Thoughts on Abortion

[Cerpin Taxt]

When you learn to comprehend simple biology you'll get it, till then keep blabbering away, it's funny watching you spin in circles.

I've said nothing inconsistent with basic biology, rather, it is you that thinks erroneously biology has anything relevant to say in the matter.

Kindly STFU since you can't rebut my arguments.

 

[xj0hnx]

I've said nothing inconsistent with basic biology, rather, it is you that thinks erroneously biology has anything relevant to say in the matter.

Kindly STFU since you can't rebut my arguments.

If you stop with your name calling, and make an "argument" worth rebutting, than maybe, tell them take your own advice.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If you stop with your name calling, and make an "argument" worth rebutting, than maybe, tell them take your own advice.

There's plenty of arguments already in this thread that you have utterly failed to rebut, dumbshit. How do you think this exchange shrunk down to a matter of a couple of sentences? You abandoned all attempts at rebuttal because you spectacularly failed.

Apparently, an argument you can't rebut is an argument not "worth rebutting." Yeah, that's not disingenuous at all...

 

[xj0hnx]

There's plenty of arguments already in this thread that you have utterly failed to rebut, dumbshit. How do you think this exchange shrunk down to a matter of a couple of sentences? You abandoned all attempts at rebuttal because you spectacularly failed.

Apparently, an argument you can't rebut is an argument not "worth rebutting." Yeah, that's not disingenuous at all...

Just can't do it can you? So petty, oh well. Blah, blah, blah on then.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Just can't do it can you?

Don't have to. The arguments remain unrebutted. You can certainly go back and attempt to rebut them, but you won't. Know why? Because you can't. Instead you'll just lie to yourself and pretend they don't exist so you can desperately cling to your ignorant ideology. I hope you're proud of yourself.

So petty, oh well. Blah, blah, blah on then.

About what? I've made my points and you haven't refuted them. You've just been a pissy and petulant naysayer that can't bring himself to deal with the facts. Congratulations on that.

 

[xj0hnx]

Don't have to. The arguments remain unrebutted. You can certainly go back and attempt to rebut them, but you won't. Know why? Because you can't. Instead you'll just lie to yourself and pretend they don't exist so you can desperately cling to your ignorant ideology. I hope you're proud of yourself.

I already did maybe you could learn to read right after you get through with Biology 101.

About what? I've made my points and you haven't refuted them. You've just been a pissy and petulant naysayer that can't bring himself to deal with the facts. Congratulations on that.

I know you are but what am I? lol. Here's a clue, just because you don't like that I addressed you "arguments", doesn't mean that I didn't.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I already did maybe you could learn to read right after you get through with Biology 101.

Completely false.

And you'll have to forgive me if I am unaffected by the scientific criticisms of a person that doesn't think that human gametes are human and alive.

I know you are but what am I? lol. Here's a clue, just because you don't like that I addressed you "arguments", doesn't mean that I didn't.

No, the fact that you didn't rebut them means that you didn't rebut them. The fact that you abruptly ceased the dialogue to instead lob a couple of pot-shots clearly demonstrates your abandonment of the argument. In contrast to you, I've always addressed every significant contention made by you, and you have made a pattern of regularly ignoring the arguments which refute them. Nobody is going to take these parting shots of yours seriously in the face of such embarassing behavior on your part.

If you think you can rebut my arguments, go back and rebut them. They haven't gone anywhere since the last time you pretended they didn't exist.

 

[xj0hnx]

Completely false.

~snipped, just too much fail to read again~

Completely true. Your game just goes round and round. When you accept that two gametes are not human beings, and that their coming together is the creation of a human being, you see how silly your attempt at an "argument" is. As far as your "fetus are parasite" theory, or whatever, too stupid to address, just not worth it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Completely true. Your game just goes round and round.

Now you're just outright lying.

When you accept that two gametes are not human beings, and that their coming together is the creation of a human being, you see how silly your attempt at an "argument" is.

It is impossible for me to see the truth of a false statement.

I've not ever contended that gametes were human beings, but rather that they are human life, in contradiction to your false assertions. That they are human life is a fact you have not conceded, but have flatly yet erroneously denied, but also have not and cannot refute. Furthermore, I correctly argued that personhood begins with a live birth, and in the language of the law a "human being" is equivalent to a person.

As far as your "fetus are parasite" theory, or whatever, too stupid to address, just not worth it.

It isn't a theory, it is a fact, and one you cannot refute.

 

[xj0hnx]

Now you're just outright lying.

no, you are.

It is impossible for me to see the truth of a false statement.

