Political Crossfire Forums

[Plodder]

Quote: Rather, what medical reference claims that it IS an individual? stop avoiding the question steen. If you are soooooooo self justified show us your own sources, which you never have of course.

[steen]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I crown you King of Denial. For proving your point a lie? You made a specific point regarding a specific word and then was unable to prove your claim. How is my proving you a LIAR now an example of "denial"? I deny your lying cliam, if that is what you mean, but that is all.

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: Why? pro-lifers have posted their fetal porn for decades and it hasn't affected us one bit. Fetal porn? Holy s**t you have severe pyschological problems dude. Seek help now. No problems. pro-lifers get arousal and excitement out of watching little fake plastic models of fetuses with red pains and pictures of late-term abortion pictures from China.

So sure, to them it is pornography, images designed specifically for arousal. Why are you denying this? Are you disturbed over having your arousals exposed for what they are?

[steen]

JonnytheHammer wrote: ok so if a guy kills another guy thats murder but if a doctor kills a baby its not? Nobody are talking about killing "babies" other than the lying pro-lifers. Abortions deal with embryos and occationally fetuses. "Baby" is a developmental stage beginning AFTER birth. But thanks for exposing your ignorance.

[Gilbert1908]

steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I crown you King of Denial. For proving your point a lie? You made a specific point regarding a specific word and then was unable to prove your claim. How is my proving you a LIAR now an example of "denial"? I deny your lying cliam, if that is what you mean, but that is all.

How about 1 medical text book from 1950 or after that in any way refutes the scientific evidence that an embryo is an individual human life.


Just 1 that clearly states the opposite of ANY of the excerpts I listed. I listed excerpts from 9 different medical/scientific texts which a first grader can interpret as stating clearly that an embryo is a new human individual life.


You say that I and apparently the physicians, researchers and scientists(who state NO position on abortion by the way) who authored those books are liars. So then you must be able to produce specific opposite material which states as clearly that a human embryo is NOT an individual human life.

The only reason I chose to engage you again this time ( I do not as rule due to your intellectual dishonesty and penchant to employ childish negation as the only defense of your position, ie instead of offering ANY contrary resources you simply say I am a liar) is simply to expose the the vapid nature of your argument.


Many on this site who are pro choice are at least intellectually honest enough to know that scientifically there is simply no argument here. Their argument focuses not on whether an embryo is a human life, but at what stage that living being gains either "personhood" or enough value to supercede the mother's so called right to choose. This is a philosophical argument and legitimately so.

Denying that an embryo is neither human or alive is, as I have said many times, is the eqivalent of denying the earth revolves around the sun.

[steen]

Gilbert1908 wrote: You say that I and apparently the physicians, researchers and scientists(who state NO position on abortion by the way) who authored those books are liars. No, I say they are outdated, and I also pointed out that most of your sources didn't say even ONE word about the terminology we were discussing. Do I prove what a fish is by talking about elephants? Get a grip.

Quote: The only reason I chose to engage you again this time ( I do not as rule due to your intellectual dishonesty and penchant to employ childish negation as the only defense of your position, ie instead of offering ANY contrary resources you simply say I am a liar) is simply to expose the the vapid nature of your argument. So THAT is why you tried to prove something about terminology by using sources that don't even use that terminology? You MUST be stupid, then.

Quote: Many on this site who are pro choice are at least intellectually honest enough to know that scientifically there is simply no argument here. Their argument focuses not on whether an embryo is a human life, But then, that wasn't what we were discussing. Of course it is human life. Don't be COMPLETELY stupid here.

Quote: but at what stage that living being gains either "personhood" Personhood is a legal construct, and its definition is not found in medical sources. The law on the other hand IS where you find facts about personhood, and it is there clearly shown to never apply to the unborn.

Quote: or enough value to supercede the mother's so called right to choose. This is a philosophical argument and legitimately so. Ah, THAT is true. THAT argument is valid. So care to discuss when a person can be FORCED to give up their bodily resources against their will? (That after all, IS the legal issue at question in the abortion debate).

Quote: Denying that an embryo is neither human or alive is, as I have said many times, is the eqivalent of denying the earth revolves around the sun. And who, exactly have denied this? I sure hope that you are not so much a lying scumbag that you are going to claim that I have stated such?

[Gilbert1908]

, steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: You say that I and apparently the physicians, researchers and scientists(who state NO position on abortion by the way) who authored those books are liars. No, I say they are outdated, and I also pointed out that most of your sources didn't say even ONE word about the terminology we were discussing. Do I prove what a fish is by talking about elephants? Get a grip.

Quote: The only reason I chose to engage you again this time ( I do not as rule due to your intellectual dishonesty and penchant to employ childish negation as the only defense of your position, ie instead of offering ANY contrary resources you simply say I am a liar) is simply to expose the the vapid nature of your argument. So THAT is why you tried to prove something about terminology by using sources that don't even use that terminology? You MUST be stupid, then.

Quote: Many on this site who are pro choice are at least intellectually honest enough to know that scientifically there is simply no argument here. Their argument focuses not on whether an embryo is a human life, But then, that wasn't what we were discussing. Of course it is human life. Don't be COMPLETELY stupid here.

