Whomever did her programing needs to be fired.
The second link is from an atheist source. Doesn’t surprise me.
Give me a break. Answer the question.
And yet, it’s not true in the case of abortion, which is what I said.
I’m sorry, but "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA… HAHAHAHA… HA!
That, quite frankly, is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, the most asinine justification I’ve ever seen you try to make. I’m fairly sure that Roe v. Wade (the main litigant of whom is now a pro-life activist,) and Doe v. Bolton (the main litigant of whom said she was lied to) wound up in court precisely because they couldn’t influence the law and/or get people to agree with their position. All that aside, so now you’ve gone from arguing that people’s opinions matter to arguing that only the opinion of certain people matter? Wow, it’s not like I said that in my last post (which you effectively ignored). Who knew? Besides me, and anyone with a quarter of a brain, of course.
I’ll give you a C+ fo reffort. At least you tried.
Number one, you’ll notice I put the word valued in quotation marks, because that’s your word, not mine. I couldn’t care less if you value someone’s opinion. Number two, what I said, which you seemingly don’t understand, is that you don’t accept that people’s opinions matter, or more importantly, that people’s opinions don’t matter if you don’t agree with them. You don’t look at what society wants as an aggregate and base the law of that, which is what I say should be done to come to a compromise on abortion. No, you look at what you want the law to be while discounting what society as a whole wants those laws to be. An opinion only matters if it’s taken into consideration. You don’t, point blank, and no amount of obfuscation will change this fact. Get real and try again.
My point is neither erroneous nor illogical. Perhaps you should stop making erroneous and illogical accusations?
You don’t have to be a mind reader to know when someone is purposely avoiding answering a question-- especially when they bother to respond to a post while refusing to answer a specific question.
So you take the time to tell me that you don’t “value” my posts enough to respond (to certain parts of) my posts even though you’re taking the time to respond to my posts in order to tell me that you don’t “value” them enough to respond (to certain parts) of my posts? HAH! Congratulations on that fail logic.
Both you and I know the reason you adamantly refuse to address either of those points is because you’re wrong.
And, by some stroke of luck, you just seem to “lack the interest” when someone provides you evidence contrary to your assertions or asks for proof of your assertions. Funny how coicidental that is, isn’t it?
No, you’re backing off your statement, though you weren’t very successful at it.
I think that is generally true, except for those who just gave up reading your posts because the sheer quantity of nonsense was too much for them. I see you’ve been here a few months. I’ve been a member for a few years as have others. I’ve seen posters like you before who think their arguments and logic are ever so fabulous. You’re not that unique. I engaged you to see if you had any interesting arguments to offer. Your stubborn refusal to admit an error or any flaws in your logic tells me what I need to know.
[/QUOTE]
If they “give up”, it’s because they’re incapable of having a fact based discussion, instead choosing to rely on nothing but opinion and ubsubstantiated claims.
Anyway, 'guv, let’s be frank. Other than statements based on pure opinion and/or conjecture, you have jack shit in the way of an actual argument, and you wouldn’t know what logic is even you spent in entire semester in an intro to logic class.
I mean, just look at my last post where I pointed out three egregious examples of you flatly ignoring those things which proved you wrong or showed that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. And true to form, you ignored it. I mean, lol, really? Newsflash! Sticking your fingers ins your ear and going “Lalalalalala, I can’t hear you!” when faced with something you don’t like ain’t a valid form of arguing. So let’s review, shall we?
(1) You don’t know what you’re talking about as it relates to abortion history. Abortion was made illegal in the U.S. based on the moral view of the unborn. This is a fact attested to by the 1859 AMA Report on Criminal Abortion. Though will you acknowledge this point? Nope. Go figure!
(2) You can provide absolutely nothing which contradicts my claims regarding Americans views on abortion. I’ve given you seperate polls from CNN, FOX, ABC, Gallup, Pew, Henry-McAyers and even the GSS which show that Americans simply do not favor abortions outside of the hard cases. That’s SEVEN different sources. As you seemingly disagree with everything I’ve posted, I’ve asked for you to show me something-- anything!-- three times now which shows otherwise, and thus far you’ve provided NOTHING nor have you attempted to provide anything because, apparently, “you don’t value my posts or opinions enough [to respond to the points I make]”, though you have no problem responding to my posts in general sans the specific points which prove you wrong. Yeah, that makes sense.
(3) You throw aside your own arguments as it suits you. You tell me that people should be entitled to their own definition about personhood and that no one should have a definition of personhood that is not their own imposed on them, but then you turn around and say that it’s okay to impose a definition of personhood on someone if the law says it’s okay, which would mean that it’s okay to force a definition of personhood onto people who would not view the unborn as persons much the same way it is to force the definition of personhood onto someone who would not view a newborn up to two or so months as a person. Of course, no matter how many people make this point, you choose to be willfully ignorant and ignore anything and everything which pokes a huge logical hole in your otherwise already piss poor logic.
If I really wanted, I could keep going on and on, but I won’t. Point being, you’re nothing but a damn hypocrite. You ignore what you can’t respond to, you openly refuse to provide any kind of proof of your assertions when asked for proof and, to top it all off, you have the audacity to try to call someone else stubborn? HAH! Considering the fact that I’ve willingly asked you to provide something which proves me wrong, yet you have refused to do so, that’s an insanely laughable comment for you to make.
