Can you be smarter than even “God”?

[ding]

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.

No. It is a legal argument. One that is used to dehumanize human life for the express purpose of ending it.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
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.

.

Science tells us that human life begins at conception.

LINK ....

 

[Czernobog]

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.

No. It is a legal argument. One that is used to dehumanize human life for the express purpose of ending it.

You can keep saying that all you like. It is a determination made by doctors, not lawyers. That makes it medical, and you repeatedly insisting that it is a "legal" argument won't make you any less wrong. Do doctors determine viability, or do lawyers? Unless you can provide examples demonstrating that it is the latter, it is a medical determination, and you constantly refusing to admit that, won't change it. You see that is the difference between a belief, and a fact. A fact remains accurate, regardless of your willingness to believe it.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

.

Science tells us that human life begins at conception.

LINK ....

You're arguing the wrong point, Breezewood. The clump of cells that are created by conception is a "human life". It is alive, and it is human. And that fact is completely irrelevant. As I demonstrated, we take human life all the time. The question isn't about simply being a human life; the issue is viable human life.

 

[Czernobog]

.
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.

Wrong. It is still a medical determination, and science tells us that independent viability is not achieved until, at least, the 24th week.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

.

Science tells us that human life begins at conception.

LINK ....

You're arguing the wrong point, Breezewood. The clump of cells that are created by conception is a "human life". It is alive, and it is human. And that fact is completely irrelevant. As I demonstrated, we take human life all the time. The question isn't about simply being a human life; the issue is viable human life.

.

You're arguing the wrong point, Breezewood. The clump of cells that are created by conception is a "human life". It is alive, and it is human. And that fact is completely irrelevant. As I demonstrated, we take human life all the time. The question isn't about simply being a human life; the issue is viable human life.

You're arguing the wrong point, Breezewood ...


then you agree with the christian human life is invaluable above all other including at the expense of Garden Earth. the Almighty has provided a remedy to incongruity, am I at odds with the Atheists as well. the fallacy of the 4th century religion is what I am objecting to that the 1st century again is being superseded by their demonicism.


*in hopes of reaching others, bing is the walking dead.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

.

Science tells us that human life begins at conception.

LINK ....

You're arguing the wrong point, Breezewood. The clump of cells that are created by conception is a "human life". It is alive, and it is human. And that fact is completely irrelevant. As I demonstrated, we take human life all the time. The question isn't about simply being a human life; the issue is viable human life.

.

You're arguing the wrong point, Breezewood. The clump of cells that are created by conception is a "human life". It is alive, and it is human. And that fact is completely irrelevant. As I demonstrated, we take human life all the time. The question isn't about simply being a human life; the issue is viable human life.

You're arguing the wrong point, Breezewood ...


then you agree with the christian human life is invaluable above all other including at the expense of Garden Earth. the Almighty has provided a remedy to incongruity, am I at odds with the Atheists as well. the fallacy of the 4th century religion is what I am objecting to that the 1st century again is being superseded by their demonicism.


*in hopes of reaching others, bing is the walking dead.

No, I don't. Reread what I said. "Human Life" has no intrinsic value. We end "human life" on a regular basis. What has value is viable Human Life, and even that has value only insofar is it positively affects society - or, at least, does not intentionally affect society negatively. This is why we also end human life by means of capital punishment.

It's you who wants to concede that, somehow, "human life" has value, which is why you want "proof" that human life begins at conception.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

.

Science tells us that human life begins at conception.

LINK ....

You're arguing the wrong point, Breezewood. The clump of cells that are created by conception is a "human life". It is alive, and it is human. And that fact is completely irrelevant. As I demonstrated, we take human life all the time. The question isn't about simply being a human life; the issue is viable human life.

.

You're arguing the wrong point, Breezewood. The clump of cells that are created by conception is a "human life". It is alive, and it is human. And that fact is completely irrelevant. As I demonstrated, we take human life all the time. The question isn't about simply being a human life; the issue is viable human life.

You're arguing the wrong point, Breezewood ...


then you agree with the christian human life is invaluable above all other including at the expense of Garden Earth. the Almighty has provided a remedy to incongruity, am I at odds with the Atheists as well. the fallacy of the 4th century religion is what I am objecting to that the 1st century again is being superseded by their demonicism.


