Real simple:

[talloulou]

If that video is supposed to be an appeal to sentimentality, it misses by a country mile; that thing looks about as cute-n-cuddly as a salamander larvae.

Is that similar to how an anorexic looks in the mirror and no matter how skinny she is she sees a fat person?

A prochoicer looks at an ultrasound and no matter how obvious it is that you're seeing a baby the prochoicer sees a salamander?

 

[dragonslayer]

I don't care for abortion to be used as a family planning technique. Yet I have run into some plain sick women and some hard core druggies that could only f*** up a child if they had one. That would be a wasted soul.

Abortions for serious medical reasons is ok by me.

 

[OKgrannie]

It would be more honest if the remains were in the picture at all. :roll:

Get a magnifying glass, they have them at the dollar store.

 

[FutureIncoming]

You still haven’t answered the challenge.

What challenge? If it was posted after Msg #444 (as described below), then I can ignore it until you stop being a hypocrite.

==================

Jerry, you have just got yourself into big trouble. Here's a link to #435, which you wrote. You can easily see (after clicking on it) that you did not ask any question in that post. You simply made certain claims.

As it happens, I wrote #444 to point out that your claims included hidden assumptions that were not necessarily Truths. Later on I wrote:

I notice you did not reply to that.

And now you have written:

I'm what's called a hardliner. I stick to the question posed until it is answered.....drives my wife nuts....I haven't seen you answer it, and I'm not moving until you do.

THAT STATEMENT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE, therefore. Because you didn't ask a question in #435! And if we modify "question" to become "statement", then #444 thoroughly responded to your non-questions in #435 --and you hypocritically think you can go on to post more questions/statements and expect replies, without having participated in what came before you did that? On what grounds can you say "you stick to the question" when it is somebody else's question/statement that you provably did not answer?

Jerry, in Msg #483 you neither denied exhibiting hypocrisy, nor denied lying. All you did was claim victory --but how can a victory based on hypocrisy and lies actually be a victory?
-----------
Now, how about you ceasing to be a hypocrite, and reply to at least this part of #444:

"a living being"+ human dna = "a human being"

YES, in spite of this:

"human being", where "being" is the noun, an intelligent/person-class entitiy, and "human" is the adjective, a descriptor. And as in "human fetus", where "fetus" is the noun, an unborn animal-class organism, and "human" is the adjective.

In the case you presented, an alternate meaning of "being" is used; it is a synonym for "organism", simply because not everything that can be called a "living being" is an intelligent/person-class entity. Therefore the result of your verbal addition, "human being", merely means "human organism", and doesn't automatically mean anything inherently more special than that.

 

[talloulou]

What challenge? If it was posted after Msg #444 (as described below), then I can ignore it until you stop being a hypocrite.

==================

Jerry, in Msg #483 you neither denied exhibiting hypocrisy, nor denied lying. All you did was claim victory --but how can a victory based on hypocrisy and lies actually be a victory?
-----------
Now, how about you ceasing to be a hypocrite, and reply to at least this part of #444:

Hey future did you find a biologist yet that agrees that the individual cells in the human body are organisms? Neither did Jallman though he swears he's "technically" right! :roll: I suppose I'm supposed to believe the biologists are technically wrong? Not a chance. Still waiting on one of you to produce a legit source.

 

[talloulou]

Get a magnifying glass, they have them at the dollar store.

I don't need a magnifying glass to see a quarter, do you?

 

[FutureIncoming]

A prochoicer looks at an ultrasound and no matter how obvious it is that you're seeing a baby the prochoicer sees a salamander?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The prochoicer sees an incomplete human animal organism under development, which is not inherently more special than any equivalently developed ordinary animal organism. Since it in measurable fact is not more special, there is no need to lie to oneself and to claim that it is somehow more special. Thus, if this organism is deemed to be an annoyance, and since in additional fact this particular class of organisms is not endangered (tens of millions more exist), it can be exterminated, just as we exterminate any others of a large variety of annoying animal organisms.

==========
Regarding the body-cell=organism thing, I'm still working on it. The evidence I have found so far indicates that even the cell biologists are not looking at the "big picture". I encountered a claim to the effect that to focus on the cell is to ignore the larger organism, and therefore the body-cell cannot be an organism. But by that logic, there is only one organism, Gaia, because to focus on an individual animal or plant is to ignore the larger organism. I have questioned this logic and am awaiting a response.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Are you saying that if an average human person interacted with some alien organism long enough, the human couldn't decide whether or not that other organism was a person, based on things we already know?