Quote: but at what stage that living being gains either "personhood" Personhood is a legal construct, and its definition is not found in medical sources. The law on the other hand IS where you find facts about personhood, and it is there clearly shown to never apply to the unborn.

Quote: or enough value to supercede the mother's so called right to choose. This is a philosophical argument and legitimately so. Ah, THAT is true. THAT argument is valid. So care to discuss when a person can be FORCED to give up their bodily resources against their will? (That after all, IS the legal issue at question in the abortion debate).

Quote: Denying that an embryo is neither human or alive is, as I have said many times, is the eqivalent of denying the earth revolves around the sun. And who, exactly have denied this? I sure hope that you are not so much a lying scumbag that you are going to claim that I have stated such?

Once again you are forced into name calling and simple negation instead of addressing the actual substance of the argument being made.

Let's say I am a lying scumbag. Lets say I am stupid.

You still have failed to provide a single medical or scientific source which states an opposing position to the excerpts I have provided.

If these excerpts from the embryology textbooks which state clearly that the embryo is a new individual human life are outdated and false, then it should be easy to provide opposing statements from other medical texts.

Or will be easier to either claim I am lying scumbag or the sources are somehow faulty.

Since you have NEVER provided any medical source that provides ANY contrary statement I am sure I know what the response will be.

Your inability to actually argue a point is exposed over and over again as you must always reveal yourself to be devoid of any substance by reverting to name calling and simple denial.

Again the only reason I engaged you is to permit anyone who did not yet know the pointless shallow nature of any discussion with you, the opportunity to avoid the intellectual dead end which is a discussion with steen.

[AllAmericanMan]

Dont even bother responding to Steen. I think the past couple days have tought me hes not interested in debating, just proving how insane he is.

[Plodder]

Quote: That after all, IS the legal issue at question in the abortion debate). actually no. the leagl issue is whether or not it is legal to kill unborn babies eg persons.

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Dont even bother responding to Steen. I think the past couple days have tought me hes not interested in debating, just proving how insane he is. I will debate the moment you STOP LYING!

[steen]

Plodder wrote: Quote: That after all, IS the legal issue at question in the abortion debate). actually no. the leagl issue is whether or not it is legal to kill unborn babies eg persons. More lies. After all, the legal issue is RvW, which is a decision about the woman's right to use her own body. As pro-lifers ALWAYS loose that argument, they pathetically and desperately have to divert into the lying sophistry people like you spew here all the time.

[Plodder]

as a "mysoinist" i could care less about ROe v wade. so my argument is a bout killing babies.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: as a "mysoinist" i could care less about ROe v wade. so my argument is a bout killing babies. As no babies are aborted, your claim is ignorant nonsense or deliberate lies.

And as a misogynist, you obviously have no problem with women being maimed for life; they simply don't matter much to you as long as they stay alive and can be forced to carry more unwanted pregnancies.

[Plodder]

1st line: what are you talking about? of course we are killing babies. you are just to shrt sighted to see thast.

2nd part.: yep. of course steen you are always rtight with all of your conspiracy theories.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: 1st line: what are you talking about? of course we are killing babies. you are just to shrt sighted to see thast. Your claim remains false. "Baby" is still a stage beginning after birth, your emotional histrionics none withstanding.

Quote: 2nd part.: yep. of course steen you are always rtight with all of your conspiracy theories. Sure I am. You have openly stated the above yourself.

[Plodder]

Quote: Your claim remains false. "Baby" is still a stage beginning after birth, your emotional histrionics none withstanding. baby is not part of the "developmental satges. a baby is human life at a young age. and a zygote is such all the way till your mom decised to call you by your name

[Plodder]

and I was being sarcastic about you being right. you are always wrong.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: Quote: Your claim remains false. "Baby" is still a stage beginning after birth, your emotional histrionics none withstanding. baby is not part of the "developmental satges. It very much is a developmental stage, your incredible ignorance none withstanding.

Quote: a baby is human life at a young age. from birth, that is.

Quote: and a zygote is such all the way till your mom decised to call you by your name Zygotes are not babies.

[Plodder]

Quote: It very much is a developmental stage, your incredible ignorance none withstanding. then I guess you are a developmental satge, seeing as your brain has not matured to the point to the fact that human life begins at conception.



Quote: Zygotes are not babies. you are the only one Ive ever heard say that. I had a class with a retired OBGYN doc who told us, he never worked with just zygotes, he worked with abaies. you can look him up if you want to. I wont put his name on here but if you want ill PM you his name.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: Quote: It very much is a developmental stage, your incredible ignorance none withstanding. then I guess you are a developmental satge, We are ALL in developmental stages. Didn't you know? Are you really so incredibly ignorant that you don't know what a developmental stage is?


Quote: Quote: Zygotes are not babies. you are the only one Ive ever heard say that. I had a class with a retired OBGYN doc who told us, I don't really care. Provide the scientific reference that supports your claim.

No? Uhum, as I said.