90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
661

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

You make a claim, burden of proof exists with you. Stop shirking your responsibility. Every day you let slip without proving the existence of the soul and when it enters the body, you allow abortion to continue.

Off you go, I’ll wait.[/quote]

I’ve made no claim. Start paying attention. Pro-choicers are making the claim that so long as we don’t know when some non falsifiable (as Orion described) essence of humanity (‘soul’) descends upon an individual human life, abortion must stay legal. I’m arguing exclusively from a materialist perspective, with what biology tells us. My argument is simple, individual human life. Sorry, the burden of proof isn’t on me.
[/quote]

Oh please, you want to define when life starts and use science? Science has determined life started many billions of years ago and exists in the form of an unbroken chain.

Burden of proof lies with you I’m afraid. Just because you seek to rationalize your position in a secular manner, doesn’t change the fact that the crucial underpinning points of your arguments are propped up by what it is to be alive, which you seek to define in a theological way.

662

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Oh please, you want to define when life starts and use science? Science has determined life started many billions of years ago and exists in the form of an unbroken chain.

[/quote]

Individual human organism…We’re are discussing an individual. Not, when life began on earth. Mak, you too? Come on, man.

663

[quote]Makavali wrote:
…underpinning points of your arguments are propped up by what it is to be alive, which you seek to define in a theological way.[/quote]

Theological way? Have you been reading this thread?

664

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Oh please, you want to define when life starts and use science? Science has determined life started many billions of years ago and exists in the form of an unbroken chain.

[/quote]

Individual human organism…We’re are discussing an individual. Not, when life began on earth. Mak, you too? Come on, man.
[/quote]

You wanted to use science. This is how it plays out.

665

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
…underpinning points of your arguments are propped up by what it is to be alive, which you seek to define in a theological way.[/quote]

Theological way? Have you been reading this thread?
[/quote]

I’ve been reading several threads. If we were sitting here discussing only this thread, I would do so, but you form your opinions of others based on their postings in other threads, I merely do the same.

666

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Oh please, you want to define when life starts and use science? Science has determined life started many billions of years ago and exists in the form of an unbroken chain.

[/quote]

Individual human organism…We’re are discussing an individual. Not, when life began on earth. Mak, you too? Come on, man.
[/quote]

You wanted to use science. This is how it plays out.[/quote]

The science says the human embryo is an individual human life already moving through it’s own life cycle. Yes, or no. That is the topic. Yes…Or…No. No more replies until you answer.

667

I will state the same thing AGAIN, sperm are not alive! You cannot pick and choose a characteristic for some organism and use the trait of a different organism to compare to human embryo.

[quote]orion wrote:
Also, sperm can even reproduce.

There is no necessity to see sperm as a way for humans to reproduce, what if humans are the way sperm reproduces?[/quote]

668

The embryo is a stage of life that if left uninterrupted, results in a complete human life. Without the stage you want to eliminate, none of us would be here.

[quote]orion wrote:

  • Yet again, a functioning respiratory and circulatory system and/or a functioning brain, including the brain stem. A zygote does not even have them, let alone functioning ones.

  • I do not wish to dig up information on how many zygotes fail to become a human being. If you think that this matter is so deeply important than it is really up to you to look up information that disagrees with you, just on the off chance that what you take for granted might be wrong.

Which, in this case, it apparently is.[/quote]

669

I will repeat this one more time for you. All human life, from an embryo to a child to a senior citizen to a zygote to an adult, is the exact same! Four traits identify the only differences they posses. The EXACT SAME TRAITS DEFINE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOU AND I.

A zygote is not a walking human, but a human all the same.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
orion - Your side of the debate is to take action when purposefully killing an embryo. Just like many other situations, justify your actions.

A human zygote is the exact same as a human walking the world today save four traits - SLED. Do I need to write the acronym again? Size, Level of development, Environment and Degree of dependency - together these traits can be used to describe the difference between the unborn and myself. Those exact same traits can be used to define the difference between you and I.

The human sperm is NOT alive and your point has been addressed by me and another poster. Do I need to prove you wrong, again?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
My apologies, not sure how I missed this post. Again, please accept my apologies.

Because we are having a ‘discussion’ about the definition of human life. Please prove to me the human sperm is alive, like a person is alive. Either one walking the world or even the embryo you claim is impossible to define.

