A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[logical4u]

Hey dragon, what she said:

I can always tell when I've scored big time, because the person I'm debating uses multiple words to disguise the fact that he has nothing left to say. Strip out the empty rhetoric, personal insults, and ad-homs, and there is literally nothing left: no points raised, no arguments offered, no evidence presented, nothing.

That's also how I can tell I'm dealing with a child.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your "opinions" (repeated collection of big words), don't even allow many adults to be defined as "personhood"? Seriously, let's take a look: if a person is in a medicated state (that could be for coma, surgery, intense pain, etc), if a person is mentally handicapped, if a person has had a brain injury and is in the recuperation stage, any child below the age of four, etc do not "qualify" for personhood. When someone goes "silly", why bother to confront their views? They know that they are wrong, they are just trying to sound important (when everyone around them is politely smiling, hoping they will be quiet soon, so the conversation can get back to reality).

But thank you, you gave me another group to add to my list: greenies: the people that care more about a tree or a lizard than human life.

Insofar as they ever consider anything they say, of course he's considered that. You didn't really think the unborn were the ONLY group of disposable human beings the left wants to create, did you? They're just the tip of the iceberg, the foot in the door toward allowing them to declare anyone inconvenient "not a person" and therefore not deserving of any legal protection.

Dragon really is a good name for you, the Biblical representative of the Father of lies, both seductive and cunning, full of falsehoods.

It does not matter how many times we show you that historically, when people act to your "ideals" the results is death (from tens to millions). It does not work. When we ask you for examples of where it has worked (without being propped up from another country), we get crickets. Because you cannot understand a baby in the wombs communication skills, you are claiming it is not a person. Tell me dragon, what else can that being become? I see two possibilities: dead or a person (to me, that makes a baby in the womb, logically a person). To you, because the baby is not fully developed, you want to deny the right to live to any baby the mother chooses to murder. Logically, the next step will be to kill any "born" child that is not nearly perfectly developed (in some countries this is being done since the child did not develop into a male child). Once that is accepted, the next step will be to slaughter any "dependent" that prevents the parents from being slaves for the legion (society). Then it will move to adults (so they do not pass on their defective genes). This has happened before. It never starts with: hey, let's slaughter all those that refuse to serve us (the legion). It starts by convincing/deceiving people into "baby steps", and working its way up into full blown slaughter.

 

[Dragon]

Hey dragon, what she said:

Don't bother. I engage in discourse with you because you OCCASIONALLY present something other than viperish personal insults. She's on my ignore list because she NEVER does; insults are the only things her posts ever contain. I can't be bothered, and I won't bother with her if you cut-and-paste, either.

Dragon really is a good name for you, the Biblical representative of the Father of lies, both seductive and cunning, full of falsehoods.

I assure you, the reference isn't Biblical. But fear of inspired wisdom is certainly a Christian characteristic, so I'm not surprised you see it that way.

It does not matter how many times we show you that historically, when people act to your "ideals" the results is death (from tens to millions).

You cannot show me that, because it's not true. There has never been a society run according to my ideals, but Nazi Germany is about as far from them as any society has ever been.

Because you cannot understand a baby in the wombs communication skills, you are claiming it is not a person.

"Cannot understand"? LOL. An embryo at conception has no communication skills; there is nothing TO understand.

Tell me dragon, what else can that being become?

What it can become is irrelevant. The important thing is what it is NOW.

To you, because the baby is not fully developed, you want to deny the right to live to any baby the mother chooses to murder.

Not because it is "not fully developed," but because it has no brain, and hence no thoughts, no feelings, and no personality.

Logically, the next step will be to kill any "born" child that is not nearly perfectly developed

Since a born child has a brain, thoughts, feelings, and a personality, that isn't even remotely logical.

The division is perfectly clear, and there is no slippery slope.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hey dragon, what she said:

Have you ever considered the possibility that your "opinions" (repeated collection of big words), don't even allow many adults to be defined as "personhood"? Seriously, let's take a look: if a person is in a medicated state (that could be for coma, surgery, intense pain, etc), if a person is mentally handicapped, if a person has had a brain injury and is in the recuperation stage, any child below the age of four, etc do not "qualify" for personhood. When someone goes "silly", why bother to confront their views? They know that they are wrong, they are just trying to sound important (when everyone around them is politely smiling, hoping they will be quiet soon, so the conversation can get back to reality).

But thank you, you gave me another group to add to my list: greenies: the people that care more about a tree or a lizard than human life.

