 |
ProLifeTalk.com
Prolife Discussion Groups
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
SpaceMarine
Goldfish
Joined: 29 Apr 2008
Posts: 63
Location: Phobos
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Maz wrote: | | SpaceMarine wrote: | | Maz wrote: | | SpaceMarine wrote: | | Wanting to punish women for illegal abortions is not the same as wanting to live in a world where we have to punish women for seeking abortion. |
 |
You seem to be having difficulty in understanding the difference between working with the hand one is dealt and the hand that one wants. Which is fine, I can't make you understand that difference, but I still expect you to refrain from making claims to my thoughts, feelings or desires. |
| SpaceMarine wrote: | | Wanting to punish women for illegal abortions is not the same as wanting to live in a world where we have to punish women for seeking abortion |
YOU are making YOU look like a monster. If the cap fits, wear it with pride. |
Seems like I wouldn't have lost that bet. But, I don't believe, think or feel that punishing women for obtaining illegal abortions constitutes as monstrous. So, there is no way I am making myself out to be a monster, that comes from your slant on the conversation, not mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Maz
Little Goldfish
Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
YOU feel like a monster because that's how your own opinion makes you feel. Like I said, if the cap fits, wear it with pride. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SpaceMarine
Goldfish
Joined: 29 Apr 2008
Posts: 63
Location: Phobos
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maz wrote: |
YOU feel like a monster because that's how your own opinion makes you feel. Like I said, if the cap fits, wear it with pride. |
Listening isn't your forte is it?
| I wrote: | | You are more then welcome to have any opinion you want, and feel free to voice it, but please don't speak for me, please do not tell me what it is that I want, please don't tell me what it is that I think and please don't tell me what it is that I feel. |
| I wrote: |
I don't believe, think or feel that punishing women for obtaining illegal abortions constitutes as monstrous. So, there is no way I am making myself out to be a monster, that comes from your slant on the conversation, not mine. |
1. I asked you to stop talking for me, and to not tell me how I feel.
2. I told you I don't feel like a monster.
And yet you still were unable to resist telling me that I feel like a monster. Is it really that difficult for you to stop talking for me? Or is this your idea of playing hard to get? You seem to be so infatuated with me, that anything I say that might impose reality upon you, gets filtered out. Does this mean you have had a change of heart?
If you are not flirting with me, and not infatuated with me, then the only possibility left, that I can fathom is that you have actually nothing to add to the conversation. You seem to make a hobby out of turning every prolife advocate you meet into some sort of monster. Why do you feel the need to do this, particularly on a debate board, where such opinions have no value and no purpose? Don't you find it a bit irrational, that I asked you to not tell me how I feel, and I told you I don't feel like a monster, that you would then tell me that I feel like a monster? Its pretty sad that you have to tell me what it is that I think and feel in order to participate in a conversation. Needless to say its ad hominem and irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maz
Little Goldfish
Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe
Newbie Alert
Joined: 11 Jul 2008
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:59 am Post subject: How much time should she do? |
|
|
Three types of lies: lies, damned lies and anything said by members of the abortionist movement.
It is irrational to argue that democratic governments won't prosecute all people, including mothers, for freely choosing to commit violent and lethal crimes against their children in the unborn stage and then cite numerous examples of governments in Latin America which have done just that! You just refuted your own argument! Thank you.
By the way, the man who advocates longer prison sentences for mothers who kill their kids than I would is not thereby a "monster". He might be "right" or "wrong", but not necessarily a "monster". I would not even call a militant abortionist a "monster", even though your position in favor of allowing virtually unlimited killing of all human beings in the first nine months of our lives and depriving us of our entire human lifespans is in fact "monstrous" in my judgment. It is truly sorrowful and tragic that so many human beings have a psychological need to destroy essentially all members of our species at the beginning of our lives.
We human beings have a fundamental natural right to live according to our nature as placental mammals. It is the nature of all placentals to live through a dependent unborn stage and this is a necessary and intrinsic part of our existence. The very fact that we are placental mammals, by itself refutes the abortionist mentality!
Also, with regard to "former unborn children", can you name a single human being in all of natural history who did not live through the unborn stage? Every human being and every member of the abortionist movement is a "former unborn child". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maz
Little Goldfish
Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:11 am Post subject: Re: How much time should she do? |
|
|
| Quote: | | Three types of lies: lies, damned lies and anything said by members of the abortionist movement. |
There are three types of lies: Lies, damned lies and anything said by members of the 'pro-life' movement.
See, its so easy, this "manipulate quotes to suit oneselves" game. Anyone can do it
| Quote: | | It is irrational to argue that democratic governments won't prosecute all people, including mothers, for freely choosing to commit violent and lethal crimes against their children in the unborn stage and then cite numerous examples of governments in Latin America which have done just that! You just refuted your own argument! Thank you. |
Liar. You are discussing a handful of Latin American countries (developing nations) as though they are comparable to western democracies. They are not comparable and nor are they democratic in the sense that I understand democracies to be.
