[quote]kamui wrote:
Oops, you did it again.
Hard time thinking outside your christian box maybe ?
Oh the irony. [/quote]
I’m still waiting for your proof then.
my proof of what ?
That an embryo in an human person ?
I don’t care if it’s a person or not.
Why should I ? I’m an atheist. And, unlike you, i do not become suddenly enraptured by millenia old theologic concepts when it’s convenient.
[quote]kamui wrote:
my proof of what ?
[/quote]
That abortion is murder
[quote]kamui wrote:
my proof of what ?
That an embryo in an human person ?
I don’t care if it’s a person or not.
Why should I ? I’m an atheist. And, unlike you, i do not become suddenly enraptured by millenia old theologic concepts when it’s convenient.[/quote]
So you claim abortion is murder. You say it’s what science tells us. But you can’t prove it. That makes a lot of sense.
the legal definition of murder include the words “human being”
not “human person”.
And we already established that an human embryo is an human being.
If you really want to argue that abortion is not murder, you should argue about the “malice aforethought” part of the definition.
[quote]
So you claim abortion is murder. [/quote]
Really ?
Where did i say that ?
[quote]
You say it’s what science tells us.[/quote]
Really ?
Where did i say that ?
[quote]kamui wrote:
the legal definition of murder include the words “human being”
not “human person”.
And we already established that an human embryo is an human being.
If you really want to argue that abortion is not murder, you should argue about the “malice aforethought” part of the definition. [/quote]
Murder :
the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Seems like the law do not agree with you.
[quote]kamui wrote:
the legal definition of murder include the words “human being”
not “human person”.
And we already established that an human embryo is an human being.
If you really want to argue that abortion is not murder, you should argue about the “malice aforethought” part of the definition.
[quote]
So you claim abortion is murder. [/quote]
Really ?
Where did i say that ?
Then what is your position.
So you choose to argue about the “unlawful” part of the definition…
If the law suddenly decided that killing french canadians is not murder, would you conclude that :
-killing french canadians is not murder
or that :
-this law about french canadians is not consistent with the common law, and should be abrogated ?
-Abortion is morally bad. Always.
-As such, abortion should not have been legalized. At all. Because as soon as it was legalized it became an “individual right”.
-In some cases, the evil of abortion may be a necessary evil. In these cases, and only in these cases, it should be depenalized.
-In all other cases, it’s indeed murder and should be recognized as such by the law.
-Alternative solutions and complete informations should be offered to women who want to abort.
-We, as a society, should focus on non-coercive detterance.
-No one should be forced to endorse or support abortion. Doctors and taxpayers included.
[quote]kamui wrote:
So you choose to argue about the “unlawful” part of the definition…
If the law suddenly decided that killing french canadians is not murder, would you conclude that :
-killing french canadians is not murder
or that :
-this law about french canadians is not consistent with the common law, and should be abrogated ?[/quote]
You said : the legal definition of murder…
That was the legal definition and it do not agree with you because it says unlawful killing.
But of course you last point is right and the law would not make sense. But this prove that your argument which is base on The legal definition of murder does not make sense.
Please enlighten me as to when the embryo becomes a person, so I can pass your obvious lack of intelligence on to him and many others who are all shunned in the light of your massive intellect.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
Good old Scott should learn that science does not tell us when an embryo becomes a person. [/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]
I think Roe vs Wade is spot on. Equating abortion to murder is your opinion, others will not agree. [/quote]
Not a matter of opinion. What is murder? The deliberate killing of another human being. What human being is more innocent and vulnerable than an unborn child?[/quote]
Ya know Sex Machine, I’d have never guessed a person with your alias would be a thoughtful, intelligent person…Kudos sir…[/quote]
Thanks pat. I guess it is a silly name. I was actually thinking of changing it to ‘the artist formerly known as SexMachine.’ Either that or ‘SexDiddy.’[/quote]
Nah, keep it. Don’t try to hide the truth 
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please enlighten me as to when the embryo becomes a person, so I can pass your obvious lack of intelligence on to him and many others who are all shunned in the light of your massive intellect.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
Good old Scott should learn that science does not tell us when an embryo becomes a person. [/quote]
[/quote]
Obviously joebassin hasn’t heard of this neat tool called google…
http://clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=28
or,
“The facts above, along with the constancy of the time of gestation, approximately 38 weeks, reasonably declare that the life of the new individual human being begins with fertilization. Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of Human Embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being.”
