Accusation of "flame-baiting," and "trolling".....in order to get opposing views censored....is a common ploy used by those who have nothing to rebutt. When they know they're loosing the argument, they cry "foul." There's no so-called "flagrant nasty lying".....you just don't get it, is all. I think you and I are done here. Long time ago. Bye.
Those who have nothing to rebutt, run.... When they know they're loosing the argument, they run. That way you won't have to answer those INCONVENIENT questions: YOU: ""Logically-speaking, anyone who promotes abortion....promotes the murder of another human.""" Where's the proof that anyone is promoting abortion? Where's the proof that abortion is murder?? Those are awkward questions aren't they
Do you consider a sperm or an egg to be "A human being"? "Offspring" cannot be "offspring" until it has "sprung off." You are failing to take into consideration the difference between "human" (adjective) and "human" (noun). What characteristics does "A human" possess?
Not separately. Human life begins at fertilization. Here, read this one according to Princeton University: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html Fertilization....is when human life is "sprung." That's all there is to it.
Human life might begin at fertilization...even if it does that doesn't mean there's A human there......
Do you have sympathy for the attacker who injuries others without consent, if not then you are a hypocrite, you claim sympathy for the fetus that injuries another without consent and yet have no such sympathy for others who do the same. You claim the fetus is innocent yet provide nothing to support that statement, care to do so?
Calling someone a murderer is not only flamebaiting it is also insulting. Whatever pro-lifers consider abortion to be is irrelevant. Murder is a legal term and abortion does not meet the criteria. As like most pro-lifers you fail to understand the difference between the human noun and the human adjective, even in your statement above - "The unborn is a human being, whether you guys want to accept it or not! An offspring of humans can only be nothing but humans!" you try to interchange the two. The statement "a human being" uses the human noun, while "an offspring of humans can only be nothing but humans!" uses the human adjective. It would seem your English comprehension is either lacking or you have deliberately attempted to mislead. There is nothing logical in that comment, unless you don't comprehend what a noun and an adjective are and have no idea what murder means.
Human life exists in sperm and eggs before they meet, so obviously human life cannot begin at the meeting. http://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/ Here, modern science offers no clarity. If anything, the past century of scientific advances have only made the answer more complicated. As scientists have peered into wombs with ultrasound and looked directly at sperm entering an egg, theyve found that all the bright lines they thought existed dissolving. There is no "springing off" at fertilization, in fact the joined sperm and egg burrows in and attaches itself to the woman.
That article is questionable. It's more of an opinion piece. Where do they base their opinion? Where are their science reference books for studies and research? Here is what your source says at the bottom: We're not talking about "personhood," which is another pro-choice attempt at justifying the killing of another human! We're talking about when human life begins. http://liveactionnews.org/life-begins-at-conception-science-teaches/ Scroll down for the references used to base the above article of my source. That's how reputable arguments/research are done! I loosely used your term "sprung" (in quotations)........to mean when human "life started." I used your term "sprung," figuratively - not literally as in springing up, and going boing-boing. I have visuals of a kid on a trampoline.
It's a lead-pipe cinch that you won't get reputable arguments/research from liveactionnews or liar rose. Here are some widely accepted views that will challenge your thinking. http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins. Try to visualize an "off-spring" being attached. Words have meanings, sometimes those meanings are just suggestive.
It doesn't matter what website the article source came from! What matters are the references that are given to support what they've stated! Scroll down my source and you'll see all the references to their claims. Look at your initial source - it has not a single reference! Your source is just simply an opinion piece! Your current source above is definitely questionable, too! It talked about views of when human life begins throughout history....and it says that historically, the issue has been coupled with abortion! And yet, it omitted this important section: Historical Views of When Human Life Begins (This section has been omitted from this handout) Why omit that? His ending statement is also a convoluted crap! Your source is nothing more but a relativistic view that tries to justify abortion!
Once again we see the dishonesty of the "pro-lifers".... when they discuss abortion they say "baby" "child" "infant" or "human being".... but when they are talking about fertilization....they have to say "human life".
She flip flops because she knows the day is coming when it is quite easy to abort, and when it will be easy to find out many characteristics of one's baby very early. At that point, we humans will do exactly what we did to the wolf. She flip flops because she knows that evolution depends on random combinations of genes. Not genes that are chosen.
"If abortion is about women's rights, then what were mine?" [video=youtube;3Sa1czII8ro]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sa1czII8ro[/video] Psychopaths do horrible things.
So you have come back to your topic, are you going to respond to the numerous question asked of you or just post irrelevant videos?
Your post was irrational. It doesn't deserve any response. I'll be ignoring you.......until you've got something worth responding to. Bye for now.
1) who cares what the Church thinks - We are not a theocracy that makes laws on the basis of religious belief 2) The foundation of Christs ministry was that folks should mind their own business when it comes to the moral actions of others - Golden Rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" In other words - if you do not want others forcing their religious beliefs on you through law, then do not do the same to others. 3) The whole platform of lifers is based on denial of the obvious, semantics, disingenuous and deceptive language usage, obfuscation, logical fallacy and irrationality. They claim that a single human cell is "A Human, A Person, A Homo sapiens" further claiming defacto "Science has proven this" which is a complete lie. The term "Pro Life" itself is an obfuscation since every one in the pro life movement must kill life in order to survive.
In other words you don't have an answer and so choose to turn yellow and run away .. that is all I need to know about your creditability.
What's wrong with carrying the baby to full term, and giving him up for adoption? It's practical....and a humane solution, to an unwanted baby.
Here is another dysfunctional example: PETER SINGER He was one of the pioneers of the animal welfare movement, starting principally with his 1975 book, Animal Liberation (New York: New York Review). Singer's thesis is that we ought to extend to (non-human) animals the same equality of consideration that we extend to human beings. http://www.vuletic.com/hume/ph/singer.html And yet.... Singer is pro-infanticide: On page 186 of his book “Practical Ethics,” Singer opines that infants are “replaceable” and that a disabled baby can be killed to pave the way for a happier life for a sibling — even if that brother or sister hasn’t yet been born: When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. Singer supports using the disabled in medical experiments: In 2006, Singer enraged animal rights activists for justifying the use of monkeys in researching cures for Parkinson’s disease. But he would have said the same thing about using human “non-persons.” In fact, he often has. For example, when asked by Psychology Today about the benefits that chimps provided in developing the hepatitis vaccine, Singer said disabled humans should be used in such research instead: http://www.nationalreview.com/human...r-singer-and-danger-humanities-wesley-j-smith
How can a human survive without killing life ? Both Plants, Animals and bacteria are "Alive". It is is not possible for a human to survive without killing this life. Anti - Abortion is a correct term. "Pro Life" is an obfuscation. This obfuscation is made even more obvious by asking the question "Life of what"? Common responses to this question (the "unborn" for example) lead to more obfuscation and fallacy: Unborn what ? Common responses " the unborn child". This is fallacy as the lifer can not prove that a "Child" exists in the early stages of pregnancy. The response is then an "Assumed Premise/ Naked Claim" A premise/claim to which they can not provide a valid defense.
