Can you be smarter than even “God”?

[ding]

Yes, and black people are just glorified apes and Jews are vermin and infidels are also subhuman

We get it.

Wow. I didn't know you harboured such hatred for other races. See, there is a difference between dehumanizing different races of actual people, and insisting that a potential person is equivalent to an actual person. If fetuses are people, then we need to start including them on tax rolls, letting them apply for handgun pe3rmits, and give to them all of the other rights, and privileges that we give to actual people. You want to pretend that fetuses are people only so that you can dictate what women can, and cannot do with their own bodies. It's just another example of Christian arrogance, and intolerance.

Again, you worship a god who commanded genocide. Why pretend that you give a shit about "killing babies"?

.

Again, you worship a god who commanded genocide. Why pretend that you give a shit about "killing babies"?

and created a carnivorous Garden, have you eaten a steak lately ... why is that. what were Eve and Adam having for dinner, other than Flora.

Wellll...I try to stay away from the stories in Genesis. Most Christians, today, agree that the stories in the First Book are more allegorical. So, it is difficult to ascribe any historical significance to them. The order to kill all of the women, and children of the Amalekites, on the other hand, is found in one of the actual books of History, and a bit more difficult to just write off as allegory.

You mean like the Tower of Babel? Did you know that that was a historical event that was described through allegory?

If you say so. "Go kill all of those women, and kids", though? There was nothing allegorical about that. That was direct, specific, and concrete. God said it, and he meant exactly what he said. You worship a God who commanded genocide, and now pretend like you give a shit about fetuses, while being perfectly happy to leave actual babies, starving, homeless, and wanting for healthcare. At best, you are a hypocrite; at worst, a sociopath.

We've had this discussion too. Same results, you ran away. Do you want to have it again?

 

[Czernobog]

Wow. I didn't know you harboured such hatred for other races. See, there is a difference between dehumanizing different races of actual people, and insisting that a potential person is equivalent to an actual person. If fetuses are people, then we need to start including them on tax rolls, letting them apply for handgun pe3rmits, and give to them all of the other rights, and privileges that we give to actual people. You want to pretend that fetuses are people only so that you can dictate what women can, and cannot do with their own bodies. It's just another example of Christian arrogance, and intolerance.

Again, you worship a god who commanded genocide. Why pretend that you give a shit about "killing babies"?

Yes, we know. Unborn babies only become human once the birth fairy waves her magic wand over the fetus as it exits the womb.

No. No. We know that 100% of all fetuses always go to full term to be birthed. The only reason that a fetus ever doesn't make it to full term is abortion. Further, your argument is specious. No reasonable person suggests that abortion after a fetus is viable, except under the most dire of circumstances, is ever ethical. You want to equate a clump of u8nspecialized cells with a fully formed, independently functioning human being. That is emotional, and irrational, like most of your religion.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it is wrong to end a human life.

It's not wrong to end a human life. We do it all the time. Pulling the plug on vegetative patients, capital punishment, we end human life all the time. It is never a question of "human life"; it is always a question of viable, independently functioning, human life. Wellll...not with capital punishment. That is an entirely different animal. But, you want to pretend that there is some moral imperative against taking a human life, when that is simply not the case.

In the case of abortions, it is simply a question of which matters more - the actual, living, independently functioning human being, or the clump of cells with the potential to become a living, independently functioning human being. Those of us who are rational, and reasoning, have decided that the actuality takes precedent over the possible.

First of all I disagree that it isn't always wrong. We've had that discussion before. I'm glad to have it again. As I recall, you ran off after I made my case. Secondly, it isn't a potential human, it is a human with potential. And lastly, you are comparing a human being losing its life to a human being who doesn't want to be inconvenienced.

First, you can disagree all you like, the reality speaks for itself. Your opinion is based on your religion, and you are entitled to it. However, you are not entitled to try to force me, by law, to behave in accordance with your religious opinions. Second, it is not a human, it is a clump of cells that has the possibility of growing into a human. Your final point is irrelevant, because you are equating a clump of cells with an actual person.

 

[ding]

Yes, we know. Unborn babies only become human once the birth fairy waves her magic wand over the fetus as it exits the womb.

