Political Crossfire Forums

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: steen wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Question, shouldnt it be considered viable if it can survive in its natural habitat(the womb)? No, that's plain stupid. That's just sophistry. I dont see how. I am not surprised.

Quote: Its natural for the embryo to be where it is. In utter dependence on the woman's body, as much as any of her organs are. There is no individual function and survival, hence no viability. Your attempt at revisionist linguistics doesn't change any of that. What IS it with pro-lifers and this pathetic, almost desperate need to redefine any word they can think off, just as long as it gives them another avenue for arguments? How pathetic, an entire movement based solely and completely on sophistry and deceptive half-truths.

Quote: Its like drowning a born human to see if their witches Nope.

Quote: its not our natural habitat at the bottom of a pond just as its not the embryos place outside its mother. It is not the natural habitat of autonomous, individual lifeforms. The embryo is no such thing, your silly gamey nonsense none withstanding. Sheesh, How old are you guys?

[straw man]

steen wrote: straw man wrote: ...by insisting that "killing" or "murdering" a two year old "child" is wrong ... Living up to your screen name, I see. :lol: :) 8:) :lol:

Copying a predecessor's already redundant insult attempt, I see!

[AllAmericanMan]

steen wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: steen wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Question, shouldnt it be considered viable if it can survive in its natural habitat(the womb)? No, that's plain stupid. That's just sophistry. I dont see how. I am not surprised.

Quote: Its natural for the embryo to be where it is. In utter dependence on the woman's body, as much as any of her organs are. There is no individual function and survival, hence no viability. Your attempt at revisionist linguistics doesn't change any of that. What IS it with pro-lifers and this pathetic, almost desperate need to redefine any word they can think off, just as long as it gives them another avenue for arguments? How pathetic, an entire movement based solely and completely on sophistry and deceptive half-truths.

Quote: Its like drowning a born human to see if their witches Nope.

Quote: its not our natural habitat at the bottom of a pond just as its not the embryos place outside its mother. It is not the natural habitat of autonomous, individual lifeforms. The embryo is no such thing, your silly gamey nonsense none withstanding. Sheesh, How old are you guys? Blah blah blah, liar liar pants on fire. Same old Steen.

[straw man]

steen wrote: straw man wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create. Actually I didn't create the arguments. I am simply copying them. These arguments are the exact duplicate to a whole crapload of arguments used to justify abortion in this abortion forum and you know it. Another falsehood. The arguments you so very poorly are para[phrasing are not used to justify abortion, but rather are used to challenge pro-life falsehoods. The justification for abortions lie with the woman's constitutional right to control her bodily resources.

So once again, the pro-life argument rest on misrepresentation, deception and falsehoods.

Now THIS is what I have to 100% object to.

First, I have heard plenty of such symantical games being played including by you steen, to prove a case. In fact I couldn't take hearing "a fetus is not a human being" and such blatantly false assertions being made any longer. So I put up the mirror so you can see what the logic looks like. In other words the "pro life falsehoods" must be mere objections to the words being used. I have seen it going on so much now I am sarcastically and I'm sure redundantly trying to give examples of how stupid it is to quibble over the words.

This is all just me trying to put the word games in a little perspective. So we can all see how silly they sound. They are the word game assertions I was arguing against by making this thread, not your "women's constitutional rights" argument.

[AllAmericanMan]

straw man wrote: steen wrote: straw man wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create. Actually I didn't create the arguments. I am simply copying them. These arguments are the exact duplicate to a whole crapload of arguments used to justify abortion in this abortion forum and you know it. Another falsehood. The arguments you so very poorly are para[phrasing are not used to justify abortion, but rather are used to challenge pro-life falsehoods. The justification for abortions lie with the woman's constitutional right to control her bodily resources.

So once again, the pro-life argument rest on misrepresentation, deception and falsehoods.

Now THIS is what I have to 100% object to.

First, I have heard plenty of such symantical games being played including by you steen, to prove a case. In fact I couldn't take hearing "a fetus is not a human being" and such blatantly false assertions being made any longer. So I put up the mirror so you can see what the logic looks like. In other words the "pro life falsehoods" must be mere objections to the words being used. I have seen it going on so much now I am sarcastically and I'm sure redundantly trying to give examples of how stupid it is to quibble over the words.

