BrianHanson â?? you have never addressed this point. Please do so this time. Prove to me with current science the statement does not have merit. [i][u] From the moment of CONCEPTION the unborn are in fact whole, distinct, living human beings.[/i][/u]
[/quote]
He can’t disprove it. Nor can anyone else. Because it is a wholly factual statement.
That’s why abortion advocates always immediately change the subject and throw every logical fallacy in the book at you as soon as you confront them with this one, simple, easy statement. Because it’s true, and they know it.
I find it absolutely fascinating and tragic the lengths people will go to to remain out of cognitive dissonance.
I feel a lot of sympathy for the people who freely chose to be willfully ignorant. The most horrendous portion, I was told it was disingenuous of me to compare the reign of the Third Reich with abortion. The numbers are absolutely staggering and the worst part. People feel justified in slaughtering the unborn. Yet I have to remain hopeful for the future because in the end, the truth will never fade away.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
BrianHanson �¢?? you have never addressed this point. Please do so this time. Prove to me with current science the statement does not have merit. [i][u] From the moment of CONCEPTION the unborn are in fact whole, distinct, living human beings.[/i][/u]
[/quote]
He can’t disprove it. Nor can anyone else. Because it is a wholly factual statement.
That’s why abortion advocates always immediately change the subject and throw every logical fallacy in the book at you as soon as you confront them with this one, simple, easy statement. Because it’s true, and they know it.
I find it absolutely fascinating and tragic the lengths people will go to to remain out of cognitive dissonance. [/quote]
I don’t need to convince you to say or do or believe anything, I merely stated my opinion (multiple times). I have my opinion, you have yours. I could sit here and tell you your opinions are shit, but whats the use . Of course you can always say “You’re wrong, baby killer asshole etc.” whatever, but it doesn’t change a thing does it? At the end of the day we will both have our own way of looking at things.[/quote]
This is a very good post for someone who has absolutely no defense for the atrocious act of abortion!
The best part about opinions, they can change. Change will happen when people look honestly at a given subject and realize they did not quite understand something or not quite fully informed. I can say that never once have people ever been able to prove this statement incorrect - [i]From the moment of CONCEPTION the unborn are whole, distinct, living human beings.[/i]
According to Thomas Jefferson, as written in our Declaration of Independence [u]“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”[/u]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,
I don’t need to convince you to say or do or believe anything, I merely stated my opinion (multiple times). I have my opinion, you have yours. I could sit here and tell you your opinions are shit, but whats the use . Of course you can always say “You’re wrong, baby killer asshole etc.” whatever, but it doesn’t change a thing does it? At the end of the day we will both have our own way of looking at things.[/quote]
This is a very good post for someone who has absolutely no defense for the atrocious act of abortion![/quote]
sorry about the slow reply i took the kids camping yesterday, we got back early today because of a crazy amount of rain, and after cleaning up all the gear i noticed your response.
“You will have to forgive me, please define what you mean by industrial model?”
I don’t know what you mean by “industrial model”, I typed institutional model, something that the disabled community has been fighting to get away from for years (like the DSO’s in New York State). Decreased funding for community based organizations has eliminated many small group homes as well as numerous not-for-profit home based care agencies.
“So now are you saying the unborn lack traits that quantify them as a UNIQUE group? I am honestly asking, how can they NOT be considered in a unique group?”
yeah, i didn’t say that at all, i sometimes wonder what people are reading. I said it’s not genocide, you may call it mass murder or whatever, but it is clearly not a genocide, bag the the hyperbole for a bit. Nobody is trying to abort all the fetuses/unborn children/people whatever.
“So Barry is not trying to make sex selective abortion in this country commonplace? Read the material on this page, this was posted yesterday and therefore totally relevant”
Talk about jumping to conclusions. Obama had nothing to do with “sex selective abortions”, in fact in the US the only group that seems to have even attempted to do this in new immigrants from countries where this is already a trend (China for example). in the US more girls are adopted, more girls are born and abortion statistics indicate that “sex selection” is not an actual issue, no matter how hard extremists are trying to make it so.
