When does baby's life start?

Not proven a darn thing that's actually beneficial to society. If concerned about major issues where millions of unborn are targeted merely due to gender(at any stage of development pre/post natal). You may wish to watch a documentary on gendercide called, " it's a Girl". Let me know what you think....it's available on you tube...it may change your mind altogether.

No it's not, you can't prove that what I said is a repeated ad hominem rather than a fact.

[/quote]Well, of course you call me an idiot because I disagree with all your bullshit.
You can't give me any other reason.
And hoppa an Ad Hominem again.
[/quote]

Nope, your disagreement to my facts is not the problem..., it's your assertions without evidence while professing magical woo and citation of well known pseudoscience cranks such as those associated to Scientology to which verifies that you're an idiot. You didn't come here claiming you believe this or that, you came in here with fallacy and crank arguments as your magical body of evidence to suggest the worlds scientific community is somehow a religious cult professing lies etc. I'm sorry, was I supposed to be impressed? However, I do wonder if you realize that my responses here are intended to feed you..., as in by intention waste your time. This little experiment has been quite interesting.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/troll.htm

Not only does that describe you, it's exactly what I am doing to you in return just to mess with you, and you keep taking the bait. I am not kidding when I haven't a problem feeding trolls and keeping them as pets. I will even feed you after midnight You're are simply arguing yourself to the point of ad nausea.. And there is a point to this because I am demonstrating why such arguments have no intellectual meaning.. I don't even think you realize that you have effectively made yourself irrelevant to this discussion as you have provide nothing of substance, and nothing other than ad nausea. You're trying to piss into the wind sir..

Buy hey, maybe at some point you might surprise me and impress me with an intellectual argument in where you can actually support yourself with falsifiable evidence.. You do know that everything you have done here is largely to avoid the fact you are unable to substantiate your woo.

Gendercide, as in killing a fetus because of gender is indeed messed up.. However, killing a fetus because you had been raped, or because you're someone that should really never be allowed to breed in the first place, or can't afford a child etc, is not equivalent to Gendercide. You really need to grasp that forcing everyone to have kids will result in back alley abortions, higher death rates, higher crime, higher poverty, more abused children that were never wanted in the first place, or even in cases like Africa where over population literally resulted in ecological collapse... You have no concept of the real world, and the ignorance it must take to believe banning abortion would somehow lead to world peace and moral oneness is so massive in scale that it is without a doubt some of the most dangerous examples of ignorance that exists.

It's bad enough that life must murder itself in order to reproduce and survive, we don't need to needlessly add on to the suffering in which life endures. We don't need people like you dictating what happens in the bedroom, or what choices a woman makes on whether or not to have a child. And even still, have you even thought about what would the life be of a child forced into being and into the hands of parents who would rather have killed them in Gendercide? So what is worse, the abortion of a fetus, or a child who is forced into living a life of abuse and torture? Which is more cruel? And when kids kill their parents and grow up pyshcopaths, who do we get to blame when one of these goes on to become a serial killer, or mass murderer?

What is clear here is that pro-lifers don't think, or are incapable of thinking without disconnect from the real world. I have yet to meet a single pro-lifer who has ever bothered to think of the consequences of them forcing people to have a child, or forcing a child into a life of unbearable suffering. There are indeed worse things than death, just spend 1 day at a shelter for abused and unwanted children.. It almost seems we have more of them in the world than we do unwanted pets in animal shelters.

Here in America, homeless kids are at an all-time high, and you people want to force people to have kids and make the problem fester until we ourselves collapse into a 3rd world nation? Sorry, but the consequences of banning abortion far outweigh the cost of not for all parties involved.

You are so pro-life, how about you first start taking care of the 2.5 million homeless kids before you go on about banning abortion.. And it's not a shocker that the worst states are those in the Bible Belt to which is also the poverty and crime belt with the lowest rankings in education attainment. That is what woeful ignorance buys you.

