"Liberals!"

[amicus]

Your logic is faulty...you can starve a month old or six month old baby because it too, depends upon a 'host', or a mother.

Next?

Amicus...

 

[Guest]

Your logic is faulty...you can starve a month old or six month old baby because it too, depends upon a 'host', or a mother.

Next?

Amicus...

Nope.

Since when you did care about logic?

Any person can feed the month old child. Anyone.

The growing clump of cells can only survive if the host survives.

And since many of you care more about the growing clump of cells than the host, you lose all credibility.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My fortune is made. I'm gonna sell fish-scalers with Obama's pic to all the Usual Suspects. They'll scrape till they bleed themselves dry.

 

[amicus]

Nope.

Since when you did care about logic?

Any person can feed the month old child. Anyone.

The growing clump of cells can only survive if the host survives.

And since many of you care more about the growing clump of cells than the host, you lose all credibility.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Well, you remain a persistent cuss, can't deny that.

A rational, humane person cares about all human life, from the moment of conception forward.

To gain a credible position in the world of ideas and not your little liberal fantasy world, you have to establish that human life is of value; all human life, not just those you choose to acknowledge.

Amicus...

 

[BentSecrets]

Nope.

Since when you did care about logic?

Any person can feed the month old child. Anyone.

The growing clump of cells can only survive if the host survives.

And since many of you care more about the growing clump of cells than the host, you lose all credibility.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Well, you remain a persistent cuss, can't deny that.

A rational, humane person cares about all human life, from the moment of conception forward.

To gain a credible position in the world of ideas and not your little liberal fantasy world, you have to establish that human life is of value; all human life, not just those you choose to acknowledge.

Amicus...

You're using the guise of "rational person" in an attempt to humiliate your opponent into submission. It's the intellectual equivalent of Stalin calling dissenters "selfish" and shaming them for objecting to his plans to starve half his continent to death. Luckily you don't have that much authority.

You argue, quite clearly, from a Conservative bent while attempting to wield the weapons of an Objectivist. I'm sorry to have to inform you that you are not up to the task, and instead you bear the mark of that group's parasite, whom I refer to (affectionately, of course), as a Randroid.

To put it succinctly, you've missed the point of that philosophy's existence, which is to think for yourself, argue rationally from evidence and empirical data. You argue from faith and pretend it's logic, and your assertion that a clump of cells is the same as a fully formed human being is evidence enough to prove this.

Cells don't have rights. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[amicus]

You didn't disappoint, you merely exposed a little more of that vacuous female organ you call a mind.

Amusing really, Rand supported abortion, I oppose it; but you call me a Randroid? How silly.

There are things I appreciated from the works of Thomas Paine, John Mills, even Voltaire and Neitzche, Aristotle and Thales, but appreciating a writer, an economist or a philosopher does not turn one into a believer such as you represent.

You sound like the typical feminist who got knocked up on a spree and turned to killing a child to correct your indulgence.

Like, what else is new?

Amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

Amusing really, Rand supported abortion, I oppose it; but you call me a Randroid? How silly.

Amicus...

A rational, humane person cares about all human life, from the moment of conception forward.

Fascinating. So Miss Rand was either not rational or humane? (Sorry to beat you with the logic stick again, but this was just too sweet to let it pass...)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Nope.

Since when you did care about logic?

Any person can feed the month old child. Anyone.

The growing clump of cells can only survive if the host survives.

And since many of you care more about the growing clump of cells than the host, you lose all credibility.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Well, you remain a persistent cuss, can't deny that.

A rational, humane person cares about all human life, from the moment of conception forward.

To gain a credible position in the world of ideas and not your little liberal fantasy world, you have to establish that human life is of value; all human life, not just those you choose to acknowledge.

Amicus...

AMICUS YOU CANT BE MORE WRONG.

Hitler was right when he told his lieutenants that ideology and good arguments are all bullshit. What matters is a gun and the power to force people to do your will. Guns checkmate arguments and opposition. SARAH is too goddamned dum and defiant to convince. So you let her make a life and death choice, and make either outcome a good one for you.

 

[Liar]

Liar:

From the piece you pasted...

Still...just a diversion and an evasion. Truly astounding that you reject the obvious just to suit your ideology. Rather like the climate specialists.

I do not. In fact, I have several times REVISED my ideology upon finding new facts that contradict it.