“Leave veterans with disabilities alone for once, please. I am talking about children. Then this is your claim but you have never provided an example of a program that helped people, then it was being shut down. Please provide a source for the claims you make.”
in this case so am i, the GOP has actively worked to defund programs that helped to keep people with severe disabilities in their homes, instead requiring that they be moved to institutions as a cost cutting measure unless the families have the means to keep the children at home (check out South Carolina).
“Toxemia of pregnancy can be tested in the early stages of gestation. You are building a straw man if you believe many people die in America as a result of pregnancy. Doubt me? Look at this page”
you said none i said some it seems “some” is correct. as for the rest of those statements and the numbers cited, they were found at the NIH and JAMA sites, as well as WIKI cited from one of the aforementioned websites, I will have to locate the exact articles again.
PWD is people with disabilities a pretty common acronym in todays “people first” treatment planning.
and finally
“BrianHanson - you have never addressed this point. Please do so this time. Prove to me with current science the statement does not have merit. From the moment of CONCEPTION the unborn are in fact whole, distinct, living human beings.”
first off it depends on how you qualify life, if you want to say life begins at conception feel free, but does a 2 day old cluster of cells feel pain, does it have a personality, is it viable, is it anything other than a cluster of cells, the answer is no. If you want to qualify life as a unique entity that contains the POTENTIAl to meet this other criteria, then yes you would be correct.
The real question is not how you view it, or how I view it, but how the law views it, and right now the law says that at the very least, life does not begin at conception. A 2 day old cell cluster is not a person, the only people that believe that are fringe elements that appear to post on this site all the time, most people believe that yes life begins before birth (thinking that it only begins once the baby is out is pretty silly as a concept) but getting people to agree on when “personhood” begins is the tricky part.
Medical ethicists (or liberal idiots as I’m sure they will be called in any responses to this) like Richard Carrier, Bonnie Steinbock and others seem to think that this occurs around viability (5 months or so give or take) Ruth Coker states that :
““One might argue that the fetus is not potential life until nature has determined the true potentiality of that life by deciding whether to abort the fetus spontaneously. At a minimum, I would argue that a woman should have control over this period of spontaneous abortion (usually lasting until week 13 or 15 of the pregnancy) by deciding whether she wants to choose an elective abortion.” 4”.
The science on “life” varies based on the determination of what constitutes life, the law has been pretty clear on alllowing people to pull the plug on “brain dead” family members, the law is also clear on allowing abortion, is it ideal? no, but it is the law and I’m pretty sure the government did more research on this than you or I.
I will focus on one point because this point is paramount to this discussion. At a later time we can talk about everything else.
Thank you for addressing my point, though. However, I would like you to address the whole sentence, not a single portion at a time.
I never said a thing about the 2 day cluster of cells feeling pain, having a personality, viable, etc. Address the entire sentence. I will BOLD and ITALICIZE the words so you realize the words I would like you to talk about: [i]From the moment of CONCEPTION the unborn are in fact whole, distinct, living human beings.[/i]
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
first off it depends on how you qualify life, if you want to say life begins at conception feel free, but does a 2 day old cluster of cells feel pain, does it have a personality, is it viable, is it anything other than a cluster of cells, the answer is no. If you want to qualify life as a unique entity that contains the POTENTIAl to meet this other criteria, then yes you would be correct.
The real question is not how you view it, or how I view it, but how the law views it, and right now the law says that at the very least, life does not begin at conception. A 2 day old cell cluster is not a person, the only people that believe that are fringe elements that appear to post on this site all the time, most people believe that yes life begins before birth (thinking that it only begins once the baby is out is pretty silly as a concept) but getting people to agree on when “personhood” begins is the tricky part.