No. No. We know that 100% of all fetuses always go to full term to be birthed. The only reason that a fetus ever doesn't make it to full term is abortion. Further, your argument is specious. No reasonable person suggests that abortion after a fetus is viable, except under the most dire of circumstances, is ever ethical. You want to equate a clump of u8nspecialized cells with a fully formed, independently functioning human being. That is emotional, and irrational, like most of your religion.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it is wrong to end a human life.

It's not wrong to end a human life. We do it all the time. Pulling the plug on vegetative patients, capital punishment, we end human life all the time. It is never a question of "human life"; it is always a question of viable, independently functioning, human life. Wellll...not with capital punishment. That is an entirely different animal. But, you want to pretend that there is some moral imperative against taking a human life, when that is simply not the case.

In the case of abortions, it is simply a question of which matters more - the actual, living, independently functioning human being, or the clump of cells with the potential to become a living, independently functioning human being. Those of us who are rational, and reasoning, have decided that the actuality takes precedent over the possible.

First of all I disagree that it isn't always wrong. We've had that discussion before. I'm glad to have it again. As I recall, you ran off after I made my case. Secondly, it isn't a potential human, it is a human with potential. And lastly, you are comparing a human being losing its life to a human being who doesn't want to be inconvenienced.

First, you can disagree all you like, the reality speaks for itself. Your opinion is based on your religion, and you are entitled to it. However, you are not entitled to try to force me, by law, to behave in accordance with your religious opinions. Second, it is not a human, it is a clump of cells that has the possibility of growing into a human. Your final point is irrelevant, because you are equating a clump of cells with an actual person.

How am I forcing you to do anything?

Science tells us it is a human being.


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

 

[Czernobog]

Wow. I didn't know you harboured such hatred for other races. See, there is a difference between dehumanizing different races of actual people, and insisting that a potential person is equivalent to an actual person. If fetuses are people, then we need to start including them on tax rolls, letting them apply for handgun pe3rmits, and give to them all of the other rights, and privileges that we give to actual people. You want to pretend that fetuses are people only so that you can dictate what women can, and cannot do with their own bodies. It's just another example of Christian arrogance, and intolerance.

Again, you worship a god who commanded genocide. Why pretend that you give a shit about "killing babies"?

.

Again, you worship a god who commanded genocide. Why pretend that you give a shit about "killing babies"?

and created a carnivorous Garden, have you eaten a steak lately ... why is that. what were Eve and Adam having for dinner, other than Flora.

Wellll...I try to stay away from the stories in Genesis. Most Christians, today, agree that the stories in the First Book are more allegorical. So, it is difficult to ascribe any historical significance to them. The order to kill all of the women, and children of the Amalekites, on the other hand, is found in one of the actual books of History, and a bit more difficult to just write off as allegory.

You mean like the Tower of Babel? Did you know that that was a historical event that was described through allegory?

If you say so. "Go kill all of those women, and kids", though? There was nothing allegorical about that. That was direct, specific, and concrete. God said it, and he meant exactly what he said. You worship a God who commanded genocide, and now pretend like you give a shit about fetuses, while being perfectly happy to leave actual babies, starving, homeless, and wanting for healthcare. At best, you are a hypocrite; at worst, a sociopath.

We've had this discussion too. Same results, you ran away. Do you want to have it again?

No, I didn't. You never have been able to square a God who commanded genocide with your religion of "Love, and peace". Now, the Jewish guy did...sort of. However, he did so by pointing out that Jews live under a different code than Christians. They still live under the concept of "eye for an eye". So, they can justify genocide, if the other guy tries it first. It makes their moral code no less reprehensible, but, at least it is rational. You, on the other hand, do not have that excuse to fall back on. You are to live under the code of "do unto others...", yet you worship a God who commanded a genocide. Either that, or you have to admit that the Bible is not quite so inerrant as you would like everyone to believe.

 

[Czernobog]

No. No. We know that 100% of all fetuses always go to full term to be birthed. The only reason that a fetus ever doesn't make it to full term is abortion. Further, your argument is specious. No reasonable person suggests that abortion after a fetus is viable, except under the most dire of circumstances, is ever ethical. You want to equate a clump of u8nspecialized cells with a fully formed, independently functioning human being. That is emotional, and irrational, like most of your religion.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it is wrong to end a human life.

