Abortion

[jimmyjet]

the mistake that people make is that they try to play god, and use their subjectivity to define what this entity is.

as i already stated, take one exact entity, still in the womb.

if the mother does not want it, then it is not a human and can be aborted.

and if the mother does want it, and has a miscarriage, then she goes thru the trauma of losing her baby. and believe you me, she certainly thinks of it as her baby. and if you have the slightest bit of consideration, you do as well when you speak to her.

what is the only difference, in this case ? - the subjectivity of the mother or couple.

[jimmyjet]

i am sorry - but check and checkmate - you have no chance to win an argument for abortion.

and as i have said for the umpteenth time, this would not even be an issue if it did not interfere with people's sexual desires.

everyone would all of a sudden think of it exactly as it is - a human from conception until death.

[Michael]

i am sorry - but check and checkmate - you have no chance to win an argument for abortion.

Rook to queen bishop 4.
You don't get to announce that, especially since you have flat-out announced that you refuse to change your mind in this. If you won't even come to the table on a discussion, you don't get to declare anything about that discussion.

By the way, good way to convince everybody here that you're not still trapped in the catholic mindset prison.
"Hey everybody! I've totally freed my kind and opened it up to new ideas and examined all my old ones! Except for this one. I refuse to change my mind about this one. But I swear I've opened my mind and examined everything else!"

Yeah, right. When you finally decide it's time to let go of what your catholic priests told you to think and are actually willing to even examine to possibility that you're wrong, then you can say what will and won't win an argument. Until then, you're not even in it.

you keep referring to the unborn as a potential human. this is simply false - biology 101.

No. How are you not getting it? You don't get to just declare something and have it be true because you say it is.
Back up your words, otherwise they are meaningless. Logic 101.
For someone who claims to be so good at it, you seriously suck at this. Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised, you've claimed many, many things without backing them up. Why should your supposed logic skills be any different?

if you dont want me to refer to the unborn as a baby, then i dont want you to refer to the born as a baby.

How about "after-birth"? Wait, no, something else already uses that name.

if you dont want me to refer to the unborn as a human, then i dont want you to refer to the born as a human.

Oh, okay. In that case you're saying it's not human? Guess your entire argument goes out the window, since apparently we're no longer terminating humans. So what's your problem, then?

No. It's not about the label. It's the essence of what you're trying to convey. Human, baby, entity, the point stays the same regardless the label.
"Oh, it's a poor defenseless [insert name here] and you're being a heartless monster killing it!"

It's the emotional argument. It's all you've got, it's all you've put forward. Yet you've not once been able to adequately show why this thing should be considered - especially in the early stages - anything more than a scraping of cells. Other than "because it is".
Biology 101, as though that's supposed to mean anything. I'm gessing you mean it along the lines of "it's just an obviously known fact that that smattering of cells is considered a human. You know it's true, you're just denying it".

No. This is no more an argument that "it's just an obviously known fact that god exists. You know it's true, you're just denying it. Theology 101".

No. I'm not impressed or convinced when the catholics do it, and I'm as equally unimpressed or convinced when you do.

Next time back it up with something other than "because I say so", but I know you won't because you can't. You don't have anything to back it up with.

typically use the term fetus to describe our stage of life while in the womb.

we typically use the term baby to describe our stage of life for a short while after we are born.

we typically use the term child to describe our stage of life from maybe about 2-9.

we typically use the term pre-teen to describe our stage of life from maybe about 10-12.

we typically use the term teenager to describe our stage of life from maybe about 13-19. although snotty brat is also sometimes used.

we typically use the term young adult to describe our stage of life from maybe about 20-30.

we typically use the term adult to describe our stage of life from maybe about 30-50.

