Planned Parenthood II

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

No: remember, “irreversible.”

[/quote]

My question isn’t about reanimating the tissues of the dead brain…It remains dead. The question involved the potentiality of the future brain existing. Sorry short, will do it more justice later.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

No: remember, “irreversible.”

[/quote]

My question isn’t about reanimating the tissues of the dead brain…It remains dead. The question involved the potentiality of the future brain existing. Sorry short, will do it more justice later. [/quote]

So a different/same brain, like a clone brain?

I don’t know – but the things that I don’t know about (I don’t know if it’s exactly me, and this is a philosophical question with a million angles and no answers) don’t bear on abortion, because all I’d be trying to do is figure out whether or not an irreversible cessation occurs.

Sticking to the second thought experiment, an irreversible cessation undoubtedly occurs. I am gone, murdered. I can’t be murdered twice. Whatever new grows will not be me, and cannot be made to undergo irreversible cessation of its being before it is, and thus it too cannot be murdered according to my understanding of reality.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This isn’t a discussion. This is you using words with arbitrary definitions [/quote]

This is what I have been accusing you and the rest of the CJS of

[quote]Blowharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

And it’s crazy to me that people believe brainless unthinking tissue to be a person deserving legal protection as such.[/quote]

EXACTLY! Kill the bastard! Big ol’ fuckin’ blob of “brainless, unthinking tissue!”[/quote]

If in fact this person or was a person and is now a corpse is brain dead , it would not be killing him to unplug the machines that are keeping his flesh from decomposing , it would be merely (ALLOWING) his body to die

Nah man, I want you to realize how asinine it is to try and justify killing the unborn. To do that you have to define what they are.

Yet we will go for your preferred topic. How do synthetic hormonal birth controls work? I am not talking about the different methods of each artificial hormone but instead how they function in a broad sense. For example the uterus changes in its environment, the lining etc. changes, would you agree or not?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You said that we will get into junk science. Alright let us avoid the whole portion of that discussion. We will boil it down even simpler. What are the unborn?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
How does birth control function? In other words, what are the mechanisms that stop pregnancy from occurring smh?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Some forms of birth control (i.e., the ones that are insulated from user error) have a very strong reductive effect on abortion:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1400506#t=articleResults

Which brings us back around to the enormous stupidity of kneedragger, an anti-abortion crusader if ever there was one, hawking one of the riskiest possible birth control methods. If you don’t want people to terminate pregnancies, what kind of fatuous contortionism pits you against birth control methods with near-zero failure rates? Ah, that’s right.[/quote]
[/quote]

In various ways, as you surely know.

Let us begin with the simple, because later I’m sure we’ll have to deal with junk science. So, the simple: condoms. You don’t need me to explain how they work. With typical use, they are more effective than fertility awareness. In conjunction with fertility awareness, they are highly effective. As a logically necessary corollary, in a country in which abortion is legal and some portion of unintended pregnancies is aborted, advocacy for FA works toward an ideal result with a higher abortion rate than advocacy for FA + condoms.[/quote]
[/quote]

No, I don’t do the Socratic method of argument.

If you have a claim to make, you’re free to make it. We’re talking about contraception and the ludicrous spectacle of someone vehemently opposed to abortion advocating for one of the least effective standalone birth control methods…in a country in which abortion is legal and some (too-high, we all agree) portion of unintended pregnancies is terminated.[/quote]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

…So my question is, why should we accept the death of millions of the unborn every single year based on definitions these institutions have created? Shouldn’t our laws, in a civilized country such as ours, remain on the side of caution when life, a founding principle of this nation, is at stake?

[/quote]

I’ve pounded this home to the extent where the hammer is plumb wore out.[/quote]

Hence the reason for me calling the company Partial Personhood and never using their language to define things. Pedophile Promoters works too ; )

Hiding things through deception never works in the end. Everything in life works better when the truth is shared.

Short answer: Yes.

Medical science is getting better and better. Why would you think we will not have irrefutable proof and understand more of the brain that will someday think?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debating philosophy is great Smh, but at the end of the day when we stop this back and forth, millions of living human beings will still be killed this year. If this happened in Syria or South Africa or Detroit we’d be up in arms about a solution, but not in this case, why do you think that is?[/quote]

Undoubtedly because many, many people agree with us in believing that the destruction of a brainless and unthinking human organism composed of living tissue is not a sufficient condition for murder.

