Abortion

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
sithsaber408, if you were designed intelligently, then there must be something wrong with the production line because you ended up an idiot.

docb77, you complain about the use of 'wordplay' and intricate semantics, then you go and quote a dictionary to reinforce your argument; I'm looking for a word to describe this, can you help me find it?

Do you disagree with my definitions? Nothing hypocritical in explaining where I'm coming from. The basis of any debate must be in common understanding of where the other side is coming from. I think I've explained myself. When I say something there is no doubt about what I mean. Yes I've attacked the arbitrary nature of some definitions, but at the same time I realize that without common understanding communication would be impossible.

Basically the difference between the way I used definitions and the way my worthy opponents have used them is this: Their use of definitions forms the basis of their argument. My definitions merely define/explain my argument. I could use other words, but anyone who wants to debate with or against me has to know what they mean.

PS please forgive the spelling in my previous post. I had to leave and didn't proofread.

Originally posted by docb77
Yeah, Mr thinks-he's-funny-but-isn't, I know what cells we're talking about; The ones you can refer to in the singular for about 4 minutes after conception. You're really an ass, you know that? You ever think that someone might now more than you? you ever think that even if someone disagrees with you you should show some respect? My guess is that people leave the forum to you because of your attitude not your arguments. You still haven't answered the question. What keeps a small bunch of cells from qualifying as human? Again, (since you tried to evade the question last time) scientifically if you will.

*Plays violin*

Now attempting to rip me off? Shame. This is exactly why you're the same ol', same ol'. Things go wrong and you're calling people asses.

What keeps a bunch of cells from qualifying as a human being? The fact that they don't have everything that is present in a full and functional human being. Oh, oh! Before you use that "People with fake organs" analogy, they have the ability to use the fake organs. When was the last time YOU heard of a cell having a heart transplant?

Originally posted by docb77
Better than you, at least I'm using logic. You're precious wordplay is the only thing you've got going for you and you won't even admit that I've torn it apart.

You haven't, which is why you're crying like a baby asking for respect and requesting that I stop it. Nothing I've said is false, regardless of how I've said it. I've seen and dealt with your kind many times on this forum.

Originally posted by docb77
Says the blind man to the seeing. So the biochemistry, cellular and molecular biology, and microbiology classes on my transcript mean nothing?

Apparantly it would seem that way if you've walked out of them with the impression that a single cell is equal to a human being. Despite previously saying it will become one. Also, didn't you previously say that any development starts AFTER conception? Because that was my argument. That there's no human life at conception.

Originally posted by docb77
Where have I been hypocritical? I've been open-minded is all. All I've said is that there is no clear line, yet you try to make me out to be a hardliner. Sounds like you're the hypocrite. rampant? Like you saying that "oh, I've proven it!" when you've done no such thing. just words, no actual data. Stupidity and ignorance? that would be you again. Can't admit the value of an opposing argument. Got your eyes nice and closed don't you? I never said you couldn't tell me anything about biochem, I just said make it good for a change.

You use philosophy whilst speaking out against it. I have proven it, just not in ways that you would like, so in a desperate attempt to keep YOUR eyes shut, you claim I haven't. I took you to the waterhole, horse boy, but I couldn't make you drink. You just buried your face deep into the muddy bank and screamed "Lalalalalala."

I don't agree your argument has any value because...well, it doesn't. Coming in here shouting about all the classes you've taken is nice, no seriously...it IS nice. It doesn't deterr me. Because taking classes gives you knowledge, not intelligence. Although it seems you've not even come away from the classes with that. Even so, you may very well be more knowledgeable on sciences than me, but you're still wrong and even another scientist has agreed with me (See: The Omega).

Originally posted by docb77
a) No, again, all I've said is that it's possible, not that it is.

As I said; Wanky, devil's advocate pretentiousness and philosophy to avoid the simple answer that we both are aware of.

Opposing for the sake of opposing. You could probably argue Hitler's case from a few points, but you just wouldn't do that.

Originally posted by docb77
b) The more you learn, the more you find you don't know.

Another hypocricy seeing as you're strolling into this thread acting as if there's nothing here for you to learn, despite being proven wrong and only not admitting it for the sake of.

Originally posted by docb77
Fine, then quote yourself, and show me where anything you've said, contains any scientific data pertinent to whether or not the group of an early zygote/fetus is void of any human characteristics.