So what? Only one of of those is a medical term, and you aren't using it correctly. The rest are nothing but terms we usecolloquially. You want to discuss a medical issue using colloquialisms? Who cares if typically we call them anything? This proves nothing, brings nothing to the debate, and serves no purpose other than to give you something to talk about. Because content-wise, you're really light.

as i already stated, take one exact entity, still in the womb.

if the mother does not want it, then it is not a human and can be aborted.

and if the mother does want it, and has a miscarriage, then she goes thru the trauma of losing her baby. and believe you me, she certainly thinks of it as her baby. and if you have the slightest bit of consideration, you do as well when you speak to her.

And some people treat their dogs as their children. They are clothed, fed, housed, given the last names of their parents, are in the family photos, and treated in every way and every manner as if they really are their children.

Are you saying that because subjectively they view them as their children, they should also be treated as such? If one runs onto the road and is hit by a car, should we treat that as manslaughter?

No. Because it's not human, even if subjectively the mother views it that way. Legally, we don't recognise it as human any more than the dog.

https://www.sands.org.au/Assets/File...20Brochure.pdf

Page 8, last paragraph.


For a baby who is not born alive before the 20th week of pregnancy birth and death registration is not permitted. Birth and death certificates cannot be issued.


Notice that time-frame? 20 weeks. Around the same time as medically the foetus is considered 'viable'.

No doubt that when a baby is expected, the parents project all their hopes and dreams of what this potential person might be onto it, the person it might become. And when it miscarries, all those hopes and dreams - the person they saw it becomming - disappear.
They are not seeing the smattering of cells - they're seeing the future person they want it to be.

A mother who doesn't want the child doesn't have that burden. They are not projecting onto it. They see it for what it is at that stage.


And medically, legally - despite what the parent might hope for - we do not consider it one, because at that point it isn't.

Just like we don't call a 1-year-old a 5-year-old just because it will eventually become one. One day I'll be a senior citizen, that doesn't mean I get a pensioners card just yet, though.

Just like we don't call a dog a human because subjectively the 'parents' are projecting their desires onto it.

And try all you like to paint it as this living, breathing, thinking, poor defenseless 'entity', so you can bemoan how evil and monstrous we are for pushing for the rights of the human mother, who you openly admit you don't care about.

Legally, medically, in every way you've been shown to be wrong. And it doesn't matter how many times you claim you aren't - you have not, can not, present a single thing that isn't emotionally based.


Rook to king 4.

Checkmate.

[Michael]

"I refuse to change my mind, therefore I haven't changed my mind, therefore you can't 'win' this argument, therefore I win by default!

Checkmate, atheists!"


How woefully arrogant you are.

Swearing might get someone one your ignore list, but willful ignorance gets you on mine.

Congratulations, you made the list.

[Kinich Ahau]

Michael, I think you meant "how woefully fucking arrogant you are". Didn't you?

[Davin]

[Smellyoldgit]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Michael, I think you meant "how woefully fucking arrogant you are". Didn't you?

Hmm, I read it as "how woefully fucking arrogant you are - cunt"

[ghoulslime]

CreepyJimmyJerry is too dumb to know when his bum has been fucked raw, innit?

[jimmyjet]

i have so checkmated you, that i have nothing else to add to my argument.

it is rock solid. and nothing you have just posted does anything to counter it.

your argument seems to incorrectly relate that my argument about abortion is somehow connected to the rc.

that is darn right silliness, and demonstrates that your argument has no legs to stand on.

it is one entity from conception to birth - that is biology 101. first page.

if you dont understand that comment, then i guess you havent taken biology before.

in case you have not, the ENTITY BEGINS when the sperm fertilizes the egg.

and there isnt anything subjective about it. the couple's level of desire for the entity is immaterial when discussing what the entity is.

it is not both a bag of cells that can be aborted and an unborn baby at the same time.

in case you did not grasp that statement of mine, i repeated it.

the entity starts at conception. any other point in time is subjective, such that society is playing god, and making its own decision on when the unborn becomes a human - based entirely on their unwillingness to take responsibility for their sexual behavior.

you guys dont want to hear the truth. i will continue to state the obvious.