My point is that we do not, currently, right now this very day, have an accepted mainstream science which does study alian biology and psychology.
Hypothetical possabilities of "if" are irrelivent because such knowledge is not actualy posessed TODAY.

FALSE. Partly because "an accepted mainstream science which studies alien psychology" is not needed. We already have something suitable, described below, and never refuted.

Furthermore, as a counterexample to another part of what you write, the astronomers are 100% certain that there will be a civilization-destroying giant meteor impact somewhere on Earth, sometime in the future. Anyone who claims this is irrelevant, that we need not take steps to prevent such an event, simply because we don't have complete knowledge (when/where it will happen), is a fool.

Similarly, we have enough knowledge about the Universe to be quite certain that there are plenty of extraterrestrial life-forms out there. They may all be bacterial, but the Universe is big enough for multicellular life and even person-class life to also exist out there somewhere. The probability of this cannot be dismissed, especially since the more we study General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the more possible that faster-than-light and even time travel appears to be (some of those UFO sightings could be from an alien civilization that doesn't exist anywhere in the current Universe; they could be from the future, and from a galaxy ten billion light-years away, too).

Finally, we have the Turing Test, and although it was designed as a way to identify a true Artificial Intelligence, a person-class computer-organism, we have no reason to think that it cannot be applied elsewhere, to identify person-class entities of other sorts. The only problem is that it is just a subjective tool, and not an Objective Definition, as I have asked for in my Signature.

Your sig showes the word "person" in quotations, which means you imply the legal term "person" because the only time people debate with "person" in quotations in an abortion thread is when they are discussing law.

That is a misinterpretation on your part. I put the word in quotes to precisely delimit the thing for which a definition was requested, and that's all. In Msg #499, I used a combination of coloring, bolding, and italicizing to do the delimiting. (I actually can't do this in my sig because the total text would go over the allowed-character-limit.)

Since for the sake of the challenge the Abrahamic God is assumed to exist,

The challenge in my sig is worded to to allow alternatives. "if God ... is nonbiological" does not go against other traditions, such as that of the Amerinds. Buddhism may also not have a problem with the phrasing I used, but others, such as Hinduism, might (I don't know enough; all those portrayals of Krishna, Vishnu, Kali, etc., may actually in that religious philosophy be manifestions of something more fundamental and nonbiological).

consciences is assumed to originate with God and descend down into the flesh,

THIS ASSUMPTION IS UNNECESSARY. It is theoretically possible for God to exist, and for no souls of any sort to also exist. (What is unlikely is the notion that if souls actually exist, then God cannot exist.) --Oh, and any other assumptions about souls are also unnecessary. Especially since I've shown elsewhere how illogical it is to assume that God creates souls at conception, and nobody has offered any worthy conterargument to that. Woud YOU care to respond to the souls-stuff in Msg #210?

Finally, the phrase "decend down into the flesh" is technically incomplete. For God to have been claimed to be the source of lightning, for example (along with other claims), means that God suffuses all matter, both living and non-living. And therefore:

aborting a ZEF is a literal direct physical assault on God

And digging a latrine would also be a literal direct physical assault on God, to say nothing of eating, or mining ores and coal, or burning oil, or altering landscape to build dams and roads, or smashing atoms, and so on, endlessly. I submit that overpopulation will do us in long before the God you have described decides to swat us --and if we are swatted, it won't be because of abortion! Consider this:

Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."

This is obviously an incomplete list (no dominion over plants???), since we know of other animal organisms that don't do any of those things (eukaryote bacteria and sea anemones, for two examples). And since every human fetus is also provably/measurably an animal-class organism, we have dominion over them, too. Simple.

Meanwhile, the swattings in the Flood and Tower of Babel legends were tied to arrogance....

 

[jallman]

Hey future did you find a biologist yet that agrees that the individual cells in the human body are organisms? Neither did Jallman though he swears he's "technically" right! :roll: I suppose I'm supposed to believe the biologists are technically wrong? Not a chance. Still waiting on one of you to produce a legit source.

I already did. I can't help it if you have a fact phobia. I say time and time again that once a pro-lifer has worked themselves up into a hysterical fit there is no point in trying to hold a rational discussion anymore. :doh

 

[talloulou]

I already did. I can't help it if you have a fact phobia. I say time and time again that once a pro-lifer has worked themselves up into a hysterical fit there is no point in trying to hold a rational discussion anymore. :doh

I must have missed that. What biologist? Where? Source?