You still think it ought to be illegal if the unthinking organism will under normal circumstances develop a brain and come to think – but you are no longer invoking murder, and whatever you do invoke in support of this contention will be weaker and open to serious criticisms.[/quote]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Nah man, I want you to realize how asinine it is to try and justify killing the unborn. To do that you have to define what they are.[/quote]

See the last seven pages of this thread. But I’m not interested in doing that part of the debate with you.

[quote]
Yet we will go for your preferred topic. How do synthetic hormonal birth controls work? I am not talking about the different methods of each artificial hormone but instead how they function in a broad sense. For example the uterus changes in its environment, the lining etc. changes, would you agree or not?[/quote]

Again, before we get into your hobby of misunderstanding scientific studies, let’s begin somewhere simple. You peddle one of the riskiest BC methods. Condoms, too, are pretty risky – though not as risky FA/rhythm. Given the legality of abortion and the reality that some portion of unintended pregnancies ends in termination, why don’t you push for condoms and FA in conjunction?

You want to pick and choose which topics you can debate? Please realize the reason you feel so opposed to that portion of the discussion. By the way, you may have debated the topic with other posters but not me.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Nah man, I want you to realize how asinine it is to try and justify killing the unborn. To do that you have to define what they are.[/quote]

See the last seven pages of this thread. But I’m not interested in doing that part of the debate with you.[/quote]

Please do not side step the question smh, just answer the following question. In a broad sense, how do synthetic birth controls work?

[quote] smh_23 wrote:

Again, before we get into your hobby of misunderstanding scientific studies, let’s begin somewhere simple. You peddle one of the riskiest BC methods. Condoms, too, are pretty risky – though not as risky FA/rhythm. Given the legality of abortion and the reality that some portion of unintended pregnancies ends in termination, why don’t you push for condoms and FA in conjunction?[/quote]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You want to pick and choose which topics you can debate? Please realize the reason you feel so opposed to that portion of the discussion. By the way, you may have debated the topic with other posters but not me.[/quote]

Of course I pick and choose which topics I debate. I also choose with whom I debate them.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please do not side step the question smh, just answer the following question. In a broad sense, how do synthetic birth controls work?[/quote]

Again, I don’t do the Socratic method of argument. (Maybe if I were discussing diplomacy with Richard Holbrooke, but I’m not.) If you have a claim you want to make, have at it. Make sure it stands on specific, current scientific evidence. Also, make sure it accounts with post-dated scientific evidence for things like this:

And, more importantly, this:

And this:

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/11/3031.long

[Note that levonorgestrel is the ingredient in some combination contraceptive pills and IUD’s, the latter of which I’ve already shown drastically reduce abortions.]

Edited.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Apparently abortion does not even qualify as murder, even for those from the pro life perspective. I’m not sure why that word keeps coming up in this thread.[/quote]

It does when it’s outside the confines of an abortion clinic.
I have yet to here one pro-abortion crusader advocate explain to me how and why Scott Peterson is serving a life sentence for double-murder when the second murder was that of his unborn-fetal child.
If under the law, the unborn is not a human being, why is he serving a prison sentence for it?
If he took his fiance to an abortion clinic and had his child killed there, and then murdered her he would have been only charged with a single murder.

And why his defense team did not bring this up is beyond me.

But again, why is killing the unborn considered murder, under the law, when it is done outside the confines of an abortion clinic?[/quote]

The state laws are different on this issue and there are plenty of examples of Scott petersons who are are only charged with 1 murder. So question for you Pat

Why is killing the unborn not considered murder, under the law, when it is done outside (inside too but ignore that for now) the confines of an abortion clinic?

Also she was late term in her pregnancy so a legal abortion was out of the question, so taking her to an abortion clinic was not an option. Peterson is a bad example of the incorrect assertion your trying to make.[/quote]

You did not answer my question, hence are not in a position to counter question. When you answer the question, then you can ask. Needless to say you haven’t even mentioned one example to back up your claim hoping that somewhere in the world you are right.
Peterson is an excellent example, for he killed an unborn child, was found guilty of murder for it in a court of law by a jury of his peers. Nothing could be more clear.
The truth is you have no answer for it. And you will no doubt look to somebody else to hopefully address it for you, since you have no intellectual fortitude to do it yourself as is commonly your tactic. You ride to coat tails of others, cheer-leading their answers and tacking on to add your own spin.
Or you can be a man and admit you have no answer for the discrepancy in the law. I am doubtful that would happen.[/quote]

I thought I did answer your question, but now your backtracking because mine invalidates yours.

“But again, why is killing the unborn considered murder, under the law, when it is done outside the confines of an abortion clinic?”