It's not wrong to end a human life. We do it all the time. Pulling the plug on vegetative patients, capital punishment, we end human life all the time. It is never a question of "human life"; it is always a question of viable, independently functioning, human life. Wellll...not with capital punishment. That is an entirely different animal. But, you want to pretend that there is some moral imperative against taking a human life, when that is simply not the case.

In the case of abortions, it is simply a question of which matters more - the actual, living, independently functioning human being, or the clump of cells with the potential to become a living, independently functioning human being. Those of us who are rational, and reasoning, have decided that the actuality takes precedent over the possible.

First of all I disagree that it isn't always wrong. We've had that discussion before. I'm glad to have it again. As I recall, you ran off after I made my case. Secondly, it isn't a potential human, it is a human with potential. And lastly, you are comparing a human being losing its life to a human being who doesn't want to be inconvenienced.

First, you can disagree all you like, the reality speaks for itself. Your opinion is based on your religion, and you are entitled to it. However, you are not entitled to try to force me, by law, to behave in accordance with your religious opinions. Second, it is not a human, it is a clump of cells that has the possibility of growing into a human. Your final point is irrelevant, because you are equating a clump of cells with an actual person.

How am I forcing you to do anything?

Science tells us it is a human being.


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

You keep confusing "human life" with viable human life. I told you, after your first post, this is not a question of "Is it a human life". It is a question of is it a viable human life. Until you can prove that that clump of cells is independently viable, then your argument is useless, and based solely on your religious convictions. Yes, some human lives do have more right of self-determination than others. Those who are not viable, whether by virtue of being just a clump of cells, or by virtue of being in a vegetative state, have given up the right of self-determination to others - unless, of course, in the case of the vegetative state, that person had a medical directive in place.

 

[ding]

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it is wrong to end a human life.

It's not wrong to end a human life. We do it all the time. Pulling the plug on vegetative patients, capital punishment, we end human life all the time. It is never a question of "human life"; it is always a question of viable, independently functioning, human life. Wellll...not with capital punishment. That is an entirely different animal. But, you want to pretend that there is some moral imperative against taking a human life, when that is simply not the case.

In the case of abortions, it is simply a question of which matters more - the actual, living, independently functioning human being, or the clump of cells with the potential to become a living, independently functioning human being. Those of us who are rational, and reasoning, have decided that the actuality takes precedent over the possible.

First of all I disagree that it isn't always wrong. We've had that discussion before. I'm glad to have it again. As I recall, you ran off after I made my case. Secondly, it isn't a potential human, it is a human with potential. And lastly, you are comparing a human being losing its life to a human being who doesn't want to be inconvenienced.

First, you can disagree all you like, the reality speaks for itself. Your opinion is based on your religion, and you are entitled to it. However, you are not entitled to try to force me, by law, to behave in accordance with your religious opinions. Second, it is not a human, it is a clump of cells that has the possibility of growing into a human. Your final point is irrelevant, because you are equating a clump of cells with an actual person.

How am I forcing you to do anything?

Science tells us it is a human being.


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

You keep confusing "human life" with viable human life. I told you, after your first post, this is not a question of "Is it a human life". It is a question of is it a viable human life. Until you can prove that that clump of cells is independently viable, then your argument is useless, and based solely on your religious convictions. Yes, some human lives do have more right of self-determination than others. Those who are not viable, whether by virtue of being just a clump of cells, or by virtue of being in a vegetative state, have given up the right of self-determination to others - unless, of course, in the case of the vegetative state, that person had a medical directive in place.

You are making an arbitrary and capricious distinction. There is only human life which encompasses the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. You are dehumanizing them to rationalize that it is good and just to end their lives.

 

[Czernobog]

It's not wrong to end a human life. We do it all the time. Pulling the plug on vegetative patients, capital punishment, we end human life all the time. It is never a question of "human life"; it is always a question of viable, independently functioning, human life. Wellll...not with capital punishment. That is an entirely different animal. But, you want to pretend that there is some moral imperative against taking a human life, when that is simply not the case.

In the case of abortions, it is simply a question of which matters more - the actual, living, independently functioning human being, or the clump of cells with the potential to become a living, independently functioning human being. Those of us who are rational, and reasoning, have decided that the actuality takes precedent over the possible.