I'm not running around for you. You said you went reading the thread, if you did then you'd know. You quoted part of my exchange with Whob in which he tried proving human life factually begins at conception, and I proved him bang wrong.

Also; "Zygote/Foetus"? Where are you science classes now? They're two different organisms. A zygote becomes a foetus.

Originally posted by docb77
You can't be that stupid!

We think alike.

Originally posted by docb77
Even by your argument it's not a fetus after it's born. I'll take a different track for a second here. When, in your world, does a person gain "rights"? When you go to school? when you finally move out of your parents house? Does a mother have the right to kill her 17 year old child because he's not off living on his own?

Let's return to the example you gave:

Is it ok for a woman to do that stuff to her foetus? I can't condone it, but it's none of my business. There are people who's job it is to stop her, not mine. If I wanted to go around stopping people doing things I'd become either a republican or a policeman.

Originally posted by docb77
Which means it's really irrelevant to the discussion.

You're the one who said "What makes a human?" and started talking about artificial parts, got that point whooped, then forgot to ever concede it.

Originally posted by docb77
No problem here. I just pointed out that the artificial line you drew does not exist!!!

It does. A zygote is a cell, a completely different organism to a human being, ergo, it's not a human being. Is an elephant human? We all contain cells.

Originally posted by docb77
Look at number 3. You still think that's not what you're doing.

Proving anything wrong yet? No you're not. I lay it out nice and simple and you still can't prove it wrong. Deal with.

Originally posted by docb77
I read a book or two a week, a newspaper a day, and a couple of magazines a month. How you doing with that?

Wow, you are clever.

Originally posted by docb77
already refuted. And yes, try some science. I haven't seen any so far.

Funny, because I haven't seen you refute any of my claims. How about we trade? You refute some, then I'll use science.

Originally posted by docb77
Nope, I believe that the question is still open.

Why? So you can just continue pumping life into a very dead corpse? LIFE in general beginning at conception is an argument that will never be solved, but there is quite clearly no humans when sperm hits the egg. All you need is basic science: They're two different organisms. Also common sense: A cell is not a human any more than a seed is a tree or an egg is a chicken.

HUMAN:

-A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

-A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

- Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.

- Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.

- Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.

- Having the form of a human.

- Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

Apply as many of those as you can to a cell. Apply as many of those as you can to a man with fake organs.

We'll go from there.

-AC

Originally posted by docb77
Oh you've got that back-up do you? Well then.... OH that's right, that's just your semantics and arbitrary definitions again. My argument is only that you've not made your case. I've used no philosophy (look it up). I've shown no hypocrisy.

You have, as I've proven, by continuing this "I believe the question is unanswered" bs with regard to there being humans at conception. Then accusing me of it.

90% of your posts are you whining about how I post instead of actually refuting my claims, because you simply cannot.

Originally posted by docb77
You really must be blind. Here, let me spell it out for you:

pro

adj : in favor of (an action or proposal etc.); "a pro vote" [ant: anti] n 1: an athlete who plays for pay [syn: professional] [ant: amateur] 2: an argument in favor of a proposal [ant: con] adv : on the affirmative side [ant: con]

I'm guessing you know what abortion is. You and all these "pro choice" people are arguing to "keep abortion on the table as a choice" You yourself have pointed out that we don't disagree on the other options. Hence you are pro-abortion.

I'm not. Try reading the thread, fool.

I've said many times that whatever the female wants to do with her own body and her own foetus, is fine by me. Purely because it's nothing to do with me. She wants it aborted? Fine. Wants to keep it? Fine. Wants to give it up for adoption? Fine. I don't care, what I am NOT for is removing ANY of those choices.

No pro-abortionists in this thread that I've seen and I've been in it for a better part of it's existence. You've been here five minutes and still have trouble grasping points.

Originally posted by docb77
The irony is that you're so blinded by your pride that you see irony where there was none.

How ironic.

Originally posted by docb77
Pissed? Moi? Nah, I'm having fun. If I were pissed I would have left already. Like I said in another post, I like a good debate (though this one would be better if you'd bring some evidence to the table). Never really liked pro wrestling or pink floyd.

I never said you liked Pink Floyd, I said you could rival them in a "Let's all jack off to the thought of ourselves" contest.

You're not debating. You're simply replying and making it look like you're debating, there's a difference. There are other forums full of people who debate like that, precisely the reason they never get into the GDF.

