to #391?

So much for being free of hostility and juvenile posts. I merely saw an opportunity to summarize for the sake of organization and clarity of philosophy. But then I shouldnt be surprised that a pro oppressionist isnt interested in either.

 

[Fantasea]

So much for being free of hostility and juvenile posts. I merely saw an opportunity to summarize for the sake of organization and clarity of philosophy. But then I shouldnt be surprised that a pro oppressionist isnt interested in either.

Does this mean that you won't respond to post #391?

 

[jallman]

The time may be sooner than you think.

For openers, twenty-four states already have laws protecting unborn children from violent crimes and would allow prosecutors to bring murder charges in cases of violence where a baby dies, even if the mother survives.

Such laws are an extension of the offense of the crime against the mother. They simply attach the unborn child as a victim of the crime, simply as a matter of course that the pregnant woman suffers greater loss than one without child, by virtue of the loss of the child. It has to be noted that these are cases where obviously, the pregnancy is being nurtured. Its nice to quote sources for your debate, but it is more credible to take note of what the source actually says...let me demonstrate...

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html

The fine print, the statute blatantly states:

(1989) Where section by its terms does not regulate abortions or any other aspect of appellees' medical practice, it can be read simply to express a value judgment. The extent to which the statute might be used to interpret other state statutes or regulations is something that only the courts of Missouri can definitely decide. U. S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the section unless the meaning of the section is applied to restrict the activities of a claimant in some concrete way. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S.Ct. 3040.

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C000-099/0010000205.HTM

Not even in fine print, this statute states:

`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200402\CUL20040211c.html

This is a totally separate type of legislation. It is intended to create a foundation for challenging the Supreme Court decision by forming state legislation in opposition to a precedent. It occurs about every 3 years and is almost always struck down. Besides, the point is moot because it hasnt even passed the SD senate yet and is thus, not even a law yet. It will be interesting to watch how long before it ends up in the archives collecting dust as is the case with most such legislation...

A Califoria initiative:
1136. (SA2005RF0069)

Expansion of Constitutional Definition of a Person to Include the Unborn, and Related Rights. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 04/07/05 Circulation Deadline: 09/06/05 Signatures Required: 598,105
Proponent: Tom Furrh (760) 207-3115

Amends the State Constitution to provide that each unborn person, upon conception, has the inalienable right to life while in the womb.

This is simply a statement that is found in the other two legislations. I find it interesting you didnt post the rest of the statute..which probably falls right in line with the above listed statutes...not applicable to abortion. These legislations are protections and grounds for prosecution against violent crimes, not legal medical procedures. The Supreme Court is still supreme. Nice try though.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3292767&dopt=Abstract

Well I am happy Denmark has created another ethics council to discuss the issue.

I hope my indulgence eases some of your hostility.

 

[Fantasea]

Such laws are an extension of the offense of the crime against the mother. They simply attach the unborn child as a victim of the crime, simply as a matter of course that the pregnant woman suffers greater loss than one without child, by virtue of the loss of the child. It has to be noted that these are cases where obviously, the pregnancy is being nurtured. Its nice to quote sources for your debate, but it is more credible to take note of what the source actually says...let me demonstrate...



The fine print, the statute blatantly states:







Not even in fine print, this statute states:

`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.



This is a totally separate type of legislation. It is intended to create a foundation for challenging the Supreme Court decision by forming state legislation in opposition to a precedent. It occurs about every 3 years and is almost always struck down. Besides, the point is moot because it hasnt even passed the SD senate yet and is thus, not even a law yet. It will be interesting to watch how long before it ends up in the archives collecting dust as is the case with most such legislation...



This is simply a statement that is found in the other two legislations. I find it interesting you didnt post the rest of the statute..which probably falls right in line with the above listed statutes...not applicable to abortion. These legislations are protections and grounds for prosecution against violent crimes, not legal medical procedures. The Supreme Court is still supreme. Nice try though.



Well I am happy Denmark has created another ethics council to discuss the issue.

I hope my indulgence eases some of your hostility.

What you call indulgence plays more like pomposity. In any event, you misconstrue my ardor as hostility.

I know exactly what is contained in the references I cited. I assumed that you would have realized that for the time being, any such legislation is limited by the constraints of Roe v. Wade. They are, however, strong indications that all is not quiet on the abortion front and that state legislatures, reflecting the will of their constituents, are making their disgust known.

