Canada Stands Alone On Anti-abortion

[SirJosephPorter]

"Also that is why they accuse anybody who is pro choice of supporting the killing of babies."

That is exactly what they are doing, they just do it a few months ahead of time.

Again, that is your opinion. And that of the Pope and Pat Robertson. It means nothing to me. I hold particularly the Pope and Pat Robertson in very low esteem.

 

[JLM]

Again, that is your opinion. And that of the Pope and Pat Robertson. It means nothing to me. I hold particularly the Pope and Pat Robertson in very low esteem.

You're slipping- you forgot to tell me I'm a Conservative.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You're slipping- you forgot to tell me I'm a Conservative.

I am sure you know that already. It is simple commonsense, as you put it. Somebody who
consistently holds conservative views on most issues is in fact a conservative. Same as somebody who holds consistently liberal views on most issues (as I do) is a liberal.

 

[JLM]

I am sure you know that already. It is simple commonsense, as you put it. Somebody who
consistently holds conservative views on most issues is in fact a conservative. Same as somebody who holds consistently liberal views on most issues (as I do) is a liberal.

You should climb down out of your ivory tower and get acquainted with the real world, and quit all this nonsense you are spewing out incessantly. You have to be blind not to see what all the truly intellectuals (not me) on the forum have been telling you for months.

 

[DaSleeper]

Pretty soon he'll tell us that the moon is not made of green cheese:smile:

Well the other side ...anyway:lol:

 

[CDNBear]

First off, I wish to commend Ton for his amazing effort and illuminating posts in this thread. They actually gave me a woody.

Thanx Ton, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you are without a doubt one of the coolest tree huggin' hippies I've ever met.

Secondly, I'ld like to add, we are a mix of average Joe's, no puns or insults intended, and we are hardly going to come to any reasoned conclusion, that peoples whose careers have been established off this very topic.

Especially when you have people who's point of view and opinion is so entrenched in dogma, that they haven't the ability to see the forest for the trees.

And that's fine, in fact that's great.

Because that brings balance.

 

[JLM]

Pretty soon he'll tell us that the moon is not made of green cheese:smile:

Well the other side ...anyway:lol:

Ya mean he'd start talking common sense for a change?

 

[Tonington]

Nobody is getting into farcical nonsense, Tonington. You are making up the rules as you go along. You unilaterally decided that if something has human DNA, it must be a human being. Why?

Biology? When the haploid sperm and egg meet, the end result is the offspring of the two, the full chromosome number, and the DNA is all the information required to build a human from that humble beginning. It's Homo sapien DNA. It's a growing human. You started out that way too.

I doubt very much that you started as a tumor.

Has that definition been accepted by science? By the courts? By the Parliament? Who has accepted that definition, except you and the prolifers?

Can you give me another comparable example of a distinct life form that has human DNA, and is not a human? It's entirely logical.

I have already said that it is a living thing. As to me citing anything, I believe the responsibility is upon you to prove that it is a human being.

I gave a number of criteria. You're just digging in your heels.

Arbitrary is something that someone decides on his own, with no backing from science, judiciary, legislature etc. Your definition of what constitutes a human being (that it has human DNA) is not accepted by anybody except the prolifers.

You're conveniently ignoring all of the other factors. Of course human DNA is not enough. You have to consider the rest of what I said as well.

No doubt the fetus shows some human characteristics. It even has a potential to develop into a human being. But that no way implies that it is a human being.

Who cares about human being? That is being arbitrary. It's a human, Homo sapien. I defy you to show otherwise.

 

[JLM]

Biology? When the haploid sperm and egg meet, the end result is the offspring of the two, the full chromosome number, and the DNA is all the information required to build a human from that humble beginning. It's Homo sapien DNA. It's a growing human. You started out that way too.

I doubt very much that you started as a tumor.



Can you give me another comparable example of a distinct life form that has human DNA, and is not a human? It's entirely logical.



I gave a number of criteria. You're just digging in your heels.



You're conveniently ignoring all of the other factors. Of course human DNA is not enough. You have to consider the rest of what I said as well.



Who cares about human being? That is being arbitrary. It's a human, Homo sapien. I defy you to show otherwise.

It doesn't matter what you call it, there has to be a good reason to kill whatever it is (like a tumour) not just for someone's convenience.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You should climb down out of your ivory tower and get acquainted with the real world, and quit all this nonsense you are spewing out incessantly. You have to be blind not to see what all the truly intellectuals (not me) on the forum have been telling you for months.

Doe this mean that you have ran out of arguments? That is typically what a conservative does when he has lost an argument, when he has nothing further to say. Either he changes the subject or he resorts to insults.

 

[CDNBear]

Tonnington to SPA...

YouTube - "Back Off Man, I'm A Scientist."

