A Conception's Right To Life

[Chip]

This is a multifaceted situation.

I know that you'd like it to be "multifaceted".

Then you could lose yourself in many manifestations of denial and not feel so guilty about your murderous pro-abortion position.

But the truth of the matter is that science has clearly presented that at least one person, at least one unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

If you kill that person for unjustified non-life-or-death-self-defense reasons, you have most certainly committed the sociological act of murder.

Though defense lawyers may futilely attempt so, there are, fortunately, no "multifaceted" excuses that carry any weight in denying the facts of reality that such is murder.

It really is that singularly simple, Top Gun.

Acceptance is really for the best.

There are many circumstances in both life & within the law were the termination of things including life is allowed.

Maybe ... but murder isn't one of those allowable circumstances, Top Gun.

And again, the law isn't the rational truth-of-facts "A"uthority in this matter.

Science, the accurate use of the scientific method, is the proper authority in the matter here regarding the revealed truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live that person's life at conception.

The law is laced with historic violations of reality, such as that people of color aren't human beings, people practicing witchcraft aren't fit to live, that women aren't fully human with respect to freedom of action rights (such as voting), and on and on, which, of course, presently includes Roe v Wade.

Law is historically slow to catch up to the subsequent scientifically revealed realities ... but it does eventually catch up.

Appealing to "L"aw as a determiner of what is true in reality with regard to a condition, in this case the condition of the scientifically determined personhood of the newly conceived person etc., is a logical fallacy.

The world is not a perfect place

Irrelevant.

Your glittering generality is not an excuse for murder.

Because science has unconjecturably determined that at least one person, at least one unique individual human being begins to live that person's life at the moment of conception, to kill that person for non-life-or-death self defense reasons is to commit the sociological behavior of murder.

There is no glittering generality excuse for that murder.

and there must be some lead way.

Not for murder there mustn't ... but if you insist, perhaps you'd like to offer up one of your loved ones as a test of your theory.

When we've forced people opposed to war to kill and be killed... that's killing.

Irrelevant.

War, a subject unto itself, is no excuse for murder.

Killing for unprovoked non-life-or-death reasons is murder, and it doesn't matter what monster hides behind the supposedly accepted veil of "war" to so murder.

That kind of killing isn't mere "killing" as you minimizingly belittle it -- it's the completely unacceptable behavior of murder.

Just because something wrong happens that we've failed to prevent or do anything about, does not in any way excuse murder.

When we do a prior military assessment and civilian collateral damage (death of the innocent) is garanteed... we still do it.

Irrelevant.

The intentional murderous slaughter of innocent men women and children non-combatants excused by appeal to the terms "war" and "collateral damage" does in no way justify that behavior.

You can continue listing your litany of irrelevancies, but none of them make the horror of them justified in any way, and, of course, none of them justify the murder of pre-natal people.

And what's this "we", white man, with regard to "we" still do it.

Many people simply don't commit atrocities and hide behind veils of excuse.

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.

Irrelevant.

One wrong-doing does not rationally excuse another.

Just because you've been powerless in the past to prevent atrocities, does not in any way, shape or form excuse you to perform an atrocity of your own.

Your pro-abortionist excuses are immaterial and are easily defeated.

The cluster of a few cell

Here the pro-abortion sophister again belittlingly demeans the newly conceived person's existence with the "cell count" sophistry in an attempt to minimize the reality of that person's existence so he can excuse murdering that person.

Your sophistry is obvious, Top Gun ... and you reveal yourself as a pro-abortionist by the terms you employ.

up to viability

Here the pro-abortion sophister again employs the "fully human" sophistry to again demean the scientific reality of the personhood of the pre-natal human being, and again, in the hope that such sophistry will more easily allow him to murder that person at will.

Laughable it would be ... were the results of its employment not so horrific and tragically sad.

is something that both birth control can terminated and/or the choice of the host (woman).

The implement with which murder is committed in no way determines if a murder was committed.

If birth control is employed and the user knows that the method of birth control they use can function to kill the newly conceived human being, that person is intending to commit murder.

If birth control is employed and the user doesn't know that the method of birth control they use can function to kill the newly conceived human being, that person is unknowingly risking committing manslaughter.

The wrongs of so doing, again, do not in any way, shape, or form excuse further wrong doing.

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.

Irrelevant.

We can't "force" a drug-dealer not to murder a police officer.

