Rational Abortion Support

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tlaloc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Now Tlaloc you are being dishonest,
Click to expand...
No I’m not, but not surprisingly you manage to get my position wrong.
you are in favor of Terri Schiavo being starved to death,in effect do you really believe its okay to kill anyone as long as its legal?
Click to expand...
I’m in favor of following people’s wishes regarding being kept on life support or not. If she desired to be kept on life support then by all means do. If she didn’t then don’t.

That isn’t a difficult position to understand so i have to assume you deliberately get it wrong in order to try and paint me as (shock!) a monster. Gosh, I never saw that coming, you seemed so reasonable before your 47th attempt to slander me.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Actually the siamese twins together would be one complete organism
Click to expand...
So should the one who could survive independently cut the dependent one off?
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Why would I be dishonest about what it is,lies and making abortion sound benign is only perpetuating the lie that was started by planned parenthood.You do not cover up truth and expect truth to come out with fluffy talk:nope:
Click to expand...
Have fun with the rhetoric then, just don’t expect to actually ever make a difference.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
But we don’t use selective definitions for something as specific as homo sapiens sapiens. That phrase can only mean one thing, no matter what the circumstances. Unlike "how we use “run” like “run a race” or “run a computer program,” homo sapiens sapiens can only be used one way.
Click to expand...
“homo sapiens” is a science term and yes has a single definition, but “human” or “human being” has a wide array of meanings.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
Are you saying that requiring assistance with breathing, eating, or eliminating wastes means the living thing in question is not an individual organism? If so, why wouldn’t this apply to an adult on dialysis, or recieving IV nutrition?
Click to expand...
Please read the other threads on this page, I’ve covered this innumerable times now…
 
40.png
Genesis315:
So could the one who should the one who could survive independently cut the dependent one off?
Click to expand...
As the definition is right now? They could. I can’t answer the “should” question.

We can further refine the definition if you like to avoid such an eventuality.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Have fun with the rhetoric then, just don’t expect to actually ever make a difference.
Click to expand...
The truth does and has made a difference,because alot of people have just been mislead,into thinking the unborn are a blob of cells nd some know the truth and have become hardened and they may care.I hope thats not you Tlaloc:(
 
Tlaloc said:
“homo sapiens” is a science term and yes has a single definition, but “human” or “human being” has a wide array of meanings.
Click to expand...

ok, so what is a homo sapien? you would say a fetus is not a homo sapien, but is a dependant siamese twin a homo sapien?
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
As the definition is right now? They could. I can’t answer the “should” question.

We can further refine the definition if you like to avoid such an eventuality.
Click to expand...
Well, can we agree that it would not be reasonable to say that the one brother should have a right to cut the other dependent off?

so, what’s a definiton that would define him as a homo sapien so he couldn’t be cut off? (if we say they are one homo sapien together, then he could be cut off, so that’s no good).
 
Another question, Tlaloc. If the fetus is part of the mother’s body, why doesn’t the mother’s body produce feti on its own? Why is the addition of sperm required?
And if the fetus is not a complete organism, what is added to make it complete? The fetus only requires nourishment and time to become a newborn baby. Is a little girl not a complete organism because she lacks breasts, or the ablity to reproduce? I would say she is an immature organism myself, and that is the case with an unborn child as well. Both only require time to become fully developed. The embryo is the same organism as the newborn, since nothing has been added. The egg is not an organism, since it requires the addition of DNA to become one.
 
Don’t you think if your position was logical, rational or consistent, people would stop asking you the same types of questions over and over? Or are you just suggesting we are all stupid? Maybe there is a certain factual unreasonableness to your premise? But no, you wouldn’t consider that, would you?

Everything is not relative and significant issues are not always “gray”. The taking of innocent human life is always evil. There is only one circumstance where something totally new exists that has never existed before, and that moment is conception. At that moment a new innocent life exists. Everything after that is just a matter of time.

You can call it a fetus, an organism, a human, a homo sapien or an eggplant if you want, but it doesn’t change what it is. Some things are just true because they are. Life is precious. Conception creates new life. You could go look it up, but that would take effort.
40.png
Tlaloc:
Grumpy that you bolstered my case so efficiently?
Click to expand...
Nope. Just sad that you are so immune to reason.

Sad for you, that is.

Say, that must make me charitable!

Go figure.
 
