NationStates Jolt Archive

That was a low blow... I'd managed to refrain from commenting on your 'sylables'...

I would have typed it more accurately, but I had a three-month-old baby on my left arm.

I have to get one of those, because that is still a great excuse. Is your wife busy? ;)

abortion is murder. How can you take away the life of a human just because it will not fit the mother's socialite life?

By definition, murder is illegal. Abortion is not illegal. Ergo, abortion is not murder. How many times do I have to tell you this, Blu-tac? I've done it in almost every single abortion thread you've participated in. Is this concept really so difficult to understand?

I have to get one of those, because that is still a great excuse. Is your wife busy? ;-)

Oh - she's got him now... which is (obviously) why my spelling improved. :)

(Three months old, just over two feet long already, and almost 16 lbs... daddy's little boy isn't so little any more. And it's not helping my typing.)

:)

Oh - she's got him now... which is (obviously) why my spelling improved. :)

(Three months old, just over two feet long already, and almost 16 lbs... daddy's little boy isn't so little any more. And it's not helping my typing.)

:)

Ha. That's not what I meant. I was saying I wanted one... nevermind, that's one of those jokes that should have stayed in my head.

Ha. That's not what I meant. I was saying I wanted one... nevermind, that's one of those jokes that should have stayed in my head.

Actually... I read that last comment to her, and she 'got it'.... It was just me that was being dense. :)

Nah, she's available... she wants to know what you are doing a week from now....

Actually... I read that last comment to her, and she 'got it'.... It was just me that was being dense. :)

Nah, she's available... she wants to know what you are doing a week from now....

LOL You'd think she'd want more rest than that between kids. And, my goodness, I just realized this is a public thread about abortion, so let's bring it back on point. *ahem* You see, kiddies, the trick to reducing abortions is to increase the number of wanted pregnancies. GnI and I were just demonstrating that with a little play for your amusement. We'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

So, when they make a dozen or so fertilized eggs for invitro and they only produce two children, is it murder to throw away the extras?

Good points, all... and a couple of good posts, well made, my friend.

Add to your arguments, the fact that the OP clearly referenced Roe v's Wade, which means we are ONLY talking about 'legal' meanings... and those specifically of the US since that case... and the DubyaGoat prevarication becomes obvious as nothing more than obfuscation.

Interesting that you should decide to dictate the permissible usage of words. It is understandable that you might object to the usage of the word in this context, but the word itself is properly applied in the sentence where it appears. Your earlier admission of ‘why’ was sufficient and I dropped my objection with you. But now with an ally you’ve decided to reiterate your claim that the word cannot be used in a manner that it clearly can be used and it meets all of the language requirements for meeting the authors purpose, whether you approve of his verbs or not.

Careful, if they're struggling with two sylable common words like murder, then prevarication and obfuscation are really gonna make some waves.

Your attempt to convey insult instead of furthering the discussion is duly noted. I shall endeavor to dismiss future discourse with you until you can control yourself enough to cease such demeaning banter.

To you both, Feel free to commence with your spamming of this thread, I shall find another.

Intelligent life ie they think and act by themselves

1) "Intelligence" is a subjective standard. (There are some people who are much older than fetuses that I would not classify as "intelligent".)

2) If you you set the bar at "thinking and acting" by themselves, then that means that, de facto, anyone who is put into a coma, or even those fully conscious but not able to communicate (i.e., afflicted with cerebral palsy) suddenly lose the right to have their lives protected.

Okay, so Margaret Sanger was an ass. What does that have to do with Planned Parenthood now?
Answer: Nothing. Sanger is dead. Organizations change over time, and Planned Parenthood is no exception.

I don't care how many lawyers agree with a statement, I care about actual evidence.
According to your logic we should give the young skinheads a fair shake. I mean just cause they are self described Nazis does not mean they are like Hitler. What does one have to do with another *tongue deep in cheek*

You sure about that? Can you explain how it meets the biological definition of life since "it's clearly human life"? Unless you're arguing that simply because there are living cells and thos cells are human it makes it human life, in which case we're going to have a problem with tonselectomies.

An embryo is not an organ, as tonsils would be considered. An embryo has DNA distinct from the mother (meaning it can't be considered an organ). It's also not just a collection of cells because by the time it's detectable, it's already an organism, with cells differentiating. It takes in nutrients, it responds to chemical stimuli, it expels its waste.

Now, at this stage it's obviously not going to be cute in baby pictures, but it's both human and alive.

LOL You'd think she'd want more rest than that between kids. And, my goodness, I just realized this is a public thread about abortion, so let's bring it back on point. *ahem* You see, kiddies, the trick to reducing abortions is to increase the number of wanted pregnancies. GnI and I were just demonstrating that with a little play for your amusement. We'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

Okay... I tipped my waitress... where was I supposed to tip her?

Interesting that you should decide to dictate the permissible usage of words. It is understandable that you might object to the usage of the word in this context, but the word itself is properly applied in the sentence where it appears. Your earlier admission of ‘why’ was sufficient and I dropped my objection with you. But now with an ally you’ve decided to reiterate your claim that the word cannot be used in a manner that it clearly can be used and it meets all of the language requirements for meeting the authors purpose, whether you approve of his verbs or not.


I did not dictate "permissible usage of words". All I did was show why the original poster was definitely NOT using any of the alternate definitions you attempted to cloud the waters with.

It has nothing to do with having an ally. If anyone (ally or enemy) had discussed the use of 'murder' in the original post, and had mentioned your various interpretations offered... I would have offered the same explanation.

The original poster set the framework. Clearly delineating legality... clearly delineating post Roe v's Wade... thus, clearly delineating US policy.

To attempt to convince other posters that the original poster was using the word "murder" in any other fashion, my friend... is thus either dishonest, or obfuscation.


To you both, Feel free to commence with your spamming of this thread, I shall find another.

