A Conception's Right To Life

[palerider]

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.

The court is wrong according to medical science as well. I have provided credible material that proves that they were wrong. How about you provide some credible material that they were right in their assumption that unborns are not, in reality, living human beings. Can you do that?

Sorry, but I still agree with decision of the USSC, and I still understand their decision concerning "potential human life".

You understand it based on what? Your feelings? Your wishes? Certainly not on the basis of any credible scientific knowledge.

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.

Since I am not a fundamentalist, they do not influence mine either. I can, and have made my case using credible material. Thus far, you have provided exactly squat to support your case and it is my bet that exactly squat is all you have to support your case. Rather than defend your position, you mewl that I am making a religious argument when that, in fact, is a blatant lie.

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.

Again, based on what. Since the supreme court is not a scientific body, their claims with regard to what unborns actually are are without meaning. Hitler claimed that jews were not, in fact, human beings but were a disease and he had the power of the law to back his claim. Do you believe that jews were, in fact, a disease because he said that they were? Our own supreme court claimed that blacks were not, in fact, human beings. They had the power of the law to back up their claim. Do you believe that blacks were not, in fact, human beings just because the court said that they weren't?

You claim to agree with the court. On what credible scientific basis do you agree with them? Or is your position, as I said earlier, entirely based on emotion?

Let me say it again. I came on this board to refute a poor scientific argument.

And you failed. The argument was not poor. In fact, the argument was supported by medical textbooks. Your attempt at refuting the argument was based on nothing more than your own uneducated, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated opinion and it remains as such even now. Thus far, you have failed to even begin to rationally support your position? I am curious. What does it feel like to hold a postion that you can not defend?

My stance is that nobody has "proved" that an early stage abortion should be considered murder.

Murder is defined as one human being killing another human being with initent. Since you have failed to prove that unborns are something other than human beings, it most certainly has been proved. In fact, there are people in jail right now, who are there having been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for murder for killing unborns.

If you say it has been "proved" then I consider it an opinion.

What you "consider" is irrelavent. What you can prove is what matters and thus far, you have failed to prove any part of your argument.

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.

A court made a decision. So what? Are you under some impression that the court is infallable? The court has reversed itself some 200 times since it's doors first opened. When the court said that blacks were not human beings and had no human rights, do you believe that was a valid decision?

It is encouraging to know that when roe is overturned, you will be out in support of the decision and will immediately become anti abortion for no other reason than the court said so.

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.

What is a child at 3 months that it wasn't at 2 months, or 1 month, or 1 week, or 1 day other than more mature? We have already established that your right to live isn't dependent upon your level of maturity. Again, you have not provided a rational defense of your position.

Let me ask again. What does it feel like to hold a position that you can't rationally defend?

 

[palerider]

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.

Still with the appeal to authority. Logical fallacy does not equal rational argument. A parrot on a stick could repeat "its legal" ad nauseum. Are you really just a parrot on a stick?

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.

Actually, the majority want abortion restricted, but you never were one to let facts get in the way of your argument.

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.

Personally, I encourage you to continue to believe that. Your outrage at seeing roe overturned will be all that much sweeter.

 

[Lagboltz]

The court is wrong according to medical science as well. I have provided credible material that proves that they were wrong. How about you provide some credible material that they were right in their assumption that unborns are not, in reality, living human beings. Can you do that?

You have "proved" absolutely nothing. I have "proved" absolutely nothing. We both have not "proved" anything. There is no scientific evidence that is credible one way or another.

Let me say again. I don't think you have heard this enough.
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 did not come here to make a scientific stance.

You understand it based on what? Your feelings? Your wishes? Certainly not on the basis of any credible scientific knowledge.

My statements that were not scientifically oriented were strictly my opinion.

Since I am not a fundamentalist, they do not influence mine either. I can, and have made my case using credible material. Thus far, you have provided exactly squat to support your case and it is my bet that exactly squat is all you have to support your case. Rather than defend your position, you mewl that I am making a religious argument when that, in fact, is a blatant lie.

The only material that I saw that was anywhere relevant was in your post #43. Let me request this again: 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. I am not trying to put up a smoke screen. You have presented this idea as an important relevance to the USSC judgement.

Again, based on what. Since the supreme court is not a scientific body, their claims with regard to what unborns actually are are without meaning. Hitler claimed that jews were not, in fact, human beings but were a disease and he had the power of the law to back his claim. Do you believe that jews were, in fact, a disease because he said that they were?

PaleRider: Your moral depravity is disgusting. You dare debase the suffering of the Jewish people, the watching of their loved ones being dragged out of their homes, the hopelessness and death in the concentration camps and the abject horror of the genocide, by using that in an argument about the rights of a fetus? -- a fetus without self-awareness, without knowledge of life!!!!!!!

Our own supreme court claimed that blacks were not, in fact, human beings. They had the power of the law to back up their claim. Do you believe that blacks were not, in fact, human beings just because the court said that they weren't?

Has a fetus ever witnessed their own church being burned down? their husband being hanged from a tree? a midnight visit by the KKK? the "No Coloreds Allowed" signs everywhere? the continual degradation?