I will answer this but first tell me how many weeks old the unborn is, and what state they are in. The law for murder of the unborn is different for each age/state so I need to know that information to answer your question.
[/quote]

What does it matter? Reality is not subject to the arbitrary lines you draw to justify the unjustifiable.
You don’t need to know that information. The laws as were stated did not refer to gestational age so why would you need them?
The Scott Peterson case is a famous one. That’s the reason I bring it up the most.
We can also look at the Kermit Gosnell case. He’s in prison for murder too for being bad at abortions so he had to finish the job outside the womb. A matter of seconds and a difference between being surrounded by the mother’s tissue vs. being free air.

Here’s the reality you cannot escape. The child is a human being no matter what gestational age it is. When you kill it you are killing a human being, it doesn’t matter if it’s very little or can perform advanced calculus. Both are human beings and when you take a human being’s life, you cannot replace it. Nobody has a ‘right’ to deprive a human being it’s very life.
You can take all the ‘brain activity’ and ‘feel pain’ bullshit and shove them right up your ass. You are not the arbiter of what constitutes a living human being and what does not, neither am I nor anybody else.

Can you prove, scientifically, that a Blastocyst, zygote, fetus, etc. is not a human being?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Having said that I’d be pleased to see legislation that turned the legal prenatal execution date back to pre-heart/brain activity so that those on “death row” were less likely to feel the scissors and vacuum cleaner. Kinda like the Treblinka Jews – if you’re gonna murder 'em anyway it’s better to gas 'em than beat 'em to death with batons.[/quote]

I’ll take any legislation, no matter how insufficient that recognizes that a human life exists en utero at any stage. I know that it’s just a matter of being a slippery slope from there.

smh, please inform me how the morning after pill is supposed to work if it stops the egg from being released all while a woman?s body has a chemical drive to go out and procreate? Please explain how and why she would still have that drive if no egg is being released from her ovaries?

In addition I have never heard that the NYT was a fore runner in scientific studies. GOOD to know they think they are more than capable. Dr. Harrison also stated that she would ?prefer a study with more women and more documentation of when in their cycles they took Plan B. She added that if the studies done so far are correct, Plan B?s label should say it is ineffective after ovulation.?

Your second source and I quote ?may possibly prevent the sperm and the egg from meeting? which also means it might not prevent anything.

And finally your third article says ?Levonorgestrel did not impair the attachment of human embryos to the in vitro endometrial construct.? The artificial hormone was tested in a petri dish, where the similarities to an actual uterus and the mechanisms are not understood.

Please inform me what knowledge I was supposed to gain by reading these sources. In reality I have a slightly better understanding of why you believe a woman has the right to slaughter her child through something called a choice. I understand why but that by no means excuses your support of the murder.

I am glad you think I am so intelligent and that I am trying to trick you. I promise that I am trying nothing along those lines. Just please answer: In a broad sense, how do synthetic birth controls work?

By the way, your sources did nothing to prove that birth control was NOT abortificent, in other words causing the abortion of the new embryo. There are some scientists who question that claim but that really does not matter. Another interesting thing, who paid for all of these studies to be researched?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You want to pick and choose which topics you can debate? Please realize the reason you feel so opposed to that portion of the discussion. By the way, you may have debated the topic with other posters but not me.[/quote]

Of course I pick and choose which topics I debate. I also choose with whom I debate them.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please do not side step the question smh, just answer the following question. In a broad sense, how do synthetic birth controls work?[/quote]

Again, I don’t do the Socratic method of argument. (Maybe if I were discussing diplomacy with Richard Holbrooke, but I’m not.) If you have a claim you want to make, have at it. Make sure it stands on specific, current scientific evidence. Also, make sure it accounts with post-dated scientific evidence for things like this:

And, more importantly, this:

And this:

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/11/3031.long

[Note that levonorgestrel is the ingredient in some combination contraceptive pills and IUD’s, the latter of which I’ve already shown drastically reduce abortions.]

Edited.[/quote]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
smh, please inform me how the morning after pill is supposed to work if it stops the egg from being released all while a woman?s body has a chemical drive to go out and procreate? Please explain how and why she would still have that drive if no egg is being released from her ovaries?

In addition I have never heard that the NYT was a fore runner in scientific studies. GOOD to know they think they are more than capable. Dr. Harrison also stated that she would ?prefer a study with more women and more documentation of when in their cycles they took Plan B. She added that if the studies done so far are correct, Plan B?s label should say it is ineffective after ovulation.?

Your second source and I quote ?may possibly prevent the sperm and the egg from meeting? which also means it might not prevent anything.