First of all I disagree that it isn't always wrong. We've had that discussion before. I'm glad to have it again. As I recall, you ran off after I made my case. Secondly, it isn't a potential human, it is a human with potential. And lastly, you are comparing a human being losing its life to a human being who doesn't want to be inconvenienced.

First, you can disagree all you like, the reality speaks for itself. Your opinion is based on your religion, and you are entitled to it. However, you are not entitled to try to force me, by law, to behave in accordance with your religious opinions. Second, it is not a human, it is a clump of cells that has the possibility of growing into a human. Your final point is irrelevant, because you are equating a clump of cells with an actual person.

How am I forcing you to do anything?

Science tells us it is a human being.


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

You keep confusing "human life" with viable human life. I told you, after your first post, this is not a question of "Is it a human life". It is a question of is it a viable human life. Until you can prove that that clump of cells is independently viable, then your argument is useless, and based solely on your religious convictions. Yes, some human lives do have more right of self-determination than others. Those who are not viable, whether by virtue of being just a clump of cells, or by virtue of being in a vegetative state, have given up the right of self-determination to others - unless, of course, in the case of the vegetative state, that person had a medical directive in place.

You are making an arbitrary and capricious distinction. There is only human life which encompasses the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. You are dehumanizing them to rationalize that it is good and just to end their lives.

It's neither arbitrary, nor capricious. It is a medical determination:

"When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000)." Dr. G. H. Breborowicz.
The only people who cannot understand the distinction are religious people who want to create laws to force everyone to behave as if they agree with the religious preconceptions, and moral positions.

And here's a handy little chart to rate viability, here in the US:

COMPLETED WEEKS OF GESTATION AT BIRTH	CHANCE OF SURVIVAL
21 weeks and less	0%
22 weeks	0-10%*
23 weeks	10-35%
24 weeks	40-70%
25 weeks	50-80%
26 weeks	80-90%
27 weeks	>90%
30 weeks	>95%
34 weeks	>98%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Interestingly enough, most rational Pro-Choice proponents do not really support the concept of abortion after 24 weeks, except under the extreme conditions of the health of the mother. Why do you think that is?

 

[BreezeWood]

First of all I disagree that it isn't always wrong. We've had that discussion before. I'm glad to have it again. As I recall, you ran off after I made my case. Secondly, it isn't a potential human, it is a human with potential. And lastly, you are comparing a human being losing its life to a human being who doesn't want to be inconvenienced.

First, you can disagree all you like, the reality speaks for itself. Your opinion is based on your religion, and you are entitled to it. However, you are not entitled to try to force me, by law, to behave in accordance with your religious opinions. Second, it is not a human, it is a clump of cells that has the possibility of growing into a human. Your final point is irrelevant, because you are equating a clump of cells with an actual person.

How am I forcing you to do anything?

Science tells us it is a human being.


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

You keep confusing "human life" with viable human life. I told you, after your first post, this is not a question of "Is it a human life". It is a question of is it a viable human life. Until you can prove that that clump of cells is independently viable, then your argument is useless, and based solely on your religious convictions. Yes, some human lives do have more right of self-determination than others. Those who are not viable, whether by virtue of being just a clump of cells, or by virtue of being in a vegetative state, have given up the right of self-determination to others - unless, of course, in the case of the vegetative state, that person had a medical directive in place.

You are making an arbitrary and capricious distinction. There is only human life which encompasses the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. You are dehumanizing them to rationalize that it is good and just to end their lives.

It's neither arbitrary, nor capricious. It is a medical determination:

"When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000)." Dr. Dubiel M, Breborowicz.

The only people who cannot understand the distinction are religious people who want to create laws to force everyone to behave as if they agree with the religious preconceptions, and moral positions.

.
when facts are presented to the christian ...

 

[Czernobog]

First, you can disagree all you like, the reality speaks for itself. Your opinion is based on your religion, and you are entitled to it. However, you are not entitled to try to force me, by law, to behave in accordance with your religious opinions. Second, it is not a human, it is a clump of cells that has the possibility of growing into a human. Your final point is irrelevant, because you are equating a clump of cells with an actual person.

How am I forcing you to do anything?

Science tells us it is a human being.


