Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

cicerone imposter wrote:

real wrote: Should something be legal simply because we cannot locate a living victim?

Which "victim" are you talking about? The woman or the embryo? Should the embryo have power over its mother?

If this made any sense, I would try to answer.

I had taken it for granted that everyone realized that the unborn is the one who dies during an abortion.

Therefore, when I make reference to a victim who is not living, I assumed (wrongly, apparently) that everyone knows this is referring to the unborn who has died.

0 Replies

The unborn still doesn't have any legal rights. What you are trying to do is impose your morals on a strange woman you don't even know to have her carry it full term - after which you won't care one way or the other how it lives. It's called hypocrisy.

0 Replies

Why are you putting all this effort into a unborn embryo when you can use the same energies to help those babies that needs food and shelter. They're already here.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why are you putting all this effort into a unborn embryo when you can use the same energies to help those babies that needs food and shelter. They're already here.

real life wrote:

No, abortion doesn't effect me personally since I've already been born.

The answer is, that RL has a loose grip on what is actually happening in this world.

When he sees abortion, he doesn't see any economical, pychological, or sociological effects, only zealous sociopathic "abortionists."

When he sees stem cell research such as Missouri's amendment 2, he doesn't see millions of suffering people in the world, he only sees zealous sociopathic doctors playing God.

RL is very typical in the way that he locks into a certain element, and can't see anything else. Issues are not allowed to be dynamic, they must be black and white. Morality and legality must follow suit. The grey areas become apples and orages to him, because his tunnel vision only allows him to see one way. When it comes to life rights, he believes he can restrict your right to discuss related topics. Everything is singular, everything is linear, everything is black and white.

CI - RL is not someone worth convincing of anything. The only thing worth your time is pointing out his illogic and short sight to others.

real life wrote:

No, abortion doesn't effect me personally since I've already been born.

He sees nothing wrong with his arguement.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Why are you putting all this effort into a unborn embryo when you can use the same energies to help those babies that needs food and shelter. They're already here.

real life wrote:

No, abortion doesn't effect me personally since I've already been born.

The answer is, that RL has a loose grip on what is actually happening in this world.

When he sees abortion, he doesn't see any economical, pychological, or sociological effects, only zealous sociopathic "abortionists."

When he sees stem cell research such as Missouri's amendment 2, he doesn't see millions of suffering people in the world, he only sees zealous sociopathic doctors playing God.

RL is very typical in the way that he locks into a certain element, and can't see anything else. Issues are not allowed to be dynamic, they must be black and white. Morality and legality must follow suit. The grey areas become apples and orages to him, because his tunnel vision only allows him to see one way. When it comes to life rights, he believes he can restrict your right to discuss related topics. Everything is singular, everything is linear, everything is black and white...

Deist: I understand what you're saying here - but couldn't the same mindset be considered as the catalyst for many of our laws? (As in related case: Roe vs. Wade, etc.)

0 Replies

baddog - absolutely, the exact same applies for several people. I don't argee about Roe v. Wade being one of them, but certainly I have heard my share of "my body my choice" arguements in a singularity before. To me that's just as bad; it's just as linear, just as black and white, just as simple. I certainly understand that people can believe in the right things for the wrong reasons.

Go too far to either extreme and you will find yourself being a zealot.

As fro mindset being a catalyst for many of our laws, in which you are refering to judicial legislation, remember, it's not just one person who makes that kind of ruling.

If you read the ruling on it, it's careful to be pluralistic, and balanced for all citizens. People like RL, don't sett;e for the middle they demand absolutes.

0 Replies

real wrote: Therefore, when I make reference to a victim who is not living, I assumed (wrongly, apparently) that everyone knows this is referring to the unborn who has died.

There are millions of babies that need food and shelter. Help them. Your emphasis on the embryo doesn't make any sense when you fail to see how the living are suffering. Embryos are still not "babies." Babies already alive need food and shelter. Help them if you are really concerned about the "life" of babies. But we all know you aren't. You just want to impose your morals on women you don't even know. Hypocrite.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

No, abortion doesn't effect me personally since I've already been born.