The point is that cracks are appearing in the wall of Roe v. Wade. Given the popular temperment and the advances in the fields of obstetrics, fetology, genetics and related sciences, I think the next few abortion cases that reach the Supreme Court may result in the end of Roe v. Wade.

Remember, it is the function of the courts to interpret laws, not make them. Roe v. Wade is not based upon the interpretation of any law.

Here's an excerpt from an interesting essay on that point.

"Many constitutional scholars (on both sides of the abortion issue) have criticized Roe for having no basis in our Constitution.ii The Court, they say, just invented the right to abortion in an act of judicial activism."

The entire essay may be found at:

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/Stith05finaleng.pdf

 

[jallman]

What you call indulgence plays more like pomposity. In any event, you misconstrue my ardor as hostility.

I know exactly what is contained in the references I cited. I assumed that you would have realized that for the time being, any such legislation is limited by the constraints of Roe v. Wade. They are, however, strong indications that all is not quiet on the abortion front and that state legislatures, reflecting the will of their constituents, are making their disgust known.

The point is that cracks are appearing in the wall of Roe v. Wade. Given the popular temperment and the advances in the fields of obstetrics, fetology, genetics and related sciences, I think the next few abortion cases that reach the Supreme Court may result in the end of Roe v. Wade.

Remember, it is the function of the courts to interpret laws, not make them. Roe v. Wade is not based upon the interpretation of any law.

Here's an excerpt from an interesting essay on that point.

"Many constitutional scholars (on both sides of the abortion issue) have criticized Roe for having no basis in our Constitution.ii The Court, they say, just invented the right to abortion in an act of judicial activism."

The entire essay may be found at:

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/Stith05finaleng.pdf

That essay builds a very compelling argument for revising Roe vs Wade, as most of its examples relate to partial birth or late term abortions. Even within the essay, the fetus referred to is active and it implies that the fetus's only step toward total maturation is birth.

I still find it hard to believe that so much sympathy could be generated for an early fetal mass which has not developed any awareness or characteristics of individuality. It was a resourceful and moving play on the imagery of an imminent birth, with the baby kicking in the womb. It is a brilliant invocation of the horrors of a baby being slain with its feet sticking out of the uterus for the effect of generating moral outcry against barbarism.

But you and I both know that such abortions are extreme circumstances and that the majority of abortions happen well before there is any sentience. Was quite a dramatic attempt to color the issues.

 

[Fantasea]

That essay builds a very compelling argument for revising Roe vs Wade, as most of its examples relate to partial birth or late term abortions. Even within the essay, the fetus referred to is active and it implies that the fetus's only step toward total maturation is birth.

I still find it hard to believe that so much sympathy could be generated for an early fetal mass which has not developed any awareness or characteristics of individuality. It was a resourceful and moving play on the imagery of an imminent birth, with the baby kicking in the womb. It is a brilliant invocation of the horrors of a baby being slain with its feet sticking out of the uterus for the effect of generating moral outcry against barbarism.

But you and I both know that such abortions are extreme circumstances and that the majority of abortions happen well before there is any sentience. Was quite a dramatic attempt to color the issues.

Records on third trimester abortions are, understandably sketchy, but estimates run over ten thousand each year. The preponderance of obstetric wisdom agrees that they are never medically indicated. The color you mention but neglect to name is, as with every abortion, bright blood red.

Of course Roe should be revised. And it will be terminally revised --- tossed in its entirety right into the gigantic aboratorium slop bucket it created, along with the nearly fifty million fetuses already in there.

I was hoping you'd comment on this excerpt:

"Many constitutional scholars (on both sides of the abortion issue) have criticized Roe for having no basis in our Constitution.ii The Court, they say, just invented the right to abortion in an act of judicial activism.

 

[steen]

Records on third trimester abortions are, understandably sketchy, but estimates run over ten thousand each year. The preponderance of obstetric wisdom agrees that they are never medically indicated.

Why are you lying? Multiple, potentially lethal problems arising in 3rd trimester have ONLY an abortion as its resolution.

One thing is if you disagree, it is a whole different thing to outright lie like you just did.

 

[jallman]

Records on third trimester abortions are, understandably sketchy, but estimates run over ten thousand each year. The preponderance of obstetric wisdom agrees that they are never medically indicated. The color you mention but neglect to name is, as with every abortion, bright blood red.