 

[jallman]

I must have missed that. What biologist? Where? Source?

You are being obtuse and/or hysterical. I have a zoology degree and an english degree. Together, that makes me more than qualified to assert biological definitions...especially when I referenced the definitions for you AND applied them through an accepted property (the transitive property). Your request for a specific biologist (which technically I am by education...reference the Alumni directory at NCSU if you must) to give you a statement concerning a specific cell when the information is already generally accepted is nothing but hysterical avoidance of fact. Translation: you have a hysterical fact phobia which interrupts intellectually honest debate.

I am done indulging your hysterics now. If I have to explain to you the fundamentals of rational conversation and linear reasoning, then it is obvious you have slipped too far into your fit to maintain a productive conversation.

 

[talloulou]

You are being obtuse and/or hysterical. I have a zoology degree and an english degree. Together, that makes me more than qualified to assert biological definitions...especially when I referenced the definitions for you AND applied them through an accepted property (the transitive property). Your request for a specific biologist (which technically I am by education...reference the Alumni directory at NCSU if you must) to give you a statement concerning a specific cell when the information is already generally accepted is nothing but hysterical avoidance of fact. Translation: you have a hysterical fact phobia which interrupts intellectually honest debate.

I am done indulging your hysterics now. If I have to explain to you the fundamentals of rational conversation and linear reasoning, then it is obvious you have slipped too far into your fit to maintain a productive conversation.

Aaah the Steen approach resurrected. :rofl No source online can be found anywhere that states that the individual cells in the human body are organisms but you say so and (unlike Steen who was a Dr.) you're a biologist so despite the lack of sources to back up your assertion I should take your word for it.

If your claim is that you're a biologist and a colon cell is an organism just as an embryo is I have to assume you're either lying or a biologist that disagrees with all the biology you were taught.

Futhermore your logic and defintions sounded far too much like the ol' "God is love, love is blind, Stevie Wonder is blind, So God is Stevie Wonder tripe.

 

[jallman]

Aaah the Steen approach resurrected. :rofl No source online can be found anywhere that states that the individual cells in the human body are organisms but you say so and (unlike Steen who was a Dr.) you're a biologist so despite the lack of sources to back up your assertion I should take your word for it.

If you're claim is that you're a biologist and a colon cell is an organism just as an embryo is I have to assume you're either lying or a biologist that disagrees with all the biology you were taught.

Futhermore your logic and defintions sounded far too much like the ol' "God is love, love is blind, Stevie Wonder is blind, So God is Stevie Wonder tripe.

I can only call bullshit on your babble. You are still being hysterical. You are still avoiding facts and now you have resorted to histrionics because the logic is flawless. When a pro lifer can't refute logic (and this over some small, trivial minutae), it's always their next step to call into question the credentials of their opponents or, better yet, throw out irrelevant hyperbolic nonsense in an effort to obfuscate the issue. Anything to avoid facts...that's the pro-life MO.

I referenced well known general basic biological principles. I outlined steps leading to a logical conclusion (in accepted proof format) and gave you more than enough verifiable information in the process. The very definition of a phobia is an irrational fear of something. Your phobia just happens to be facts.

 

[talloulou]

I can only call bullshit on your babble. You are still being hysterical. You are still avoiding facts and now you have resorted to histrionics because the logic is flawless. When a pro lifer can't refute logic (and this over some small, trivial minutae), it's always their next step to call into question the credentials of their opponents or, better yet, throw out irrelevant hyperbolic nonsense in an effort to obfuscate the issue. Anything to avoid facts...that's the pro-life MO.

I referenced well known general basic biological principles. I outlined steps leading to a logical conclusion (in accepted proof format) and gave you more than enough verifiable information in the process. The very definition of a phobia is an irrational fear of something. Your phobia just happens to be facts.

And yet still no link to a source claiming a colon cell is just as much an organism as an embryo?


Tell me something Jallman if there is no inherent difference between a blob of colon cells and an embryo blob than pray tell why are scientists and researchers arguing so hard for federal funding and more access to embryonic stem cells??? Seems to me if they're basically the same as any other cells there wouldn't be such a dire need for funding or access to embryos??

As a biologist care to elaborate? You've asked me many times to explain what the difference between an embryo and any other severed piece of flesh from your body is! Clearly if there is no difference than it's very hard to fathom the fuss in the embryonic stem cell debate.