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Source for above definition ^ Koshland Jr, Daniel E. (March 22, 2002). “The Seven Pillars of Life”. Science 295 (5563): 2215Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??2216. doi:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. Retrieved 2009-05-25

[quote]orion wrote:
According to whom?

I am sure that I can find a definition of “alive” that fits.

edit: and I would be very careful with that, because if you answer that sperm cannot survive on their own you leave a gap open I could drive a truck through, with room to spare. [/quote]
[/quote]

Why do I have to prove anything?

Prove to me that a “zygote is alive like a human being is alive.” You are making the claim, you back it up.

I say that human sperm is alive and that it is appealing that so much of it is shot out into an uncaring universe. If one equates human life with human being that is.

edit: Did I really write appealing? Should have been appalling. Anyhow I will let it stand as it is… O_O[/quote]
[/quote]

Did you, even once?

Also, I find it interesting that you claim that a zygote is a human being except for FOUR reasons, no less.

No apparent disconnect there?

None at all?[/quote]

670

I have never used the Bible to argue the case for life. Never once. For you to claim the Bible, as evidence to support your claim is beyond idiotic.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The “book was based on a course of public lectures delivered by SchrÃ???Ã??Ã?¶dinger in February 1943” and his understanding of biology was far off in what we now know about life. Find current evidence to prove the unborn are not alive, NOT science in a different field from over sixty five years ago.

[quote]orion wrote:
This might be interesting for some:

Seen that way, life is something that wrestles order from entropy. [/quote]
[/quote]

I hope that you find no worthwhile considerations in the bible, I just hope that you dont…

The alternative would be unthinkable…

Come to think of it, if you did not, that would not be too flattering either.

Oh well…[/quote]

671

You have done nothing to support your claim, no matter what you think.

[quote]orion wrote:
Alright, blood and sperm is alive then.

I am glad that this is settled-[/quote]

672

I have provided text books, used in colleges across the country, to define when life begins. Where else would you like this data to come from?

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Which point do you need evidence for? I have told anyone, including you, to ask for evidence when my point is failed to be expressed in a manner you understand.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Again, you are making claims with nothing to back the statements.
[/quote]

More than half your “arguments” are made with no foundation. Most of the rest are either copy pasted from biased websites or made appealing to the authority of your previous statements (which have no foundation).[/quote]
[/quote]

There’s no point asking you for further clarification, you’ll either link a biased website or appeal to a previous statement made by yourself, which appeals to the authority of another statement you’ve made which appeals to a biased source.

Also, you quote like an idiot.[/quote]

673

“If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion in necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.”

-Gregory Koukl

674

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
“If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion in necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.”

-Gregory Koukl[/quote]

It’s shit like this that stops people from taking you seriously.

675

I shared a quote of a Christian along with siting him and people don’t respond to me? Um, OK shrug I share information and offer a different perspective.

Still waiting for you to ask me which information you want sourced and/or referenced.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
“If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion in necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.”

-Gregory Koukl[/quote]

It’s shit like this that stops people from taking you seriously.[/quote]

676

Ron Paul at the Personhood USA Pro-Life Presidential Forum

677
678

AGAIN take the link from Paul in context. NOT just a nine second clip.

Then you post a video of THE FLIP FLOPPER, largest politician, in all of time. You have no idea how ironic it is that you of all posters shared the link lol

679

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
AGAIN take the link from Paul in context. NOT just a nine second clip.

Then you post a video of THE FLIP FLOPPER, largest politician, in all of time. You have no idea how ironic it is that you of all posters shared the link lol[/quote]

No that’s not Romney it’s Santorum. He has the staunchest pro-life record of all the candidates.

680

First off, you do NOT even live in America so I don’t see or understand why you try to chime in like your opinion has any merit. Second, you need to check your facts brooster.

http://www.fitsnews.com/2012/01/16/evangelicals-back-santorum/

And finally watch the video and tell me only his stance will never change. A woman has a right to a choice, according to him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aPb5A1-gYI

Please check your facts.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
AGAIN take the link from Paul in context. NOT just a nine second clip.

Then you post a video of THE FLIP FLOPPER, largest politician, in all of time. You have no idea how ironic it is that you of all posters shared the link lol[/quote]

No that’s not Romney it’s Santorum. He has the staunchest pro-life record of all the candidates.[/quote]