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

You keep confusing "human life" with viable human life. I told you, after your first post, this is not a question of "Is it a human life". It is a question of is it a viable human life. Until you can prove that that clump of cells is independently viable, then your argument is useless, and based solely on your religious convictions. Yes, some human lives do have more right of self-determination than others. Those who are not viable, whether by virtue of being just a clump of cells, or by virtue of being in a vegetative state, have given up the right of self-determination to others - unless, of course, in the case of the vegetative state, that person had a medical directive in place.

You are making an arbitrary and capricious distinction. There is only human life which encompasses the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. You are dehumanizing them to rationalize that it is good and just to end their lives.

It's neither arbitrary, nor capricious. It is a medical determination:

"When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000)." Dr. Dubiel M, Breborowicz.

The only people who cannot understand the distinction are religious people who want to create laws to force everyone to behave as if they agree with the religious preconceptions, and moral positions.

.
when facts are presented to the christian ...

Actually, it's even worse. Most do what DingDong did, and seek out "professionals" who happen to have a religious agenda to support, and quote their biased opinions, as if that somehow refutes the accepted facts.

 

[thanatos144]

First, you can disagree all you like, the reality speaks for itself. Your opinion is based on your religion, and you are entitled to it. However, you are not entitled to try to force me, by law, to behave in accordance with your religious opinions. Second, it is not a human, it is a clump of cells that has the possibility of growing into a human. Your final point is irrelevant, because you are equating a clump of cells with an actual person.

How am I forcing you to do anything?

Science tells us it is a human being.


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

You keep confusing "human life" with viable human life. I told you, after your first post, this is not a question of "Is it a human life". It is a question of is it a viable human life. Until you can prove that that clump of cells is independently viable, then your argument is useless, and based solely on your religious convictions. Yes, some human lives do have more right of self-determination than others. Those who are not viable, whether by virtue of being just a clump of cells, or by virtue of being in a vegetative state, have given up the right of self-determination to others - unless, of course, in the case of the vegetative state, that person had a medical directive in place.

You are making an arbitrary and capricious distinction. There is only human life which encompasses the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. You are dehumanizing them to rationalize that it is good and just to end their lives.

It's neither arbitrary, nor capricious. It is a medical determination:

"When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000)." Dr. Dubiel M, Breborowicz.

The only people who cannot understand the distinction are religious people who want to create laws to force everyone to behave as if they agree with the religious preconceptions, and moral positions.

.
when facts are presented to the christian ...

It is not Christians that are hiding from the truth... the truth is abortion kills a innocent human every time and you not only support said actions you champion it and SCIENCE tells us it is a human at conception... Or are you another one of those flat earthers?

 

[Czernobog]

How am I forcing you to do anything?

Science tells us it is a human being.


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

You keep confusing "human life" with viable human life. I told you, after your first post, this is not a question of "Is it a human life". It is a question of is it a viable human life. Until you can prove that that clump of cells is independently viable, then your argument is useless, and based solely on your religious convictions. Yes, some human lives do have more right of self-determination than others. Those who are not viable, whether by virtue of being just a clump of cells, or by virtue of being in a vegetative state, have given up the right of self-determination to others - unless, of course, in the case of the vegetative state, that person had a medical directive in place.

You are making an arbitrary and capricious distinction. There is only human life which encompasses the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. You are dehumanizing them to rationalize that it is good and just to end their lives.

It's neither arbitrary, nor capricious. It is a medical determination:

"When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000)." Dr. Dubiel M, Breborowicz.

The only people who cannot understand the distinction are religious people who want to create laws to force everyone to behave as if they agree with the religious preconceptions, and moral positions.

.
when facts are presented to the christian ...

It is not Christians that are hiding from the truth... the truth is abortion kills a innocent human every time and you not only support said actions you champion it and SCIENCE tells us it is a human at conception... Or are you another one of those flat earthers?

Yeah, and? Again, we kill "humans" all the time. It is not, nor has it ever been, a question of "human life". It has always been a question of viable human life. You want to pretend that a clump of cells has the same intrinsic value as an actual person. It doesn't.

 

[ding]

First of all I disagree that it isn't always wrong. We've had that discussion before. I'm glad to have it again. As I recall, you ran off after I made my case. Secondly, it isn't a potential human, it is a human with potential. And lastly, you are comparing a human being losing its life to a human being who doesn't want to be inconvenienced.