Than you must behaving a hell of a time reconciling your own "argument".

I've not ever contended that gametes were human beings, but rather that they are human life, in contradiction to your false assertions.

When you combine them they create something that did not exist before, your theory is a failure. Even without the philosophical angle of "when life beings" your theory is still a complete failure.

That they are human life is a fact you have not conceded, but have flatly yet erroneously denied,

No, I haven't, you keep insisting that I have, but that doesn't make it true. When they combine they create something that didn't exist before, and that neither would become if they didn't.

but also have not and cannot refute.

No, you can't.

Furthermore, I correctly argued that personhood begins with a live birth, and in the language of the law a "human being" is equivalent to a person.

Is a baby less a baby the day before it's born than the day after? Nope. The "language of the law" doesn't make it something it's not.

It isn't a theory, it is a belief, and one you cannot refute.

Fixed that for you.

 

[amdhunter]

If it was up to me, I'd leave it to men to decide abortions. It's bullshit how much a woman can enslave a man with a baby.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

no, you are.

More lies.

When you combine them they create something that did not exist before, your theory is a failure.

What part is there that wasn't there before? Please, be specific. Keep in mind, a rearrangement of previously existing parts is not a "creation."

Even without the philosophical angle of "when life beings" your theory is still a complete failure.

You haven't substantiated your claim. There's this little thing called the 1st law of thermodynamics which precludes your above claim from being true.

No, I haven't, you keep insisting that I have, but that doesn't make it true.

Yes, you did. With regard to a human gamete, I asked "It is human and alive, isn't it?" To which you replied, "alive yes, human no." I can only take you at your word, but now you are being dishonest about things you yourself have said.

When they combine they create something that didn't exist before

What is there that didn't exist before? Certainly not human life, because the gametes were already human and alive.

...and that neither would become if they didn't.

So?

No, you can't.

Please try to keep up. I have refuted every erroneous claim of yours, and you have refuted none of mine.

Is a baby less a baby the day before it's born than the day after? Nope.

Yes, it is not a baby until it is born. Until it is born, it is a fetus. Consult any medical text relevant to the topic, and it will tell you the same.

The "language of the law" doesn't make it something it's not.

I'm not claiming that it does. You really need to pay better attention.

Fixed that for you.

You didn't "fix" anything. A fetus is a parasite by any reasonable definition, and you cannot show differently. Everything which is true of a parasite's behavior is true of a fetus' behavior.

By the way, these questions haven't gone anywhere, and still await your answers:

Which individuals enjoy the right to occupy the body of another person ? Which individuals enjoy the right to feed and respiration directly from another person's bloodstream without consent? Which individuals enjoy the right to inject another person with hormones without consent ? Which individuals enjoy the right to inject another person with bodily waste without consent?

Since when are any of the above rights enjoyed by anyone? Why then would you insist that fetuses should enjoy them? Do you know the meaning of Constitutional equal protection?

 

[exdeath]

One of the only REAL grey issues in politics, due to the fact that the purpose of government is to protect life and liberty.

Thus you have the liberty of the mother to choose, but at some point it can be argued that the "child" must also be provided those equal rights.

The problem is, where do you define "child"? It can't very well be birth at 9 months because a fetus born at 8 months is still 100% viable as if it was 9 months.

I'm an atheist conservative libertarian. I don't believe the "every life is sacred" garbage either, a glop of goo a week in isn't "life", a month old fetus with no semblance of consciousness or neural networking isn't a life, and 9 months but with half a brain and missing limbs is certainly not a "life" (it's a biological CRC error and to force anyone to live like that to satisfy your own morality is selfish, better to end it quickly when it's just a organic "machine" and hasn't learned to be "human").

But there is definately some point where there are mature functioning organs, a functioning neural network and consciousness, etc, and it could be argued that government must fulfill it's roll in protecting life, liberty, and property by extending that to say, a 8 month old fetus.

I've never been terribly concerned about abortion, because if it was banned completely and someone wanted or needed one that wasn't government approved, they could fly out of the country and get it done somewhere else and fly home and the government would be powerless to stop, incriminate, or enforce anti-abortion law in just about any form. Even if it was illegal to carry a "US citizen" out of the country for abortion, the woman doesn't have to tell anyone when she finds out she's pregnant, and can take a vacation to a place it's legal. So essentially, a ban on abortion is unenforceable, thus I don't care what the law is on it either way.