 

[jallman]

And yet still no link to a source claiming a colon cell is just as much an organism as an embryo?

And yet still making an obtuse request over something that has been proven to you through rational, linear logic and then proven to you that it was proven to you...you get to waste no more of my time on this issue.

Tell me something Jallman if there is no inherent difference between a blob of colon cells and an embryo blob than pray tell why are scientists and researchers arguing so hard for federal funding and more access to embryonic stem cells??? Seems to me if they're basically the same as any other cells there wouldn't be such a dire need for funding or access to embryos??

I asked you the question. You failed to give me a correct response...until now. Am I to blame that it took you upwards of ten posts and a hysterical fit to get it right?

As a biologist care to elaborate? You've asked me many times to explain what the difference between an embryo and any other severed piece of flesh from your body is! Clearly if there is no difference than it's very hard to fathom the fuss in the embryonic stem cell debate.

While you have the one inherent difference pinned down, it is still an irrelevant difference. Just because a stem cell has the property of differentiation doesn't make it cognitive, aware, spacially perceptive, nor a person.

 

[talloulou]

You do realize I think I won that argument! :mrgreen: Probably just my own hysteria but I feel good none the less. Off to get some chocolate...

 

[jallman]

You do realize I think I won that argument! :mrgreen: Probably just my own hysteria but I feel good none the less. Off to get some chocolate...

I don't think you are a hysterical person. I just think the abortion debate brings out the hysterics in even the most rational of people. Hope it's good chocolate...I prefer Godiva raspberry truffles when I am down...:2wave:

 

[FutureIncoming]

To talloulou, jallman, OKgrannie, and Jerry:

In Science it is necessary for each of the most important words to have a particular and particularly inflexible definition, in order that communcations be a precise as possible. I suppose this means that Science could use this as a rationale to adopt all of the many words (57?) that the Eskimos used for "snow" (each referred to some different type of snow). It also can lead to a lot of arguing when some reason comes along to change a definition (see recent furor over "planet").

In seeking Web references regarding "organism" and body-cells, I seem to have come up against that need for inflexible definitions. I was actively encouraged to seek an alternate term. None was suggested, but it is easy enough to consider "living thing" or "lifeform" as possibilities. I doubt that any here would deny that most body-cells, including gametes (but possibly excluding red blood cells), are living things.

Here are a couple of combined/paraphrased statements, which have led to my writing this Message:

an organism {{is}} an individual at the species level ... the basic unit on which natural selection operates to drive ... species evolution

That Science-specific definition excludes super-organisms like Gaia and sub-organisms like body cells, and I don't know of any argument powerful enough to cause biologists to want to make that definition less inflexible. I should accept this, therefore --and besides, there are indeed other words and phrases available, after all, which could encompass every possible kind of living thing.

To talloulou, therefore, I must ask why the word "organism" is being insisted-upon as a descriptor, instead of an alternative like "living thing". (I don't recall participating in the actual origin of this part of the overall Abortion Debate; I'm pretty sure I jumped in the middle somewhere.) --Oh, and I don't need to ask this of Jerry, since I already know he just wants to use "organism" as part of an excuse to equivocate.

And yet still no link to a source claiming a colon cell is just as much {{a living thing}} as an embryo?

See? While I haven't set about seeking references for this phrasing, I see no reason to doubt that I could find some.

 

[Jerry]

....--Oh, and I don't need to ask this of Jerry, since I already know he just wants to use "organism" as part of an excuse to equivocate....

Heh, Fii, the use of that spicific word comes from PCers use of it in their biological arguments. I haven’t yet seen a mainstream PC biological argument which used anything like "living thing" or "life form", and I suppose this is due to the fact that such PC arguments rely heavily on the strictest of medical definitions.

The glory in our argument is that the PC biological argument itself proves PC in error when it comes to determining what a legal "person" is, as the definitions line right up in a clear, logical way.....and the best part of it that I see is that it took me no effort to see and toss this little road block in your way.

Only now by trying to change the word used can you yourself see anyway out. You're trying to dodge the bullet, which tells me that something other than biological facts drives your view on the matter, which is fine, but that truth now forever divorces you from any claim that you hold the view that you do based only on scientific fact, and that you have some other bias in play.

Having a bias is a poison to the mind of a PCer's world view, because they so slam PL for having such things that to now be found to have the same things in themselves as they so persecuted in others is for every hateful word PC has ever spoken to now apply to themselves, which is hypocrisy at it's finest.