I shall accept your less-than-gracious admission that you were wrong. (At least, that is what this looks like).

eh it's 40 million less mouths to feed LOL

An embryo is not an organ, as tonsils would be considered. An embryo has DNA distinct from the mother (meaning it can't be considered an organ).


First - so, a transplanted heart is no longer an organ?

Second - you might want to look up the term 'chimera'.

Third - Every human body contains at least two distinct DNA arrangements.


It's also not just a collection of cells because by the time it's detectable, it's already an organism, with cells differentiating. It takes in nutrients, it responds to chemical stimuli, it expels its waste.


First - it is arguable that, until the conceptus is far enough to have brain activity, it really IS just a collection of cells - differentiated or no.

Second - The actual jobs of taking in and removing waste are largely carried out by the placenta. By your logic, this makes the placenta MORE of an 'organism' than the foetus.


Now, at this stage it's obviously not going to be cute in baby pictures, but it's both human and alive.

Cancers are human cells, and they are live cells.

It takes more than being composed of living, 'human' cells, to make something a 'human life'.

To attempt to convince other posters that the original poster was using the word "murder" in any other fashion, my friend... is thus either dishonest, or obfuscation.

Let’s re-examine the case:

Even though the word murder is often used as a noun, it can also be a verb.

Let’s look at an example:
The curious toddler popped a grasshopper into her mouth.

Now with this sentence we could argue, as you do about the word murder in the other sentence, that a grasshopper cannot be ‘popped’ unless it is baked and it is exploded like a kernel of corn. But if we thought such, we would misunderstand the sentence as it is merely describing the action that takes place, not the condition of the grasshopper.

Let’s now yet again we can look at the quote in question:
more than 40 million babies have been murdered since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)

We can see that the word in question here is also a verb, it describes the action of what occurs to the babies in the sentence. It is clearly describing the action that takes place and is not attempting to be the legal noun, the name a homicide.

I shall accept your less-than-gracious admission that you were wrong. (At least, that is what this looks like).

It did not look like that and you know it. However, it is possible that in the same fashion as you misconstrued the verb “murder” with the noun “murder” above, you’ve somehow managed to convince yourself here that what I wrote previous to this post could in some way be misconstrued to be read in such a fashion as that, but I sincerely doubt it. I hope it would not be so but can now see that you too would rather (along with your friend) resort to underhanded and thinly veiled insults instead of recognizing that your position is weak and instead of attempting to rescue your argument, perhaps because you recognize that it has already failed, you would rather now just post nonsensical, demeaning innuendo directed at me. That’s too bad.

First - so, a transplanted heart is no longer an organ?

Of course it is. A heart is always a part of the body that it inhabits. It does not, and cannot have any indepedent existence, at any stage of its development.




Second - you might want to look up the term 'chimera'.

If you're going to call an embryo or fetus a chimera, then an adult human is a chimera in the exact same way. There's no difference, in that respect. They're both "an individual, organ, or part consisting of tissues of diverse genetic constitution", as Webster's puts it:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/chimera

In fact, though, neither of these is a chimera, because the tissues aren't from diverse sources (as would be the case for, say, a golem).


Third - Every human body contains at least two distinct DNA arrangements.

There are distinct DNA arrangements within the cells (because half the chromosomes have the mother's DNA, and half the father's), but the DNA combination is unique (assuming we're not talking about twins). In other words, the DNA in the cells is distinct from the mother's DNA and the father's DNA, because it's a combination. Cells having different DNA is very different from chromosomes within a cell having different DNA.



First - it is arguable that, until the conceptus is far enough to have brain activity, it really IS just a collection of cells - differentiated or no.

If the cells are differentiated, I would think that this would mean it is an organism (with the different cells performing different functions). Brain activity is a matter of consciousness, not life. Insects don't even have brains, as such, and yet they are still alive. The same is also true for plants.

Second - The actual jobs of taking in and removing waste are largely carried out by the placenta. By your logic, this makes the placenta MORE of an 'organism' than the foetus.

The placenta forms from the embryo during its development. They're not really distinct in that fashion. The embryo utilizes the placenta, like we utilize lungs for breathing.

Cancers are human cells, and they are live cells.

It takes more than being composed of living, 'human' cells, to make something a 'human life'.

Cancer cells are mutated, damaged human cells which are part of an unfortunate human. On the other hand, the embryo is the human, at a very early stage of development.

If we were talking about an earlier stage of development (say, when the fertilized egg really was just a collection of a few cells, and hadn't formed into a cohesive unit yet, it would be a very different argument, because at that point, you're obviously not talking about an organism. Maybe someday medical science will get us there, and it won't be so much an issue.

Let’s re-examine the case:

Even though the word murder is often used as a noun, it can also be a verb.

Let’s look at an example:
The curious toddler popped a grasshopper into her mouth.

Now with this sentence we could argue, as you do about the word murder in the other sentence, that a grasshopper cannot be ‘popped’ unless it is baked and it is exploded like a kernel of corn. But if we thought such, we would misunderstand the sentence as it is merely describing the action that takes place, not the condition of the grasshopper.

Let’s now yet again we can look at the quote in question:
more than 40 million babies have been murdered since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)

We can see that the word in question here is also a verb, it describes the action of what occurs to the babies in the sentence. It is clearly describing the action that takes place and is not attempting to be the legal noun, the name a homicide.


The legal noun a 'murder', is the same phrase used to represent the verb, also.

Scott Peterson was found guilty of the 'murder' of Lacy Peterson.... he 'murdered' her. (Allegedly).

The same action is being stated in each case.

You are just trying to finagle a meaning you know damn-well wasn't present in the original passage.

The original poster used the term for it's emotional impact, because of it's legal meaning. I don't believe for a second, that you honestly doubt that.

Which makes your prevarication dishonest, or a dissembly.


