Political Crossfire Forums

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Gilbert1908 wrote: Viability is of course a term used to describe that point at which a human life can exist outside its mother's womb. Actually, "viability" is the gestational age at which 50% of the neonates are expected to survive for at least one year.

Quote: By the time most women have an abortion there is both a heart beat and brain structure is complete. The brain structures are completing right around the 26th-28th week of pregnancy. Your claim is flagrantly false.

Quote: The science is clear in that it says the individual human life begins at conception Actually, scientific evidence is not making any claim about there existing a "being" before birth. Your claim is false.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5148 Location: Boston, MA

steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Viability is of course a term used to describe that point at which a human life can exist outside its mother's womb. Actually, "viability" is the gestational age at which 50% of the neonates are expected to survive for at least one year.

Quote: By the time most women have an abortion there is both a heart beat and brain structure is complete. The brain structures are completing right around the 26th-28th week of pregnancy. Your claim is flagrantly false.
Unlike you I don't make this stuff up. http://www.visembryo.com/baby/week10.html

steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: The science is clear in that it says the individual human life begins at conception Actually, scientific evidence is not making any claim about there existing a "being" before birth. Your claim is false.

I have posted excerpts from multiple medical textbooks that state clearly that the individual human life begins at conception, you have your own pathetic opinion, how about finally delivering ANY source other than your feeble brain that says human life begins at ANY other time than conception.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Ok, let me try this. Ill respond for Steen.....

Ok, here goes....

Quote: Unlike you I don't make this stuff up. http://www.visembryo.com/baby/week10.html

"Your claim is false, you are a liar. That link only goes to show how much of a hate mongering, hypocritical, misogynistic en-slaver and oppressor of women you are. All you provide is dishonest revisionist linguistic hyperbole to further your fundie agenda."

Quote: I have posted excerpts from multiple medical textbooks that state clearly that the individual human life begins at conception, you have your own pathetic opinion, how about finally delivering ANY source other than your feeble brain that says human life begins at ANY other time than conception.

"What an outright lie, you disgusting scumbag."

Wow, that was easy.... :lol:

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Wow, that was easy.... :lol: Not really. The site was not scientific evidence, nor are textbooks scientific evidence. More nonsense, pro-life babbling. You seem to have forgotten the part about evidence. :roll:

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

From that website....

Quote: The Visible Embryo is the most indepth visual resource for human fetal
development on the web, brought this far by a grant from the National
Institute of Health.
By becoming a sponsor of the Visible Embryo, you will send a message
that you support educational resouces. It allows the Visible Embryo to
remain available to all and to continue further production in related
areas.

Our audience is primarily medical students, doctors, expectant parents
and others interested in the biological process of fetal development.

Hmmmm......seems like it would be a pretty reliable source of evidence to me.....So what evidence do you have to discredit this site?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Hmmmm......seems like it would be a pretty reliable source of evidence to me.....So what evidence do you have to discredit this site? Did you miss this part:
MOUSEWORKS DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT:

.....
(ii) THE OPERATION OF THE VISIBLE EMBRYO WILL BE ERROR FREE OR UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM ITS USE WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE;

This is not peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

steen wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Hmmmm......seems like it would be a pretty reliable source of evidence to me.....So what evidence do you have to discredit this site? Did you miss this part:
MOUSEWORKS DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT:

.....
(ii) THE OPERATION OF THE VISIBLE EMBRYO WILL BE ERROR FREE OR UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM ITS USE WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE;

This is not peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

Well yes, I did miss that part.....But I dont think its saying that the site itself is not accurate and reliable, only that the results you obtain from it, the conclusions you draw from it, might not be accurate. I dont think these people who run this web-site just made this stuff up. Beside the point....

I was asking for this peer-reviewed scientific evidence.....Its easy to go through and find flaws in someone elses case, its alot more difficult to try and make and substain a case of your own....

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5148 Location: Boston, MA

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Ok, let me try this. Ill respond for Steen.....

Ok, here goes....

Quote: Unlike you I don't make this stuff up. http://www.visembryo.com/baby/week10.html

"Your claim is false, you are a liar. That link only goes to show how much of a hate mongering, hypocritical, misogynistic en-slaver and oppressor of women you are. All you provide is dishonest revisionist linguistic hyperbole to further your fundie agenda."

Quote: I have posted excerpts from multiple medical textbooks that state clearly that the individual human life begins at conception, you have your own pathetic opinion, how about finally delivering ANY source other than your feeble brain that says human life begins at ANY other time than conception.

"What an outright lie, you disgusting scumbag."

Wow, that was easy.... :lol:

Very nice job, except you are far too articulate.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Gilbert1908 wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Ok, let me try this. Ill respond for Steen.....

Ok, here goes....