But if the drug-dealer does murder the police officer we can most certainly force him to endure a penalty for doing so.

Likewise, we cannot "force" a man and a woman to carry their newly conceived offspring to term, and we can't "force" them not to murder that person.

But, we can indeed force them to endure a penalty for doing so.

In fact, Palerider, in a recent previous post in this thread, listed the names of some of the people who were indeed convicted of the manslaughter and murder of pre-natal people.

Your perspective is skewed, improperly termed, and, in essence, erroneous, Top Gun.

You might want to be more sensitive to the facts.

And ... if your girlfriend or wife gets pregnant by you and you in any way, shape or form try to talk her into an abortion, which she commits, and then is overwhelmed with guilt and blames you for forcing her to commit abortion, ... well, suffice to say that I'd think twice about so advising or "agreeing" with her on the matter, Top Gun, as the recent court cases suggest that you may be putting yourself in danger of a stay in the pokey with Bubba for your pro-abortionist efforts.

Not true. In all these age group you site they do not require the use of a singular persons body to survive.

Again, you are in obvious error, Top Gun.

Go back and re-read your reference of my post.

You'll see that the first person I listed was an eminent pre-natal.

But here you employ the pro-abortionist sophisters ruse of "parasite", alluding erroneously that if the newly conceived person is a "parasite", then that person's murder is thereby excused.

Well Top Gun, the parasite defense was long ago and easily defeated by pointing out that the newly conceived person does not qualify as a parasite due to the fact that the newly conceived person is of the same species as the mother.

Again, pro-abortionists' sophistries are meaningless with respect to the truth.

There is simply no excuse that a potential murderer can conjure up to justify murder.

The previously referenced list of those doing time for such murders are substantiation of that fact.

You cannot FORCE a woman to bear children.

Again, inaccurately phrased, and, from a fundamentally applicable meaning perspective, absolutely false.

It doesn't matter that we can't force someone not to do something.

It does matter that we can penalize them for so doing.

It's not a matter of "full" "potential".

Well ... it appears you're beginning to cave on one of your sophistries.

Good for you.

 

[Chip]

It's a matter of government forcing incubation against someones will.

Again, as I just explained, you are inaccurate and incorrect.

And, the word "incubation" is more often applied to "eggs", which, with regard to the existence of the newly conceived person, no longer has anything to do with eggs ... but, as usual, the pro-abortion sophister chooses his terms purposely in a futile effort to deny the reality of the personhood of the newly conceived.

Your denial-based behavior is so obvious, Top Gun.

The only "potential" involved here is that something cannot survive left on its own.

Meaningless.

The accepted reality of gestation for pre-natals is in no way a justification for murdering them.

Again, go back and look at the list of names of convicted pre-natal people murderers convicted and penalized by the government that Palerider previously listed in this thread.

The government -- of, by, and for we the people -- can most certainly penalize people for murdering newly conceived people, simply because the sociological act of murder is unacceptable to we the people.

You need to come to acceptance on this reality, Top Gun.

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

Translation: "I, Top Gun, have no rational response in defense of my many pro-abortionist sophistries, and so I thereby skip attempting such a defense in surrender."

And again, the pro-abortion sophister reveals himself by his choice of terms.

Here he mistakenly uses his inaccurate demeaning belittlement term of "anti choice" to refer to those who call him on his pro-abortionist's sophistries.

His behavior is all too obvious.

Here the Pro Choice person

And, speaking of inaccurate usage of terms by pro-abortionists, here the pro-abortionist utilizes the term "pro choice" as the typical euphemism for pro-abortionist.

The term "pro choice" was not universally assigned to pro-abortionists.

It was assigned collectively by the sub-set of people who are pro-abortionists as a divertive attempt to hide the fact that they, as pro-abortionists, advocate the sociologically-termed murder of pre-natal people.

They thereby attempt to sugar-coat and hide that fact with inaccurate nomenclature.

They do so because they recognize that their accurately truthful moniker -- pro-abortionist -- does not play well for them in presenting their perspective.

Thus they change the terms in an attempt to spin public favor in their direction.

It is a futile attempt, as their inaccurate nomenclature is easily revealed.

is merely stating fact. The Birth Control Pill has been around for decades and is the main contraception of choice.

Which is meaningless with respect to the fact that current birth control functions to kill newly conceived people, which sociologically makes that function manslaughter or murder depending on the user's knowledge.

