I've had an epiphany

[Indeependent]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

He went wrong by addressing you in a mature manner.

I generally ignore you, so I didn't notice this. But I gotta ask - so, calling someone a dumbass, and arbitrarily accusing them of discussing genocide is treating them in a "mature manner", in your mind? You and I appear to have two very different understandings of the word "mature".

I wear a yalmuke so don't ever tell me, in any way whatsoever, that it takes courage to be an atheist or how humane you are, when you have the arrogant habit of talking talk down to everyone who holds an opinion that varies from yours.

I have found atheists to be the most egocentric, arrogant, in your face, assholes that have ever graced the Earth.
You, for example, spout Scripture you don't know or understand in an attempt to ridicule anyone who believes in GOD.
AND DON'T YOU FORGET FOR ONE OF YOUR ARROGANT ASS MOMENTS THAT YOU PULLED THAT CRAP ON ME
a few months ago when you stated you forgot more Scripture than I'll ever know and I immediately proved you to be full of sh!t.

Your entire agenda, like every other atheist, is to justify your temper tantrums because you think YOU ARE GOD.

To summarize, virtually every time you post, you come off like the arrogant MFer you are.

 

[Czernobog]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

He went wrong by addressing you in a mature manner.

I generally ignore you, so I didn't notice this. But I gotta ask - so, calling someone a dumbass, and arbitrarily accusing them of discussing genocide is treating them in a "mature manner", in your mind? You and I appear to have two very different understandings of the word "mature".

I wear a yalmuke so don't ever tell me, in any way whatsoever, that it takes courage to be an atheist or how humane you are, when you have the arrogant habit of talking talk down to everyone who holds an opinion that varies from yours.

I have found atheists to be the most egocentric, arrogant, in your face, assholes that have ever graced the Earth.
You, for example, spout Scripture you don't know or understand in an attempt to ridicule anyone who believes in GOD.
AND DON'T YOU FORGET FOR ONE OF YOUR ARROGANT ASS MOMENTS THAT YOU PULLED THAT CRAP ON ME
a few months ago when you stated you forgot more Scripture than I'll ever know and I immediately proved you to be full of sh!t.

Your entire agenda, like every other atheist, is to justify your temper tantrums because you think YOU ARE GOD.

To summarize, virtually every time you post, you come off like the arrogant MFer you are.

And this is your idea of "mature"....

This would be why I have you on ignore. Back to the wastelands with you....

 

[Indeependent]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

He went wrong by addressing you in a mature manner.

I generally ignore you, so I didn't notice this. But I gotta ask - so, calling someone a dumbass, and arbitrarily accusing them of discussing genocide is treating them in a "mature manner", in your mind? You and I appear to have two very different understandings of the word "mature".

I wear a yalmuke so don't ever tell me, in any way whatsoever, that it takes courage to be an atheist or how humane you are, when you have the arrogant habit of talking talk down to everyone who holds an opinion that varies from yours.

I have found atheists to be the most egocentric, arrogant, in your face, assholes that have ever graced the Earth.
You, for example, spout Scripture you don't know or understand in an attempt to ridicule anyone who believes in GOD.
AND DON'T YOU FORGET FOR ONE OF YOUR ARROGANT ASS MOMENTS THAT YOU PULLED THAT CRAP ON ME
a few months ago when you stated you forgot more Scripture than I'll ever know and I immediately proved you to be full of sh!t.

Your entire agenda, like every other atheist, is to justify your temper tantrums because you think YOU ARE GOD.

To summarize, virtually every time you post, you come off like the arrogant MFer you are.

And this is your idea of "mature"....

This would be why I have you on ignore. Back to the wastelands with you....

A crybaby and a liar...An Atheist!

 

[fncceo]

Because Pro-Choice activists were morons. They were sold a line of bullshit that the laws were only designed to protect expectant mothers who suffered miscarriages due to violent criminals

Infanticide as an equivalent to homicide has been the law of the land in America since Colonial days. It's not some new legal concept dreamed up by Pro-Life activists. It is basic human decency that if you illegally cause a woman to lose her unborn child you have taken a human life and thus, homicide.

