[quote]Sifu wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Abortion clinics have been blown up, doctors and staff have been gunned down.
How many?
I haven’t been keeping count, but over the years there have been a few.
“In his book On Message, Life Dynamics’ Mark Crutcher sums it up best: “The image of abortion workers having to dodge a hail of automatic weapon fire just to get from their car to the clinic door is utter nonsense.” Crutcher notes that in the years 1993 and 1994, the worst period of violence in pro-life history in which five abortionists and clinic workers were killed, more farmers and twice as many hairdressers were murdered on the job. (The total number of murders that have occurred since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 is seven.)” http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2008/02/20/ap-hints-pro-lifers-bigger-terrorists-foreign-radicals
Farmers and hairdressers are not murdered on the job because people are violently opposed to their profession. So your comparison is absurd. [/quote]
No comparison really even needed to be made. It’s just a illustration of how very, very, very few have been murdered. I would put forth that the pro-life movement has in fact been one of the most non-violent.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Abortion clinics have been blown up, doctors and staff have been gunned down.
How many?
I haven’t been keeping count, but over the years there have been a few.
“In his book On Message, Life Dynamics’ Mark Crutcher sums it up best: “The image of abortion workers having to dodge a hail of automatic weapon fire just to get from their car to the clinic door is utter nonsense.” Crutcher notes that in the years 1993 and 1994, the worst period of violence in pro-life history in which five abortionists and clinic workers were killed, more farmers and twice as many hairdressers were murdered on the job. (The total number of murders that have occurred since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 is seven.)” http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2008/02/20/ap-hints-pro-lifers-bigger-terrorists-foreign-radicals
Farmers and hairdressers are not murdered on the job because people are violently opposed to their profession. So your comparison is absurd. [/quote]
Come on, man, 7 people have gotten killed over this in 35 years. It’s not justified, but there’s no reason any abortion worker is going to be scared unless they’re just paranoid.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
This debate is about a clump of less than a thousand undifferentiated cells. In some cases it is as little as one cell. Human beings are not amoeba.
[/quote]
No, this debate is about human life already underway through our life/developmental cycle. Human beings aren’t rhesus monkeys either. But, to get back on topic, we’re talking about a scientifically verifiable human embryo.
If America gives up leadership in this technology all your worst nightmares about ESC will come true. Because it will go on in a country where people just don’t give a fuck about ethics.[/quote]
Well, you convinced me! Gotta make sure we follow those countries that don’t give a crap about ethics!
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Come on, man, 7 people have gotten killed over this in 35 years. It’s not justified, but there’s no reason any abortion worker is going to be scared unless they’re just paranoid.[/quote]
Seven people have been successfully murdered you mean.
7 murdered
17 attempted murders
383 death threats
153 incidents of assault or battery
3 kidnappings
655 bio-terror threats
41 bombings
173 arsons
91 attempted bombings or arsons
619 bomb threats
1630 incidents of trespassing
1264 incidents of vandalism
100 attacks with butyric acid
In the USA alone since 1977. Let’s not try to water this one down, OK? There is a very real threat of violence.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Come on, man, 7 people have gotten killed over this in 35 years. It’s not justified, but there’s no reason any abortion worker is going to be scared unless they’re just paranoid.
Seven people have been successfully murdered you mean.
7 murdered
17 attempted murders
383 death threats
153 incidents of assault or battery
3 kidnappings
655 bio-terror threats
41 bombings
173 arsons
91 attempted bombings or arsons
619 bomb threats
1630 incidents of trespassing
1264 incidents of vandalism
100 attacks with butyric acid
In the USA alone since 1977. Let’s not try to water this one down, OK? There is a very real threat of violence.[/quote]
Not to mention the violence done to the babies. Yeah, I see what you mean. Still, those attacks are much less than the millions of babies killed. But there’s no outrage over them, just the doctors doing the murdering. Orwell has certainly triumphed.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Come on, man, 7 people have gotten killed over this in 35 years. It’s not justified, but there’s no reason any abortion worker is going to be scared unless they’re just paranoid.