I think you are sick. You are so intent on arguing your anti-abortion cause that you have lost sight of everything else in the human condition.

You claim to agree with the court. On what credible scientific basis do you agree with them? Or is your position, as I said earlier, entirely based on emotion?

Neither of us has credible scientific evidence. And I can now see where your emotions are.

And you failed. The argument was not poor. In fact, the argument was supported by medical textbooks. Your attempt at refuting the argument was based on nothing more than your own uneducated, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated opinion and it remains as such even now. Thus far, you have failed to even begin to rationally support your position? I am curious. What does it feel like to hold a postion that you can not defend?

There is no new generally accepted scientific evidence that I have seen you present. Just a few textbook opinions. Again, as far as the USSC, if there is a case where someone was convicted of murdering an unborn in the first months of pregnancy I want to see it. You have not made your case.

Let me ask again. What does it feel like to hold a position that you can't rationally defend?

When have you stopped beating your wife? I am not interested in knowing how you feel in holding a position that you can't rationally defend. I already have seen enough on how you think.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Roast egg with all the trimmings for lunch today

 

[palerider]

You have "proved" absolutely nothing. I have "proved" absolutely nothing. We both have not "proved" anything. There is no scientific evidence that is credible one way or another.

And you are wrong in this as well. Are you suggesting that medical students are being taught opinion and not scientific fact? If that is your argument, how about providing some credible material that suggests as much. Hell, provide some credible science that states that there is no credible scientific evidence one way or another, but do provide something other than your own uneducated, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated opinion.

The fact that you can provide nothing to support your position is obvious and your mewling response that medical school textbooks and respected peer reviewed medical journals are not credible would be laughable were it not so sad.

Let me say again. I don't think you have heard this enough.
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 did not come here to make a scientific stance.

That may have been your intention, but you failed. All you did was attack a source. You didn't refute the information provided in any way. A circumstantial ad hominem doesn't constitute a refutation of anything at all.

My statements that were not scientifically oriented were strictly my opinion.

And you base your opinion on what? My position is grounded firmly in science and the law. Upon what, exactly, is your opinion grounded in?

The only material that I saw that was anywhere relevant was in your post #43. Let me request this again: 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. I am not trying to put up a smoke screen. You have presented this idea as an important relevance to the USSC judgement.

Without doing a bunch of research that you presumably are perfectly capable of doing yourself (cough smokescreen cough) off the top of my head, I can name Harold Taylor (murder for the death of a 11 to 13 week old fetus), Matthew Bullock (voluntary manslaughter in the death of a fetus), Jorge Mario Gurrola (second degree murder in the death of a 7 week fetus), , David L. Miller (first degree murder in the death of a fetus), Donald Comstock (homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle). If you want more, there are more out there. The body of legal precedent is quite large and growing all the time. Unlike you, I don't hold positions that I can not rationally defend and I don't make claims that I can't substantiate.

PaleRider: Your moral depravity is disgusting. You dare debase the suffering of the Jewish people, the watching of their loved ones being dragged out of their homes, the hopelessness and death in the concentration camps and the abject horror of the genocide, by using that in an argument about the rights of a fetus? -- a fetus without self-awareness, without knowledge of life!!!!!!!

Emotional handwringing doesn't constitute a rational argument in any way. You said that if a legal authority states that a member or members of a particular group are not human beings that it is apparently OK. Hitler claimed that jews were not human beings. Hitler was a legal authority. Are you now saying that it is ok for some legal authorities to claim that human beings are not human beings but you get to decide in which cases it is OK and which it is not?

Personally, I would not call someone else morally depraved if I supported allowing one human being to kill another without legal consequence for any or no reason at all.

Has a fetus ever witnessed their own church being burned down? their husband being hanged from a tree? a midnight visit by the KKK? the "No Coloreds Allowed" signs everywhere? the continual degradation?

Again, emotional handwringing doesn't constitute a valid argument. Blacks suffered those horrors because that great authority (according to you) on what is and isn't a human being said that they weren't, in fact, human beings and therefore had no human rights. Did the court have any basis at all in fact for declaring blacks to be non humans?

I think you are sick. You are so intent on arguing your anti-abortion cause that you have lost sight of everything else in the human condition.

Clearly, not much creedence can be put into what you "think" because you obviously don't arrive at your positions via any rational thought process. In fact, I am the one who has not lost sight of the human condition from the time life begins till the time it ends. It is you who chooses to ignore the human condition until such time as you decide to acknowledge it and give it a nod to recieve the protection of the law that you enjoy. You selectively decide who deserves to live and who does not. That sounds a bit like the thinking of a sociopath to me. How about you? Aren't sociopaths only concerned with their own needs and desires without regard to the effect those needs and desires may have on others up to and including killing them? And you think that I am sick?

Neither of us has credible scientific evidence. And I can now see where your emotions are.

You are making the claim that medical school textbooks and peer reviewed medical journals are not credible evidence? Can you substantiate that claim in any way?

There is no new generally accepted scientific evidence that I have seen you present. Just a few textbook opinions. Again, as far as the USSC, if there is a case where someone was convicted of murdering an unborn in the first months of pregnancy I want to see it. You have not made your case.

