You never adressed my post, i said if that thing was inside a human female, then its a baby. No better way to know than that.
So ...obviously what you posted here (chicken or whatever) would not be found in a human womb.
In that regard, your whole argument is moot.
If you are looking at an entire pregnancy, from conception to blastocyst to embrypo, ect. as an "infant", then I wonder if you think a toddler is an infant. How about a six year old?
Your definition serves you well and may make my argument moot in that respect, but it really has no explanatory power in defining attributes that would actually tell us what a "baby" is. Only that it is something in a womb.
If you choose not to make those distinctions, there really isn't a point in addressing you. The fact of the matter is that 1 in 4 pregancies end in a miscarriage. By some estimates 40% of all conceptions result in a loss if you include those that happen before a positive pregnancy test. Of those that occur in the first 20 weeks, more than 500,000 miscarriages happen in just the U.S. EVERY YEAR.
75% of all miscarriages happen in the first trimester.
These "infants," as you choose to think of them, are incompatible with their hosts. Of course, that is hand waved away by simply stating that "G-d works in mysterious ways."
If you think these are babies from conception onward, then I accept why you would be against a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body. I understand from your perspective.
But, looking at the facts, it seems to me that G-d does not agree that these potential lives are worthy or viable and I have a hard time accepting that he would allow a woman to become pregnant and then, with her knowledge of the pregnancy, take the potential for life away unless it was not actually a person yet.
And that is why my argument, whether you see it from that perspective, is quite valid, at least to those who can identify a toddler from an infant and an infant from an embryo.
If you are looking at an entire pregnancy, from conception to blastocyst to embrypo, ect. as an "infant", then I wonder if you think a toddler is an infant. How about a six year old?
Another strawman, is a toddler or 6 year old inside a human womb? Of course not, you are once again refuting your own argument.
Quote:
Your definition serves you well and may make my argument moot in that respect, but it really has no explanatory power in defining attributes that would actually tell us what a "baby" is. Only that it is something in a womb.
Its a baby if its inside a human female womb. Easy.
Why and how people miscarry is irrelevant to what a baby is.
What does that have to do with embryos or pregnancy? You are reaching.
Just demonstrating why such an ambiguous definition ultimately fails.
An embryo inside a human womb is a baby - period.
Can you prove that assertion? This is why I asked you to define specific attributes that clearly define an infant as an infant so that things like cancers or placentas don't get caught up in such a wide net.
Its only relevant to your strawman, you are now switching gears.
What strawman? Am I misrepresenting your argument? Only illustrating that while you think that all conceptions are innocent babies, you have to concede that you are putting a much larger emphasis on the sanctity of their breif existence than G-d has. If you can reconcile your definition of a "baby" with the fact that G-d allows 40% of all conceptions to end in miscarriage, I assume you'd have to either think G-d is a monster, or have to do some major mental gymnastics to avoid that conclusion. An observant person might say that's a false dichotomy, but given the parameters you've set, I don't believe there are any other options to choose from.
How is that being a bully? Was Paul being a bully when he called the Galatians "foolish"?
Suppose I am a teacher at your child's school. On a regular basis I continue to single out your child by calling him or her a "retard" every time they say something I don't agree with, even when they are not engaging me directly.
Suppose I am a teacher at your child's school. On a regular basis I continue to single out your child by calling him or her a "retard" every time they say something I don't agree with, even when they are not engaging me directly.
What is your reaction when you find out?
I've already planned to home school.
But let's take a look at your ignorance in this post:
You're a grown woman, not a little child. A child is supposed to be ignorant, which is why we teach them. I expect more, and better, from an adult.
This is a discussion forum, not a one on one chat. Everyone in the thread is part of the discussion.
Also, "retard" is a derogatory term toward mentally handicapped people and should not be used as a derogatory term toward anyone.
But let's take a look at your ignorance in this post:
You're a grown woman, not a little child. A child is supposed to be ignorant, which is why we teach them. I expect more, and better, from an adult.
This is a discussion forum, not a one on one chat. Everyone in the thread is part of the discussion.
Also, "retard" is a derogatory term toward mentally handicapped people and should not be used as a derogatory term toward anyone.
Care to try again?
So you would not object if I insisted that your child is a "retard" or "moron"?
Both are derogetory words meant to ridicule and belittle. They have no other purpose and they certainly aren't meant to teach or correct.
It doesn't matter who is doing the name calling. I object to it, and have expressed as much several times. The fact that you continue to ignore my expressed objection to continue your intention of belittling me is what make you a bully. At the very least, you are trolling.