It self evident to any and all with a brain, that human life begins at the instant of conception. Whether it is lost to a natual caused miscarriage, or an intended procedure is irrelevant.

No, it is not self evident to any and all with a brain, that human life begins at the instant of conception. And you are a chalatan and a dishonest debater for spewing that cheap and undignifying rethoric as if it was fact.

Just because I say "it is self evident for anyone with a brain that amicus is a purple vampire from outer space", doesn't make it so. I can say it and say it, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm wrong.

It is a charade to imagine that conception is anything else than the beginning of human life.

No it is not. You are incorrect.

and you know it....all of you.

No we do not. You believe it. And you think that just because it's not a religious belief, it is not a belief. It is a belief. A faith based stance. It is irrational, illogic and emotional. I have yet to see a single scientific argument from uoi concerning this. Just your hollow "everybody agrees that..." followed by stuff that no, everybody does NOT agree on.

But go ahead, it's not I making an ass out of myself.

 

[wmrs2]

I do not. In fact, I have several times REVISED my ideology upon finding new facts that contradict it.

No, it is not self evident to any and all with a brain, that human life begins at the instant of conception. And you are a chalatan and a dishonest debater for spewing that cheap and undignifying rethoric as if it was fact.

Just because I say "it is self evident for anyone with a brain that amicus is a purple vampire from outer space", doesn't make it so. I can say it and say it, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm wrong.
No it is not. You are incorrect.
No we do not. You believe it. And you think that just because it's not a religious belief, it is not a belief. It is a belief. A faith based stance. It is irrational, illogic and emotional. I have yet to see a single scientific argument from uoi concerning this. Just your hollow "everybody agrees that..." followed by stuff that no, everybody does NOT agree on.

But go ahead, it's not I making an ass out of myself.

May it be suggested that neither you or amicus are making asses out of yourselves. Amicus has an excellent point of view and you Mr. Liar have every duty and right to challenge amicus' point of view.

To make any headway on the issue of abortion, we must decide when life begins. Biologically we all know the zygote cell is biologically alive. The religious question must then be settled. Is life a spiritual quality in addition to a biological quality? Do we know for sure whether life is or is not a spiritual quality? To ask this question again we must decide what is a spiritual quality?

To me it is self-evident that a spiritual quality is rationality, something that appears to be unique to human beings. It appears that only human beings are able to say or think that "I think, therefore, I am." Man has this quality of self awareness but when is this spiritual quality aware of itself?

The traditional Jewish and Christian point of view is that man becomes a living soul when God breaths into man the breath of life.

Gen:2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

(keep in mind that embryos have nostrils)

This verse does not help very much because it does not tell us when the breath of life enters the body. It is well known that embryos respond to stimuli while in the womb. It is accepted by most religious people that Jesus Christ was alive before birth. What is not answered in these questions is when does a zygote or embryo receive the brith of life? Does a zygote meet the criteria for life by being rational? Does the potential for reasoning satisfy the requirement for life? Personally, we think it does.

Science has determined that without oxygen, human life is not possible. Science has determined there are all types of dysfunctional states in humans that are deprived of oxygen. We think science and faith agree here that life is not possible without oxygen, thus then, are we not forced to conclude that life beings at conception? We are sure that some are able to postulate why this would be a faulty conclusion. We would be interested in hearing how you would reason differently on this matter.

 

[Liar]

May it be suggested that neither you or amicus are making asses out of yourselves. Amicus has an excellent point of view and you Mr. Liar have every duty and right to challenge amicus' point of view.

The ass he makes of himself lies not in his point of view. It's not an invalid point. It's the weak fallacies he use to defend it, the "everbody who can think agrees with me and if you don't you have no ethics, character and reason" bullshit.

Science has determined that without oxygen, human life is not possible. Science has determined there are all types of dysfunctional states in humans that are deprived of oxygen. We think science and faith agree here that life is not possible without oxygen, thus then, are we not forced to conclude that life beings at conception?

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Conception produce a fertilized egg. The difference between a fertilized egg and a non fertilized egg is that the latter has not been subjected to a genetic merge with a sperm. Both are live cells in a human body, and as such, they need oxygen to stay alive as cells in a human body.

The question is when does the egg stop being a process OF the body it's in and become an autonomous (but still host dependent) process IN the body it's in. The only answers I know to that is much more philosophical or theological than scientific.