He sees nothing wrong with his arguement.

There is nothing wrong with this argument, or at least you haven't attempted to point anything out.

Must one be the victim to support the law?

Even though I am not a child. I support laws against child abuse. Do you?

Even though I am not black, I support laws prohibiting discrimination against blacks. Do you?

Explain why one must be 'effected personally' before supporting a law dealing with any matter.

Go ahead. This should be funny.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real wrote: Therefore, when I make reference to a victim who is not living, I assumed (wrongly, apparently) that everyone knows this is referring to the unborn who has died.

There are millions of babies that need food and shelter. Help them. Your emphasis on the embryo doesn't make any sense when you fail to see how the living are suffering. Embryos are still not "babies." Babies already alive need food and shelter. Help them if you are really concerned about the "life" of babies. But we all know you aren't. You just want to impose your morals on women you don't even know. Hypocrite.

ci: Why does it have to be either-or? Perhaps (and I would bet that) RL feels the same way you do about babies that are suffering!

You come across as one who dispels hate and loathes the masses because of their religion; yet your post above reeks of hatred! You feel strongly that RL should not influence another's thoughts - yet that is exactly what you're trying to do here to RL.

And you call RL a hypocrite!!! Shocked

Like I said about you before - you're the pot calling the kettle black!

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
real wrote: Therefore, when I make reference to a victim who is not living, I assumed (wrongly, apparently) that everyone knows this is referring to the unborn who has died.

There are millions of babies that need food and shelter. Help them. Your emphasis on the embryo doesn't make any sense when you fail to see how the living are suffering. Embryos are still not "babies." Babies already alive need food and shelter. Help them if you are really concerned about the "life" of babies. But we all know you aren't. You just want to impose your morals on women you don't even know. Hypocrite.

ci: Why does it have to be either-or? Perhaps (and I would bet that) RL feels the same way you do about babies that are suffering!

You come across as one who dispels hate and loathes the masses because of their religion; yet your post above reeks of hatred! You feel strongly that RL should not influence another's thoughts - yet that is exactly what you're trying to do here to RL.

And you call RL a hypocrite!!!

Like I said about you before - you're the pot calling the kettle black!

Of course, you're exactly right, baddog1.

I couldn't have said it better.

CI has told us repeatedly that he 'does not impose his view of right and wrong on anyone but himself'.

Yet there he is, accusing others of things out of his own imagination, and insulting others who don't agree with him or accept his view of the world.

CI has made NO case to support his view that the unborn is not a living human being until birth.

He has presented NO medical evidence --- because he has none.

That's the bottom line. He's just putting up a smokescreen to avoid the issue at hand.

Yes, CI's post is classic hyprocrisy -- trashing those who 'impose their morals on others' while vilifying those who don't live by HIS morals! Laughing

Here's a hint CI -- if I shouldn't 'impose my morals' on you......

.........why do you impose yours on me by saying I ought to live and believe as YOU think I should?

0 Replies

I'm not the one trying to impose my religous zeal on women I don't even know - pro or con. It's up to them to make the decision; not me. No hypocrisy there. Only people like you see something that's not there. On the other hand, you don't want abortion to be practiced by women, but you fail to support the living babies of this world. You may not understand logic too well, but it's called hypocrisy.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

you fail to support the living babies of this world.

CI runs over people in the crosswalk.

Both statements have the same amount of validity, and are backed by the same proof.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm not the one trying to impose my religous zeal on women I don't even know - pro or con.

You have said repeatedly that your own 'standard of right and wrong applies to no one else' except yourself.

Yet here you are telling others that they are wrong.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog - absolutely, the exact same applies for several people. I don't argee about Roe v. Wade being one of them, but certainly I have heard my share of "my body my choice" arguements in a singularity before. To me that's just as bad; it's just as linear, just as black and white, just as simple. I certainly understand that people can believe in the right things for the wrong reasons.

