A Conception's Right To Life

[palerider]

First: There are a lot of things that are "alive" and growing to reach some final potential. Being alive in the case of conception has that life having the potential to become a full person if it continues to evolve. A person is more than a few cells growing. A person has feelings and many other things that come along with development.

Prove that. I, and others can certainly prove that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. I would be interested in seeing you prove your assertions. If you could go into the chambers of the supreme court justices, or practically any other judge in this country, you would find a legal dictionary. Specifically, Black's Legal Dictionary as it is THE legal dictionary. When a dispute arises over the meaning of a legal term (person is a legal term) the judge settles the dispute by reading the definition of the argued legal term.

Go to your local library, to the reference section, take a copy of Black's Legal Dictionary and turn to page 1152 (depending on the edition). Look at the word "person". You will see that the legal definiton of the word person is "a human being". No more, no less. A human being. Nothing at all about feelings or other things. Simply a human being. That is why the court found that it must deny that unborns are human beings at all because to admit that they were human beings was to admit that they were in fact, persons.

Let's try and remember that if one takes this fertilized cell idea as a full blow person than every woman on today's safe and effective Birth Control Pill is committing mass murder because the Pill contaminates the womb so that the ALREADY FERTILIZED EGG cannot implant and hence aborts.

It is possible to formulate a birth control pill that prevents ovulation but does not have abortificant effects. By the way, there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Upon conception, a human being exists, not a fertilized egg.

"Often,this morula is inaccurately referred to as a ‘fertilized egg’ because the blastomeres remain inside the female parent’s oocyte outer cell membrane. That is an incorrect characterization, because the 23 -chromosome oocyte no longer exists; all the cells within the morula have the unique genome—46 chromosomes and a complement of mitochondrial DNA —of the newly conceived individual life." Moore and Persaud, The Developing Human, 6th ed., (p. 43)

I can't think of many people that really, seriously belive this is murder.

I doubt that most Germans saw what happened to the Jews as murder and it is almost a sure bet that most people in early US history didn't see killing a slave as murder. One can only rightly view killing a human being as murder if one recognizes the one being killed as a human being. If most people don't see abortion as murder, then you are saying that most people are so ignorant of the subject of human developmental biology that they don't recognize when an individual human being comes into existence.

Secondly: You have a fully developed living breathing person with rights to consider here... the woman. No where in law can one person be legally forced to give up their personal body so something or someone else can get the benifit of it or even live for that matter.

You don't become a human being by virtue of your stage of development. If your argument were true, then a mother could rightly kill her 3 year old because the child won't be a "fully developed" human being until sometime in her late 20's.

As to sharing "bodily resources" I suggest that you do a bit of research into conjoined twins. Very often, they share a vital organ. They may not be separated unless the organ is so weak that both will die if the separation is not attempted no matter how inconvenienced the twin with the organ may feel. Thus, there is ample legal precedent for requiring one individual to share bodily resources with another.

In Example: If my brother needed a bone marrow transplant and I was the only person on earth that could save him... I'm not (and shouldn't be) legally bound to do anything against my will as far as giving up my body for use.

see above

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It is possible to formulate a birth control pill that prevents ovulation but does not have abortificant effects.

We're close, enough. I'd always assumed you pro-poverty folks were a little-more current on existing-tech.​

 

[palerider]

We're close, enough. I'd always assumed you pro-poverty folks were a little-more current on existing-tech.​

Do you have any actual argument or is an adolescent "quip" as good as it gets with you?

By the way, emergency birth control is abortion, not contraception. Your web site inaccurately characterizes the beginning of a pregnancy as the point at which the embryo implants into the uterus. That was the state of medical knowledge at the time roe was decided. In the years since, we have learned that the child begins communicating chemically with its mother and her body begins to respond within an hour or so after fertilization is complete. The time at which the woman's body changes gears into gestational mode is the time at which she is pregnant. That time, my friend, is days before implantation occurs.

Don't feel alone though. Practically the entire pro choice argument is based on outdated, incorrect, factualy inaccurate information.

 

[top gun]

You have said this a few times now but just as the data presented to the court in R V W was not correct and misleading this needs to be corrected too before people are mislead.

The pill mimics the effect of being pregnant and since pregnant women don't ovulate they don't get pregnant again. Most of the time ovulation is stopped and so there is no egg to be fertilized.
Second, the birth control pill makes the environment of the womb hostile to sperm. In almost all cases first the sperm is dead and so no fertilization could take place if there were an egg to be fertilized.

Yes there are cases in which fertilization takes place then, then the environment of the womb is hostile to the fertilized egg. But it is not entirely hostile as sometimes the fertilization results in a pregnancy and sometimes in a birth.

There's no misleading... you've said it yourself (highlighted above). Although I disagree with your claim of frequency going even by your statement across the spectrum of all the millions of women on the Pill by the definition presented women using the Pill would be committing mass murders.

