VALS '11

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What ever you say gg. I type a response directly to every single point you reach for and you cry because it would take effort to reply in the same manner gasp[/quote]

If your arguments are built on logical fallacies, quote mining, poor insults, and the omission of my previous posts you can’t expect me to sift through an enormous paragraph to find your responses then editing it to remove mine.

I didn’t literally give you anything other than the response of “Unborn? I’d have to use the literal definition and say it’s a fetus not yet birthed by its mother.” to your request “…do me a favor and define the unborn…”. Why do you keep bringing this up, for the sake of arguing semantics? If a fetus isn’t in utero it’s out of the uterus, a fetus in the uterus is an unborn child.

Are you joking? And you wonder why I addressed your responses numerically.

You implied that I wanted you to define things for me, that’s unnecessary and I’ve made no such request. It was never necessary for you to even define anything, you took it upon yourself to do so when you failed to comprehend my rebuttal and attempted to make an argument; “Here is an English definition for you. BTW I will bold my favorite adjectives. Subjective: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal. Now if I am not mistaken that makes it kind of a personal choice. Just like having sex which created the life you seem to have a problem with.”, in response to my statement that this is a subjective argument; “It’s ironic that you should say I’ve only given my opinion when the entire argument is completely subjective.”.

Usually when asking for someone to substantiate a claim you point out the claim you want substantiated. Even though it’s completely unrelated to my response you’ve quoted I’ll assume it’s regarding the rights or lack thereof of a fetus.

The earliest a child has been born and has survived, which required 5 months of neonatal care I must add, was 21 weeks and five days. There are laws in 39 states limiting late term abortions and they range from at viability, 20 weeks, 24 weeks, or the third trimester. 98.6% of abortions take place before 21 weeks, only 1.4% of abortions take place after 1-20 weeks and they’re typically for medical purposes due to the legality of them. How could rights be granted to something unable to survive? No dead human enjoys the rights you’re speaking of.

I’m sure you’ll say that there shouldn’t be abortions regardless. If you’d like to shoulder the burden of proof and show beyond a reasonable doubt that women are obligated to carryout pregnancies then feel free.

Sources:

http://www.clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=175

Are there any laws against consensual sex between two people free of HIV/AIDs and of legal age? No, so what was the point of this response?

What are you implying she’s lacking?

I’ve already answered that, this thread is two pages long so I doubt it was lost somewhere.

"Even while it’s merely a zygote it’s still a living member of the human species. However its status as a living human and penalties against something as nonconsensual as murder don’t give it anymore rights than penalties for killing an animal outside of our species grant that animal rights. "

and while this wasn’t a response to you it’s a statement on the same subject "Good luck finding a correlation between the two. There are penalties for killing any animal, depending on the circumstances of course. An abortion however is more similar to Michael & Terri Schiavo than Scott Peterson killing his wife and unborn child.

You should also take note that most laws on the state level came into existence after the Unborn Child of Violence Act was passed and enacted laws on the federal level. The bill is simply a means of trying to grant personhood to a fetus. It failed to pass the senate when it’s first introduced and passed after the murder of Staci Peterson was exploited, they even added a alternate title to the bill which named it Laci and Conner’s Law.

There’s also the issue of comparing the murder of a woman and unborn child to a woman consenting to terminate her pregnancy. Seeing that it’ll be impossible to use laws against murder[nonconsensual] the legal status of abortion[consensual] it’s not a strong argument to begin with."

Supposedly: Presumed to be true or real without conclusive evidence.

You asked if a child birthed by C section would be granted rights as a child entering the world via an “8” journey", as you can clearly see by my response I stated that despite them being different methods ultimately the child still left the uterus. How did you come to the conclusion that my statement was that giving birth and abortion are the same?

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:Define with science how they are different other than location because obviously we are both in different locations and yet still alive even by your illogical conclusions.
[/quote]

Unless you’re trying to use a fetus that couldn’t even be aborted other than for medical reasons in this comparison then there are numerous contrasts between a embryo and fetus and a fetus at one stage of development compared to a fetus at a later stage of development. To think that location is the only change is assuming that a child is fully developed during the entire course of the pregnancy.

