Has anyone here been involved in an abortion?

[jehurey 3,230]

2 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

So consciousness, self awareness and ability to feel pain.

That's your defintion of what constitutes life and anything outside of that is fine to kill? 

 

Yes or No?

 

Or you going to continue to dodge and weave.

Combined with biological viability of the remaining organs.

 

Its not an EITHER/OR thing............its a combination of things in which we can determine something as being a viable human being.

 

That is why 24 weeks keeps on coming up at the point where we can detect all of those things.

 

Nice try.................I love how you keep on trying perform DIVIDE AND CONQUER attempts at this issue, and I'm not allowing it.

[DynamiteCop 2,086]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Nope.

 

No consciousness = no human life.

 

This is easily universally agreed upon.  Brain dead people can still have their heart beat, liver and kidneys function while the brain is dead. That means muscles are twitching. Which means electrical pulses are still occurring within the nervous system.

 

You're not winning an argument with 1,500 scientists.  I mean...............I'm almost curious to see if you are THAT STUPID to try.

No Jerry, organs can function for a short time even outside the body, a heart will beat when completely detached with no external stimuli. Also that twitching is due to the lazarus reflex and has no correlation with a person being alive. A brain dead person is dead and when the remaining impulses fully deplete from the spinal cord all motion will cease. Someone with brain death has no potential for life, it's not about whether or not their body can be kept functioning which can be done for a time until eventual organ failure, it's about the potential for life.

 

You can't draw the comparison between the two as one does have potential and the other has none. 

 

 

[madmaltese★ 2,566]

2 minutes ago, ghostz said:

The cost of another...that is unborn and would affect the life of a LIVING person. 

 

I will side with the already born person every time. 

 

You cant be for abortion in the case of rape but against it for someone who simply doesn’t want a child. It’s the same thing. You’re “murdering”. 

My argument to you is that they are both very much alive. At different stages of life but both very much alive and with the great ability that BOTH live, that should always be the no.1 priority. 

 

Only 1.5% of abortions in the US are due to rape or incest. I'll happily talk about those once we go over the 98.5%. Again I'm speaking morality, I still it is wrong and immoral to kill another life due to 'not wanting it' because it's an inconvenience. 

[madmaltese★ 2,566]

Just now, jehurey said:

Combined with biological viability of the remaining organs.

 

Its not an EITHER/OR thing............its a combination of things in which we can determine something as being a viable human being.

 

That is why 24 weeks keeps on coming up at the point where we can detect all of those things.

 

Nice try.................I love how you keep on trying perform DIVIDE AND CONQUER attempts at this issue, and I'm not allowing it.

It's a combination of things........like what suits your argument at any given point 

[madmaltese★ 2,566]

4 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Sorry, that's what you have done for the past few pages.

 

Logical Fallacy #1:

 

Logical Fallacy #2:

Self-projection.

You're actually crumbling under the weight of your own hypocritical arguments.

 

Appealing to nature......ALSO KNOWN AS BIOLOGY, is 'Self Projection'?  Wants to bring up biology but cries home when it's used against your own dumb logic. 

[jehurey 3,230]

1 minute ago, Nya` said:

No Jerry, organs can function for a short time even outside the body, a heart will beat when completely detached with no external stimuli. Also that twitching is due to the lazarus reflex and has no correlation with a person being alive. A brain dead person is dead and when the remaining impulses fully deplete from the spinal cord all motion will cease. Someone with brain death has no potential for life, it's not about whether or not their body can be kept functioning which can be done for a time until eventual organ failure, it's about the potential for life.

 

You can't draw the comparison between the two as one does have potential and the other has none. 

 

 

A fetus who does not have developed lungs because the air sacs within the lung organ don't form until 24 weeks.........means the featus will die by itself.

 

You're simply getting out of this.  When I say that something is "not viable"......I'm not point at ONE ORGAN, or ONE FUNCTION.

 

You insult the biological construction of human beings. They require MULTIPLE things to function together in order to live.  And alot of those things simply are not developed prior to 24 weeks in utero.

 

Simple as that. You don't have a counter-argument to that. That's why you and Madmaltese are trying to BREAK it down into ONE organ, or ONE function.

 

Not gonna work.

[madmaltese★ 2,566]

Just now, jehurey said:

A fetus who does not have developed lungs because the air sacs within the lung organ don't form until 24 weeks.........means the featus will die by itself.

 

You're simply getting out of this.  When I say that something is "not viable"......I'm not point at ONE ORGAN, or ONE FUNCTION.

 

You insult the biological construction of human beings. They require MULTIPLE things to function together in order to live.  And alot of those things simply are not developed prior to 24 weeks in utero.

 

Simple as that. You don't have a counter-argument to that. That's why you and Madmaltese are trying to BREAK it down into ONE organ, or ONE function.

 

Not gonna work.

Except it is functioning naturally and living and growing, all biologically and naturally, unlike your pathetic Life Support argument.