Insofar as they ever consider anything they say, of course he's considered that. You didn't really think the unborn were the ONLY group of disposable human beings the left wants to create, did you? They're just the tip of the iceberg, the foot in the door toward allowing them to declare anyone inconvenient "not a person" and therefore not deserving of any legal protection.

Dragon really is a good name for you, the Biblical representative of the Father of lies, both seductive and cunning, full of falsehoods.

It does not matter how many times we show you that historically, when people act to your "ideals" the results is death (from tens to millions). It does not work. When we ask you for examples of where it has worked (without being propped up from another country), we get crickets. Because you cannot understand a baby in the wombs communication skills, you are claiming it is not a person. Tell me dragon, what else can that being become? I see two possibilities: dead or a person (to me, that makes a baby in the womb, logically a person). To you, because the baby is not fully developed, you want to deny the right to live to any baby the mother chooses to murder. Logically, the next step will be to kill any "born" child that is not nearly perfectly developed (in some countries this is being done since the child did not develop into a male child). Once that is accepted, the next step will be to slaughter any "dependent" that prevents the parents from being slaves for the legion (society). Then it will move to adults (so they do not pass on their defective genes). This has happened before. It never starts with: hey, let's slaughter all those that refuse to serve us (the legion). It starts by convincing/deceiving people into "baby steps", and working its way up into full blown slaughter.

Yes, but see, none of that is because it's ALWAYS the logical progression of their ideas. No, no, don't be silly. What you're talking about are twisted perversions of their brilliant ideas, happening only because THEY were not the ones doing it. To the mind of a leftist, the fault is never in the idea, only in the people implementing it.

 

[koshergrl]

No, the division isn't perfectly clear at all. And you saying it is doesn't make it so.

 

[koshergrl]

And what it can become is relevant, since one of the arguments for abortion is that the child is deformed or brain damaged.

Besides which, from conception, it's a separate, living human being, according to the dna. and the biology. If you want to worship at the altar of science, you have to apply it across the board. Not just at certain critical points.

 

[Dragon]

No, the division isn't perfectly clear at all. And you saying it is doesn't make it so.

Sure it's clear. Either a fetus has a functioning cerebral cortex or it doesn't. There's no slope there, no gradualism. It's binary: on or off.

A baby, of course, DOES have a functioning cerebral cortex and I would consider a newborn to be a person, without ambiguity. There is no way to travel logically from the way I regard the embryo to the way I regard the baby, and therefore zero chance that the baby would come to be regarded the same way as the embryo, justifying infanticide.

And what it can become is relevant, since one of the arguments for abortion is that the child is deformed or brain damaged.

That's a separate argument, and it obviously doesn't apply when the fetus ISN'T deformed or brain damaged. Which of course most embryos/fetuses aren't.

Usually that argument is advanced in support of late-term abortion performed for medical reasons. I'm talking here about "abortion on demand," which I don't believe should apply in the third trimester.

Besides which, from conception, it's a separate, living human being, according to the dna. and the biology. If you want to worship at the altar of science, you have to apply it across the board. Not just at certain critical points.

Science cannot answer questions of value, only questions of fact. Thus, science can tell us that an embryo at conception has "separate DNA," but it cannot tell us that this means we should endow the embryo with human rights, such as we give to a baby -- or that it doesn't mean that. Science can tell us the facts, but we must judge the moral significance of the facts by means other than science.

 

[koshergrl]

What a ridiculous load of crap. What you're saying is "when I say the science determines personhood, it does. But when I say it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant. And all the definitions are my own. And that's that."

What a loon. Really, why don't you take your lame arguments to a message board populated by true people of science and learning? I'd love to see them tear you apart.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a ridiculous load of crap. What you're saying is "when I say the science determines personhood, it does. But when I say it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant. And all the definitions are my own. And that's that."

What a loon. Really, why don't you take your lame arguments to a message board populated by true people of science and learning? I'd love to see them tear you apart.

In fairness, I think what he's ACTUALLY saying is, "We lost the argument on the science, so let's force people to argue based on OUR personal opinions instead."

Y'gotta admit, it's a gutsy strategy, if hopelessly delusional.

 

[Dragon]

What a ridiculous load of crap. What you're saying is "when I say the science determines personhood, it does. But when I say it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant. And all the definitions are my own. And that's that."

No. I am saying science NEVER determines personhood.

The same reasoning applies to my own value system as to one based on DNA. Science can tell us that an embryo at conception has no brain and no nervous system, and therefore no thoughts, no feelings, and no personality. But it cannot tell us that this means the embryo should not be considered a person -- or that it should. Just the same as with DNA.