The fact that something atrocious has been and is being done in no way condones that behavior.

If that were true, then those who opposed Hitler's extermination of the Jews at the time it was happening wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

You continue to commit grievous errors in rationality, Top Gun.

There's no need to add needless drama.

Translation: "I, Top Gun, don't want to be scientifically accurately deemed an advocator of murder."

Your request to avoid "needless drama" is similar to the NAZI's attitude toward those accusing them of horrific unacceptable behavior in regard to their experimentation on and extermination of the Jews.

What you are really requesting is to have the spotlight turned away from you and other pro-abortionists.

That isn't going to happen, Top Gun.

It's a documented fact that the majority of people in the US a Pro Choice

Not true on three counts.

First of all, the correct term is pro-abortion, not "pro choice".

Second, those who are ignorant of the scientific reality that at least one person, one unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, simply do not count in a rational presentation of people's conclusions. You must first present to them this scientific statement of fact, and then ask them the question. The conclusion of people in ignorance is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

And third, show me your documentation. Last I recall, most people are pro-life ... when they are armed with premises that are true.

But again, it doesn't matter what the majority think, whether in error or not.

What matters is what is known to be true about the subject matter not how many people know it.

Once upon a past time, the majority thought the world was flat, and a tiny handful began to realize it was more round. That tiny handful was correct.

Once upon a past time, the majority thought that people of color weren't human and were thus subject to being property, and a tiny handful began to realize that they were indeed human and not subject to being property. That tiny handful was correct.

Similarly, a few decades ago when the scientific presentation was made that at least one person, at least one unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, only a tiny handful realized the truth of it. But, they were correct.

Today, there are indeed a tremendous number of people who know the truth of the personhood of the newly conceived.

It really doesn't matter, with respect to the truth of reality, how many people realize that truth.

What matters is that it is indeed the truth.

but I'd be willing to say probably more than 95% are perfectly fine with the Birth Control Pill.

Irrelevant.

What "you'd" be willing to say has been shown unconjecturably to be sophistry.

You're simply not trustworthy to present the truth.

People who are fine with the knowledge that their birth control method is killing their pre-natal offspring are still committing the sociological behavior of murder.

My guess is, Top Gun, that many of those who are supposedly "perfectly fine" with their birth control that kills their newly conceived offspring wouldn't be so "perfectly fine" with it if they knew how it functioned and that science has indisputably declared that the newly conceived is a person, a living human being.

Your suppositions disrespect the truth.

The reason for that is it's a reasonable birth control method.

Erroneous.

The reason some people are "perfectly fine" with their birth control is because they are likely ignorant as to how it works and that it's killing their pre-natal offspring.

The reason some people are "perfectly fine" with their birth control is because they moral relativistic utilitarians who simply do not care that they are murdering their pre-natal offspring.

Ignorance does not make behavior "reasonable", Top Gun.

Your sophistries are laughable.

We could go off into Never Never Land

Translation: "I, Top Gun, have had enough truth facing -- please, no more truth, I just can't take it!"

and say an unexplained miscarriage is a suicide

Here the pro-abortionist sophister tries to defeat his opponent's presentation of obvious realities and truth by attempting to link them with untruths of his own conjuring.

By saying that an "unexplained" miscarriage is a "suicide" and then denying such to be true, he attempts to irrationally equate the affirming of "unexplained" miscarriage as "suicide" with the truths of the matter his opponent presented, thinking that if he debunks his fantasy of "unexplained" miscarriage being "suicide" he's thereby debunked his opponent's statements as well.

His illogic is delusional.

and a woman who refuses bed rest & jogs when pregnant and aborts is a murderer

And his delusional attempt to debunk by fantasy association continues.

The pro-abortionist will try anything to keep from facing that which he denies: that he advocates the murder of newly conceived people.

but that's all pretty ridiculous as well.

And yes indeed, as predicted, his guilt by fantasy association conclusion is presented.

Yet he is probably clueless to the logical fallacy of his presentation.

He probably actually thinks he's just made sense!

Yes, delusion is indeed born of denial.

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

Your projection here, Top Gun, is indeed good advice for you.

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

Irrelevant.

 

[palerider]

Tell me Chip, what do you think of the idea that legal abortion is a tool by which men continue to control women? What I mean to say is that if legal abortion were not available to escape from the consequences of casual sex, perhaps women might not be as "available" as they apparently are with abortion being a ready option which would certainly impact the sexual habits of men who seek only sex, without the commitment.