And finally your third article says ?Levonorgestrel did not impair the attachment of human embryos to the in vitro endometrial construct.? The artificial hormone was tested in a petri dish, where the similarities to an actual uterus and the mechanisms are not understood.

Please inform me what knowledge I was supposed to gain by reading these sources. In reality I have a slightly better understanding of why you believe a woman has the right to slaughter her child through something called a choice. I understand why but that by no means excuses your support of the murder.

I am glad you think I am so intelligent and that I am trying to trick you. I promise that I am trying nothing along those lines. Just please answer: In a broad sense, how do synthetic birth controls work?

By the way, your sources did nothing to prove that birth control was NOT abortificent, in other words causing the abortion of the new embryo. There are some scientists who question that claim but that really does not matter. Another interesting thing, who paid for all of these studies to be researched?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You want to pick and choose which topics you can debate? Please realize the reason you feel so opposed to that portion of the discussion. By the way, you may have debated the topic with other posters but not me.[/quote]

Of course I pick and choose which topics I debate. I also choose with whom I debate them.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please do not side step the question smh, just answer the following question. In a broad sense, how do synthetic birth controls work?[/quote]

Again, I don’t do the Socratic method of argument. (Maybe if I were discussing diplomacy with Richard Holbrooke, but I’m not.) If you have a claim you want to make, have at it. Make sure it stands on specific, current scientific evidence. Also, make sure it accounts with post-dated scientific evidence for things like this:

And, more importantly, this:

And this:

[Note that levonorgestrel is the ingredient in some combination contraceptive pills and IUD’s, the latter of which I’ve already shown drastically reduce abortions.]

Edited.[/quote][/quote]

Like I said, junk science. Junk argument, too. You don’t appear to have even an elementary understanding of how to do this.

To take but one example: You try for a dismissal of my second citation by selectively quoting a single line that describes levonorgestrel’s possible secondary mechanism of action (mucosal thickening inhibitive to sperm motility). Dishonestly – and if you are dishonest again, this conversation will end abruptly – unquoted by you was the line about the primary mechanism of action:

[quote]
A number of studies provide strong direct evidence that LNG ECPs prevent or delay ovulation. If taken before ovulation, LNG ECPs inhibit the pre-ovulatory luteinizing hormone (LH) surge, impeding follicular development and maturation and/or the release of the egg itself.[/quote]

And, of course:

[quote]
The evidence shows that LNG ECPs…do not prevent implantation.[/quote]

[quote]
Emergency contraception is not the same as early medical abortion. LNG ECPs are effective only in the first few days following intercourse before the ovum is released from the ovary and before the sperm fertilizes the ovum.[/quote]

These ^ being consistent with, and indeed drawn directly from, both in vitro and in vivo experimentation. Now, my citation makes available much more information, including specific directions to the relevant medical literature. But my purpose here requires no more whatsoever. You see, I am excerpting from a publication of the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics (FIGO), an organization representing world medical experts and national medical societies in the field of our present concern. Which is to say, an organization of infinitely greater scientific and medical authority than, for example, you.

In order to even half-question the conclusions of FIGO’s literature review, you must adduce one of equal authority and confidence. It must explicitly account for the specific evidence cited by FIGO, it must bear the weight of an international medical body, and it of course must date from or postdate 2012 (i.e., it must stand on current findings). This last bit is particularly important, because my source references a relatively up-to-date state of the literature. Please note here that a link to an undated or obsolete junk website cannot stand against an official, current publication of the highest body in the relevant medical field.

Good luck with that. Again, if you’re dishonest, as you were in your last post, or if you find a way to misunderstand what counts as an actual counterargument, you may consider the debate concluded. And not in your favor.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This isn’t a discussion. This is you using words with arbitrary definitions to justify the whole sale slaughter of the defenseless. Justifaction is all evil needs to thrive smh. That’s all you’ve shown tonight.

All a person is is “some living tissue” that’s come together. Hell, we’re just an assortment of chemicals. Why protect any of it?[/quote]

Word up.

Debates on this medium are very frustrating for me because I lack the ability to convey my message eloquently. Then you claim I am dishonest. That has never been my intention, nor will it ever be.

Let me try another tactic. If we are told that earth revolves around the sun, how many people that you have ever talked with have actually been to outer space to witness this phenomenon? No one I know has been out of our atmosphere. Yet if all the studies prove that we revolve around the sun, does that mean reality changes? Or does it mean we find science to prove what we want it to prove?

In a world that supports the open slaughter of innocent children, what do you think the majority of science will show?