For flare and drama I give you a 10!!! For your truth and substance I give you...ah nevermind.

Of course Roe should be revised. And it will be terminally revised --- tossed in its entirety right into the gigantic aboratorium slop bucket it created, along with the nearly fifty million fetuses already in there.

Oh!!! you said fetus...do you lose your PL membership card for a week now? Hey, maybe we can overlook that slip up because you were focused on the drama and intense imagery of the statement. Aboratorium slop bucket...where do you guys come up with this stuff. Bravo!!!

I was hoping you'd comment on this excerpt:

"Many constitutional scholars (on both sides of the abortion issue) have criticized Roe for having no basis in our Constitution.ii The Court, they say, just invented the right to abortion in an act of judicial activism.

Ok, here's my comment. Junk! Name one of these scholars and his acheivments. And besides, I have a better comment about your scholars that is particularly apropo..."Those who cant do teach." and criticize and belly-ache. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Supreme Court is still supreme.

 

[battleax86]

As interesting as that was, your point is completely invalid.

You brought up the definition of the word "fetus" in an attempt to prove your point. I brought up the definition of the word "baby" to prove mine. If my point is invalid, then yours is, as well.

Last time I checked, we dont measure a man's life pre-birth and post birth as we do a calendar with AD and BC.

The measurement of someone's life from birth is merely a human convention in the same way that we measure adulthood from the age of 18, while other countries measure from the age of 21 or, in some cases, younger than 18. This has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific issue of when life begins.

A baby's life begins at birth and thus, so does its aging.

That is completely false. A person begins aging at conception and continues the process of aging until death. This person is alive in this entire span. There is no physical change that occurs in a person at birth to make that person more alive after birth than they were just before birth.

Before birth, you have a fetus. Before fetus, you have an embryo, and before embryo, you have a zygote.

Yes, and after birth you have an infant. After that, you have a toddler. After that, you have a prepubescent, then an adolescent. These are merely different stages of development that humans go through. All of these mentioned stages may be called "children" and the first five may accurately be called "babies." :wink:

In the future, it might help if you have a leg to stand on and a coherent argument which does not rely on twists of semantics and a weak grasp of the English language before giving lectures as to the tone one should or should not take. :roll:

And the pompous arrogance continues... :lol:

To begin with, posting the definition of the word "baby" to show that a fetus may be accurately called such is not a "twist of semantics" any more than your posting of the definition of "fetus" was. Secondly, your inability to respond to my evidence with something other than a list of the different stages of human development shows that you have either incredibly poor reading comprehension, the weak grasp of the English language that you accuse me of having, or an intellectual dishonesty that cannot allow you to accept facts that run against your built-in template of how things should be. Furthermore, it's amusingly ironic how your argument that a fetus isn't a baby depends on human conventions (life isn't measured until birth), while mine depends on scientific facts (birth is merely an event in life, not the beginning of it), yet you claim that I don't have a leg to stand on.

Why are you lying? Multiple, potentially lethal problems arising in 3rd trimester have ONLY an abortion as its resolution.

One thing is if you disagree, it is a whole different thing to outright lie like you just did.

It's possible that she was simply unaware of these things, just like many pro-abortionists are ignorant of the facts about a person's development. However, the only lethal problem that I know of that requires an abortion is an ectopic pregnancy. You said that there are "multiple" problems. What are the others?

 

[battleax86]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Supreme Court is still supreme.

And they have also been supremely wrong, as Dred Scott would attest were he still alive.

 

[steen]

And they have also been supremely wrong, as Dred Scott would attest were he still alive.

Well, do you actually KNOW what the DS decision was all about?

 

[steen]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific issue of when life begins.

But then, neither does any of the PL claims we have seen sofar. When you say "scientific," it is not unreasonable to expect that you actually will deal with the science involved.

But we have yet to see that. Now I will hold you to it. Please provide the peer-referenced scientific evidence for your claims.

That is completely false. A person begins aging at conception and continues the process of aging until death.

:spin: "person" is a legal construct and does not apply to the unborn. As such, your claim is false, plain and simple. I will expect you to not make the claim anymore, now that you know, or it will be a sign of you deliberately lying.

This person is alive in this entire span.

