By-Tor.com

Before I add my 2 cents I got to know, are we talking about spitters or swallowers?

ElfDude wrote:

Devil's Advocate wrote:Describing a ball of cells that is incapable of life outside of a womb (or a petri-dish) as a "baby" (or for that matter as a "person" or "human being") is nothing more than playing word-games to generate an emotive argument which has no basis in logic, and very little connection to reality.

Respectufully, that was too anecdotal to be useful. You're just a ball of cells yourself, aren't you?

Actually, I was being much more literal than that.

ElfDude wrote:...there are large organizations who ARE running around trying to talk women into getting abortions.

Such as...?

by-tor wrote:When is it a human life? When the creature can survive outside of the mother's womb, with or without medical attention...until that point, it's a parasite, and I have yet to hear of a baby born in the first trimester who survived.

My position exactly.

awip2062 wrote:I have to agree that on cannot call an unborn child not alive simply because he is unborn. Do you really mean to tell me that when H was in my belly she was not alive?

What? Where did I say that a foetus is not alive? I used the phrase "incapable of life outside the womb," but I did not say "not alive."

The name Pro-choice, is as far as I see it, a misnomer.

I agree, albeit for a different reason. It's not as if anyone's saying all pregnant women should make an explicit declaration of intent...

"Pro-abortion," however, is even more inaccurate, because (contrary to what Elfdude said) no-one is saying women should have abortions, except in rare cases of medical necessity.

So I guess we'll stick to the less inaccurate option till someone thinks of something that's more more accurate and reasonably concise.

DA wrote:Describing a ball of cells that is incapable of life outside of a womb (or a petri-dish) as a "baby" (or for that matter as a "person" or "human being") is nothing more than playing word-games to generate an emotive argument which has no basis in logic, and very little connection to reality.

So then it would be a baby if it were capable of surviving outside of the womb?

No, it would be a baby once it was actually outside the womb. The point in its development at which it's capable of living outside the womb (without medical intervention) is therefore the point from which I personally would consider abortion unacceptable.

According to Mr. Webster in 1828, fetus is the young of oviarous animals in the womb. So, a baby, since it is the young of an animal, which is what a baby is. Of course, you may see that as more schemantics, but so be it if you do.

I mean no offence, but frankly the logic here doesn't rise to the level of mere semantics. I can't make sense of what you're trying to say.

But it would seem that Webster agrees with what I said, in that the word "baby" isn't used in the definition of "fetus."

And don't tell me that I would feel differently if someone I knew had a disease that stem cells or stem cell research might help, cuz I do love someone in that position.

So you oppose research that might save that person's life, and yet you feel free to indulge in appeals to emotion in support of that opposition?

Devil's Advocate wrote:

ElfDude wrote:...there are large organizations who ARE running around trying to talk women into getting abortions.

Such as...?

NARAL, N.O.W., Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Federation, American Association of University Women, Alan Guttmacher Institute, and SIECUS, to name a few.

Devil's Advocate wrote:No, it would be a baby once it was actually outside the womb. The point in its development at which it's capable of living outside the womb (without medical intervention) is therefore the point from which I personally would consider abortion unacceptable.

That's just plain sick. Sick and wrong.

A week after you were out of the womb, you were incapable of living without someone feeding you. You were still a "parasite". Why wasn't it okay for your parents to not feed you and let you die at that point?

When you were four years-old you remained dependant on older humans to keep you alive. If your parents had left you in the woods where nobody would have found you, you would have died. Why shouldn't parents be allowed to let their four year-old children die?

To say that it's not a child before it is completely out of the womb and there's nothing wrong with killing it is intellectually vacant and morally bankrupt.

I ask again, once all respect for life is lost, what's left?

ElfDude wrote:

Devil's Advocate wrote:

ElfDude wrote:...there are large organizations who ARE running around trying to talk women into getting abortions.

Such as...?

NARAL, N.O.W., Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Federation, American Association of University Women, Alan Guttmacher Institute, and SIECUS, to name a few.

I have yet to see any of these groups approach a woman on the street and ask her to have an abortion. I don't know if you meant it that way, but your original quote makes it sound like they have recruiting drives, which isn't the case in any way, shape, or form.

ElfDude wrote:A week after you were out of the womb, you were incapable of living without someone feeding you. You were still a "parasite". Why wasn't it okay for your parents to not feed you and let you die at that point?

When you were four years-old you remained dependant on older humans to keep you alive. If your parents had left you in the woods where nobody would have found you, you would have died. Why shouldn't parents be allowed to let their four year-old children die?

That's not the point I was making, no do I think it's what DA was saying. Going by that logic, pretty much all life on Earth is a parasite, because we/it cannot survive without some form of intervention. The point I was making (when I called a fetus a parasite) was that from conception to a certain point, a fetus cannot survive outside the womb even WITH intervention.

On a side note, it's good to see this topic staying calm. Any other board out there, and the names would have been flying by the second post.

I know the logic is screwed up. But if that's not the logic that Satan's Lawyer was using, then what logic was he using?

And as to name calling, whoever resorts to that has run out of anything useful to say and has thus lost the debate.

I don't know guys, it's not too late to start calling these tree-huggers out

ElfDude wrote:I know the logic is screwed up. But if that's not the logic that Satan's Lawyer was using, then what logic was he using?