 

[Indeependent]

Because Pro-Choice activists were morons. They were sold a line of bullshit that the laws were only designed to protect expectant mothers who suffered miscarriages due to violent criminals

Infanticide as an equivalent to homicide has been the law of the land in America since Colonial days. It's not some new legal concept dreamed up by Pro-Life activists. It is basic human decency that if you illegally cause a woman to lose her unborn child you have taken a human life and thus, homicide.

Please give the arrogant atheist asshole my regards.

 

[Spare_change]

You bring what you PERCEIVE to be logic and facts ... when, in fact, it carries no more credence than your opinion.

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

You bring what you PERCEIVE to be logic and facts ... when, in fact, it carries no more credence than your opinion.

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

Were you the least bit interested in honest and open discussion, here I am ....

You aren't. I have offered no opinion on abortion - I have only commented about your intellectual dishonesty (but then, that's a proven fact).

Honest discussion can only start where there is no dishonest false equivalency being attempted. So long as you don't go there, I'm all good.

See? Now you've done it again.

Once again, you've attempted to bound the conversation. If you are unwilling to discuss the characteristics of an issue upon which we disagree, then you are, simply, saying you're unwilling to discuss it all. Instead, you simply want to lecture. You aren't interested in an honest exchange of ideas.

You can do that - - - without me.

Of course I am. I am trying to bound it in honesty, and reason. If you are incapable of keeping your discourse honest, and rational, I don't particularly want to engage with you, anyway. Bye.

No, what you are actually trying to do is to avoid discussing the very point on which we disagree.

Do I believe abortion is wrong? Yes. Do you? No.
Do I believe abortion is a sin? Yes Do you? I'm not sure you even accept the concept of sin.
Do I believe those who participate, or receive, an abortion will spend eternity in Hell? I do - unless they acknowledge and repent for their sins. Do you? No - you don't even accept the idea of afterlife.

Can we discuss these differences of opinion? Of course, we can. Will you ever change my mind? No. Will I ever change your mind? Only God can do that.

So -- based on all that -- we shall go our separate ways .... me, secure in my belief and commitment to the eternal God, --- you, secure in your belief in your infallibility.

Have a great life --- and, when the time comes ---- just remember, "Ol' Spare told me so."

 

[Indeependent]

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

Were you the least bit interested in honest and open discussion, here I am ....

You aren't. I have offered no opinion on abortion - I have only commented about your intellectual dishonesty (but then, that's a proven fact).

Honest discussion can only start where there is no dishonest false equivalency being attempted. So long as you don't go there, I'm all good.

See? Now you've done it again.

Once again, you've attempted to bound the conversation. If you are unwilling to discuss the characteristics of an issue upon which we disagree, then you are, simply, saying you're unwilling to discuss it all. Instead, you simply want to lecture. You aren't interested in an honest exchange of ideas.

You can do that - - - without me.

Of course I am. I am trying to bound it in honesty, and reason. If you are incapable of keeping your discourse honest, and rational, I don't particularly want to engage with you, anyway. Bye.

No, what you are actually trying to do is to avoid discussing the very point on which we disagree.

Do I believe abortion is wrong? Yes. Do you? No.
Do I believe abortion is a sin? Yes Do you? I'm not sure you even accept the concept of sin.
Do I believe those who participate, or receive, an abortion will spend eternity in Hell? I do - unless they acknowledge and repent for their sins. Do you? No - you don't even accept the idea of afterlife.

Can we discuss these differences of opinion? Of course, we can. Will you ever change my mind? No. Will I ever change your mind? Only God can do that.

So -- based on all that -- we shall go our separate ways .... me, secure in my belief and commitment to the eternal God, --- you, secure in your belief in your infallibility.

Have a great life --- and, when the time comes ---- just remember, "Ol' Spare told me so."

I'm lucky...snooze put me on Ignore.