 

[Chip]

Tell me Chip, what do you think of the idea that legal abortion is a tool by which men continue to control women? What I mean to say is that if legal abortion were not available to escape from the consequences of casual sex, perhaps women might not be as "available" as they apparently are with abortion being a ready option which would certainly impact the sexual habits of men who seek only sex, without the commitment.

Absolutely, if abortion on demand that's presently used as a method of birth control was made illegal complete with commensurate penalty, many men who are in sufficient control of their sex drive (not sexual addicts) would change their behavior with respect to their potential partner.

Not only would women have more and stronger second thoughts about engaging in casual sex without abortion as an option (assuming the woman didn't also suffer from sexual addiction), refusing sex to which they previously acquiesced, agreed or sought, men would also think twice knowing that a conception would likely mean paying child support at the very least.

Today, many abortions are performed at the subtle to blatant behest of the man who, in typical relationships, will make it somewhat clear that abortion is to occur if a pregnancy occurs and that the relationship will be over if the abortion doesn't occur or the woman appears up front to be reticent to resort to abortion should pregnancy occur.

Because women usually have a greater emotional stake in the relationship, thereby the man controls the woman with threats of ending the relationship if she's not willing to practice abortion when "needed".

Generations of this kind of control has created a casual sex culture in which women internalize to self-betrayal these expectations and actually "volunteer" in advance that "oh yes, I'll definitely abort" if it happens.

The problem is that abortion always damages the woman psychologically, more so than the man. It is never lost on the woman that abortion just took the life of her offspring that was sacredly living right there inside of her, no matter what her "position" on the "abortion issue" is, and whether the resulting justified self-guilt, guilt she shares with the man, is repressed or suppressed, it still does damage, physiologically, on her body, and unconsciously predisposes her to future acts of self-sabotage ... including, in some cases, suicide.

The man, who never experiences the life of a newly conceived person inside of him, doesn't get the visceral experience that women have in this regard.

So men can be casual about the repercussions of abortion, not knowing the damage abortion can do to a woman.

He threatens her in a number of ways ... and she capitulates out of the fear of being abandoned.

If abortion as birth control was illegal, the man would lose that tool of control, and thus, as a result, his sex life would change, as he could no longer easily relax in a sexually active relationship with a partner with whom he could never imagine ever wanting a long-term commitment.

Women would regain control over their bodies as they would no longer be threatened into having a psychologically damaging abortion to keep the relationship with the man.

Both men and women would, understandably, have considerably less casual sex.

How men, who arguably have arbitrarily a greater drive to spread their seed than women have to arbitrarily be just anyone's garden, will thereby respond to having their planting exercises so greatly reduced will be sociologically interesting.

Women will certainly likely become more discriminating with regard to having sex only with men likely to commit to them. But women are more likely, perhaps by nature, to be so discriminating anyway.

Men, who wish to be sexually active, will then be the ones who must change in that they will need to become more discriminating so that they would seek a partner they could commit to prior to having sex with that partner.

Does this mean men will become more commitment oriented? I don't know. Maybe. But, sexual addicts aside, men are different from women in sexual motivation, and they will feel the greater pressure from acquiescing to abstinence.

Women too, who are use to the pleasure of spontaneous casual sex will also experience a change in focus requiring some emotionally challenging adjustments.

My guess is that both men and women will then encourage the powers that be to bring the state-of-the-art conception prevention pharmaceuticals through testing and into market, pharmaceuticals that have a higher degree of efficacy but don't commit chemical abortion.

If the success percentage of these pharmaceuticals is the 100% hoped for, then, after a time, they may relax again in more frequently casual sex ... though, considering that rumors of product failure may likely be spread, I doubt they could easily return to relaxed casual sex, as product failure would require at the very least a financial commitment from both partners (should adoption not be chosen), a financial commitment to which men are historically considerably more averse than women.

But even with the advent of these state-of-the-art pharmaceuticals, should abortion as birth control become illegal, such interpersonal relationship behaviors will definitely change ... and, with respect for honesty and mutual concern for the heart and life of sexually active partners, for the better.

 

[top gun]

palerider;80480]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.

No pale I can see it in your posts... you're a broken man with no place left to go. That's got to be hard on you. I know you were very invested in trying to push women back to the middle ages and under the thumbs of zealots like you.