Read the whole link here…
http://www.all.org/abac/cwk004.htm
It’s funny, the ‘I trust science’ people suddenly don’t when it comes to an issue were science dictates a reality that differs from there opinion…In the end they have nothing to rely on save for the scant hope that their opinion, though contrary to fact is somehow the actual reality…
I am guessing at this point is where ‘creationism’ accustaions start to be leveled, or perhaps I am putting the cart before the horse because a true critical thinking person wouldn’t dare introduce such a pathetic strawman???
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please enlighten me as to when the embryo becomes a person, so I can pass your obvious lack of intelligence on to him and many others who are all shunned in the light of your massive intellect.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
Good old Scott should learn that science does not tell us when an embryo becomes a person. [/quote]
[/quote]
Obviously joebassin hasn’t heard of this neat tool called google…
http://clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=28
or,
“The facts above, along with the constancy of the time of gestation, approximately 38 weeks, reasonably declare that the life of the new individual human being begins with fertilization. Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of Human Embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being.”
Read the whole link here…
http://www.all.org/abac/cwk004.htm
It’s funny, the ‘I trust science’ people suddenly don’t when it comes to an issue were science dictates a reality that differs from there opinion…In the end they have nothing to rely on save for the scant hope that their opinion, though contrary to fact is somehow the actual reality…
I am guessing at this point is where ‘creationism’ accustaions start to be leveled, or perhaps I am putting the cart before the horse because a true critical thinking person wouldn’t dare introduce such a pathetic strawman??? [/quote]
Only for those really interested since it’s quite long. Read it, and come back to tell me that Carl Sagan is not a critical person.
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please enlighten me as to when the embryo becomes a person, so I can pass your obvious lack of intelligence on to him and many others who are all shunned in the light of your massive intellect.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
Good old Scott should learn that science does not tell us when an embryo becomes a person. [/quote]
[/quote]
Obviously joebassin hasn’t heard of this neat tool called google…
http://clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=28
or,
“The facts above, along with the constancy of the time of gestation, approximately 38 weeks, reasonably declare that the life of the new individual human being begins with fertilization. Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of Human Embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being.”
Read the whole link here…
http://www.all.org/abac/cwk004.htm
It’s funny, the ‘I trust science’ people suddenly don’t when it comes to an issue were science dictates a reality that differs from there opinion…In the end they have nothing to rely on save for the scant hope that their opinion, though contrary to fact is somehow the actual reality…
I am guessing at this point is where ‘creationism’ accustaions start to be leveled, or perhaps I am putting the cart before the horse because a true critical thinking person wouldn’t dare introduce such a pathetic strawman??? [/quote]
Only for those really interested since it’s quite long. Read it, and come back to tell me that Carl Sagan is not a critical person.
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
[/quote]
Carl Sagan the theoretical physicist, really?
Yeah, they pose the same bad arguments that you guys do…Why isn’t sperm considered human? Or flat out lies, such as ‘pro-lifers allow for cases of rape or incest’…Uh, no we don’t. Or the utter stupid argument that there is no such thing as a ‘Right to life’. Really? Go shoot a pregnant woman in the gut and see how many counts of murder you get charged with… The answer is 2. See Scott Peterson.
Just because you don’t want to call something what it is, doesn’t mean it isn’t. Scientifically speaking, the embryo at any stage of gestation is a human organism. Good luck disproving that fact.