Would you mind elaborating on this; “we are both in different locations and yet still alive even by your illogical conclusions.”? I don’t see how the ability for two adults to live in different geographical locations is relevant to the discussion.

42

Way to go gg. I added a space after each line and suddenly you catch on. Nicely done. I tried to save space [just like this post NOW, so I am trying to save space again] and you had to number things. But if you need that help, so be it. However things will get lost. Maybe I failed to address a point you made because I either agreed or thought it to be unimportant. shrug Not sure.

[quote]goldengloves wrote: If your arguments are built on logical fallacies, quote mining, poor insults, and the omission of my previous posts[/quote] I omitted a post of yours? Seriously, where?[quote] you can’t expect me to sift through an enormous paragraph to find your responses then editing it to remove mine.[/quote] Where is this logical fallacy? The child is alive just like any person who is on any form of life support. Prove otherwise.

[quote]I didn’t literally give you anything other than the response of “Unborn? I’d have to use the literal definition and say it’s a fetus not yet birthed by its mother.” to your request “…do me a favor and define the unborn…”. Why do you keep bringing this up, for the sake of arguing semantics? If a fetus isn’t in utero it’s out of the uterus, a fetus in the uterus is an unborn child.[/quote] All you define is the word with the same word. Try and use different adjective. Prove otherwise, please.

[quote]Are you joking? And you wonder why I addressed your responses numerically.[/quote] No you failed there.

[quote]You implied that I wanted you to define things for me, that’s unnecessary and I’ve made no such request.[/quote] Your argument pivots on opinions then? [quote]It was never necessary for you to even define anything, you took it upon yourself to do so when you failed to comprehend my rebuttal and attempted to make an argument; “Here is an English definition for you. BTW I will bold my favorite adjectives. Subjective: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal. Now if I am not mistaken that makes it kind of a personal choice. Just like having sex which created the life you seem to have a problem with.”, in response to my statement that this is a subjective argument; “It’s ironic that you should say I’ve only given my opinion when the entire argument is completely subjective.”.[/quote] Your argument is still completely subjective. Use science to define the unborn. Rather than opinions prove me wrong with science, please.

[quote]Usually when asking for someone to substantiate a claim you point out the claim you want substantiated. Even though it’s completely unrelated to my response you’ve quoted I’ll assume it’s regarding the rights or lack thereof of a fetus.[/quote] Still waiting for a definition of a fetus using science which is universally accepted. Other than one of “outside the womb.”

[quote]The earliest a child has been born and has survived, which required 5 months of neonatal care I must add, was 21 weeks and five days.[/quote] Again, life support is different how? [quote]There are laws in 39 states limiting late term abortions and they range from at viability, 20 weeks, 24 weeks, or the third trimester. 98.6% of abortions take place before 21 weeks, only 1.4% of abortions take place after 1-20 weeks and they’re typically for medical purposes due to the legality of them. How could rights be granted to something unable to survive? No dead human enjoys the rights you’re speaking of.[/quote] Your numbers are WRONG! A woman can walk into any clinic around the country and she can have an abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. Hence the legality of the procedure.

[quote]Sources:http://www.clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=175[/quote] How old do you think these numbers are?

[quote]http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf[/quote] The sources are over a decade old. You will NEVER find newer sources. Want to guess why?

[quote]Are there any laws against consensual sex between two people free of HIV/AIDs and of legal age? No, so what was the point of this response?[/quote] Laws are supposed to limit people otherwise there would be no point of civilized society. Should we wait for the government to tell us what we can and can not do? Or should we use the thing between our ears to use science that defines life? Obviously that is beyond some people in this discussion. BTW NOT directed at you! ; )

[quote]What are you implying she’s lacking?[/quote] So she knows what is best, after she partakes in behavior of instant gratification?

[quote]I’ve already answered that, this thread is two pages long so I doubt it was lost somewhere.
"Even while it’s merely a zygote it’s still a living member of the human species. However its status as a living human and penalties against something as nonconsensual as murder don’t give it anymore rights than penalties for killing an animal outside of our species grant that animal rights. "[/quote] Your words again compare a fetus with an animal. AGAIN

[quote]and while this wasn’t a response to you it’s a statement on the same subject "Good luck finding a correlation between the two. There are penalties for killing any animal, depending on the circumstances of course. An abortion however is more similar to Michael & Terri Schiavo than Scott Peterson killing his wife and unborn child.[/quote] Your point please?