This is all just me trying to put the word games in a little perspective. So we can all see how silly they sound. They are the word game assertions I was arguing against by making this thread, not your "women's constitutional rights" argument. Its not a game of symantics really, its pure difference of opinion. No one who is pro choice will ever believe life begins at conception and no one who is pro life will ever change their opinion either.

The terms pro choice and pro life are perfect examples of the vast difference in opinion. Both are terms putting their stance in the best possible light. Pro life implies pro choicers are pro death. Pro choice implies pro lifers are anti choice. Rather the difference is just the belief of when a life is formed or when that life gains value. Of course if youre pro life, you believe people are being murdered and youre going to be emotional in their defense. Of course if youre pro choice youll be apathetic to the newly conceived and dehumanize them in everything you say, and be emotional in the defense of a womans "choice". It is interesting to note that in no other context is ending the life of a human considered a "choice".

[steen]

straw man wrote: steen wrote: straw man wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create. Actually I didn't create the arguments. I am simply copying them. These arguments are the exact duplicate to a whole crapload of arguments used to justify abortion in this abortion forum and you know it. Another falsehood. The arguments you so very poorly are para[phrasing are not used to justify abortion, but rather are used to challenge pro-life falsehoods. The justification for abortions lie with the woman's constitutional right to control her bodily resources.

So once again, the pro-life argument rest on misrepresentation, deception and falsehoods. Now THIS is what I have to 100% object to. Because you haven't paid attention, yes.

Quote: First, I have heard plenty of such symantical games being played including by you steen, to prove a case. You are referring to me insisting on accurate, specific and factual terminology as descriptors. That's not semantics.

Quote: In fact I couldn't take hearing "a fetus is not a human being" and such blatantly false assertions being made any longer. I am merely challenging your misrepresentations. This again has NOTHING to do with my views on abortion, only on my view of pro-life lies. There is very little debate about abortion here,. because we always end up dealing instead with pro-life lies, misrepresentations and sophistry. Until we get the pro-life dishonesty cleared up, there simply is no debate. I have NEVER used any of the above as justification for abortion, your false insinuation none withstanding. The ONLY thing I use for justification for abortion is that it is the woman's Right to control her bodily resources regardless of what and who seeks to use it.

So none of the arguments about pro-life revisionist linguistics, fetal development or ANY of that has anything to do with abortion. It has SOLELY to do with pro-lifers lying. And as long as you (personally, and pro-life in general) lie as much as you do, there is no debate, no argument, only a challenge of your incessant lies.

Quote: So I put up the mirror so you can see what the logic looks like. But there was no "mirror." there was your weird attempt at a spoof of something that wasn't even pro-choice. Instead, you misrepresented the pro-choice position and then spoofed your misrepresentation. That, of course fell flat as it was idiotic and ignorant of you.

Quote: In other words the "pro life falsehoods" must be mere objections to the words being used. Deliberate misrepresentation for the sake of distortion of reality. In other words, SOPHISTRY. As long as you use sophistry and deceptions and the endless lies,, there is no debate, possible; only the challenge of your endless lies.

If you someday decide to stop lying and actually debate the issue, then we certainly can do that. But until then, when you lie and deceive, I challenge it. It is that simple.

Quote: I have seen it going on so much now I am sarcastically and I'm sure redundantly trying to give examples of how stupid it is to quibble over the words. yet, that is the only thing pro-lifers do, deliberately trying to distort the factual, accurate and specific terminology. You are such a friggin hypocrite here,. trying to blame me for the ONLY thing pro-life is doing. Those endless lies, distortions and sophistry, that's all you do. You are not doing ANYTHING else.

Quote: This is all just me trying to put the word games in a little perspective. So we can all see how silly they sound. Ah, I get it. You deceive, lie and spew sophistry, and when called on it, you try to ridicule the challenge. What a lame loser you are. pathetic. People like you disgust me in your needless dishonesty.