Me personally, biology doesn't form my view on the matter at all, so no biology argument could ever sway me, so it doesn't matter what new words you want to use.

I'm just happy to see the PC argument fall on it's face. It's personally very satisfying to see a thing which I have endured so much flame for not signing onto just fail. It is truly a joy to see that you and others can not answer the challenge over "organism".

 

[jallman]

Heh, Fii, the use of that spicific word comes from PCers use of it in their biological arguments. I haven’t yet seen a mainstream PC biological argument which used anything like "living thing" or "life form", and I suppose this is due to the fact that such PC arguments rely heavily on the strictest of medical definitions.

The glory in our argument is that the PC biological argument itself proves PC in error when it comes to determining what a legal "person" is, as the definitions line right up in a clear, logical way.....and the best part of it that I see is that it took me no effort to see and toss this little road block in your way.

Only now by trying to change the word used can you yourself see anyway out. You're trying to dodge the bullet, which tells me that something other than biological facts drives your view on the matter, which is fine, but that truth now forever divorces you from any claim that you hold the view that you do based only on scientific fact, and that you have some other bias in play.

Having a bias is a poison to the mind of a PCer's world view, because they so slam PL for having such things that to now be found to have the same things in themselves as they so persecuted in others is for every hateful word PC has ever spoken to now apply to themselves, which is hypocrisy at it's finest.

Me personally, biology doesn't form my view on the matter at all, so no biology argument could ever sway me, so it doesn't matter what new words you want to use.

I'm just happy to see the PC argument fall on it's face. It's personally very satisfying to see a thing which I have endured so much flame for not signing onto just fail. It is truly a joy to see that you and others can not answer the challenge over "organism".

What are you talking about? The PC argument doesn't rely on "the strictest biological definitions". The only reason those definitions ever get called into play is because of hysterical PL arguments that rely on emotional extortion rather than logic and rational thought. If the PL camp didn't attempt to obfuscate reality by bogging every discussion down in minutiae and semantics, then the PC camp wouldn't have to enforce simple rules of language.

But as I said...any attempt to avoid facts is fair game in the PL play book.

 

[talloulou]

To talloulou, therefore, I must ask why the word "organism" is being insisted-upon as a descriptor, instead of an alternative like "living thing". (I don't recall participating in the actual origin of this part of the overall Abortion Debate; I'm pretty sure I jumped in the middle somewhere.) --Oh, and I don't need to ask this of Jerry, since I already know he just wants to use "organism" as part of an excuse to equivocate.

For me the fact that the embryo is an organism proves that it is A human (noun) and even if you don't feel that those particular humans have a right to life you should at the very least respect that they are in fact different than other pieces of flesh such as a colon or an appendix. I don't mind arguing the rights/wrongs of abortion but I do take great offense at the dehumanizing aspects used by many prochoicers as well as the great strives they take in order to make it appear as if an embryo or fetus is no different from say a "severed wrist." Clinically, scientifically, biologically, and technically embryos are different and the assertion that they are the same as any other clump of flesh is an intellectual fallacy and distorts as well as muddles the debate on whether or not it should be okay to take the life of a human in utero.

 

[Jerry]

....this is where I play one of my vavoret cards.....

What are you talking about?

Things like this:

Redefining Pregnancy

Contraception and abortion rights advocates have been accusing the pro-life movement of trying to redefine pregnancy in order to reclassify certain contraceptives as abortifacients.

The truth is, it is the abortion rights and family planning movements that have been playing word games for the past forty years, and the pro-life movement is simply trying to correct the damage.

This decades old controversy revolves around the definition of a single word: conception.

Up until the mid sixties, the question of the beginning of pregnancy wasn't a subject of serious debate. It was well accepted, based upon sound science, that, that conception occurred at fertilization (that is, the union of sperm and egg).

It was also accepted that anything which prevented implantation in fact caused an abortion, as recognized by the US Government and described in a 1963 public health service leaflet:

"All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote [newly created human] at any time between the instant of fertilization [union of sperm and egg] and the completion of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion" [1]

This acknowledgement posed a problem for the family planning movement which was moving away from "pure" contraceptives and more towards drugs which also caused early abortions by preventing implantation of a newly created human being. The only way to make these drugs legally and morally acceptable to the general public was to change the definition of conception.

