T1B

poptart wrote:

Van wrote:Are you just being obstinate, or are you truly this blindlingly stupid?

This is hilarious and it's what happens to you when you make yourself into a liberal, Van.

You get clowned.

Actually, my view is quite conservative and Libertarian in that fetuses aren't mentioned in the Constitution so they're not protected by the Constitution.

As for clowning...like Jsc said, you believe in Santa Claus, and your entire argument here is based on "I say it's a human life! So there!"

Not feeling too particularly clowned here, pop. You're coming off as quite the lightweight. If anything, I'm feeling that you're applying the exact same sort of reasoning you apply to religious discussions: "When Reason fails, Faith begins. I cannot demonstrate I'm right, but I have faith that I am, and that's good enough for me."

The problem for you is that my position is entirely logical and it is entirely crystal clear.

The problem for you is that your position is wholly moronic. You can't even grasp the concept of the difference between a potential person and an actual one.

That is --

1) Life begins at conception.

The process of life begins at conception. That process has to go a long way before it results in a viable human being. Conception alone isn't enough; witness the millions of miscarriages women have suffered through the millennia.

2) This life ought to be protected by federal law.

Maybe, maybe not? Regardless, it isn't, and that's where we currently stand.

3) Only in the circumstances of (a) rape/incest or (b) mother's life in danger, ought terminating the life of the unborn be considered.

Only "considered", huh?

You on the other hand put up all manner of arbitrary standards regarding when life begins, what life is "viable," who ought to be allowed to terminate it, etc.

"All sorts of"? "Arbitrary"?

Are you high? I put up ONE: A fetus isn't a viable person until it's viable beyond the womb. If it cannot survive without being dependent on the cocoon of another's body, no, it is not yet a viable human being.

Pretty fucking logical, since human beings don't live inside other human beings, unless you're talking about Pickkkle and mvscal's winking asterisk.

I haven't budged from that position one iota.

There are not many things more P I T I F U L than watching a "scientist" carry on about how life doesn't actually begin until ... such and such point of time.

Love how you're trying to make it sound like I can't land on a single definition.

VIABLE BEYOND THE WOMB = A VIABLE HUMAN BEAN!

Got it? Are we clear?

If I drive into Colorado, the moment I cross the state line I am IN the state.
It's not after I drive 3 miles.
It's not after I drive 20 miles.
It's not after I arrive in Denver.
No, there is an OBVIOUS moment at which I have arrived.

Right, there is...because Colorado exists as a fully formed, independent entity with recognized borders.

Your analogy blows chunks.

There is an OBVIOUS moment at which human life has begun, and you tie yourself into a pretzel, making up nonsensical standards based on ... nothing ... in order to try to weasle a way around what we can all recognize to be the truth.

Don't be a liberal putz.

Clearly I've tied you into a pretzel, since you're coming up with all manner of outlandish accusations in lieu of having no answer to the most basic and logical premise. Once again, you're being a handwringing 'tard who's forced to substitute belief for knowledge and faith for reason.

poptart wrote:...the irrational act of terminating human life.

I don't see you getting all bent went one of your cruise missiles slams into a Pakistani clinic/wedding/school.


Hypocrite.

Van wrote:I put up ONE: A fetus isn't a viable person until it's viable beyond the womb. If it cannot survive without being dependent on the cocoon of another's body, no, it is not yet a viable human being.

Pretty fucking logical, since human beings don't live inside other human beings

Not that logical, really. A baby could possibly survive out of the womb at 26 weeks, which makes it a viable person. If that baby comes out at 40 weeks, what was it for the previous 14?

You simply do not know when life begins, Van. The only safe assumption is believing it begins at conception. That is, unless you don't have any problem with killing children. It's OK, I guess, as long as you don't have to see them.

ppanther, if my math is correct, 26 weeks or 40 weeks are both well beyond the first trimester.

The bottom line is potential versus actuality. Until that fetus survives the entire process, it exists only as potential life. The mother has already achieved the immutable status of personhood; her fetus hasn't.

ppanther wrote:Not that logical, really. A baby could possibly survive out of the womb at 26 weeks, which makes it a viable person. If that baby comes out at 40 weeks, what was it for the previous 14?

Slightly smarter than Derron.

Van wrote:ppanther, if my math is correct, 26 weeks or 40 weeks are both well beyond the first trimester.

