blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Uh, yes. Fertilized embryos are "naturally ejected from the body" more often than you'd think. I'm getting a strong feeling you aren't particularly familiar with the woman's reproductive system while trying to argue for legislation that affects it.

Heh. Very untrue mg. Very, very untrue. I was raised on a farm FYI - I know a bit more than most about this. You would be surprised at how many eggs, even from the most commercialized and sterile farms, escape to store shelves with a late-stage developed chick (We're talking full-on fetus late stage development here.)

Untrue. The embryonic and fetal stage of a chicken is within the egg. You are ultimately eating embryonic chickens if you eat eggs and a chick (Read: Fetus) has not been visibly formed inside what we call the "yolk" yet. You are arguing for the latter in the prior sentence, I am arguing for the former.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

So are you interested in trying to score points (do you think I've never heard of a miscarriage), or are you interested in actually developing your argument?

For example, I say that food eggs are unfertilized -- you counter by stating that fertilized eggs "escape" to store shelves. What you're saying is a non-issue; I'm not saying that a fertilized egg has never reached a store shelf, I'm saying that your earlier analogy using chicken eggs is false, unless of course you were intending to refer only to that small percentage of fertilized eggs that "escape" to store shelves. Is that what you meant?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

And? I'm talking prior to what would even be called a miscarriage.

No, you stated the absolute that fertilized eggs are not sold (Untrue, in actuality a very large amount of eggs are sold fertilized), and went down the rabbit hole trying to evade my earlier argument in post #879. I'll repost.

You are trying to argue with anecdotes and supporting information to my primary argument, vis a vis that I am trying to use your metric, establish criteria for your metric, and then prove it wrong.

Except for cell division, there is nothing prior to the development of the fetus that would be considered "critical marks of human life" - I mean, ----, I'm not joking when I can say I can go point by point comparing a tumor to an embryo, and you'll have difficulty distinguishing between them except for some very minor ---- that's not relevant to the comparison.

As I've said before, the current argument of abortion stems from religious and personal beliefs trying to legislate morality. So far you've done nothing but say it's someone's personal beliefs - not medical, not scientific - personal, which are based in religious teachings, that say 1st term abortions should be illegal.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

So which is it? Was your chicken egg analogy referring only to fertilized eggs?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Mg,

You do understand that you are arguing an absolute position that only requires one counter-example to disprove, correct?

You further understand that the chicken illustration was merely an anecdote that serves a purpose of trying to illustrate how ridiculous it is to compare an embryo to human life and was in no way, shape, or form central to my argument? (The fetus has interesting arguments, but the embryo?)

Further, you pretty much ignored yet again the majority of my argument, focusing on something that is not particularly relevant.

Finally, I see you also ignored my repeated question. Ron Paul has implicitly stated support for a ban on abortion even if it will kill the mother. Are you arguing from a position to support this, or not?

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Not at all. If I make the statement, "School buses are yellow," I'm not claiming that nobody has ever painted a school bus a different color. Likewise, stating that food eggs are unfertilized is not "disproved" by the fact that a small percentage of fertilized eggs reach store shelves.

Since your argument attempted to analogize food eggs from chickens and fertilized human eggs, I can only assume that you are either ignoring the difference between unfertilized or fertilized eggs, or that you are only referring the small percentage of fertilized chicken eggs that reach the store shelves. Which is it?

I haven't seen a majority of any argument yet, only a lot of claims that "hey, it's a clump of cells, how COULD it be a human life???"

It's a secondary question based on whether or not life begins at conception. What's the point in trying to argue that issue when there's disagree over the more fundamental issue?


Just noticed this line -- lulz at the tumor/embryo comparison. Talk about intellectual dishonesty, and redefining medical knowledge to support personal beliefs.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Irrelevant. A chicken egg is an embryo. You have no way of telling, short of a microscope and forensic analysis of the egg, if it is fertilized or not. Any egg you have ever eaten is a chance of a fertilized embryo.

.....See below.

.....

No, this is a primary question. I can't even pin you down on what the ---- you are arguing.

What are you arguing?

From what you've said, you want to ban all abortion. Does this include, or does this NOT include, abortion in cases of medical emergency, such as if it would kill the mother? Or how about cases such as rape?

Depending on the case, then it can mean you are arguing significantly different reasoning then what Ron Paul's line of reasoning supports and the argument must take an entirely different turn.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Meh, I'm out. I can't be bothered to continue if you can't sort out your chicken egg argument. Just happy that we at least established that you disagree with Ron Paul on biology, not on the right of government to legislate morality.

Obligatory anti-abortion link containing quotes from standard embryology textbooks: http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Seriously? Seriously?

So, let's use Ron Paul's expressed views.