Discovering the Mind of the Prenate

Life starts when you don't have to endure the swelling. When you don't have to endure the social consequences ?..change poopy diapers or endure a life of perpetual responsibility...be it pre-school, middle-school, high-school ...congrats ....pretty easy for you.

Trying to determine when a life starts in this context is futile. It cannot be done...all we can do is to give various biased definitions for when it starts.

So I will repeat something I wrote very early in this thread:



Regardless of when it starts...it is a unique situation...

...and if a pregnant woman decides to terminate the pregnancy occurring her own body...

...she should have unrestricted rights to do so.

If it terminates a life because some people want to describe a fetus as a living human...so be it.

But the woman should be the sole determinant of whether to continue a pregnancy or not...not the government.

I like how you think Frank...

?

What are you asking?

nevermind,

The Man is a nutter.. Again assertions without falsifiable data is neither science, academic, or credible. The man believes in scientology, dianetics, and other psuedo-science and crank nonsense providers. I'm sorry, but when you start using cults as your academic sources and claims, you have failed miserably. When you rest your arguments on testimonials and appeals to ignorance, you have failed miserably in the field of academia and or establishing the credulity of your claims.

Now one of the most hilarious points about his argument in that video is that he goes from ridiculing science on that a fetus doesn't have conscious awareness without a brain to trying to refute it with a claim that babies at birth having a sense of temperature.. Well wtf, and we thought he would have had made an actual argument with actual falsifiable evidence rather than move the goal post to arguing a point of "No **** they can, they have fully developed brains and nervous systems at birth".. I don't know any medical doctor or scientist that would disagree with that.. This guy is clearly a crank, and the baby's ability at birth to sense temperature has nothing to do with if a fetus can be consciously aware without a brain, or brain that hasn't begun to develop the areas of the brain that deal with higher cognitive functions.

So can a baby at birth possibly remember their birth and aspects of that experience, can they be aware of it at the time? Yes... Do they fully understand that, well no.. That sort of awareness develops after birth through the years. Hence even asking an adult about it years later is incoherent because by that time, they understand what all that is.. This is why suggestions through hypnosis and use of LCD to try and suggest all this stuff is highly pseudoscience and woo..

You have no proof or demonstration so you're just as wrong as the rest of us.

Quote: Question everything" TV science channel, proving that science isn't sure either.

Nothing you ever say makes sense ..so don't worry I would care for your explanation.

you missed some points

Here is a better version:
Nothing you ever say (and if I read it) makes sense ( to me and my personality and background as a reference) , so don't worry I would care for you explaination (because I know I can't understand it with the backgroud I have)


Way much better eh?!

It is ok, it is a process.

Tv isn't the realm of Academia.. Even supposed "Science Channels" like the Discovery channel have now since become stuff like a pig with pseudoscience garbage such as "Ancient Aliens", or documentaries claiming mermaids exist. Even the History channel has gone the way of pseudo-history. Tv channels are not science, and nor does science have a consciousness to ever say it's sure of anything.. Science is a methodology, not a person.. And this further makes this an incoherent crank.



Poof and demonstration of what? The burden of proof isn't on me to prove that crank's assertions wrong... He is the one make the claim that a fetus without a brain is magically conscious. What also gets me is that this same crank you like to cite tries to suggest that biological reactions and reflexes are sentient when in fact they are not. Hence like taking a needle poking a fetus with a nervous system and then claiming the fetus is conscious since the fetus twitches from reflexes or impulses from the nervous system. It's like trying to say a frog leg given an electric shock causing the reflexes to make the leg move somehow means the leg is sentient.. It's a laughable argument indeed.

What this really boils down to, I don't have a problem with people purposing an idea, I have a problem when they go Crank and start using fallacy arguments and assertions to which they entirely rely on for a plead to credulity. And it's not surprising that such people are almost always trying to sell you their book, media, or CD's etc.. Way of the Master crap comes to mind, or pyramid schemes like scientology.. Buy our bottled holy water and your sins will be cured kind of BS..