And you should be reminded that you, as an adult, are expected to have shed childish namecalling a long time ago. You shouldn't think of me as ignorant if you are still struggling to figure this one out.
we vote republican to get conservatives on the court that will not find laws against abortion to be unconstitutional
and
also to destroy the democratic party that blocks them to keep abortion legal
many here are tired of me pointing out that democrats block judges that would allow laws against abortion
and
you are therefore a baby killer
if
you do not vote republican
many here are tired of me pointing out that democrats block judges that would allow laws against abortion
and
you are therefore a baby killer
if
you do not vote republican
Really what Judges are those?
The republican Judges gave a a ruling that said you can kill babies but not in one specific way, unless you do it by accident then you can go ahead and kill the baby that specific way because you didn't intend to kill the baby that way.
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
June 15th, 2012, 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
How can I define a transition that is unknown to me?
Clearly, "person" is a difficult word to define.
Why are you asking me this question? Who am I to declare when such a thing is "justified"? How could I possibly know?
I have no idea.
It's sometimes necessary, it's always heartbreaking, that's about all I know.
I don't know.
All you seem to know, is that you don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
My personal opinion (as I have already said) is that abortion is always wrong.
You think abortion is always wrong but don't want it to be illegal because other people don't want it to be. If enough people want to legalize theft, would you be OK with that?
How about having some confidence in your conviction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
My arm is alive, it is unique, and it is human.
Your arm does not have unique DNA. It has the same DNA as you. A fetus is alive, human and has unique DNA. No other individual has the same DNA as this being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
What about the pregnant woman's liberty? What about the liberty of all those fellow citizens who have decided that limited abortion should be legal?
What about the liberty of the unborn? Why not outlaw abortion and when children are unwanted, they can be given up for adoption. How does that take away a pregnant woman's liberty?
There is something wrong when a person states that abortion is always wrong but doesn't want to do anything to stop the practice.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
June 15th, 2012, 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by elisabeth e
As PureX pointed out, the answer is unclear, but we have pretty good justification for points in the development when it is clearly not a baby.
Semantics. At what point should it not be legal to kill? That is the point worth discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elisabeth e
I'm asking because I assume you think that it is okay to take a life when a person is guilty.
Like if a person has a gun to a hostages head, law enforcement is justified to shoot that person dead. Do you disagree or is this another red herring? What does this have to do with what we are discussing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elisabeth e
I really want to know why that should matter and why "innocent" is a necessary qualifier that makes it a special case for preserving an otherwise unworthy life.
Because innocent life should be protected by law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elisabeth e
A life is a life whether the person conforms for the benefit of society or not.
I have never argued otherwise. Now, reread what you just wrote. An embryo is alive; it is a life. That life is a life whether it benefits society or not. It doesn't matter if the woman is poor or young or was raped. After all A life is a life, as you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elisabeth e
Why does it matter? Semantics, of course. The definition you gave could apply to plucking cherries or swatting mosquiitos. And like calling pro-choice advocates "baby-killers" it would likewise be silly to think of having lunch as "killing" tomatoes.
What are you talking about? A tomato is not human nor is a mosquito.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elisabeth e
I'm fine with using it, but it really undoes the severity of what you are trying to get at and sort of makes my point that it is an inexact word to use because it invokes a specific pattern of thought that is inapplicable in these instances. Those are my feelings about it, but as long as we both understand that it simply means "to deprive life in any manner" it works for me.
OK....abortion kills. You then agree? An abortion kills a human. This too, is scientifically indisputable. An abortion kills an innocent human. There is no other instance where an innocent human can be legally killed with no legal ramifications.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
There is a lot I don't know. There is a lot you don't know, too. Do you think it's wrong to admit when we don't know something, or do you just presume you know everything, and so never have to admit to not knowing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardofOz
You think abortion is always wrong but don't want it to be illegal because other people don't want it to be. If enough people want to legalize theft, would you be OK with that?
Yes, it would.
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between what's legal and your own moral preferences. Nor do you appear to have any respect at all for the moral preferences of others. Aren't you just selfishly presuming that your moral preferences should automatically be the law of the land? And everyone else's thoughts, opinions, or moral preferences are simply irrelevant to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardofOz
How about having some confidence in your conviction?
Do you mean confidence? Or arrogance? I'm confident in my own beliefs. I'm just not so arrogant as to presume everyone else should have to agree.
All you seem to know, is that you don't know.
Semantics. At what point should it not be legal to kill? That is the point worth discussing.
Linear Mode