YOU are holding this:
| Quote: | In 1997, El Salvador’s congress amended the penal code to eliminate the possibility of waiving criminal punishmentwhere the pregnant woman’s life is in danger, where the pregnancy is the result of rape, or where the fetus suffers severe and predictable deformities. As a result, women who have abortions in El Salvador risk criminal penalties even if their life is threatened by the pregnancy..... In other countries in Central America and the Caribbean, legislators and policy makers have proposed further restricting already restrictive laws. ... Across the region, millions of abortions are performed every year, most of them under unsafe and clandestine conditions, and thousands of women die as a result. In many countries in the region, the consequences of illegal abortions constitute a leading cause of maternal mortality.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/wrd0106/index.htm#_Toc108411724 |
...to be some kind of ideal society, and then you wonder why people find your views a threat to women
| Quote: | | By the way, the man who advocates longer prison sentences for mothers who kill their kids than I would is not thereby a "monster". He might be "right" or "wrong", but not necessarily a "monster". I would not even call a militant abortionist a "monster", |
Take up the "monster" argument with SpaceMarine. He/She is the one that keeps talking about monsters.
Unless of course, you ARE SpaceMarine?
| Quote: | | even though your position in favor of allowing virtually unlimited killing of all human beings in the first nine months of our lives |
Really? Well that's news to me. Please quote me where I have advocated "virtually" unlimited abortion?
| Quote: | | and depriving us of our entire human lifespans is in fact "monstrous" in my judgment. |
And that is your OPINION only. I don't want to live my live according to your judgements. I will make my own judgements thanks.
| Quote: | | It is truly sorrowful and tragic that so many human beings have a psychological need to destroy essentially all members of our species at the beginning of our lives. |
Where exactly is the evidence for this "psychological need to destroy essentially all members of our species"?
| Quote: | | We human beings have a fundamental natural right to live according to our nature as placental mammals. It is the nature of all placentals to live through a dependent unborn stage and this is a necessary and intrinsic part of our existence. The very fact that we are placental mammals, by itself refutes the abortionist mentality! |
So miscarriages are just a figment of the imagination of those women who experience them, then?
| Quote: | | Also, with regard to "former unborn children", can you name a single human being in all of natural history who did not live through the unborn stage? |
No - can you? Probably not, because they don't exist as a person until they are expelled from the body of another human being ("woman? WHAT WOMAN? ").
| Quote: | | Every human being and every member of the abortionist movement is a "former unborn child". |
Emotional clap trap and not relevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gematria
Ferret
Joined: 04 Feb 2007
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SpaceMarine wrote: | | I don't want to live in a world where women seek out abortions because they can't afford children or the father is abusive, or because they want to finish college, or 'have a career'. |
Notice how "have a career" has quotes? The true motivation of the average pro-lifer shines through no matter how they try to hide it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gematria
Ferret
Joined: 04 Feb 2007
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject: Re: How much time should she do? |
|
|
| Joe wrote: |
We human beings have a fundamental natural right to live according to our nature as placental mammals. It is the nature of all placentals to live through a dependent unborn stage
|
No IT IS NOT! 90% of all "placental mammals" DO NOT live through this stage! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SpaceMarine
Goldfish
Joined: 29 Apr 2008
Posts: 63
Location: Phobos
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:38 am Post subject: Re: How much time should she do? |
|
|
| Gematria wrote: | | Joe wrote: |
We human beings have a fundamental natural right to live according to our nature as placental mammals. It is the nature of all placentals to live through a dependent unborn stage
|
No IT IS NOT! 90% of all "placental mammals" DO NOT live through this stage! |
What do you mean by that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gematria
Ferret
Joined: 04 Feb 2007
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I mean, if you consider fertilized eggs to be human beings, then 90% of them die before they are born. Most die as fertilized eggs which do not implant, the rest are embryos or feti that miscarry.
http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SpaceMarine
Goldfish
Joined: 29 Apr 2008
Posts: 63
Location: Phobos
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
But you don't believe they are human beings, so how do you expect to convince me of a 'factoid' that you yourself don't even believe? You can't claim that 90% of placental mammals do not live through this stage, when you don't even believe they are mammals. Besides that, your source puts it between 80-90percent, so why do you only claim 90%? It would be disingenious to ignore the part where its estimated at 80-90%, and only claim that its 'as fact' 90%. The source your claimed says minimum, is 66%, and it seems to be estimated that its 'more likely' 80-90%, but why not a hard figure? It seems to me that its a 'guess', which makes it less fact, and more like a statistic which means nothing to the outcome.
Besides that, you are building a strawman. It is the nature of all adult placental mammals to live through a dependent unborn stage and this is a necessary and intrinsic part of our existence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gematria
Ferret
Joined: 04 Feb 2007
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SpaceMarine wrote: |
But you don't believe they are human beings, so how do you expect to convince me of a 'factoid' that you yourself don't even believe? You can't claim that 90% of placental mammals do not live through this stage, when you don't even believe they are mammals. Besides that, your source puts it between 80-90percent, so why do you only claim 90%? It would be disingenious to ignore the part where its estimated at 80-90%, and only claim that its 'as fact' 90%. The source your claimed says minimum, is 66%, and it seems to be estimated that its 'more likely' 80-90%, but why not a hard figure? It seems to me that its a 'guess', which makes it less fact, and more like a statistic which means nothing to the outcome.