 

[Spare_change]

Were you the least bit interested in honest and open discussion, here I am ....

You aren't. I have offered no opinion on abortion - I have only commented about your intellectual dishonesty (but then, that's a proven fact).

Honest discussion can only start where there is no dishonest false equivalency being attempted. So long as you don't go there, I'm all good.

See? Now you've done it again.

Once again, you've attempted to bound the conversation. If you are unwilling to discuss the characteristics of an issue upon which we disagree, then you are, simply, saying you're unwilling to discuss it all. Instead, you simply want to lecture. You aren't interested in an honest exchange of ideas.

You can do that - - - without me.

Of course I am. I am trying to bound it in honesty, and reason. If you are incapable of keeping your discourse honest, and rational, I don't particularly want to engage with you, anyway. Bye.

No, what you are actually trying to do is to avoid discussing the very point on which we disagree.

Do I believe abortion is wrong? Yes. Do you? No.
Do I believe abortion is a sin? Yes Do you? I'm not sure you even accept the concept of sin.
Do I believe those who participate, or receive, an abortion will spend eternity in Hell? I do - unless they acknowledge and repent for their sins. Do you? No - you don't even accept the idea of afterlife.

Can we discuss these differences of opinion? Of course, we can. Will you ever change my mind? No. Will I ever change your mind? Only God can do that.

So -- based on all that -- we shall go our separate ways .... me, secure in my belief and commitment to the eternal God, --- you, secure in your belief in your infallibility.

Have a great life --- and, when the time comes ---- just remember, "Ol' Spare told me so."

I'm lucky...snooze put me on Ignore.

Some days, you just get lucky.

 

[Czernobog]

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

Were you the least bit interested in honest and open discussion, here I am ....

You aren't. I have offered no opinion on abortion - I have only commented about your intellectual dishonesty (but then, that's a proven fact).

Honest discussion can only start where there is no dishonest false equivalency being attempted. So long as you don't go there, I'm all good.

See? Now you've done it again.

Once again, you've attempted to bound the conversation. If you are unwilling to discuss the characteristics of an issue upon which we disagree, then you are, simply, saying you're unwilling to discuss it all. Instead, you simply want to lecture. You aren't interested in an honest exchange of ideas.

You can do that - - - without me.

Of course I am. I am trying to bound it in honesty, and reason. If you are incapable of keeping your discourse honest, and rational, I don't particularly want to engage with you, anyway. Bye.

No, what you are actually trying to do is to avoid discussing the very point on which we disagree.

Do I believe abortion is wrong? Yes. Do you? No.
Do I believe abortion is a sin? Yes Do you? I'm not sure you even accept the concept of sin.
Do I believe those who participate, or receive, an abortion will spend eternity in Hell? I do - unless they acknowledge and repent for their sins. Do you? No - you don't even accept the idea of afterlife.

Can we discuss these differences of opinion? Of course, we can. Will you ever change my mind? No. Will I ever change your mind? Only God can do that.

So -- based on all that -- we shall go our separate ways .... me, secure in my belief and commitment to the eternal God, --- you, secure in your belief in your infallibility.

Have a great life --- and, when the time comes ---- just remember, "Ol' Spare told me so."

And I am perfectly find with you having all of those opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I disagree with every one of them, but I would never suggest passing a law that forced you to behave as if you agree with me. Therein lies my problem. You want to pass laws that require everyone to behave as if they agree with you, whether they do, or not.

 

[task0778]

They ARE or should have the same inalienable right to life in the eyes of many, so in that sense they are equal. That is actually the only argument needed from a moral point of view. Your problem is that you equated a dead fetus in a jar with a living person and proclaimed a false equivalency, which is ridiculous.

 

[PredFan]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

One thing I'm sure of, that you did not show any fact at all that a fetus isn't human from conception. You cannot show that it's impossible. It would be like claiming you proved the earth was flat.

 

[Czernobog]

They ARE or should have the same inalienable right to life in the eyes of many, so in that sense they are equal.

Why?