[quote]You should also take note that most laws on the state level came into existence after the Unborn Child of Violence Act was passed and enacted laws on the federal level. The bill is simply a means of trying to grant personhood to a fetus. It failed to pass the senate when it’s first introduced and passed after the murder of Staci Peterson was exploited, they even added a alternate title to the bill which named it Laci and Conner’s Law.[/quote] So we should wait for laws to define when something is acceptable?

[quote]There’s also the issue of comparing the murder of a woman and unborn child to a woman consenting to terminate her pregnancy. Seeing that it’ll be impossible to use laws against murder[nonconsensual] the legal status of abortion[consensual] it’s not a strong argument to begin with."[/quote] Abortion is nothing more than an opinion. Prove otherwise please.

[quote]Supposedly: Presumed to be true or real without conclusive evidence.

Supposedly[/quote] - definition of supposedly[/quote] by The Free Dictionary Glad you can work the internet when it benefits you.

[quote]You asked if a child birthed by C section would be granted rights as a child entering the world via an “8” journey", as you can clearly see by my response I stated that despite them being different methods ultimately the child still left the uterus. How did you come to the conclusion that my statement was that giving birth and abortion are the same?[/quote] Please show me how leaving the uterus grants rights upon an individual?

[quote]Unless you’re trying to use a fetus that couldn’t even be aborted other than for medical reasons in this comparison then there are numerous contrasts between a embryo and fetus and a fetus at one stage of development compared to a fetus at a later stage of development.[/quote] So Dr.'s are always right? [quote] To think that location is the only change is assuming that a child is fully developed during the entire course of the pregnancy.[/quote] I never brought our understanding of fully developed into the discussion. A fetus has a separate genome from the mother, different from any other person on earth, at the very moment of conception and you claim the person is not alive. Prove otherwise with science, please.

[quote]Would you mind elaborating on this; “we are both in different locations and yet still alive even by your illogical conclusions.”? I don’t see how the ability for two adults to live in different geographical locations is relevant to the discussion. [/quote] You keep insisting that the child in the uterus is NOT alive. Location is simply the only detail different between the child and any other human on earth. You and I are both in separate locations, just like the unborn are in different locations.

I have a little story about a friend of mine. He is an immigrant from Brazil. He told me today that when his mother was pregnant thirty some years ago, she was having medical problems and went to get checked out by a doctor. The Dr. told her she needed to have an abortion if she expected to live, the child would not survive regardless. Unhappy with the response, she went to another Dr. to get a different opinion. The subsequent doctor told her the same thing. My friends mother still wanted to give her child the chance at this life. She gave birth to a son a number of months later. Fast forward a few decades and look at today. The son of the story is my friend and he is terribly happy to be alive. Every Dr. of the day said he wouldn’t survive and here he is, making his place in the world. Good thing his mother knew abortion was wrong, over thirty years ago.

43

If it’s not a genuine debate why would I waste my time when responding to you? Your arguments are weak, emotionally driven, and often rely on logical fallacies. I can take a few minutes to edit quotes or respond to half of your post, the latter is more economical.

You seemed to have forgotten I already addressed your request for information on penalties for killing an unborn child.

Straw man. I’d also like to add that 11 out of your 25 responses contained a logical fallacy or logical fallacies, that’s 44% of your responses.

It’s not a question of whether it’s alive or not, that’s changing the debate. What’s in question is the legality of abortion and why it should or shouldn’t be legal and in what circumstances it should or shouldn’t be legal.

Moving the goalposts.

Fetus is the medical definition for an unborn child. While unborn fetus was redundant it in no way didn’t answer your question. There’s nothing to prove otherwise

How so, did I fail when you cherry picked one word from my original post, didn’t address my argument, and relied on a red herring by attempting to answer my argument with a separate and irrelevant argument?

Red herring and ad homenim.