I think few people really agree with this definition of murder and hence the full personhood at birth claim falls short.

 

[top gun]

Do you have any actual argument or is an adolescent "quip" as good as it gets with you?

Practically the entire pro choice argument is based on outdated, incorrect, factualy inaccurate information.

Pale, pale, pale... you still beating this dead horse?

I would have thought the election would have finally showed you the glaring errors of your prognosticating abilities.

I tried to tell you yeeeeeears ago the vast majority of people don't want to go back into the 1950's with ya. I know women for sure don't.

Let's work to focus on something we really can accomplish. It's been proven that sex education, easy availability to birth control devices and contraception work to lower the abortion rate. Here's a great article (paraphrased for space) on how so called Pro Lifers may actually be increasing the abortion rate.

One Salient Oversight
The pontifications of an Evangelical Polymathic Cassandra

Tuesday, January 29, 2008
My position on Abortion

As an Evangelical I believe the bible.

Ever since Roe vs Wade in the United States essentially legalised abortion, Christians have been at the forefront of fighting against it. The effect of Roe vs Wade has not just been to legalise abortion, but to also legitimise it in society. Since the early 1970s, our society has become increasingly tolerant of abortion. In Australia, a Roy Morgan Poll in 2006 indicated that about 65% of Australians supported abortion, while 22% were opposed with 13% unsure. Polling in the US shows a similar trend.

Nevertheless, the sheer amount of people who support abortion should give Christians pause to think. Ever since the first protests against abortion were made by Christians in the 1970s, the focus has been solely upon prohibition - making abortion illegal. Moreover, this focus has meant that politicians have been able to use the issue as a way to get people's votes. This is very much the case in the United States, where Republican politicians are more likely to indicate a pro-life stance than their Democrat colleagues. Along with attitudes towards homosexuality, the Republicans in the United States have become the party which Christians want to vote for. Here in Australia, none of the three major parties (Liberal, National, Labor) welcomes an anti-abortion message, though the more conservative parties (Liberal, National, Family First, Christian Democrat) are more likely to have pro-life people active in them.

The problem (the "elephant in the room" as Craig Schwarze would put it) is that the pro-life movement has failed - completely and spectacularly. Despite 30 years of protests, political action and even violence (albeit from a militant minority), western society has embraced abortion. Despite the efforts of the pro-life movement, support for abortion has increased since the early 1970s. While pro-life people argue and agitate to make abortion illegal, a considerable majority of people wish to keep it legal. Moreover, voting for politicians who support the pro-life camp has resulted in absolutely no change at all in abortion laws. For example, from 1994 until 2006, the US congress was controlled by conservative Republicans who had been voted in by the American people to enact conservative legislation - which included support from pro-life groups. Despite 12 years of congressional control (of which 6 years were spent under a conservative president who would not veto conservative legislation), Roe vs Wade was never repealed, and public opinion of abortion did not swing enough towards the pro-life position (if it swung at all). So much for political agitation.

The best sort of strategy is the one which will result in the best outcome. I am a fan of measurable outcomes, which is why the pro-life movement does not impress me - the outcome of their efforts is worse than when they started out. If pro-life people really want to make an impact, they need to adopt a strategy that will result in the best outcome.

And what is the best outcome? Is it the prohibition of abortion (making it illegal)? No. Believe it or not, that is the wrong objective to have. The correct objective, when taking the biblical evidence in hand, is for abortion rates to reach zero. The best outcome is zero abortion, and that can be achieved without focusing upon prohibition making it illegal.

To understand where I am coming from, pro-life people need to step into the shoes of pro-choice advocates. No matter what we think of them, the fact is that pro-choice people do not see themselves as evil, fascist, demon possessed servants of Satan. Instead, they see themselves as defenders of personal liberty, which is why they call themselves "pro-choice", rather than "pro-abortion". You see, this is because pro-choice people focus upon the freedom for a person to choose between keeping a baby or aborting it. Regardless of the theological and ethical problems of this attitude, pro-life people MUST understand that the issue for pro-choice people is choice.

I have spoken to pro-choice people over the years, both on the internet and in person. I have read their statements of values and their arguments. Pro-choice people do not think abortion is a wonderful experience that every woman should go through. Pro-choice people know that complications sometimes do occur after abortions which may prevent conception and child-bearing later on. Pro-choice people do know that abortion is a surgical procedure that has risks. And, most important of all, pro-choice people have no problem with declining abortion rates since they know that preventing unwanted pregnancies is better than abortion.

You see, pro-choice people are more concerned about a woman's choice to have an abortion than they are about the procedure itself. All pro-choice people believe that preventing unwanted pregnancies is an essential feature of woman's health, but, if an unwanted pregnancy does occur, they would argue that abortion should be a legal and safe option for the woman to consider. Moreover, they would support a woman's choice to keep her baby if that is what she wants - it is the choice that is important to pro-choice people, not the abortion procedure.

