Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

If she's a call girl, I doubt you'll be the "last" guy....

Oh, I get it... well I got nothing..

That's a really silly distinction to try to make though Belkira.



We've had this argument before. A zygote has the complete set of DNA which defines it as a distinct "human" separate from either mother or father. Sperm and egg do not. You're being incredibly inconsistent with how you view the different stages of said development.



I'm sorry, but this is an absurd argument to make. For abortion to even be an issue, then we are already assuming a zygote located inside the womans body and which will, barring intervention, grow "all on its own". The woman has to choose to take an action to terminate that process, but you seem to want to argue it's the other way around. Sperm and eggs don't to that unless we take an action to put them together. The result of that action is a zygote. That's the point at which the issue ceases to be about taking an action to cause a human to develop and becomes about a human developing unless some action is taken to stop it.


I get the whole "my rights versus those of a growing potential person's rights" bit. I really do. But I just think you only weaken your position if you feel you have to twist around the facts to make it appear like the issue is something other than what it is.

I know exactly what it means and I countered all of your points to support otherwise. Your points are, it can't feel pain and it isn't viable. I stated that a person can be killed without feeling pain. Does that justify the action? Secondly, I stated that child isn't viable after 24 weeks and that a newborn will die on it's own. No one has yet countered that argument.

Since anyone can be killed without feeling pain, your argument relies on being viable, which is countered by the fact that a newborn child is MORE helpless outside the womb then it was inside the womb.



You read above also. Your "defined limits" are arbitrary based on the counters I presented. No, I don't understand the need to say "okay, 50% viability is an acceptable cut off".



What? I said the exact opposite. I said that no one is denying her health. So, if there is a situation where her health is in danger, no one is arguing against her having an abortion in that scenario.



The level of immaturity is overwhelming. You're not providing an example because it's not possible. A fact must be true, if there exist error, then it is no longer a fact. It's a very simple concept. So stop accusing me of "goal post moving", "back peddling" or any other accusation. I'm sure you spent that time trying guess my direction and to counter it. You must have came up with something or you would have kept whining. Let's see.

You agreed with the definition that I quoted that scientific theories are "constructed to explain, predict, and master phenomena".

What are the predictions? Are they predictions within the theory itself, predictions of applications of the theory, a combination of the two, something else or all of the above?

Ok, let me rephrase the statement as you think it makes a difference. A newborn child is MORE helpless outside the womb than in ANY state, to include a "smattering of cells", inside the womb.

You're ping-ponging the argument. I've already stated that anyone can cease someone's life with no pain. So, you argue "it's not viable". I counter to say that a newborn is more helpless than the "smattering of cells" and you go back to say "It' doesn't feel pain"!

First, I'm not arguing morals, because that's an emotional argument that abortion can not win.

Second, my argument has always been that those smattering cells are part of the human life cycle and the time when abortion is legal is just a time where people feel less guilty for doing the action. At the end of the day, it's the same action and the same result in any trimester. The "feeling" argument wasn't mine. I merely countered it to say that it doesn't matter because there are ways to end life where the "victim" doesn't feel any pain.



You're bringing in morals again. My argument wasn't to HARM newborns, but not doing ANYTHING to the newborns. Let them live on their own, like they were doing inside the womb. In the womb, the woman doesn't have to do anything but live and be healthy for the "cells/child" to grow. It stays in the womb up to 9 months, where as a child wont live 9 days outside of the womb with no attention. So this "it's not viable" is completely trash, because the newborn can't survive without MORE assistance than before for YEARS before it can survive own it's own.

Come back when you realize I never said nor implied what you accused me of.... Yeaaa. go do that.. Learn to read.

And miss out on all of this fun!! Ha!

I have been paying attention, you ****. The point is, these are moral arguments on which abortion can prevail. Since you explicitly said abortion can't win the moral argument, you're stuck here yet again either admitting you're wrong or trying to cover up your miserable reading comprehension.

Keep trying, guys. I think he's starting to get receptive to your ideas!