Abortion: The Facts

Guess what - all of that does not mean one single thing. Not one. Its a childish foolishness.

If I showed you a metastasized cancer cell but did not tell you what it was, could you identify it? No, you could not. Would that invalidate your knowledge that cancer is indeed a disease? No, it would not. It's meaningless drivel, just like your post.

 

I didn't "just say so"...i pointed out clearly how your logic and analogy failed you.

In fact, you made MY case.....since gender identification is impossible (without a genetic sample) until later stages of gestation.....determining if a fetus is "male" is much HARDER than determining if it is "human". Thus your analogy rebukes the "pro-life" argument that fetuses, even ova, are identifible as "human"....by compariing it to gender identification.

 

You claim that a fertilized human ovum is a "human"...if not a "baby". So by that claim, I could show you a fertilized ovum.....and given your "innate knowledge" of its "humanity"...you should immediately be able to tell the human from the non-human ova.

How do you KNOW an ovum is a "human" or "human baby"....except that somebody tells you it is inside a human woman? You can't. So the ONLY way you can make your claim...is if somebody else gives you evidence one way or the other as to its "location". But if "location" is the only determining factor....then you open up a whole new can of worms for yourself.

BTW, yes or no....are you going to answer my question?

What in your opinion should be the proscribed punishment in our criminal justice system for a person convicted of murder?

Or are you scared of a "trap"?

 

Uh.....those are separate labels and have absolutely nothing to do with the ones in question.

 

A POTENTIALhuman being....is an acorn an ok tree.?

 

Why not say ”slaughtering of adorable little toddlers" you can get yourself more emotional . Let me guess....your uterusless. I hate when men want women to breed against their wills.

 

What's fascinating (and more proof of the dishonesty of "pro-lifers") is how they will conflate their emotional rhetoric "slaughtering babies"......with things like women taking RU-486 at 3 weeks gestation.

Trying to make people think a 3 week old zygote is an "infant".....because they themselves can't discuss ...or don't believe...in any nuance on abortion, so they have to make up LIES to support their extremist views and propagate them.

 

No you didn't. You just repeated your fallacy over again, failing to grasp why both examples were equally fallacious.

This is an obvious straw man and appealing to ignorance fallacy. Gender selection is done in IVF all the time, and it's much easier to know what species the offspring is simply by knowing what species the sperm and ova came from. There are certainly good arguments that can be made against the "pro-life"/anti-abortion viewpoint, but you're not making any.

 

No clue what you mean then.

 

Nope. Its a human being.

Apples and oranges.

A teeny tiny oak tree is an oak tree, even if it only has one leaf.
A teeny tiny person is a person, even if it only has one cell.

Look, ALL you people can justify this slaughter of human life, this crime against humanity, until your dying breath. The blood is on your hands, not mine. And believe me, that blood cries to God for justice. So you can laugh and joke and all that for now, have your day. But THE day will be here soon enough.

 

There is a valid and pertinent reason we have differentiated an egg, zygote, fetus, and baby....they are very different things. Thus different labels communicate what they are.

 

Excellent point !

 

Oh goodie ... Ignore the content of posts responding to your posts and just restate your claim over and over again.

A tiny oak tree is an oak tree. Remove the descriptive adjective ... and we have " An oak tree is an oak tree" Wow .. that's profound

Restating your claim twice in the hopes that saying it the 2cnd time will constitute proof of claim. Logical Fallacy - Repeating a claim over and over again does make that claim true ??

 

If it is a "person" it has no right to cause the woman harm. She has every right to end the injury it's causing her....just as YOU can defend YOURSELF against injury.
Why do you think YOU are so special but women aren't special enough to defend themselves against injury by another PERSON????


Now, PROVE that YOUR god will do anything to anyone.......

 

Again, you're stating MY case. It takes a long time in fetal development (without a genetic sample) to know if it's a male or a female.

And if YOU KNOW what the species is....by knowing the species of the sperm and ova....then YES, it's easy to know what species the fertilized egg or even fetus is.

If you DON'T know what species the sperm and ova are....you don't know. Which means unless somebody TELLS you that a photo of a fetus is taken from inside a human woman....you can't declare "it's a baby" just by looking at it.

Which extrapolated means that it is NOT "a baby" (by the qualifier thta "pro-lifers" themselves use) unless somebody else tells you that it is "human". Without that outside knowledge, you cannot declare it "human" or "porcupine" or "alligator".

Yet, "pro-lifers" say immediately that they "know" a fetus or even fertilized egg is a "baby"....when without others providing them information....they can't "know" that, can they?

- - - Updated - - -

Is an acorn an oak tree?


BTW, obviously, given you feel you would be "trapped" by answering questions about your claim and thus keep avoid doing it....you don't REALLY believe "abortion is murder"...do you?

 

Yes, that's true. Obviously the individual person you "trapped" made some erroneous assumptions about the photos you showed them, and didn't think you were pulling a bait and switch. It doesn't prove anything about the "pro-life" position. You're creating a straw man by placing these artificial constraints that you can't know the species of the parents or do genetic testing. All it does is give "pro-lifers" an excuse to say 'See how Gorn Captain uses dishonest and deceptive debating tactics? That shows all "pro-choicers" are dishonest and deceptive.' (Which of course is also a fallacy, but it's one that you're contributing to.)