Originally posted by docb77
As for the rest of your meaningless insult, you my friend are another dime-a-dozen pro-abortion propagandist (couldn't use the word debator, because you haven't been debating, just bashing). By the way, what does the academy award have to do with it???

Calling me a pro-abortionist just invalidates anything you have to say and expresses pure ignorance.

Originally posted by docb77
Why don't you try giving a justification for not banning it that the other side would agree with and let's see how far you'd get. Oh wait, you have tried, that 75% still doesn't agree.

75% believes that the lives of other women are their business.

If you believe so then you're again invalidating yourself.

-AC

damnit, docb77 got the 6,000 post! ARG

Originally posted by docb77
Basically the difference between the way I used definitions and the way my worthy opponents have used them is this: Their use of definitions forms the basis of their argument. My definitions merely define/explain my argument. I could use other words, but anyone who wants to debate with or against me has to know what they mean.

So, basically everyone's going all Machiavellian on each other's asses.

The only difference is that your devices are pertaining to an erroneous belief on the inception of a human's life, whereas AC's invoke the liberty of a life lived in harmony with personal freedoms.

You know, one thing I love about the "Well, in certain cases it's okay" stance is the comparison of abortion to murder.

So apparently abortion's acceptibility is relative to the situation; it's okay to "murder" a baby if the mother's life is in jeopardy or it's rape/incest spawned. But really, is that an accurate comparison in the first place? Tell me honestly- when is MURDER ever acceptible?

This is a point to all those people who contend that abortion is murder. How can it be, if murder is always wrong but abortion is sometimes acceptible?

Why are we getting murder back involved?

-AC

Deffinately Pro-Life
The women don't have a choice to kill anyone else do they?? so why should they be able to kill their babies??

Originally posted by Wesker
You know, one thing I love about the "Well, in certain cases it's okay" stance is the comparison of abortion to murder.

So apparently abortion's acceptibility is relative to the situation; it's okay to "murder" a baby if the mother's life is in jeopardy or it's rape/incest spawned. But really, is that an accurate comparison in the first place? Tell me honestly- when is MURDER ever acceptible?

This is a point to all those people who contend that abortion is murder. How can it be, if murder is always wrong but abortion is sometimes acceptible?

I said this a few million pages back. Everything is likely to be recycling now though.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I said this a few million pages back. Everything is likely to be recycling now though.

I couldn't take the time to read all that. Hell, I didn't read a few posts before posting myself. I was in a rush.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I said this a few million pages back. Everything is likely to be recycling now though.

You said "acceptible"(sic)? I don't believe it!

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
You said "acceptible"(sic)? I don't believe it!

Hahaha, so silly. I said exceptAble.

Now, that's more acceptible.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why are we getting murder back involved?

-AC

Because without murder, pro lifers don't have an argument, and you'd love that, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by Ariel_Luver
Deffinately Pro-Life
The women don't have a choice to kill anyone else do they?? so why should they be able to kill their babies??

Originally posted by Makedde
Because without murder, pro lifers don't have an argument, and you'd love that, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by Makedde
Because without murder, pro lifers don't have an argument, and you'd love that, wouldn't you?

You certainly haven't got an argument. Proven by the fact that every time you try to weave your way in, someone here squashes your unintelligible arguments and debates.

-AC

Originally posted by Makedde
Because without murder, pro lifers don't have an argument, and you'd love that, wouldn't you?

That's nonsense.....obviously pro-lifers do have an argument without claiming abortion to be murder.....it's not a very good argument, but an existent one nonetheless....

We should also note that Makedde has only come back into this debate now that the pathetic discussion of murder is here, despite it being wiped out.

-AC

Originally posted by Wesker
You know, one thing I love about the "Well, in certain cases it's okay" stance is the comparison of abortion to murder.

So apparently abortion's acceptibility is relative to the situation; it's okay to "murder" a baby if the mother's life is in jeopardy or it's rape/incest spawned. But really, is that an accurate comparison in the first place? Tell me honestly- when is MURDER ever acceptible?

This is a point to all those people who contend that abortion is murder. How can it be, if murder is always wrong but abortion is sometimes acceptible?

Hey, c'mon now, don't do that. The paradox is likely to make their heads explode. Who's going to clean up the mess?

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Hey, c'mon now, don't do that. The paradox is likely to make their heads explode. Who's going to clean up the mess?

Actually I saw no paradox in what he said. I think he has a point.