Quote: They are the word game assertions I was arguing against by making this thread, But that is ALL you do, engage in word games. Not one honest claim, not one honest argument. ONLY the distortion and misrepresentation to prop up your weak cause of hate mongering, theocratic oppression of women. because if not, you wouldn't need to be so incredibly dishonest.

Quote: not your "women's constitutional rights" strawman crap of your own. Ah, yes. Women having rights is crap. yes, we are fully aware that this is the pro-life position, that women are chattel, that they are self-propelled wombs to control and enslave with disregard for any and all rights that they might have. You make that very clear. Misogynistic freak.

[Rubber Govt]

Time for some Bill Hicks quotes.

"What do you say we lighten things up and talk about abortion? You know, I feel like I'm losing some of you here, and I want to win all of you back with this one. Let's talk about abortion. Let's talk about child killing and see if we can't get some chuckles rippling through the room here. Let's talk about mass murder of young, unborn children and see if we can't coalesce into one big, healthy gutlaugh. Ha ha ha ha!

"Here is my actual theory ... beyond the huge, hilarious jokes I have. Here's my real theory, though: If you're so pro-life and you're so pro-child, then adopt one that's already here, that's very unwanted and very alone and needs someone to take care of it to get it out of a horrible situation. Okay? People say, 'Why don't you do that?' And I say, 'Because I hate f***ing kids and couldn't care less.' Couldn't give a f**k. Don't care at all about abortion. It's your choice, case closed, the end, bottom line. And by the way, that 3 month old kid in your belly is not a f***ing human being, okay? It's a bunch of little congregated cells. You're not a human ... till you're in my phonebook."

name wrote: Quote: Why don't we get to the core issue here? It would appear that the core issue is that you feel that aborion is immoral because you consider life to begin at conception. And while that position is certainly understandable, the debate becomes one of science. Science indicates that a fetus can not survive without the mother prior to development of a nervous and cirulatory system. Therefore, logic would dictate that a non-sentient organism, such as a fetus prior to the development of a heart and brain, does not have inherent rights.

Agreed. All abortion debates end up inevitably here, where the fight is between science and logic backed by tangible evidence and arbitrary moral arguments. Arbitrary morals should not be laws, our laws should be based on truth; this is why I am pro-choice.
But these fundies feel that their arbitrary morals are the logic we look for backed by tangible evidence. How do you propose we make them realize with out them coming back and saying "Stop it, you're making me question my faith" (to which I could add something very offensive)

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Its not a game of symantics really, its pure difference of opinion. No one who is pro choice will ever believe life begins at conception and no one who is pro life will ever change their opinion either. More crap nonsense IT DOESN'T MATTER when life begins. Nobody has the right to use the woman's bodily resources against her will. The status, personhood, life or whatever else stupid crap you want to assign the fetus is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. As long as a person doesn't have the right to use another person's bodily resources against their will, then neither does the fetus regardless of the status you try to assign to it.

So until you can be FORCED to give blood against your will, all your stupid blabbering about the fetus is irrelevant. the embryo or fetus itself is irrelevant.

So your stupid crap about what we believe about when life begins is just dumb. It is irrelevant. the reason there is an argument about this is because you guys are making false claims. This has nothing to do with abortion, it has to do with you guys being dishonest.

We could decide that for the sake of the discussion, the fetus is God or a person,. and it wouldn't matter one bit. Don't you get it? :roll:

Quote: The terms pro choice and pro life are perfect examples of the vast difference in opinion. Both are terms putting their stance in the best possible light. Pro life implies pro choicers are pro death. Pro choice implies pro lifers are anti choice. Rather the difference is just the belief of when a life is formed or when that life gains value. Stupid crap. It doesn't matter if there is "a life." It doesn't matter if it has "value." That is utterly irrelevant. We are not arguing about "life," only about prolife lies and distortions about science here. IT DOESN'T MATTER if it is life. It matters that you guys are lying, spewing sophistry and falsehoods.


Quote: Of course if youre pro life, you believe people are being murdered and youre going to be emotional in their defense. FACT: "Murder" is the illegal killing of a person. When you claim abortion to be murder, you are again being dishonest. It is emotional histrionics and revisionist linguistic hyperbole of the most dishonest kind. Such sophistry disgusts me.

