thordaddy
Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
ericmurphy opines,
Quote | Here we go again. We're barely a paragraph into your response, and already you've fundamentally misinterpreted what I said. I didn't give a legal argument for not defining the beginning of life as conception; I gave a practical argument. Do you understand the distinction? |
But you said earlier,
Quote | We don't legally define (and the legal definition is the only one that matters here) the beginning of human life as conception for several reasons. |
Quote | You're acting as if I'm saying the moment of conception is ambiguous. As usual, you simply cannot follow a simple argument. What I am saying is that it's impractical to define life as beginning at conception because the moment of conception is difficult to pinpoint. |
"Impractical" in what way? It's only "impractical" for "pro-choicers" and their "right" to abortion. It's certainly not "impractical" to that unique human life striving to live.
Conception does not need be pinpointed by the human eye to ascertain its beginning, does it? It began and we know because the aborted fetus is all the proof we need.
Quote | If you disagree, then I'd like you to outline a procedure by which a woman could determine the exact moment of conception. Is this something she should do continuously for, say, 48 hours after sex? Does that seem a workable solution to you? |
Why do we need to pinpoint conception? It is self-evident to the woman seeking an abortion. She must naturally rationalize the insignificance of such a "beginning" even though her very life depended on the same "beginning." You do the same thing.
Quote | Here we are, a few thousand words later, and you still don't get it. You'll never get it. You are constitutionally incapable of getting it. |
Maybe your ability to articulate your "ambiguous" view is the problem? In fact, such an "ambigious" view seems incomprehensible by its very definition.
Quote | Gee, Thordaddy, what's so controversial about the idea that if you're raped, you shouldn't be saddled with the consequences of someone else's crime? |
Well, if the zygote is a human being then you are making an innocent person pay for the crime of another with ITS LIFE! But of course, the zygote is but a "clump of cells." Poof, problem solved?
Quote | As usual, you fail to make the distinction between a "human life" and a "person." As has been pointed out to you no fewer than twenty times, this is an important legal distinction. Your failure to understand the difference pretty much disqualifies you from even having an opinion on the subject. |
Actually, it's science that fails to make the distinction. I merely assume the obvious due to the ambigious nature of science on this issue. If there is indeed a difference between "human life" and a "person," then I am baffled as to why the latter takes primacy while it relies on the former for its very nature?
Quote | Here's another reason why you're simply not equipped emotionally to discuss this issue, Thordaddy. Women do not get an abortion on a "whim." Obviously you've never seen, or known, a woman who has had to get an abortion, and seen them anguish over their choice. Your dismissal of their emotional pain shows just how clueless you are about the entire subject, and who manifestly unfit you are to try to argue about it. |
You are equating the hurt feelings of a women who had an abortion to the actual death of her child? Why would a women be so emotionally pained if not for the clear understanding that she is killing her child? It is you that is not thinking clearly on this issue. If a women were to refrain from abortion then her emotional pain would be nonexistent in this particular context. Why does she fight for her "right" to emotional pain?
Quote | I'm not the one who's in a state of ambiguity. Life and experience are fraught with ambiguity, and your inability to understand that causes you to trip over your own shoelaces over and over again. You persist in your belief that life is black and white, and it's not. It's life's very ambiguity that makes you burn up a few hundred thousand words in trying unsuccessfully to argue that science proves that abortion, any abortion, for any reason, is murder and should be forbidden. And, if you're wondering who's bothered by this ambiguity, I should point out that you're the one who's been spouting your anguish over an issue that doesn't even actually concern you, unless you're thinking of having an abortion yourself. Why does this issue trouble you so, Thordaddy? |
I haven't said science has proved anything. I said pretty much the exact opposite because you are an example of that science. Science is ignorant on the issue of abortion. It remains in a state of ambiguity, but only amongst its ideologues. Real scientists are coming to impeachable conclusions about human life emerging at conception. The knowledge only grows and there is little the ideologues can do about it. Including you!
My view changed with the birth of my children. I used to be like you sucking up that latest euphemisms and relishing in the fact that I could deflect responsibility in serious matters of my own creation. I got to see first hand TWICE what an abortion really means. It means the killing of a unique individual. I didn't need gods or religions to come to this conclusion.
|