Political Crossfire Forums

[AllAmericanMan]

Conception is the start of a humans life, who denies that? Everyone knows sexual reproduction is just that, reproduction. Some choose to live in denial because they want to live their life with as little consequence and responsibility as possible, regardless of what other lives are destroyed along the way.

[straw man]

Izzibeth, I don't know if you were talking to me, but I wasn't trying to just arbitrarily decide when I want to "feel" or "believe" like I think it is a human life.

I just keep it official. If it's a homo sapien embryo, and it's alive, then it is a human life. This is not some arbitrary criteria I'm making up. It's official. No middle ground should be required on that one.

If I wanted to debate when it is ethical to abort or not (which I'm not) THEN I might consider such things as when it has a heart and brain, when it becomes sentient etc. But such things aren't what determines if it's a human life or not, which was really all I was trying to say.

[LostSoul3412]

straw man wrote: Izzibeth, I don't know if you were talking to me, but I wasn't trying to just arbitrarily decide when I want to "feel" or "believe" like I think it is a human life.

I just keep it official. If it's a homo sapien embryo, and it's alive, then it is a human life. This is not some arbitrary criteria I'm making up. It's official. No middle ground should be required on that one.

If I wanted to debate when it is ethical to abort or not (which I'm not) THEN I might consider such things as when it has a heart and brain, when it becomes sentient etc. But such things aren't what determines if it's a human life or not, which was really all I was trying to say.

Official according to whom? I have to agree with Izzibeth here because it is your opinion that an embryo is alive, otherwise you would not bother debating it, or finding "official" research to support your points. Since you are not debating the ethical stances of abortion, I too will keep it objective, as defined by United States law.

An embryo is not a person, and is not protected under the Constitution until birth, according to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. Abortion is not murder under American law, therefore no human being is killed. Keeping it completely objective, American law clearly states that an embryo is not a living being. If your definition of life is official, then under whose authority is it official? Yours? The dictionary's? Neither of which hold standing over the law. And speaking in complete legal terms, an embryo is not a person.

[LostSoul3412]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Conception is the start of a humans life, who denies that?

The United States Supreme Court, and American law.

AllAmericanMan wrote: Everyone knows sexual reproduction is just that, reproduction.

Yes, according to American law sexual reproduction creates the potential to become life, but is not actual life until birth.

AllAmericanMan wrote: Some choose to live in denial because they want to live their life with as little consequence and responsibility as possible, regardless of what other lives are destroyed along the way.

That's an interesting way to think of the same government you want to pass a law that bans abortion...

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: "The interval of time between one's birth and the present" What about marsupials? They keep their young in a pouch until they are developed. Not really inside the mother. Inside or outside doesn't matter, still a human life. I didn't know that marsupials were human?

[steen]

straw man wrote: The baby can still qualify as being alive simply by growing and metabolizing, with no such requirement of having been born. As "Baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth, yes it very much needs to be born to be a baby, pro-life lying, revisionist linguistics none withstanding.

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Conception is the start of a humans life, who denies that? So the hydatidiform mole is "a human life."!

[straw man]

steen wrote: straw man wrote: The baby can still qualify as being alive simply by growing and metabolizing, with no such requirement of having been born. As "Baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth, yes it very much needs to be born to be a baby, pro-life lying, revisionist linguistics none withstanding.

Yeah, nevermind that when we say "baby" we might be referring to "an unborn child; a fetus."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=baby

Delusional denial of the english language nonewithstanding.

[steen]

straw man wrote: steen wrote: straw man wrote: The baby can still qualify as being alive simply by growing and metabolizing, with no such requirement of having been born. As "Baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth, yes it very much needs to be born to be a baby, pro-life lying, revisionist linguistics none withstanding. Yeah, nevermind that when we say "baby" we might be referring to "an unborn child; a fetus." Particularly, when you then try to equate it with a REAL, born baby. Such is the deception and outright lies of the incredibly dishonest pro-lifers who are completely unable to make an argument without resorting to such trickery, as their entire argument is based on lies, half-truths, emotional histrionics and revisionist linguistic, deceptive hyperbole.

A pack of deceptive liars.

[straw man]

And Webster is lying too?

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: And Webster is lying too? Not only webster, everyone on the planet who disagrees with his opinion is a liar and an opresser of women.

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: And Webster is lying too? Not only webster, everyone on the planet who disagrees with his opinion is a liar and an opresser of women. No, just people like you guys who lie so much. Claiming this then applies to everybody else is merely showing how incredibly narcissistic you are.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: No, just people like you guys who lie so much. Claiming this then applies to everybody else is merely showing how incredibly narcissistic you are. In other words, everyone who disagrees with you is a narcissist. Great.

[Plodder]

I guess that include my copy of the New Oxford Dictionay


* ahhhh what junk I have here......

[straw man]

steen wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: And Webster is lying too? Not only webster, everyone on the planet who disagrees with his opinion is a liar and an opresser of women. No...

No? So I call an unborn fetus a baby and I am a liar. The dictionary says the EXACT SAME THING and calls an unborn fetus a baby. Yet I am lying and the dictionary is not even though we said the same thing. Yeah real airtight logic on THAT one. :lol:

[LostSoul3412]

straw man wrote: steen wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: And Webster is lying too? Not only webster, everyone on the planet who disagrees with his opinion is a liar and an opresser of women. No...

No? So I call an unborn fetus a baby and I am a liar. The dictionary says the EXACT SAME THING and calls an unborn fetus a baby. Yet I am lying and the dictionary is not even though we said the same thing. Yeah real airtight logic on THAT one. :lol:

Regardless of the dictionary, the law clearly states that an embryo is not a person. So while you can call it whatever you want, it cannot be legally defined as a baby.

[AllAmericanMan]

Irrelevent, this forum is dedicated to debating that exact law.

[straw man]

Lets see, on the one hand we have english words which have been refined and evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years, pretty much every single independent third party dictionary defining it the same, essentially a consensus among the english language.

On the other hand we have a bunch of corrupted activist judges, whimsically, arbitrarily, and subjectively redefining the meaning which completely contradicts the english language just to suit their purposes.

I'm sorry but what exactly makes Roe v. Wade the official supreme arbitrator to decide what constitutes a human being?

[steen]

straw man wrote: Lets see, on the one hand we have english words which have been refined and evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years, pretty much every single independent third party dictionary defining it the same, essentially a consensus among the english language.

On the other hand we have a bunch of corrupted activist judges, whimsically, arbitrarily, and subjectively redefining the meaning which completely contradicts the english language just to suit their purposes.

I'm sorry but what exactly makes Roe v. Wade the official supreme arbitrator to decide what constitutes a human being? If you had paid attention rather than now exposing yourself as an ignorant moron, you would have noticed that RvW did not make the definition. It merely concluded that in more than 100 years of laws and rulings, the term "person" had never legally applied to the unborn. Now, if you actually had read RvW, you would have known this, instead of you exposing yourself as a dishonest moron, making claims about something you obviously know nothing about.

[LostSoul3412]

straw man wrote: I'm sorry but what exactly makes Roe v. Wade the official supreme arbitrator to decide what constitutes a human being?

The Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe v. Wade gives the definition of a human being in legal terms. In your own personal vocabulary, you can refer to an embryo as whatever you wish, but as soon as you start to debate the legality of abortion, that is the definition that must be used. It sets precedence of the highest order in the United States, and it is determining factor in all laws affecting the American people in relation to abortion. The very legal system that you are trying to use to your advantage is the same legal system that stated that birth is the deciding factor in an individual's rights.