And this is where both pro-life people and pro-choice people can have some level of commonality. If pro-life people want zero abortions, and pro-choice people want safe and legal access to abortions, then surely there is common ground. But where?

Well, imagine a country in which abortions are safe and legal and where no abortions occur. Is it possible? Certainly. If women have the freedom to choose between keeping their baby or aborting it, and then all choose to keep them, then we have a situation in which both sides are happy. But is this possible?

A 1999 study by Henshaw, Singh and Haas examined the incidence of abortion throughout the world. What it discovered is that abortion numbers varied widely from country to country. Australia, for example, had an abortion rate of 22.2 (abortions per 1000 women) in 1995-96. The United States had a rate of 22.9. Germany, however, managed an abortion rate of 7.6. Other low rates include Belgium at 6.8, Finland at 10.0, Netherlands at 6.5 and Switzerland at 8.4. Spain and Italy, two very Roman Catholic countries, have abortion rates of 5.7 and 11.4. Countries that have large abortion rates include Bulgaria (51.3), Belarus (67.5), China (26.1), Romania (78.0) and Vietnam (83.3).

There are some rather important lessons to learn from this 1999 study. First of all, abortion rates in western countries are much lower than in developing countries. Second of all, countries which legalise abortion have lower abortion rates than countries where it is illegal.

Now I realise that might go against certain assumptions - yet it is clear that low abortion rates and legalised abortion do actually go hand in hand. For those who wish to make abortion illegal, it seems logical (though hard to accept) to assume that making it illegal will actually increase it.

Why do secular Western European nations have lower abortion rates than conservative Christian America? Why are abortion rates lower in countries where abortion is accepted, and higher in countries where it is illegal or at least controversial (as in America)?

The key, I believe, is that legalised abortion in western nations has gone hand-in-hand with higher rates of prevention - that is, women in countries with legalised abortion are more likely to prevent conception from occurring in the first place. When women prevent unwanted conceptions, they are less likely to seek abortions.

And this is where I believe that both pro-life and pro-choice people have an area of commonality - the desire to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place. If pregnancies can be prevented, it means less abortions can take place. That would please the pro-life person because it would mean less deaths, and it should please the pro-choice person because women are choosing to prevent pregnancies.

So, what practical steps should happen?

Well, it means that new pro-life groups in Western countries need to form with the express purpose of reducing abortion to zero but without demanding that abortion be illegal. In other words, these pro-life groups would accept that abortion be legal so long as steps are taken to prevent unwanted pregnancies to ensure that abortion rates reach zero.

Reducing abortion to zero through education and changes in public attitudes will take time - but it will happen. Every year we can expect abortion rates to drop. But if pro-life groups continue to take a hardline stance and demand that abortion be illegal, then we can expect little to occur and for abortion rates to continue as they are. I would rather real, measurable outcomes (a drop in abortion rates) rather than hardline rhetoric that solves nothing.

 

[Chip]

A Conceptions Right To Life is a false premis because it doesn't take all facts into consideration.

Certainly you can argue that it takes more than being a person, a human being, for one to be accorded rights.

But why would you want to do that?

Because it's inconvenient for you to accord that person rights?

So far, that's what I'm hearing.

Convenience is a very utilitarian perspective.

It allows you to conjure up all kinds of personal idiosyncratic moral relativistic "reasons" to "justify" getting whatever you want.

There are many historical figures who committed great atrocities from that mindset.

I would implore all utilitarians to reconsider the modern scientific reality that a person, a unique individual human being, truly does begin to live at the moment of conception.

Realizing the truth of it, does indeed change everything in the mind of the honest and moral individual with respect to the thereby rightfully endowed right to life of that newly conceived person.

First: There are a lot of things that are "alive" and growing to reach some final potential.

Here you exhibit the typical fantastical fabrications of the moral relativistic utilitarian mindset ... a mindset that is much less concerned with the truth of reality than on simply getting its egotistical way.

Your term "final potential" is an idiosyncratically manufactured construct designed to belittlingly minimize the reality that a unique individual human, a person, is indeed existent and alive from the moment of conception.

There is no "final" "potential" with regard to being a person which is a living human being.

One either is the person of a human being or one isn't.

An eminent pre-natal, a newborn baby, a two year-old child, a 12 year-old child, a 15 year-old teenager, and on and on. There is no rationally applied "final" "potential" regarding that person's existence or accorded rights.

"Final" "potential" is merely another of the many pro-abortionists' sophistries utilitarianly employed to irrationalize the murder of pre-natal people.

Being alive in the case of conception has that life having the potential to become a full person if it continues to evolve.

