Abortion is murder

[ding]

.

Now, why is it that you don't believe human life begins at conception?

the point people are trying to make with you is that all life begins at conception, or is there a difference with you ...

.

Agreed, but it's a lie he keeps pushing. I've agreed with him several times about this point then asked him to prove a zygote is a human being. He dodges the answer (just like he dodges questions about his dislike of the US military) then goes back to falsely accusing those who disagree with him for not being "scientific" and not believing human life begins at conception. Like PC, I think he's a bit of a whackadoodle....which would explain why he couldn't get in the military even if he tried.

I did prove that science has determined that a zygote is a human being. You refused to accept the evidence.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

“Human life begins when the ovum is fertilized and the new combined cell mass begins to divide.” Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association (p 74)

Obviously you don't understand science as well as you think you do.

So when will you be honest enough to tell me why you hate the military?

I don't hate the military, amigo. I have no idea why you would think I do and I don't really care. Try to stay on topic here. I have forgotten more science than you know. Do you have any science that proves a new human being is not created at conception?

 

[ding]

The 7 Characteristics of Life

 

[ding]

Characteristics of living things

 

[ding]

Embryonic human persons. Talking Point on morality and human embryo research

 

[ding]

Unborn Children

 

[Faun]

That's not an edit. Both statements are true. You're not the judge of right and wrong for society AND you're entitled to judge for yourself what you believe is right and wrong AND you don't speak for others.

As far as forced abortions, under what circumstances would they be forced and who would impose such forced abortions?

1. Too many people on the planet causing increased global warming emissions
2. The people elected representatives who passed this law just like they do now. SCOTUS ruled that it was lawful to do so.

Yes, I don't speak for others, but I do live in a shared society with shared consequences. I am not the judge of anyone but myself. I have free will in my choices. I can choose to comply with laws or not to comply with laws. I understand that I am accountable for my actions and that my actions do have consequences. I believe that people should follow the dictate of their consciences despite the letter of the law or the consequences to themselves.

That would be wrong.

Wrong, but legal, right?

Yes, wrong but legal but not Constitutional, so it would not stand.

They could always write a Constitutional Amendment, right? Then it would be legal and Constitutional, right?

Or an asteroid could plummet to Earth and wipe us all out.

Enough with the implausible hypotheticals and back to reality -- legal abortions are not murder.

</thread>

 

[ding]

.

Now, why is it that you don't believe human life begins at conception?

the point people are trying to make with you is that all life begins at conception, or is there a difference with you ...

.

Yes. All life does begin at conception because it does meet the definition of a living thing.

.
ding: Yes. All life does begin at conception because it does meet the definition of a living thing.


that's not what you were asked ....

the point people are trying to make with you is that all life begins at conception, or is there a difference with you ...

are humans living things ....

.

I guess I don't understand your question. Yes, all life begins at conception when a new living being, as identified by his unique DNA, that has never existed before and will never exist again, is created into existence. That's about as clear as I can be on this subject. So, what is it that you want to know?

 

[ding]

1. Too many people on the planet causing increased global warming emissions
2. The people elected representatives who passed this law just like they do now. SCOTUS ruled that it was lawful to do so.

Yes, I don't speak for others, but I do live in a shared society with shared consequences. I am not the judge of anyone but myself. I have free will in my choices. I can choose to comply with laws or not to comply with laws. I understand that I am accountable for my actions and that my actions do have consequences. I believe that people should follow the dictate of their consciences despite the letter of the law or the consequences to themselves.

That would be wrong.

Wrong, but legal, right?

Yes, wrong but legal but not Constitutional, so it would not stand.

They could always write a Constitutional Amendment, right? Then it would be legal and Constitutional, right?

Or an asteroid could plummet to Earth and wipe us all out.

Enough with the implausible hypotheticals and back to reality -- legal abortions are not murder.

</thread>

Sure, that's right, but what we are discussing is moral relativity and how idiots use legality to define right and wrong. My point here is that it is a slippery slope and if you live by that sword you can die from that sword. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

I don't have that dilemma as I draw the line at it is wrong to end a human life period.

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't have that dilemma as I draw the line at it is wrong to end a human life period.

