The Abortion Question

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-26-2015, 10:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What age do you suggest a living being has the right to remain alive ?

It depends on what living being we're talking about and what stage of development it's at, as I've now repeatedly pointed out.

You really should avoid trying to use a "science" argument here. It only further proves the  point that your creationism already makes apparent; namely, that you know nothing whatsoever of the subject.

[*bfine32*]

(09-26-2015, 10:30 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: It depends on what living being we're talking about and what stage of development it's at, as I've now repeatedly pointed out.

Let's assume we are talking about a living being that will mature into a newborn child.


You keep saying you've answered a question that you've never answered. School me on science, and not subjection, as I apparently am the one that does not understand science; when does human life begin? You're all sciency; it should be a fairly simple answer.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-26-2015, 10:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's assume we are talking about a living being that will mature into a newborn child.


You keep saying you've answered a question that you've never answered. School me on science, and not subjection, as I apparently am the one that does not understand science; when does human life begin? You're all sciency; it should be a fairly simple answer.

Scientifically, a fetus is a living thing. So is a blood cell. So is a sperm cell. So is a skin cell. So were the animals you eat and wear.

There's your simple scientific answer.

Now, are you prepared to cut the crap and recognize that what you really want to ask is a philosophical and moral question, not a scientific one?

[*bfine32*]

(09-26-2015, 10:48 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Scientifically, a fetus is a living thing. So is a blood cell. So is a sperm cell. So is a skin cell. So were the animals you eat and wear.

There's your simple scientific answer.

Now, are you prepared to cut the crap and recognize that what you really want to ask is a question, not a scientific one?

I didn't ask the question, the OP did. I simply channeled my inner Nostradamus and predicted folks would try to muddy the waters.

It becomes philosophical and moral when you ignore science.   

Simple minds are the easiest to read.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-26-2015, 10:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't ask the question, the OP did. I simply channeled my inner Nostradamus and predicted folks would try to muddy the waters.

It becomes philosophical and moral when you ignore science.   

Simple minds are the easiest to read.  

Yes, the OP asked the question when does life begin. Scientifically, it's easy to determine what's alive and what isn't. The moral question is what living things have any protected rights to continue living.

It becomes a philosophical and moral question not due to "ignoring science", but because whenever anybody seeks to say something is "bad", they are making a moral judgment, not a scientific one. Science does not offer solutions to moral questions.  For example, science tells us that an apple on a tree is a living thing; it cannot tell us whether that means it's morally wrong to rip them off and eat them or not.

Pro-choice people aren't ignoring science. They are recognizing that just pointing at something and saying "IT'S ALIVE!!!!" doesn't mean it's wrong to destroy it. If you think otherwise, be careful whenever scratching your arm, lest you accidentally take the innocent life of a harmless living skin cell. Also, make sure you're vegan. And then still yet, make sure you eat only artificial non-plant based products, since those are alive, too.

[Benton]

Life is consciousness. Since we can't confirm when that is, we have to rely on responsiveness. Which is pretty early.

[*bfine32*]

(09-26-2015, 11:07 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Yes, the OP asked the question when does life begin. Scientifically, it's easy to determine what's alive and what isn't. The moral question is what living things have any protected rights to continue living.

It becomes a philosophical and moral question not due to "ignoring science", but because whenever anybody seeks to say something is "bad", they are making a moral judgment, not a scientific one. Science does not offer solutions to moral questions.  For example, science tells us that an apple on a tree is a living thing; it cannot tell us whether that means it's morally wrong to rip them off and eat them or not.

Pro-choice people aren't ignoring science. They are recognizing that just pointing at something and saying "IT'S ALIVE!!!!" doesn't mean it's wrong to destroy it. If you think otherwise, be careful whenever scratching your arm, lest you accidentally take the innocent life of a harmless living skin cell. Also, make sure you're vegan.

I appreciate you pointing out how my initial post was incomplete. I should have included "They will also tell you bacteria is alive".  as if that is relevant. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-26-2015, 11:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I appreciate you pointing out how my initial post was incomplete. I should have included "They will also tell you bacteria is alive".  as if that is relevant. 

So long as your argument is as paper-thin as "fetuses are alive, so killing them is bad," you can expect to have your own poor logic thrown right back at you.

[*bfine32*]

(09-26-2015, 11:16 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: So long as your argument is as paper-thin as "fetuses are alive, so killing them is bad," you can expect to have your own poor logic thrown right back at you.

A living human fetuses can become human child if unmolested (that's the "bad" part). What else can do that?