Similar in nature to "final" "potential" is the term "full person" as it is employed by the pro-abortionist to again minimizingly belittle the reality of the personhood of the newly conceived, and again, to "justify" in the pro-abortionist's utilitarian mind the murder of that person via abortion.

There is no such thing in reality as a "full" person.

One is either a person or one is not.

Science has made it clear that a person begins to live at the moment of conception, an obvious reality most everyone knows to be true.

The moral relativistic specious sophistry of "full" person is laughable to all but the utilitarian pro-abortionist, who incredibly sees his fallacy as being true.

Such is a great illustration of the damage that reality denial can do to the human mind. The denial sufferer only continues to become more and more out of touch with reality.

A person is more than a few cells growing.

Another in the litany of the pro-abortionist's sophistries is the "cell count" sophistry.

Here the utilitarian pro-abortionist idiosyncratically counts the number of cells in a person's body and comes to a "full" person dividing line as to what really amounts to whether that person is a person or not.

Science doesn't make this distinction. Science, modern humanity's method for rationally determining the truth of reality, says that the number of cells a living entity's body contains is irrelevant to the truth of their being.

Indeed, a single-cell conception, from that very moment, from science's perspective, is indeed a human being, a person by definition.

But the pro-abortion sophister can't live with modern science's declaration, because that would be just too ... inconvenient.

So the pro-abortionist conjures up the sophistry of "cell count" to irrationalize in his mind the justification to murder that person via abortion.

Because it is so very inconvenient to the pro-abortionist to accept their new realization that it's a scientific fact that the newly conceived person is a person indeed, the utilitarian pro-abortionist, unconcerned with ontological truths and epistemological facts, goes into immediate denial, simply to preserve their way of pro-abortionist life.

A person has feelings and many other things that come along with development.

Here the pro-abortionist implies that to be a person one must have "feelings and many other things that come along with development".

Again, this is simply another sophistry in the pro-abortionist's litany.

The pro-abortionist will then go on to idiosyncratically define all those other things ... and two pro-abortionists rarely if ever come up with the same extensive list ... all, of course, in the name of denying the reality that they advocate murder of what science has unconjecturably determined to be pre-natal people.

Indeed, their behavior is quite reminiscent of the bias employed by monsters of the past to justify similar natured murder of a class of people.

But they don't see it that way.

They don't get what they're doing is so very wrong.

And they don't get that because they are in convenience based denial.

Let's try and remember that if one takes this fertilized cell idea as a full blow person

Here the pro-abortionist illustrates yet another in his long line of sophistries: the "fertilized cell" nomenclature.

The pro-abortionist doesn't say "newly conceived person", the scientifically accurate term in the nomenclature for the lay person.

Instead the pro-abortionist refers to the newly conceived person in both a technical and erroneous manner in a demeaning attempt to minimizingly belittle the personhood of the newly conceived person.

The "fertilized cell" term is erroneous, because it implies that though the sperm may be gone, the "egg" is still in existence, having just been "fertilized". Indeed, many pro-abortionists employ the term "fertilized egg" as being synonymous with "fertilized cell".

But their presentation isn't true. The egg, the "cell" in their terminology, is now gone too once conception occurs. A conception, at least once newly conceived person, now exists.

The pro-abortionist's attempt to employ what appears to be a "technical" term is done as an implied appeal to "A"uthority of "science". But, it is employed in error.

The pro-abortionist will do anything to keep themselves in a convenient state of reality denial.

than every woman on today's safe and effective Birth Control Pill

Here the pro-abortionist panders to similarly utilitarian "women" by reminding the reader that today's abortificant birth control pills are "safe and effective".

But, of course, that doesn't change the fact that today's birth control can function by intent to kill what sicence has unconjecturably determined to be newly conceived people.

Safe for whom?

Effective? Like Mengala!

is committing mass murder because the Pill contaminates the womb so that the ALREADY FERTILIZED EGG cannot implant and hence aborts.

This statement continues to illustrate that the pro-abortionist will never give up the "fertilized egg" sophistry, even when stating a general truth.

And, of course, the pro-abortionist gets in the term "mass murder" to achieve a negative reaction from utilitarian pro-abortion women. All so very typical of their reality denial of scientific fact.

But, in general, it is true that the ingredients that can be present in both birth control and after-the-fact abortifacients do indeed function to kill the newly conceived person.

That is a fact.

A difficult fact for the pro-abortionist, newly confronted with the scientific truth that a person begins to live at the moment of conception, to accept.

But, that does remain the truth.

Denial is futile.

Acceptance is really for the best, if the truth is to be respected.

Then we can persuade the powers that be in business and government to bring the new state-of-the-art conception prevention pharmaceuticals (that lop off the tails of sperms so that can't penetrate an egg, that harden the shell of a released egg to impenetrability, etc.) through testing and into worldwide availability without further political delay.

 

[Chip]

I can't think of many people that really, seriously belive this is murder.

