A human being is any human organism. It is that simple. Not a religious basis at al, that is just another abortion promoters' myth!
Roe doesn't prohibit anything. Roe vs. Wade is a court ruling, not a law. Roe simply proclaims that states MAY prohibit abortion in the 3rd trimester, and most states do so.
How simple is it? Since it is so simple, you won't mind explaining how you recognize "a human organism."
Why must you start all your posts with the inane drivel? It is apparent that you are not familiar with the decision. It says nothing of the sort, but just in case, why don't you cite the relevant portion of the decision? As we all know that is not true.
Yes you have said that many times before. Problem is that you have not been able, just like now to actually provide the information or to point to it. Although this is nothing new coming from you, I wonder what makes you keep it up?
We know that that is how you see things, but that is not what I asked, because that is a failed argument. You see, by that definition, a cancerous tumor which is human and it is an organism could also qualify. Moreover, if the human being was just another biological entity, it would not present any more significance than any other biological entity. AS such there is more to a "human being" than you can or wish to ascribe. Actually it is not that simple. Simplicity in matters as this is only demanded by the simple mind. Complex issues, such as 'who and are we? why are we here? and the like, have preoccupied the thinking man ever since (s)he was able to. That you wish to reduce it to simplistic reasoning is a pity, while not surprising. Without the "sanctity of human life" there is no rational basis for your position. You may very well deny a religious angle, but you are also unable to present a coherent line of reasoning or rational basis for your position. and that is your way or trolling in an attempt to mask your inability or inadequacy.
Well nonetheless, it is the law that a late term abortion is illegal unless there is verifiable threat of death to the mother! I have proven multiple times to you and others that it is true, why must you lie.
A cancerous tumor isn't an organism Einstein. You are struggling badly here. No, a human being is a biological entity, but has more significance than other biological entities. You make no sense at all. That is the worse attempt at a diversionary post I have ever seen, it sucked ass. A human being is a simply defined biological entity. Deal with it! That is your ill formed opinion. Sanctity of human life sentiments span all religions and exist in people who are not religious in the least. You fail again.
WOW, is that an admission of a mistake? I congratulate you on your new found posting integrity. Actually it is nothing of the sort and has nothing to do with how or to what extent states regulate abortion past a certain stage IF THEY WISH TO. Those are state laws passed solely at the discretion of the states and more importantly the states are NOT COMPELLED TO enact such laws. If I lied you should be able to show where and about what. This has been asked of you many times and as many times you have failed to substantiate your claim, much like all the other claims that you could not substantiate. You have NEVER proven ANYTHING on this board, but claimed to many times. As noted above the requests for those proofs have also gone unsubstantiated. To your credit, you did post several times dictionary definitions. If that is the only proof you can offer to the numerous claims and assertions you made on the topic, you are miserably unprepared to debate it.
Ah the prerequisite silliness to bolster your weak argument no doubt. If it is not an organism, tell us why and what IS an organism. What are the necessary qualifications? I need not worry about me. If I am mistaken it will not be the first or last, but I still would like you to show why or how. That it is and I have not claimed otherwise. True again and here is the crux. WHY? Clearly not all human beings are significant for a number of reasons. Take the condemned, by some accepted means they become "less" significant, or take war. Human beings, some, are considered secondary to the cause. So, significance is NOT absolute. AS I have said many times, the significance of the fetus is at the discretion of the woman who makes its life possible. Can you offer something to refute that? Or you are failing understanding or unable to refute. No need to rescind that honest admission you made earlier. Oh you still prefer the simplistic approach eh. Certainly for the reasons I mentioned no? They many religions and they ALL ARE religions. The people who are not religious should then be able to explain their position. You have not been able to date.
Well there are so many instances, the forum could not hold them all, but You know I have posted links to the laws I am talking about here probably a dozen or more times, yet you still lie and say I have never posted them. You are the most dishonest abortion promoter on the board!
Wow , so you really think a tumor is an organism? Educate yourself so you aren't so completely embarrassed next time. Well of course it is true, I posted it not you! you questions veer the thread way off topic, so I will let you start your own thread if you would like to chase that white rabbit around. People beleive in the sanctity of human life, what is there to explain? It is what it is! They are NOT all religious, which shows that you are WRONG AGAIN!