:spin: False. The zygote is not a person. Your claptrap revisionist linguistics serves only your sophistry and has nothing to do with reality.

There is no physical change that occurs in a person at birth to make that person more alive after birth than they were just before birth.

Well, they weren't persons before birth. As for "alive," they are made up of the same live cells (mostly), if that's what you are referring to. If you are going to claim that its function is different, then it is false, and I would advice you to go and read up on this before making any further claims.

Yes, and after birth you have an infant. After that, you have a toddler. After that, you have a prepubescent, then an adolescent. These are merely different stages of development that humans go through. All of these mentioned stages may be called "children" and the first five may accurately be called "babies." :wink:

During deceptive prolife revisionist linguistics designed solely for the purpose of lying, that may be the case. Why do you see a need to resort to that?

Originally Posted by jallman
In the future, it might help if you have a leg to stand on and a coherent argument which does not rely on twists of semantics and a weak grasp of the English language before giving lectures as to the tone one should or should not take.

And the pompous arrogance continues.

Not at all. Jallman actually made a very accurate and on-the-mark observation about your sophistry.

As for the rest of your rant and outright lies, there really is no point in providing the point of you lying another dozen times.

 

[jallman]

"And so the pompous arrogance continues"

Not at all. Jallman actually made a very accurate and on-the-mark observation about your sophistry.

As for the rest of your rant and outright lies, there really is no point in providing the point of you lying another dozen times.

Besides, when in the wrong, it is easy to deflect from that issue by calling the righteous side pompous, arrogant, smug, whatever. It all boils down to it being human nature that we do not like to be wrong. Isnt it called "sour grapes" or something?

 

[Busta]

"person" is a legal construct and does not apply to the unborn. As such, your claim is false, plain and simple. I will expect you to not make the claim anymore, now that you know, or it will be a sign of you deliberately lying."

Steen, what have I told you about automatically assuming that people who have an opposing view are lying?

How's this for a "deceptive prolife revisionist linguistics designed solely for the purpose of lying"

Here is an example of the law determining that an unborn child is a person.
The law uses science and common science to determine homicide.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/homicide_killing_unborn_child.htm

American Law Reports ALR5th Volume 64 (1998) Annotation
HOMICIDE BASED ON KILLING OF UNBORN CHILD

Alan S. Wasserstrom, J.D.

"Whether the slayer of an unborn child or fetus can be convicted of a homicide has been the subject of controversy among state and federal courts. While under the common law a conviction was only possible if the child was born alive that is no longer a universal rule under state and federal statutes. Accordingly, convictions may be won where death of the child occurs before birth where the courts consider the child to be viable or a person or human being under the governing statute. For example, in the case of State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286, 64 ALR5th 901 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1997), the court held that an unborn child is a "person" for the purposes of the first degree murder statute and the fact that a mother of a pre-born child may have been granted certain legal rights to terminate the pregnancy did not preclude the prosecution of a third party for murder in the case of a killing of a child not consented to by the mother. The court rejected the defendant's argument that his actions in killing the child, accomplished by a savage beating of the mother, should be considered equivalent to conduct under the state's misdemeanor abortion statute. The court, instead, determined that the state legislature never intended to treat the unconsented (by the mother) killing of a pre-born infant, in the context of a physical assault on the mother, as anything other than a murder of the infant. This annotation examines all cases addressing the homicides of unborn children under statutory provisions, but does not consider the myriad cases decided under common law."

So now you know that an unborn Child, Fetus or Embryo *CAN* be considered a "Person" or "Human being". All that "We The People" need to do is CHOOSE to make it so, and it will be so ordered.

Why is a Mother given a legal "authority and excuse" but others are not? Is the unborn child a "person" or not? Can it be *Murdered or not? It can only be one or the other. Actual reality is not determined by our current understanding or ability to scientifically evidence.

There is nothing about this which is "Revisionist linguistic hyperbole" nor dishonesty, lies or propaganda of any kind.

The fact that the Law and science are plyable and ever changing is evidence that it they do not have a grasp of ULTOMIT right and wrong; which is what we are debating.

God's word, however, does not change. It is universally right and true. This is one of many examples of the scriptures having been evidenced as being more trustworthy than today's science and Law. I am more inclined to believe God's absolute word over any scientific report or scientific argument regarding "personhood".

P.C. should get their scientific and legal s**t strait before accusing me and mine of being propagandists.