Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion

[SirJosephPorter]

Not anymore, science has evolved. Check the video sonogram that your wife performs... beating heart at "how many weeks?" Do you deny those small fingers, the feet and toes... as human? Get honest sir. Don't hide behind your wife and her sterile curtain of innocence. You can find the videograms all over the world, all over the internet. I provided one in the initial post, please review

Bluedog, nobody is doubting the presence of small fingers, feet etc., they can be seen with the help of sonograms, as you point out.

But the question still is, is that human life? When does the life begin? Does it begin at conception? We don’t know. Scientists cannot say with any degree of certainty when life begins.

The scientific view regarding life is that life is a continuum, with no beginning or end. To claim that life begins at conception is a purely arbitrary supposition. If you have such a reverence for life, then why stop at conception? The sperm and egg are alive before the conception; why not show the same regard, the same respect to them as you show towards the product of conception?

If and when a scientific consensus emerges telling us that life begins at conception, that is when I will become prolife. But until that happens, I am vehemently opposed to forcing women to carry the pregnancy to term, to forcing them to have babies.

It all hinges upon whether abortion takes a human life. I don’t think it does, and until scientists tell me differently, I hold to that view. When it comes to matters of science and medicine, I listen to scientists not to Fundamentalist preachers or the Pope.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Boy, you know how to mess up the good old days. Days of innocence. Still look back and remember the enjoyment life offered as to the doom and gloom we get now.

But your right, all those things you mentioned were lacking.

Sorry ironsides, I just poured a healthy dose of realism over the romantic notion of what 40s and 50s were.

No doubt there were some positive things about 40s and 50s. People were more polite, there wasn’t as much crime, teenagers were not as rebellious. The world was much simpler in those days. Life was much simpler.

But you have to consider why these advantages existed. The world was simple because everybody knew their station in life. Women knew that they will get fulfillment only through their husband and did not make waves, they got married, stayed home and had babies. Blacks knew that their station was definitely lower than that of white man, and did not rebel (until 50s anyway, when the rebellions started in a small way, with Rosa Parks).

Gays knew that they did not stand a chance in the world, and so kept strictly to the closet. And that is why everything was peace and quite, nobody wanted to make waves. Everybody lived happily in their own station in life.

There were plenty of problems in the world, but nobody talked about them. There was child abuse, wife abuse, sexual abuse by priests, but it was swept under the carpet.

So it is important to ask, why did those advantages exist in the 40s and 50s? And you get a sinister answer.

 

[bluedog]

Not anymore, science has evolved. Check the video sonogram that your wife performs... beating heart at "how many weeks?" Do you deny those small fingers, the feet and toes... as human? Get honest sir. Don't hide behind your wife and her sterile curtain of innocence. You can find the videograms all over the world, all over the internet. I provided one in the initial post, please review

Bluedog, nobody is doubting the presence of small fingers, feet etc., they can be seen with the help of sonograms, as you point out.

But the question still is, is that human life? When does the life begin? Does it begin at conception? We don’t know. Scientists cannot say with any degree of certainty when life begins.

The scientific view regarding life is that life is a continuum, with no beginning or end. To claim that life begins at conception is a purely arbitrary supposition. If you have such a reverence for life, then why stop at conception? The sperm and egg are alive before the conception; why not show the same regard, the same respect to them as you show towards the product of conception?

If and when a scientific consensus emerges telling us that life begins at conception, that is when I will become prolife. But until that happens, I am vehemently opposed to forcing women to carry the pregnancy to term, to forcing them to have babies.

It all hinges upon whether abortion takes a human life. I don’t think it does, and until scientists tell me differently, I hold to that view. When it comes to matters of science and medicine, I listen to scientists not to Fundamentalist preachers or the Pope.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


The sperm and egg are alive yes, but they are separate representations of each partner not unique, new, human life. You mispoke we can agree. Oh yes also... Scientists believe life ends with death. The medical definition of same.


Sir, I believe, I'm conviced that we have much more in common than you think. We do BOTH believe regards invitro life, that it is human, we do BOTH believe it is "Alive", thus, -a life- by definition. We agree, that it has its own beating heart and nervous system we both know it has a digestive system with the ability to rid itself of waste products.
My good friend, where we 'start' to disagree, is the viability point. At which point in the life cylce does it become
self-sustaining viable life!

I don't argue for Viability Why? You will see- I argue for Valua-bilty.

Can a baby, once born infant survive without its mother? No?
Why, it is viable yes, is it also deemed valuable though? When? At what age? Think on this!
Can that Very Same -Unborn Infant child- survive without benefit of its mothers nurturing womb? No? Yet it can despite it. Why? Is it therefore less valuable? Because it is not yet born?
I wonder... Is it due to medical problems or the mothers/fathers problems, that makes it not valuable? Anothers Privacy? Is privacy actually more valuable than an innocent human life? WoW! We may have stumbled onto a whopper!!! lol !!!!
Now:
Is it a Viable or Valuable living being before it takes its first "breath of life" as so many call it? No, Why?
In the sixth month it can be extracted and force fed oxygen. Does it only then become viable then valuable? It after all was "living" breathing, quite well -All Along- before that withdrawl, on its mothers oxygen. Was it valuable or valuable then? Hmmm.