*in hopes of reaching others, bing is the walking dead.

No, I don't. Reread what I said. "Human Life" has no intrinsic value. We end "human life" on a regular basis. What has value is viable Human Life, and even that has value only insofar is it positively affects society - or, at least, does not intentionally affect society negatively. This is why we also end human life by means of capital punishment.

It's you who wants to concede that, somehow, "human life" has value, which is why you want "proof" that human life begins at conception.

.

It's you who wants to concede that, somehow, "human life" has value, which is why you want "proof" that human life begins at conception.

simply, I am not stuck on "human" life, all beings, the Garden Earth are equal in value in their creation, the Almighty / the genome of Life. what is done to one is the same value for all. THE HUMAN IS NOT SINGULARLY SIGNIFICANT. ok.

the main difference created in the minds of 4th century christians by their book and other immoral beings by egomaniacle choice.

 

[ding]

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.

No. It is a legal argument. One that is used to dehumanize human life for the express purpose of ending it.

You can keep saying that all you like. It is a determination made by doctors, not lawyers. That makes it medical, and you repeatedly insisting that it is a "legal" argument won't make you any less wrong. Do doctors determine viability, or do lawyers? Unless you can provide examples demonstrating that it is the latter, it is a medical determination, and you constantly refusing to admit that, won't change it. You see that is the difference between a belief, and a fact. A fact remains accurate, regardless of your willingness to believe it.

We seem to be going around in circles here. The reality is that viability does not define what is living nor does it define what it is. So despite your attempt to rationalize ending the life of a human being as good and just, all you have done is dehumanization so that you can feel better about yourself.

 

[ding]

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.

Wrong. It is still a medical determination, and science tells us that independent viability is not achieved until, at least, the 24th week.

Given that it is based on probabilities it doesn't. There is a 100% chance that at conception a new, genetically distinct human being has come into existence. See? No probabilities required. Now do you understand?

 

[ding]

And, you'll notice that Dingdong has decided that this is not a discussion he wants to engage in, any longer. Give him a few days, and we will come back to the abortion thing, again, he'll bring up the human life thing, and pretend that he "ran me off" with the unassailable logic of his flawed argument...

I think you spoke too soon, lol.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

No. It is a legal argument. One that is used to dehumanize human life for the express purpose of ending it.

You can keep saying that all you like. It is a determination made by doctors, not lawyers. That makes it medical, and you repeatedly insisting that it is a "legal" argument won't make you any less wrong. Do doctors determine viability, or do lawyers? Unless you can provide examples demonstrating that it is the latter, it is a medical determination, and you constantly refusing to admit that, won't change it. You see that is the difference between a belief, and a fact. A fact remains accurate, regardless of your willingness to believe it.

We seem to be going around in circles here. The reality is that viability does not define what is living nor does it define what it is. So despite your attempt to rationalize ending the life of a human being as good and just, all you have done is dehumanization so that you can feel better about yourself.

Actually, viability has everything to do with what is living, and what is not. If you remove that clump of cells from its host, will it survive? If the answer is no, than it is no more independent, than a cluster of cancer cells. Until, and unless, that fetus achieves viability, it is the property of the pregnant woman, to do with as she wishes. Period. Any other view is based on religious twaddle.

And remember this discussion, the next time you bring this twaddle up, and claim to have "run me off" with your irrational, emotional, and, ultimately, insufficient defence of your religious moral position.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

and the woman did (commuted a crime), asked to be raped and now has no control over the errant outcome her decision would differ with. against thanatos144 she will never know. the same for all those conditions.

definitely the 4th century christian mentality and worse ...

 

[thanatos144]

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.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

and the woman did (commuted a crime), asked to be raped and now has no control over the errant outcome her decision would differ with. against thanatos144 she will never know. the same for all those conditions.

definitely the 4th century christian mentality and worse ...

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[BreezeWood]

.
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.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

and the woman did (commuted a crime), asked to be raped and now has no control over the errant outcome her decision would differ with. against thanatos144 she will never know. the same for all those conditions.

definitely the 4th century christian mentality and worse ...