This is where the American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) stepped in. In 1965 the ACOG issued a medical bulletin which "officially" changed the definition of conception from union of sperm and egg to implantation: "Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum [egg].” [2]

Source.

PC arguments are all about changing the name and misrepresenting the fetus to be something less than it is out of some mistaken notion that da-man is out to control you.

…just a sign of the times….

But as I said...any attempt to avoid facts is fair game in the PL play book.

Heh, both PL and PC avoid facts...good thing I'm neither

I'm just so sick of the hype that when someone tosses in something...oh I don't know...an implication that any regulation of abortion will lead women to use wire hangers (elbow, elbow), I'll just say something like how I'll be happy to volunteer my time to hand out wire hangers to all women who want them, but I charge for 911 calls.

If HB1293 goes through I'll donate a few cases of wire hangers to the local PP...oh wait...here in the land of moral superiority all PP clinics got cast out and replaced with tax-free Indian casinos....well I'll just have to hand them out at the local high school next time they pass out condoms.

Her body, her choice, right? Who am I to tell her she shouldn't stuff a hanger in her ****.

...it's like a piercing...only not.....

 

[talloulou]

Heh, Fii, the use of that spicific word comes from PCers use of it in their biological arguments. I haven’t yet seen a mainstream PC biological argument which used anything like "living thing" or "life form", and I suppose this is due to the fact that such PC arguments rely heavily on the strictest of medical definitions.

The glory in our argument is that the PC biological argument itself proves PC in error when it comes to determining what a legal "person" is, as the definitions line right up in a clear, logical way.....and the best part of it that I see is that it took me no effort to see and toss this little road block in your way.

I've been using the "organism" argument as well as the "homosapiens" argument for a long time now. Most, like okgrannie, 1069, ect have ignored it. At least Future gave it some thoughtful consideration. He's really the first prochoicer to have even tried to tackle it. I think it's cause he is very technical himself and so to be caught on such a fine technical point worked him up but I do admire that he didn't just gloss over the point as so many in the past have.

The only reason I bring it up is to stop prochoicers like Grannie from saying the unborn aren't humans and to quiet the notions that there is no difference between an embryo and say a kidney or skin cell. Unfortunately the prochoicers who are guilty of making such associations most frequently are the very same that will ignore the distinction anyway.

I'm just happy to see the PC argument fall on it's face. It's personally very satisfying to see a thing which I have endured so much flame for not signing onto just fail. It is truly a joy to see that you and others can not answer the challenge over "organism".

It is fun but the prochoice argument hardly really falls on its face because it's not as if any women having abortions actually believe they are carrying something other than a developing human in their womb. They all know that terminating the life of a fetus is morally different (notice I'm saying morally different and not right or worng) than say having surgery to remove a gallbladder. So the only "win" to be had here is having some admit that there is a difference between the two and one would hope the discussion could move on to why it's okay to terminate unborn human nouns. However I'm certain Grannie will be back tomorrow claiming they're not humans again and jallman and 1060 will praise and thank her every awkward biologically wrong assertion.

 

[Jerry]

For me the fact that the embryo is an organism proves that it is A human (noun) and even if you don't feel that those particular humans have a right to life you should at the very least respect that they are in fact different than other pieces of flesh such as a colon or an appendix. I don't mind arguing the rights/wrongs of abortion but I do take great offense at the dehumanizing aspects used by many prochoicers as well as the great strives they take in order to make it appear as if an embryo or fetus is no different from say a "severed wrist." Clinically, scientifically, biologically, and technically embryos are different and the assertion that they are the same as any other clump of flesh is an intellectual fallacy and distorts as well as muddles the debate on whether or not it should be okay to take the life of a human in utero.

You need to know that Fii denies the Right to Life even in the face of the DoI, the Constitution, the 14th. and all the body of case law supporting it; so even if you did prove that a ZEF was a "person" to Fii, it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[talloulou]

You need to know that Fii denies the Right to Life even in the face of the DoI, the Constitution, the 14th. and all the body of case law supporting it; so even if you did prove that a ZEF was a "person" to Fii, it wouldn't make any difference.

Yes but for the most part FI is open with his ideas. And he does attempt to be intellectually honest for the most part....sometimes to the point of boring me to tears. He's probably smarter than I am. In any event he does routinely admit that the unborn are HUMANS as in the noun. So like I said the "win" here won't affect the ones like grannie who deny that the unborn are in fact human nouns and prefers to view them as human adjectives as in human hair or human blood cell.