Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,101
- 245
Are you holding yourself up as an example? Because it is pretty evident that you are inventing a scientific fact and invoking scientific knowledge that does not exist.
Actually, I've never done anything of the sort. Hopefully, you'll be able to understand that a little better here.
This has been the crux of my arguments regarding the abortion debate. Many people will claim there is some kind of definitive evidence about this. One person I recall even going so far as to make the stupid claim that the medical field and scientists have "proven" that there is no difference between a cell, tissue, and an organism. My basic argument has always been that since there is no meaningful scientific answer provided, people must be free to draw their own conclusions. If one person seeks the guidance of their faith, that is their prerogative. If another person uses some other guide, then that is also their prerogative.The honest doctors and scientists admit that they have no idea when life begins. There are 4 distinct moments that can be used to chart the beginning of human life.
All of these guiding points, if you will, have their own merits and flaws. The SCOTUS relied on the viability point, and I find that a reasonable one for guiding legality issues, as it protects the rights of individuals to make their own decisions on the matter.
See, this is where the dishonesty comes in. When has anyone ever said that a woman should have the right to an abortion up to the moment before "natural" birth?
This is ludicrous. You claim that the whole "crowd" embraces a line of thinking, and then turn around and claim that most do not know they embrace it. That doesn't even make any sense.Most pro choice people do not know this, and are offended by the term pro abortion.
Like I said, an honest discussion cannot be had about the subject, because most people will insist on framing the discussion in terms that presume their own view to be accurate. You profess to know what every pro-choice person thinks. You've put those words into my mouth, even, when I have never made such statements and in fact have consistently explained my position otherwise. But you're going to always start off with the presumption that fuels your own position, and will never be able to have an honest discussion, unless you eventually put aside your dogma.that does not change the fact that this is the stance of the pro abortion crowd, and that they are the ones that are ignoring science.
I do not have to lie to make my point. I would also like to point out, again, that I specifically differentiated between pro choice and pro abortion. That means that you are the one that is insisting on changing the terms of the discussion.
Abortion on demand is something that some pro abortions activists insist on, and NARAL routinely opposes late term (post viability) abortions. They strongly support the woman's right to get an abortion even if there is no threat to her health in the third trimester.
Abortion on Demand - Feminism Definition of Abortion on Demand
Schauer, Mark :: NARAL Pro-Choice America
I would also like to point out that you are completely wrong about the law, and what SCOTUS has said,
Judge Sotomayor and Abortion on Demand: A Tutorial « Public Discourse
Current precedent require states to allow abortions at any point during the pregnancy if it affects a woman's health. States have been trying to eat away at that since Roe v Wade, and have repeatedly been shot down. The fact that you are completely unaware of this simple fact shows just how successful the pro abortion crowd has been at obscuring the facts and shaping the debate.
Open you eyes and look at the real world.