When Does Life Begin?

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:
I would first try and assess if it presented a threat.
What 'it'?

Chumly wrote:

So your definition of a human life is whether folks have funerals for the remains.

So you believe the funeral might be a threat?

0 Replies

I really thought you were a lot smarter than your last few posts. Did you short circuit yourself at work?

0 Replies

Ack!

Thread Chaos!
K
O

0 Replies

To Neo,
My response to your post as per "Post: 2726942" was a hint that you have not addressed my post in the prior context as per "Post: 2726561".

To DTKO,
Note "Post: 2726795" as per Who's on First? by Abbott and Costello

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

To Neo,
My response to your post as per "Post: 2726942" was a hint that you have not addressed my post in the prior context as per "Post: 2726561".

To DTKO,
Note "Post: 2726795" as per Who's on First? by Abbott and Costello

Sorry, I missed your failure to recognize the sarcasm in the wet dream post.

0 Replies

I bravely soldiered on past the false presumption of unrecognized claims of sarcasm. I hearby meter out your consequent punishment for dodging the issue at hand to wit: you have failed in your claim as per

neologist wrote:

There is a galaxy of difference between contraception and abortion.

given that

Chumly wrote:

Your claim is false because both actions negate the potential for a human life.

0 Replies

Wrong. Abortion is the elimination of actual human life.

0 Replies

Prove it.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Prove it.

Well the only way to prove it is, as I said before, to let the zygote have time to decide.

I suggest leaving things as they are for 20 years.

At that time, ask zygotes if they believe they would still be here had their mothers chose abortion.

Tally the yes and no votes. (I suggest a sample size of several thousand from a generous racial cross section.)

I predict an overwhelming majority against abortion.

This is a falsifiable proposition and I challenge any scientifically minded group or individual to sponsor the study.

A corresponding study could be undertaken by saving the residue from several thousand contraceptive devices. (You have room in your garage, no?)

After 20 years ask the residues the same question and total the answers, yes or no. I'm sure you can find the words.

I predict insufficient data for verification or falsification.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If you came upon an accident victim, and you were not sure if you had a living human being or a dead corpse in front of you -----

----- would you proceed AS IF the person MIGHT BE alive, or AS IF the person CERTAINLY WAS NOT alive?

Let's say instead of "you", it's a third person. (After all, neither chumly nor real life will be having abortions anytime soon.)

Let's say this 3rd person sees that it IS alive, and they can help keep this life alive only with a possibility of considerable harm and risk to themselves. How much do feel you can force that 3rd person to take the actions you would take?

You seem to forget that the abortion debate is not about your opinion of abortion, but rather, to what degree you feel capable of forcing your opinion onto others.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Tell me exactly where these 20 year old zygotes are hiding (outside of your imagination) as I have never seen one. . .

You forget that I suggested we leave things be for 20 years.

True, the zygotes would no longer be called zygotes, but that does not invalidate my point.

You are squirming and weaseling away from a legitimate point in trying to claim equivalence between unfertilized cells and those which are genetically complete.

And you know it doesn't make any difference to me personally if folks wish to kill their unborn or newly born babies, so long as they realize what they are doing. God will sort out the righteous from the wicked soon enough.

0 Replies

Your god just doesn't exist; no evidence.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your god just doesn't exist; no evidence.

Sorry, I don't mean to pass judgement. It just came out, you know.

I would feel the same way about the life of a fertilized ovum if all I had for guidance was my humanistic understanding.

0 Replies

Chumly - I'm Who.

Neo - Are we to assume that several passed Christians following acceptable means to taking human life have been already sorted and granted a pass? I'm refrring to stoning children, wars etc. It seems that killing of innocents is okay as long as it is socially acceptabe by precedence.

I understand that the judgement slip is really how you feel, and I certainly appriciate that you usually restrain yourself, but I'm just not sure how anyone is supposed to believe in a divine laws and fear judgement when far worse things are done and forgiven.