Quote: Of course if youre pro choice youll be apathetic to the newly conceived and dehumanize them in everything you say, and be emotional in the defense of a womans "choice". It is interesting to note that in no other context is ending the life of a human considered a "choice". You have the choice to refuse use of your bodily resources, even if it results in another PERSON dying. So you certainly have the right to remove the fetus from its use of your bodily resources. That's the only thing that matters. Prop-life's pathetic and cowardly avoidance of that through your lies, sophistry and spewed falsehood after falsehood after lie about science is merely underscoring how truly dishonest you all are.

So, AAM, are you done distorting and lying about pro-choice? It is stupid crap like that above that really pisses me off.

[AllAmericanMan]

steen wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Its not a game of symantics really, its pure difference of opinion. No one who is pro choice will ever believe life begins at conception and no one who is pro life will ever change their opinion either. More crap nonsense IT DOESN'T MATTER when life begins. Nobody has the right to use the woman's bodily resources against her will. The status, personhood, life or whatever else stupid crap you want to assign the fetus is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. As long as a person doesn't have the right to use another person's bodily resources against their will, then neither does the fetus regardless of the status you try to assign to it.

So until you can be FORCED to give blood against your will, all your stupid blabbering about the fetus is irrelevant. the embryo or fetus itself is irrelevant.

So your stupid crap about what we believe about when life begins is just dumb. It is irrelevant. the reason there is an argument about this is because you guys are making false claims. This has nothing to do with abortion, it has to do with you guys being dishonest.

We could decide that for the sake of the discussion, the fetus is God or a person,. and it wouldn't matter one bit. Don't you get it? :roll:

Quote: The terms pro choice and pro life are perfect examples of the vast difference in opinion. Both are terms putting their stance in the best possible light. Pro life implies pro choicers are pro death. Pro choice implies pro lifers are anti choice. Rather the difference is just the belief of when a life is formed or when that life gains value. Stupid crap. It doesn't matter if there is "a life." It doesn't matter if it has "value." That is utterly irrelevant. We are not arguing about "life," only about prolife lies and distortions about science here. IT DOESN'T MATTER if it is life. It matters that you guys are lying, spewing sophistry and falsehoods.


Quote: Of course if youre pro life, you believe people are being murdered and youre going to be emotional in their defense. FACT: "Murder" is the illegal killing of a person. When you claim abortion to be murder, you are again being dishonest. It is emotional histrionics and revisionist linguistic hyperbole of the most dishonest kind. Such sophistry disgusts me.

Quote: Of course if youre pro choice youll be apathetic to the newly conceived and dehumanize them in everything you say, and be emotional in the defense of a womans "choice". It is interesting to note that in no other context is ending the life of a human considered a "choice". You have the choice to refuse use of your bodily resources, even if it results in another PERSON dying. So you certainly have the right to remove the fetus from its use of your bodily resources. That's the only thing that matters. Prop-life's pathetic and cowardly avoidance of that through your lies, sophistry and spewed falsehood after falsehood after lie about science is merely underscoring how truly dishonest you all are.

So, AAM, are you done distorting and lying about pro-choice? It is stupid crap like that above that really pisses me off. It does matter when a humans life begins and Ill tell you why. We base our judicial system on not infringing upon others rights. If abortion is killing another human individual, by definition we are most severely infringing on their right. The unborn are created through their parents will.
Whether or not they want to continue the pregnancy is irrellevent, they have already began a new life through their own actions and have no right to end that humans life. The unborn might live off the mothers bodily resources, but only came into existence through the mothers actions. Once the process of human development begins that human must be awarded equal right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

[straw man]

steen wrote: ...your weak cause of hate mongering, theocratic oppression of women...

Which post(s) was it that gave you that impression? I do remember YOU bringing up pages from the bible which endorsed the enslavement. (Exodus, great choice remember!) I don't remember me being theocratic about it. Or oppressive as I specifically stated on multiple occasions I do not propose a ban on abortions..

I mean if you want to diss then knock your socks off but try to get more on target okay!