Quote: Unlike you I don't make this stuff up. http://www.visembryo.com/baby/week10.html

"Your claim is false, you are a liar. That link only goes to show how much of a hate mongering, hypocritical, misogynistic en-slaver and oppressor of women you are. All you provide is dishonest revisionist linguistic hyperbole to further your fundie agenda."

Quote: I have posted excerpts from multiple medical textbooks that state clearly that the individual human life begins at conception, you have your own pathetic opinion, how about finally delivering ANY source other than your feeble brain that says human life begins at ANY other time than conception.

"What an outright lie, you disgusting scumbag."

Wow, that was easy.... :lol:

Very nice job, except you are far too articulate.

Well, acting has never really been my forte. :)

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: steen wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Hmmmm......seems like it would be a pretty reliable source of evidence to me.....So what evidence do you have to discredit this site? Did you miss this part:
MOUSEWORKS DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT:

.....
(ii) THE OPERATION OF THE VISIBLE EMBRYO WILL BE ERROR FREE OR UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM ITS USE WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE;

This is not peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

Well yes, I did miss that part.....But I dont think its saying that the site itself is not accurate and reliable, only that the results you obtain from it, the conclusions you draw from it, might not be accurate. It means that it is not peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

Quote: I dont think these people who run this web-site just made this stuff up. Beside the point.... Actually, viseembryo has a number of errors.

Quote: I was asking for this peer-reviewed scientific evidence.....Its easy to go through and find flaws in someone elses case, its alot more difficult to try and make and substain a case of your own.... I have MANY times posted the evidence regarding the neuron's connection to the cortex. Are you saying that you missed it every time? Well, here is some of it again:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1097265&highlight=thalamocortical#1097265

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

steen wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: steen wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Hmmmm......seems like it would be a pretty reliable source of evidence to me.....So what evidence do you have to discredit this site? Did you miss this part:
MOUSEWORKS DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT:

.....
(ii) THE OPERATION OF THE VISIBLE EMBRYO WILL BE ERROR FREE OR UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM ITS USE WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE;

This is not peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

Well yes, I did miss that part.....But I dont think its saying that the site itself is not accurate and reliable, only that the results you obtain from it, the conclusions you draw from it, might not be accurate. It means that it is not peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

Quote: I dont think these people who run this web-site just made this stuff up. Beside the point.... Actually, viseembryo has a number of errors.

Quote: I was asking for this peer-reviewed scientific evidence.....Its easy to go through and find flaws in someone elses case, its alot more difficult to try and make and substain a case of your own.... I have MANY times posted the evidence regarding the neuron's connection to the cortex. Are you saying that you missed it every time? Well, here is some of it again:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1097265&highlight=thalamocortical#1097265

Sure I missed it, seeing as how I didnt sign up here until 2 months later :wink:

I just clicked on the first one.....and it said " While a cortical processing of pain theoretically becomes possible after development of the thalamo-cortical connections in the 26th week of gestation, noxious stimuli may trigger complex reflex reactions much earlier."....and then....."Hence, it is not reasonable to speculate on the possible emotional experiences of pain in fetuses or premature babies.".....so according to that paper, the argument is moot anyways..right?

From the 2nd link Quote: ....."Conclusions Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures."

So it is Scientific fact, that theyre just not too sure.....

They all say pretty much the same thing.....That theoretically, the ability to feel pain would come within the 23-30th week of pregnancy, and it is unlikely, but not impossible that the fetus feels pain before that...It makes sense....I guess its really impossible to know for sure....

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: They all say pretty much the same thing.....That theoretically, the ability to feel pain would come within the 23-30th week of pregnancy, and it is unlikely, but not impossible that the fetus feels pain before that...It makes sense....I guess its really impossible to know for sure.... No, they did not say that. Why are you being dishonest?

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

steen wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: They all say pretty much the same thing.....That theoretically, the ability to feel pain would come within the 23-30th week of pregnancy, and it is unlikely, but not impossible that the fetus feels pain before that...It makes sense....I guess its really impossible to know for sure.... No, they did not say that. Why are you being dishonest?

You see, this is your biggest problem. There is no dishonesty on my part, I am not lying. I read through a few of those things you posted, and that is what I got out of it. That in theory, It would be unlikely that the fetus feel pain until functional thalmo-cortical connections are present. That theoretically makes sense. One source even says it is not reasonable to speculate on the matter, and another admits that the evidence is limited. One source provides evidence both ways. If you have drawn different conclusions, please elaborate on them instead of accusing me of being dishonest.

name · Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 144

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

Wrong. About 60% of all abortions occur within the first eight weeks and over 80% before the first twelve weeks. The brain is not functional before either of these points. Only a tiny percentage of abortions occur after 20 weeks, and these are usually the ones associated with threats to the health or life of the mother, since these problems usually come up later in the pregnancy.