It did not look like that and you know it. However, it is possible that in the same fashion as you misconstrued the verb “murder” with the noun “murder” above, you’ve somehow managed to convince yourself here that what I wrote previous to this post could in some way be misconstrued to be read in such a fashion as that, but I sincerely doubt it. I hope it would not be so but can now see that you too would rather (along with your friend) resort to underhanded and thinly veiled insults instead of recognizing that your position is weak and instead of attempting to rescue your argument, perhaps because you recognize that it has already failed, you would rather now just post nonsensical, demeaning innuendo directed at me. That’s too bad.

More sniping, my friend? Your posts seem to be increasingly about how there is some conspiracy out to get you....

I honestly figured your last comment was the announcement of your retirement from the thread. Since your argument with me has clearly been shown to be something of a fallacy... I figured you were grabbing your ball and going home, because you had been shown to be erroneous.

I guess not. Instead, you remain to attempt to muddy the waters further, with increaingly desperate attempts to finesse the original poster's words to mean something they obviously did not mean.

I admire your tenacity, if nothing else.

"300 Dollars thats the price of living what?"
-nick cannon

more than 40 million babies have been murdered since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)



http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/business.shtml (http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/business.shtml)

^check out this site, it also has other intersting statistics

Tell me sir/mam, do you liek freedom? Or are you a communist? Cause even the socialist parties of the democratic world belive in a womens right to choose.

I am a proud Conservative, But I believe in this right.

Don't take this as an insult... but I'm having to assume your experience is more as 'a concerned layperson', than as someone with an active background in biology...

Of course it is. A heart is always a part of the body that it inhabits. It does not, and cannot have any indepedent existence, at any stage of its development.


Your exact words were " An embryo has DNA distinct from the mother (meaning it can't be considered an organ)".

Your initial statement (which you seem to now be trying to recant) would clearly mean that a transplanted heart ceases to be an organ.

Also - with your current attempt to 'finesse' the statement, you claim that "A heart is always a part of the body that it inhabits"... which makes me wonder how you explain 'rejection'?



If you're going to call an embryo or fetus a chimera, then an adult human is a chimera in the exact same way. There's no difference, in that respect. They're both "an individual, organ, or part consisting of tissues of diverse genetic constitution", as Webster's puts it:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/chimera

In fact, though, neither of these is a chimera, because the tissues aren't from diverse sources (as would be the case for, say, a golem).


Missing the point. This is why I doubt you biological credentials, I am afraid. An adult human body CAN contain disparate genetic formulae. Thus - the assertion that a foetus is a human life, BECAUSE it has 'human' DNA, is living tissue, and has a different genetic formula to 'the host'... is obviously fallacious... because the same is true of tissue that is 'part of' a chimera.


There are distinct DNA arrangements within the cells (because half the chromosomes have the mother's DNA, and half the father's), but the DNA combination is unique (assuming we're not talking about twins). In other words, the DNA in the cells is distinct from the mother's DNA and the father's DNA, because it's a combination. Cells having different DNA is very different from chromosomes within a cell having different DNA.


I was thinking rather more along the lines of mitochondrial DNA, which are NOT distinct from the mother's mitochondrial DNA, at all.


If the cells are differentiated, I would think that this would mean it is an organism (with the different cells performing different functions). Brain activity is a matter of consciousness, not life. Insects don't even have brains, as such, and yet they are still alive. The same is also true for plants.


The placenta has differentiated cells. Is it an organism?

There is a difference between 'life'... and a life.

Again, looking at your exact words: "It's also not just a collection of cells because by the time it's detectable, it's already an organism, with cells differentiating. It takes in nutrients, it responds to chemical stimuli, it expels its waste".

You seem to be claiming that differentiation is one of (four here) a number of 'attributes' that define an organism. Of your attributes, however, two are actually performed by the placenta, one is performed by both, and one is largely performed by the foetus... but ONLY after a certain point is reached.



The placenta forms from the embryo during its development. They're not really distinct in that fashion. The embryo utilizes the placenta, like we utilize lungs for breathing.


The placenta originates in the same group of cells, perhaps. After that, it really IS distinct. The relationship is ONLY "like we utilize lungs for breathing"... if our lungs are remotely connected, and are discarded completely at some point.


Cancer cells are mutated, damaged human cells which are part of an unfortunate human. On the other hand, the embryo is the human, at a very early stage of development.


No - the embryo has the POTENTIAL to 'be the human'. Not the same thing, at all.


If we were talking about an earlier stage of development (say, when the fertilized egg really was just a collection of a few cells, and hadn't formed into a cohesive unit yet, it would be a very different argument, because at that point, you're obviously not talking about an organism. Maybe someday medical science will get us there, and it won't be so much an issue.

Your line-in-the-sand is no less abitrary than mine. You argue it to be 'an organism' once it reaches a certain level of complexity, and so do I... you are just happy to set that marker at a cell-complexity level, while I opt for something more reflective of what we consider human 'life'... i.e. an ability to sense and react... sometime after the 20th week.

Let’s now yet again we can look at the quote in question:
more than 40 million babies have been murdered since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)

Now that there is a bald-faced lie. No babies have been murdered as a result of Roe v. Wade. 40 million feti were destroyed. But no babies. Comprende?

Now that there is a bald-faced lie. No babies have been murdered as a result of Roe v. Wade. 40 million feti were destroyed. But no babies. Comprende?

Oh for goodness sake. Perhaps you've been talking to some of the others around here, but as 'funny' or cute or as 'delightful' an insight as you may think you've discovered here, I fear only the adamantly one-sided argument could really agree with you.

ba·by [ báybee ]
noun (plural ba·bies)

Definitions:
1. very young child: a very young child who is not yet able to walk or talk

2. unborn child: a child who is still in the womb

3. childish person: somebody regarded as childish or overly dependent
told him not to be such a baby

4. youngest member: the youngest member of a family or group
the baby of the team

5. immature animal: a very young animal

6. term of endearment: an affectionate term of endearment, especially for a woman ( slang ) ( sometimes considered offensive )

7. object of affection or pride: the object of somebody's affection, pride, or admiration ( slang ) That baby is ten years old and still like new.