That is actually the only argument needed from a moral point of view. Your problem is that you equated a dead fetus in a jar with a living person and proclaimed a false equivalency, which is ridiculous.

I did no such thing. You clearly did not understand the premise. it was not a jar of dead fetuses. It was a phial of 1,000 perfectly healthy, useable, ready to implant embryos.

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

One thing I'm sure of, that you did not show any fact at all that a fetus isn't human from conception. You cannot show that it's impossible. It would be like claiming you proved the earth was flat.

Are none of you capable of comprehension. Here. Let me put this in a way you can't miss it.

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE ALIVE

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE HUMAN.

No, anyone who claims, implies, or otherwise indicates that I am attempting to say that a non-viable fetus is wither not alive, or not genetically human is a fucking liar. So what!?!? Neither of those was ever the point. The point is that neither an embryo, nor a non-viable fetus is morally equivalent to a child. If it were that a thousand such embryos, or non-viable fetuses would have a thousand times more value than a single child, and would dictate that they be saved, and the child be left to do.

But, not one of you fuckers will say that! I'm sorry, exactly one of you fuckers said that. The rest of you know fucking well that the child is of more moral value, but you want to keep right on pretending that you don't know that, so you keep trying to imply, suggest, or flat out state that I am trying to say something that I never said!

 

[PredFan]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

One thing I'm sure of, that you did not show any fact at all that a fetus isn't human from conception. You cannot show that it's impossible. It would be like claiming you proved the earth was flat.

Are none of you capable of comprehension. Here. Let me put this in a way you can't miss it.

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE ALIVE

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE HUMAN.

No, anyone who claims that I am attempting to say that a non-viable fetus is wither not alive, or not genetically human is a fucking liar

"I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be."

Was this a typo?

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

One thing I'm sure of, that you did not show any fact at all that a fetus isn't human from conception. You cannot show that it's impossible. It would be like claiming you proved the earth was flat.

Are none of you capable of comprehension. Here. Let me put this in a way you can't miss it.

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE ALIVE

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE HUMAN.

No, anyone who claims that I am attempting to say that a non-viable fetus is wither not alive, or not genetically human is a fucking liar

"I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be."

Was this a typo?

No. I always understood that was one of the arguments you guys had against abortion. It had just never occurred to me that it was the only argument you had, and constituted the entirety of your argument against abortion. And if the "dishonest" part was what you take issue with, allow me to repost the rest of my previous response for you:

No, anyone who claims, implies, or otherwise indicates that I am attempting to say that a non-viable fetus is wither not alive, or not genetically human is a fucking liar. So what!?!? Neither of those was ever the point. The point is that neither an embryo, nor a non-viable fetus is morally equivalent to a child. If it were that a thousand such embryos, or non-viable fetuses would have a thousand times more value than a single child, and would dictate that they be saved, and the child be left to die.

But, not one of you fuckers will say that! I'm sorry, exactly one of you fuckers said that. The rest of you know fucking well that the child is of more moral value, but you want to keep right on pretending that you don't know that, so you keep trying to imply, suggest, or flat out state that I am trying to say something that I never said!

 

[PredFan]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

One thing I'm sure of, that you did not show any fact at all that a fetus isn't human from conception. You cannot show that it's impossible. It would be like claiming you proved the earth was flat.

Are none of you capable of comprehension. Here. Let me put this in a way you can't miss it.

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE ALIVE

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE HUMAN.

No, anyone who claims that I am attempting to say that a non-viable fetus is wither not alive, or not genetically human is a fucking liar

"I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be."

Was this a typo?

No. I always understood that was one of the arguments you guys had against abortion. It had just never occurred to me that it was the only argument you had, and constituted the entirety of your argument against abortion.

Speaking of comprehension problems! Let me ask directly since you seem to be having trouble. What is dishonest about it?

 

[Spare_change]

Were you the least bit interested in honest and open discussion, here I am ....

You aren't. I have offered no opinion on abortion - I have only commented about your intellectual dishonesty (but then, that's a proven fact).