What you can truly think of and what you can't truly think of is irrelevant.

The fact remains that killing a person without life-or-death self-defense justification is committing the sociological act of murder.

That's the truth of it.

There are indeed many people who accept the scientific truth that a person begins to live at conception who seriously recognize the murderous truth of the matter.

And, that group is greatly growing ... while the numbers of pro-abortionist sophisters is greatly decreasing, thanks to the unconjecturable scientific revelation that a person, a human being, begins at conception.

Secondly: You have a fully developed living breathing person with rights to consider here... the woman.

Your statement is both right and wrong.

It is wrong in that you imply that the woman is "fully developed" in comparison to the newly conceived or pre-natal person at any stage of their growth. There is no rational application of "fully developed" to human beings in any stage of their growth with respect to rights.

It is wrong in that you imply that because the woman is "living" that the newly conceived person is not. Both are living human beings.

It is wrong in that you imply that because the woman is breathing oxygen outside of the womb that she has "more" rights. That is again a false distinction.

But it is true in that, yes, the woman does have rights to consider.

The woman also has the right to life, just like the pre-natal person does.

Only when one is unjustifiably and realistically threatening the very life of the other do those rights come in conflict.

Mere pregnancy is not a threat on the life of the woman. Thus no rights are in conflict via mere pregnancy, and the woman cannot take the foundational right, the right to life, of the pre-natal person without thereby committing the sociological act of murder.

No where in law can one person be legally forced to give up their personal body so something or someone else can get the benifit of it or even live for that matter.

Actually, that is false in this topical matter, as well as inaccurately stated.

As a result of the scientific determination that pre-natals are people, unique individual human beings, progress in protecting their right to life has indeed been made.

Partial birth abortion, and abortion near to the completion of gestation is now illegal in many places.

Indeed, this is the growing trend now that science has spoken, to protect the thereby revealed right to life of pre-natal people.

As more and more people become aware of this scientific reality, as more and more utilitarian pro-abortion sophisters come out of denial, the rights of pre-natal people will enter the law books.

In Example: If my brother needed a bone marrow transplant and I was the only person on earth that could save him... I'm not (and shouldn't be) legally bound to do anything against my will as far as giving up my body for use.

Irrelevant and topically inaccurate.

A more accurate anaology would be that if you didn't like your brother because he was economically and temporally inconvenient for you, you could not murder him because of it.

That is more like people who find the newly conceived person to be economically and temporally inconvenient and therefore want to murder that person.

So we end up in a situation where someone that can live on their own and make an informed decision has that final decision of events over something that cannot.

Your argument was proved fallacious in the previous quote response.

Your analogy is inaccurate with respect to the topic, and thus your conclusion is thereby false.

Your glittering generality here is simply misapplied.

But such is typical of pro-abortionists -- they create the most obvious and laughably inaccurate comparisons which they actually think are true!

Such exemplifies the mind damage done to the pro-abortionist by denial of reality.

So we can say that those first two cells are a person or anything else only because if everything went well, no disease, no severe birth defect, no miscarriage, not still born, not aborted etc. they would eventually be born and having personhood.

"We" can say these inapplicable and thereby erroneous things if we're a pro-abortion sophister who sees the pre-natal person's rights as being inconvenient and inferior to their own.

But that doesn't make it true.

Science disagrees with you, Top Gun.

Rational application of the facts in the matter disagrees with you, Top Gun.

Those who don't have a pro-abortionists denial-based agenda disagree with you, Top Gun.

You really don't have a rational, truthful leg to stand on in your presentations, Top Gun.

Your denial of reality is thereby obvious.

Personhood is scientifically and rationally with respect to definitive propriety existent from conception.

That is the modern-day revealed truth of the matter.

I grant you that you have many years of convenience-based behavior and ignorance on the matter to overcome, and that such simply doesn't occur over night in most human psyches.

But, in time, acceptance is really for the best.

But until it is viable (reasonably able to live on it's own outside the womb) it doesn't have the same standing as a person with personhood. It's basically a legal difference... person isn't personhood.

Not according to science and rational application of definitive propriety.

The right to life is granted to all people, regardless ...

... Regardless of whether those rights are inconvenient for those who are used to disposing of them at will.

But until it is viable (reasonably able to live on it's own outside the womb) it doesn't have the same standing as a person with personhood. It's basically a legal difference... person isn't personhood

Again, not according to science and rational application of definitive propriety.

But you continue in your "full person", "viability" test, "legal difference" and other pro-abortionist sophistries to deny the truth of the matter, a truth that even you likely intuitively know to be an obvious reality: that a unique person, a unique individual human being, is created at the moment of conception.

There is no "full personhood" test rightfully in existence to determine who gets rights and who doesn't.

All that is required is to be a person, a human being, to be in foundationally granted possession of one's rights, which, foundationally includes the right to life.