Contrast with gun laws, where if something was banned, you could not get one period, at least not legally and not risking your life being reamed by the ATF. And even if you did manage to smuggle one in and keep it a secret, you can't share it or shoot it or talk about it or enjoy it, so what's the point? Thus I've always been more vocal about gun rights, and less worried about abortion. Something inside of you that only you know about and keep secret won't hurt anyone who doesn't know, however if something is not on the shelf anymore to buy you can't do anything about it.

All that said, as long as any restrictions, if any at all, (the current standard?) allows sufficient time to determine pregnancy, decide if keeping or not, or sufficient development to determine biological and medical soundness before such time that an abortion is banned, that would be acceptable.

Though really it's one of those things that each is best left to their own, or to the states, etc, though I'm well familiar with the argument that government must protect life as it pertains to a fetus/unborn child/whatever you want to call it.

It doesn't matter to me, because like I said, unlike gun bans, you can get an abortion out of the country and come back and not be held accountable in any way. But try smuggling in a machine gun no longer produced for sale in the US and see what happens.

PS I consider myself pro choice and I absolutely LOVE kids.

 

[exdeath]

Oh lets throw some fuel to the fire. What about crack hoes that spawn "kids" in the ghetto, are those "kids" lives really "life"? Abortions spare them from that cruel inequity forced unto them by a selfish bitch crack whore egg donor who can't keep her legs shut.

 

[spittledip]

Oh lets throw some fuel to the fire. What about crack hoes that spawn "kids" in the ghetto, are those "kids" lives really "life"? Abortions spare them from that cruel inequity forced unto them by a selfish bitch crack whore egg donor who can't keep her legs shut.

I guess you have a lot of work to do. Get your guns and go clear out all those worthless lives in the ghetto.

 

[exdeath]

I guess you have a lot of work to do. Get your guns and go clear out all those worthless lives in the ghetto.

Too late once they are born :sneaky:

Unless of course they wave a glock at me or break into my home, then it's open season.

Of course we are hypothetically speaking, I don't live in the ghetto, nor do I provoke trouble in other people's neighborhoods.

 

[xj0hnx]

More lies.

Yea, you can't stop spewing them.

What part is there that wasn't there before? Please, be specific. Keep in mind, a rearrangement of previously existing parts is not a "creation."

I guess when you take pancake mix, add water and eggs you didn't make pancakes. Reality doesn't agree with you.

You haven't substantiated your claim. There's this little thing called the 1st law of thermodynamics which precludes your above claim from being true.

LOL

Yes, you did. With regard to a human gamete, I asked "It is human and alive, isn't it?" To which you replied, "alive yes, human no." I can only take you at your word, but now you are being dishonest about things you yourself have said.

It is not a human. It is a human cell, like blood, or skin. The only one being dishonest is you and your grasping at straws.

What is there that didn't exist before? Certainly not human life, because the gametes were already human and alive.

Did a zygote exist before the sperm and the egg came together? No it didn't, you are a complete failure at biology 101. this is seriously like 4th grade stuff.

So?

So? The whole point is that they don't become a fetus on their own, so your whole notion that it already existed is false.

Please try to keep up. I have refuted every erroneous claim of yours, and you have refuted none of mine.

You've refuted nothing, and only keep saying you have as if it is magically makes it true.

Yes, it is not a baby until it is born. Until it is born, it is a fetus. Consult any medical text relevant to the topic, and it will tell you the same.

No, it won't, because a baby the day before it's born is the same thing the day after.

I'm not claiming that it does. You really need to pay better attention.

Liar. Here, let me do something you haven't been able to do and quote you ...

in the language of the law a "human being" is equivalent to a person.

You didn't "fix" anything. A fetus is a parasite by any reasonable definition, and you cannot show differently. Everything which is true of a parasite's behavior is true of a fetus' behavior.

A plane has wings and flies
A duck has wings and flies
A plane is a duck

That's your sad logic. So much fail so little time. You really shouldn't have dropped out of school before the fourth grade, the whole cycle of life thing was pretty interesting.

 

[spittledip]

Too late once they are born :sneaky:

Unless of course they wave a glock at me or break into my home, then it's open season.

Of course we are hypothetically speaking, I don't live in the ghetto, nor do I provoke trouble in other people's neighborhoods.

Not sure I understand... you were suggesting that some people have lives that are not worth living in your hypothetical question, and upon that basis were suggesting that they should have never lived at all. If their lives are not worth living now, why does it matter if you get rid of them now?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yea, you can't stop spewing them.

Oh that's clever, you lying sack of shit.

I guess when you take pancake mix, add water and eggs you didn't make pancakes. Reality doesn't agree with you.