First, you can disagree all you like, the reality speaks for itself. Your opinion is based on your religion, and you are entitled to it. However, you are not entitled to try to force me, by law, to behave in accordance with your religious opinions. Second, it is not a human, it is a clump of cells that has the possibility of growing into a human. Your final point is irrelevant, because you are equating a clump of cells with an actual person.

How am I forcing you to do anything?

Science tells us it is a human being.


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

You keep confusing "human life" with viable human life. I told you, after your first post, this is not a question of "Is it a human life". It is a question of is it a viable human life. Until you can prove that that clump of cells is independently viable, then your argument is useless, and based solely on your religious convictions. Yes, some human lives do have more right of self-determination than others. Those who are not viable, whether by virtue of being just a clump of cells, or by virtue of being in a vegetative state, have given up the right of self-determination to others - unless, of course, in the case of the vegetative state, that person had a medical directive in place.

You are making an arbitrary and capricious distinction. There is only human life which encompasses the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. You are dehumanizing them to rationalize that it is good and just to end their lives.

It's neither arbitrary, nor capricious. It is a medical determination:

"When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000)." Dr. G. H. Breborowicz.
The only people who cannot understand the distinction are religious people who want to create laws to force everyone to behave as if they agree with the religious preconceptions, and moral positions.

And here's a handy little chart to rate viability, here in the US:

COMPLETED WEEKS OF GESTATION AT BIRTH	CHANCE OF SURVIVAL
21 weeks and less	0%
22 weeks	0-10%*
23 weeks	10-35%
24 weeks	40-70%
25 weeks	50-80%
26 weeks	80-90%
27 weeks	>90%
30 weeks	>95%
34 weeks	>98%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Interestingly enough, most rational Pro-Choice proponents do not really support the concept of abortion after 24 weeks, except under the extreme conditions of the health of the mother. Why do you think that is?

No. That is not a medical determination. That is a legal determination. It is a human being at conception. It is alive at conception. It is human at conception.

 

[ding]

You keep confusing "human life" with viable human life. I told you, after your first post, this is not a question of "Is it a human life". It is a question of is it a viable human life. Until you can prove that that clump of cells is independently viable, then your argument is useless, and based solely on your religious convictions. Yes, some human lives do have more right of self-determination than others. Those who are not viable, whether by virtue of being just a clump of cells, or by virtue of being in a vegetative state, have given up the right of self-determination to others - unless, of course, in the case of the vegetative state, that person had a medical directive in place.

You are making an arbitrary and capricious distinction. There is only human life which encompasses the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. You are dehumanizing them to rationalize that it is good and just to end their lives.

It's neither arbitrary, nor capricious. It is a medical determination:

"When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000)." Dr. Dubiel M, Breborowicz.

The only people who cannot understand the distinction are religious people who want to create laws to force everyone to behave as if they agree with the religious preconceptions, and moral positions.

.
when facts are presented to the christian ...

It is not Christians that are hiding from the truth... the truth is abortion kills a innocent human every time and you not only support said actions you champion it and SCIENCE tells us it is a human at conception... Or are you another one of those flat earthers?

Yeah, and? Again, we kill "humans" all the time. It is not, nor has it ever been, a question of "human life". It has always been a question of viable human life. You want to pretend that a clump of cells has the same intrinsic value as an actual person. It doesn't.

You are making a legal argument, not a scientific argument.

 

[Czernobog]

Babies? None. fetuses are not babies. This is just another, more modern, example of Christian hatred, and the desire to dictate the behaviour of others, including non-Christians, based on their arrogant self-image of moral superiority. Sorry, no adherent of a religion that worships a God who commanded genocide has any business questioning anyone on the "killing of babies".

Yes, and black people are just glorified apes and Jews are vermin and infidels are also subhuman

We get it.

Wow. I didn't know you harboured such hatred for other races. See, there is a difference between dehumanizing different races of actual people, and insisting that a potential person is equivalent to an actual person. If fetuses are people, then we need to start including them on tax rolls, letting them apply for handgun pe3rmits, and give to them all of the other rights, and privileges that we give to actual people. You want to pretend that fetuses are people only so that you can dictate what women can, and cannot do with their own bodies. It's just another example of Christian arrogance, and intolerance.

Again, you worship a god who commanded genocide. Why pretend that you give a shit about "killing babies"?