I don't agree with abortion. However, it should be the choice of both parties. Vast majority are carried out in first trimester. They are not human life. You think they are? Ever seen a three-month of foetus living outside a woman's body? I haven't.

 

[Faun]

That would be wrong.

Wrong, but legal, right?

Yes, wrong but legal but not Constitutional, so it would not stand.

They could always write a Constitutional Amendment, right? Then it would be legal and Constitutional, right?

Or an asteroid could plummet to Earth and wipe us all out.

Enough with the implausible hypotheticals and back to reality -- legal abortions are not murder.

</thread>

Sure, that's right, but what we are discussing is moral relativity and how idiots use legality to define right and wrong. My point here is that it is a slippery slope and if you live by that sword you can die from that sword. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

I don't have that dilemma as I draw the line at it is wrong to end a human life period.

And what gives you the right to speak for others who don't believe as you?

 

[ding]

I don't have that dilemma as I draw the line at it is wrong to end a human life period.

I don't agree with abortion. However, it should be the choice of both parties. Vast majority are carried out in first trimester. They are not human life. You think they are? Ever seen a three-month of foetus living outside a woman's body? I haven't.

Ok, you don't agree with it, does that mean you don't approve of it? If so, would that be because you believe it is wrong? If so, is that because you believe it is a human life that is being ended?

It seems that you are making a viability argument. Are newborn babies viable? Can they live outside the woman's body on it's own without being cared for? There are medical ethicists that are making the exact same argument you are making for babies outside of the womb. It is a slippery slope indeed.

 

[ding]

Wrong, but legal, right?

Yes, wrong but legal but not Constitutional, so it would not stand.

They could always write a Constitutional Amendment, right? Then it would be legal and Constitutional, right?

Or an asteroid could plummet to Earth and wipe us all out.

Enough with the implausible hypotheticals and back to reality -- legal abortions are not murder.

</thread>

Sure, that's right, but what we are discussing is moral relativity and how idiots use legality to define right and wrong. My point here is that it is a slippery slope and if you live by that sword you can die from that sword. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

I don't have that dilemma as I draw the line at it is wrong to end a human life period.

And what gives you the right to speak for others who don't believe as you?

I don't believe I did. What I did was to play back for you what you have told me. In effect, I am asking you if I got it right. Please tell me what I got wrong. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

 

[Faun]

Yes, wrong but legal but not Constitutional, so it would not stand.

They could always write a Constitutional Amendment, right? Then it would be legal and Constitutional, right?

Or an asteroid could plummet to Earth and wipe us all out.

Enough with the implausible hypotheticals and back to reality -- legal abortions are not murder.

</thread>

Sure, that's right, but what we are discussing is moral relativity and how idiots use legality to define right and wrong. My point here is that it is a slippery slope and if you live by that sword you can die from that sword. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

I don't have that dilemma as I draw the line at it is wrong to end a human life period.

And what gives you the right to speak for others who don't believe as you?

I don't believe I did. What I did was to play back for you what you have told me. In effect, I am asking you if I got it right. Please tell me what I got wrong. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

Am I mistaken then in my belief you want abortion to be illegal?

As far as your hypothetical ... again ... it would be unconstitutional. I'm not about to dive any deeper into your pool of hypotheticals because there could be no end to it. If you can't make your point using reality, then you don't really have a solid point to begin with.

And as before, legal abortions are not murder. Murder is the unlawful act of killing another human. But in our society, we make certain exceptions, abortion being one of them.

 

[ding]

They could always write a Constitutional Amendment, right? Then it would be legal and Constitutional, right?

Or an asteroid could plummet to Earth and wipe us all out.

Enough with the implausible hypotheticals and back to reality -- legal abortions are not murder.

</thread>

Sure, that's right, but what we are discussing is moral relativity and how idiots use legality to define right and wrong. My point here is that it is a slippery slope and if you live by that sword you can die from that sword. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

I don't have that dilemma as I draw the line at it is wrong to end a human life period.

And what gives you the right to speak for others who don't believe as you?