 

[CDNBear]

Doe this mean that you have ran out of arguments? That is typically what a conservative does when he has lost an argument, when he has nothing further to say. Either he changes the subject or he resorts to insults.

You mean like using the label Conservative, or lap dogs, or poodles, or typical rightwing caricature, or so on?

:roll:

How about when confronted with indisputable facts presented by Tonnington, you move the goal posts?

You mean that kind of childish empty rhetoric BS?

 

[JLM]

Doe this mean that you have ran out of arguments? That is typically what a conservative does when he has lost an argument, when he has nothing further to say. Either he changes the subject or he resorts to insults.

Yep, you should know- you do it often enough.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Biology? When the haploid sperm and egg meet, the end result is the offspring of the two, the full chromosome number, and the DNA is all the information required to build a human from that humble beginning. It's Homo sapien DNA. It's a growing human. You started out that way too.

Again that begs the question. How does that make the product of conception a human being? Product of conception is just that, product of conception. By whose definition is that a human being? By your definition?

Can you give me another comparable example of a distinct life form that has human DNA, and is not a human? It's entirely logical.

No I cannot. But that doesn't mean that just because a fetus has human DNA it is a human being. Human DNA is necessary, but not sufficient condition to humanity.

I gave a number of criteria. You're just digging in your heels.

Sure you did. You pointed out a number of similarities between a fetus and a newborn baby. That doesn't mean that you have proved that they are one and the same thing.

You're conveniently ignoring all of the other factors. Of course human DNA is not enough. You have to consider the rest of what I said as well.

But again, by whose definition? You point out a few similarities between a fetus and a baby and then claim that it proves that fetus is the same as a newborn baby. That is a logical fallacy.

Who cares about human being? That is being arbitrary. It's a human, Homo sapien. I defy you to show otherwise.

I am glad you realize that this definition of a human being is arbitrary. As to homo sapien, sure the DNA belongs to homo sapien. If allowed to grow to maturity, it will grow into a homo sapien. But that is a far cry from saying that it is a homo sapien.

It is a very difficult, profound philosophical and scientific question, what constitutes a human being. You are giving a simplistic answer, if something has a human DNA (and is growing, shows some of the attributes of a human being), it is human. It is not that simple.

 

[lone wolf]

Doe this mean that you have ran out of arguments? That is typically what a conservative does when he has lost an argument, when he has nothing further to say. Either he changes the subject or he resorts to insults.

Or he backs away, rolls his eyes and throws up arms in dismay at the constant spew of babbled nonsense ... and you pat your own back and proclaim another victory for yourself. You are the master of disinformation and simply hate the truth - like most Luddites

 

[JLM]

Again that begs the question. How does that make the product of conception a human being? Product of conception is just that, product of conception. By whose definition is that a human being? By your definition?

No I cannot. But that doesn't mean that just because a fetus has human DNA it is a human being. Human DNA is necessary, but not sufficient condition to humanity.




Sure you did. You pointed out a number of similarities between a fetus and a newborn baby. That doesn't mean that you have proved that they are one and the same thing.

But again, by whose definition? You point out a few similarities between a fetus and a baby and then claim that it proves that fetus is the same as a newborn baby. That is a logical fallacy.

I am glad you realize that this definition of a human being is arbitrary. As to homo sapien, sure the DNA belongs to homo sapien. If allowed to grow to maturity, it will grow into a homo sapien. But that is a far cry from saying that it is a homo sapien.

It is a very difficult, profound philosophical and scientific question, what constitutes a human being. You are giving a simplistic answer, if something has a human DNA (and is growing, shows some of the attributes of a human being), it is human. It is not that simple.

WHO FRICKIN' CARES? That is not a reason to kill it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It doesn't matter what you call it, there has to be a good reason to kill whatever it is (like a tumour) not just for someone's convenience.

That is a circular reasoning, JLM. What you say would be right if we regard a fetus the same as newborn baby. But what is the basis for such an assumption?

Some prolifers quote the Bible. Others, like Tonington, point out a few similarities between the fetus and a human being. None of this is sufficient.

The fact is, we don't know what constitutes a human being, it is very difficult to define. We all agree that from the moment of birth on it is a human being. But when does it start being a human before birth? We just don't know.

 

[JLM]

And no need to come back with your stock answer "it's not life"

 

[SirJosephPorter]

WHO FRICKIN' CARES? That is not a reason to kill it.

If it is not a human being, there is no reason not to kill it. We kill non humans every day in our life.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And no need to come back with your stock answer "it's not life"

That is not my answer, you haven't been paying attention. My argument is that it is not human life. A clump of cells is obviously alive, it is some form of life (just as the sperm and the egg are alive). We just don't know when it becomes human.