Honest discussion can only start where there is no dishonest false equivalency being attempted. So long as you don't go there, I'm all good.

See? Now you've done it again.

Once again, you've attempted to bound the conversation. If you are unwilling to discuss the characteristics of an issue upon which we disagree, then you are, simply, saying you're unwilling to discuss it all. Instead, you simply want to lecture. You aren't interested in an honest exchange of ideas.

You can do that - - - without me.

Of course I am. I am trying to bound it in honesty, and reason. If you are incapable of keeping your discourse honest, and rational, I don't particularly want to engage with you, anyway. Bye.

No, what you are actually trying to do is to avoid discussing the very point on which we disagree.

Do I believe abortion is wrong? Yes. Do you? No.
Do I believe abortion is a sin? Yes Do you? I'm not sure you even accept the concept of sin.
Do I believe those who participate, or receive, an abortion will spend eternity in Hell? I do - unless they acknowledge and repent for their sins. Do you? No - you don't even accept the idea of afterlife.

Can we discuss these differences of opinion? Of course, we can. Will you ever change my mind? No. Will I ever change your mind? Only God can do that.

So -- based on all that -- we shall go our separate ways .... me, secure in my belief and commitment to the eternal God, --- you, secure in your belief in your infallibility.

Have a great life --- and, when the time comes ---- just remember, "Ol' Spare told me so."

And I am perfectly find with you having all of those opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I disagree with every one of them, but I would never suggest passing a law that forced you to behave as if you agree with me. Therein lies my problem. You want to pass laws that require everyone to behave as if they agree with you, whether they do, or not.

That's not true ... I do NOT "...want to pass laws that require everyone to behave as if they agree ...".

I want to pass laws that implement a moral and ethical code that respects the sanctity of life and principle. This is nothing more, and nothing less, than what every other law does.

I want to drive 85 mph in school zones ---- you insist on a stupid law that I drive only 20.
I want to pass a law that protects human beings who can't protect themselves --- you want to kill them off.
I want to pass a law that allows parents to drown kids who fail to do their homework --- you want to protect the little bastards.

You want to impose your moral standards (or lack of them) on people who don't agree with you.
I want to impose my moral standards on people who don't agree with me.

We are two sides of the same coin.

Only difference is, I got the "Big Guy" on my side.

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

One thing I'm sure of, that you did not show any fact at all that a fetus isn't human from conception. You cannot show that it's impossible. It would be like claiming you proved the earth was flat.

Are none of you capable of comprehension. Here. Let me put this in a way you can't miss it.

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE ALIVE

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE HUMAN.

No, anyone who claims that I am attempting to say that a non-viable fetus is wither not alive, or not genetically human is a fucking liar

"I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be."

Was this a typo?

No. I always understood that was one of the arguments you guys had against abortion. It had just never occurred to me that it was the only argument you had, and constituted the entirety of your argument against abortion.

Speaking of comprehension problems! Let me ask directly since you seem to be having trouble. What is dishonest about it?

For the third, time, neither a healthy embryo, nor a healthy non-viable fetus is morally equivalent to a child. If it were that a thousand such embryos, or non-viable fetuses would have a thousand times more value than a single child, and would dictate that they be saved, and the child be left to die.

But, not one of you fuckers will say that! I'm sorry, exactly one of you fuckers said that. The rest of you know fucking well that the child is of more moral value, but you want to keep right on pretending that you don't know that, so you keep trying to imply, suggest, or flat out state that I am trying to say something that I never said!

 

[Czernobog]

Honest discussion can only start where there is no dishonest false equivalency being attempted. So long as you don't go there, I'm all good.

See? Now you've done it again.

Once again, you've attempted to bound the conversation. If you are unwilling to discuss the characteristics of an issue upon which we disagree, then you are, simply, saying you're unwilling to discuss it all. Instead, you simply want to lecture. You aren't interested in an honest exchange of ideas.

You can do that - - - without me.

Of course I am. I am trying to bound it in honesty, and reason. If you are incapable of keeping your discourse honest, and rational, I don't particularly want to engage with you, anyway. Bye.

