Pro-life atheists

[Esquilax]

A corpse is a deceased human being. You cannot kill a corpse. If Esquilax made that point, I am not surprised....it is stupid and un-germane as we are discussing living human beings....not already dead ones.

So you finally recognize that there's more to life, to being alive, than the physical human development stuff that you've been equivocating over these past few pages?

That was the "stupid and un-germane" point I was making (it's "not germane," by the way, and pretty funny that a guy who'd bitch about me being insulting doesn't even hesitate to insult me right back. )

[Heywood]

Well then Chas, you are not an organism cause you are not independent. You rely on bacteria in your gut.

You can survive quite fine after wiping out your gut bacteria.

That's what many antibiotics do.

Are you just trolling?

A course of antibiotics can wipe some gut bacteria, but some usually remain and repopulate the gut. If the gut were completely sanitized of bacteria you would not survive "quite fine". You might survive long enough to have it re-colonized and thus survive the episode. However if you all your gut bacteria were permanently sanitized, you will live for a little while but eventually you're going to die(without medical attention).

---

Anti-Abortion folks like me, use scientific definitions that were created without the abortion debate in mind.

Let's talk about definitions. By definition a gestating potential human is a parasite. The only person that has a right to make the decision as to whether or not the relationship continues is the host. Anyone else's emotional reaction to the decision simply doesn't fucking matter, that includes the father to be. The future father can have a say only to the extent that he provides and cares for the mother and even then can be trumped. If his feelings are ultimately upset; tough shit, he should have done a better job at deciding where to put his cock.

This is a different argument. You are arguing that some humans have the right to choose to kill other humans because of the relationship between the two. I don't accept this argument either, but at least it is not a denial of reality like the argument that a zygote or embryo isn't a human being.

[Rampant.A.I.]

You can survive quite fine after wiping out your gut bacteria.

That's what many antibiotics do.

Are you just trolling?

A course of antibiotics can wipe some gut bacteria, but some usually remain and repopulate the gut. If the gut were completely sanitized of bacteria you would not survive "quite fine". You might survive long enough to have it re-colonized and thus survive the episode. However if you all your gut bacteria were permanently sanitized, you will live for a little while but eventually you're going to die(without medical attention).

---

Let's talk about definitions. By definition a gestating potential human is a parasite. The only person that has a right to make the decision as to whether or not the relationship continues is the host. Anyone else's emotional reaction to the decision simply doesn't fucking matter, that includes the father to be. The future father can have a say only to the extent that he provides and cares for the mother and even then can be trumped. If his feelings are ultimately upset; tough shit, he should have done a better job at deciding where to put his cock.

This is a different argument. You are arguing that some humans have the right to choose to kill other humans because of the relationship between the two. I don't accept this argument either, but at least it is not a denial of reality like the argument that a zygote or embryo isn't a human being.

By definition it's not.

hu·man be·ing
noun
noun: human being; plural noun: human beings; noun: humanbeing; plural noun: humanbeings
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

It's also not a person.

[Heywood]

Hmmm that looks like proof to me. Proof that you conveniently ignored.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/0...d-my-life/

And again I say, fuck you!

Sorry Losty, I missed this post. Its actually a good link because we can examine the circumstances instead of a nebulous reference too "cases exist".

Do circumstances exists where by it is reasonable to assume the baby has to come out or the mother dies? Yes.

Do circumstances exist where by it is reasonable to assume the baby will likely not survive the extraction? Yes.

Does this mean we should simply ignore the rights of the baby as this woman did? No.

The problem I have is Ms Kellog and her doctors decided to solve this problem by killing the baby. To accomplish this, first they dilate her, then they reach into the uterus, grabbed one of the baby's legs, then grabbed the other. Pulled the baby out until the base of the skull was exposed, made an incision into the skull and sucked the baby's brains out. This is done so that the skull will collapse some when the baby is pulled completely out.

My question is why did they not dilate her until the point where it is no longer necessary to suck the baby's brains out? There was no attempt whatsoever to keep this baby alive.

Further, cases like these are exceedingly rare and you are making an argument from an exception. Since the partial birth abortion ban went into effect, how many documented cases exist of mothers losing their lives?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Hmmm that looks like proof to me. Proof that you conveniently ignored.

