The "Frog Boiling" Strategy of the "pro-life" movement...

I'll act in no manner, I just wont stop the bus from going over the edge

 

Oh, Anti-Choicers feel no shame for their views , that's obvious.....but it's fun to poke holes in their arguments and show how they really aren't "pro-life" at all.

 

Just as the mentality of pro-lifers is one to use emotional hyperbole, lies, misrepresentation and just general BS simply because they have nothing else.

 

lol you are fooling yourself

 

How? Why? Show facts to PROVE he is "fooling himself"?

Why can't you?

One liners saying nothing don't cut the mustard...and certainly don't prove a thing....except that poster does not want to be nailed down because of shifting arguments

 

I haven't shifted anything. Another post just to boost your numbers? Now what do you have to add to the topic

 

Really EXACTLY how have you been frog boiled?

 

Where in my hypothetical would you disagree, Steve? Specifically?

It seems you've confirmed it many times. You support 20 week bans....after you got that, you'd want a 15 week ban....then a 12 week ban....then an 8 week ban.....then a 6 week ban. True or False?

And every time, you'd PRETEND that "This is the last little bit of Europe that Germany demands, Herr Chamberlain, we promise".

 

nope ive confirmed many times that I want to ban most abortions period. I support 20 week bans and 15 weeks bans and 12 week bans too. I take what I can get in the battle for human life. Say what you want, that what it boils down to. Value of the unborn. You can say I don't value the woman, or value her less, but it isn't true, I think deep down you know it isn't true.
You and most others seem take the subject of abortion and think it applies to every aspect of life, that I somehow don't care about women
Biggest part where myself and pro-choice disagree is the right to kill the unborn. I say most cases, no, you say most/all cases yes
I'd like to discuss with you other subjects outside of abortion, if you ever wish to.

 

What are some other ways that you "battle for human life," besides advocating for forced birth?

 

You mean like donating to charities, especially st judes and shriners. I'd like to be a spokesman for one of those two childrens hospitals.
Advocating for forced birth? Do you really want to play the who can make the other side seem more evil game?

 

So you admit "forced birth" is evil....I agree. Why do you advocate it?

 

No, donating to charity makes you no different than most others. I'm talking about "battling for human life," being an activist, in other issues that endanger real human lives, like unnecessary war, pollution, lack of health care, and lack of common sense gun control measures.

Advocating for forced birth is what you do in reality. Abortion is only evil in your mind, because you have convinced yourself it kills a child, but that is not the reality.

 

I'm not an activist of anything. I'm not out there holding signs, or campaigning for anything.
Actually never said abortion was evil. It is wrong in most cases. And it does kill a baby, not a child. That is the reality. A juvenile human. A young human. Baby.

 

I'm sorry Steve you are wrong by all medical definitions of what a baby is, if you are trying to say that people will use the word baby in place of fetus then you are falling into the trap of informal usage being a correct definition and usage, or even an appeal to common practice.

A fetus has never been a baby.

I find it disingenuous that pro-lifers use the word 'baby' incorrectly, to me it is nothing more than an appeal to emotions.

 

It doesn't kill a baby, which is the stage from birth to one year. The majority of abortions are performed before 8 weeks in the embryonic stage. 90% are performed by 12 weeks, in the early fetal stage. Whether they are humans at that point is a matter of opinion. It IS evil to force someone to risk her health, life, permanently damage her body, and dehumanize her by taking away her human rights of self determination and bodily autonomy.

If the only time you "battle for human life" is when it is in the womb, you may need to examine your motives.

 

Actually no I'm not incorrect, or being disingenuous. Baby is a juvenile, or young. The unborn is a juvenile human and is also a young human. unborn child aka fetus is also in the definition of baby. youngest member of a family, or group. Hmmm yup that's the unborn human. a very young child aka infant is also called a baby. Doesn't mean the unborn is not a baby.
and you claim all medical definitions. hmm a very young child, especially an infant. Doesn't say the unborn is not a baby.
an extremely young animal-- last I checked people are animals and the unborn is extremely young.
and child definition is unborn or recently born.
I find it disingenuous that pro-choicers refuse to call the unborn what it is.. a baby.

 

It does kill a baby unborn to recently born. All abortion are performed against an unborn human life aka a baby. Whether they are humans nor not is not an opinion. It is a fact. They are not frogs, goats, or mice. They are humans. Biologically they are nothing else.
It is not evil to protect human life, especially at the earliest stage of human life.
No need to re examine my motives, or what I stand for.

 

Baby - An infant a newborn child - http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=9072
Baby - 1. an extremely young child. 2. an extremely young animal - http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/baby

A fetus has never been a 'baby' in medical terms, it has only ever been called a 'baby' in informal usage, it's usage is actually an appeal to common practice fallacy - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html - because it is common to use the word 'baby' to refer to a fetus does not mean it is correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

To go to the linguistic gymnastics you have done above in order to try and justify it's usage is 100% disingenuous.

We have words that define every stage of human development, if a fetus were a 'baby' there would be no requirement for the word fetus.

Even the definition of fetus is quite specific - An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception. - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fetus

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fetus

 

The Oxford definition for human being:

"A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/human-being

You may find other sources with a different definition, because there is no consensus. Carl Sagan, one of the most brilliant scientists ever, wrote, "Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult." http://www.2think.org/sagan_abortion.shtml

It isn't evil to protect human life, but it is evil to force someone else to do it at the risk of her health and life. It's as evil as rape or slavery.

 

And thus, SteveJa CONFIRMS the point of the OP I made.

Even down to the use of the verb "boil"...unintentionally, I'm sure.

 

a fetus is a young animal. Its not a word game. Its a fact. an unborn human is a baby.

- - - Updated - - -

1. by that definition a newborn is not a homo sapien
2. wow way to reach on that. comparing protecting the unborn with rape and slavery. wow

- - - Updated - - -

No, all i confirmed is the OP is factually incorrect and hyperbol

 

I am so surprised that the experts of the medical/scientific/legal worlds don't consult with you for correct definitions.......why is that?



Why do you think a fetus is an animal?

 

Wrong, a newborn is a child.

You like to call what you do, advocating for anti-abortion laws, "protecting the unborn," but actually what those laws do is FORCE women to protect the unborn. Force, as in rape and slavery.

 

because there are those in the medical.scientific and legal fields that are pro choice and don't want their arguments that an unborn is not a human to be proved incorrect, even though it already has been, even biologically. Human development stage 1 zygote 2 embryo 3 fetus. HUMAN
and right in the definition of baby unborn is there.

A human starts as a zygote. a human zygote is a human. Yes most animals start off the same way, but they don't have the same DNA.

a human is an animal and a fetus is a young human. a young animal.