The scientific revelation of a few decades ago has presented that the newly conceived person is indeed a person.

Adjustment to the truth of this will take time.

But already legal modifications have occurred to protect the rights of pre-natals, and more modifications to protect those rights are understandably forthcoming.

The times they are a changing.

Pro-abortionists can come out of denial of the past's ignorance and stand along side the rest of us in acceptance of the truth that a pre-natal is a person from the conception get-go and respect these people's right to life ...

... Or they can go the way of the dinosaur kicking and screaming in meteroic extinction ...

... Or they can soon be branded the Hitlerian mass murderers that their futile resistance may one day accurately accord them.

The choice, Top Gun ... is yours.

 

[palerider]

Pale, pale, pale... you still beating this dead horse?

I would have thought the election would have finally showed you the glaring errors of your prognosticating abilities.


I tried to tell you yeeeeeears ago the vast majority of people don't want to go back into the 1950's with ya. I know women for sure don't.

Appeal to popularity? Logical fallacy is still all you have.

It is interesting to note your tendency to avoid facts that have been presented like they were the plague. Doing so only brings the inherent weakness of your argument into sharp relief.

One Salient Oversight
The pontifications of an Evangelical Polymathic Cassandra

I am sure that you wish this were a religious argument. Then my argument would be as invalid as yours. Unfortunately for you, I only deal in facts while you are still wallowing in logical fallcy.

 

[Lagboltz]

Those are only 3. Practically every medical textbook on earth used to teach the subjects of embryology, fetology, developmental biology, and OB/Gyn freely acknowledge that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. What else could we be. The fact that we are immature does not make us something else.

I know what human zygotes are.

Your post seemed to be challenging something other than poor science. The references that I provided didn't provide any revalations that Chip's didn't provide at the beginning. What you were doing was engaging in a logical fallacy known as a circumstantial ad hominem. You were attacking sources rather than the information itself. Information is what it is without regard to where it comes from. It is either right or wrong. You were doomed to fail in any effort to prove that the information was wrong so you irrationally attacked the source and the one who posted it.

Chip misused a source and was carrying out a "proof" that was absurd. The sources you presented were simple statements that were not attempts at trying to "prove" anything, and therefore more honest opinions. I was attacking Chip's arguments based an unknown source. How could I be attacking a source if Chip refused to say what it was. Chip's reference was a verbatim excerpt from Wikipedia, which he seemed to deny using. I was basing my discussion on the Wikipedia source for lack of any other reference. I did not even come close to circumstantial ad hominem. You must have misread my posts. Chip liberally brought in non-scientific ad hominem accusations questioning my motives.

Then again, you are in the wrong. There are reasons that the roe v wade decision is correctly called one of the worst supreme court decisions ever made. The majority in the court had an agenda and fabricated whatever they needed to fabricate in order to justify their decision. Much as you, and most pro choicers must do as the facts simply don't support your position.

This is your personal opinion, and I am not going to argue your opinion, and I won't pass judgement on your opinion.

From the roe decision: .... etc.

I know what Roe vs. Wade is.

If your feelings follow the court, in the light that legal precedent now exists establishing the personhood of the unborn, if you were being intellectually honest when you said it, it stands to reason that you should now be anti abortion on demand.

The following is an opinion, and not a scientific argument: I think the USSC decision on the system of trimesters was a good compromise. I find nothing morally reprehensible on first trimester abortion. It is up to the woman who must make the decision based on her circumstances.

 

[palerider]

This is your personal opinion, and I am not going to argue your opinion, and I won't pass judgement on your opinion.

Actually, I don't engage in presenting personal opinion and calling my arguments opinion, do not make them opinion. You seem to be dodging any actual argument. If you don't believe you can adequately defend your position, why are you here?

I know what Roe vs. Wade is.

Knowing what a thing is, and understanding that thing are two entirely different thiings. Are you making the claim that you are familiar enough with roe to say that you understand the decision? If you are making the claiim that you understand the roe decision, then I would challenge that assertion based on your previous posts.

The following is an opinion, and not a scientific argument: I think the USSC decision on the system of trimesters was a good compromise. I find nothing morally reprehensible on first trimester abortion. It is up to the woman who must make the decision based on her circumstances.

Suggesting that it is acceptable to kill a first triimester human being, but not a post natal is the intellectual equivalent of suggesting that it is ok to kill a 1 year old but not a teenager. All are equally human. By what logic do you come to your opinion?

And everyone must make decisions based upon their circumstances every day. Killing for convenience or no reason at all is simply not an option that falls among the accepted actions that we may take based on our individual circumstances. By what logic do you determine that one human being's right to live takes a back seat to another human being's convenience?

 

[Lagboltz]

Knowing what a thing is, and understanding that thing are two entirely different thiings. Are you making the claim that you are familiar enough with roe to say that you understand the decision? If you are making the claiim that you understand the roe decision, then I would challenge that assertion based on your previous posts.