If nothing else, version 2: above meets the credentials here.

Oh for goodness sake. Perhaps you've been talking to some of the others around here, but as 'funny' or cute or as 'delightful' an insight as you may think you've discovered here, I fear only the adamantly one-sided argument could really agree with you.

ba·by [ báybee ]
noun (plural ba·bies)

Definitions:
1. very young child: a very young child who is not yet able to walk or talk

2. unborn child: a child who is still in the womb

3. childish person: somebody regarded as childish or overly dependent
told him not to be such a baby

4. youngest member: the youngest member of a family or group
the baby of the team

5. immature animal: a very young animal

6. term of endearment: an affectionate term of endearment, especially for a woman ( slang ) ( sometimes considered offensive )

7. object of affection or pride: the object of somebody's affection, pride, or admiration ( slang ) That baby is ten years old and still like new.

If nothing else, version 2: above meets the credentials here.

Care to tell me which dictionary you're using and why you feel that this dictionary is uniquely suited to the definition over another dictionary? Other than because it serves your purposes, of course.

Care to tell me which dictionary you're using and why you feel that this dictionary is uniquely suited to the definition over another dictionary? Other than because it serves your purposes, of course.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861695283

Oh for goodness sake. Perhaps you've been talking to some of the others around here, but as 'funny' or cute or as 'delightful' an insight as you may think you've discovered here, I fear only the adamantly one-sided argument could really agree with you.

ba·by [ báybee ]
noun (plural ba·bies)

Definitions:
1. very young child: a very young child who is not yet able to walk or talk

2. unborn child: a child who is still in the womb

3. childish person: somebody regarded as childish or overly dependent
told him not to be such a baby

4. youngest member: the youngest member of a family or group
the baby of the team

5. immature animal: a very young animal

6. term of endearment: an affectionate term of endearment, especially for a woman ( slang ) ( sometimes considered offensive )

7. object of affection or pride: the object of somebody's affection, pride, or admiration ( slang ) That baby is ten years old and still like new.

If nothing else, version 2: above meets the credentials here.

Again... more obfuscation... and still wrong, I'm afraid.

The word 'child' (in your definition) is still open to being quibbled. For most, a 'child' is something more than 'infant' but less than 'adult'.

Quibbling dictionary definitions makes it look like you know how to copy-and-paste... it really isn't adding anything meaningful, my friend.

Again... more obfuscation... and still wrong, I'm afraid.

The word 'child' (in your definition) is still open to being quibbled. For most, a 'child' is something more than 'infant' but less than 'adult'.

Quibbling dictionary definitions makes it look like you know how to copy-and-paste... it really isn't adding anything meaningful, my friend.

Now THAT's funny. Should we quote your first post? Your original post here was nothing but a quibble in favor of a very strict and limited definition of the word murder, and you advocated no other use of it in this context? Perhaps you should readdress your complaint about adding anything meaningful.

As to copy and paste… please. The quote was indented, and it shows that I’m not ‘making it up’ to suit my purposes.

Now THAT's funny. Should we quote your first post? Your original post here was nothing but a quibble in favor of a very strict and limited definition of the word murder, and you advocated no other use of it in this context? Perhaps you should readdress your complaint about adding anything meaningful.

As to copy and paste… please. The quote was indented, and it shows that I’m not ‘making it up’ to suit my purposes.

The post I started with was "a quibble in favor of a very strict and limited definition of the word murder", because the Original Poster used the term in a context that implied 'very strict and limited definition'... and used it incorrectly.... purely for the 'emotion' of the word.

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy, so I called it when I saw it. And, in this case, it was compounded by being ALSO technically inaccurate, so I called that, too.

Interesting that you should decide to dictate the permissible usage of words. It is understandable that you might object to the usage of the word in this context, but the word itself is properly applied in the sentence where it appears. Your earlier admission of ‘why’ was sufficient and I dropped my objection with you. But now with an ally you’ve decided to reiterate your claim that the word cannot be used in a manner that it clearly can be used and it meets all of the language requirements for meeting the authors purpose, whether you approve of his verbs or not.

It is only properly applied if you are using the first definition. Because you don't know how to use a dictionary doesn't mean we don't. When a word is used it doesn't have every seperate defintion, it has one and in this case only one fits unless the intent was to compare abortion to harvesting crops. Apparently, you wish for people to think that the OP was intending to use a word in a way that could just as easily be applied to weeds. Somehow that just doesn't convey the feeling the OP seemed to be going for. Reading comprehension is a life skill. It requires one to use context when deciding the meaning of words, not just using whatever fits the argument.

Your attempt to convey insult instead of furthering the discussion is duly noted. I shall endeavor to dismiss future discourse with you until you can control yourself enough to cease such demeaning banter.

To you both, Feel free to commence with your spamming of this thread, I shall find another.

Amusing. I'll take that as an admission that you couldn't address the actual points and you're upset that you tried to pretend a single use of a word not only can but must convey every possible definition. When you learn to use a dictionary properly, we'll stop insinuating that you do not know how to use one.

Oh for goodness sake. Perhaps you've been talking to some of the others around here, but as 'funny' or cute or as 'delightful' an insight as you may think you've discovered here, I fear only the adamantly one-sided argument could really agree with you.

ba·by [ báybee ]
noun (plural ba·bies)

Definitions:
1. very young child: a very young child who is not yet able to walk or talk

2. unborn child: a child who is still in the womb

3. childish person: somebody regarded as childish or overly dependent
told him not to be such a baby

4. youngest member: the youngest member of a family or group
the baby of the team

5. immature animal: a very young animal

6. term of endearment: an affectionate term of endearment, especially for a woman ( slang ) ( sometimes considered offensive )

7. object of affection or pride: the object of somebody's affection, pride, or admiration ( slang ) That baby is ten years old and still like new.

If nothing else, version 2: above meets the credentials here.

So when does it become a baby according to these very, very loose definitions? ANd how about a source?