Quote: 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.

The pro-choice person says that placing a value on the life of an embryo high enough to trump the liberty of the mother is a result of personal beliefs, morals, and emotions, not backed by any tangible evidence of why this should be, and since these are arbitrary viewpoints they should not be laws.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: steen wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: They all say pretty much the same thing.....That theoretically, the ability to feel pain would come within the 23-30th week of pregnancy, and it is unlikely, but not impossible that the fetus feels pain before that...It makes sense....I guess its really impossible to know for sure.... No, they did not say that. Why are you being dishonest?

You see, this is your biggest problem. There is no dishonesty on my part, I am not lying. I read through a few of those things you posted, and that is what I got out of it. That in theory, It would be unlikely that the fetus feel pain until functional thalmo-cortical connections are present. That theoretically makes sense. One source even says it is not reasonable to speculate on the matter, and another admits that the evidence is limited. One source provides evidence both ways. If you have drawn different conclusions, please elaborate on them instead of accusing me of being dishonest. He can read thoughts, thus he knows you are being dishonest and cowardly.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: You see, this is your biggest problem. There is no dishonesty on my part, I am not lying. I read through a few of those things you posted, and that is what I got out of it. You did, eh? So studies that solidly clarify that no impulses reach the brain's cortex before the thalamocortical tract connects, they are "uncertain"? THAT is a dishonest misrepresentation of the studies. And since you claim that you read them, then the misrepresentation is deliberate. So you are lying, your denial none withstanding. But that IS typical, so I am not surprised. When pro-lifers are presented with solid scientific evidence, then they pick it apart and take segments out of context etc, doing whatever they need to do to present it as not conclusive. You complained earlier that I lumped you in with the pro-lifers who lie, accusing me of generalization or something like that. here is the evidence that you are just like the others. There was no generalization. You lie as much as the others who are documented to lie.

If you, in the future, decide to be HONEST about the evidence instead of playing politics with scientific evidence, then let me know. until then, I will merely challenge your lies.

Quote: That in theory, It would be unlikely that the fetus feel pain until functional thalami-cortical connections are present. No, that is a certainty.

Quote: That theoretically makes sense. One source even says it is not reasonable to speculate on the matter, and another admits that the evidence is limited. And others do not. And when you look at the rest of the literature, then you get the same result, that no impulses reach the cortex until the thalamocortical tract actually is capable of carrying those impulses to the brain's cortex. And yes, pro-lifers don't like that fact, so they lamely try to avoid it, and flat-out lie (or mindlessly repeat the pro-lie site lies) in order to make their false point rather than engaging in honest discussion.

Pro-life (you included) are obviously NOT interested in honest debate about facts, rather instead pushing for any lie or misrepresentation that can "win" their point. Such dishonesty disgusts me. people who spew a pack of lies and repeatedly do so are disgusting creep.

Quote: One source provides evidence both ways. And when you take the evidence together, it is unambiguous and solid. What one study is uncertain about concluding because their data didn't specifically look at that, is clarified in other studies. When you tie them together, the conclusion is solid. No wonder that pro-lifers are so troubled about actual, scientific and factual evidence.

Quote: If you have drawn different conclusion please elaborate on them instead of accusing me of being dishonest. Why should I bother? You obviously couldn't care less about evidence unless it serves your cause. Such lack of integrity doesn't make me want to undergo a major explanation and elaboration that will take me a heck of a long time to nail down to the itty-bitty details. Why should I go through the bother when you don't care about the facts other than about how to misrepresent it? Your disgusting behavior is NOT conducive to me putting any effort into debate. As long as pro-lifers are dishonest, there is no point in serious debate on the issue. You guys MUST stop lying first.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5148 Location: Boston, MA

steen wrote: Your disgusting behavior is NOT conducive to me putting any effort into debate. As long as pro-lifers are dishonest, there is no point in serious debate on the issue. You guys MUST stop lying first.

Promises promises

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Gilbert1908 wrote: steen wrote: Your disgusting behavior is NOT conducive to me putting any effort into debate. As long as pro-lifers are dishonest, there is no point in serious debate on the issue. You guys MUST stop lying first. Promises promises What was that? <looking hopeful> Are you guys going to stop lying? Well, that's just darn right wonderful. Thank you very much.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5148 Location: Boston, MA

steen wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: steen wrote: Your disgusting behavior is NOT conducive to me putting any effort into debate. As long as pro-lifers are dishonest, there is no point in serious debate on the issue. You guys MUST stop lying first. Promises promises What was that? <looking hopeful> Are you guys going to stop lying? Well, that's just darn right wonderful. Thank you very much.

I lied again.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject:

straw man wrote: Who is Peter signer?

Google is your friend.

Alternativly ask A.D, hes chairman of his fanclub.

Still waiting for you to define alive as well.