Could you tell me what previous posts lead you to believe that I don't understand the USSC decision?

Suggesting that it is acceptable to kill a first triimester human being, but not a post natal is the intellectual equivalent of suggesting that it is ok to kill a 1 year old but not a teenager. All are equally human. By what logic do you come to your opinion?

"intellectual equivalent"?! That is your opinion. It is not equivalent in many respects. You will have to explain the "intellectual" adjective modifying "equivalent" before I can respond to that. This is old material. You can continue to take up that aspect of the subject with Top Gun.

In an emotional area like this people, both pro and con tend to cherry pick their sources. They also use words and articles out of context. I could never understand why anti-abortionists are so adamant about inserting their morality into women's lives. This sort of religious fundamentalism is frightening.

 

[palerider]

Could you tell me what previous posts lead you to believe that I don't understand the USSC decision?

The very fact that you said that your feelings run along the line of the supreme court's written decision. Clearly, that decision is based on the assumption that unborns are not human beings but only potential human beings. Any position based on that assumption, in the face of modern scientific knowledge and legal precedent clearly indicates a fundamental ignorance, or basic misunderstanding of the written opinion. Unless, of course, you can provide some credible materials that state explicitly that unborns are only potetial human beings. Can you do that?

"intellectual equivalent"?! That is your opinion. It is not equivalent in many respects. You will have to explain the "intellectual" adjective modifying "equivalent" before I can respond to that. This is old material. You can continue to take up that aspect of the subject with Top Gun.

Sorry, but it is not an opinion. It is an uncontested scientific fact that unborns at any stage of development are living human beings. To suggest that it is acceptable to kill one but not the other is not a rational argument unless you can demonstrate in some real way that there is more difference than simply the level of maturity. Can you do that?

In an emotional area like this people, both pro and con tend to cherry pick their sources. They also use words and articles out of context. I could never understand why anti-abortionists are so adamant about inserting their morality into women's lives. This sort of religious fundamentalism is frightening.

I cherry pick nothing and wholeheartedly and most earnestly invite and encourage you to provide some credible scientific material that states that unborns, at any stage of development are not living human beings. My arguments are neither emotional, nor moral, nor religious. I operate in the realm of reality and that which I can prove. The fact that you find it necessary to make the claim that my arguments are religious, moral, or emotional when you would find it impossible to provide an example of such, again, brings the inherent weakness of your argument into high relief.

If you can't defend your position, or find that attempting to describe the flawed logic by which you have arrived at your position to embarassing to post on a public board, then simply say that you are unable to defend your position and let it go at that. The blatant dodge that you are presently engaging in is far more embarassing to you than simply being honest and stating that your position is an emotional one and you can't rationally defend it.

 

[top gun]

Chip;80394]Certainly you can argue that it takes more than being a person, a human being, for one to be accorded rights.

But why would you want to do that?

Because it's inconvenient for you to accord that person rights?

So far, that's what I'm hearing.

Convenience is a very utilitarian perspective.

It allows you to conjure up all kinds of personal idiosyncratic moral relativistic "reasons" to "justify" getting whatever you want.

There are many historical figures who committed great atrocities from that mindset.

I would implore all utilitarians to reconsider the modern scientific reality that a person, a unique individual human being, truly does begin to live at the moment of conception.

Realizing the truth of it, does indeed change everything in the mind of the honest and moral individual with respect to the thereby rightfully endowed right to life of that newly conceived person.

This is a multifaceted situation. There are many circumstances in both life & within the law were the termination of things including life is allowed. The world is not a perfect place and there must be some lead way.

When we've forced people opposed to war to kill and be killed... that's killing. When we do a prior military assessment and civilian collateral damage (death of the innocent) is garanteed... we still do it. And many a person has been put to death by legal systems all throughout the world and here in the US that were innocent of any crime.

The cluster of a few cell up to viability is something that both birth control can terminated and/or the choice of the host (woman). And it will ALWAYS remain that way as in all of time for one very simple and fundamental reason... you can't FORCE a person to carry a child to term... can't be done.

Here you exhibit the typical fantastical fabrications of the moral relativistic utilitarian mindset ... a mindset that is much less concerned with the truth of reality than on simply getting its egotistical way.

Your term "final potential" is an idiosyncratically manufactured construct designed to belittlingly minimize the reality that a unique individual human, a person, is indeed existent and alive from the moment of conception.

There is no "final" "potential" with regard to being a person which is a living human being.

One either is the person of a human being or one isn't.

An eminent pre-natal, a newborn baby, a two year-old child, a 12 year-old child, a 15 year-old teenager, and on and on. There is no rationally applied "final" "potential" regarding that person's existence or accorded rights.

"Final" "potential" is merely another of the many pro-abortionists' sophistries utilitarianly employed to irrationalize the murder of pre-natal people.

