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

You first, what claim of mine has been refuted and what is your evidence. You made the claim first!

 

No problem:

A living human has a heart beat and brain function.

A zygote has neither therefore, it is not a living human.

 

EPIC FAIL!

I never made the assertion that a human has a heart and brain function. Clearly all do not at some stage of their development.

So what claim of mine was allegedly refuted. Did you not understand that you need to actually refute an actual claim of mine?

 

Your claim is that "a living human" exists at conception.

If this not your claim ?

 

Is that what you're claiming my assertion was?

 

Either you believe a zygote is a living human or you do not.

State your position or move on sailor.

 

I get it, so you state that you have refuted my positions, fail to show specifically which ones you refuted and how, and then you tell me to move on?

 

The study CLEARLY CONTRADICTS your assertion that educated people are not more pro-choice, so there is no need to lie about it. The numbers are there for anyone to see and they are consistent. Educated people are pro-choice while the uneducated ones are not. This is reinforced also by the economic break down based on income. The more successful people are, also a function of how intelligent they are, the more pro-choice they are.

If anyone needs to have it explained to them is you since clearly you either do not understand what the study says or lack the integrity to admit to it.

What you or I are content with is irrelevant to the debate as it needs no support. Assertions on the other hand do and you just can provide any for the real points that make up the critical aspects of the debate.

 

What on earth are you rambling and babbling on about?

Show me exactly where I made this assertion and exactly what I posted. Then I will respond.

This is the post I made discussing the study. Feel free to show me exactly where I made this mythical assertion you write about.

http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/182247-america-wises-up-slowly.html#post3762529

Every assertion I made there is backed by the study. Sorry but rabid strawman building and frothing at the mouth ranting just isn't getting you anywhere.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/182247-america-wises-up-slowly.html#post3762834

 

I'll help you out here since you aer clearly struggling to even post what my assertion was. This was my assertion:

"The trend is away from supporting legalized abortion, as the unbiased study I posted clearly shows. Your silly data is from 2001, the study I referenced gathered data through 2009"

Or maybe you are frothing at the mouth about this one:

"it appears that as women grow older and wiser, they are less likely to support legalized abortions. "

Both are irrefutable.



Now what did you present to prove me wrong?

 

You couldn't if you tried. Then again you could if you were honest. Please tell me if you really can not understand my post of you just don't have the integrity to admit your failure.
You posted a survey that shows a trend toward opposing abortion.
I did not dispute that trend, but asked for clarification from you as it was vague in some respect. Of course and as usual you did not make the clarification either due to lack of knowledge or fear of undermining your position.
The thrust of my post was that while you so eagerly touted the study showing the trend that you are unable to clarify, you unwittingly contradicted your post in an earlier thread that asserted that educate people are more pro-choice. This was clearly explained to you in that post and the appropriate link was given.
So tell us, which is it, your highly educated mind can not connect the two or you simply will not acknowledge it?

 

Your claim: that "a living human" exists at conception.

With no heart beat or brain function .. there is no living human.

 

OK I'll type this slow so maybe you can understand it. A trend toward opposing legal abortion CAN EXIST EVEN WHEN THE MAJORITY DOESN'T SHARE THAT VIEW. Therefore THE CONTRADICTION YOU CLAIM ACTUALLY DOESN'T EXIST IN ACTUAL REALITY!


I have clarified the trend sufficeintly. I am not responsible for some reader's lack of reading comprehension. It pains me to see someone embarrass themselves so thoroughly, attacking someone elses education and intellect while displaying his/her own lack thereof.

 

100% false. You made up an arbitrary definition of what a "human" is , then acted as if it was factual and universally accepted , which it is not.

 

The definition is for "a living human" .. not "a human". (you need to upgrade your reading comprehension)

The term "living" is important because its rather hard to kill a dead human.

It is universally accepted by hospitals and medical institutions, that human with no heart or brain function is clinically dead.

 

Every living human being has as developmental stages several in which they have no brain function and initially they have no heart. These are universally accepted facts throughout the scientific community.

 

You give no support for your claim.

Please cite a reference for your claim that "a living human" exists possible for a without heart or brain ?

 

Here is the view from a subject matter expert:

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/2...s_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.

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

It appears that your claim is universally laughed at by subject matter experts.

 

I see no evidence to suggest that most scientists disagree with anything here. You are taking ridiculous leaps in logic and reasoning here that are just making you look more foolish.

 

I don't see where they decided that the "superflously obvious" was that a zygote is NOT a human being. I read it to say that a zygote OBVIOUSLy is one.
Your link is actually a bridge to nowhere. It is a dead link. Not surprising!

 

Perhaps you need to read more carefully. He is saying that textbooks tend not to write "human beings are not fly's or zygotes" because it is bleedin obvious that they are not.

Here is the link: Not sure why the last one did not work .. this one does.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/the_fertilized_egg_is_not_a_hu.php

A zygote is not a human, nevermind a living human. It is a human cell. That is what is obvious to subject matter experts.

You still have not given any evidence to support your claim.

 

There is another quote from a different "developmental biologist" in the link the title of which btw is "The fertilzed egg is not a human life" to clear up any confusion on what the author is getting at.

Perhaps that clarifies it better for you.

If you have a subject matter expert claiming otherwise I would be interested to see it. So far you have provided nothing in support of your claim.

 

So to you one guy stating his opinion equates to "most subject matter experts" having the same opinion?

You took a leap of logic that took you right out of the realm of reality.

 

There is no evidence to support yours Skippy. OPinions are not "evidence"