Jimmy and Cove, thank you for the welcome :tiphat:

I can relate to Tialoc because awhile ago I found myself as one of around three prolifers against maybe eighty prochoice on an abortion debate board.
I too would come on and make many posts - back to back - answering everyone who had ganged up on me during the night.

Tialoc: Human tissue is not a human being. This isn’t a difficult concept. Your blood is human tissue but not a human. Your marrow is human tissue but not a human. Your brain is human tissue but not a human. Your skin is human tissue but not a human. A human is the sum total of all these tissues, an organism unto itself.>>>

Tialoc, you are comparing apples and billygoats. None of these organs can ever be expected to grow into human beings, no matter what sort of incubation they were given.

So all these attempts at comparing organs and fingernails and skin cells to human embryos and feti are regrettable on your part.
 
Tialoc: Incorrect. Transplants, Ovum, and Chimeras are all examples of tissues that are part of the mother and yet don’t match her DNA. A fetus is just one more example.>>>

Speaking of slips which undermine positions…a woman’s ova do not match her DNA? That seems to be what you are saying. I’ll look this up but I am pret-ty sure you are incorrect here.
 
Originally Posted by Chrissay

It actually isn’t “a cell from a human being”; rather it is more than one cell after fertilization>>>

Tialoc: At fertilization it’s one cell, the haploid sperm and ovum form a single diploid cell. Then it starts dividing.>>>
And…? I believe I said AFTER fertilization it is more than one cell…so we agree.

Chrissay: …which constitute a microcosm of the entire organism with everything contained in those cells, in potential form – including as was mentioned earlier by a previous poster, an entirely separate DNA, blood type, etc.>>>

Tialoc: Every cell in your body has a whole organism “in potential form.”>>>

Incorrect. Incorrect, a priori (hair and fingernails) and incorrect because you could only be alluding to cloning which has not been proven practicable on human beings.

Chrissay: I doubt that the umbilicus qualifies as “common tissue”. It only exists incidental to the pregnancy, functioning solely as a conduit that is temporary by nature.>>>

Tialoc: Your welcome to that interpretation, I don’t share it. I see a connecting tissue between mother and fetus. Of course it’s temporary, eventually the fetus become a true organism by itself and is born at which point it’s unneeded.>>>
Yes, it is unneeded then because it is not any innate part of the body. As such it does not correspond to an intuitive consensus definition of “common tissue”, nor to a technical one.

Chrissay: … “common tissue” would be a shared liver, or a shared heart, in other words tissue that was an integral or permanent part of the body. >>>

Tialoc: I never argued that a fetus was a permanent part of the mother, only part of her in early development.>>
I am not maintaining that you did. Your answer has nothing to do with what I wrote. I was describing what “common tissue” would mean as a technical term, as in the case of attached persons sharing access to tissue/organs.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
We can further refine the definition if you like to avoid such an eventuality.
Click to expand...
This is very telling. You are not first determining what a human being (or individual organism, etc.) is and then concluding whether or not a fetus fits this definition. You are starting with the premise that a fetus is not a complete organism and then fabricating a definition to fit your premise. In other words, your definition is completly arbitrary. At first the criteria was independant respiration and nutrition, then when people mention disabled adults you added “or was once a complete organism”. Then when conjoined twins are mentioned, you offer to further “refine the definition” to exclude them. Can’t you see the intellectual dishonesty of your position? You may as well use the most “refined” definition of all - “a complete organism is one that is not a fetus”. As long as definitions invented by Tlaloc are valid, why not?
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
The truth does and has made a difference,because alot of people have just been mislead,into thinking the unborn are a blob of cells nd some know the truth and have become hardened and they may care.I hope thats not you Tlaloc:(
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, Lisa, but since you choose to approach the issue purely from a standpoint of rhetoric, and with no intention of having a real discussion, I’m not interested in continuing with you.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Well, can we agree that it would not be reasonable to say that the one brother should have a right to cut the other dependent off?

so, what’s a definiton that would define him as a homo sapien so he couldn’t be cut off? (if we say they are one homo sapien together, then he could be cut off, so that’s no good).
Click to expand...
Why are you focusing on “homo sapien” now instead of “human being”?
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Why are you focusing on “homo sapien” now instead of “human being”?
Click to expand...
I like to use specific terminology. I don’t like what I say to be ambiguous.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
I’m sorry, Lisa, but since you choose to approach the issue purely from a standpoint of rhetoric, and with no intention of having a real discussion, I’m not interested in continuing with you.
Click to expand...
:crying:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top