 

The act you are performing is what is ENDING those functions. 

[jehurey 3,230]

3 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

It's a combination of things........like what suits your argument at any given point 

No..............it suits reality, as defined by biology.

 

That's where I'm currently living in.

 

Let me know when you decide to reach those places.

 

3 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

You're actually crumbling under the weight of your own hypocritical arguments.

 

Appealing to nature......ALSO KNOWN AS BIOLOGY, is 'Self Projection'?  Wants to bring up biology but cries home when it's used against your own dumb logic. 

Except I'm not declaring what is "natural" and what isn't. I'm using already defined understanding of biology.

 

You're the one saying that a clump of cells that form at Day 1 constitutes "Life"

 

Show me the science that confirms that.

[DynamiteCop 2,086]

3 minutes ago, jehurey said:

A fetus who does not have developed lungs because the air sacs within the lung organ don't form until 24 weeks.........means the featus will die by itself.

 

You're simply getting out of this.  When I say that something is "not viable"......I'm not point at ONE ORGAN, or ONE FUNCTION.

 

You insult the biological construction of human beings. They require MULTIPLE things to function together in order to live.  And alot of those things simply are not developed prior to 24 weeks in utero.

 

Simple as that. You don't have a counter-argument to that. That's why you and Madmaltese are trying to BREAK it down into ONE organ, or ONE function.

 

Not gonna work.

How can something which is not alive die Jerry?

 

Also bringing up that brain death argument was just stupid of you, the person is dead regardless of support systems or not.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Nya`

[jehurey 3,230]

1 minute ago, madmaltese said:

Except it is functioning naturally and living and growing, all biologically and naturally, unlike your pathetic Life Support argument.

 

The act you are performing is what is ENDING those functions. 

Not its not growing when its removed from the body.

 

(Do...............you understand why me and Dynocrap are talking about Brain Dead people and fetuses in the first place????)

 

That fetus won't grow because its going to be deprived of oxygen and die within minutes.

[DynamiteCop 2,086]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Not its not growing when its removed from the body.

 

(Do...............you understand why me and Dynocrap are talking about Brain Dead people and fetuses in the first place????)

 

That fetus won't grow because its going to be deprived of oxygen and die within minutes.

I don't even understand why you're talking about brain dead people, they're dead.

[madmaltese★ 2,566]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

No..............it suits reality, as defined by biology.

 

That's where I'm currently living in.

 

Let me know when you decide to reach those places.

 

Except I'm not declaring what is "natural" and what isn't. I'm using already defined understanding of biology.

 

You're the one saying that a clump of cells that form at Day 1 constitutes "Life"

 

Show me the science that confirms that.

There is zero biological arguments in anything you have mentioned because the act of abortion is not a biological one. If you cared about biology then let biology take place. Biology has declared a brain dead person dead after they lived. Biology also declares that from the moment of conception human life begins because that is the first second where that process starts. Now it may end instantly, or within 6 weeks, or 6 months or 20 years but that is the start. It doesn't start from an empty egg, it doesn't start from some guy jizzing all over the place and it doesn't start from the act of sex because conception is far from guaranteed. However from the moment of conception that growth process has begun. From that second, human life is growing and CONTINUES to grow as a process of BIOLOGY. Full stop.

 

Everything you are arguing is anti biology because it stops the very nature of biology. Abortion is not biological in any way, shape or form. 

You can never use biology as your excuse because you yourself don't believe in it fully. All your examples have been of acts outside of biology and you are arguing in favour of an act outside of biology that ends a biological process.

 

My argument is the only consistent one, unlike yours, it's also the only consistent one biologically because I'm all for the natural process to take place while every single one of yours intervenes and breaks that process.

Your argument is a 'Rights' one and ONLY a 'Rights' one

[madmaltese★ 2,566]

7 minutes ago, jehurey said:

(Do...............you understand why me and Dynocrap are talking about Brain Dead people and fetuses in the first place????)

 

5 minutes ago, Nya` said:

I don't even understand why you're talking about brain dead people, they're dead.

 

 

 

 

 

[jehurey 3,230]

5 minutes ago, Nya` said:

How can something which is not alive die Jerry?

 

Also bringing up that brain death argument was just stupid of you, the person is dead regardless of support systems or not.

Sorry, trying to cling on my usage of words to try and get out of this isn't going to work.

 

The fact that I've WHITTLED YOU DOWN to attempting that..............is fantastic for me.

 

Also, don't pretend I haven't already explained this to you:

 

1 hour ago, jehurey said:

And no you are wrong...............families keep their loved ones on life support because THEY BELIEVE they are still alive

 

Don't try and play stupid on this. You know that there are people who believe that.

 

 

You are running on BELIEF as well.

 

Therefore, if you're saying your BELIEF should be acknowledge................why don't you acknowledge the BELIEF from families who still keep their loved ones on like support even though they are brain dead.

