State your position

[mertex]

Nope, I understand it easily enough and mac surmised it nicely enough as well...

Good for you!

 

[Bodi]

Good for you!

Well... it's been fun, sort of.

 

[prometeus]

No, personally I like to disprove the bs crap pro-choicers like to offer up as justification for killing fetuses. Specially ones that like to put words in the mouth of pro-lifers.

And when will you start doing that? So far all you have done is spew ideological propaganda. Lets not forget your religion based motives either. Tell you what, make a list of all the points that ARE relevant to the abortion issue and how you disproved them If you are honest it should not be a problem and of course you would be willing to back that up any time.

 

[prometeus]

Freezing a body or failing to freeze a body has to deal with how the body itself handles the freezing process and how it is able to recover from it after. There is no reason to believe that the ability to freeze the baby or not being able to freeze the baby is any logical way to conclude if "life" is or isn't there. It is however a logical conclusion to say that the parts of the body that are present are or are not able to take the strain of the freezing process if it fails or succeeds, which as I said about five times now parts of the body doesn't equal life or not life or human or not human.

It is not one of the characteristics of human life, that it can be suspended, by freezing in this case, and then reanimated. Yes, the zygote is human and alive, but the point is that it is not really a full human being.

 

[majora$$hole]

No, personally I like to disprove the bs crap pro-choicers like to offer up as justification for killing fetuses. Specially ones that like to put words in the mouth of pro-lifers.

too bad you disprove nothing with your bs.

 

[mac]

too bad you disprove nothing with your bs.

what have you done besides offer up a simplified law based on lack of understanding?

 

[Henrin]

It is not one of the characteristics of human life, that it can be suspended, by freezing in this case, and then reanimated. Yes, the zygote is human and alive, but the point is that it is not really a full human being.

The reality is not whatever your stupid point is. That the reason you can't freeze a born human being is because of factors that deal with damage done to the organs of the body by the freezing process. Trying to use the reasons that stages surviving or not is a lame excuse of an argument and once again only looks at the stage and not the factors of human life as a whole.

 

[prometeus]

The reality is not whatever your stupid point is.

But it is whatever YOUR stupid point is. Lets just say that we disagree on this.

That the reason you can't freeze a born human being is because of factors that deal with damage done to the organs of the body by the freezing process.

No doubt because it is not one of the inherent characteristics of the human body to be able to withstand such events. And your point is?

 

[Henrin]

But it is whatever YOUR stupid point is. Lets just say that we disagree on this.

Human beings bodies don't work the same through all the stages. Big Surprise that they don't act the same to outside stimuli.

No doubt because it is not one of the inherent characteristics of the human body to be able to withstand such events. And your point is?

My point is that you are aren't talking about what makes humans human. You are talking about what keeps your body working in the stage it is in. The argument is not going to work to disqualify what you wish it too. In fact, its just more of the same bull**** as always just with a new bow on top.

 

[prometeus]

Human beings bodies don't work the same through all the stages. Big Surprise that they don't act the same to outside stimuli.

You are referring to stages of development I guess and yes that is correct.

My point is that you are aren't talking about what makes humans human. You are talking about what keeps your body working in the stage it is in. The argument is not going to work to disqualify what you wish it too. In fact, its just more of the same bull**** as always just with a new bow on top.

I still fail to see what your point is. Human? As biologically classified or as the philosophical being? Clearly the human being is more than just a biological classification.

 

[Henrin]

I still fail to see what your point is. Human? As biologically classified or as the philosophical being? Clearly the human being is more than just a biological classification.

Nope

10 char

 

[prometeus]

Nope

I guess this is one more thing on which we remain in disagreement. But I am curious, if a human being is just another biological entity then what merits it more attention than any other biological entity, especially considering that we kill so many of them on a regular basis.

 

[Henrin]

I guess this is one more thing on which we remain in disagreement. But I am curious, if a human being is just another biological entity then what merits it more attention than any other biological entity, especially considering that we kill so many of them on a regular basis.

I'm not here to discuss why we kill other species on a regular basis. But..

We protect our own from being killed because we are human
All species that have society based structures protect there own from being killed. Dogs, Elephants, you name it, we are no different.

We kill and eat animals for the nutrition it gives us.
Killing the animal does not mean we disvalue the life it processes.

 

[prometeus]

I'm not here to discuss why we kill other species on a regular basis. But..

We protect our own from being killed because we are human
All species that have society based structures protect there own from being killed. Dogs, Elephants, you name it, we are no different.

We kill and eat animals for the nutrition it gives us.
Killing the animal does not mean we disvalue the life it processes.

