The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[JoeB131]

I don't think spooge deserves any rights. It's not a living human being. We'e already gone through the biological definition of when a living human organism begins and when human life exists. This happens once the fused egg and sperm cells generate a new cell. When that happens, the egg and sperm cell pop the champagne cork and celebrate because, along with their newly-produced offspring, they officially met the criteria for a functioning human organism. The organism will remain a living human being until it expires.

Well, here's the thing. Only one third of fertilized zygotes attach to the Uterine wall. The other two thirds get washed out into a Tampax, but we don't put crime scene tape around that waste-basket in most women's bathrooms.

 

[Boss]

I don't think spooge deserves any rights. It's not a living human being. We'e already gone through the biological definition of when a living human organism begins and when human life exists. This happens once the fused egg and sperm cells generate a new cell. When that happens, the egg and sperm cell pop the champagne cork and celebrate because, along with their newly-produced offspring, they officially met the criteria for a functioning human organism. The organism will remain a living human being until it expires.

Well, here's the thing. Only one third of fertilized zygotes attach to the Uterine wall. The other two thirds get washed out into a Tampax, but we don't put crime scene tape around that waste-basket in most women's bathrooms.

And when an abortion doctor pulls a living baby's head out of the womb, shoves a shunt up the back of the skull to suck it's little brain out and collapse it's soft skull as it jerks in pain, we don't send in SEAL Team 6 to stop it. We're truly a deplorable species.

 

[JoeB131]

And when an abortion doctor pulls a living baby's head out of the womb, shoves a shunt up the back of the skull to suck it's little brain out and collapse it's soft skull as it jerks in pain, we don't send in SEAL Team 6 to stop it. We're truly a deplorable species.

If anyone is performing a D&X, it's because the fetus is so horribly deformed that it's truly a mercy killing.

Do you really think that any woman WANTS to have a D&X?

 

[Boss]

Mercy killng? How are you killing something that isn't yet alive?

 

[JoeB131]

Mercy killng? How are you killing something that isn't yet alive?

Yawn, guy, you are playing word games. No one cares if a fetus meets your definition of being alive.

No one.

 

[Boss]

Mercy killng? How are you killing something that isn't yet alive?

Yawn, guy, you are playing word games. No one cares if a fetus meets your definition of being alive.

No one.

But it meets your definition of being alive too... if you're killing it.

Of course, we already know it meets the science definition for being alive. So far what you haven't shown is any rational source which says it's not alive.

 

[BlindBoo]

Can't figure it out even with the clues given by Websters? Call up your favorite doctor and ask them what must function in a human being in order for it to survive.

I don't have to call a doctor, I passed 7th grade science.

organism in MedicineExpand
organism or·gan·ism (ôr'gə-nĭz'əm)
n.
An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Survival is not a prerequisite for defining life. In this context it literally means maintaining the state of life. Therefore, by using survival as your method of reaching a false criteria, you have inadvertently already admitted the organism does exist as a living being.

Now let me explain some more of your misconception here... NO organisms are immortal. So when you make the "survival on it's own" argument, what you are basically saying is that nothing is really an organism because nothing can perpetually survive forever. Unless it can be immortal, then it will eventually not be able to carry on the process of life and survive on it's own, therefore it's never really an organism.

Damn and you were so close to the meaning of viability. Keep trying though I have all the confidence in the world that you will get it someday soon.

Again, if we are discussing the "viability" of something, it already exists. Viability does not define when a human organism begins to exist. The question of viability already acknowledges existence. Regardless of where you arbitrarily set the parameters for "viability" the human life is already there.

There is difference between existence and viability. I'm thinking you're just pretending to not know the difference.

 

[Boss]

There is difference between existence and viability. I'm thinking you're just pretending to not know the difference.

I didn't say I didn't know the difference, I pointed out to you that something has to exist before viability can be considered. You are the one who is trying to backwards claim that viability determines existence. It can only determine viability of that which already exists.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is difference between existence and viability. I'm thinking you're just pretending to not know the difference.

I didn't say I didn't know the difference, I pointed out to you that something has to exist before viability can be considered. You are the one who is trying to backwards claim that viability determines existence. It can only determine viability of that which already exists.

Nope. Never claimed that.

 

[Boss]

There is difference between existence and viability. I'm thinking you're just pretending to not know the difference.

I didn't say I didn't know the difference, I pointed out to you that something has to exist before viability can be considered. You are the one who is trying to backwards claim that viability determines existence. It can only determine viability of that which already exists.

Nope. Never claimed that.

Good! Then you reject the argument made by other pro-choicers in this thread that a fetus is not a living human being. This is the point we all need to be at in order to have a rational intelligent discussion about viability.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is difference between existence and viability. I'm thinking you're just pretending to not know the difference.

I didn't say I didn't know the difference, I pointed out to you that something has to exist before viability can be considered. You are the one who is trying to backwards claim that viability determines existence. It can only determine viability of that which already exists.

Nope. Never claimed that.

Good! Then you reject the argument made by other pro-choicers in this thread that a fetus is not a living human being. This is the point we all need to be at in order to have a rational intelligent discussion about viability.

I can't think of one poster who made the claim that a fetus is not living or is not human. The point of viability is reached when it can sustain it's life without being attached to the life support system.

 

[Boss]

I can't think of one poster who made the claim that a fetus is not living or is not human. The point of viability is reached when it can sustain it's life without being attached to the life support system.

Well I don't have time to go through the thread and point it out but that has been argued several times. And this isn't the first abortion thread posted, the argument comes up in every one of them.

