Are Unborn Children Human?

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
That’s not abortion.[/quote]

Okay, hold on a sec. Let’s get our terms down before we go any further. In your own words, what constitues a living thing is and define what abortion is, please and thank you.[/quote]

…are you saying that an unborn baby isn’t actually alive? Because I didn’t know this was in a dispute.[/quote]

It’s not that, it’s just the argument I was about to make may or may not apply depending on how you define these two things.[/quote]

So do you want a living thing or a human living thing?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
That’s not abortion.[/quote]

Okay, hold on a sec. Let’s get our terms down before we go any further. In your own words, what constitues a living thing is and define what abortion is, please and thank you.[/quote]

…are you saying that an unborn baby isn’t actually alive? Because I didn’t know this was in a dispute.[/quote]

It’s not that, it’s just the argument I was about to make may or may not apply depending on how you define these two things.[/quote]

So do you want a living thing or a human living thing?[/quote]

I would prefer both, please and thank you.

Okay, so I finished Silent scream and while it is a very sad movie, it is an appeal to pathos. Rather than bridging a logical gap between it’s premise and conclusion, it conditions the mind of it’s viewers into compliance.

Aside from that, though, I couldn’t help thinking some of the science didn’t quite jive. After a quick google search I’ve confirmed that this movie isn’t completely reliable. For example:

[i]"CLAIM: The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).

FACTS: At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.
An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.

What is termed “frantic activity” by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched.

In addition, experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.

CLAIM: Ultrasonogram depicts the open mouth of the fetus.

FACTS: The mouth of the fetus cannot be identified in the ultrasound image with certainty. The statement that the screen identifies the open mouth of the fetus is a subjective and misleading interpretation by Dr. Nathanson. His conclusion is not supportable.

CLAIM: The fetus emits “the silent scream.”

FACTS: A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs. Although primitive respiratory movements do occur in the later stages of gestation, crying or screaming cannot occur even then. In fact, a child born prematurely at 26?27 weeks’ gestation (24?25 weeks’ fetal age) cannot scream but occasionally emits weak cries.

CLAIM: A fetus is indistinguishable from any of the rest of us.

FACTS: A fetus of 12 weeks cannot in any way be compared to a fully formed functioning person. At this stage only rudiments of the organ systems are present. The fetus is unable to sustain life outside the woman’s womb, it is incapable of conscious thought; it is incapable of essential breathing. It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.

CLAIM: Fetal head at 12 weeks requires the use of “crushing instruments” for extraction.

FACTS: At 12 weeks’ gestation (10 weeks’ fetal age) and even 1?2 weeks beyond, instrumentation other than a suction cannula is not required when abortion is properly performed. Cannulas for aspiration abortion come in varying sizes, and the larger sizes are adequate for withdrawing the contents of the uterus."[/i]

Needless to say, it didn’t convert me.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tig, you show signs of brightness on other threads but your twisted, tortured and maimed logic on this one edges you toward the category of moron.

Seriously, you have no idea how stupid you look here on this thread. I’m not busting you just to put you down in the absence of an argument. You just look dumber than a sack of rocks riding on the short bus right now, buddy.

A few years from now you’ll look back on the lunacy you posted here and you’ll want to shrivel up and die from embarrassment. [/quote]

Well Push, that all sounds pretty terrible. Care to actually back up so much as one sentence of it?

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tig, you show signs of brightness on other threads but your twisted, tortured and maimed logic on this one edges you toward the category of moron.

Seriously, you have no idea how stupid you look here on this thread. I’m not busting you just to put you down in the absence of an argument. You just look dumber than a sack of rocks riding on the short bus right now, buddy.

A few years from now you’ll look back on the lunacy you posted here and you’ll want to shrivel up and die from embarrassment. [/quote][/quote]

lol

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tig, you show signs of brightness on other threads but your twisted, tortured and maimed logic on this one edges you toward the category of moron.

Seriously, you have no idea how stupid you look here on this thread. I’m not busting you just to put you down in the absence of an argument. You just look dumber than a sack of rocks riding on the short bus right now, buddy.

A few years from now you’ll look back on the lunacy you posted here and you’ll want to shrivel up and die from embarrassment. [/quote][/quote]

lol[/quote]

HEY! I added to/edited my post to slap you around even more. QUOTE THE WHOLE THING OR I’LL GO BACK TO DOING THE MULTIPLE POSTS THING YOU HATE SO MUCH.[/quote]

Uh… the lol was in reference to the pic. Your quote didn’t matter to me when I posted this. =/

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Well Push, that all sounds pretty terrible. Care to actually back up so much as one sentence of it?[/quote]

I’m just going to slap up more gold bars every time you post “parasite” or “Stalin” comments or such.

Kid, you’re too smart to be on this thread trying to drive square pegs through round holes. You honest to God look stupid.[/quote]

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I thought you’d say.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tig, you show signs of brightness on other threads but your twisted, tortured and maimed logic on this one edges you toward the category of moron.

Seriously, you have no idea how stupid you look here on this thread. I’m not busting you just to put you down in the absence of an argument. You just look dumber than a sack of rocks riding on the short bus right now, buddy.

A few years from now you’ll look back on the lunacy you posted here and you’ll want to shrivel up and die from embarrassment. [/quote][/quote]

lol[/quote]

HEY! I added to/edited my post to slap you around even more. QUOTE THE WHOLE THING OR I’LL GO BACK TO DOING THE MULTIPLE POSTS THING YOU HATE SO MUCH.[/quote]

Steady on sweetcheeks, I simply hit quote, any missing text is a result of you editing.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.

You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?

If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.

Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]

You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]

Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]

So following your logic here, if you had a baby, decided you didn’t want it anymore at around the age of 3 or so and let it die, that would be ok because it came from you and it’s life is yours to take?

Fortunately in the real world, people who disagree with this sentiment would take your kid, put you in jail and force their reality on you so really your reality of relativity is just a cancerous tangent of truth. How does that sit?[/quote]

I never said anything about it’s life being mine to take. Simply ignoring your kid is not the same as relinquishing responsibility over it. It the case of abortion you give it to a doctor, in the case of a born child you would give it to an orphanage. [/quote] Your own logic absolutely supports my previous assertion without further elaboration.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.

You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?

If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.

Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]

You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]

Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]

Would you listen to yourself…
Well, you aren’t going down in flames with out a fight.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.

You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?

If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.

Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]

You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]

Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]

So following your logic here, if you had a baby, decided you didn’t want it anymore at around the age of 3 or so and let it die, that would be ok because it came from you and it’s life is yours to take?

Fortunately in the real world, people who disagree with this sentiment would take your kid, put you in jail and force their reality on you so really your reality of relativity is just a cancerous tangent of truth. How does that sit?[/quote]

I never said anything about it’s life being mine to take. Simply ignoring your kid is not the same as relinquishing responsibility over it. It the case of abortion you give it to a doctor, in the case of a born child you would give it to an orphanage. [/quote]

I don’t suppose you notice you anaology fail here? You are ‘giving’ the doctor anything but money. You pay him to kill your kid, you not giving it to him. You’re hiring a hitman.