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: It does matter when a humans life begins and Ill tell you why. We base our judicial system on not infringing upon others rights. If abortion is killing another human individual, by definition we are most severely infringing on their right. Good heavens. Is THAT the sole reason why you guys have lied so much? The distortion trying to get to that point? Why not just say so instead of spewing lie after lie?

It is friggin irrelevant anyway, as there is no right to life. Even if the embryo or fetus is a "human individual" (Just playing along with your stupid sophistry here), if it's survival depends on the use of another person's bodily resources, then it ONLY survives if that other person agrees. This is absolutely no different than if you are bleeding to death or dying of kidney failure. unless somebody else VOLUNTEERS to give their bodily resources to you, you die. THAT is also the situation facing this "human individual," the reality facing all persons. If you need others' bodily resources to survive, then you die unless they volunteer. You have no RIGHT to the use.

Quote: The unborn are created through their parents will. Nope. The "parents" will was to have sex. The unborn are formed because sperm met up with an egg in the fallopian tube. People don't CHOOSE to be pregnant. They have no say in making it happen. They can have sex at the "right" time without contraception, but they don't willfully cause the pregnancy any more than they willfully make their internal organs function the way they do.

Quote: Whether or not they want to continue the pregnancy is irrellevent, they have already began a new life through their own actions and have no right to end that humans life. Sure they do. Your "just because I say so" false claim, which seems more a reflection of wishful thinking is NOT factual. You are again making false claim. If the woman doesn't want her body used, then she has the right to terminate the use. That's all there is to it.

Quote: The unborn might live off the mothers bodily resources, but only came into existence through the mothers actions. And that also is the case for lung tumors, hydatidiform moles or any other growing tissue. Having sex is NOT a duty to give birth. Pregnancy is not a punishment or a duty.

Quote: Once the process of human development begins that human must be awarded equal right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. And that "right" doesn't include unwanted use of a person's bodily resources. No amount of pro-life sophistry can change that.

[Snarf]

straw man wrote: Who is Peter signer?
Peter Singer, unlike many here, is a man capable of rational thought and able to follow an argument to its logical conclusion, who just happens to see abortion for what it is, not what many irrational ‘all life is sacred, until I kill it that is’ people want it to be…

[Snarf]

UrielsFyre wrote: Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create.
This is more of an 'Appeal to Emotion' fallacy. It fails just the same as killing an infant is a lot like killing a fetus; neither one of them knew they had anything to lose. Maybe StrawMan has plenty of time to cry over the millions of American conceptions that go down the toilet every year before the woman even knew she was pregnant? It seems that everyone else can acknowledge the facts of life and move on...

[straw man]

Snarf wrote: This is more of an 'Appeal to Emotion' fallacy.

Not even close! Why did you take the argument attempt to start this thread SERIOUSLY, as though it were my actual argument attempt so you can call it a fallacy? This thread is based on a different fallacy, the exact same fallacy which the pro choice people continuously keep using. I used the fallacy on PURPOSE to illustrate how ridiculously stupid such arguments are. So when you point out that my opening post is a horrible argument, all I can say is, DUH!!!!

Quote: Maybe StrawMan has plenty of time to cry over the millions of American conceptions that go down the toilet every year before the woman even knew she was pregnant?

Where'd you get THIS phony representation of my stance from?

Quote: It seems that everyone else can acknowledge the facts of life and move on...

Not much of an argument. Did you have a point here?

[Enoch]

straw man wrote: Snarf wrote: This is more of an 'Appeal to Emotion' fallacy.

Not even close! Why did you take the argument attempt to start this thread SERIOUSLY, as though it were my actual argument attempt so you can call it a fallacy? This thread is based on a different fallacy, the exact same fallacy which the pro choice people continuously keep using. I used the fallacy on PURPOSE to illustrate how ridiculously stupid such arguments are. So when you point out that my opening post is a horrible argument, all I can say is, DUH!!!!

Quote: Maybe StrawMan has plenty of time to cry over the millions of American conceptions that go down the toilet every year before the woman even knew she was pregnant?

Where'd you get THIS phony representation of my stance from?

Quote: It seems that everyone else can acknowledge the facts of life and move on...

Not much of an argument. Did you have a point here? You present the argument, we have no choice but to take you at face value.

