Abortions and the bible.

#576
#576
mrmax86 said:
Again, what is viable? Able to exist without assistance? Like others have said, by that definition, there are probably a BILLION or more people in this world that have already been born that fall into that category.
Click to expand...

Strawmanning or conflating terms isn't going to win this argument. fetal viability has, again, been widely recognized as 28 weeks from conception.
 
#577
#577
Septic said:
Until its viable, it's more a of a parasite than a human child.

With due respect, this is a losing argument - my advice would be to appeal to the fact that abortion is snuffing the life out of a potentially sentient being, which is morally indefensible.
Click to expand...
Not a parasite.

Parasite: an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#578
#578
Roustabout said:
When human development begins is settled science. Our experience of it has different milestones. You may value some more than others but that isn’t the issue. I don’t place as much value on children who live on the other side of the planet. That doesn’t determine their value.
People celebrate when they find out they are pregnant. Why is your opinion superior to theirs? It isn’t.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with human development starts. I never have. I agree it is human DEVELOPMENT, not a person, but at some point will be.

When have I said my opinion is superior? I've only said its mine. You have done nothing to convince me I should reconsider. You may not like my opinion and I don't really care. At no point am I advocating killing an actual baby.


Roustabout said:
Why? It’s irrelevant to the issue. Plus it’s an uncontroversial statement. Our bodies reach a point where they no longer grow. That’s called adulthood. Then our bodies begin to lose their
Muscles lose elasticity and mass. Hormones diminish. You name it.
Click to expand...

I'm not naming or explaining anything. You made that demarcation and called it "decaying", you defend it:

Roustabout said:
Yes, and an infant isn’t an adolescent. An adolescent isn’t an adult. Which one has no value? And no we aren’t constantly developing. You and I will not develop any more. We are decaying.
Click to expand...

If it's irrelevant to the issue then why did you bring it up? I'm still developing as a person at 42 years old.

Answer this: If human development ends at adulthood then what future potential is ended by killing somebody at that point? When is that point?

You said it, you defend it. And don't say you already have, because you haven't. You said something stupid. Admit it or defend it.

Roustabout said:
Sure you do. Every human is the same genetic material that started at conception and implantation. Yes, that continues to reach milestones in the development process, just like you did. Your moral concern is irrelevant. Their are people who lack concern for any humans.
Click to expand...

All I said is that it is my opinion. A fertilized and implanted egg is not a viable person. Will destroying it keep it from becoming a person? Of course. But when you destroy it you are not destroying a person, only the potential of a person. Stopping the process and killing the person are not the same thing. And if you think it is, then great. That is irrelevant to me.

As a crude example, I view it as a car on an assembly line. At some point in that manufacturing process you will have a functioning vehicle that may not be fully complete. Being able to drive it out of the factory is the realization of its value. Before that you don't have a vehicle, you have a hunk of metal that is yet to be a vehicle.

Roustabout said:
When any born person dies, the ONLY thing that is taken is their potential.
Pregnancy is much more than a “chance.” LOL
Click to expand...

BS. You are taking the life of a living person AND any future potential. Are you saying a person is defined ONLY by their future potential?
 
#579
#579
VolStrom said:
It seems that not too long ago you were arguing that killing a baby at any time was perfectly acceptable. You were all for late term abortion/births and killing the child.
Click to expand...

Was I? Cite your source.

I recall making the point that the fetus was part of its mother until birth, if that wasn't the case then "induce labor and let the best man win" - that'd be one way to srt things out.
 
#580
#580
Septic said:
Strawmanning or conflating terms isn't going to win this argument. fetal viability has, again, been widely recognized as 28 weeks from conception.
Click to expand...
Fetal viability.

You use fetal for your convenience. This is always, and has always, been about attacking the defenseless fetus. The ability of the fetus to survive outside his/her mother's womb is not a proper basis for if it's acceptable to kill him/her. It is just one of the stages in development in which some people decide it is acceptable to commit murder. Depending on the moral compass of the person, that is either: Never, early development, late development, birth, after birth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and T-TownVol
#581
#581
mrmax86 said:
Not a parasite.

Parasite: an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
Click to expand...

I think it qualifies.

1558557663327.png
 
#582
#582
Septic said:
Until its viable, it's more a of a parasite than a human child.

With due respect, this is a losing argument - my advice would be to appeal to the fact that abortion is snuffing the life out of a potentially sentient being, which is morally indefensible.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm doing. Though it's true that from a biological point of view a fetus shares similarities with a parasite (it's an independent creature utilizing another independent creature's body to sustain its life), parasites aren't the natural offspring of their hosts. The fact is that even when a fetus is merely "a clump of cells", it is inarguably a clump of human cells. While an event (either natural or unnatural) may occur that terminates its development, that "clump of cells" will never develop into anything that isn't a human.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed, marcusluvsvols and T-TownVol
#586
#586
mrmax86 said:
Fetal viability.

You use fetal for your convenience. This is always, and has always, been about attacking the defenseless fetus. The ability of the fetus to survive outside his/her mother's womb is not a proper basis for if it's acceptable to kill him/her. It is just one of the stages in development in which some people decide it is acceptable to commit murder. Depending on the moral compass of the person, that is either: Never, early development, late development, birth, after birth.
Click to expand...

cool.
 
#587
#587
bamawriter said:
That's what I'm doing. Though it's true that from a biological point of view a fetus shares similarities with a parasite (it's an independent creature utilizing another independent creature's body to sustain its life), parasites aren't the natural offspring of their hosts. The fact is that even when a fetus is merely "a clump of cells", it is inarguably a clump of human cells. While an event (either natural or unnatural) may occur that terminates its development, that "clump of cells" will never develop into anything that isn't a human.
Click to expand...


Weeeeell, that last sentence is debatable with the presence of some on VN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#588
#588
Septic said:
cool.
Click to expand...
Unacceptable response. You avoid addressing my point because you don't have a response. This issue is 100% about convenience. Oh, no, I screwed up and got pregnant and/or got my partner pregnant. Let's create laws in which we make it so that my mistake never happened. Except it involves murder.

Edit: changed allows to involves
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#589
#589
mrmax86 said:
You cite the Center for Disease Control's definition. A fetus is not a disease.
Click to expand...

Post of the year.

I think the CDC knows how to define what a parasite is. When your blinding rage subsides and you have a moment of clarity, you'll feel embarrassed about the fact you made this statement.
 
#590
#590
Septic said:
Post of the year.

I think the CDC knows how to define what a parasite is. When your blinding rage subsides and you have a moment of clarity, you'll feel embarrassed about the fact you made this statement.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting a baby is a disease?
 
#591
#591
Septic said:
Post of the year.

I think the CDC knows how to define what a parasite is. When your blinding rage subsides and you have a moment of clarity, you'll feel embarrassed about the fact you made this statement.
Click to expand...

I have an anvil in my garage, want to come argue with it? If so you'd come nearer winning your argument.
 
#592
#592
mrmax86 said:
Unacceptable response. You avoid addressing my point because you don't have a response. This issue is 100% about convenience. Oh, no, I screwed up and got pregnant and/or got my partner pregnant. Let's create laws in which we make it so that my mistake never happened. Except it involves murder.

Edit: changed allows to involves
Click to expand...

lol, your post makes such ridiculous presuppositions it's not worth replying too in any serious manner.

You think abortion is murder at any age and for any reason. We get it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top