Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[NYcarbineer]

Bullshit. If it evokes an emotion in YOU that's one thing. But alternative uses of illustration of the growth of the fetus aren't emotion-laden.

There's more than one use for the pictures, just admit that.

Of course there are but the inane types aren't capable of realizing this and run around screaming 'emotion!' whenever a pic is posted as a reference. I wonder if they're born that stupid or if it develops over time?

Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!" It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals per se, since God knows, they have nothing else. Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up? No, of course not. Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion: "I feel" and "my belief is".

Your rejection of religion as a valid basis for opposing abortion won't be looked at too favorably by most anti-abortionists, I suspect.

But while we're on the subject, the decision in Roe v. Wade is partially based on the colonial American Protestant belief that abortion was in fact permissible up until the time of quickening;

that would be folks like the Puritans and the Separatists (Pilgrims) who were, you may recall,

VERY religious. VERY Christian.

So, pretty much, either way you lose the argument.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course there are but the inane types aren't capable of realizing this and run around screaming 'emotion!' whenever a pic is posted as a reference. I wonder if they're born that stupid or if it develops over time?

Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!" It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals per se, since God knows, they have nothing else. Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up? No, of course not. Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion: "I feel" and "my belief is".

Have you presented any scientific evidence that a fertilized human egg has any resemblance to a born human being whatsoever, other than its DNA content?

Why would I need to, and why would HE need to? It is unnecessary, ridiculous, and irrelevant to demand that an embryo look like anything other than an embryo. A newborn infant doesn't look like an adult, and no one demands that he do so, much less that I "present scientific evidence" that he does.

At every stage in the human life span, from conception to death, the human organism looks exactly as he is supposed to look at that point in his life (barring severe, catastrophic defects, obviously). That's all that's required.

You want to justify making it illegal to abort a human zygote/embryo/fetus from the moment of conception,

Actually, for the purposes of this particular thread, I just want to make the abortionistas be honest about the facts of the argument. That's enough of an uphill battle to take on all by itself.

on the grounds that it's a 'human being', and yet you can present no evidence whatsoever that it is a human being, a person, other than its 46 chromosomes which are nothing more than the plans for a human being.

When did I ever say that chromosomes were my only evidence? When in this thread have I said ANYTHING about chromosomes, as a matter of fact? How's about you argue with me based on MY ACTUAL ARGUMENTS, rather than the arguments you'd LIKE me to have made?

I'm not going to restate those arguments and rehash the evidence just because YOU can't be bothered to read and pay attention. Go back and look, or we can just consider this one more bit of evidence that you and your comrades are incapable of even the smallest iota of honesty on this subject. Your choice.

You can no more claim a fertilized egg is a human than you can claim the blueprint for a house is a house.

Of course I can, and I have. The fact that you just blew right past all the arguments in favor of "I want to believe she's claiming the DNA as evidence, so THAT'S what I'm going to argue against, never mind what she actually said" means nothing whatsoever.

Once again, go back and find my ACTUAL arguments, or continue on arguing with the voices in your head, thus proving that you bring nothing to the table. Whichever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course there are but the inane types aren't capable of realizing this and run around screaming 'emotion!' whenever a pic is posted as a reference. I wonder if they're born that stupid or if it develops over time?

Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!" It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals per se, since God knows, they have nothing else. Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up? No, of course not. Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion: "I feel" and "my belief is".

Your rejection of religion as a valid basis for opposing abortion won't be looked at too favorably by most anti-abortionists, I suspect.

Not only do I not give a damn if other pro-lifers do or don't like my disinterest in religion as an arguing point, I don't even give a fraction of a damn what YOU think they'll think. You are pretty much all alone in the delusion that you are some sort of oracle regarding the thoughts and beliefs of pro-lifers, or conservative people in general.

But while we're on the subject, the decision in Roe v. Wade is partially based on the colonial American Protestant belief that abortion was in fact permissible up until the time of quickening;

Oh, well, let's run right out and base ALL our decisions and laws on a 17th century understanding of science and medicine. Quick, got any leeches handy?

that would be folks like the Puritans and the Separatists (Pilgrims) who were, you may recall,

VERY religious. VERY Christian.

I'll pencil giving a fuck into my calendar somewhere right after Hell freezes over. Promise.

So, pretty much, either way you lose the argument.

The only argument I've lost is the one you were apparently having with an imaginary Cecilie in your own head, since you didn't say a single thing that meant jack shit to any of the words coming from the real-life Cecilie.

I reiterate: abortionistas frame none of their arguments in terms of actual, proven scientific fact. They instead phrase them the way one does when speaking of articles of religious faith.