So when does it become a baby according to these very, very loose definitions? ANd how about a source?

While it's a small, young child, barely able to walk in the womb, but only after it's become an immature female Jaguar (pun intended, harhar).

...

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy, so I called it when I saw it. And, in this case, it was compounded by being ALSO technically inaccurate, so I called that, too.

You called that, only. You said nothing about appeal to emotion in your first post, but when you admitted it later, I dropped it. I agree with the later, not the prior. It is entirely true that the word is used for impact purposes on his regard, but the sentence did not imply a legal crime was committed, as it states in the self same sentence the legality of the abortions. Thus, verb was proven.

An embryo is not an organ, as tonsils would be considered. An embryo has DNA distinct from the mother (meaning it can't be considered an organ). It's also not just a collection of cells because by the time it's detectable, it's already an organism, with cells differentiating. It takes in nutrients, it responds to chemical stimuli, it expels its waste.

Now, at this stage it's obviously not going to be cute in baby pictures, but it's both human and alive.

It does not respond to chemical stimuli at the time of most abortions, with the exception of the individual cells dying. See it has to respond as an organism, not as a single cell. And it doesn't, other than being able to die. It does not meet the biological definitions of life any better than cancer does. You keep try to change the terms by suggest purpose has to do with the definition. It doesn't. You have yet to present a definition for life that an embryo meets that doesn't also make other parts of the body a life as well. Even the waste part requires things that don't exist at the time of most abortions.

You called that, only. You said nothing about appeal to emotion in your first post, but when you admitted it later, I dropped it. I agree with the later, not the prior. It is entirely true that the word is used for impact purposes on his regard, but the sentence did not imply a legal crime was committed, as it states in the self same sentence the legality of the abortions. Thus, verb was proven.

Perhaps because it comes up in multiple threads and we have a tendency to assume that people recognize an appeal to emotion and why we were trying to show the appeal doesn't actually work even if one were to accept such a thing, unless of course, one ignores context and the proper use of the word, as some in this thread seem wont to do.

Perhaps because it comes up in multiple threads and we have a tendency to assume that people recognize an appeal to emotion and why we were trying to show the appeal doesn't actually work even if one were to accept such a thing, unless of course, one ignores context and the proper use of the word, as some in this thread seem wont to do.

Indeed. I might not even have bothered identifying the 'error' if it hadn't been such a BLATANT appeal to emotion. Perhaps I overestimated other posters spotting the motivation...

last several posts

Amusing. After a quick reading of your multiple posts in this thread I'll have to take it myself as an admission that you are entirely incapable of actually posting points that don’t involve insults either directly or through innuendo. Happily enough, I haven’t seen that around this forum too much yet, but you manage to pull it off with nearly every post…

I’m afraid I might have to put you on ignore. I continue to see no point in responding to such displaced and unwarranted impertinence.

Indeed. I might not even have bothered identifying the 'error' if it hadn't been such a BLATANT appeal to emotion. Perhaps I overestimated other posters spotting the motivation...

That's amusing too, since I suggested to you, just before you admitted it was true, that the real cause of your post might in fact might have been such a thing.

Amusing. After a quick reading of your multiple posts in this thread I'll have to take it myself as an admission that you are entirely incapable of actually posting points that don’t involve insults either directly or through innuendo. Happily enough, I haven’t seen that around this forum too much yet, but you manage to pull it off with nearly every post…

I’m afraid I might have to put you on ignore. I continue to see no point in responding to such displaced and unwarranted impertinence.

I see, you don't want to address my posts. I'll take that as an admission that you cannot. Oh, wait, such a thing would be an insult. But.... but... you said it too. Impossible. You would never be sarcastic or insulting. That would never happen. My world is imploding.

Can't stand the heat? You misused a dictionary. You got called on it. Yes, if I had the same problem, I'd expect to feel insulted when someone caught me. You don't want to be called on misusing a dictionary. Please, learn to use one correctly. And I do mean please.

You keep promising to put me on ignore, but I'm still waiting for you to do me that favor. Meanwhile, I'll still be in the thread pointing out that you are misusing the dictionary and poking holes in your weak arguments.

So when does it become a baby according to these very, very loose definitions? ANd how about a source?

I missed the insult here. Care to pont it out? I mean, every post is insulting yes? Or is it insulting simply to question someone's argument?

It does not respond to chemical stimuli at the time of most abortions, with the exception of the individual cells dying. See it has to respond as an organism, not as a single cell. And it doesn't, other than being able to die. It does not meet the biological definitions of life any better than cancer does. You keep try to change the terms by suggest purpose has to do with the definition. It doesn't. You have yet to present a definition for life that an embryo meets that doesn't also make other parts of the body a life as well. Even the waste part requires things that don't exist at the time of most abortions.

Where's the insult in this one? Again, is it an insult to point out that a person is not making their argument well? And here I thought we were debating.

Now THAT's funny. Should we quote your first post? Your original post here was nothing but a quibble in favor of a very strict and limited definition of the word murder, and you advocated no other use of it in this context? Perhaps you should readdress your complaint about adding anything meaningful.

As to copy and paste… please. The quote was indented, and it shows that I’m not ‘making it up’ to suit my purposes.

Now, it seems this post is more snarky than the above two posts. I'm sorry I was so rude. Oh, wait, I didn't write it. You did. Isn't suggesting a poster hasn't added anything meaningful to the thread a bit insulting? I mean, being a little snarky simply cannot be accepted.

Oh for goodness sake. Perhaps you've been talking to some of the others around here, but as 'funny' or cute or as 'delightful' an insight as you may think you've discovered here, I fear only the adamantly one-sided argument could really agree with you.

ba·by [ báybee ]
noun (plural ba·bies)

Definitions:
1. very young child: a very young child who is not yet able to walk or talk

2. unborn child: a child who is still in the womb

3. childish person: somebody regarded as childish or overly dependent
told him not to be such a baby

4. youngest member: the youngest member of a family or group
the baby of the team

5. immature animal: a very young animal

6. term of endearment: an affectionate term of endearment, especially for a woman ( slang ) ( sometimes considered offensive )

7. object of affection or pride: the object of somebody's affection, pride, or admiration ( slang ) That baby is ten years old and still like new.