Nonsense. Nothing new is created when making pancakes, either. Answer my question. What begins to exist that didn't already exist?

LOL

Laughter is not a rebuttal.

It is not a human.

That's not what you said.

It is a human cell, like blood, or skin. The only one being dishonest is you and your grasping at straws.

...says the one lying about his earlier claims.

Did a zygote exist before the sperm and the egg came together?

A zygote is a rearrangement of things which already exist. This is a fact you cannot refute.

No it didn't, you are a complete failure at biology 101. this is seriously like 4th grade stuff.

Yes, and yet you cannot seem to make a single true statement.

So? The whole point is that they don't become a fetus on their own, so your whole notion that it already existed is false.

Zygotes and embryos do not become fetuses on their own, either.

You've refuted nothing, and only keep saying you have as if it is magically makes it true.

Everything you've claimed I have refuted. You're simply too stupid and dishonest to see it.

No, it won't, because a baby the day before it's born is the same thing the day after.

No, it isn't. A day before it's born, a fetus does not metabolize independently nor respirate atmospheric oxygen.

Liar. Here, let me do something you haven't been able to do and quote you ...

That does not substantiate your claim. The fact is that "human being" and "person" are interchangeable in legal language. If you do not know this, then you are simply ignorant.

A plane has wings and flies
A duck has wings and flies
A plane is a duck

Stupid asshole. Learn how to follow an argument.

If an organism lives in a host organism and obtains its nourishment from the host, it is a parasite.
A fetus lives in a host organism and obtains its nourishment from the host.
A fetus is a parasite.

QE fucking D, moron.

That's your sad logic. So much fail so little time. You really shouldn't have dropped out of school before the fourth grade, the whole cycle of life thing was pretty interesting.

You're fucking pathetic.

Answer these questions:

Which individuals enjoy the right to occupy the body of another person ? Which individuals enjoy the right to feed and respiration directly from another person's bloodstream without consent? Which individuals enjoy the right to inject another person with hormones without consent ? Which individuals enjoy the right to inject another person with bodily waste without consent?

Since when are any of the above rights enjoyed by anyone? Why then would you insist that fetuses should enjoy them? Do you know the meaning of Constitutional equal protection?

 

[Cogman]

Stupid asshole. Learn how to follow an argument.

If an organism lives in a host organism and obtains its nourishment from the host, it is a parasite.
A fetus lives in a host organism and obtains its nourishment from the host.
A fetus is a parasite.

QE fucking D, moron.

You're fucking pathetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism

Pretty much every definition of Parasitism includes or implies this

a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species

It could further be argued that a child is simply an extension of the mother as it came from the cells of the mother.

You wouldn't call the buds of a sponge parasitic, nor would you call bird eggs parasitic. Reproduction costs ALL life something, it isn't free. And thus trying to classify all reproduction as parasitism is pretty retarded.

And what do you gain by this classification? Even if I were to grant your non-standard definition of parasitism as being true, you've essentially won the battle of demeaning what parasitism actually means, not change the morality of an abortion.

 

[xj0hnx]

Oh that's clever, you lying sack of shit.

Nonsense. Nothing new is created when making pancakes, either. Answer my question. What begins to exist that didn't already exist?

A pancake silly. If I open a box of pancake mix I can't simply start eating it, you have to make the pancakes by adding ingredients together to make something that didn't exist before. It's truly amazing you can operate a keyboard, but can't comprehend this simple first grade concept that a young child can follow.

That's not what you said.

Yes, it is.

Zygotes and embryos do not become fetuses on their own, either.

Thanks for helping to make my point.

Everything you've claimed I have refuted. You're simply too stupid and dishonest to see it.

Nope, you haven't at all.

No, it isn't. A day before it's born, a fetus does not metabolize independently nor respirate atmospheric oxygen.

It can. It is the same organism the day before birth as it is the day after birth.

Stupid asshole. Learn how to follow an argument.

ysomad?

If an organism lives in a host organism and obtains its nourishment from the host, it is a parasite.
A fetus lives in a host organism and obtains its nourishment from the host.
A fetus is a parasite.

QE fucking D, moron.

Haha, thanks for demonstrating, once again, how remedial your theory is.

You're fucking pathetic.

Answer these questions:

you lying sack of shit.
You're simply too stupid
Stupid asshole.
fucking D, moron

Answer your question? How about go fuck yourself?

 

[xj0hnx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism

Pretty much every definition of Parasitism includes or implies this

a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species

It could further be argued that a child is simply an extension of the mother as it came from the cells of the mother.

