Fill in the blank: " It's okay to kill your baby when... "

FAmily is another thing. Family you can do nothing about but argue. I am talking friends.....people that come and go.

I believe the position is all my mention. If the shoe fits...eh? It is vile...it is digesting and evil.

 

If it were a frog, or a tree, Liberals would be outraged. That's the amusing thing.





http://animals.howstuffworks.com/endangered-species/frog-extinction.htm
Notice what the caption at the top of the site reads: "Animal Planet: Suprisingly Human"

If abortion were being done under any other circumstance that didn't involve "women's rights", Liberals would be the first ones to scream bloody murder.
You are right, churchmouse. As it is, Liberals just don't want to see what's right in front of them.

 

Apparently you missed something entirely. I am pro-choice and nothing I have said in the thread would indicate anything else. Find another battle.

 

Emotion tells the truth, then. Not reason. Not law. Not science. Your truth makes you feel good. Wonderful. Go feel good on your own time. Don't requite the rest of us to join in your celebration of personal happiness. Hell, I don't know you and don't give a crap whether or not you are happy. But, like a true Romantic, you wear your feelings as if it were reason and expect the rest of us to feel the same. Well good luck on that.

 

You do realize that this image is pretty much a steaming pile of BS, right?

LIBERALS don't believe trees have souls. Some people who are liberal may, but honestly, this is more a of a spiritual/religious thing that it has nothing to do with political persuasion to begin with.

And as far as Bald Eagle eggs are concerned, get back to me when the human race is an endangered species for whom extinction is a real possibility. If humans were in danger of becoming extinct due to low population, we probably wouldn't be having a conversation about abortion now would we.

We protect Eagle's eggs, but we eat chicken eggs. Gee, I wonder what the difference is?

 

Rules prevent me from assessing your post......lets have a rule change.....

 

Oh I don't expect you or this group to feel...your pro-abortion. IMO your positions defines the type of person you are. I can debate this topic without religion or emotion. There is science...that is the element you disregard.

 

100% wrong.

Without emotion and religion, you have nothing. Absolutely positively nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Void. Empty. Less substance than the vacuum of space. The most literal definition of the term nothing that you could possibly have.

 

Your question contains a false premise and is therefore a a false question.

A baby is not a baby when it is in the womb.

 

What about science? I do have something...that you are ignoring. When does science say life starts?

 

At conception.

When does science say that a human life deserves rights? When does science say a human life becomes a person? Where does science say that abortion is wrong?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science and you're attaching intent and meaning where there is none. Why, that's morally relativist of you! I'm shocked!

 

Back when amino acids combined into more advanced life forms, I believe.

 

Why conception? Why not before? Why isn't a tissue full of sperm as evil as abortion? Certainly human material. So emotion is the great determiner. Beware. Most lunatics are convinced of their correctness even as they blow away the church full of those their emotions told them they had to kill. If you have nothing higher than your emotions to rely on. (It just felt like the right (or wrong) thing to do) so I had to follow my emotions. All of the truly evil were convinced of the correctness of their actions, convinced of their own genius and the correctness of those powerful emotions which were saying to them , "Trust me. Trust your inner self. If you feel it so strongly, it must be right." Adolf believed profoundly in his final solution. If you don't have more than your strong personal passion to go on, stop.

 

Perhaps you would be so kind as to define life. Human life? Cellular structures? Is it life that is sacred (oops your concept - not mine) or human life? All human life? Are all human cells of equal value? Why or why not? So many questions. I am sure that there are those of you who will use your enlightened emotions to let the rest of us know the truth about all of this. You will probably refer to one of your "holy" books - another opinion - as proof that your emotional response is the correct one. You will forgive me if I reject your opinions as exactly that, opinions. Your God and your opinions have no bearing on a rational discussion.

 

The "lie" is that a baby exists at conception .. this is pure fallacy.
The other lie is your claim that "Science" says that the single cell at conception is a living human. Where is this Science (Biology .. not pseudo Science or opinion)

A "new human" is not formed at conception. The human is formed over 9 weeks.

At conception all there is is a single human cell. The fact that it is not a frog or an apple does not make this single human cell "a human"

Fallacy upon fallacy seems to be the only basis for your claims.

 

NO, FALSE, WRONG. Test score = 0

Anyone with the most basic understanding of Biology knows that animate does not come from inanimate.

It is not as if there are "non living" components that come together at conception and whallaaaaa .. life begins.

Science says no such thing. Science states that life is a continuum. Both sperm and egg are "life" .. human life.

 

Fair enough, however, in the context of the discussion, and my having known what Churchmouse was getting at, I conceded the point only to make the subsequent point that I made about science not speaking anything about rights, emotions, values, or morality. Had she worded her phrase a little differently and asked when a "new human life" began, that would be conception. The sperm and the egg are certainly alive but only when they combine does a new human life begin. That's not in question, but the idea that when that life begins that it automatically has rights is something entirely subjective and something that science has nothing to do with.

 

I asked you when science said a human life started, not if it deserved rights. AGain you run from the truth. Where does science say rape and murder are wrong? Pedophelia...child porn....does science tell us they are wrong? No. Our morality dictates what is right and wrong...and as we see that changes for many people.

I have no misunderstanding...and I stand on the proof that it starts at conception, science sys so. You are not. You are the one standing on nothing.

 

And egg is human...sperm is human.....alone they are not a person. When they meet and are fertilized a new human life starts. I am not talking about material....not just sperm not just eggs. Why don't any of you address science and what it says? A nincomepoop can get this stuff it does not take a brain surgeon. Yet your group....does not get it.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:
These are taken from medical books, science books and journals.

But I would guess that the rabidly pro-abort group here.....would discount science in this field.

 

You do realize that my post that you quoted right there in your own post clearly shows me giving you the exact answer you were looking for? How is giving you the exact answer you were looking running from the truth? Oh this should be a good one!

Science doesn't. That's my exact argument.

You just repeated what I told you, only in different words! It's MY argument that morality is subjective, not yours! Give it back!

You have completely deflected and ignored my post. You ignored the points I made, and now you're changing the argument, again. I mean really, do we need any more proof that you have no case to make at this point?

 

You don't get this because you do not have a moral viewpoint on anything. Nothing is wrong. So for you, seeing a wrong with abortion can't happen. Morals never come into play with you.

 

Let me go slow for you....

When does the unborn deserve rights?

Now you know this is a trick question don't you?

You are stating that because science does not say something is wrong....we should allow it. Right?

 

I am showing your worldview and how barbaric and sick it is. Science says human life is human life....and you don't care. Everything should be allowed in your world.

 

Science does not say what is right or wrong. Science is purely a means and a method for discovering things about our world and that's it. Science does not dictate what is morally right and wrong, people do.