Science can tell us the facts. But it cannot tell us the moral significance of the facts. We must make that judgment using means other than science.

 

[SigTurner]

Y'gotta admit, it's a gutsy strategy, if hopelessly delusional.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9XuwAlDBa8&feature=related]All In The Family: "Edith's Problem" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[logical4u]

Hey dragon, what she said:

Don't bother. I engage in discourse with you because you OCCASIONALLY present something other than viperish personal insults. She's on my ignore list because she NEVER does; insults are the only things her posts ever contain. I can't be bothered, and I won't bother with her if you cut-and-paste, either.

Dragon really is a good name for you, the Biblical representative of the Father of lies, both seductive and cunning, full of falsehoods.

I assure you, the reference isn't Biblical. But fear of inspired wisdom is certainly a Christian characteristic, so I'm not surprised you see it that way.



You cannot show me that, because it's not true. There has never been a society run according to my ideals, but Nazi Germany is about as far from them as any society has ever been.



"Cannot understand"? LOL. An embryo at conception has no communication skills; there is nothing TO understand.



What it can become is irrelevant. The important thing is what it is NOW.

To you, because the baby is not fully developed, you want to deny the right to live to any baby the mother chooses to murder.

Not because it is "not fully developed," but because it has no brain, and hence no thoughts, no feelings, and no personality.

Logically, the next step will be to kill any "born" child that is not nearly perfectly developed

Since a born child has a brain, thoughts, feelings, and a personality, that isn't even remotely logical.

The division is perfectly clear, and there is no slippery slope.

The "now" approach: this is a great "baby step". If someone is not what we want "NOW", it is okay for us to murder them. Now we can murder anyone that we cannot "communicate" on an adult level? We can show "scientifically" how their brain is not functioning on an adult level (even if it is medically induced or from a traumatic injury where there is a chance of recovery), therefore we will murder them out of "convenience" to the "state" (sound like obamacare). We can argue in the future they will be a viable person and important to society, but those that are into murdering the truly helpless can always go with "what are they doing for us NOW" approach. It is very sad, that even when you can see where your idealogy leads, you refuse to turn from the disaster.

As for historic baby murders: Nazi Germany is the most obvious, but not the only to murder babies not up to par. Many Polynesians peoples would murder children with birthmarks. In China, and India, baby girls are being murdered in the womb as well as after they are born to give the parents a better chance at "wealth". In Biblical times, it was common practice for those that worshipped Molech to murder their babies (they burned them alive) at giant orgies. Charles Manson gave the order to murder Sharon Tate and her child (something that was praised by Obama's friend Bernadene Dorn). In Africa, "rebels"/"insurgents"/"gov't troops" are killing opponents children wheneve it is convenient (in ways that we would call barbaric, but I guess it is okay if murder children in a sterile environment?). For you to claim it didn't happen displays your ignorance (not knowing) or your intentional refusal to learn.

 

[Dragon]

The "now" approach: this is a great "baby step". If someone is not what we want "NOW", it is okay for us to murder them. Now we can murder anyone that we cannot "communicate" on an adult level?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I said what I meant, it was perfectly clear, there is no excuse for error, and you're lying when you pretend you don't get it.

An embryo at conception is not a person because it has no brain, and therefore no thoughts, no feelings, no personality. Those words. No others. Any other human organisms with no brain, and therefore no thoughts, no feelings, and no personality, is also not a person. UNDER NO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES IS THERE AN EQUIVALENCY.

So you can stop fudging it. I'm not talking about not being able to communicate, not being able to function on an adult level, or ANYTHING ELSE except having no brain, and therefore no feelings, no thoughts, and no personality.

As for historic baby murders: Nazi Germany is the most obvious, but not the only to murder babies not up to par.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not talking about killing babies, or anyone else, "not up to par." I'm talking about organisms with no brain, and therefore no thoughts, no feelings, and no personality. There is no equivalence whatsoever with anything that DOES have a brain, thoughts, feelings, and personality -- no matter what else there may be about them.

 

[SigTurner]

"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f*cked."
- George Carlin

 

[logical4u]

The "now" approach: this is a great "baby step". If someone is not what we want "NOW", it is okay for us to murder them. Now we can murder anyone that we cannot "communicate" on an adult level?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I said what I meant, it was perfectly clear, there is no excuse for error, and you're lying when you pretend you don't get it.