Babbling about the limited medical understanding of a group of religious people who lived centuries ago not only doesn't change that fact, it borders on the most inane, surreally irrelevant thing I've read on the Internet this week. Congratulations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!" It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals per se, since God knows, they have nothing else. Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up? No, of course not. Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion: "I feel" and "my belief is".

Have you presented any scientific evidence that a fertilized human egg has any resemblance to a born human being whatsoever, other than its DNA content?

Why would I need to, and why would HE need to? It is unnecessary, ridiculous, and irrelevant to demand that an embryo look like anything other than an embryo. A newborn infant doesn't look like an adult, and no one demands that he do so, much less that I "present scientific evidence" that he does.

At every stage in the human life span, from conception to death, the human organism looks exactly as he is supposed to look at that point in his life (barring severe, catastrophic defects, obviously). That's all that's required.



Actually, for the purposes of this particular thread, I just want to make the abortionistas be honest about the facts of the argument. That's enough of an uphill battle to take on all by itself.

on the grounds that it's a 'human being', and yet you can present no evidence whatsoever that it is a human being, a person, other than its 46 chromosomes which are nothing more than the plans for a human being.

When did I ever say that chromosomes were my only evidence? When in this thread have I said ANYTHING about chromosomes, as a matter of fact? How's about you argue with me based on MY ACTUAL ARGUMENTS, rather than the arguments you'd LIKE me to have made?

I'm not going to restate those arguments and rehash the evidence just because YOU can't be bothered to read and pay attention. Go back and look, or we can just consider this one more bit of evidence that you and your comrades are incapable of even the smallest iota of honesty on this subject. Your choice.

You can no more claim a fertilized egg is a human than you can claim the blueprint for a house is a house.

Of course I can, and I have. The fact that you just blew right past all the arguments in favor of "I want to believe she's claiming the DNA as evidence, so THAT'S what I'm going to argue against, never mind what she actually said" means nothing whatsoever.

Once again, go back and find my ACTUAL arguments, or continue on arguing with the voices in your head, thus proving that you bring nothing to the table. Whichever.

There is no scientific argument that magically turns a human zygote into a human person, therefore there is no logical argument that science supports treating human zygotes AS persons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!" It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals per se, since God knows, they have nothing else. Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up? No, of course not. Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion: "I feel" and "my belief is".

Your rejection of religion as a valid basis for opposing abortion won't be looked at too favorably by most anti-abortionists, I suspect.

Not only do I not give a damn if other pro-lifers do or don't like my disinterest in religion as an arguing point, I don't even give a fraction of a damn what YOU think they'll think. You are pretty much all alone in the delusion that you are some sort of oracle regarding the thoughts and beliefs of pro-lifers, or conservative people in general.



Oh, well, let's run right out and base ALL our decisions and laws on a 17th century understanding of science and medicine. Quick, got any leeches handy?

that would be folks like the Puritans and the Separatists (Pilgrims) who were, you may recall,

VERY religious. VERY Christian.

I'll pencil giving a fuck into my calendar somewhere right after Hell freezes over. Promise.

So, pretty much, either way you lose the argument.

The only argument I've lost is the one you were apparently having with an imaginary Cecilie in your own head, since you didn't say a single thing that meant jack shit to any of the words coming from the real-life Cecilie.

I reiterate: abortionistas frame none of their arguments in terms of actual, proven scientific fact. They instead phrase them the way one does when speaking of articles of religious faith.

Babbling about the limited medical understanding of a group of religious people who lived centuries ago not only doesn't change that fact, it borders on the most inane, surreally irrelevant thing I've read on the Internet this week. Congratulations.

Logically then, the scientific community, especially those scientists in the area of biology, human physiology, genetics, etc.,

must believe overwhelmingly that first trimester abortion is the equivalent of infanticide.

Do you suspect that's true?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Generally speaking, when leftists scream about "emotional appeals", what they mean is "Damn it, you've presented evidence I can't answer OR ignore!" It's not like they actually OBJECT to emotional appeals per se, since God knows, they have nothing else. Have you heard even ONE of them, in all these pages, present a single argument that had any science to back it up? No, of course not. Everything they have to say is built around the language of religion: "I feel" and "my belief is".

Your rejection of religion as a valid basis for opposing abortion won't be looked at too favorably by most anti-abortionists, I suspect.

Not only do I not give a damn if other pro-lifers do or don't like my disinterest in religion as an arguing point, I don't even give a fraction of a damn what YOU think they'll think. You are pretty much all alone in the delusion that you are some sort of oracle regarding the thoughts and beliefs of pro-lifers, or conservative people in general.