The abortion debate is based on opinion, acting as if your arguments are objective is patently dishonest. You’ve also conveniently attempted to introduce a separate and irrelevant argument in response to my post.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Your argument is still completely subjective. Use science to define the unborn. Rather than opinions prove me wrong with science, please.[/quote]

I would say they’re more objective than anything you’ve presented.

I’ve already defined the unborn, there’s nothing to prove you wrong with science about.

That’s a misrepresentation of my argument. I’ve never in any of my posts said a fetus is “outside the womb”. As for your request for a definition; “a developing unborn offspring of an animal that gives birth to its young.”

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Fetus

I was strengthening my position by informing you of the unlikelihood of viability at early stages of development.

False attribution. You claim it’s wrong yet site no source to substantiate your claim.

I suggest you look into the legality of abortion, your argument is completely false and I’ve already provided a source explaining the abortion laws on the state level. Post viability abortion is heavily regulated and depending on the state it takes place after 20 weeks, 24 weeks, or the third trimester.

Your point is?

Red herring.

I’ve consistently argued that abortion exists in the United States, when asked to substantiate your claim that women are obligated to carryout a pregnancy you’ve introduced a separate and irrelevant argument.

Appeal to novelty.

If you think that more current figures are somehow superior then feel free to support your argument.

Appeal to novelty.

Just because the sources are old doesn’t mean that the state laws have changed or that the laws no longer exist. While I can’t honestly say I know the state laws for every state I feel confident in saying that despite the age of the source no laws have been repealed.

Irrelevant conclusion and psychologists fallacy.

Just because you support the position doesn’t mean others are meant to support the position. Disliking something is fine, you’re entitled to it. Your support of something doesn’t however make it right, that’s a psuedo-appeal to authority.

If you’d like to substantiate your claim that she doesn’t then feel free to do so.

Straw man.

I’d first like to point out that the fetus is an animal, it’s a member of the species Homo Sapiens. That’s only to prove you wrong with science though.

Your argument suggests that penalties for murdering something mean it’s entitled to rights, there are penalties against murdering countless species of animals yet they enjoy no rights. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s entitled to anything other than a penalty imposed on someone who murdered or attempted to murder it.

Murder isn’t consensual and removing someone from life support at the request of their guardian is consensual, perfectly legal, and their decision to make.

I’m still waiting for you to support your argument that it isn’t acceptable.

What’s the point of your argument? Carrying out or terminating a pregnancy is purely opinion and dependent on the woman or couple. If you feel otherwise then support your argument and show why they’re or she’s obligated to carryout the pregnancy.

I was just having some fun at your expense with that reply.

There’s nothing definitive, it’s my opinion just as your opinion is that its rights supersedes the rights of the mother. I believe that while in utero the embryo or fetus is part of the woman’s body and has the freedom to choose whether or not she’d like to have an abortion or not, I’m also in no position to impose the costs and realities of motherhood anymore than she’s in the position to impose vasectomies on men against their will.

Is my argument that doctors are always right? No. You’ve also failed to address my argument. I really don’t see the logic behind a woman being forced to carryout a pregnancy, even if she’d like to under different circumstances, if it’s a risk to her health.

kneedragger79 wrote: I never brought our understanding of fully developed into the discussion. A fetus has a separate genome from the mother, different from any other person on earth, at the very moment of conception and you claim the person is not alive. Prove otherwise with science, please.[/quote]

Red herring and straw man.

You did when questioning our rights as two adults living in geographic locations in regards to a fetus and newborn. I’ve never claimed that a fetus or embryo isn’t alive, I’ve claimed that the mother isn’t obligated to carryout the pregnancy and is able to have an abortion if she’d like to.

Straw man.