Go too far to either extreme and you will find yourself being a zealot.

As fro mindset being a catalyst for many of our laws, in which you are refering to judicial legislation, remember, it's not just one person who makes that kind of ruling.

If you read the ruling on it, it's careful to be pluralistic, and balanced for all citizens. People like RL, don't sett;e for the middle they demand absolutes.

Since you state (or at least imply) that you've read the Roe v Wade decision, what is your response to the majority justices' statement that the establishment of the unborn's personhood would have caused the collapse of Roe's case?

Doesn't that mean that the personhood of the unborn is THE central issue of the abortion question?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The unborn still doesn't have any legal rights. What you are trying to do is impose your morals on a strange woman you don't even know to have her carry it full term - after which you won't care one way or the other how it lives. It's called hypocrisy.

When you agree with a law or push for changing a law that others may not agree with......are you imposing your morals over complete strangers?

What's that called?

I think what you mean is that when someone is pushing to change a law that you agree with....you don't like that.

0 Replies

I'm not trying to "push" any law. The law is the law as it's written today. It may change tomorrow, but that's up to the supreme court to decide; not some religious nut. Ultimately, it should be the woman who decides what to do with her body; not the supreme court. If they do change the law to make abortions illegal, more women will go to another country or will harm themselves with a hanger.

0 Replies

Bartikus, I have a simple hint for you; learn to understand the English language. I'm not trying to impose my morals on anybody or push any laws; both are impossible to do. Morals cannot be legislated according to "your" views, and I have no power to change the laws of this country concerning abortion. However, what some of you are trying to do is to impose "your" morals on women you don't even know by attempting to change the laws of this country, believing that a zygote is a baby. It's no such thing. You're trying to give the legal power to an embryo over the woman carrying it. It's a good thing our supreme court aren't composed of zealots like you.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

...... I'm not trying to impose my morals on anybody or push any laws; both are impossible to do.

I see a contradiction coming.

cicerone imposter wrote:

........ However, what some of you are trying to do is to impose "your" morals on women you don't even know by attempting to change the laws of this country,

Then what are you worried about?

You just stated that it was impossible to do.

cicerone imposter wrote:

believing that a zygote is a baby. It's no such thing. .....

Give medical evidence to support your view that the unborn is NOT a living human being. If you have any medical evidence, that is.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bartikus, I have a simple hint for you; learn to understand the English language. I'm not trying to impose my morals on anybody or push any laws; both are impossible to do. Morals cannot be legislated according to "your" views, and I have no power to change the laws of this country concerning abortion. However, what some of you are trying to do is to impose "your" morals on women you don't even know by attempting to change the laws of this country, believing that a zygote is a baby. It's no such thing. You're trying to give the legal power to an embryo over the woman carrying it. It's a good thing our supreme court aren't composed of zealots like you.

I don't want the embryo or zygote to have legal power over the life of any woman. I simply stated that morals you do share are being imposed on others. Which is a-ok with you.

Besides, I'm not trying to impose my morals on anybody or push any laws; both are impossible to do.

Here is a simple clue even for you. Logic.....get some.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
...... I'm not trying to impose my morals on anybody or push any laws; both are impossible to do.

I see a contradiction coming.

cicerone imposter wrote:
........ However, what some of you are trying to do is to impose "your" morals on women you don't even know by attempting to change the laws of this country,

Then what are you worried about?

You just stated that it was impossible to do.

cicerone imposter wrote:
believing that a zygote is a baby. It's no such thing. .....

Give medical evidence to support your view that the unborn is NOT a living human being. If you have any medical evidence, that is.

Maybe CI is stating that which is impossible to him and others is possible for religious zealots. Maybe CI can explain.

I agree with CI's position that a woman should ultimately be the one to decide what to do with her own body. Don't you agree RL?

0 Replies

Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know