Yes, we know. Unborn babies only become human once the birth fairy waves her magic wand over the fetus as it exits the womb.

No. No. We know that 100% of all fetuses always go to full term to be birthed. The only reason that a fetus ever doesn't make it to full term is abortion. Further, your argument is specious. No reasonable person suggests that abortion after a fetus is viable, except under the most dire of circumstances, is ever ethical. You want to equate a clump of u8nspecialized cells with a fully formed, independently functioning human being. That is emotional, and irrational, like most of your religion.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it is wrong to end a human life.

That's cause it's not wrong to end a human life. Period. Full Stop. We end human life all the time.

 

[ding]

Yes, and black people are just glorified apes and Jews are vermin and infidels are also subhuman

We get it.

Wow. I didn't know you harboured such hatred for other races. See, there is a difference between dehumanizing different races of actual people, and insisting that a potential person is equivalent to an actual person. If fetuses are people, then we need to start including them on tax rolls, letting them apply for handgun pe3rmits, and give to them all of the other rights, and privileges that we give to actual people. You want to pretend that fetuses are people only so that you can dictate what women can, and cannot do with their own bodies. It's just another example of Christian arrogance, and intolerance.

Again, you worship a god who commanded genocide. Why pretend that you give a shit about "killing babies"?

Yes, we know. Unborn babies only become human once the birth fairy waves her magic wand over the fetus as it exits the womb.

No. No. We know that 100% of all fetuses always go to full term to be birthed. The only reason that a fetus ever doesn't make it to full term is abortion. Further, your argument is specious. No reasonable person suggests that abortion after a fetus is viable, except under the most dire of circumstances, is ever ethical. You want to equate a clump of u8nspecialized cells with a fully formed, independently functioning human being. That is emotional, and irrational, like most of your religion.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it is wrong to end a human life.

That's cause it's not wrong to end a human life. No one says that. Ever.

Really?

 

[Czernobog]

Wow. I didn't know you harboured such hatred for other races. See, there is a difference between dehumanizing different races of actual people, and insisting that a potential person is equivalent to an actual person. If fetuses are people, then we need to start including them on tax rolls, letting them apply for handgun pe3rmits, and give to them all of the other rights, and privileges that we give to actual people. You want to pretend that fetuses are people only so that you can dictate what women can, and cannot do with their own bodies. It's just another example of Christian arrogance, and intolerance.

Again, you worship a god who commanded genocide. Why pretend that you give a shit about "killing babies"?

Yes, we know. Unborn babies only become human once the birth fairy waves her magic wand over the fetus as it exits the womb.

No. No. We know that 100% of all fetuses always go to full term to be birthed. The only reason that a fetus ever doesn't make it to full term is abortion. Further, your argument is specious. No reasonable person suggests that abortion after a fetus is viable, except under the most dire of circumstances, is ever ethical. You want to equate a clump of u8nspecialized cells with a fully formed, independently functioning human being. That is emotional, and irrational, like most of your religion.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it is wrong to end a human life.

That's cause it's not wrong to end a human life. No one says that. Ever.

Really?

Really. We "end human life" all the time.

 

[BreezeWood]

How am I forcing you to do anything?

Science tells us it is a human being.


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

You keep confusing "human life" with viable human life. I told you, after your first post, this is not a question of "Is it a human life". It is a question of is it a viable human life. Until you can prove that that clump of cells is independently viable, then your argument is useless, and based solely on your religious convictions. Yes, some human lives do have more right of self-determination than others. Those who are not viable, whether by virtue of being just a clump of cells, or by virtue of being in a vegetative state, have given up the right of self-determination to others - unless, of course, in the case of the vegetative state, that person had a medical directive in place.

You are making an arbitrary and capricious distinction. There is only human life which encompasses the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. You are dehumanizing them to rationalize that it is good and just to end their lives.

It's neither arbitrary, nor capricious. It is a medical determination:

"When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000)." Dr. Dubiel M, Breborowicz.

The only people who cannot understand the distinction are religious people who want to create laws to force everyone to behave as if they agree with the religious preconceptions, and moral positions.

.
when facts are presented to the christian ...

It is not Christians that are hiding from the truth... the truth is abortion kills a innocent human every time and you not only support said actions you champion it and SCIENCE tells us it is a human at conception... Or are you another one of those flat earthers?