Like I said prior, I’ve got your whole schtick figured out. Perhaps if you ignore the big bad prolifer and his facts, he’ll go away, huh? Too bad that won’t work. It must really hurt you to know that you’ve got no real arguments 
Same nit pick I just mentioned. Even your link uses the term person rather than human. I know what you mean, but using the term human, just gives the opportunity to say “Yes it is” and they are technically correct. A fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, are all fully and uniquely human.
So? If you are using science to bolster your opinion, then an atheist source shouldn’t be an issue as the divinity of the argument is irrelevant.
If you are using religious dogma as your argument, then you can certainly be critical of atheist sites, but then you have to recognize the fact that other religions have validity as well.
So if you argue the atheist source has it’s facts wrong, then the atheism is irrelevent: wrong is wrong.
If you argue the atheist source is wrong because it’s devoid of religious morality, then all your DNA makes it human etc arguments don’t apply as you are using a religious platform.
Sorry, I’m just popping back in to correct factual inaccuracies.
-
Ectopic pregnancies can be terminated medically using methotrexate in some cases. This does not require surgery or a hospital.
-
OMGABC- “medical training” is not a superpower.
One does not have the knowledge and skills to perform a safe surgical abortion simply by graduating from medical school.
The necessary skills to perform all medical and surgical procedures aren’t handed out telepathically with the MDs.This is why gynaecologists don’t do facial botox, orthopaedic surgeons don’t insert IUDs and dermatologists don’t inject frozen shoulders.
Your tone is very condescending. I am well aware that GYN’s don’t do botox etc
Did you like my responses to your other thread? I don’t hold grudges.
Someone just discovered the bolding function…
Oh, and please don’t add your own comments within a quote tag. It makes it confusing to tell who said what.
You’re welcome.
ETA: Your tone is very shout-y and swear-y.
How is this different than parents who have no intention of conceiving at all? As I’ve mentioned repeatedly above, the act of sex does not equate to the intention of conceiving offspring. If a parent is not required to forgo bodily autonomy for a born child, why should a parent be required to forgo bodily autonomy for an unborn child?
You keep saying ‘fault’ as if we must assign blame and punish the actors accordingly. Why is that? Do you think of children as punishment?
Let’s say that these parents *knew *that they both carried the gene for hemochromatosis and conceived anyway (should it matter whether intentionally or not?) knowing full well their offspring would be afflicted with the disease. Are they now responsible for donating a liver (or partial liver as is the case for living donors) to their child? Or are they allowed to abort despite the fact that the disease is often manageable with decent health care?
No, but we can screen for chromosomal pairings that will create disease and disorders before they are matched. It’s not done for everything, however, including for this particular disease. We can also identify disorders and diseases occurring in developing fetuses that can’t be or weren’t screened for prior to conception. Not all are fatal, but some cause a great deal of suffering for all involved. That’s why I believe these difficult decisions should be left strictly to the patient and her doctor.
Granted, and as you’ve noted, it’s not for the law to decide that they do.
There is no 100% guarantee that their child would definitely have the disease.
I daresay in 1859 there might have been a moral view of the unborn, but there was also, by modern standards, a less-than-flattering view of women.
You did not come from a zygote.
You once were a zygote.
You did not come from an embryo.
You once were an embryo.
You did not come from a fetus.
You once were a fetus.
You did not come from an adolescent.
You once were an adolescent.
And with every post you write, you remind us of what adolescence was like.
Can’t answer the question can you dimwit?
There is nothing absurd about it. You cannot find me any other situation in law, in ANY circumstances, where a person can be compelled to provide their organs or lifeblood to another for any reason.
The fetus is a person, and abortion is STILL okay by my axioms. Fetal personhood is 100% irrelevant to my logical justification of abortion.
Who’s got the ridiculous hypotheticals now, Mr. You’re Making Conscious Decisions in the Middle of Surgery?
In any case, those doctors would be crushed in a malpractice suit, period.
Nice dodge. Are you trying to steal the King Bonehead crown from OMG? Because let me tell you you’ve got a long way to go.
No, you said “fault”. I am *asking *you if you think that children are a punishment for women who need to be blamed for getting pregnant? Why must we find fault with regard to pregnancy?
No. They would definitely have it, although they may not be symptomatic. You still haven’t answered the question. Why should a parent be legally exempt from donating his/her body to preserve the life of a born child but not legally exempt from donating her body to preserve the life of an unborn child?
You do this a lot. Who said anything about abortion being a top issue? I said it’s a more important issue to voters than is gay marriage.
What I said was Americans care more about abortion than gay marriage. It’s a fact. Since you keep mentioning 2004, check this and this out.
There’s nothing vague about “Abortion should be legal in <X> instance” and “Abortion should be illegal in <Y> instance”.
So an unborn human baby, of which a fetus is (hey, that’s not my definition. It came from Oxford dictionaries), isn’t a human? Then wouldn’t that make it a non-human baby? Is the Oxford dictionary wrong then?
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I daresay in 1859 there might have been a moral view of the unborn, but there was also, by modern standards, a less-than-flattering view of women.
[/quote]
Uh-huh… So now you’re assuming that that they were on some kind of anti-women trend? Never mind the fact this is based on the notion that abortion views differ by gender. What about the early feminists (not the kind that run around today) who were staunch abortion opponents and were instrumental in helping make abortion illegal?
If my light is dim, yours is off, the bulb shattered and the filament burnt.
But I do agree that it’s odd to try to define “human” to exclude a fetus, at least with any sound biological or scientific reasoning. If it’s a philosophical or legal definition, that’s another matter, but I wouldn’t expect you to know what that means, being kind of stupid and all.