I don't believe I did. What I did was to play back for you what you have told me. In effect, I am asking you if I got it right. Please tell me what I got wrong. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

Am I mistaken then in my belief you want abortion to be illegal?

As far as your hypothetical ... again ... it would be unconstitutional. I'm not about to dive any deeper into your pool of hypotheticals because there could be no end to it. If you can't make your point using reality, then you don't really have a solid point to begin with.

And as before, legal abortions are not murder. Murder is the unlawful act of killing another human. But in our society, we make certain exceptions, abortion being one of them.

No, my hypothetical included a constitutional amendment. In my hypothetical, forced abortions are perfectly legal. You seem to have a problem with legal forced abortions. Why is that?

Again, the point of this hypothetical is to point out the flaws in moral relativity and of defining right and wrong by legalities. You don't seem to grasp this concept.

 

[ding]

They could always write a Constitutional Amendment, right? Then it would be legal and Constitutional, right?

Or an asteroid could plummet to Earth and wipe us all out.

Enough with the implausible hypotheticals and back to reality -- legal abortions are not murder.

</thread>

Sure, that's right, but what we are discussing is moral relativity and how idiots use legality to define right and wrong. My point here is that it is a slippery slope and if you live by that sword you can die from that sword. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

I don't have that dilemma as I draw the line at it is wrong to end a human life period.

And what gives you the right to speak for others who don't believe as you?

I don't believe I did. What I did was to play back for you what you have told me. In effect, I am asking you if I got it right. Please tell me what I got wrong. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

Am I mistaken then in my belief you want abortion to be illegal?

As far as your hypothetical ... again ... it would be unconstitutional. I'm not about to dive any deeper into your pool of hypotheticals because there could be no end to it. If you can't make your point using reality, then you don't really have a solid point to begin with.

And as before, legal abortions are not murder. Murder is the unlawful act of killing another human. But in our society, we make certain exceptions, abortion being one of them.

Great. So if forced abortions were legal and constitutional, you wouldn't have any problem with them.

 

[Faun]

Or an asteroid could plummet to Earth and wipe us all out.

Enough with the implausible hypotheticals and back to reality -- legal abortions are not murder.

</thread>

Sure, that's right, but what we are discussing is moral relativity and how idiots use legality to define right and wrong. My point here is that it is a slippery slope and if you live by that sword you can die from that sword. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

I don't have that dilemma as I draw the line at it is wrong to end a human life period.

And what gives you the right to speak for others who don't believe as you?

I don't believe I did. What I did was to play back for you what you have told me. In effect, I am asking you if I got it right. Please tell me what I got wrong. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

Am I mistaken then in my belief you want abortion to be illegal?

As far as your hypothetical ... again ... it would be unconstitutional. I'm not about to dive any deeper into your pool of hypotheticals because there could be no end to it. If you can't make your point using reality, then you don't really have a solid point to begin with.

And as before, legal abortions are not murder. Murder is the unlawful act of killing another human. But in our society, we make certain exceptions, abortion being one of them.

No, my hypothetical included a constitutional amendment. In my hypothetical, forced abortions are perfectly legal. You seem to have a problem with legal forced abortions. Why is that?

Again, the point of this hypothetical is to point out the flaws in moral relativity and of defining right and wrong by legalities. You don't seem to grasp this concept.

What I don't grasp is your belief that something is morally wrong because you think it's morally wrong. Not everyone agrees with you.

 

[Faun]

Or an asteroid could plummet to Earth and wipe us all out.

Enough with the implausible hypotheticals and back to reality -- legal abortions are not murder.

</thread>

Sure, that's right, but what we are discussing is moral relativity and how idiots use legality to define right and wrong. My point here is that it is a slippery slope and if you live by that sword you can die from that sword. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

I don't have that dilemma as I draw the line at it is wrong to end a human life period.

And what gives you the right to speak for others who don't believe as you?

I don't believe I did. What I did was to play back for you what you have told me. In effect, I am asking you if I got it right. Please tell me what I got wrong. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

Am I mistaken then in my belief you want abortion to be illegal?

As far as your hypothetical ... again ... it would be unconstitutional. I'm not about to dive any deeper into your pool of hypotheticals because there could be no end to it. If you can't make your point using reality, then you don't really have a solid point to begin with.