And as to name calling, whoever resorts to that has run out of anything useful to say and has thus lost the debate.

In that case, I think I already won.

LOL!

Satan's Lawyer is just a synonym for you nickname, mate. I didn't choose your nickname for you. I don't think that's quite what By-Tor meant when he brought up name calling.

You could do the same thing to mine. FairyGuy (I'd rather you didn't use that one though... it has certain... connotations ), PixieMan, FayBoy, SpriteBud.

Some more that could apply to yours would include, Beelzebub's Proponent , Lucifer's Champion , Apollyon's Counselor, etc.

Either way, you've let us know whose side you're on.

ElfDude wrote: That's just plain sick. Sick and wrong.

To say that it's not a child before it is completely out of the womb and there's nothing wrong with killing it is intellectually vacant and morally bankrupt.

ElfDude wrote:And as to name calling, whoever resorts to that has run out of anything useful to say and has thus lost the debate

I think I'll just let this sink in for a minute or two....

I agree with By-tor that it is nice to see that no-one here is flaming. We do have a good group here.

As far as people recruiting women to ged abortions, I have yet to hear of or see directly a group do that, but I have experienced many people trying to ged me to have abortions.

My parents never tried to ged me to, but other relatives told me I should ged one when I got pregnant with H at the age of 18 years 1 month.

Not only that, when Dan and I got married, we wanted to have a kid of our own I was still in university and more than one professor told me I should abort Bear (aka H's DLB here).

I could go on. I have had at least one person tell me that I should abort every one of my kids. And I know I am not the only person who has had people try to ged them to abort their WANTED children.

I find it interesting how a being can be considered to go from a parasite to a human simply by waiting a time period. I never understood this logic. I think it must come from an evolutionary worldview.

DA wrote:What? Where did I say that a foetus is not alive? I used the phrase "incapable of life outside the womb," but I did not say "not alive."

Okay, sorry, my mistake. But by this logic, when I was incapable of life outside of the respirator, would it have been okay for the doctors to use me for organ harvesting? Cuz that is what is happening to the 5 day old children. They are incapable of life outside of the womb (artificial or otherwise) and they are considered by you as okay for harvesting due to that.

DA wrote:

awip wrote:
And don't tell me that I would feel differently if someone I knew had a disease that stem cells or stem cell research might help, cuz I do love someone in that position.

So you oppose research that might save that person's life, and yet you feel free to indulge in appeals to emotion in support of that opposition?

I put that there because I have been told that if I only had someone I loved who would benefit from it, I would see it differently. If you see that as an appeal to emotion, okay.

Since you say it is a baby once it is outside of the womb, then you would oppose partial-birth abortions? Wherein the child is delivered all but the head, delivery is stopped, then the brain is sucked out of the child's skull, then the head is delivered. Because, if only the head is left in the mom, then the child is totally out of the womb.

EndlesslyRocking wrote:

ElfDude wrote: That's just plain sick. Sick and wrong.

To say that it's not a child before it is completely out of the womb and there's nothing wrong with killing it is intellectually vacant and morally bankrupt.

ElfDude wrote:And as to name calling, whoever resorts to that has run out of anything useful to say and has thus lost the debate

I think I'll just let this sink in for a minute or two....

I know, I know, you think you see hypocritical behavior. I didn't call anyone a name. I used those terms to describe a certain act. There's a difference.

To put it another way, I could (and perhaps should) have written, "What a HORRIBLE thing to say! PLEASE tell me that's not what you're saying! To say such a thing would be intellectually vacant and morally bankrupt. Please tell me that's not what you're saying."

ElfDude wrote:

EndlesslyRocking wrote:

ElfDude wrote: That's just plain sick. Sick and wrong.

To say that it's not a child before it is completely out of the womb and there's nothing wrong with killing it is intellectually vacant and morally bankrupt.

ElfDude wrote:And as to name calling, whoever resorts to that has run out of anything useful to say and has thus lost the debate

I think I'll just let this sink in for a minute or two....

I know, I know, you think you see hypocritical behavior. I didn't call anyone a name. I used those terms to describe a certain act. There's a difference.

To put it another way, I could (and perhaps should) have written, "What a HORRIBLE thing to say! PLEASE tell me that's not what you're saying! To say such a thing would be intellectually vacant and morally bankrupt. Please tell me that's not what you're saying."

That is hair splitting on a Clintonian scale.

You let loose on the guy. I'd respect you more if you just admit it (not that you care about my respect, but still...)

I really don't need this crap. Infanticide is what it is. I'm against it. It's the side of the debate I can be on with a clear conscience.

Is that open enough for you?

By-Tor: Please remove me from the memberlist and delete all my posts if that's possible.

ElfDude, do you always feel guilty after arguing your beliefs?

I don't feel guilt. Where did that come from? This is simply a stress that I don't need in my life.

I just read that in 2003 a poll was done of Amrecians. 92% said that they believed in God and nearly 85% said they were Christians. Only 10% claimed to be atheists. That's encouraging news. The atheists are still the outsiders in my homeland.

Growing up, I was taught by my parents to be careful what kind of people I hang around with. I try to teach my daughters the same.

For the most part this is a great board. But there are some who I just don't need to be around.

Can you believe that it's actually debated whether or not it's okay to kill children? How could any human be in favor of such a thing?

Anyway, this is obviously not a place where I belong.