Whoops, abortion support isn't increasing after all...

It is even more complex than most of the pro-lifers imagine - seems that due to gene expression controlled by "junk DNA" we are unique at any given moment in time - so the genetic "you" yesterday may not be the same "you" today depending on which genes are switched on

 

Your problem has nothing to do with me .. more to do with denial would be my guess.

Restating your premise over and over again "the zygote is a living human" does not make it true. Assuming your premise is a logical fallacy.

Whats missing is "the why". That the single cell "changes" is not a valid "why" The single cell divides to create two daughter cells .. otherwise known as asexual reproduction (mitosis in this case).

That a cell changes does not make it a living human and since this is the only support you have given .. your assumed premise is fallacy.

Do you have any arguments that are not logical fallacies in support of your premise ?

 

That is, in fact, what makes the zygote different from skin cells. You guys per focus on minutia...and ignore the fact that the difference, and the humanity, of a zygote is that very thing.

 

Yes, and I've made them. Your attempts to marginalize are noted, and dismissed.

 

You will twist whatever I post....my intent what I have always said.

The fact is...your pro-abortion...no matter what stage...you do not want the unborn protected...and you champion abortion. Your position is hypocritical...not sound. Abortion is your aphrodisiac.

 

Was it yours?

 

reported. Personal attack/rude.

 

Churchmousey quote: "The people who scream the loudest are sometimes the most intolerant"""

I have no idea what your husband has to do with the question I asked.......

 

Why on earth would you expect an abortion clinic to be a party? It's not a party atmosphere in any doctor's office or hospital either.

No need to get nasty. Must have touched a nerve there. You have a very limited life and view of life if ONE position defines that person for you. I know I have positions on a gazillion different issues, so you don't know who I am.

 

Sounds like the average dentist office to me

It also sounds a heck of a lot like "projection" when someone attributes emotions and even behaviours that are not really there

 

I've been in abortion clinics. Trust me, they're nothing like the dentist's office.

 

And you were in an abortion clinic because..... ???

 

Because I took women who were getting abortions there, as part of my job as a counselor at a residential treatment facility.

Anything else? I see that you are afforded some sort of immunity here for personal attacks. But if you harass or attack me, I'll see what I can do to report it to your ISP. I don't appreciate, or tolerate, online harassment or malicious personal attack. Comprende?

 

Yawn ... You don't appear to be "relaxed"......


Have ya tried discussing the topic lately??

 

Yes, I have. I get tired of trolls, though, and occasionally deign to address them, as I did you, up there.

 

Really? See I have this rule - I do not believe any personal claims made by anonymous people on the internet and I think you would have to be a special type of person to listen to the heartbreak that many women go through deciding on abortion and STILL be against it

 

It doesn't matter to me if you believe it or not. I was asked a personal question, and I answered it. It takes a special type of person in my view, to walk through an abortion waiting room and see the obviously, heavily pregnant women there, and still be pro-abortion.

Or to hold the hand of a sobbing addict who obviously isn't convinced she's doing the right thing, but is convinced by about three people that she should go ahead and go through with it, that there's nothing to it...then find out there was no embryo found in the ultrasound...but the *abortion* went on as planned, anyway.

 

Funny that "Heavily Pregnant" alludes to the late stages of pregnancy, usually defined as post 24 weeks . .and as most people know an elective abortion after 24 weeks is illegal in almost all countries unless it is for medical reasons .. bit of hyperbole there I think.
The only specialty required is to know that the woman is making a choice to which you or I have no right to interfere with regardless of our own personal opinions.

Perhaps you would care to read this

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/illegaldrugs.html

Showing the problems an addict and a fetus can have if drugs are being used.

In the end no woman should be coerced in either having or not having an abortion, the decisions is hers alone helped by being given all the relevant information both for and against.
I find it very, very difficult to believe that an abortion would proceed if no fetus was found on the ultrasound, have tou evidence of this or is it just hearsay?

 

Yes, well, on the other hand, you believe all the propaganda fed to you by planned parenthood. Apparently your strict standards only apply to SOME things....Uh no, I didn't record the conversation, lol. But what happened was they did the ultrasound (yes, it has been available and used all along to determine the age and location of the baby for abortion purposes. Shocking, huh?) and the tech said, 'there's no embryo'. A couple more people came, looked, and said 'nope, it looks like she has already miscarried'. There was no more discussion. The abortion continued.

- - - Updated - - -

Though technically, I guess if there was no baby, at that point it was just a uterine scraping...

But charged the same, of course.

Yay for women's health in the form of abortion/uterus scraping. Cuz it's all about the woman!

 

//////

 

As far as I am aware PP cannot by law use state funding for abortions, they are also a non-profit organization. How on earth can you perform an abortion on a woman who isn't pregnant .. abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, no fetus, no pregnancy .. they may perform a "clean up" after a miscarriage, but surely this is in the health interest of the woman .. or would you prefer they run the risk of infection.

Yep you do, to voice you opinion, not to force others to adhere to your opinion . .pro-lifers are a minority who want to over rule the majority. Hyperbole in extreme for the "flayed" comment.
I know what rights are well enough, as I know pro-lifers want to remove rights from the woman.

did that article come from PP?
and you believe all the propaganda spouted out from the pulpit.
Define my strict standards
Ah well if you have no proof then its hearsay and not acceptable really is it.
Of course ultrasound is used, makes the procedure a lot easier.

glad to see you admit there was no abortion

Better for the woman who has made that choice .. a choice which you have no legal right to remove from her, and yep it is all about the woman as it should be in these circumstances.

 

Good for her, shame there aren't enough people willing to do the same . .and those two she adopted could just have easily grown up to be murderers or rapists but they didn't and those two kids were lucky enough to find someone who was willing to take them on .. doesn't mean that all addicted newborns are, in fact from what I have read it is quite a rarity for addicted newborns to be adopted.

 

Elective Late term abortions are legal now, still.

To quote John Mccain, the health of the mother is just a loophole that legalizes them.

Prove me wrong, Fugazi.

You are just in denial of your sick views. Abortion is not a political issue. It's a moral issue.

 

The question is .. what is the significant difference between the zygote and other human cells that makes one a living human and the other not.

Never do I say there is "no difference".

Your answer " because its a living human" is circular and therfor a logical fallacy. .. and it does not answer the question "what is the significant difference that makes it a living human"

restating your premise "its a living human" .. " because its a living human" .. does not answer the question, is circular, and a logical fallacy.

All you do here is repeat your premise over and over again without giving any valid support.

Once again ... The central question at hand "is the zygote a person/living human" "and why"

All you have stated in answer to this question is "its a living human because its a living human" .

I understand that think the zygote living human so there is no need to repeat this over and over again. What is missing is "the why".

Restating your premise "because its a living human" .. just assumes the original premise.

You have given no "why" other than logical fallacy thusfar.

 

The fact is that name calling does not help to support your case.

The fact is that your source never really supported your claim in the end (she was trying to support your case but she was hedging, ambiguous and never really stated outright .. its a living human in straightforward "technical" language ...Legitimate science is stated plainly and without ambiguity so that the claim can be critically examined .. ) .. and also, you never gave a link to your source.

It is also true that your source confirmed pretty much everything I said about the difference between a zygote and other human cells.

Regardless .. lets assume your source is credible and did not hedge ..

it is a fact that my source stated outright, in plain unambiguous language that a zygote is not a homo sapien/ person/ living human according to Biology.

Whether or not you agree with my source.. or I agree with your source is also irrelevent.

What can not be denied is that there is no scientific consensus that claims a zygote is a living person.

Do you at least agree with this ?