You have not answered the question. An abortion does not "disvalue" as you said, human life any more than killing animals for food "disvalues" those lives. Besides, explain then why a lioness goes into estrus as soon as her cubs are killed by a new dominant male? Is it because they do not value the lives of their species?

 

[Henrin]

You have not answered the question. An abortion does not "disvalue" as you said, human life any more than killing animals for food "disvalues" those lives.

Is the child equal to you? Do they have all the rights you have? Do you believe that they don't? The fact is people don't believe the life is equal to theirs and in the process disvalues it. Abortion just takes this mindset and allows people to show how much they don't value the life.

Besides, explain then why a lioness goes into estrus as soon as her cubs are killed by a new dominant male? Is it because they do not value the lives of their species?

Are you saying they control their sex drive all that well? I doubt that is the case.

 

[prometeus]

Is the child equal to you?

By what parameters?

Do they have all the rights you have?

NO

The fact is people don't believe the life is equal to theirs and in the process disvalues it.

So acknowledging reality is devaluation?

Abortion just takes this mindset and allows people to show how much they don't value the life.

That maybe how you see it, but not reality.

Are you saying they control their sex drive all that well? I doubt that is the case.

No, I am refuting your assertion that said: "All species that have society based structures protect there own from being killed."

 

[rfjames]

The best way I can quantitatively prove that I am "alive" is that I have detectable brain waves. If a child (no matter their location, whether in the womb or in a crib) has detectable brain waves, they too should be considered alive.

 

[OKgrannie]

The best way I can quantitatively prove that I am "alive" is that I have detectable brain waves. If a child (no matter their location, whether in the womb or in a crib) has detectable brain waves, they too should be considered alive.

How do you plan to test a "child" in the womb for "detectable brain waves"?
Brain_Waves

When people, including physicians, talk about "brain waves" and "brain activity" they are referring to organized activity in the cortex. While no embryo or fetus has ever been found to have "brain waves," extensive EEG studies have been done on premature babies. A very good summary of their findings can be found in Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus," a review article (often cited by "pro-lifers" writing about fetal pain, but not about brain development) by K.J.S. Anand, a leading researcher on pain in newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM:

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

 

[mac]

The best way I can quantitatively prove that I am "alive" is that I have detectable brain waves. If a child (no matter their location, whether in the womb or in a crib) has detectable brain waves, they too should be considered alive.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with grannie, but I'm sure for different motivations. Current technology does not measure fetal brain waves well.

 

[madman]

I'm totally and completely against abortion at any point in the pregnancy with one exception:

1. Continuing the pregnancy will endanger the life of the mother.

So as a libertarian, you want government to dictate what a woman can do and not do?
I assume you are ok with the law that they are trying to pass in the backasswords state of Oklahoma where and ultrasound is required before an abortion is performed?

Are you really a libertarian?

 

[Henrin]

So as a libertarian, you want government to dictate what a woman can do and not do?
I assume you are ok with the law that they are trying to pass in the backasswords state of Oklahoma where and ultrasound is required before an abortion is performed?

Are you really a libertarian?

She is protecting life, which is something a libertarian protects. Abortion isn't just the womans right to her body, but also the life of the baby. That makes it a balancing of rights and since the baby has more rights on the table the baby wins.

 

[madman]

She is protecting life, which is something a libertarian protects. Abortion isn't just the womans right to her body, but also the life of the baby. That makes it a balancing of rights and since the baby has more rights on the table the baby wins.

No, she wants government to ban abortions. All of this goes against the "no big government" that conservatards and libertarians tout. Or is this simply the case of "i want big government because this is how I see it?"

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

The reality is not whatever your stupid point is. That the reason you can't freeze a born human being is because of factors that deal with damage done to the organs of the body by the freezing process. Trying to use the reasons that stages surviving or not is a lame excuse of an argument and once again only looks at the stage and not the factors of human life as a whole.

If the human being is in the fetal stage of development, it can be frozen.

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

No, she wants government to ban abortions. All of this goes against the "no big government" that conservatards and libertarians tout. Or is this simply the case of "i want big government because this is how I see it?"

The PRIMARY function of government is the protection of the lives of the people under it's jurisdiction. Therefore, the government is obligated to protect the unborn.

 

[Jetboogieman]

The PRIMARY function of government is the protection of the lives of the people under it's jurisdiction. Therefore, the government is obligated to protect the unborn.

Are you sure THATS the point you want to argue?

Because if its about the protection of lives, then the government has every right to make you get health care, because its for YOUR protection and well being...

I thought the primary role of government was to reflect the relative will of the people within a consitiutional framework, and so if that population decides that they should have the right to an abortion, does that not mean that they do? or not?

I dunno, you're the liberterian here you tell me.