Besides that, you are building a strawman. It is the nature of all adult placental mammals to live through a dependent unborn stage and this is a necessary and intrinsic part of our existence. |
If a researcher told you between 200,000 and 300,000 people die from smoking every year, which you say, "Sorry, I can't believe you because you don't have a hard and fast number, like 272,000."
And the researcher responds, well, not the exact same number of people die every year, that's why there's a range, wouldn't you feel like a moron for not figuring that out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SpaceMarine
Goldfish
Joined: 29 Apr 2008
Posts: 63
Location: Phobos
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gematria wrote: |
If a researcher told you between 200,000 and 300,000 people die from smoking every year, which you say, "Sorry, I can't believe you because you don't have a hard and fast number, like 272,000." |
The problem is the researcher you quoted didn't say between 200,000-300,000 a year. It was more like he said: 150,000 die a year for sure, but more likely between 200,000-300,000 a year. And then on top of it, your initial claim stated as fact that 300,000 die a year, completely ignoring that a range even exists.
| Gematria wrote: |
And the researcher responds, well, not the exact same number of people die every year, that's why there's a range, wouldn't you feel like a moron for not figuring that out? |
No, but I think I would feel like a moron if I was claiming that only the maximum number of people die every year, ignoring the fact that such claims are unsupported, even by the source that I quote.
Besides that you are still building a strawman, which is far more important then my disagreement with your lack of accuracy. It is the nature of all adult placental mammals to live through a dependent unborn stage and this is a necessary and intrinsic part of our existence. Except for the pro-choice constant re-classification and de-humanization of the unborn, there is no other reason to reclassify unborn humans as less then organisms.
Scientifically speaking, it is accurate to assert that organisms reproducelike organisms. Zygotes are the products of reproduction. All organisms begin development from a single cell. In multicellular organisms, that single cell differentiates, divides, grows and develops. At no time is there a moment that a organism appears where there was no organism, other then fertilization. Its the same organism, under the same self autonomy from fertilization and the completion of the formation of the zygote until it dies, whether it dies in 5 hours or in 25000 days, it still is the same organism, with the same DNA, following the same life cycle that is inherent to the species within a specific ecosystem.
I understand that biologists don't all agree that its not an organism, but I have never heard any consensuses from multiple biologists or from biology that the organism status is 'granted' at some point in time. Such a belief shatters so many other definitions in the medical and biological fields, that a single biologist simply saying that a zygote is not an organism doesn't cut it. Even 5 biologists saying it doesn't cut it. If the zygote is not an organism, then how can we assert that reproduction is a process that reproduces like organisms? I have never seen a biologist address that question after they claim the zygote is not an organism. I have never seen a biologist address the term (human) embryo which in most medical and embryological texts, papers and discussions include the zygote stage is defined as a eukaryote, vertebrae, or animal, which are all organisms. Why is it that embryo includes the zygote stage in the medical community and when talking about the human species, if the zygote is not an organism? I have never heard any biologist, when they claim that the zygote is not an organism define a point in time where organism status is achieved, and where that definition is mainstream, where multiple sources can be found that agree with that definition. Seriously what good is Scientist Bob's definition when I can't find anyone that agrees with it? And I have never seen any justification that the term 'potential human being' is scientific and well defined. Its a subjective term used by some biologists trying to make it scientific, but its anything but, seeing at how subjective that term is. You want to convince me that 'potential human being' is a scientific term, don't show me scientists using the term, show me its definition, and how I can look at any human at any stage of development and know if that human is 'potentially human' or in fact a human being. And then show me a consensus in the literature where multiple scientists agree with that definition. If you can't do that, then its a subjective, ever changing term, and its nothing more then scientists using their position to dehumanize and reclassify humans for their agenda. I can point out multiple definitions from multiple sources that would define the embryo as being an animal, vertebrae or eukaryote, I can bring forth multiple sources that claim that the zygote stage is included when talking about humans in the embryonic stages. I can provide multiple sources that would claim that organisms reproduce other organisms, which say nothing about organisms reproducing cells that form into organisms at some other point in time. And its this collective opinion from the scientific communities ranging from biology, embryology and the medical community that makes it so hard for me to comprehend how it is that we can believe or rather just 'change' the classification of a zygote. Simply pointing out a singular scientist that denies a zygote is an organism is not enough. There are so many other concepts other then a simple definition of zygote which supports the concept of zygotes being organisms in the earliest stage of development that a single scientist saying a human zygote is not an organism barely makes a dent in the argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gematria
Ferret
Joined: 04 Feb 2007
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is an unfertilized egg an organism? If not, why not?
What is it about fertilization that makes it an organism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SpaceMarine
Goldfish
Joined: 29 Apr 2008
Posts: 63
Location: Phobos
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gematria wrote: | Is an unfertilized egg an organism? If not, why not?
What is it about fertilization that makes it an organism? |
An unfertilized egg is not considered an organism. The difference is in the kind of cell.
Totipotent vs differentiated
diploid vs haploid
zygote vs gamete
dynamic state vs static state
entire system vs singular component of existing system |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