[straw man]

No, you have a choice. You always have a choice whether to take sarcasm literally or seriously or not.

[Enoch]

straw man wrote: No, you have a choice. You always have a choice whether to take sarcasm literally or seriously or not. Sarcasm is generally indicated by nonverbal cues such as vocal intonation and facial expression. Computer mediated communication removes all nonverbals, relying soley on verbal communication, which is tragically flawed. Therefore, sarcasm is often difficult to express, and even more difficult to detect, via the computer. Therfore, if there is any fault on the misunderstanding it lies in both the sender (you) and the receiver (myself and others).

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: Good heavens. Is THAT the sole reason why you guys have lied so much? I have never lied, and you have never proved as such. You only assume im lying when my opinion differs from yours.

Quote: Why not just say so instead of spewing lie after lie?
Why not explain what you believe is wrong instead of calling it a lie over and over again? You cant back your opinions in debate so you resort to personal attacks that much is clear.

Quote: It is friggin irrelevant anyway, as there is no right to life Im sure many murderers agree with you.

Quote: Even if the embryo or fetus is a "human individual" WHich it is.

Quote: if it's survival depends on the use of another person's bodily resources, then it ONLY survives if that other person agrees That person was just conceived and is surviving in its natural habitat. Its not using her mothers resources against her will but in fact through her will. (by her having sex)

Quote: This is absolutely no different than if you are bleeding to death or dying of kidney failure. Its completely different, as my right to live was respected while I was in the womb, and Im now outside of it. The aborted fetus wasnt given that respect and is merely in its natural habitat.


Quote: unless somebody else VOLUNTEERS to give their bodily resources to you, you die. And unless your parents have sex, you never exist.
They volunteered to create you and I believe they shouldnt have the right to kill you.


Quote: If you need others' bodily resources to survive, then you die unless they volunteer. You have no RIGHT to the use.
Repeating this incorrect analogy doesnt make it any more correct. The situations are completely different and you know it.
Therefor you are bearing false witness and lying. Liar liar pants on fire.



Quote: Nope. The "parents" will was to have sex And you are aware this results in offspring correct?

Quote: he unborn are formed because sperm met up with an egg in the fallopian tube Aha so you are aware.

Quote: People don't CHOOSE to be pregnant But apparently dont understand the connection.

Quote: They can have sex at the "right" time without contraception, Indeed creating life doesnt always happen but is the biological purpose of commiting the act.

Quote: but they don't willfully cause the pregnancy Willfully having sex causes pregnancies, not hard to understand and is a well documented fact, if you didnt know. Oh wait but you had to know that. You must be baring false witness and lying.



Quote: Sure they do. Your "just because I say so" false claim The science of conception is well documented and factual. Your claim that the person has no rights relies on "just because I say so".



Quote: which seems more a reflection of wishful thinking is NOT factual. You were once a zygote. I think your baring false witness again.

Quote: You are again making false claim Liar liar pants on fire.

Quote: If the woman doesn't want her body used, then she has the right to terminate the use Just because you say so?

Quote: And that also is the case for lung tumors, hydatidiform moles or any other growing tissue Wrong, these wont grow into adult humans. Youre lying again.





Quote: Having sex is NOT a duty to give birth Just because you say so. I think your lying again.

Quote: And that "right" doesn't include unwanted use of a person's bodily resources According to you. No amount of pro death propoganda will change that.

[Gilbert1908]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: straw man wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create.

Actually I didn't create the arguments. I am simply copying them. These arguments are the exact duplicate to a whole crapload of arguments used to justify abortion in this abortion forum and you know it. The difference being that pro-choice arguments are based on viability, that is the ability of the unborn to survive outside the womb of the mother.

An infant can survive outside the womb, a fetus can not (prior to the point of viability).

The argument that "but, they need someone to feed them" is not the same as viability. To consider the two to be comparable is not only illogical but intellectually dishonest. To remove an unviable human from the womb is removing an innocent life from its natural habitat. Using viability is like the old way to detect witches by throwing them into the water tied down to see if they drown or not. Just like back then, millions of innocent people are being killed. Okay, those two things have nothing in common. Sure they do, they both look at a human organism and say "ok if we do this to it does it survive?"
The question posed may be the same, but the difference is that you are trying to compare the murder of an adult with the abortion of a fetus incapable of survival outside the womb of the mother.