.

It is not Christians that are hiding from the truth...

is there a difference in the case of rape and the intent of the individual.

 

[Czernobog]

First, you can disagree all you like, the reality speaks for itself. Your opinion is based on your religion, and you are entitled to it. However, you are not entitled to try to force me, by law, to behave in accordance with your religious opinions. Second, it is not a human, it is a clump of cells that has the possibility of growing into a human. Your final point is irrelevant, because you are equating a clump of cells with an actual person.

How am I forcing you to do anything?

Science tells us it is a human being.


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

You keep confusing "human life" with viable human life. I told you, after your first post, this is not a question of "Is it a human life". It is a question of is it a viable human life. Until you can prove that that clump of cells is independently viable, then your argument is useless, and based solely on your religious convictions. Yes, some human lives do have more right of self-determination than others. Those who are not viable, whether by virtue of being just a clump of cells, or by virtue of being in a vegetative state, have given up the right of self-determination to others - unless, of course, in the case of the vegetative state, that person had a medical directive in place.

You are making an arbitrary and capricious distinction. There is only human life which encompasses the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. You are dehumanizing them to rationalize that it is good and just to end their lives.

It's neither arbitrary, nor capricious. It is a medical determination:

"When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000)." Dr. G. H. Breborowicz.
The only people who cannot understand the distinction are religious people who want to create laws to force everyone to behave as if they agree with the religious preconceptions, and moral positions.

And here's a handy little chart to rate viability, here in the US:

COMPLETED WEEKS OF GESTATION AT BIRTH	CHANCE OF SURVIVAL
21 weeks and less	0%
22 weeks	0-10%*
23 weeks	10-35%
24 weeks	40-70%
25 weeks	50-80%
26 weeks	80-90%
27 weeks	>90%
30 weeks	>95%
34 weeks	>98%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Interestingly enough, most rational Pro-Choice proponents do not really support the concept of abortion after 24 weeks, except under the extreme conditions of the health of the mother. Why do you think that is?

No. That is not a medical determination. That is a legal determination. It is a human being at conception. It is alive at conception. It is human at conception.

Wrong. It is a medical determination. Lawyers don't decide viability, doctors do. You just want to ignore the issue of viability, because you know that it destroys your juvenile, simplistic view of abortion.

 

[Czernobog]

You are making an arbitrary and capricious distinction. There is only human life which encompasses the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. You are dehumanizing them to rationalize that it is good and just to end their lives.

It's neither arbitrary, nor capricious. It is a medical determination:

"When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000)." Dr. Dubiel M, Breborowicz.

The only people who cannot understand the distinction are religious people who want to create laws to force everyone to behave as if they agree with the religious preconceptions, and moral positions.

.
when facts are presented to the christian ...

It is not Christians that are hiding from the truth... the truth is abortion kills a innocent human every time and you not only support said actions you champion it and SCIENCE tells us it is a human at conception... Or are you another one of those flat earthers?

Yeah, and? Again, we kill "humans" all the time. It is not, nor has it ever been, a question of "human life". It has always been a question of viable human life. You want to pretend that a clump of cells has the same intrinsic value as an actual person. It doesn't.

You are making a legal argument, not a scientific argument.

Nope. Lawyers don't determine viability, doctors do. Viability is a medical determination, not a legal one.

 

[ding]

It's neither arbitrary, nor capricious. It is a medical determination:

"When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000)." Dr. Dubiel M, Breborowicz.

The only people who cannot understand the distinction are religious people who want to create laws to force everyone to behave as if they agree with the religious preconceptions, and moral positions.

.
when facts are presented to the christian ...

It is not Christians that are hiding from the truth... the truth is abortion kills a innocent human every time and you not only support said actions you champion it and SCIENCE tells us it is a human at conception... Or are you another one of those flat earthers?

Yeah, and? Again, we kill "humans" all the time. It is not, nor has it ever been, a question of "human life". It has always been a question of viable human life. You want to pretend that a clump of cells has the same intrinsic value as an actual person. It doesn't.

You are making a legal argument, not a scientific argument.

Nope. Lawyers don't determine viability, doctors do. Viability is a medical determination, not a legal one.

And yet it is still a legal argument. Science tells us that human life begins at conception.