your argument about legality is absolutely ridiculous - you must realize that.

as if somehow our LEGAL SYSTEM is about justice ? boy, do you ever live on a different planet.

legality is just that - nothing to do with whether something is just.

something is legal because some bigwigs are able to make a law about it.

medically ? all you are chirping about is at what point in time the entity can survive outside the womb.

again, completely immaterial as to what the entity is.

pretty soon, we will have couples arguing that a newborn is not a human when they dont want to take responsibility for it - with the argument that the baby cant survive on its own. it needs the care of other people.

wait till you approach that slippery slope.

the reason why abortion is legal is because the common thought process at least claims that it would hurt any politician who was actually able to make it illegal.

collection of cells before birth, collection of cells after birth.

a human before birth, a human after birth.

[jimmyjet]

you claim that my unwillingness to change my mind demonstrates willful ignorance.

i claim it is because i have done a lot of thinking about it, and have heard these same arguments or rationalization that you are presenting countless times before.

and they are all totally defeated by biology 101, first page. that is not theistic, not the rc, not any sort of religion.

it is science, where we know exactly how our life begins.

NATURE provided most animals a sexual means with which to propagate the species.

it occurs when the penis injects sperm into the vagina.

and one of the sperm cells is able to fertilize an egg cell.

dont you feel a bit ridiculous trying to argue that i am using religious arguments or religious influence as a basis for my conclusions ?

[Sinfidel]

jimmyjet wrote

i have so checkmated you, that i have nothing else to add to my argument.

it is rock solid. and nothing you have just posted does anything to counter it.

your argument seems to incorrectly relate that my argument about abortion is somehow connected to the rc.

that is darn right silliness, and demonstrates that your argument has no legs to stand on.

it is one entity from conception to birth - that is biology 101. first page.

if you dont understand that comment, then i guess you havent taken biology before.

in case you have not, the ENTITY BEGINS when the sperm fertilizes the egg.

and there isnt anything subjective about it. the couple's level of desire for the entity is immaterial when discussing what the entity is.

it is not both a bag of cells that can be aborted and an unborn baby at the same time.

in case you did not grasp that statement of mine, i repeated it.

the entity starts at conception. any other point in time is subjective, such that society is playing god, and making its own decision on when the unborn becomes a human - based entirely on their unwillingness to take responsibility for their sexual behavior.

you guys dont want to hear the truth. i will continue to state the obvious.

your argument about legality is absolutely ridiculous - you must realize that.

as if somehow our LEGAL SYSTEM is about justice ? boy, do you ever live on a different planet.

legality is just that - nothing to do with whether something is just.

something is legal because some bigwigs are able to make a law about it.

medically ? all you are chirping about is at what point in time the entity can survive outside the womb.

again, completely immaterial as to what the entity is.

pretty soon, we will have couples arguing that a newborn is not a human when they dont want to take responsibility for it - with the argument that the baby cant survive on its own. it needs the care of other people.

wait till you approach that slippery slope.

the reason why abortion is legal is because the common thought process at least claims that it would hurt any politician who was actually able to make it illegal.

collection of cells before birth, collection of cells after birth.

a human before birth, a human after birth.

[Michael]

Sinfidel wrote

So unfortunately someone quoted his entire response, completely negating the ignore list.
Unfortunately he's added nothing to his argument (Because he has no argument to add), instead going with the same tired bullshit and unsubstantiated bullshit "it's like this because I say it's like this, and I refuse to learn otherwise".

Please stop quoting the nonsense he spouts, I would rather not be subjected to his willful ignorance.

[ghoulslime]

jimmyjet wrote

a human before birth, a human after birth.

A potential human is not a human, you thick motherfucker.

[Michael]

Davin wrote

Amen to that.

Kinich Ahau wrote

Michael, I think you meant "how woefully fucking arrogant you are". Didn't you?

And A-fucking-men to that.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Jimmy Jerry, Holly Berry.