And as before, legal abortions are not murder. Murder is the unlawful act of killing another human. But in our society, we make certain exceptions, abortion being one of them.

Great. So if forced abortions were legal and constitutional, you wouldn't have any problem with them.

What I said was I was not going down your rabbit hole. Read into that as you wish.

 

[ding]

Sure, that's right, but what we are discussing is moral relativity and how idiots use legality to define right and wrong. My point here is that it is a slippery slope and if you live by that sword you can die from that sword. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

I don't have that dilemma as I draw the line at it is wrong to end a human life period.

And what gives you the right to speak for others who don't believe as you?

I don't believe I did. What I did was to play back for you what you have told me. In effect, I am asking you if I got it right. Please tell me what I got wrong. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

Am I mistaken then in my belief you want abortion to be illegal?

As far as your hypothetical ... again ... it would be unconstitutional. I'm not about to dive any deeper into your pool of hypotheticals because there could be no end to it. If you can't make your point using reality, then you don't really have a solid point to begin with.

And as before, legal abortions are not murder. Murder is the unlawful act of killing another human. But in our society, we make certain exceptions, abortion being one of them.

No, my hypothetical included a constitutional amendment. In my hypothetical, forced abortions are perfectly legal. You seem to have a problem with legal forced abortions. Why is that?

Again, the point of this hypothetical is to point out the flaws in moral relativity and of defining right and wrong by legalities. You don't seem to grasp this concept.

What I don't grasp is your belief that something is morally wrong because you think it's morally wrong. Not everyone agrees with you.

You don't believe it is wrong to end a human life?

 

[ding]

Sure, that's right, but what we are discussing is moral relativity and how idiots use legality to define right and wrong. My point here is that it is a slippery slope and if you live by that sword you can die from that sword. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

I don't have that dilemma as I draw the line at it is wrong to end a human life period.

And what gives you the right to speak for others who don't believe as you?

I don't believe I did. What I did was to play back for you what you have told me. In effect, I am asking you if I got it right. Please tell me what I got wrong. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

Am I mistaken then in my belief you want abortion to be illegal?

As far as your hypothetical ... again ... it would be unconstitutional. I'm not about to dive any deeper into your pool of hypotheticals because there could be no end to it. If you can't make your point using reality, then you don't really have a solid point to begin with.

And as before, legal abortions are not murder. Murder is the unlawful act of killing another human. But in our society, we make certain exceptions, abortion being one of them.

Great. So if forced abortions were legal and constitutional, you wouldn't have any problem with them.

What I said was I was not going down your rabbit hole. Read into that as you wish.

Ok, I thought that what you wrote was pretty clear. Your belief in what is moral is defined by society. I have a higher standard than that. My belief in what is moral is defined by my conscience and not by the letter of the law. The law can change. My conscience doesn't.

 

[Faun]

And what gives you the right to speak for others who don't believe as you?

I don't believe I did. What I did was to play back for you what you have told me. In effect, I am asking you if I got it right. Please tell me what I got wrong. So, just to be clear... YOU endorse abortion because it is legal. Not because if it is right. But you will draw the line at forced abortions even if it is made legal. Right?

Am I mistaken then in my belief you want abortion to be illegal?

As far as your hypothetical ... again ... it would be unconstitutional. I'm not about to dive any deeper into your pool of hypotheticals because there could be no end to it. If you can't make your point using reality, then you don't really have a solid point to begin with.

And as before, legal abortions are not murder. Murder is the unlawful act of killing another human. But in our society, we make certain exceptions, abortion being one of them.

No, my hypothetical included a constitutional amendment. In my hypothetical, forced abortions are perfectly legal. You seem to have a problem with legal forced abortions. Why is that?

Again, the point of this hypothetical is to point out the flaws in moral relativity and of defining right and wrong by legalities. You don't seem to grasp this concept.

What I don't grasp is your belief that something is morally wrong because you think it's morally wrong. Not everyone agrees with you.

You don't believe it is wrong to end a human life?

I believe there are circumstances where it's acceptable for some.