What is wrong with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy?

My claims have been supported by numerous sources that indicate an individual human beings life begins at and by their conception.

Conception is when their aging begins, when their race, sex, eye and other attributes are first determined, and when their growth, maturation and further development begins.

You are making the claim that there is "no living human" until higher level brainfrunction,... and you have not provided anything in the way of a source or defintion to support your claim.

By your logic, a new "living" human being is not a "living human being" until they have lived long enough and developed to an arbitrarily drawn point that you can't justify your own ability to deny them anymore.

That's known as an epic "fail" in logic.

 

Do you really believe that repeating in other forums the same uneducated drivel you spew along with your just as uneducated take on the Constitution and other laws will somehow magically make them into something intelligent?

 

You nailed him/her to the wall. They think logic is the tool of the "uneducated".

 

On the contrary it is the tool of the educated and knowledgeable, that is why you are such poor users of it.

 

But I typo'd "Brain function" to say "brainfrunction."

That means I'm probably wrong about EVERYTHING else.

 

I went to your "reference site" and found a completely bogus, and out of context quote. I then posted what the Author quoted really had to say and it contradicts your claim. (See Post 50)

This begs the question .. is there anything on your reference site that is not bogus ?

I think not but you are free to prove me wrong by presenting something from your reference site, or any other site for that matter, that does support your claim.

 

.

The single cell at conception does not live long. After the first mitotic division it no longer exists.

Attributes of the human to be created (the blueprint so to speak) is in the DNA, this is correct.

This information is in every human cell, none of which is "a living human".

A human without a brain, or brain function is clinically dead. Something that is dead is not alive.

Clinically dead by medical standards. This is hardly and arbitrary line.

In any case your premise is false. Claiming that I claim a living human exists at conception. I claim the opposite.

By my logic, there is no living human being at conception so there is no "living long enough" because it has not ever lived.

What was the term you used .. epic logic fail ?

 

LOL both of you missed the logical fallacy.. Epic logic fail my patuti !

 

No .. but you are wrong about a living human being present at conception.

This is a great perspective from a biologist at the University of Minnisota.
The title is "Fertilized egg is not a human life" and he outlines the dialogue between himself and the leader of a Pro Life group.

Part of the article I found humorous .. the rest can be found here.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/the_fertilized_egg_is_not_a_hu.php

It seems the vast majority of developmental biologists do not agree with your claim that a human life begins at conception. Claiming "a living human" or "human being" exists is even a larger stretch.

Im sure that if you search long and hard enough you may be able to find one developmental biologist that will word things in such an obsure way as to give your claim some validity. I have yet to find this but perhaps you have.

The bottom line is that the majority of the "Subject Matter Experts" disagree with your claims. (inferred by the phrase superfluous explications of the bleedin obvious)

So even if you did find a developmental biologist that is so blinded by religious conviction that he could overlook "the bleedin obvious" , you are still left in the position of "most of the experts disagree with my claim"

Here is the dilemma:

Assume that you had 50% agreement of subject matter experts. (This is a fairytale world but life is but a dream)

If we are going to make a law that will massivly infringement on the liberty and personal freedom of an individual, do we not need to have an air tight argument that most can agree on like (stealing should be against the law 99%, murder should be against the law 99% - each is well over 50% - bleedin obvious so to speak) ?

How do we value the rights of the mother against something we can not even agree exists ?

What is the value of a belief that there is no agreement on, in relation to the value the constitution and the rights enshrined therin?

 

Did I post the link or quote thet you are referring to, Gift?

I don't think so.

And even if you are able to find one link that (in your opinion ) is wrong,.... the remaining definitions and references that you are NOT taking issue with are sufficient to draw the conclusions that we are drawing.

Are you so desperate to maintain your denials that you will completely dismiss 50 or so references because you found just one that you disagree with?

Aparently so.

 

It is not my fault that you do not vet your reference page. Do not hesitate to let me know which parts are valid and which are not

I have asked you numerous times to post what you think is your best support.

If you do not like the material from your reference page that I chose .. then choose one that you feel is valid and supports your claim that a living human exists at conception.

 

At this point, I'm content to leave you alone in your ignorance.

You have access to the truth and the facts.

So long as you CHOOSE to remain in denial,.... you will remain ignorant of the facts and the significance and the meaning found in those references provided.

Have a nice life.

 

I ask you for to support your claim .. you claim there is support in your reference page.

I go there .. post a citation from your page that mis-states the Author and quote from that Authors original work which actually contradicts your claim.

I then post support for my position from a "subject matter expert" which you completely ignore.

You say that one bad reference does not degrade your whole reference page.. I say "show me one good piece of support from your reference page"

You refuse to provide any support for your claim and a tell me that I am ignorant and in denial.

You are in deep dude.

 

Needs Salt.

I'm not going to hold you hand and walk you through point by point.

You have too much willful ignorance for me to waste the time anymore.

Anyone intelligent enough to find one weak link in the bunch that you can use exploit for YOUR cause,... is smart enough to see the remaining links and definitions do NOT support your claims in any way. In fact, they prove against your claims.

Your denial is what it is....

When you create or provide a reference thread of comparable information that supports your claims,... I'll check it out.

Until then, this is my last on it.

 

You reference page contains no material from subject matter experts from the field of developmental biology unfortunately.

Post 59 That is my reference page. The post you did not respond to.

There you will find 2 subject matter experts who state, quite unequivocally, that it is "bleedin obvious" to any developmental biologist that your claim is bunk.

You are correct .. we are done here.

The only way for you to counter Post 59 is to come up with a developmental biologist that supports your claim.

and that is not likely to happen.

Good luck on your quest though !

 

You fail to comprehend even a miniscule peice of it, so you shouldn't be throwing stones.

 

I am not throwing stones, only pointing out the obvious. Your continued inability to support your assertions and or answer the questions posed to you is proof enough.

 

I have supported mine as well or better than you have "supported" yours. You are throwing stones.

 

Yea and gave us good laughs too, just like the thread you just started and shot yourself in the foot with it.

 

That thread still stands and shoots your inane opinions in the head!

 

Yes it still stands and demonstrates the ignorance you spew.

 

Not so much. My assertions are supported by the study. Maybe if you would read it you would see that. Or maybe get someone who can read to read it to you.

I am content opposing a barbaric act against defenseless human beings. If you are content being a proponent of killing them, then so be it.

 

Come on Whaler. You know as well as I that you have not been able to support for your claim that:

Chuz has put up far superior arguments to yours and these were refuted.

What is your support for the above claim ?

 

We have been through this repeatedly. Your claims have been refuted, and Chuz's have not! WAKE UP!

 

LOL .. saying .. and doing are two different things.

Claiming something has been refuted .. is not a refutation !!

I can say the claim that the sky is blue has been refuted .. such claims are worthless without supporting evidence.

What claim of mine has been refuted .. and what is your supporting evidence.