Sorry...

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.

Whatever gets ya to sleep at night.

Let me tell ya what I see. I see eight years of a President Obama with probably 3 appointments to the Supreme Court with at least one of those being replaced a Conservative to a Liberal. I see a legislature and executive working together that will be engaged & diligent in their efforts to protect women's rights. And I see Roe holding then a 45 year precedent at the end of these two terms.

All is well. Women of America can rejoice because... pale had a tale that went stale!

 

[top gun]

Chip;80530]Again, as I just explained, you are inaccurate and incorrect.

No actually I could not be more correct. Society has spoken. You have lost and women have won.

Actually it was always a lost cause for you once Roe passed in the first place. Because even if there would have come a long enough time of Conservative terror to reverse Roe there plainly are just to many women voters that would force new protective legislation for a woman's right to choose.

Now you can still stand out in the rain with the whack jobs on the sidewalks in front of women's clinics and proselytize and threaten women.

But 8 years from now all you'll be is wetter and none the wiser.

It's their body and no one can force someone to carry something in their body. It's impossible... and as a father of two girls in their 20's I want them to ALWAYS have access to all safe, sterile, medical treatment options as they see fit... not what I... or you... or the government sees fit... what they see fit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsknXsm2eHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeWnY1Nr1wk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHzn2pNzijw

 

[Lagboltz]

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.

I didn't see anything in the text book quotes you gave that indicate that killing a fetus is murder. I give more detail on this below.

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.

Listen up. Chip refused to give a source. How could I possibly attack it? How many times do you have to read this to understand it?

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?

My opinion is firmly grounded on the basis of the law and (your lack of) science. We have already discussed this, and I discuss both further below.

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.

Thanks for the heads up. Now we are getting somewhere. Those are State rulings that the USSC has not heard in a trial. From what I read, some of those rulings also carried an opinion that they should not be interpreted to have any bearing on Roe vs. Wade which involves a woman's choice (and not a man's gun). Until those rulings are considered, Roe vs. Wade still stands as the law.

Your citing of the cases above are factual, but your jump to anything concerning the USSC ruling at this point is only opinion - a judgement on your part. However, you are not a legal judge. Your bitterness is not going to change the law, and you are not going to drag me down to your mewling attitude toward the law as it now stands. You have not made your case. Your time might be better spent filing a court case that would satisfy you, rather than whining about the USSC ruling in this forum.

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.

You are probably a lot younger than I, and see the holocaust as abstract history. But in my generation, the use of metaphors involving Adolph Hitler demeans the Jewish people. Your lack of emotion in that regard is telling. There is no question Hitler was morally depraved. What you are now implying is that the USCC has an equal depravity. I will not buy that as an argument. I trust the judgement of the USSC more than anyone of the likes of Hitler. If you don't, that is your problem. Your inability to distinguish between the authority of Hitler and the USSC is rather telling on the nature of your thinking. Arguments like yours hit the bottom of the moral bucket.

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.

I disagree. When you start equating genocide of mad man to the choice of women with their own bodies, you have lost sight of the human condition. Period.

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.

What on earth are you talking about?? It is the USSC that made the decision! Not me!! I have not selectively decided what women should do with their lives. I think you probably mean my view of the USSC, but you sure have a screwy way of saying that.

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?

A fetus has "desires"?? That's a new one.

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?

Yes. In post #35 you cited three articles and highlighted your salient points in red:

"conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being"
"initiation of the life of a new individual"
"The zygote is a unicellular human being..."

The first excerpt was by John Fletcher who in another article, "argues cogently that if the Supreme Court has given women the right to choose whether or not a pregnancy is carried to term, sex selection is merely an extension of that right.... "
http://www.abortionrisks.org/index.php?title=Social_Effects_and_Implications_of_Abortion
It seems Fletcher is willing to go along with the USSC and allows that abortion falls within the woman's rights even if her reason is that the fetus is not the desired sex. He also says the same thing in
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3560493

Furthermore, Fletcher is a co-author of the following survey of 737 participants:
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Healt...ive-pregnancy-termination-among-health-c.html
"A survey was carried out of health care professionals, clergy, and ethicists concerning their views on selected ethical aspects of abortion. ...respondents showed that 74 percent disagreed strongly with the statements that abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy is morally unacceptable."

It looks like 3/4 strongly disagree with you. As I said before: You have not made your case.