 

I was never dishonest.

When I showed him the picture of the freshly fertilized human ovum, I said it was a human ovum.....and asked him "Is this a human being?"

When I showed him the picture of the fetus, I did not identify the species....and asked him "Is this a human being?"

Given his original claim was that he had the ability to determine the "humanity" of fertilized ova and fetuses...a priori. That is, without any other information being needed.

When I noted a posteriori that it was not a human fetus but an alligator fetus, he was proven wrong in his original claim.

IF I had told him "This is a human fetus" and then asked him "Are you saying this is a 'baby'?"....while showing a picture of an alligator fetus....THAT would be dishonest.

But all I did was take his origiinal claim...and gave him no more knowledge that he said he required....and tested his innate "gift" for determining if a fetus was a "human being".

Did I "fool" him? Of course. But only by letting him prove himself foolish. I did not lie to him.



As for the honesty of "pro-lifers"...I have numerous direct, logical questions based on what THEY say or claim.....that they refuse to answer because their answers would be contradictory or embarrassing. As noted on my "Quickly..."abortion is murder"?" thread.

 

In other words, you engaged in sophistry. Of course.

 

You accused me of "dishonesty"....now you drop that charge and go to "sophistry".

But even that fails. Sophistry is using arguments that "sound true" but are false. In fact, that is what Catholic Crusader did...not me.

He has constantly made the argument that he knows that fetuses and ova are "human beings".....yet when presented with an opportunity to prove that claim....he couldn't. Not without more information (something he didn't say he needed in his original claim).

I simply allowed him to TRY to prove his "ability" at determining "humanity" in ova/fetal development. I did not lie to him and he did not demand "more information" from me.

It would have been completely justified ...and logical...if when I had asked him "Is this a human being?" he had said, when I showed him that alligator fetus to say "I need to know what species this fetus is, first".

Of course that would have made my case even more, wouldn't it? And if I had lied and said "Human"....and then he agreed.....you could rightly accuse me of dishonesty in tricking him. But he didn't ask.

BTW, again, what do you call a person who says "Abortion is murder"....but doesn't REALLY believe that when asked logical questions about that claim? Are they engaging in dishonesty or sophistry or just false hyperbole?

 

I said "pro-lifers" would accuse you of dishonesty, and now you're quibbling about the difference between deception and dishonesty. You've set yourself up for a trap here.

I'll give you an E for Effort, GC. I can see you're sincere in your long-windedness, but you're just not cutting it when it comes to actually debating the issue. Like I said, you're building a straw man and and using deceptive arguments, so you're not "proving" the things you think you are. I want to see you make valid arguments which support your viewpoint rather than undermine it.

 

The "straw-man" is that a "pro-lifer" knows that a fertilized ovum or a fetus is a "human being" ...innately. They do not. Without genetic or third-person information, they can't know that...certainly not by sight.

What viewpoint do you want me to provide evidence for? That a fertilized human egg one second after fertilization is NOT a "human being"...certainly not a "baby"? You want viability? You want Merriam-Webster? You want tradition...even religious tradition (Catholic teaching said that a fetus did not obtain a 'soul' until 'quickening'...about 16 weeks gestation)? You want standard medical terminology and terms used in obstetrics?

 

Let's get to the core: Why do people like you want to murder human life so badly? Why? I'd really like to know.

 

Why do you insist it's murder? Why? When all The Facts say it isn't.

Why do you think if you call it murder , it will be?

Why do you think if you call it murder anything will change?

It's abortion. How does it affect you? How?

 

Childhood (i.e. the child) does not exist until after birth and a child is a person. Even under the most extremely liberal definition (OMG - are you a liberal) a child could be considered to be a fetus at natural viability because the fetus could live outside of the womb as a person. If the fetus cannot live outside of the womb then it's not even a "potential person" yet as it would simply die if removed intact from the womb.

We can also note that the removal of a fetus unharmed and intact from the womb is not murder if the fetus later dies. It is no different than removing a person from a house they don't own isn't murder if the person later dies. You might argue that this isn't what happens with abortions but we could simply pass a law that the zygote, embryo, or fetus be removed unharmed and intact from the body of the woman and it would eliminate any allegations of "murder" by the anti-abortionists. It would create unnecessary surgical risks for the woman because we know that the zygote, embryo, and pre-viable fetus would die anyway but it would remove any possible false claims of "murder" by the anti-abortionists.

Sorry, the "murder" claim doesn't stand up under rational scrutiny because the simple act of requiring the zygote, embryo, or pre-viable fetus be removed unharmed and intact removes any possible claim of "murder" occuring at all as the death would be from natural causes.

 

Even if abortion is murder....supporting another persons right to do so, does not equate to "Wanting" them to do so..."So Badly" or not. Why do "People Like You" want to control the lives of strangers "So Badly"?