If nothing else, version 2: above meets the credentials here.

Here. Let me help you out.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/baby

1 a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group
2 a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest
3 slang a : GIRL, WOMAN -- often used in address b : BOY, MAN -- often used in address
4 : PERSON, THING <is one tough baby>

See how those definitions are a bit more specific and, thus, more useful. Mirriam-Webster tends to be a bit more respected as a dictionary than MSN.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/103-6685138-5677459?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-above%26dispatch%3Dsearch%26results-process%3Dbin&field-keywords=dictionary

Here's a search for dictionaries on Amazon. Encarta has been producing a dictionary for a very long time. Four years, that is. I'll forgive them the error of producing a shoddy definition, but they really should have done their homework better.

By the way, why did you switch dictionaries? You used the murder definition from one dictionary, but decided to seek out a new dictionary for your baby definition? Hmmmm... I wonder why? Perhaps because your first definition WAS from Mirriam-Webster and you didn't like the definition you found in there? Whoops, there I go, questioning your arguments. Such a grave insult question the arguments you presented can be.

It does not respond to chemical stimuli at the time of most abortions, with the exception of the individual cells dying. See it has to respond as an organism, not as a single cell. And it doesn't, other than being able to die.

Embryos most certainly do respond to chemical stimuli. Many birth defects (one of which is spina bifida, which I have) are the result of embryonic response either to the introduction of a chemical, or its lack. The choices aren't simply nothing or "being able to die". Chemical responses are far more nuanced than that. An embryo doesn't just sit there, inert and unresponsive to what goes on around it.

It does not meet the biological definitions of life any better than cancer does.

A cancer cell does not contain the ability to develop into a full-grown human being. It's not an early stage of a developing human.

You keep try to change the terms by suggest purpose has to do with the definition. It doesn't. You have yet to present a definition for life that an embryo meets that doesn't also make other parts of the body a life as well. Even the waste part requires things that don't exist at the time of most abortions.

See above. Other parts of the body are not capable of independent development or autonomy -- ever. Your leg, or skin cells, or cancer cells, are never going to develop to a point where they can live outside the body. An embryo will reach such a stage, assuming normal development. In other words, an embryo, unlike any part of the human body, develops into a full-grown human eventually. A cancer cell can only produce more cancer cells. A lung cell can only produce more lung cells, etc. An embryo is more than simply another part of the woman's body. It is another human in an early stage of development.

Scientifically, without any moral or political biases, life begins at conception. Comparing a fetus to a tumor doesn't make the comparison valid.

...
Now, it seems this post is more snarky than the above two posts. I'm sorry I was so rude. Oh, wait, I didn't write it. You did. Isn't suggesting a poster hasn't added anything meaningful to the thread a bit insulting? I mean, being a little snarky simply cannot be accepted.

You have no shame at all do you? You use two posts, one asking for a link already provided (but admittedly two posts below the one you quoted you perhaps hadn't seen it yet) and a post that was directed to someone else as proof that you don't write insults in every post you make? And then, to suggest that I do such things instead of you, you quote a post of mine directed at yet another third party who used the 'exact' same words and phrases I was responding to and I was reversing them backwards to show how they were in error. You use words entirely out of content for the sake of trying make a bad point and then you gloat and put on airs of arrogant superiority in the rest of your posts for little or no reason that I can garner.

I'm not here for a personal insult fest, but rather I am here for ideologue and academic debate. And with that in mind, I'm done with you, please do not respond to my posts further and I will not respond to yours either, fair is fair. If you should choose to start writing actual debate positions instead of trying to find clever ways of adding insult through innuendo, I may readdress the matter sometime in the future. Thanks for sharing.

You have no shame at all do you? You use two posts, one asking for a link already provided (but admittedly two posts below the one you quoted you perhaps hadn't seen it yet) and a post that was directed to someone else as proof that you don't write insults in every post you make? And then, to suggest that I do such things instead of you, you quote a post of mine directed at yet another third party who used the 'exact' same words and phrases I was responding to and I was reversing them backwards to show how they were in error. You use words entirely out of content for the sake of trying make a bad point and then you gloat and put on airs of arrogant superiority in the rest of your posts for little or no reason that I can garner.

I'm not here for a personal insult fest, but rather I am here for ideologue and academic debate. And with that in mind, I'm done with you, please do not respond to my posts further and I will not respond to yours either, fair is fair. If you should choose to start writing actual debate positions instead of trying to find clever ways of adding insult through innuendo, I may readdress the matter sometime in the future. Thanks for sharing.

Eesh, conceited much? That's "Holding or characterized by an unduly high opinion of oneself; vain."

Embryos most certainly do respond to chemical stimuli. Many birth defects (one of which is spina bifida, which I have) are the result of embryonic response either to the introduction of a chemical, or its lack. The choices aren't simply nothing or "being able to die". Chemical responses are far more nuanced than that. An embryo doesn't just sit there, inert and unresponsive to what goes on around it.

Actually, the response is damage to the growth. Again, retarded growth does not count as response in the definition of life or a heart could just as easily count.

A cancer cell does not contain the ability to develop into a full-grown human being. It's not an early stage of a developing human.

Argument from potential. Potetial to be != is. Otherwise, all children should be treated as adults. An egg is an early stage of a developing human. Stupid murderous periods. I knew there could not be that much blood without someone dying.

See above. Other parts of the body are not capable of independent development or autonomy -- ever. Your leg, or skin cells, or cancer cells, are never going to develop to a point where they can live outside the body. An embryo will reach such a stage, assuming normal development. In other words, an embryo, unlike any part of the human body, develops into a full-grown human eventually. A cancer cell can only produce more cancer cells. A lung cell can only produce more lung cells, etc. An embryo is more than simply another part of the woman's body. It is another human in an early stage of development.