Again, are you making the claim that medical school students are being taught opinion in lieu of fact? Can you substantiate that claim in any way?

You, lagboltz make a lot of claims that you are completely unable to corroborate. The fact that you can't corroborate them renders them invalid in this discussion. You still are not able to rationally defend your position.

When have you stopped beating your wife? I am not interested in knowing how you feel in holding a position that you can't rationally defend. I already have seen enough on how you think.

Again, a non answer. It is clear that you are incapable of defending your position. Why not just admit that yours is an emotional stance not based on any sort of rational thought at all? You should just run away now and save yourself any further intellectuall humiliation.

 

[palerider]

Roast egg with all the trimmings for lunch today

Still nothing from the solitary member of the peanut gallery. Here is some information on roast eggs for you:

http://www.mrbreakfast.com/ask.asp?askid=21

Why do you feel the need to suffer humiliation at my hands dawkins?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

So, does a tumor (also) share the same "network"....or, are all tumors "evil"; creating their (own) parallel-aberation of the (more-"recognizable") Divine-"network"?

Also....when this chemical-communication goes awry, does that (also) suggest that some women are subjects of a pre-existing "evil"-network, and are badly in-need of an Exorcism?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Since you have failed to prove that unborns are something other than human beings, it most certainly has been proved.

In fact, there are people in jail right now, who are there having been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for murder for killing unborns.

I'd be anxious to become more-familiar with the Board of Clerics who've revealed such proof, as-well-as the names of those who're (presently) incarcerated for killing unborns.

I wasn't aware such Star Chambers existed.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The fact that you can provide nothing to support your position is obvious.....

.....Much like the whole Life-After-Death-fantasy, right? ​

 

[palerider]

So, does a tumor (also) share the same "network"....or, are all tumors "evil"; creating their (own) parallel-aberation of the (more-"recognizable") Divine-"network"?

Also....when this chemical-communication goes awry, does that (also) suggest that some women are subjects of a pre-existing "evil"-network, and are badly in-need of an Exorcism?

Clearly, you lack any useable knowledge in the field of developmental biology. Your attempt to make a pseudoreligious rebuttal to a purely scientific statement attests to this.

 

[top gun]

Still with the appeal to authority. Logical fallacy does not equal rational argument. A parrot on a stick could repeat "its legal" ad nauseum. Are you really just a parrot on a stick?

You're just boiling aren't ya! The fact that the American people pistol whipped your hope to push women back to dominated second class citizens.

In a democracy the people make the laws... not some zealot. So if I'm a parrot I'm a parrot speaking the will of the American people... actually I think that makes me a Eagle more than a parrot but you get the point.

Personally, I encourage you to continue to believe that. Your outrage at seeing roe overturned will be all that much sweeter.

Not gonna happen my friend... ain't never gonna happen. You'll go to your grave and never never see that! Women are too politically powerful and way too important as people.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3hemJRh-gk

 

[palerider]

I'd be anxious to become more-familiar with the Board of Clerics who've revealed such proof, as-well-as the names of those who're (presently) incarcerated for killing unborns.

I wasn't aware such Star Chambers existed.​

I gave the names. Do you need for me to draw you a picture as well. And I understand your attempt to make this into a religious argument. If you could succeed, then my arguments would be as invalid as your own.

 

[palerider]

.....Much like the whole Life-After-Death-fantasy, right? ​

If you wish to discuss that topic start a thread. I may or may not participate. In this topic, however, proof has been offered up by one side and the pro choice side has provided nothing but its own uneducated, uncoroborated, unsupported opinion and you have done nothing to alleviate the disparity of information provided.

 

[palerider]

You're just boiling aren't ya! The fact that the American people pistol whipped your hope to push women back to dominated second class citizens.

Not me. I am laughing in your face because you can't offer up any rational argument in support of your position other than "its legal". Clearly, you aren't bright enough to make me boil.

In a democracy the people make the laws... not some zealot. So if I'm a parrot I'm a parrot speaking the will of the American people... actually I think that makes me a Eagle more than a parrot but you get the point.

Which explains why federal law as well as state law in 34 states establish the personhood of the unborn. Roe is at odds with legal precedent and eventually the court is going to have to address not a theoretical right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy, but what is actually being killed when an abortion is performed. Cases are working their way through lower courts even now. If the high court can't defend its previous decision any better than all of you pro choicers, roe is going to fall. Justice Blackmun, in the majority decision on roe saw the handwriting on the wall when he admitted that should legal precedent ever come into being establishing the personhood of the unborn, that roe would collapse. That precedent now exists in spades.

As I said, I encourage you to coontinue in your denial. Your outrage at roe being overturned will be that much sweeter to people like me.

Not gonna happen my friend... ain't never gonna happen. You'll go to your grave and never never see that! Women are too politically powerful and way too important as people.

Spoken like one who is eyeball deep in denial. So deep that you simply can't see the facts before your face.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Palerider I said roast egg, not roast eggs.

Last time you made up some point about where I buy the eggs

Now you are making up the quantity.

Could it be that you distort the facts as amatter of course?