If mother sustains injury to her womb or uterus in the eight or nineth month after it can "safely" be extracted. Is it only living then, outside its womb viable, and upon that "magic first breath" valuable? No Why? If it was not "in danger" or "deemed safe, alive" would these terms would be necessary? Viable or Valuable? when?

When is it then Viable or Valuable?
To your points:
Quickly. You would argue that sperm is a living life, because it is the living purveyor of genetics from a man? Respectfully no sir. It is a part of man, his fertile seed -with only a potential for human life, only after a union- conception. We agree!
It is the intertwining of male AND female that cause the process to begin. Before that each, the sperm and the egg, were a mere "living" ejaculate of each- too often strewn recklessly on the ground. We agree.
No brother. Outside "that circle of potential nesting" when they each struggle, if delivered alone inside, life is futile. It is "deadly" -for both die, become "not living". We agree again!
For then the uterus rids itself of the Unnecessary "Unliving matter". Even her own once living egg, that now is futile is cast off in menstruation without the presence of a viable ejaculate and fertility! We agree!

Yet, Now wait. Think on this... When... If... there is that unique "individual" union of the two... and no "unliving" result becomes cast off... what? It is living! AT the time of conception!! Or naturally, it would be cast off!
You see it already has all it needs genetically it is unique, "individual" and is already innocent by definition. Brother it is only nurtured in the womb... by its mother until it becomes independent. It is "already" an individual by genetics. It is life, not yet viable but very very valuable.

Fertility,
an amazing word. A special protective process that nourishes and nurtures life from the beginning, from the union!
Now Remember...
even if that union was started in a cold OR warm petri dish by man, it will NOT survive. It has all the components genetically- it just requires "nurturing". Right? If it does not receive nurturing, It won't survive? That itself means that once unified it was and therefore is already alive "unique, individual" -genetically- and truly innocent! Alive... A-life.

Regards when life should be recognized:
We have established that only UNION actives that unique genetic individual innocent life". It is only then that the precious New, "sacred life" has been established, blessed by God.

Hence, the scripture that says "I knew you since BEFORE you were in your mothers womb!" Again, Praise God!! Brother.
Consider this, He made his decision for You... Your small toes your small fingers your small beating heart... he knew who you were, where you were and how you are, today! He also knows where you are going.:smile:

You ...SirJosephPorter! The Lord be Praised! :fish:

 

[YukonJack]

bluedog, obviously you have not yet experienced the debating power of SirJosephPorter, pertaining to abortion, choice and beginning of life.


Let me caution you: you will talk to a deaf ear. You will post your messages to a blind eye.

Nothing you may say will convince him, sway him or make him reasonable.

Mind like concrete: All mixed up and permanently set.

A further caution: once he realizes that you got the best of him, the personal attacks will start. Oh, so subtle, but personal, nonetheless.

 

[Cliffy]

Cliffy,
Your reference please, author, chapter and page, so we may judge this statement and its worth. Only then can we imbue necessary respect for your point of view.

Thank you. As soon as possible please.

Jeezuz, you are a demanding little tyrant! I don't really care if you understand, believe or want to understand anything I say. It is in the list of books and author''s I posted before. Look up Paul Williams (not the actor).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Oh yes also... Scientists believe life ends with death.

Bluedog, human life ends with death, but not life. Life still continues. The cells in human body can stay alive indefinitely in a Petri dish, even after the body is dead.

Also the body is eaten by animals (insects, maggots etc.) after it is buried, and the cycle of life continues.

So we agree that human life ends with death (though there is no agreement as to what constitutes death, witness the Terri Schivo controversy).

Sir, I believe, I'm convinced that we have much more in common than you think. We do BOTH believe regards invitro life, that it is human, we do BOTH believe it is "Alive", thus, -a life- by definition. We agree, that it has its own beating heart and nervous system we both know it has a digestive system with the ability to rid itself of waste products.

I will go along with that, with one small difference. I agree that it is life (as I said, scientific view is that life is a continuum, with no beginning or end). But is it human life? We don’t know. At what stage does it become human life? That is the question.

And that is the difference between life and death. We all can agree when a person is dead (when the brain is dead), with very few exceptions (like Terri Schivo). But there is no agreement as to when a fetus becomes a human being.

My good friend, where we 'start' to disagree, is the viability point. At which point in the life cylce does it become self-sustaining viable life!

You are right, that is where I draw the line (and personally I won’t be opposed to some restrictions on abortion after fetal viability). However, I realize that the line is purely arbitrary, others may disagree with that position.