Argument from potential again. Potential to become human does not make it human. All of your current arguments can be applied to the egg. I suppose women should start having monthly funerals. They have unique human DNA. They have the potential to become a human being. An egg is more than part of a woman's body. The growth of the egg can be retarded and that retardation can become a defect in the full-grown human, in the event it becomes one.

Arguments from potential are fallacious.

Scientifically, without any moral or political biases, life begins at conception. Comparing a fetus to a tumor doesn't make the comparison valid.

No, scientifically, it doesn't. According to the definition of life offered by science objectively and FOR ALL ORGANISMS, embryos do not meet the requirements. Now, you switched to using the term fetus which is obviously VERY different and a fetus at a point does meet the requirements for life, but that point is after the vast majority of abortions.

Comparing your argument to a scientific argument, doesn't make the comparison valid. Your argument is not scientific. There are no scientific arguments from potential.

You have no shame at all do you? You use two posts, one asking for a link already provided (but admittedly two posts below the one you quoted you perhaps hadn't seen it yet) and a post that was directed to someone else as proof that you don't write insults in every post you make? And then, to suggest that I do such things instead of you, you quote a post of mine directed at yet another third party who used the 'exact' same words and phrases I was responding to and I was reversing them backwards to show how they were in error. You use words entirely out of content for the sake of trying make a bad point and then you gloat and put on airs of arrogant superiority in the rest of your posts for little or no reason that I can garner.

The term is "out of context". And the point is that there is nothing wrong with being snarky and you do it too. Your point that I can't avoid it is INVALID. I proved it. I'm sorry you don't like it. Meanwhile, you avoid my points like the plague. Again, I would too. I'm totally crushing your argument.

I'm not here for a personal insult fest, but rather I am here for ideologue and academic debate. And with that in mind, I'm done with you, please do not respond to my posts further and I will not respond to yours either, fair is fair. If you should choose to start writing actual debate positions instead of trying to find clever ways of adding insult through innuendo, I may readdress the matter sometime in the future. Thanks for sharing.

Good, then stop addressing my manner of approach and offer up an argument for my points. You keep trying to take this holier-than-thou road while being insulting to myself and others and avoiding the arguments being made. You pretend I've made none, but I have and others here can see them. They see through this sad attempt at ad hominem (That means attacking the person making the argument in order to dismiss the arguments. And if you're going to accuse me of ad hominems notice that I did both; I addressed your manner and your argument. It is not addressing the argument that makes it an ad hominem.) And by the way, you're welcome to ignore me if you like. Meanwhile, I'll be here, pointing out the obvious flaws in your arguments and amusing myself at the same time.

If you want to focus on the debate, here's a tip - DO IT! I made several points, you've not addressed. Here they are in condensed form -

1. Why did you switch dictionaries? Perhaps because the first dictionary you used didn't have a definition of baby that supported your argument?

2. Why would the OP use a version of murder that makes it no different than harvesting potatos?

3. How does an embryo meet the requirements for life?

4. According to your source, it is a baby inside the womb. Care to address when it becomes a baby?

We'll start with those and go from there. Quit pretending you're taking the high road and actually take it. Address my points and stop whining about how I don't argue in a style you approve of (I don't approve of your style either).

I decided for fun to look at the list of argumentative fallacies that occurred in this thread. Amusingly, one of them was me, for the record, but still it's a good list.

Argumentum ad misericordiam
Argument from potential
Ad Hominem
Tu Quoque (this one was me)
Ad Hominem
Ad Hoc
Affirmation of the consequent
Begging the question
Hasty generalization
Equivocation or mixing of terms
Irrelevant conclusion
Red Herring
Strawman
Undistributed Middle
Anecdotal evidence
Audiatur et altera pars

Miraculously, I haven't seen Argumentum Ad Ignorantium, which is so common in abortion threads, so we should all be very happy.

Jocabia's indulgence in pretenious latin phrases, in an appeal for authority, have convinced me that we should use all refuse from abortions, and other agricultural products, to produce a biodiesel made out of babies (babydiesel), so that we might burn babies in our cars. Furthermore, I suggest that these be seperated into grades based on the race of the might-have-been infants.

Jocabia's indulgence in pretenious latin phrases, in an appeal for authority, have convinced me that we should use all refuse from abortions, and other agricultural products, to produce a biodiesel made out of babies (babydiesel), so that we might burn babies in our cars. Furthermore, I suggest that these be seperated into grades based on the race of the might-have-been infants.

Well, maybe, but the fetus is generally very small when aborted, it'd be hard to get a lot of fuel, not to mention the costs of refining it.

Jocabia's indulgence in pretenious latin phrases, in an appeal for authority, have convinced me that we should use all refuse from abortions, and other agricultural products, to produce a biodiesel made out of babies (babydiesel), so that we might burn babies in our cars. Furthermore, I suggest that these be seperated into grades based on the race of the might-have-been infants.

Actually, appeals to authority as a fallacy are only such when an appeal is made that is invalid, such as saying that Einstein hated Germany so it must be justified (Einstein was an accepted authority on physics not international politics). And yes, I really like the pretentious latin phrases, particularly when their use is apt. So there.

Seperately, I don't recommend pursuing this line of humor. It has caused many past posters to go afoul of the mods.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantium

Vegetarianistica']Argumentum Ad Ignorantium

At first, I was like, "What? Did I spell it wrong?" Then I got the joke. *Ahem* I mean, I got it right away. Hehe.

*Ahem* I mean, I got it right away. Hehe.

i have no doubt. ;)

"300 Dollars thats the price of living what?"
-nick cannon

more than 40 million babies have been murdered since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)



http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/business.shtml (http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/business.shtml)

^check out this site, it also has other intersting statistics

and the Original post comes from...................the poster child for Birth Controll.


J/k, j/k


but anyway i respectfully disagree.