No, what you are actually trying to do is to avoid discussing the very point on which we disagree.

Do I believe abortion is wrong? Yes. Do you? No.
Do I believe abortion is a sin? Yes Do you? I'm not sure you even accept the concept of sin.
Do I believe those who participate, or receive, an abortion will spend eternity in Hell? I do - unless they acknowledge and repent for their sins. Do you? No - you don't even accept the idea of afterlife.

Can we discuss these differences of opinion? Of course, we can. Will you ever change my mind? No. Will I ever change your mind? Only God can do that.

So -- based on all that -- we shall go our separate ways .... me, secure in my belief and commitment to the eternal God, --- you, secure in your belief in your infallibility.

Have a great life --- and, when the time comes ---- just remember, "Ol' Spare told me so."

And I am perfectly find with you having all of those opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I disagree with every one of them, but I would never suggest passing a law that forced you to behave as if you agree with me. Therein lies my problem. You want to pass laws that require everyone to behave as if they agree with you, whether they do, or not.

That's not true ... I do NOT "...want to pass laws that require everyone to behave as if they agree ...".

I want to pass laws that implement a moral and ethical code that respects the sanctity of life and principle. This is nothing more, and nothing less, than what every other law does.

"...the sanctity of life" is not a valid principle here. Cancer is alive. It is even genetically human. Yet you would shake your head at the absurdity that we should respect that life. We recognise that some life has more value than other life.

I want to drive 85 mph in school zones ---- you insist on a stupid law that I drive only 20.
I want to pass a law that protects human beings who can't protect themselves --- you want to kill them off.
I want to pass a law that allows parents to drown kids who fail to do their homework --- you want to protect the little bastards.

All three of those are examples of protecting a person from the carelessness, or violence of another person. Neither a fetus, nor an embryo is a person. You cannot claim that an embryo is a person. Back to the save one, or save a thousand. If you honestly believed that an embryo was a person, then saving a thousand such "persons" over a single one would be a no brainer. No matter how you want to parse it, you recognise that an embryo is not of the same moral value as a child. Either that, or you lied when you suggest that you would save the child.

You want to impose your moral standards (or lack of them) on people who don't agree with you.
I want to impose my moral standards on people who don't agree with me.

We are two sides of the same coin.

Only difference is, I got the "Big Guy" on my side.

That is a lie. I don't want to impose my morals on anyone. I want everyone to be free to decide their own morals for their own damned selves, so long as their decisions do not threaten an actual person.

 

[PredFan]

One thing I'm sure of, that you did not show any fact at all that a fetus isn't human from conception. You cannot show that it's impossible. It would be like claiming you proved the earth was flat.

Are none of you capable of comprehension. Here. Let me put this in a way you can't miss it.

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE ALIVE

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE HUMAN.

No, anyone who claims that I am attempting to say that a non-viable fetus is wither not alive, or not genetically human is a fucking liar

"I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be."

Was this a typo?

No. I always understood that was one of the arguments you guys had against abortion. It had just never occurred to me that it was the only argument you had, and constituted the entirety of your argument against abortion.

Speaking of comprehension problems! Let me ask directly since you seem to be having trouble. What is dishonest about it?

For the third, time, neither a healthy embryo, nor a healthy non-viable fetus is morally equivalent to a child. If it were that a thousand such embryos, or non-viable fetuses would have a thousand times more value than a single child, and would dictate that they be saved, and the child be left to die.

But, not one of you fuckers will say that! I'm sorry, exactly one of you fuckers said that. The rest of you know fucking well that the child is of more moral value, but you want to keep right on pretending that you don't know that, so you keep trying to imply, suggest, or flat out state that I am trying to say something that I never said!

Jesus Christ! I'm trying to understand what your incoherent babbling is about here.

From what I can gather is that you think a fetus isn't equivalent to a child right? Yet you offer NO logical argument to support that statement, you think we have to accept it just because you say it.

It's just as full of shit as you are.