Quickly. You would argue that sperm is a living life, because it is the living purveyor of genetics from a man? Respectfully no sir. It is a part of man, his fertile seed -with only a potential for human life, only after a union- conception. We agree!

Yes we agree. But my question still remains, if fetus is to be respected as a human being from conception, why not extend the same respect to the sperm? To me it doesn’t make sense.

You see it already has all it needs genetically it is unique, "individual" and is already innocent by definition.

Well yes, but those genes are also present in the sperm and egg. So again my question, why not extend the same respect to the sperm and the egg? If it is murder to kill the fetus at conception, should it also not be considered murder to waste (and thus ‘kill’) the sperm (for instance, by masturbation) and the egg?

That itself means that once unified it was and therefore is already alive "unique, individual" -genetically- and truly innocent! Alive... A-life.

Alive, perhaps (as I have said before, life is a continuum), but innocent? That doesn’t make any sense. Then the sperm is also innocent, isn’t it?

Hence, the scripture that says "I knew you since BEFORE you were in your mothers womb!" Again, Praise God!!

Here again we part company, I don’t believe in God, I am an Atheist.

In summary, I will give this to you, bluedog. You are a great debater, and you are polite and courteous (unlike some of the posters here). However, we remain far apart in our views.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

bluedog, obviously you have not yet experienced the debating power of SirJosephPorter, pertaining to abortion, choice and beginning of life.

A further caution: once he realizes that you got the best of him, the personal attacks will start. Oh, so subtle, but personal, nonetheless.

Yukon, you know better than that, I never indulge in personal attacks, show me where I have done so.

Bluedog has pretty much same views as you, but unlike you, he can argue his position in a reasonable, cogent manner. All you do is to throw bombs, rather than advance arguments in support of your position.

 

[YukonJack]

A life started by human origins, i.e. human egg + human sperm is by definition a human life.

It takes an obstinate, stubburn and blind atheist to deny that.

 

[YukonJack]

Come on, now, SirJosephPorter!

Bombs?

Every time you refer to Harper as the Messiah is a provocative bomb.
Every time you refer to Sarah Palin as Joan of Arc is a provocative bomb.

Also insulting. Not to me, but to your own intelligence.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Come on, now, SirJosephPorter!

Bombs?

Every time you refer to Harper as the Messiah is a provocative bomb.
Every time you refer to Sarah Palin as Joan of Arc is a provocative bomb.

Also insulting. Not to me, but to your own intelligence.

And how are those bombs, Yukon? In common lingo, that is known as satire, something to needle the other side. Satire is the perfectly legitimate tool in debates, i use it many times. And seeing that it bothers people like you so much, it is at least partially successful.

 

[Cliffy]

Kinda like: here is a look at Bush's brain - .

 

[YukonJack]

I said: "Also insulting. Not to me, but to your own intelligence."

To which you replied:

"And how are those bombs, Yukon? In common lingo, that is known as satire, something to needle the other side. Satire is the perfectly legitimate tool in debates, i use it many times. And seeing that it bothers people like you so much, it is at least partially successful."

Bombs are in the eyes of the beholder. What I ever said and you considered "bombs" are no more so than what you say and I consider "bombs".

But that is just my opinion. And knowing you, you will dismiss it as worthless; and as we all know you usually offer no facts, you just consider - nay, declare - your opinion as the only valid benchmark.

If you think that your childish attempt at humour impresses anyone, please count the votes. It will make you feel like your idol, John Kerry.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

A life started by human origins, i.e. human egg + human sperm is by definition a human life.

By YOUR definition, you mean.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If you think that your childish attempt at humour impresses anyone, please count the votes. It will make you feel like your idol, John Kerry.

I am not interested in counting the votes, Yukon. If I know that it bothers at least one person (namely, you) I consider that a partial success.

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, since you still respond to my posts after your haughty declaration that I am on your "ignore" list, I consider that a TOTAL success.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJosephPorter, since you still respond to my posts after your haughty declaration that I am on your "ignore" list, I consider that a TOTAL success.

Whoa, Yukon, when did I say that you were on my ‘ignore’ list? I never said that, that is something you dreamt up.

Believe me if I had you on my ignore list, you wouldn’t hear a pip out of me, ask those who really are on my ignore list.

You never were on my ignore list.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yukon, I vaguely remember you saying that you were going to ignore me. That didn’t seem to have worked out for you. But you on my ignore list? Never happened.

 

[YukonJack]

"You never were on my ignore list."

Judging by the denigrating way you talked about me to other posters I was sure I was.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yukon, I put posters on ignore list when they personally insult me, abuse me. You have never done that, so there is no reason for me to put you on ignore list. I don’t put people on ignore list just because I disagree with them.

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, let me give you an imitation of Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer. She insisted to be called "SENATOR", rather than "ma'am" by military personnel.

Since I always give you enough respect (in spite out differences) to call you by your full on-screen handle, would it be too much for me to expect to deserve the same from you?

You know: YukonJack not just Yukon? Or YJ. Surely you can not be that lazy?