Sure I picked a line or two that made zero logical sense to me. If one single portion of any study fails a test of logic or reason or science, the whole test is wrong.

I ask questions and you claim I am intellectually dishonest. Never has been and never will be my intention.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
smh, please inform me how the morning after pill is supposed to work if it stops the egg from being released all while a woman?s body has a chemical drive to go out and procreate? Please explain how and why she would still have that drive if no egg is being released from her ovaries?

In addition I have never heard that the NYT was a fore runner in scientific studies. GOOD to know they think they are more than capable. Dr. Harrison also stated that she would ?prefer a study with more women and more documentation of when in their cycles they took Plan B. She added that if the studies done so far are correct, Plan B?s label should say it is ineffective after ovulation.?

Your second source and I quote ?may possibly prevent the sperm and the egg from meeting? which also means it might not prevent anything.

And finally your third article says ?Levonorgestrel did not impair the attachment of human embryos to the in vitro endometrial construct.? The artificial hormone was tested in a petri dish, where the similarities to an actual uterus and the mechanisms are not understood.

Please inform me what knowledge I was supposed to gain by reading these sources. In reality I have a slightly better understanding of why you believe a woman has the right to slaughter her child through something called a choice. I understand why but that by no means excuses your support of the murder.

I am glad you think I am so intelligent and that I am trying to trick you. I promise that I am trying nothing along those lines. Just please answer: In a broad sense, how do synthetic birth controls work?

By the way, your sources did nothing to prove that birth control was NOT abortificent, in other words causing the abortion of the new embryo. There are some scientists who question that claim but that really does not matter. Another interesting thing, who paid for all of these studies to be researched?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You want to pick and choose which topics you can debate? Please realize the reason you feel so opposed to that portion of the discussion. By the way, you may have debated the topic with other posters but not me.[/quote]

Of course I pick and choose which topics I debate. I also choose with whom I debate them.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Please do not side step the question smh, just answer the following question. In a broad sense, how do synthetic birth controls work?[/quote]

Again, I don’t do the Socratic method of argument. (Maybe if I were discussing diplomacy with Richard Holbrooke, but I’m not.) If you have a claim you want to make, have at it. Make sure it stands on specific, current scientific evidence. Also, make sure it accounts with post-dated scientific evidence for things like this:

And, more importantly, this:

And this:

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/11/3031.long

[Note that levonorgestrel is the ingredient in some combination contraceptive pills and IUD’s, the latter of which I’ve already shown drastically reduce abortions.]

Edited.[/quote][/quote]

Like I said, junk science. Junk argument, too. You don’t appear to have even an elementary understanding of how to do this.

To take but one example: You try for a dismissal of my second citation by selectively quoting a single line that describes levonorgestrel’s possible secondary mechanism of action (mucosal thickening inhibitive to sperm motility). Dishonestly – and if you are dishonest again, this conversation will end abruptly – unquoted by you was the line about the primary mechanism of action:

[quote]
A number of studies provide strong direct evidence that LNG ECPs prevent or delay ovulation. If taken before ovulation, LNG ECPs inhibit the pre-ovulatory luteinizing hormone (LH) surge, impeding follicular development and maturation and/or the release of the egg itself.[/quote]

And, of course:

[quote]
The evidence shows that LNG ECPs…do not prevent implantation.[/quote]

[quote]
Emergency contraception is not the same as early medical abortion. LNG ECPs are effective only in the first few days following intercourse before the ovum is released from the ovary and before the sperm fertilizes the ovum.[/quote]

These ^ being consistent with, and indeed drawn directly from, both in vitro and in vivo experimentation. Now, my citation makes available much more information, including specific directions to the relevant medical literature. But my purpose here requires no more whatsoever. You see, I am excerpting from a publication of the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics (FIGO), an organization representing world medical experts and national medical societies in the field of our present concern. Which is to say, an organization of infinitely greater scientific and medical authority than, for example, you.

In order to even half-question the conclusions of FIGO’s literature review, you must adduce one of equal authority and confidence. It must explicitly account for the specific evidence cited by FIGO, it must bear the weight of an international medical body, and it of course must date from or postdate 2012 (i.e., it must stand on current findings). This last bit is particularly important, because my source references a relatively up-to-date state of the literature. Please note here that a link to an undated or obsolete junk website cannot stand against an official, current publication of the highest body in the relevant medical field.

Good luck with that. Again, if you’re dishonest, as you were in your last post, or if you find a way to misunderstand what counts as an actual counterargument, you may consider the debate concluded. And not in your favor.[/quote]