Why don't we get to the core issue here? It would appear that the core issue is that you feel that aborion is immoral because you consider life to begin at conception. And while that position is certainly understandable, the debate becomes one of science. Science indicates that a fetus can not survive without the mother prior to development of a nervous and cirulatory system.

Viability is of course a term used to describe that point at which a human life can exist outside its mother's womb. Science however, at least embryology the study of human development, makes it clear that the individual human being begins its life at conception. When a life begins and what its various stages are are two seperate deterninations.

UrielsFyre wrote: Therefore, logic would dictate that a non-sentient organism, such as a fetus prior to the development of a heart and brain, does not have inherent rights.

By the time most women have an abortion there is both a heart beat and brain structure is complete.

You are making the "person" argument. That a living human being must reach an arbitrary standard of development before it is afforded protection. And here the Supreme Court in 1973 agrees with you and while Blackmun avoided any attempt to define when life began he and the others did make "viability" that arbitrary standard for the state to prohibit abortion if it saw fit.

The science is clear in that it says the individual human life begins at conception and the law (the supreme court in 1973 took no live testimony from ANY Embryologists) says abortion is nationally legal until an acknowledged living thing has reached a specific developmental stage. But there is no logic which then can lead a conclusion about inherent rights since the debate is life's value.

The prolife person says life itself is a right and the attempt to place an arbitrary developmental standard to determine whether an otherwise healthy life can continue is inherently wrong.

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: Good heavens. Is THAT the sole reason why you guys have lied so much? I have never lied, and you have never proved as such. You only assume im lying when my opinion differs from yours. Another lie. I have provided scientific evidence of your lies several times.

Quote: Quote: Why not just say so instead of spewing lie after lie?
Why not explain what you believe is wrong instead of calling it a lie over and over again? You cant back your opinions in debate so you resort to personal attacks that much is clear. There is no point in voicing opinions with pro-life when pro-life continues to lie. Once you stop lying, then we can start looking at the issue. But as long as the pro-life incessant lies continues, then those lies are the only subject. When you lie to me, when you seek to deceive me or spew emotionally manipulative half-truths, then that becomes the issue.

WHEN you stop doing that, THEN it becomes possible to look at the issue.

Quote: Quote: It is friggin irrelevant anyway, as there is no right to life Im sure many murderers agree with you. See. More emotional histrionics and dishonest cowardly running away from the issue. There is no debate possible when you are that dishonest and cowardly that you can't even stand by your own words. How lame.

Quote: Quote: Even if the embryo or fetus is a "human individual" Which it is. Rather, you CLAIM this. Presenting your position as "fact" is dishonest. It is just more pro-life lying and deception, more demonstration of how dishonest and untrustworthy that pro-life truly is.

Quote: Quote: if it's survival depends on the use of another person's bodily resources, then it ONLY survives if that other person agrees That person was just conceived and is surviving in its natural habitat. Its not using her mothers resources against her will but in fact through her will. (by her having sex) A lie. If she seeks an abortion, then the use is NOT per her will. Are you so dumb that you don't see that? Your revisionist linguistics and sophist hyperbole is more show-and-tell of how truly dishonest that pro-lifers are. You are again lying.

What? Did I say "lie" a lot? That's because you lie more than most.

Quote: Quote: This is absolutely no different than if you are bleeding to death or dying of kidney failure. Its completely different, as my right to live was respected while I was in the womb, and Im now outside of it. The aborted fetus wasnt given that respect and is merely in its natural habitat. Are there any other ways you can possibly show how much of a coward you are in avoiding the issue of your claim of a right to lie? Your stupid sophistry merely shows that you can't stand by your own word.

Quote: Quote: unless somebody else VOLUNTEERS to give their bodily resources to you, you die. And unless your parents have sex, you never exist. Absolutely. And thus that would be irrelevant. Abortion is no different. If you had been aborted, you would never have existed as a sentient entity. Same thing.