An embryo at conception is not a person because it has no brain, and therefore no thoughts, no feelings, no personality. Those words. No others. Any other human organisms with no brain, and therefore no thoughts, no feelings, and no personality, is also not a person. UNDER NO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES IS THERE AN EQUIVALENCY.

So you can stop fudging it. I'm not talking about not being able to communicate, not being able to function on an adult level, or ANYTHING ELSE except having no brain, and therefore no feelings, no thoughts, and no personality.

As for historic baby murders: Nazi Germany is the most obvious, but not the only to murder babies not up to par.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not talking about killing babies, or anyone else, "not up to par." I'm talking about organisms with no brain, and therefore no thoughts, no feelings, and no personality. There is no equivalence whatsoever with anything that DOES have a brain, thoughts, feelings, and personality -- no matter what else there may be about them.

I am not puting words in your mouth. I am showing you where your logic leads. I am showing you that historically, when someone tries to make improvements on society by "eliminating" an inconvenience, that someone else takes that ideal and warps it into something even more monsterous. I understand that you believe that the disregard of life can stop with abortion. I can assure you that it will not (and has not). As we speak, "scientists are growing "embryos" (undeveloped humans) for experimentation. I am assuming because you cannot hear their screams of pain, that those experiments are perfectly acceptable to you.
How do you feel about "scientist" mixing animal and human DNA (again undeveloped humans) to see what "grows"? I get that you claiming an undeveloped human is not "human" because of the stage of developement. I get that you approve of "sterile" murders of those that are not yet born. I just don't understand that you can be so blind to where this will lead.

 

[Dragon]

I am not puting words in your mouth. I am showing you where your logic leads.

You are putting words in my mouth. My logic does NOT lead there -- only your deliberate, dishonest illogic.

Again: no brain, therefore no thoughts, no feelings, no personality. Nothing else. I don't care if you think, or rather dishonestly pretend to think, that there's an equivalency with something else. There isn't. You're full of shit. If it has a brain, thoughts, feelings, and a personality, it's a person. End of story.

As we speak, "scientists are growing "embryos" (undeveloped humans) for experimentation. I am assuming because you cannot hear their screams of pain, that those experiments are perfectly acceptable to you.

They have no "screams of pain." They cannot feel pain. They have no brains, and therefore no thoughts, feelings, or personality. They are not persons.

How do you feel about "scientist" mixing animal and human DNA (again undeveloped humans) to see what "grows"?

I know of no such experiments, but in the future we are sure to explore human recombinant genetics, and I believe we should do so.

I get that you claiming an undeveloped human is not "human" because of the stage of developement.

No, you don't. I am saying that a creature without a brain, and thus without thoughts, feelings, or a personality, is not a person -- even if it is human. "Human" is a biological term. "Person" is a moral and legal term. That which is human is not necessarily a person, and vice-versa. My blood cells are human; they are not persons. An extraterrestrial alien would be a person, but would not be human. For moral and legal questions such as murder, what matters is personhood. Humanity is unimportant.

And you are, again, taking my very precise language and turning it into something vague, so you can smear it over like a greasy rag and apply where it doesn't belong. I am not talking about "stages of development." I am talking about whether an organism has a brain, and therefore thoughts, feelings, and a personality. If it does, it's a person. If it doesn't, it isn't. This is not a variable like "stages of development." It's a hard and fast binary line, and something either is a person or isn't.

I just don't understand that you can be so blind to where this will lead.

It will lead nowhere. What YOU are talking about might lead there. But that is completely different from what I am talking about. And again, you are putting words in my mouth, in a completely dishonest and contemptible fashion.

 

[logical4u]

I am not puting words in your mouth. I am showing you where your logic leads.

You are putting words in my mouth. My logic does NOT lead there -- only your deliberate, dishonest illogic.

Again: no brain, therefore no thoughts, no feelings, no personality. Nothing else. I don't care if you think, or rather dishonestly pretend to think, that there's an equivalency with something else. There isn't. You're full of shit. If it has a brain, thoughts, feelings, and a personality, it's a person. End of story.

So you are willing to allow "scientists" to develop embryos into "organ donors" to harvest organs before they reach the normal birth age? It is okay with you if they mix the DNA of tigers/apes/dolphins/elephants/fish/buffalo/etc with human embryos, because once they are "born" they will not have a "human" brain?

 

[Dragon]

So you are willing to allow "scientists" to develop embryos into "organ donors" to harvest organs before they reach the normal birth age?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about "before they reach the normal birth age." I am talking about organisms without brains, and thus with no thoughts, feelings, or personality.