You wouldn't call the buds of a sponge parasitic, nor would you call bird eggs parasitic. Reproduction costs ALL life something, it isn't free. And thus trying to classify all reproduction as parasitism is pretty retarded.

And what do you gain by this classification? Even if I were to grant your non-standard definition of parasitism as being true, you've essentially won the battle of demeaning what parasitism actually means, not change the morality of an abortion.

Don't confuse him with facts, if you do he will mentally explode and start calling you names.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism

Pretty much every definition of Parasitism includes or implies this

I've already addressed this. A parasite is as a parasite does. If you are trying to distinguish it simply on the basis of its incidental species, then you've tacitly admitted that the definition fits, and are basically just attempting to exempt it on a technicality.

It could further be argued that a child is simply an extension of the mother as it came from the cells of the mother.

Part of it did, but not all of it.

You wouldn't call the buds of a sponge parasitic

If they lived in or on a host organism and nourished directly from its body, yes I would.

...nor would you call bird eggs parasitic.

Birds eggs do not live in or on a host organism nor do they derive their nourishment directly from that organism's body.

Reproduction costs ALL life something, it isn't free. And thus trying to classify all reproduction as parasitism is pretty retarded.

I didn't "classify all reproduction as parasitism." I described the behavior of a fetus as parasitic, which it is, making the fetus a parasite.

And what do you gain by this classification?

Accuracy and honesty, something apparently extraordinarily deficient in my most recent debate opponent.

Even if I were to grant your non-standard definition of parasitism as being true

I reject your claim that the element of species distinction is "standard" in the definition of a parasite. For example, I can go here and find 2 definitions that do not make a distinction of species, and only 1 that does.

...you've essentially won the battle of demeaning what parasitism actually means

In what way, pray tell? Keep in mind that you have not and cannot differentiate a fetus from a parasite on the basis of its actual behavior. What does it say about the pro-life position if they cannot be honest about what pregnancy entails?

...not change the morality of an abortion.

I have not purported to affect the morality of abortion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Don't confuse him with facts, if you do he will mentally explode and start calling you names.

I am well aware of all the relevant facts, and nothing have said is unfactual, in distinct contrast to your claims.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

A pancake silly. If I open a box of pancake mix I can't simply start eating it, you have to make the pancakes by adding ingredients together to make something that didn't exist before.

Simply false. You have merely rearranged constituent parts. If I take a box of legos and build a house, I have only rearranged the legos in the form of a house. I have built a house. I haven't "created" a house.

It is clear that you are basing the totality of your position on your desire to equivocate the meanings of "create," "make," "exist," et cetera. This is precisely what I noted was the core dishonesty about pro-life arguments on the very first page of this thread, and precisely why rigorous language is critical.

Naturally, since rigorous language makes it easy to see the factual errors of your position, you do not want to use it, but that simply makes you dishonest, which is something we knew about you already.

It's truly amazing you can operate a keyboard, but can't comprehend this simple first grade concept that a young child can follow.

Maybe you should start thinking like a grown-up instead of getting all your answers from grade-schoolers.

Yes, it is.

That is a flat-out lie, and I have quoted you saying "Alive yes, human no."

Thanks for helping to make my point.

You obviously don't grasp the point. Your basis for distinguishing gametes from zygotes and embryos was given as "that they don't become a fetus on their own." Since this is true also of zygotes and embryos, this cannot be a basis for distinction. Please, try to focus so I don't have to keep explaining your own arguments to you.

Nope, you haven't at all.

More lies from the pathological liar.

It can.

But it doesn't.

It is the same organism the day before birth as it is the day after birth.

Irrelevant. Before birth it is a fetus, and after birth it is a person. These are well-established medical and legal facts.

ysomad?

ysuchadumbfuck?

Haha, thanks for demonstrating, once again, how remedial your theory is.

Please explain how a valid and sound logical syllogism demonstrates that. You obviously cannot refute it, else you would have. So go on and show me where the fault exists.

Answer your question? How about go fuck yourself?

They are legitimate questions that you have never addressed, and clearly illuminate the core problem with your position. As such, I will continue to post them until they receive direct and honest answers from you.

Which individuals enjoy the right to occupy the body of another person ? Which individuals enjoy the right to feed and respiration directly from another person's bloodstream without consent? Which individuals enjoy the right to inject another person with hormones without consent ? Which individuals enjoy the right to inject another person with bodily waste without consent?

Since when are any of the above rights enjoyed by anyone? Why then would you insist that fetuses should enjoy them? Do you know the meaning of Constitutional equal protection?