Mother will die if she does not get an abortion. But abortion is banned and is murder, as supported by the concept that from the day of fertilization, the embryo is a human life.

Do I really, REALLY need to explain why this is legislating morality? But I can't even pin you down as to what you are arguing, you won't respond to questions about it, and keep going after largely irrelevant anecdotes that have little to do with the core of my argument! I mean, ----, my comments about tumors and chickens were supposed to be illustrative of how ridiculous that line of argument was, not a ------- serious line of debate!

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

Less talky, more pictures.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

LOL

Here's a real man's take on abortion.

First off, lots of people like to equate abortion to murder, and while the physiological equivalent exists, the loss associated with murder is not there.

Consider this: No verdict of any murder trial in the history of the earth, the universe, and everything, has EVER helped a murder victim. A trial takes place soely for the good of the victim's surviving friends and family. Laws are in place to discourage would-be murderers from committing such a crime; however, laws will never prevent a murder. When a murder occurs, a person is choosing to end the life of another person, which causes great emotional pain to those who were attached to the murdered person - we, as a society, have deemed that this emotional pain is worthy of compensation. Such compensation may be material, like money, or it may be non-material, such as serving a life-sentence in jail which assures the survivors that the murderer may never commit a murder again (it also provides a barrier to prevent the murderer from causing future deaths, but this is second order, because there is no guarantee that jailing a past murderer would prevent a future murder - for that, we would have to know the future)

Compare and contrast this with abortion.

In abortion, the "victim" is known by only a single person (the mother) - the mother is also the decision maker in the abortion, and she is causing pain and suffering to no other person by executing an abortion. She is allowed to weigh her own economic situation and determine what is best for her, without negatively affecting any other persons.

Economic value:
While a 20 year old with a solid work ethic has an extremely high economic value, an unborn baby's economic value is literally and effectively null. Babies are so easy to create, that people make them without even intending to.

EVERY SINGLE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT, as far as I'm concerned, is based on religious beliefs. If you want to argue the ideals that the baby has a "soul", or "feelings", or that it's a "sin" to have an abortion, then it's a religious argument. I don't care if it was conceived yesterday, or if the due date is tomorrow, an unborn baby is an unborn baby. If you want to get rid of an appendix, you get an appendectomy. If you want to get rid of a baby, you have an abortion. If you want to practice a religion that says you shouldn't have an abortion, then I, as a U.S. Soldier, will fight for your right to practice your religion, so long as you don't shove your religion down my throat.

My next two points are personal preference, and I acknowledge that they may be offensive to a great number of people - when reading them, you will need to do so with an open mind.

I literally think that abortions, up through the end of the 4th trimester, should be perfectly legal. Yes, you read that correctly, "4th trimester". I believe it would be in the economic best interest of the nation to make it legal to terminate a childs life until they reach 3 months old. Now given, it would require the consent of the mother AND the father (unless the father was deemed unknown or unreachable) if the baby were born, but we could get rid of a baby that had a previously unknown disease which would be financially and economically devastating to the parents.

Lastly, I believe that fathers (extramarital conception) should have the right to abortion too - and here is how it would work: A father who can foot the bill for a standard abortion procedure, would be de-obligated to his child by paying the mother to cover the full cost of the abortion. The mother would still be the decision maker in the abortion, but she would then have to weigh the cost of raising the child without financial assistance from a father, or else using the money that the father gave her to perform an abortion. In order for such a law to function properly, the mother would be legally required to notify the father of the pregnancy by the end of the 5th month, and if the father is not notified in due time, then he is legally and automatically deobligated from the childs life without the requirement to remit a procedure fee.

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

I like the abortion analysis in Freakonomics. Without quoting directly, its something like : when giving the choice, the aborting parent usually makes a good decision (based on socio-economic conditions, etc. that the child would be brought up in.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

IDK about everybody else, but I'd rather be alive and brought up in crappy conditions, then not alive at all.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Scared of the goberment? You'll LOVE this:

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Word.

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

I am not pro abortion(get that out of the way first), but your statement is based on having already lived and having had a chance to evaluate living and the conditions you think you could tolerate.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I just realized that Rick Santorum's domestic policy is The Old Testament. I'll take Romney, please.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Has he advocated the stoning of unwed mothers or disobedient children yet? The throwing of daughters to sex crazed crowds? The sacrifice of children? He probably wants to get elected before he lets that freak flag fly.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I watched the ABC or CBS or whatever debates last night. I wouldn't take any of them but ron paul.



but omg, the questions asked were retarded. they were asking ---- like "should the states have the right to ban contraceptives." ...and everyone was like wtf? and newt was like ---- off.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

wait...does he follow Sharia?