Seven people have been successfully murdered you mean.
7 murdered
17 attempted murders
383 death threats
153 incidents of assault or battery
3 kidnappings
655 bio-terror threats
41 bombings
173 arsons
91 attempted bombings or arsons
619 bomb threats
1630 incidents of trespassing
1264 incidents of vandalism
100 attacks with butyric acid
In the USA alone since 1977. Let’s not try to water this one down, OK? There is a very real threat of violence.[/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Not to mention the violence done to the babies. Yeah, I see what you mean. Still, those attacks are much less than the millions of babies killed. But there’s no outrage over them, just the doctors doing the murdering. Orwell has certainly triumphed.[/quote]
We’re not discussing whether or not the people killed/hurt were alive or not are we?
I’d ask that you keep your “won’t someone think of the children” type attitude out of this discussion and lay out your ideas rationally.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Not to mention the violence done to the babies. Yeah, I see what you mean. Still, those attacks are much less than the millions of babies killed. But there’s no outrage over them, just the doctors doing the murdering. Orwell has certainly triumphed.
We’re not discussing whether or not the people killed/hurt were alive or not are we?
I’d ask that you keep your “won’t someone think of the children” type attitude out of this discussion and lay out your ideas rationally.[/quote]
I thought we already established that a human life is taken? It’s mind boggling that pro-choice types would use 7 deaths, since 1977, to indict the pro-life movement as a movenment seething with abortionist shooting kooks. All the while supporting a practice that has ended how many MILLIONS of human lives??
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, I didn’t water it down. We were speaking about murder doctors, no? And, a very real threat? Those numbers are SMALL. That’s since 1977! And guess what, that INCLUDES Canada! Your stats show just how non-violent such an active and passionate and widespread movement has been. http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_statistics.pdf [/quote]
To me, those number are unacceptable. If they have a problem with it, then take it to the courts. Violence is NOT the answer for something you don’t approve of.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I thought we already established that a human life is taken? It’s mind boggling that pro-choice types would use 7 deaths, since 1977, to indict the pro-life movement as a movenment seething with abortionist shooting kooks. All the while supporting a practice that has ended how many MILLIONS of human lives??[/quote]
I should have made this point before, but I make a difference between conscious and unconscious life. Especially when the unconscious life has never BEEN conscious.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Actually, I didn’t water it down. We were speaking about murder doctors, no? And, a very real threat? Those numbers are SMALL. That’s since 1977! And guess what, that INCLUDES Canada! Your stats show just how non-violent such an active and passionate and widespread movement has been. http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_statistics.pdf
To me, those number are unacceptable. If they have a problem with it, then take it to the courts. Violence is NOT the answer for something you don’t approve of.[/quote]
Dude, 1 murder is unacceptable, but that’s just an unrealistic expectation when dealing with the human species. The point is that bringing up pro-life violence, as some of slap at us, doesn’t work. Again, for such a large, active, and passionate civil movement, pro-lifers have been by far and wide, peaceful. These stats, that do include Canada actually, should demonstrate that.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I thought we already established that a human life is taken? It’s mind boggling that pro-choice types would use 7 deaths, since 1977, to indict the pro-life movement as a movenment seething with abortionist shooting kooks. All the while supporting a practice that has ended how many MILLIONS of human lives??
I should have made this point before, but I make a difference between conscious and unconscious life. Especially when the unconscious life has never BEEN conscious.[/quote]
Well, it can’t be self-aware if you destroy that life before it develops it’s capacities. But, let’s not lie here. You’ve effectively, and deliberately, killed that human life, knowing it was on it’s way to developing such a thing. It’s not embryo,-shazam!-one day a developing human. It’s already part of an individual human being’s developmental cycle.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Not to mention the violence done to the babies. Yeah, I see what you mean. Still, those attacks are much less than the millions of babies killed. But there’s no outrage over them, just the doctors doing the murdering. Orwell has certainly triumphed.
We’re not discussing whether or not the people killed/hurt were alive or not are we?