Oh, well, let's run right out and base ALL our decisions and laws on a 17th century understanding of science and medicine. Quick, got any leeches handy?

that would be folks like the Puritans and the Separatists (Pilgrims) who were, you may recall,

VERY religious. VERY Christian.

I'll pencil giving a fuck into my calendar somewhere right after Hell freezes over. Promise.

So, pretty much, either way you lose the argument.

The only argument I've lost is the one you were apparently having with an imaginary Cecilie in your own head, since you didn't say a single thing that meant jack shit to any of the words coming from the real-life Cecilie.

I reiterate: abortionistas frame none of their arguments in terms of actual, proven scientific fact. They instead phrase them the way one does when speaking of articles of religious faith.

Babbling about the limited medical understanding of a group of religious people who lived centuries ago not only doesn't change that fact, it borders on the most inane, surreally irrelevant thing I've read on the Internet this week. Congratulations.

Why don't you be the first anti-abortionist in this thread to tell us specifically what the law SHOULD be regarding abortion.

So far none have. It's very telling.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Not only do I not give a damn if other pro-lifers do or don't like my disinterest in religion as an arguing point, I don't even give a fraction of a damn what YOU think they'll think. You are pretty much all alone in the delusion that you are some sort of oracle regarding the thoughts and beliefs of pro-lifers, or conservative people in general.

It's a delusion that RELIGION is a major component in the motivation for the anti-abortion position?

A delusion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?

A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.

Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.

It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand

-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position






*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.

1200 posts over semantics.



And somewhere in the middle of it, when I happily stipulated to the fetus being human, and wanted to debate from there,

Beukema went mental and every other anti-abortionist in the thread clammed up.

too funny.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I dont have to defend myself when it comes to my body.

The child is not your body. Biology 101. Your beloved catchphrase is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit. You have every right to do with your body as you will so long as you harm nobody else. You may tattoo it, pierce it, and penetrate it with exotic toys all you like. You may not harm another person either with your body (eg: punching someone in the face) or in the course of doing something to your own body (eg: suicide bombing).

Aha. Right there JB defined the unborn from conception forward as a PERSON.

Something he later denied doing. He later denied equating a fertilized egg with a born person.

Such a shame he got banned.

 

[AllieBaba]

Crap, flood the thread with your nonsensical ranting why dontcha?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Crap, flood the thread with your nonsensical ranting why dontcha?

Is that the best you can do?

I'm still waiting for you and the others to state your position on what abortion law should be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is discarding unneeded fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic MURDER?

I don't recall getting that one answered.

If you think a fertilized egg is a person, then of course it's murder. We should make it against the law and if anyone breaks that law we should put them in prison for life.

That's the rational sensible thing to do, right? All you science experts out there?

 

[Vanquish]

The continual typing until you get a response is a bit annoying...but if you must...

Yes. An egg, fertilized with sperm should be considered life. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an additional stipulation that it either happened naturally or it was inside a woman growing, but I see you're attempting to take an idea to its logical conclusion. And I'm happy to go there.

 

[Barb]

The continual typing until you get a response is a bit annoying...but if you must...

Yes. An egg, fertilized with sperm should be considered life. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an additional stipulation that it either happened naturally or it was inside a woman growing, but I see you're attempting to take an idea to its logical conclusion. And I'm happy to go there.

Well, go then. The fact remains that until it can survive outside of the host(ess), it IS a parasite UPON the HOST(ess).

 

[Vanquish]

This parasite bullshit is ridiculous.

 

[Anguille]

Crap, flood the thread with your nonsensical ranting why dontcha?

Is that the best you can do?

I'm still waiting for you and the others to state your position on what abortion law should be.

I'd like to see that too. Seems they keep banging into that wall and then running away.

 

[Vanquish]

Abortion law should be no abortions during any period of pregnacy, unless medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In such a situation, an option should be given to the mother to place her baby's life above her own.

There's your law.

 

[Barb]

This parasite bullshit is ridiculous.

Its not bullshit, it is a biological fact.

 

[Anguille]

Abortion law should be no abortions during any period of pregnacy, unless medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In such a situation, an option should be given to the mother to place her baby's life above her own.

There's your law.

Now could you us what would be the appropriate punishment for a woman who has an abortion and for anyone who has assisted her in the crime?

 

[Barb]

Abortion law should be no abortions during any period of pregnacy, unless medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In such a situation, an option should be given to the mother to place her baby's life above her own.

There's your law.

Got MILK?

If YOU can't, WON'T, are UNWILLING to sustain it? YOU have absolutely NO say in the matter, and that is how it should be.