The excerpted phrases that you provided describing the zygote are in fact remarkably similar the USSC definition of the first trimester - "potentiality of human life". What you are doing my friend is giving evidence to support the USSC decision! If this is your best shot, you have no case despite your clamoring otherwise. So far, your scientific arguments support the opposite of what you obsessively are trying to "prove".

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 can claim this all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Your concept of "law" is simply you making a judgement that is outside the current law. Your concept of scientific evidence is textbooks that use words that support the USSC concepts in their decision.

You should just run away now and save yourself any further intellectuall humiliation.

So, that's the best your "intellectual" mind can come up with? Well, my vitriolic friend you still have not made your case. It seems that you are reducing your arguments more and more to mere cheap mockery without merit.

Here is my bottom line. Your type of religious fundamentalism scares me. It reminds me of those who want to teach creationism in science classes or believe the earth is 10 thousand years old. You carry on in a bitter and mocking tone and show a deep-seated fundamentalist belief that reminds me of the fundamentalism of the Taliban and how they try to impose their moral ideals on women. However you are talking about my country and my people, and not Afghanistan. The humiliation belongs to you my embittered friend.

 

[Lagboltz]

No actually I could not be more correct. Society has spoken. You have lost and women have won.

Top Gun! your unconjecturably determined inaccurate inexact demeaning belittling inferior detraction is merely nothing but a fallaciously misconceived irrationality of delusional sophistry.

What Chip is doing is cute and kind of fun. I thought I would give you his answer so he doesn't have to bother.
It's also a good way of covering up pap with more pap.

 

[Chip]

No actually I could not be more correct. Society has spoken. You have lost and women have won.

Actually it was always a lost cause for you once Roe passed in the first place. Because even if there would have come a long enough time of Conservative terror to reverse Roe there plainly are just to many women voters that would force new protective legislation for a woman's right to choose.

Now you can still stand out in the rain with the whack jobs on the sidewalks in front of women's clinics and proselytize and threaten women.

But 8 years from now all you'll be is wetter and none the wiser.

It's their body and no one can force someone to carry something in their body. It's impossible... and as a father of two girls in their 20's I want them to ALWAYS have access to all safe, sterile, medical treatment options as they see fit... not what I... or you... or the government sees fit... what they see fit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsknXsm2eHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeWnY1Nr1wk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHzn2pNzijw

Erroneous and irrelevant.

Your pro-abortionist mindset deludes that moral relativist utilitarianism will rule the day.

You paranoically fear, thereby, that if it doesn't, then someone will "control" your daughters, someone instead of you.

Maybe you fear having grandchildren that aren't from your approved man for your daughters.

Whatever, none of your appeal to "A"uthority or reference to laws that are contradicted by scientific revelation are of any merit to your position.

As more and more people become aware of the scientific truth that people begin to live their lives at conception, the closer Roe v Wade comes to extinction.

The truth is as I have presented to you; science has spoken and the reality it presents, that at least one unique individual human being, a person, begins to live at the moment of conception, is not subject to rational conjecture.

That means everything now.

You can deny it pompously as you have done here with your appeal to a dying flat-earth "A"uthority".

Or you can evolve with the times.

The choice, Top Gun, remains yours.

And, Top Gun, your daughters deserve better than to have a father who is so ignorantly careless of their psyches, as abortion can damage a woman for life.

 

[Chip]

Top Gun! your unconjecturably determined inaccurate inexact demeaning belittling inferior detraction is merely nothing but a fallaciously misconceived irrationality of delusional sophistry.

Actually, not bad, Lagboltz ... I'm sure that struck home with you.

What Chip is doing is cute and kind of fun.

Translation: "I, Lagboltz, am impressed by Chip's fact-based rational refutation of Top Gun's rather embarassing pro-abortionist sophistries. I hope he doesn't address me ... though I really need the attention."

I thought I would give you his answer so he doesn't have to bother.

No, actually you just wanted to demean me sans topically relevant content ... because you're frightened by the knowledge that I see right through both of you.

It's also a good way of covering up pap with more pap.

Yes ... you are frightened about something.

The truth of the matter, Lagboltz, is that you entered this thread, not motivated to correct what you allege is unscientific presentation.

That was just the tactics of the mechanics of your posts.