As for this "viability" thing... do you believe, if you plopped down a newborn baby in the middle of Manhattan, it would be able to sustain life on it's own? What about a 6-month old? A two-year old? Seems to me these organisms depend on something helping them sustain life for a while, until they master the skills to do so on their own. Are they not viable human beings?

We can see here that "viability" becomes an ambiguous term which we can define arbitrarily to mean whatever we wish. Perhaps someone who lacks mental comprehension skills to effectively communicate with other people on message boards is not "viable" as a human being? Or maybe people without blonde hair and blue eyes aren't "viable" as human beings?

 

[koshergrl]

There is difference between existence and viability. I'm thinking you're just pretending to not know the difference.

I didn't say I didn't know the difference, I pointed out to you that something has to exist before viability can be considered. You are the one who is trying to backwards claim that viability determines existence. It can only determine viability of that which already exists.

Nope. Never claimed that.

Good! Then you reject the argument made by other pro-choicers in this thread that a fetus is not a living human being. This is the point we all need to be at in order to have a rational intelligent discussion about viability.

I can't think of one poster who made the claim that a fetus is not living or is not human. The point of viability is reached when it can sustain it's life without being attached to the life support system.

That's because you're a liar.

 

[BlindBoo]

I can't think of one poster who made the claim that a fetus is not living or is not human. The point of viability is reached when it can sustain it's life without being attached to the life support system.

Well I don't have time to go through the thread and point it out but that has been argued several times. And this isn't the first abortion thread posted, the argument comes up in every one of them.

As for this "viability" thing... do you believe, if you plopped down a newborn baby in the middle of Manhattan, it would be able to sustain life on it's own? What about a 6-month old? A two-year old? Seems to me these organisms depend on something helping them sustain life for a while, until they master the skills to do so on their own. Are they not viable human beings?

We can see here that "viability" becomes an ambiguous term which we can define arbitrarily to mean whatever we wish. Perhaps someone who lacks mental comprehension skills to effectively communicate with other people on message boards is not "viable" as a human being? Or maybe people without blonde hair and blue eyes aren't "viable" as human beings?

What ridiculous question. Viability is not an ambiguous term. It is when an organism has ability to sustain its' living functions(heart, lungs liver....), not the ability to provide for itself. Therefore a newborn in nearly all instances by definition is viable.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is difference between existence and viability. I'm thinking you're just pretending to not know the difference.

I didn't say I didn't know the difference, I pointed out to you that something has to exist before viability can be considered. You are the one who is trying to backwards claim that viability determines existence. It can only determine viability of that which already exists.

Nope. Never claimed that.

Good! Then you reject the argument made by other pro-choicers in this thread that a fetus is not a living human being. This is the point we all need to be at in order to have a rational intelligent discussion about viability.

I can't think of one poster who made the claim that a fetus is not living or is not human. The point of viability is reached when it can sustain it's life without being attached to the life support system.

That's because you're a liar.

Coming from you that really hurts........

 

[JFK_USA]

I love how neocons are all about forcing a woman against her will to do something she doesn't want to do but bitch that children cost money for the taxpayers. Well what the heck did you expect?

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't say I didn't know the difference, I pointed out to you that something has to exist before viability can be considered. You are the one who is trying to backwards claim that viability determines existence. It can only determine viability of that which already exists.

Nope. Never claimed that.

Good! Then you reject the argument made by other pro-choicers in this thread that a fetus is not a living human being. This is the point we all need to be at in order to have a rational intelligent discussion about viability.

I can't think of one poster who made the claim that a fetus is not living or is not human. The point of viability is reached when it can sustain it's life without being attached to the life support system.

That's because you're a liar.

Coming from you that really hurts........

I've no doubt you have no problem lying or being recognized as one. People without honor or integrity rarely give a crap.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nope. Never claimed that.

Good! Then you reject the argument made by other pro-choicers in this thread that a fetus is not a living human being. This is the point we all need to be at in order to have a rational intelligent discussion about viability.

I can't think of one poster who made the claim that a fetus is not living or is not human. The point of viability is reached when it can sustain it's life without being attached to the life support system.

That's because you're a liar.

Coming from you that really hurts........

I've no doubt you have no problem lying or being recognized as one. People without honor or integrity rarely give a crap.

If I'm lying you should have no problem providing a link or a name of a poster who thinks that an unborn developing human fetus in not living or is not human. Otherwise, your accusation, like so many before, is false.

 

[Boss]

What ridiculous question. Viability is not an ambiguous term. It is when an organism has ability to sustain its' living functions(heart, lungs liver....), not the ability to provide for itself. Therefore a newborn in nearly all instances by definition is viable.

The organism is able to sustain whatever it produces provided it remains in the appropriate environment to do so. A newborn is never able to sustain it's living functions without some assistance and no organism can sustain life outside the parameters of appropriate environment. We could sew you up inside a womb full of amniotic fluid and you wouldn't last 5 minutes.

Tell you what... let's dunk you under water for 5 minutes and see if you can remain "viable" and if you can't, we can determine you were not a 'real' human being!

 

[Boss]

Good! Then you reject the argument made by other pro-choicers in this thread that a fetus is not a living human being. This is the point we all need to be at in order to have a rational intelligent discussion about viability.

I can't think of one poster who made the claim that a fetus is not living or is not human. The point of viability is reached when it can sustain it's life without being attached to the life support system.

That's because you're a liar.

Coming from you that really hurts........

I've no doubt you have no problem lying or being recognized as one. People without honor or integrity rarely give a crap.

If I'm lying you should have no problem providing a link or a name of a poster who thinks that an unborn developing human fetus in not living or is not human. Otherwise, your accusation, like so many before, is false.

JoeB argued it for 14 pages, did you fail to read the thread?