Yet somehow all my posts are still herein. Yes that you did and I am sure will do many more times. That we do not agree what they represent and because I have shown you why I feel the way I do does not make ma a liar. However your inability to address or refute my arguments still remains I never said you did not past links to laws. I said and still maintain that you either misunderstand them or willfully misrepresent them. You are entitled to your opinion. Then again, if you would only represent them as opinions, but you present them as facts. What does that say about honesty? Yours...
No your lying makes you a liar. You claim the laws do not say what they plainly say. What I represent as facts are actually facts! You just don't like facts because they oppose you consistently!
I am not embarrassed in the least. Unlike you I can offer support for what I post. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190...darwin-evolution-species-university-of-be.htm It also seems that I do take my education, or more precisely at this point in my life , being informed, more seriously than you do. Of course you can change your way of acquiring information and be in step with reality and the latest data. Oh, now you believe you have a monopoly on truth? Please do not delude yourself. If you believe that stating that a human being is a biological entity you made a break through you are sorely mistaken. Why, because they go beyond "a biological entity" and that places the argumetn out of your reach? While white rabbits are also biological entities, we are stuck with human beings in the abortion debate. But to be fair there IS a bit of common thread. You see before the advent of home pregnancy tests and other hi-tech methods, determining if a woman was pregnant required injecting a rabbit with urine from a woman who suspected she might be pregnant. The saying "the rabbit has died" originates from that, but it is a misconception, because the rabbit did not always die or had to. Now that we chased that down, why not expand on human being? Even if we are to accept that a rational person is unable to rationalize their position, and acknowledge that a non-religious person believes in the sanctity of human life, why should that become an absolute and be imposed on the entire society? I am wrong because you are unable to rationalize something. That is a curious new method of determining whether one is mistaken or not. From which school of thought did you acquire this technique?
Wow how long did it take you to dig up that turd of an article? You just ramble on and on and don't seem to care if you make sense or not. It is irritating frankly. Answer one simple question, is a cancerous tumor a normal developmental stage of a human being?
That is an excellent method of reasoning. No doubt it it the same on you apply to the abortion debate and have the results to prove it. No, I do not claim, I say that the laws do not say what you claim they do. There IS a difference, even if you can not appreciate it or even recognize it. And therein lies your problem. You see, facts need no representation. They stand on their own merits, which is a lot more that can be said about your representations. You misrepresent facts to support what you are unable to do otherwise. Oh I love facts, real facts, proven facts not fabricated ones by you or anyone else for that matter. But fats alone are not enough. Thinking rational people take facts and place them in context to be able to make rational decisions about issues that have no supporting facts, such as ethical or legal ones.
Well it certainly take a luminary as yourself to call an article in the "International Business Times" about a study at the University of California, Berkley to be called a turd. I must congratulate you on your highly honed intellect and civility. Bottom line is you could not even refute a "turd of an article" as you called it eh? I do have my limitations and moronic questions I do not do, especially moronic questions that have nothing in common with a discussion. Care to return to the topic, it was about what is an organism, or you prefer to revel in the irrelevant?
I have quoted excerpts and you have claimed that they do not say what they plainly do say. That is fact! This is obvious BS given your long line of posts complaining about facts and claiming they don't exist when proven that they do.
Nope, it is NOT understood that a fetus is a human being. The FACT is, that a fetus is NOT a human being and that is what ALL knowledgeable people KNOW. NOW, of course many people believe that their beliefs are actually knowledge, when they are nothing but bias, ignorance and prejudice.
A "human being" is a living, breathing, eating, defecating, homo sapiens. Hmm, that eliminates a fetus from being human at all ---wow. Animals breath, eat and defecate and reproduce. Since a fetus does none of these, except possibly eat, then not only is it not a human being, it is not even an animal. It is just a small minor part of its mother with NO independent life of its own. It becomes a human being at birth when it becomes an animal.
Your definition is incorrect, quite obviously, as evidenced by fetal homicide laws and the Federal Unborn Victima of Violence Act.