I’d ask that you keep your “won’t someone think of the children” type attitude out of this discussion and lay out your ideas rationally.[/quote]
My ideas are rational. We could answer you all day long, providing myriads of evidences that the embryo fits the biological definition of life - of even human life, and you still wouldn’t change your mind.
Abortionists have no philosophical defense for what they do, they just have bald assertion that it’s not murder or they say it’s a women’s choice.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Actually, I didn’t water it down. We were speaking about murder doctors, no? And, a very real threat? Those numbers are SMALL. That’s since 1977! And guess what, that INCLUDES Canada! Your stats show just how non-violent such an active and passionate and widespread movement has been. http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_statistics.pdf
To me, those number are unacceptable. If they have a problem with it, then take it to the courts. Violence is NOT the answer for something you don’t approve of.[/quote]
To us, the 35 million babies dead are unacceptable. Violence is NOT the answer to babies you don’t approve of.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sifu wrote:
This debate is about a clump of less than a thousand undifferentiated cells. In some cases it is as little as one cell. Human beings are not amoeba.
No, this debate is about human life already underway through our life/developmental cycle. Human beings aren’t rhesus monkeys either. But, to get back on topic, we’re talking about a scientifically verifiable human embryo. [/quote]
Definition: Search for: Glossary - word Glossary - def Textbooks Protocols Images Tools Forum PubMed Links Press Releases
Biology Glossary search by EverythingBio.com
General: an organism in early stages of development, before hatching from an egg.
Human: A fertilized egg that has begun cell division, often called a pre-embryo (for pre-implantation embryo). An embryo is now defined as a later stage, i.e. at the completion of" the pre-embryonic stage, which is considered to end at about day 14. The term, embryo, is used to describe the early stages of fetal growth, from conception to the eighth week of pregnancy.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Abortionists have no philosophical defense for what they do, they just have bald assertion that it’s not murder or they say it’s a women’s choice.[/quote]
Really? No defense? I’d rather not be born than grow up in a family that can’t support me. There’s my argument.
If America gives up leadership in this technology all your worst nightmares about ESC will come true. Because it will go on in a country where people just don’t give a fuck about ethics.
Well, you convinced me! Gotta make sure we follow those countries that don’t give a crap about ethics!
[/quote]
It is not about following those countries at all. It is about following established protocols that are there to prevent things like mouse born viruses and bacteria mutating into something that can infect humans.
ie Influenza is a bird disease that normally can’t infect humans, but it can infect pigs. In China farmers raise pigs and ducks so close to each other that the pigs get infected with influenza. Pigs are biologically close enough to humans that we can get influenza from pigs.
In world war one the British army had a camp in France where pigs and birds were being kept so close together that influenza arose that was very deadly. By the time the pandemic had gone around the world over a hundred million people died from it.
Pandemic is a potential risk of mouse/human hybrid embryonic stem cells. It is why none of the federally approved stem cells lines can be used in humans.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Come on, man, 7 people have gotten killed over this in 35 years. It’s not justified, but there’s no reason any abortion worker is going to be scared unless they’re just paranoid.
Seven people have been successfully murdered you mean.
7 murdered
17 attempted murders
383 death threats
153 incidents of assault or battery
3 kidnappings
655 bio-terror threats
41 bombings
173 arsons
91 attempted bombings or arsons
619 bomb threats
1630 incidents of trespassing
1264 incidents of vandalism
100 attacks with butyric acid
In the USA alone since 1977. Let’s not try to water this one down, OK? There is a very real threat of violence.
Not to mention the violence done to the babies. Yeah, I see what you mean. Still, those attacks are much less than the millions of babies killed. But there’s no outrage over them, just the doctors doing the murdering. Orwell has certainly triumphed.
[/quote]
[quote]In basic English usage, an infant is defined as a child at the youngest stage of life, especially before they can walk or simply a child before the age of one. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby[/quote]
What definition of ‘life’ are they using? If they’re using the definition used in the Beckwith article I just posted, (and you don’t appear to have read), then their definition is wrong.