Really, all you have left is the question ‘when is it ok to take human life’. Unmistakably the life you take is human and nothing else.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please enlighten me as to when the embryo becomes a person, so I can pass your obvious lack of intelligence on to him and many others who are all shunned in the light of your massive intellect.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
Good old Scott should learn that science does not tell us when an embryo becomes a person. [/quote]
[/quote]
Obviously joebassin hasn’t heard of this neat tool called google…
http://clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=28
or,
“The facts above, along with the constancy of the time of gestation, approximately 38 weeks, reasonably declare that the life of the new individual human being begins with fertilization. Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of Human Embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being.”
Read the whole link here…
http://www.all.org/abac/cwk004.htm
It’s funny, the ‘I trust science’ people suddenly don’t when it comes to an issue were science dictates a reality that differs from there opinion…In the end they have nothing to rely on save for the scant hope that their opinion, though contrary to fact is somehow the actual reality…
I am guessing at this point is where ‘creationism’ accustaions start to be leveled, or perhaps I am putting the cart before the horse because a true critical thinking person wouldn’t dare introduce such a pathetic strawman??? [/quote]
Only for those really interested since it’s quite long. Read it, and come back to tell me that Carl Sagan is not a critical person.
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
[/quote]
Carl Sagan the theoretical physicist, really?
Yeah, they pose the same bad arguments that you guys do…Why isn’t sperm considered human? Or flat out lies, such as ‘pro-lifers allow for cases of rape or incest’…Uh, no we don’t. Or the utter stupid argument that there is no such thing as a ‘Right to life’. Really? Go shoot a pregnant woman in the gut and see how many counts of murder you get charged with… The answer is 2. See Scott Peterson.
Just because you don’t want to call something what it is, doesn’t mean it isn’t. Scientifically speaking, the embryo at any stage of gestation is a human organism. Good luck disproving that fact.
Really, all you have left is the question ‘when is it ok to take human life’. Unmistakably the life you take is human and nothing else. [/quote]
- I have never denied the fact that the embryo is a human organism. I said it’s not a person.
- There is no reason to see man differently than we see animals except for our thinking ability which en embryo does not have.
- If there is a right to life then killing animals should be murder unless you give human a special status because of your religious belief.
- A woman as a right to her body. She’s free to decide if she want to abort or not.
This is my opinion feel free to have a different one. I do not have the intention nor care to change your opinion.
[quote]pat wrote:
Carl Sagan the theoretical physicist, really?
Yeah, they pose the same bad arguments that you guys do…Why isn’t sperm considered human? Or flat out lies, such as ‘pro-lifers allow for cases of rape or incest’…Uh, no we don’t. Or the utter stupid argument that there is no such thing as a ‘Right to life’. Really? Go shoot a pregnant woman in the gut and see how many counts of murder you get charged with… The answer is 2. See Scott Peterson.
Just because you don’t want to call something what it is, doesn’t mean it isn’t. Scientifically speaking, the embryo at any stage of gestation is a human organism. Good luck disproving that fact.
Really, all you have left is the question ‘when is it ok to take human life’. Unmistakably the life you take is human and nothing else. [/quote]
Lol you didn’t read the link
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Carl Sagan the theoretical physicist, really?
Yeah, they pose the same bad arguments that you guys do…Why isn’t sperm considered human? Or flat out lies, such as ‘pro-lifers allow for cases of rape or incest’…Uh, no we don’t. Or the utter stupid argument that there is no such thing as a ‘Right to life’. Really? Go shoot a pregnant woman in the gut and see how many counts of murder you get charged with… The answer is 2. See Scott Peterson.
Just because you don’t want to call something what it is, doesn’t mean it isn’t. Scientifically speaking, the embryo at any stage of gestation is a human organism. Good luck disproving that fact.
Really, all you have left is the question ‘when is it ok to take human life’. Unmistakably the life you take is human and nothing else. [/quote]
Lol you didn’t read the link[/quote]
I read the link. Sagan is wrong.
The appeal to authority is worthless in this instance. Sagan is no authority. Does he have a bright mind? Certainly. Do many others who oppose his viewpoint have bright minds? Certainly.[/quote]
It’s not a question of authority. His viewpoint make sense. Is it the only viewpoint that make sense? no.