Just because you compare a human fetus to skin cells doesn't make my logic "paper-thin". 

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-26-2015, 11:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: A living human fetuses can become human child if unmolested (that's the "bad" part). What else can do that?

Just because you compare a human fetus to skin cells doesn't make my logic "paper-thin". 

No, no,  don't backpedal now. You were the one who insisted on making this a scientific argument. And if you want to play only by those rules, then skin cells and fetuses are not "my" comparison. Scientifically, factually, they're both alive. Period.

But now that at long last you're prepared to drop the science facade and get into the moral question... Who cares about what something could become? Or, better question: why should anybody other than you care?

[Brownshoe]

(09-26-2015, 11:27 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: No, no,  don't backpedal now. You were the one who insisted on making this a scientific argument. And if you want to play only by those rules, then skin cells and fetuses are not "my" comparison. Scientifically, factually, they're both alive. Period.

But now that at long last you're prepared to drop the science facade and get into the moral question... Who cares about what something could become? Or, better question: why should anybody other than you care?

Do skin cells have beating hearts, or brain activity? Because unborn children have beating hearts at 18 days after conception. Personally I don't know how something could have a beating heart and not be considered "alive", and obviously it's a human, so it should have the right to life like any other human.

[Brownshoe]

(09-26-2015, 11:09 PM)Benton Wrote: Life is consciousness. Since we can't confirm when that is, we have to rely on responsiveness. Which is pretty early.

So you die every night when you fall asleep, or if you get knocked out, or if you go in a coma?

[*bfine32*]

(09-26-2015, 11:27 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: No, no,  don't backpedal now. You were the one who insisted on making this a scientific argument. And if you want to play only by those rules, then skin cells and fetuses are not "my" comparison. Scientifically, factually, they're both alive. Period.

No "backpedaling" here; pointing out the lunacy of your arguments does not equate backpedaling.

We both agree that scientifically a human fetus is alive: Yes or No? I say yes. Will you answer?

No other disclaimer necessary?

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-26-2015, 11:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No "backpedaling" here; pointing out the lunacy of your arguments does not equate backpedaling.

We both agree that scientifically a human fetus is alive: Yes or No? I say yes. Will you answer?

No other disclaimer necessary?

1. You haven't pointed out anything other than you're too lazy to even attempt to put together a coherent argument for your position.

2. Asked and answered.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-26-2015, 11:30 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Do skin cells have beating hearts, or brain activity?

Nope. But beating hearts and brain activity are not necessary to identify life.

[*bfine32*]

Tell me if any of my Pro choice friends would say yes to any of the following given there is no danger to the mother, the pregnancy wasn’t the result of incest or rape.

If a mother is found to be financially secure abortion should not be allowed

If a woman wants an abortion she should be required to undergo a Tubal ligation as well.

A woman should be limited to the number of abortions she can have

If the father objects the mother cannot have an abortion

[Benton]

(09-26-2015, 11:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: So you die every night when you fall asleep, or if you get knocked out, or if you go in a coma

How do you wake up every morning?
Alarm clock? Somebody calling your name? Rooster? Or are you oblivious and it's just some random act of fate?
Being aware of your surroundings continues into being asleep, knocked out, or... according to those who have been there in some cases... in a coma. Being conscious doesn't mean being awake, it means being able to discern the world around you. You do that in different forms. So does a fetus. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-26-2015, 11:42 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: 2. Asked and answered.

I see this a lot when it is much easier to post the 3 letter word yes or the 2 letter word no and it is usually accompanied by I don't want to bother to answer it again.  For instance the above response took 22 key strokes. Yes takes 3 and no takes 2. So which is it?

I'll make it easy: 1=yes, 2=no

[*bfine32*]

(09-26-2015, 11:50 PM)Benton Wrote: How do you wake up every morning?
Alarm clock? Somebody calling your name? Rooster? Or are you oblivious and it's just some random act of fate?
Being aware of your surroundings continues into being asleep, knocked out, or... according to those who have been there in some cases... in a coma. Being conscious doesn't mean being awake, it means being able to discern the world around you. You do that in different forms. So does a fetus. 

So are you saying a human can make decisions outside of his or her consciousness? 

Remember the yes or no rule. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-26-2015, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I see this a lot when it is much easier to post the 3 letter word yes or the 2 letter word no and it is usually accompanied by I don't want to bother to answer it again.  For instance the above response took 22 key strokes. Yes takes 3 and no takes 2. So which is it?

I'll make it easy: 1=yes, 2=no

Awww. Look at how feisty you get when people don't repeat themselves at your will. I feel very sorry for your spouse.