For what it's worth, I actually am fie with your relgious stance on this. I too often see people argue against abortion and try to pass off their beliefs as being anything but.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

. . . Neo - Are we to assume that several passed Christians following acceptable means to taking human life have been already sorted and granted a pass? I'm refrring to stoning children, wars etc. It seems that killing of innocents is okay as long as it is socially acceptabe by precedence.

I understand that the judgement slip is really how you feel, and I certainly appriciate that you usually restrain yourself, but I'm just not sure how anyone is supposed to believe in a divine laws and fear judgement when far worse things are done and forgiven.

For what it's worth, I actually am fie with your relgious stance on this. I too often see people argue against abortion and try to pass off their beliefs as being anything but. . .

When Jesus fulfilled the law and instituted the New Covenant, it ended the severe regulations imposed on the Hebrews. Many who call themselves christian fail to recognize this, instead using the scriptures as an ambidextrous implement for their own ends. I hope to be found separate from them.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Tell me exactly where these 20 year old zygotes are hiding (outside of your imagination) as I have never seen one. . .
You forget that I suggested we leave things be for 20 years.

True, the zygotes would no longer be called zygotes, but that does not invalidate my point.

You are squirming and weaseling away from a legitimate point in trying to claim equivalence between unfertilized cells and those which are genetically complete.

And you know it doesn't make any difference to me personally if folks wish to kill their unborn or newly born babies, so long as they realize what they are doing. God will sort out the righteous from the wicked soon enough.

I did not forgot that you suggested we leave things be for 20 years. In fact I note you self-corrected yourself on that very point. Given that you now agree that there is no such thing as a 20 year old zygote you are left in the unenviable position of having no point at all!

But happy-happy-joy-joy you're not done shooting yourself in the foot.

You go on to claim I'm "squirming and weaseling away from a legitimate point in trying to claim equivalence between unfertilized cells and those which are genetically complete". Well Neo, I made no such claim. In fact this is no more than a straw man argument. An informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Here is what in fact I did say

Chumly wrote:

Your claim is false because both actions negate the potential for a human life.

Simplistic logical fallacies will not provide sustenance, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Mixed metaphors crack me up.

DTKO,
I'm gald to know you're who.

0 Replies

I think I made my point. Contraception is a red herring in a discussion of abortion.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I think I made my point. Contraception is a red herring in a discussion of abortion.

Given that you have failed to successfully substantiate your arguments.
Given that you have failed to successfully refute my arguments.
I note you are now falling back on the logical fallacy: "Argumentum Ad Nauseam". This logical fallacy is based on the incorrect belief that people will finally accept an assertion as true because they hear it repeatedly.

I further suggest nullifying your below claim, else you run the risk of engendering another logical fallacy, that being argumentum ad hominem, which I'll gentlemanly point out is not your usual modus operandi.

neologist wrote:

I really thought you were a lot smarter than your last few posts. Did you short circuit yourself at work?

An argumentum ad hominem consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

0 Replies

This is your argument in a nutshell:

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
There is a galaxy of difference between contraception and abortion.
Chumly wrote:
Your claim is false because both actions negate the potential for a human life.
neologist wrote:
Your claim is false because folks don't have funerals for wet dreams.

Chumly wrote:
So your definition of a human life is whether folks have funerals for the remains.

Dude........weak

Contraception prevents human life from beginning.

Abortion takes place after human life has begun. Call it what you want, zygote or fetus, if nothing is done to interrupt its development, it will eventually be born a human being. Pro choice folks apparently believe the rights, if any, of the unborn are trumped by the will of the mother.

My post was a tongue in cheek attempt to show how the pro choice argument fades with the passage of time. Why should the age of that genetically complete individual determine his/her right to life?

Apparently you missed the message. So I responded further with my wet dream post. You missed the point of that as well, for many women who experience miscarriage mourn the death of their babies as much as if they had been full term. The funerals they often have are real. No similar regrets or sorrow applies to any form of contraception or lost gametes I have ever known.

You, however have not made any point other than your asseveration that I must be wrong.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know