Quote: They volunteered to create you and I believe they shouldnt have the right to kill you. More falsehood and sophist misrepresentation. Voluntary sex is not volunteering for parenthood. NOT having an abortion is volunteering for parenthood. But merely having sex is not.

Quote: Quote: If you need others' bodily resources to survive, then you die unless they volunteer. You have no RIGHT to the use.
Repeating this incorrect analogy doesnt make it any more correct. The situations are completely different and you know it. Both situations are about using a person's bodily resources against that persons will for survival. Your claim about what I know is ANOTHER LIE!

Quote: Therefor you are bearing false witness and lying. Liar liar pants on fire. Ah, back to talking to the mirror again. How lame.

Quote: Quote: Nope. The "parents" will was to have sex And you are aware this results in offspring correct? It CAN result in offspring, just like smoking CAN result in lung cancer. Sex and smoking is not consent to pregnancy or lung cancer. Aware of a risk is not the same as consenting to the outcome.

Quote: Quote: he unborn are formed because sperm met up with an egg in the fallopian tube Aha so you are aware. Huh? More dumbass stupidity from you, or what?

Quote: Quote: People don't CHOOSE to be pregnant But apparently dont understand the connection. More stupid claptrap. You just don't have the integrity for an honest discussion, do you. How lame and pathetic that the pro-life position is so weak that it only can be held up through lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and ad homonyms.

Quote: Quote: They can have sex at the "right" time without contraception, Indeed creating life doesnt always happen but is the biological purpose of commiting the act. Would you mind proving this "purpose" you claim exists?

Quote: Quote: but they don't willfully cause the pregnancy Willfully having sex causes pregnancies, A lie. Willful sex often does NOT cause pregnancy. Your absolutist lies merely shows how dishonest you are in spewing your stupid sophistry.

Quote: not hard to understand and is a well documented fact, if you didnt know. There you go again, portraying your opinion as "fact." What a friggin liar you are.

Quote: Oh wait but you had to know that. You must be baring false witness and lying. back to talking to the mirror again. I am not responsible for your lies, I merely challenge them. If you can't handle that and are unable to owe up to what you said, then perhaps you shouldn't spew your incessant lies to begin with.

Quote: Quote: Sure they do. Your "just because I say so" false claim The science of conception is well documented and factual. Your claim that the person has no rights relies on "just because I say so". There is no person, and the LAW says that the woman has a right to an abortion. So I am relying on much more than my opinion, your next lie in a row of lies none withstanding.

Quote: Quote: which seems more a reflection of wishful thinking is NOT factual. You were once a zygote. I think your baring false witness again. And strawberries grow in some gardens. Any other irrelevant blabbering you want to present here?

Quote: Quote: You are again making false claim Liar liar pants on fire. No, actually. You were bearing false witness. You are just to much of a lame, yellow coward to owe up to what you say.

Quote: Quote: If the woman doesn't want her body used, then she has the right to terminate the use Just because you say so? No, because the legal codes of the US says so. Good heavens, how stupidly ignorant can you be?

Quote: The unborn might live off the mothers bodily resources, but only came into existence through the mothers actions. Quote: And that also is the case for lung tumors, hydatidiform moles or any other growing tissue Wrong, these wont grow into adult humans. Youre lying again. Are you dumber than snot? Your point that you obviously are to much of a coward to now stand by, was that the person's actions caused the pregnancy. I merely pointed out that this was also the case for hydatidiform moles and lung tumors. Your irrelevant and non-issue babbling about growing to adulthood was not part of your post.

Once again, the flagrant and never-ending dishonesty in your lying posts has been exposed.

Quote: Quote: Having sex is NOT a duty to give birth Just because you say so. I think your lying again. You think a lot of stupid crap, so I am not surprised. The LAW states that she does not have a duty to give birth. So your claim is more lame-ass, pro-life, stupid and moronic deception and bearing false witness.

Quote: Quote: And that "right" doesn't include unwanted use of a person's bodily resources According to you. AND the Law. Now, when were you last forced to give of your bodily resources against your will?

Quote: No amount of pro death propoganda will change that. But then, no pro-death propaganda has been offered anywhere, your never-ending lies none withstanding.