No, your motivation, your strategic intent, as you have revealed in response to Palerider's questions, was solely to debunk the scientific fact that a unique individual human being, a person, begins to live at the moment of conception, which you thought you could do by refuting the form, and thereby not have to utilize the pro-abortionist's ubiquitous and easily refuted sophistries as Top Gun did.

And, yes, you do this because you are a self-admitted pro-abortionist who appears to be truly bothered by his own position on the matter.

You post as if you were in ignorance of the damage done to women by abortion ... yet, between the lines, you reveal that you do comprehend that damage.

You post as if you were in ignorance of the the murderous act of abortion itself ... yet, between the lines in what you don't say, you reveal that it does bother you, including abortion from the moment of conception.

And yet you belittle, minimize, demean, sans relevant content those who present a rational, common sense, scientifically based argument that challenges you to relive the understandable guilt of your surface pro-abortionist's position, our rational, common sense, scientifically based argument for which you have no rational refutation.

And so, bombarded with the truth that restimulates your resurfacing guilt, you finally resort to postings that are nothing but mockings of those with whom you disagree, without posting one bit of topically relevant content, and I wasn't even conversing with you at the time of your unprovoked attack.

I asked you many posts ago how you felt about the rationally unconjecturable scientific fact that a person, a unique human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, and you have been silent, choosing instead to engage Palerider by posting one of the most blatant dodges of the heart of the matter I've ever read.

Rather than create posts that are nothing but ad hominem attacks as you have done here, you would do well with respect to your integrity to post topically relevant content.

If you have no refutations, if you have no valid topical content, then show some character and either admit it or remain silent.

But every dodge you make, every topically empty attack you make, only shows that you are capitulating from anxiety and lack what it takes to admit it.

So I urge you to knock off the posts like the one I'm responding to here that are solely unprovoked demeaning attacks on the poster.

And I urge you to respect this forum and post valid content that is relevant to the topic.

Thank you.

Now ...

... I've asked you a question which I've reiterated in this post.

I would like to read your answer.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I gave the names. Do you need for me to draw you a picture as well.

In-other-words, you Can't recall (either). I understand.

​

 

[palerider]

No pale I can see it in your posts... you're a broken man with no place left to go. That's got to be hard on you. I know you were very invested in trying to push women back to the middle ages and under the thumbs of zealots like you.

Sorry guy, but you are fantasizing not only in your arguments in support of abortion, but in your thoughts about me. I have all the facts, and all the truth on my side. Eventually, fact replaces fantasy in everything and such is the case here as well. Polls show that every year, a greater percentage of our population comes to favor restricting abortion and those who think like you become a smaller and smaller minority. Those who support abortion on demand are down to a minorityof 17% now.

Like I said, keep believing.

Let me tell ya what I see. I see eight years of a President Obama with probably 3 appointments to the Supreme Court with at least one of those being replaced a Conservative to a Liberal. I see a legislature and executive working together that will be engaged & diligent in their efforts to protect women's rights. And I see Roe holding then a 45 year precedent at the end of these two terms.

8 years already? He is going to fail at reversing the economy with liberal policies and as a result, 4 years is all he is going to get and if he engages in conservative policy which will turn around the economy, he loses his base and 4 years is still all he gets. Perhaps he gets two judges, both of which are already pro choice.

The number of judges is irrelavent however as the nature of the legal challenge is going to change from arguing a woman's theoretical right to what is actually being terminated when an abortion is performed. Like you, no pro choice council is going to be able to disprove the settled fact that an unborn is a living human being from conception. Neither is a pro choice council going to be able to overcome the large body of legal precedent that now exists establishing the personhood of the unborn. Roe was decided based on an assumption that unborns were not human beings. Such an assumption can no longer stand in today's world of instant information. I doubt that roe would have been decided as it was if the news cycle and availability of information were what they are today.

But hey, you keep on beliving. I encourage it. By the way. You assume that a judge will do exactly what the president who appoints him expects him or her to do. Do a bit of research and you will see that such is far from the truth.

 

[palerider]

In-other-words, you Can't recall (either). I understand.

​

In other words, I gave you the names of some of those who are now in prison. It isn't difficult to look up the case. Here is a hint, if you list the name and put vs after it, you will probably get a hit or two on google.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I think your eggs are coming home to roost

 

[palerider]

I think your eggs are coming home to roost

You don't "think" at all. Do feel free to point out any rational argument from your side for allowing one individual to kill another, withoug legal consequence, for any or no reason.