Find where I’ve said that a fetus or embryo isn’t alive, I’ve never said that. I’ve only held the position that a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy if she’d like to. You’re also failing to account for the development between a embryo or fetus to adult, it’s not just a difference of geographic location.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote: I have a little story about a friend of mine. He is an immigrant from Brazil. He told me today that when his mother was pregnant thirty some years ago, she was having medical problems and went to get checked out by a doctor. The Dr. told her she needed to have an abortion if she expected to live, the child would not survive regardless. Unhappy with the response, she went to another Dr. to get a different opinion. The subsequent doctor told her the same thing. My friends mother still wanted to give her child the chance at this life. She gave birth to a son a number of months later. Fast forward a few decades and look at today. The son of the story is my friend and he is terribly happy to be alive. Every Dr. of the day said he wouldn’t survive and here he is, making his place in the world. Good thing his mother knew abortion was wrong, over thirty years ago.
[/quote]

I’ll spare you another logical fallacy and simply conclude my rebuttal by saying that just because that’s the case for your friend it doesn’t mean it’ll be the case every time that situation arises. That’s tantamount to thinking that because a person in your city has won the lottery that all people in your city will win the lottery.

44

Way to go, again gg!! This logical board too tough to post on? Try again though please. In fact I will help you along the way. One more time. After this I refuse. [quote]goldengloves wrote: If it’s not a genuine debate why would I waste my time when responding to you? Your arguments are weak, emotionally driven, and often rely on logical fallacies. I can take a few minutes to edit quotes or respond to half of your post, the latter is more economical.[/quote] Where again are my emotions? I provide nothing but logic and science, while what do you provide other then opinions. [quote]You seemed to have forgotten I already addressed your request for information on penalties for killing an unborn child.[/quote] So the law of the land is NOT clear, there we agree. Then you believe it could not be wrong because the law permits abortion. Here is where you fail and fall. In the last century women had no rights, segregation was prominent and our country abolished slavery while the law allowed the activity. Should people always wait for the law to determine their behavior? [quote]Straw man. I’d also like to add that 11 out of your 25 responses contained a logical fallacy or logical fallacies, that’s 44% of your responses. [/quote] Provide a line please. Simply saying, ‘Naah uh that is a straw man’ means nothing. Quote me, something you obviously need help with, and prove the statement is a straw man. When you make a claim, the burden is on your shoulders. I started this thread where you came in ranting. The burden is upon you! [quote]It’s not a question of whether it’s alive or not, that’s changing the debate. [/quote] No, I believe killing another person who is alive is wrong. You believe location determines the ability to murder another human. Again, the burden is upon you. [quote]What’s in question is the legality of abortion and why it should or shouldn’t be legal and in what circumstances it should or shouldn’t be legal.[/quote] The problem I have is with abortion, period. You believe tearing a living whole person in the womb is perfectly acceptable because you can NOT define or understand the creation of life. When you support abortion, this is your stance. [quote]Moving the goalposts. [/quote] Asking you to define the word with different adjectives is moving the goal posts? Or maybe you can NOT defend your position because you are obviously wrong. [quote]Fetus is the medical definition for an unborn child. While unborn fetus was redundant it in no way didn’t answer your question. There’s nothing to prove otherwise [/quote] So because you lack the ability to do otherwise, I will simply rephrase what you are telling me. ‘An unborn CHILD has no rights and therefore by default they can be slaughtered through the act of abortion.’ [quote]How so, did I fail when you cherry picked one word from my original post, didn’t address my argument, and relied on a red herring by attempting to answer my argument with a separate and irrelevant argument? [/quote] Obviously you fail to see how your own use of the language defeats you. Semantics are critical because otherwise we would never get anywhere. Your use of even one word changes the debate entirely. [quote]Red herring and ad homenim. [/quote] This is from wiki because the language is plain and simple there. “The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.” The following is your direct words, I simply bolded the key portion. [quote]The abortion debate is based on opinion, acting as if your arguments are objective is patently dishonest.[/quote] Do you understand that you gave me a complement. Yes, I try to completely objective in my response. Thank you for that. BTW I was referring to the adjective portion of the definition. [quote] You’ve also conveniently attempted to introduce a separate and irrelevant argument in response to my post. [/quote] So because you have proven a subjective argument, therefore I am wrong? [quote]I would say they’re more objective than anything you’ve presented.
I’ve already defined the unborn, there’s nothing to prove you wrong with science about.[/quote] Again you are simply saying ‘yes I gg, have done that’ all the while I disagree. Other than saying ‘an embryo in the uterus’, define the unborn - oh wait you add some adjectives below. [quote] That’s a misrepresentation of my argument. I’ve never in any of my posts said a fetus is “outside the womb”. As for your request for a definition; “a developing unborn offspring of an animal that gives birth to its young.” [/quote] Your definition is part of what defines a mammal from other animals. The definition also says NOTHING in relation to if the embryo is alive, or not. I gave you four points previously as to how the embryo is alive. You never refute my claim, so I should take that as acceptance?