There is NO EQUIVALENCE between an embryo at conception and a 9-month fetus about to be born. Yet both are " before the normal birth age." It is obvious what you are doing, and it is dishonest and contemptible.

Brain. Thoughts. Feelings. Personality. Have these? Person; right to life. Doesn't? Not a person. No right to life. Very simple.

I would add that an embryo that has not yet developed a brain has probably also not developed organs suitable for transplant, either. So your entire question is bogus and dishonest.

It is okay with you if they mix the DNA of tigers/apes/dolphins/elephants/fish/buffalo/etc with human embryos, because once they are "born" they will not have a "human" brain?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about whether something's brain is "human." I am talking only about whether it has one, and therefore has thoughts, feelings, and a personality.

Stop lying. You are earning my total contempt.

 

[logical4u]

So you are willing to allow "scientists" to develop embryos into "organ donors" to harvest organs before they reach the normal birth age?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about "before they reach the normal birth age." I am talking about organisms without brains, and thus with no thoughts, feelings, or personality.

There is NO EQUIVALENCE between an embryo at conception and a 9-month fetus about to be born. Yet both are " before the normal birth age." It is obvious what you are doing, and it is dishonest and contemptible.

Brain. Thoughts. Feelings. Personality. Have these? Person; right to life. Doesn't? Not a person. No right to life. Very simple.

I would add that an embryo that has not yet developed a brain has probably also not developed organs suitable for transplant, either. So your entire question is bogus and dishonest.

It is okay with you if they mix the DNA of tigers/apes/dolphins/elephants/fish/buffalo/etc with human embryos, because once they are "born" they will not have a "human" brain?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about whether something's brain is "human." I am talking only about whether it has one, and therefore has thoughts, feelings, and a personality.

Stop lying. You are earning my total contempt.

I was asking you some questions based on your posts. I noticed you did not answer the questions. Here is a chance to use your own words.
I did not say that you said any of that. I simply showed how embracing the murder of under developed children could lead to some really ugly places, based on your logic and "definitions".
Why are you calling me a liar? Can you show where I "lied"?

 

[koshergrl]

So you are willing to allow "scientists" to develop embryos into "organ donors" to harvest organs before they reach the normal birth age?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about "before they reach the normal birth age." I am talking about organisms without brains, and thus with no thoughts, feelings, or personality.

There is NO EQUIVALENCE between an embryo at conception and a 9-month fetus about to be born. Yet both are " before the normal birth age." It is obvious what you are doing, and it is dishonest and contemptible.

Brain. Thoughts. Feelings. Personality. Have these? Person; right to life. Doesn't? Not a person. No right to life. Very simple.

I would add that an embryo that has not yet developed a brain has probably also not developed organs suitable for transplant, either. So your entire question is bogus and dishonest.

It is okay with you if they mix the DNA of tigers/apes/dolphins/elephants/fish/buffalo/etc with human embryos, because once they are "born" they will not have a "human" brain?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about whether something's brain is "human." I am talking only about whether it has one, and therefore has thoughts, feelings, and a personality.

Stop lying. You are earning my total contempt.

Ironic post of the day.

 

[koshergrl]

So you are willing to allow "scientists" to develop embryos into "organ donors" to harvest organs before they reach the normal birth age?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about "before they reach the normal birth age." I am talking about organisms without brains, and thus with no thoughts, feelings, or personality.

There is NO EQUIVALENCE between an embryo at conception and a 9-month fetus about to be born. Yet both are " before the normal birth age." It is obvious what you are doing, and it is dishonest and contemptible.

Brain. Thoughts. Feelings. Personality. Have these? Person; right to life. Doesn't? Not a person. No right to life. Very simple.

I would add that an embryo that has not yet developed a brain has probably also not developed organs suitable for transplant, either. So your entire question is bogus and dishonest.

It is okay with you if they mix the DNA of tigers/apes/dolphins/elephants/fish/buffalo/etc with human embryos, because once they are "born" they will not have a "human" brain?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about whether something's brain is "human." I am talking only about whether it has one, and therefore has thoughts, feelings, and a personality.

Stop lying. You are earning my total contempt.

I was asking you some questions based on your posts. I noticed you did not answer the questions. Here is a chance to use your own words.
I did not say that you said any of that. I simply showed how embracing the murder of under developed children could lead to some really ugly places, based on your logic and "definitions".
Why are you calling me a liar? Can you show where I "lied"?

You didn't lie and the board who reads his tripe knows it. He lies. And his MO is to rephrase what you or anyone else he doesn't agree with (or sometimes, those he does agree with) so that it more closely represents an argument he can actually address.