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

that was not your response, I would imagine for all the trouble to have an abortion everyone of them were either forced sex or unintended in which only one of the partners would need to live out the consequence without the option of choice.

of course you inflated the number but even with what you have provided there were then 50M choices made you are aware of, against your own personal point of view. only a dictator would not see their error in judgement.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

and the woman did (commuted a crime), asked to be raped and now has no control over the errant outcome her decision would differ with. against thanatos144 she will never know. the same for all those conditions.

definitely the 4th century christian mentality and worse ...

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

that was not your response, I would imagine for all the trouble to have an abortion everyone of them were either forced sex or unintended in which only one of the partners would need to live out the consequence without the option of choice.

of course you inflated the number but even with what you have provided there were then 50M choices made you are aware of, against your own personal point of view. only a dictator would not see their error in judgement.

Look at the regressive change the definition to why a abortion is needed and still how many of those happen? I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept. Of course you don't feel that way because you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

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

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

and the woman did (commuted a crime), asked to be raped and now has no control over the errant outcome her decision would differ with. against thanatos144 she will never know. the same for all those conditions.

definitely the 4th century christian mentality and worse ...

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

that was not your response, I would imagine for all the trouble to have an abortion everyone of them were either forced sex or unintended in which only one of the partners would need to live out the consequence without the option of choice.

of course you inflated the number but even with what you have provided there were then 50M choices made you are aware of, against your own personal point of view. only a dictator would not see their error in judgement.

Look at the regressive change the definition to why a abortion is needed and still how many of those happen? I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept. Of course you don't feel that way because you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What a crock of shit. A fetus is not an infant, and equating abortion to infanticide is pure rhetoric designed to create an emotional response. If you can't make your argument without resorting to emotional appeals, then your argument lacks reason, and is not worth responding to.

 

[ding]

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.

No. It is a legal argument. One that is used to dehumanize human life for the express purpose of ending it.

You can keep saying that all you like. It is a determination made by doctors, not lawyers. That makes it medical, and you repeatedly insisting that it is a "legal" argument won't make you any less wrong. Do doctors determine viability, or do lawyers? Unless you can provide examples demonstrating that it is the latter, it is a medical determination, and you constantly refusing to admit that, won't change it. You see that is the difference between a belief, and a fact. A fact remains accurate, regardless of your willingness to believe it.

We seem to be going around in circles here. The reality is that viability does not define what is living nor does it define what it is. So despite your attempt to rationalize ending the life of a human being as good and just, all you have done is dehumanization so that you can feel better about yourself.

Actually, viability has everything to do with what is living, and what is not. If you remove that clump of cells from its host, will it survive? If the answer is no, than it is no more independent, than a cluster of cancer cells. Until, and unless, that fetus achieves viability, it is the property of the pregnant woman, to do with as she wishes. Period. Any other view is based on religious twaddle.

And remember this discussion, the next time you bring this twaddle up, and claim to have "run me off" with your irrational, emotional, and, ultimately, insufficient defence of your religious moral position.

Stop making up science. Viability is not in the definition of being alive, dumbass.

 

[BreezeWood]

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

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

.

NO because they baby didnt commit a crime that calls for the death sentence.

and the woman did (commuted a crime), asked to be raped and now has no control over the errant outcome her decision would differ with. against thanatos144 she will never know. the same for all those conditions.

definitely the 4th century christian mentality and worse ...

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

Out of the 50 plus million abortions how many were rapes?

that was not your response, I would imagine for all the trouble to have an abortion everyone of them were either forced sex or unintended in which only one of the partners would need to live out the consequence without the option of choice.

of course you inflated the number but even with what you have provided there were then 50M choices made you are aware of, against your own personal point of view. only a dictator would not see their error in judgement.

Look at the regressive change the definition to why a abortion is needed and still how many of those happen? I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept. Of course you don't feel that way because you support infanticide

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

I really do believe killing a unborn baby because of the father a very very sick twisted and evil concept.

your saying the rapist is a father - Hint, that person if not in jail is (dead) - you are simply an irrational zealot looking for innocence as the rapist to make your victim.