 

You LIED and tried to say that HOSPITALS keep people on life support specifically for organ donation, and that's the ONLY REASON why there's brain dead people on life support. That's bullshit, and you know it.

 

Plenty of cases of families electing to keep people on Life Support because they believe they can come back to life.  How comes you DISMISS THEIR BELIEFS????

[jehurey 3,230]

1 minute ago, madmaltese said:

There is zero biological arguments in anything you have mentioned because the act of abortion is not a biological one. If you cared about biology then let biology take place. Biology has declared a brain dead person dead after they lived. Biology also declares that from the moment of conception human life begins because that is the first second where that process starts. Now it may end instantly, or within 6 weeks, or 6 months or 20 years but that is the start. It doesn't start from an empty egg, it doesn't start from some guy jizzing all over the place and it doesn't start from the act of sex because conception is far from guaranteed. However from the moment of conception that growth process has begun. From that second, human life is growing and CONTINUES to grow as a process of BIOLOGY. Full stop.

 

Everything you are arguing is anti biology because it stops the very nature of biology. Abortion is not biological in any way, shape or form. 

You can never use biology as your excuse because you yourself don't believe in it fully. All your examples have been of acts outside of biology and you are arguing in favour of an act outside of biology that ends a biological process.

 

My argument is the only consistent one, unlike yours, it's also the only consistent one biologically because I'm all for the natural process to take place while every single one of yours intervenes and breaks that process.

Your argument is a 'Rights' one and ONLY a 'Rights' one

Stop avoiding the question.

 

You think life begins at conception.

 

Show me the science that confirms that.

[jehurey 3,230]

3 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are comparing their life support systems.

 

Do you understand that I am MAKING the point that the brain dead person, the status of their non function brain.......means that allowing them to die without a life support system on any kind means its NOT MURDER.

 

LOL, this is what you get for trying to rely on Dynocrap in order to find something to use against me.

 

Dude, your self-projection is off the charts.

 

Now you're trying to say I'm anti-biology.......................whoo boy, you're getting close the throwing the kitchen sink, you are trying anything you can. "Consistent" LOL  Yeah, you're consistently trying to throw any type of argument at me, alright.

Edited April 15, 2019 by jehurey

[DynamiteCop 2,086]

Just now, jehurey said:

Sorry, trying to cling on my usage of words to try and get out of this isn't going to work.

 

The fact that I've WHITTLED YOU DOWN to attempting that..............is fantastic for me.

 

Also, don't pretend I haven't already explained this to you:

Whittled me down? You said it twice in a row, it's not a play on words; they're your words. Don't blame us for you stating it's dying, because only something which is alive can die.

10 minutes ago, jehurey said:

 

That fetus won't grow because its going to be deprived of oxygen and die within minutes.

 

15 minutes ago, jehurey said:

A fetus who does not have developed lungs because the air sacs within the lung organ don't form until 24 weeks.........means the fetus will die by itself.

 

 

[DynamiteCop 2,086]

2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

We are comparing their life support systems.

 

Do you understand that I am MAKING the point that the brain dead person, the status of their non function brain.......means that allowing them to die without a life support system on any kind means its NOT MURDER.

 

LOL, this is what you get for trying to rely on Dynocrap in order to find something to use against me.

Jerry you're really not grasping this, brain dead people are not alive, they are already dead. Cutting support systems isn't allowing them to die, they're already dead. Cutting support systems is not murder because they're already dead.

 

Come to grips with this and how stupid you look as a result of not understanding this simple reality. 

[jehurey 3,230]

1 minute ago, Nya` said:

Whittled me down? You said it twice in a row, it's not a play on words; they're your words. Don't blame us for you stating it's dying, because only something which is alive can die.

 

 

Yup.............that's my usage of words. If that's the best argument you got, then you got nothing.

 

I could have simply said "no longer viable"

 

And you know that because I HAVE used the phrase "no longer viable" throughout this thread.

 

Thanks for admitting that have run out of ideas.

[madmaltese★ 2,566]

Just now, jehurey said:

Stop avoiding the question.

 

You think life begins at conception.

 

Show me the science that confirms that.

Stop avoiding the Biology question Jerry. All I want is biology to take place, you are Anti Biology. You are a Rights >>>> Biology so don't come here thinking biology is on your side.

 

I've already proven it to you, unless you want me to link you to what the definition of Conception is. When does the growth process of a homo sapien fucking being start? At conception. Nothing prior. That is the only known start. Anything after is 'does it have a heart?', 'does it hear?', 'does it feel pain", "is it self aware?'. The 'it' being the human life is already fucking there. 

 

All you've proven is when 'consciousness' takes place. That isn't Science confirming when life begins it's science confirming when consciousness begins, you have equated that to mean Life. That's as stupid as thinking that Science confirms someone in a Coma is dead because they have no consciousness, minimal brain activity and can't feel pain. Your arguments are laughably weak.