steen said:
Your argument is that "taking responsibility" doesn't mean seeking medical care to rectify the unwanted position. hence, you must also mean that you will deny the smoker any treatment for lung cancer.
Don't know what on earth you're talking about. Any fool stupid enough to smoke has every freedom to seek medical care to treat his lungs. I won't deny the idiot the pleasure of chemotherapy and whatever. It's his lungs, it's his business.
steen said:
Why? pleas eprovide evidence for that claim. You seem woefully ignorant of what "murder" is.
This was in response to "When tumors are defined as human, then killing them will become murder. "
Becuase you were equating the treatment of smoking related illness, for example, cancer, with killing a living human being. I know the difference and understand the treatment of a malignant disease is not the same as aborting a living human fetus.
Try getting on the same page as the rest of us. Non sequiturs only work when the victim doesn't notice.
steen said:
Ah, yes. Now we recognize the typical prolifer as a hate mongering, misogynistic, judgmental fundie.
Ah, yes. You feel the need to label because it's inconceivable that anyone would dare present a totally rational argument against your position.
Funny. That will only make your argument weaker because you'll be posting against your perceptions instead of posting against my words. Have fun.
steen said:
Like the smoker created a unique, growing life, yes your resistance to people seeking medical treatment to rectify such unwanted outcomes is rapidly becoming legendary.
Are you saying that a cancerous tumor is a unique growing life? Will you promise to tell us when you find evidence that such a thing turns into a self-conscious individual aware of it's environment?
As already noted, I've not resistance to anyone seeking medical assistance for medical problems. A pregnancy is not on the same order as a tumor, though. Why is it some people can't see the obvious differences?
steen said:
And what "people" are they? You are not making false claims and ad hominem accusations here, are you?
PETA, for example. And no, I'm not naming names of my contacts in Hollyweird, that's clearly none of your business.
steen said:
No, that still isn't true. Can you please make your arguments without having to resort to false and deceptive "definitions," please?
Certainly. The traditional path for debate is to establish definitions and agree upon them for use in future discussion.
I you think the definition of murder does not include the wilful termination of the life of another individual for mere personal convenience, what do you think it means?
Here's your chance to pull things your way. You've not done well on a rational or factual level so far, how about if I take my queen off the board for a bit and give you a chance to rearrange the pieces your way?
steen said:
there still is no baby until birth, your revisionist linguistic
hyperbole and emotive, deceptive language none withstanding.
Okay.
It's about options. She had one to avoid pregancy, the fetus has none at all.
Boy, it was really tough re-phrasing that idea to fit inside your politically correct verbal filter. Now that we've passed inside, how about if you address the issue raised?
steen said:
So you agree that there is no "right to life," and that prolifers who claim this are lying? Well, thank you for that admission. I shall be sure to direct your attention to those who make that claim, so you can correct their false claim, OK?
There is no such thing as a "right" whatsoever. They're not "lying", they're as deluded as any fool that confuses "rights" with reality.
Is it safe to assume from your post that you don't understand the concept of "rights", either?
steen said:
Actually, they are not. They have the legal option of abortion.
Actually, they are. I know what the word "responsible" means, you're trying to grow a slime coat and become a lawyer. Just because ill-conceived judicial rulings enable women to eliminate ill-conceived fetuses doesn't mean she wasn't responsible for getting herself in that position in the first place.
You are aware of how fetuses are created, aren't you?
"and the fetus is the poster child for pure innocence."
steen said:
Not in the case of unwanted pregnancy, when it uses her body against her will. Then it is like a squatter, a parasite, and thus is not innocent.
A "squatter", eh? Your analogy is totally at odds with the reality. The female invited the fetus in and gave it a warm place to stay, and the fetus fully expected the promised stay to be rewarding for both of them.
steen said:
Nope. It is not the environment before birth, but rather the age of termination of the pregnancy support that defines viability.
Viability is a liquid definition that is moved closer and closer to conception every day. As such, it clearly lacks a rational and philosophical basis. In simple words, using viability as a definition of human confines the definition of humanity to our technology.
Since I'm an engineer and not a lawyer, I reject that completely.
steen said:
Why are you thinking that artificial goat uterus research has any bearing on the inherent error in your original claim?
Since I don't make errors, my introduction of artificial goat wombs was clearly deliberate and meaningful.
Your failure to comprehend it's significance highlights flaws and weaknesses in your perception and knowledge.
Ponder this. If the Japanese are successful in growing goats in real "test tubes", will it be long before someone starts growing people in them?
And if people can be grown in machines, there baby-killers viability based arguments will have been shown to be totally flawed, since there will no longer exist any point before which the baby was not human, until the conception of the egg.
Hence, fake goat wombs will definitively prove, even for people like you, that life begins at conception.
Thank you for demonstrating your lack of perception on issues you argue about. That will be a useful tool in the future.