Provided is a definition with the help of a friend. “Of the hundreds of volumes of embryology textbooks, in any med school of the world. Here is what you will find out, summarized in a sentence. ‘From the earliest stages of development, the unborn are: distinct, living and whole human beings.’ They are immature, they have yet to grow but they are whole human beings none the less. They are not somatic cells, like when you brush off your arm. Those body cells do contain the entire DNA of the individual. Somatic cells are merely part of a whole human being. They are not distinct, living and whole human beings like the embryo.” [quote] http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Fetus [/quote] Again, all you did was tell me a critical difference of mammals and other animals with simpler biology. [quote]I was strengthening my position by informing you of the unlikelihood of viability at early stages of development. [/quote] So you are trying to strengthen your case and you did nothing of the sort. Medicine will continue to evolve and get better, and even better. You want medicine to define when life starts? Oh wait, it already does that. You just want the woman to have a choice AFTER a life has been created. [quote]False attribution. You claim it’s wrong yet site no source to substantiate your claim. [/quote] No, I know the numbers are false because of the privacy laws in place today. Sharing your information is completely up to the individual, so privacy is retained. The numbers are the lowest possible, nothing close to the true numbers. You want a source for the privacy laws of this country? Sorry, but you came into my thread and I refuse to jump when you say. [quote]I suggest you look into the legality of abortion, your argument is completely false and I’ve already provided a source explaining the abortion laws on the state level. Post viability abortion is heavily regulated and depending on the state it takes place after 20 weeks, 24 weeks, or the third trimester. [/quote] I could care less at what stage you tear another human apart, the act is wrong at the moment of conception and just as wrong the day before labor. [quote]Your point is? [/quote] You believe killing a defenseless embryo is just fine. I just wanted to be clear on your stance. [quote]Red herring. [/quote] Is that a fish? Oh that is right, you came into a thread which I started and now you want me to do as you say? [quote]I’ve consistently argued that abortion exists in the United States, when asked to substantiate your claim that women are obligated to carryout a pregnancy you’ve introduced a separate and irrelevant argument. [/quote] You believe a woman has the right to have a night of instant gratification which has a ‘get out of trouble card’? When a woman partakes in an activity that creates another life, the life has rights. The laws of this country are hypocritical and you are trying to argue the case for said laws. Interesting. [quote]Appeal to novelty. [/quote] You admit failure then because current privacy laws restrict the true numbers. [quote]If you think that more current figures are somehow superior then feel free to support your argument. [/quote] See directly above. ^ [quote] Appeal to novelty. [/quote] Now, see above two posts. ^ [quote]Just because the sources are old doesn’t mean that the state laws have changed or that the laws no longer exist. While I can’t honestly say I know the state laws for every state I feel confident in saying that despite the age of the source no laws have been repealed. [/quote] No instead our government continues to tell society what they can and cannot do even further, with even more detail. Unless you think laws do something different. Continuation of this specific topic would be pointless and off topic, on this thread. Feel free to start your own. [quote]Irrelevant conclusion and psychologists fallacy. [/quote] Laws do what then, oh wise one? [quote]Just because you support the position doesn’t mean others are meant to support the position. Disliking something is fine, you’re entitled to it. Your support of something doesn’t however make it right, that’s a psuedo-appeal to authority. [/quote] Some actions are right, while others are wrong. Abortion is wrong, simply because a life is extinguished. [quote]If you’d like to substantiate your claim that she doesn’t then feel free to do so. [/quote] Your case depends on her choice to kill the child. Does the father, while he provides half the genome, get any say? Or does the girl always know better? A friend of mine was pregnant in high school. Her parents made her have an abortion all while she wanted the child. Guess what happened when the authority figures in her life had their way? [quote]Straw man. [/quote] Says ONLY you. You would be able to burn the straw man I supposedly built, yet you never do. [quote]I’d first like to point out that the fetus is an animal, it’s a member of the species Homo Sapiens. That’s only to prove you wrong with science though. [/quote] So, by definition you and I are animals as well. Your point please? We do not change species as we exit the uterus and enter this world. [quote]Your argument suggests that penalties for murdering something mean it’s entitled to rights, there are penalties against murdering countless species of animals yet they enjoy no rights. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s entitled to anything other than a penalty imposed on someone who murdered or attempted to murder it. [/quote] If the fetus had no rights, why would it be wrong? In many states you can kill your own pet through what ever means you want as long as the animal does NOT suffer. Still waiting for your point. [quote]Murder isn’t consensual and removing someone from life support at the request of their guardian is consensual, perfectly legal, and their decision to make. [/quote] What if the guardian was wrong? Should we just pull everyone off life support then? Sure glad you did not have the option to pull me off life support. [quote] I’m still waiting for you to support your argument that it isn’t acceptable. [/quote] Again, see way up towards the top. Slavery, segregation and women’s rights. [quote]What’s the point of your argument? [/quote] You bring it right front and center for me. [quote]Carrying out or terminating a pregnancy is purely opinion and dependent on the woman or couple. [/quote] So what if they disagree? Women OR men? Who has final say? Why? [quote]If you feel otherwise then support your argument and show why they’re or she’s obligated to carryout the pregnancy. [/quote] Because she willfully partook in the activity knowing full well the possible outcome. [quote]I was just having some fun at your expense with that reply. [/quote] If I said nice cover, it would be a little white lie. [quote]There’s nothing definitive, it’s my opinion just as your opinion is that its rights supersedes the rights of the mother. [/quote] Interesting opinion. That was a white lie though. [quote]I believe that while in utero the embryo or fetus is part of the woman’s body and has the freedom to choose whether or not she’d like to have an abortion or not, I’m also in no position to impose the costs and realities of motherhood anymore than she’s in the position to impose vasectomies on men against their will. [/quote] What grants her those rights? ‘Our government’ is NOT an answer. Also, I speak simply for the life who has no voice. [quote]Is my argument that doctors are always right? No. You’ve also failed to address my argument. I really don’t see the logic behind a woman being forced to carryout a pregnancy, even if she’d like to under different circumstances, if it’s a risk to her health. [/quote] A doctor is never right ALL the time. They are humans and therefore wrong at times! As I am walking around the world today, that is proof of how wrong they can be. A friends mother was told she would die without an abortion. She wanted to give her child a chance at this life and you later whine because in your opinion it has no point to the discussion. [quote]Red herring and straw man. [/quote] Burn them to the ground as you so readily claim this to be. [quote]You did when questioning our rights as two adults living in geographic locations in regards to a fetus and newborn. I’ve never claimed that a fetus or embryo isn’t alive, I’ve claimed that the mother isn’t obligated to carryout the pregnancy and is able to have an abortion if she’d like to. [/quote] Can I repeat this back to you? The mother has the right to kill an embryo which she created with someone else and she then deems to be in the way of her desires. [quote]Straw man. [/quote] Burn him, if possible. [quote]Find where I’ve said that a fetus or embryo isn’t alive, I’ve never said that. I’ve only held the position that a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy if she’d like to. You’re also failing to account for the development between a embryo or fetus to adult, it’s not just a difference of geographic location. [/quote] See above in a previous post, ^ AGAIN. Together with three other points the four points define the unborn. [quote]I’ll spare you another logical fallacy and simply conclude my rebuttal by saying that just because that’s the case for your friend it doesn’t mean it’ll be the case every time that situation arises.[/quote] So even you do NOT know how every life will turn out? Should we kill everyone because we don’t know if they will become a serial killer? [quote]That’s tantamount to thinking that because a person in your city has won the lottery that all people in your city will win the lottery. [/quote] A lottery is based purely on odds, the number of people who enter. You want me to believe I have a CHOICE when I buy a lottery ticket? I have a choice to buy a ticket and that is it.

I tire of cleaning up your posts btw. Learn how to post or bite your tongue on this outlet.

*Edited for apostrophes and quotation marks. Plus I cleaned up my posts a little ; )