Medical ethicists (or liberal idiots as I’m sure they will be called in any responses to this) like Richard Carrier, Bonnie Steinbock and others seem to think that this occurs around viability (5 months or so give or take) Ruth Coker states that :
““One might argue that the fetus is not potential life until nature has determined the true potentiality of that life by deciding whether to abort the fetus spontaneously. At a minimum, I would argue that a woman should have control over this period of spontaneous abortion (usually lasting until week 13 or 15 of the pregnancy) by deciding whether she wants to choose an elective abortion.” 4”.
The science on “life” varies based on the determination of what constitutes life, the law has been pretty clear on alllowing people to pull the plug on “brain dead” family members, the law is also clear on allowing abortion, is it ideal? no, but it is the law and I’m pretty sure the government did more research on this than you or I.
[/quote]
Please clarify in what you mean. I just want to understand your point of view completely.
Do not worry about missing a day to reply to my post previously. Life has a way of changing and schedules differ each day. I will always reply to a discussion, when time allows. With a newborn at home, I will not always have time to spare. Even though I eventually will.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Kneedragger,
Fine I will change it to a 1 second old cluster of cells, everything else stays the same.[/quote]
For the record , I do not buy that abortion with in a reasonable term is murder . But I must say out of all the so called Conservative issues I must say it carries the most gravity .
And in RE: to Zeb . Zeb is never wrong he also has all the knowledge of the universe captured . So please be kind
Fine I will change it to a 1 second old cluster of cells, everything else stays the same.
ZEB,
You are really bad at this.[/quote]
Yet, far and away better than you. Do you realize that in every thread that you’ve communicated in you have not won even a single point much less the actual debate? You walk around thinking things that just are not true, based upon tired old liberal cliche’s.
But please do keep at it you’re as entertaining as anyone who has popped in here in a long time.
For the record , I do not buy that abortion with in a reasonable term is murder . But I must say out of all the so called Conservative issues I must say it carries the most gravity .
And in RE: to Zeb . Zeb is never wrong he also has all the knowledge of the universe captured . So please be kind :)[/quote]
Say’s the man who cannot even understand the difference between capital gains taxation and income tax.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What is with all the murder talk, last I checked a cluster of cells outside the human body dies of natural causes.[/quote]Being outside the body is not natural though. See?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
One thing I never understood were the people who support abortion on demand but are vehemently against sex-selective abortion.
If it’s ultimately a woman’s body and her right to choose, why does that right end if she chooses to have an abortion based on the sex of the baby?[/quote]
Agreeing with it or not, what is one possible moral reason for abortion based on sex?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
One thing I never understood were the people who support abortion on demand but are vehemently against sex-selective abortion.
If it’s ultimately a woman’s body and her right to choose, why does that right end if she chooses to have an abortion based on the sex of the baby?[/quote]
Agreeing with it or not, what is one possible moral reason for abortion based on sex?[/quote]
If I understand the pro-choice arguments correctly, having an abortion is not immoral since fetuses have not reached personhood. At least in the first 2 trimesters.
So to a pro-choice person, you don’t need to have a good reason since the act itself is not considered immoral.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
One thing I never understood were the people who support abortion on demand but are vehemently against sex-selective abortion.
If it’s ultimately a woman’s body and her right to choose, why does that right end if she chooses to have an abortion based on the sex of the baby?[/quote]
Agreeing with it or not, what is one possible moral reason for abortion based on sex?[/quote]
If I understand the pro-choice arguments correctly, having an abortion is not immoral since fetuses have not reached personhood. At least in the first 2 trimesters.
So to a pro-choice person, you don’t need to have a good reason since the act itself is not considered immoral.
[/quote]
Some type of moral thought process is involved before deciding to have an abortion. The conclusion to have one is not just based on the fact you don’t think its immoral so its no big deal and your decision is already made. Of course there are probably some women who don’t fall in that category but those are not the ones pro choicer’s are fighting for.