Hey Mullah Omar, you should have put "Inshallah, Victory over the infidels and reign of sharia taliban in the US. Inshallah, allahu ackbar!" As the title of this thread instead of "lets not see the blah blah blah."

this isnt fundamental christianity... its basic christianity

this isnt fundamental christianity... its basic christianity

It is? Can you point out for me please where it says that life begins at conception or that abortion is murder in the Bible? I'll wait.

Actually, the response is damage to the growth. Again, retarded growth does not count as response in the definition of life or a heart could just as easily count.

The turning on and off of genes is not reasonably seen as "damage", in the same way that injury to the heart would be seen as damage. The turning on and off of genes is a response. That the response might be detrimental doesn't qualify it as "damage", per se. It's more aptly qualified as mutation, which is definitely an environmental response. The same mechanism can result in benefits, as well.

Argument from potential. Potetial to be != is. Otherwise, all children should be treated as adults. An egg is an early stage of a developing human. Stupid murderous periods. I knew there could not be that much blood without someone dying.

An unfertilized egg has no life potential by itself. None. It doesn't even contain all the material necessary to create a human. It has no more potential for human life than a box of nails has the potential to become a house.

Argument from potential again. Potential to become human does not make it human. All of your current arguments can be applied to the egg. I suppose women should start having monthly funerals. They have unique human DNA. They have the potential to become a human being. An egg is more than part of a woman's body. The growth of the egg can be retarded and that retardation can become a defect in the full-grown human, in the event it becomes one.

Arguments from potential are fallacious.

Show me one unfertilzed egg that has all the prerequisites to grow into an adult human. Just one. You can't, because it's not the same thing. The egg is only given that potential when it's fertilized. An egg doesn't even possess the proper number of chromosomes. And an egg is not more than a part of a woman's body. An egg by itself is little more than a bodily secretion.

No, scientifically, it doesn't. According to the definition of life offered by science objectively and FOR ALL ORGANISMS, embryos do not meet the requirements.

You're ignoring the fact that there are plenty of organisms that don't fit this definition of life. A mule is incapable of reproduction, for example, but it is still an organism, and still very much alive. The rules aren't nearly as hard and fast as you're pretending they are -- not to mention the fact that you're construing those rules in such a way that even plants would qualify as being alive.

Comparing your argument to a scientific argument, doesn't make the comparison valid. Your argument is not scientific. There are no scientific arguments from potential.

You're the one claiming I'm using an argument from potential. I'm not. I'm saying the embryo is alive, not that it will be. And I've given you arguments. You just reject them with a ridiculously stringent view of what constitutes life, that doesn't even incorporate the idea of chemical stimulus response.

I'm going to consider this thread at an end. No sense arguing whether 2+2 really equals 4.

No sense arguing whether 2+2 really equals 4.

a little late, but what the hell..

Show me one unfertilzed egg that has all the prerequisites to grow into an adult human.

Theoretically possible through parthenogenesis...

It is? Can you point out for me please where it says that life begins at conception or that abortion is murder in the Bible? I'll wait.

I'm thinking here... I seem to recall there's a verse that says it's okay for a woman to lose her baby, so long as her husband agrees...

Something about harm coming to the pregnant woman, and the need for punishment being decided by her husband?

It's at the back of my brain, somewhere...

The turning on and off of genes is not reasonably seen as "damage", in the same way that injury to the heart would be seen as damage. The turning on and off of genes is a response. That the response might be detrimental doesn't qualify it as "damage", per se. It's more aptly qualified as mutation, which is definitely an environmental response. The same mechanism can result in benefits, as well.

Again, the same applies to eggs.

An unfertilized egg has no life potential by itself. None. It doesn't even contain all the material necessary to create a human. It has no more potential for human life than a box of nails has the potential to become a house.

Potential is not an argument. There is no scientific argument for potential. A larvae is not the same as an adult butterfly.

Show me one unfertilzed egg that has all the prerequisites to grow into an adult human. Just one. You can't, because it's not the same thing. The egg is only given that potential when it's fertilized. An egg doesn't even possess the proper number of chromosomes. And an egg is not more than a part of a woman's body. An egg by itself is little more than a bodily secretion.

Show me one embryo that has all the prerequisites to grow into an adult human. Just one. You can't, because it's not the same thing. You seem to fail to see that biological definitions are equally applied to all things, not brought in and out to fit your argument. The embryo will never become a human without being given certain things by the mother. The egg will never become a human without certain things given by the father.

You're ignoring the fact that there are plenty of organisms that don't fit this definition of life. A mule is incapable of reproduction, for example, but it is still an organism, and still very much alive. The rules aren't nearly as hard and fast as you're pretending they are -- not to mention the fact that you're construing those rules in such a way that even plants would qualify as being alive.

What definition? I didn't give a definition. You did. The rules do not qualify an embryo for life. Not in any species. It does qualify a fetus at a point. An egg is not a chicken and biologists know this. It's also not a living being and it meets more of the requirements than an embryo does.

You're the one claiming I'm using an argument from potential. I'm not. I'm saying the embryo is alive, not that it will be. And I've given you arguments. You just reject them with a ridiculously stringent view of what constitutes life, that doesn't even incorporate the idea of chemical stimulus response.

Really? You're not using an argument from potential. What's this? "The egg is only given that potential when it's fertilized." Whoops. Sucks to be undone by your own statements.

I'm going to consider this thread at an end. No sense arguing whether 2+2 really equals 4.

Ha. Amusing. "I declare victory so I'm quitting. Not because I can't actually scientifically support my 'scientific' point, but because I've already won." Yep, I wonder how many people here are convinced that you've actually claimed 2+2=four. Your argument is more like, if I have two dollars and I make two dollars a day, five days a week, I have 12 dollars right now and we can just disregard the fact that I can get fired, die, get sick, the company could go bankrupt, etc.

1+1 = 4 provided I keep adding 1 until it becomes 4. Unfortunately, that doesn't make 1+1=4