The bottom line is potential versus actuality. Until that fetus survives the entire process, it exists only as potential life. The mother has already achieved the immutable status of personhood; her fetus hasn't.

I saw my daughter's heart beating 7 weeks post-conception. She was alive. She was not fully developed, nor would she have survived out of the womb, but she was absolutely alive.

I'm not sure why people think the first trimester is some magic window of non-life. It's arbitrary, it's a guess, and if you happen to be wrong (and you have no way of knowing you're not), then you're advocating killing a baby. A sweet, innocent child. But... you don't have to see it. So it's cool.

When you can prove to me that life begins at some magic moment between conception and birth, then I'll believe it. Until then I'll remain "agnostic" about it and go with the only safe assumption. I'm not into killing babies at any stage of development. I think it's mind-numbingly sickening.

Edit to add:
Van, 20 weeks is also well beyond the first trimester, but a baby cannot survive out of the womb at 20 weeks. So I'm still really having a hard time seeing the logic in your statement.

ppanther wrote:I saw my daughter's heart beating 7 weeks post-conception.

And I've seen a miscarriage at about that same stage. It's a freaking semi-human gelatinous blob, a fully formed baby.

BSmack wrote:

ppanther wrote:I saw my daughter's heart beating 7 weeks post-conception.

And I've seen a miscarriage at about that same stage. It's a freaking semi-human gelatinous blob, a fully formed baby.

Why are some of you so obsessed with this weird "miscarriage" argument? It proves nothing about when life begins.

I believe I already typed that my daughter was not fully developed at 7 weeks post-conception, Bri. But she was alive. You will never be able to convince me that there is some magic line that, before which, it's morally acceptable to kill a baby. You might be able to convince yourself, but I really wonder why you'd want to. You can't know. There is only one safe assumption.

Jsc810 wrote:Once again, semantics.

Yes, because people who want to gloss over the fact that they advocate terminating innocent lives for the sake of convenience certainly don't want to be told they are killing children. It's all part of that "not seeing it" thing. Whatever soothes the conscience.

Disgusting. Truly.

I'm not in favor of "killing children." I am in favor of prioritizing the one who's made it to the point of being a real person, the mother, over her fetus.

I'm sorry, but the mother matters more.

Van wrote:I'm not in favor of "killing children." I am in favor of prioritizing the one who's made it to the point of being a real person, the mother, over her fetus.

I'm sorry, but the mother matters more.

So now you're saying you're only cool with abortions if the mother's life is at risk?

Nope, I'm not saying that. There's no need to try to define or redefine my position. I've detailed it very clearly, and it's never changed in the least.

Not yet. In 1973, the way people understood human life didn't include this stage of development.



Tard...

Van wrote:Conception alone isn't enough; witness the millions of miscarriages women have suffered through the millennia.

In a miscarriage, what was once undeniably human life has DIED.

You can spin away from it all you want, Van, but that is a fact.


RACK pp, btw.

The only logical position to take is that life begins at conception.

Nobody has ever put forth a convincing argument that it begins at any other time.

It's all arbitrary nonsense.

You could sit down with a class of 4th graders and take 10 minutes to explain the basics of human reproduction, fetus growth and baby birth - and then ask them to tell you at what point they think human life has begun.

They would almost all tell you that it begins at conception.

Because they have not yet become twisted and perverted individuals who are caught up in hedonism and narcissism such that they would dream up strange fantasy ideas of a magical point at which life really begins.


Bunch of sick fucks up in this thread.

lol

It's a smack board, Jsc.

Don't take me (or the Bible) literally. :wink:


Abortion is a sick @ct.


jmo

Hey, lay off pop, Jsc. Like he said, his arguments go over like gangbusters with 4th graders. I bet he hardly ever gets run by nine-year-olds, especially when he trots out his deadly "I said so!" diatribes.

Pretty much, if pop can't 'win' an argument via putting someone to sleep by quoting scripture that never answers the questions posed to him, at least he can always fall back on his tried-and-true "It takes a zygote to make a Raider QB!" gambit.

Jsc810 wrote:The question of when life begins has been debated throughout history, but if we don't agree with you, we're a sick fuck?

Jsc, this is not a subjective debate. This is not a matter of opinion. Life begins at some point, and there is no reason to believe it is any time other than conception. The only need to pretend it begins any other time is to make people who choose to have their own children killed feel better. Because heaven forbid anyone get their feelings hurt these days.

I don't agree with abortion and think anyone who does is a "sick fuck."

So there.