Not true. In all these age group you site they do not require the use of a singular persons body to survive. You cannot FORCE a woman to bear children.

Similar in nature to "final" "potential" is the term "full person" as it is employed by the pro-abortionist to again minimizingly belittle the reality of the personhood of the newly conceived, and again, to "justify" in the pro-abortionist's utilitarian mind the murder of that person via abortion.

There is no such thing in reality as a "full" person.

One is either a person or one is not.

It's not a matter of "full" "potential". It's a matter of government forcing incubation against someones will. The only "potential" involved here is that something cannot survive left on its own.

SKIPPING THROUGH SEVERAL LINES OF REPETITIVE ANTI CHOICE PROPAGANDA HERE TO ADDRESS JUST A FEW MORE.

Here the pro-abortionist panders to similarly utilitarian "women" by reminding the reader that today's abortificant birth control pills are "safe and effective".

But, of course, that doesn't change the fact that today's birth control can function by intent to kill what sicence has unconjecturably determined to be newly conceived people.

Safe for whom?

Effective? Like Mengala!

Here the Pro Choice person is merely stating fact. The Birth Control Pill has been around for decades and is the main contraception of choice. There's no need to add needless drama. It's a documented fact that the majority of people in the US a Pro Choice but I'd be willing to say probably more than 95% are perfectly fine with the Birth Control Pill.

The reason for that is it's a reasonable birth control method. We could go off into Never Never Land and say an unexplained miscarriage is a suicide and a woman who refuses bed rest & jogs when pregnant and aborts is a murderer but that's all pretty ridiculous as well.

Denial is futile.

Denying this is what's futile my friend...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWeXOjsv58c

 

[top gun]

palerider;80397]Appeal to popularity? Logical fallacy is still all you have.

It is interesting to note your tendency to avoid facts that have been presented like they were the plague. Doing so only brings the inherent weakness of your argument into sharp relief.

Ahh pale... you must be really baked right about now. All that Anti Choice stuff oozing out of every orifice! I told you the election would not go your way and the American people would vote to protect Roe. Such was the case.

As I said from day one... Keep pissin' into the wind, it's not my pants that are getting wet!

In America we do things democratically like it or not. Roe is here to stay for the reason most people want it to stay. They will not let people like you force a woman's private medical decision. Just ain't gonna happen my friend.

I am sure that you wish this were a religious argument. Then my argument would be as invalid as yours. Unfortunately for you, I only deal in facts while you are still wallowing in logical fallcy.

It matters not what argument you present. The cold hard fact is... it has lost. Accept it... or be upset... makes no difference to me. I'm totally happy either way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1rED-RtzeI

 

[Lagboltz]

The very fact that you said that your feelings run along the line of the supreme court's written decision. Clearly, that decision is based on the assumption that unborns are not human beings but only potential human beings. Any position based on that assumption, in the face of modern scientific knowledge and legal precedent clearly indicates a fundamental ignorance, or basic misunderstanding of the written opinion.

Ah, I understand your argument now:
I agree with the USSC.
The USSC is wrong (according to you).
Therefore I don't understand the USSC.

Sorry, but I still agree with decision of the USSC, and I still understand their decision concerning "potential human life". Specious legal maneuverings from fundamentalists origins do not influence my thinking. If there were a case where someone was convicted of murdering an unborn in the first months of pregnancy, I would be interested in seeing the arguments.

Sorry, but it is not an opinion. It is an uncontested scientific fact that unborns at any stage of development are living human beings. To suggest that it is acceptable to kill one but not the other is not a rational argument unless you can demonstrate in some real way that there is more difference than simply the level of maturity. Can you do that?

I would amend that to late term unborns are living human beings, and very early unborns have an unfulfilled potentiality of human life. That's how the USSC considered it.

If you can't defend your position, or find that attempting to describe the flawed logic by which you have arrived at your position to embarassing to post on a public board, then simply say that you are unable to defend your position and let it go at that. The blatant dodge that you are presently engaging in is far more embarassing to you than simply being honest and stating that your position is an emotional one and you can't rationally defend it.

Let me say it again. I came on this board to refute a poor scientific argument. The OP misused a source and thus carried out a "proof" that was absurd. I am not embarrassed by that. If you are, that's your problem. My stance is that nobody has "proved" that an early stage abortion should be considered murder. If you say it has been "proved" then I consider it an opinion. I certainly don't need to "prove" that it is not murder. The USSC has made a decision. I think it was the right one. I don't need to worry about it. I can see that you still do.

Here is a compromise for people that want to call abortion murder. Let's change the definition: Homicide is the killing of a human older than 3 months from conception. That way you can still abide by your arguments, and there won't be 40 million women in jail. The definition of homicide needs a bit of polishing up to fit the USSC definition, but it's a start.