Sorry Losty, I missed this post. Its actually a good link because we can examine the circumstances instead of a nebulous reference too "cases exist".

Do circumstances exists where by it is reasonable to assume the baby has to come out or the mother dies? Yes.

Do circumstances exist where by it is reasonable to assume the baby will likely not survive the extraction? Yes.

Does this mean we should simply ignore the rights of the baby as this woman did? No.

The problem I have is Ms Kellog and her doctors decided to solve this problem by killing the baby. To accomplish this, first they dilate her, then they reach into the uterus, grabbed one of the baby's legs, then grabbed the other. Pulled the baby out until the base of the skull was exposed, made an incision into the skull and sucked the baby's brains out. This is done so that the skull will collapse some when the baby is pulled completely out.

My question is why did they not dilate her until the point where it is no longer necessary to suck the baby's brains out?

According to the CDC, 89-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester.

[Heywood]

Sorry Losty, I missed this post. Its actually a good link because we can examine the circumstances instead of a nebulous reference too "cases exist".

Do circumstances exists where by it is reasonable to assume the baby has to come out or the mother dies? Yes.

Do circumstances exist where by it is reasonable to assume the baby will likely not survive the extraction? Yes.

Does this mean we should simply ignore the rights of the baby as this woman did? No.

The problem I have is Ms Kellog and her doctors decided to solve this problem by killing the baby. To accomplish this, first they dilate her, then they reach into the uterus, grabbed one of the baby's legs, then grabbed the other. Pulled the baby out until the base of the skull was exposed, made an incision into the skull and sucked the baby's brains out. This is done so that the skull will collapse some when the baby is pulled completely out.

My question is why did they not dilate her until the point where it is no longer necessary to suck the baby's brains out?

According to the CDC, 89-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester.

Losty and I are talking about late term abortions.

[Cato]

Losty and I are talking about late term abortions.

Why did you leave out the part of the article that discussed the woman's desire to have the children. You also don't seem to understand the part where the surviving twin wasn't viable; i.e, cannot be saved. I guess the woman's grieving doesn't serve your point either.

You also chided Losty for making an argument from exception. Fitting response given that the abortion method you abhor, D&X, comprised only 0.2% of all abortions prior to the ban. In addition, most of these were performed before fetal viability.

You're just grasping at straws now.

http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/pa...-from-spin

[Heywood]

Losty and I are talking about late term abortions.

Why did you leave out the part of the article that discussed the woman's desire to have the children. You also don't seem to understand the part where the surviving twin wasn't viable; i.e, cannot be saved. I guess the woman's grieving doesn't serve your point either.

You also chided Losty for making an argument from exception. Fitting response given that the abortion method you abhor, D&X, comprised only 0.2% of all abortions prior to the ban. In addition, most of these were performed before fetal viability.

You're just grasping at straws now.

http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/pa...-from-spin

I abhor all abortions....exceptions are not needed to justify my position. I know that some abortion are unavoidable secondary effects in the treatment of medical conditions(like ectopic pregnancies). However I am unconvinced a baby has to be killed or that option has to be the first chosen in late term abortions as was done in Ms Kellogs case. Dilate the woman further, let the baby be born alive. If it dies, well that is a sad fact of nature. To kill it on the basis it is not likely to survive is abhorrent.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Why did you leave out the part of the article that discussed the woman's desire to have the children. You also don't seem to understand the part where the surviving twin wasn't viable; i.e, cannot be saved. I guess the woman's grieving doesn't serve your point either.

You also chided Losty for making an argument from exception. Fitting response given that the abortion method you abhor, D&X, comprised only 0.2% of all abortions prior to the ban. In addition, most of these were performed before fetal viability.

You're just grasping at straws now.

http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/pa...-from-spin

I abhor all abortions....exceptions are not needed to justify my position. I know that some abortion are unavoidable secondary effects in the treatment of medical conditions(like ectopic pregnancies). However I am unconvinced a baby has to be killed or that option has to be the first chosen in late term abortions as was done in Ms Kellogs case. Dilate the woman further, let the baby be born alive. If it dies, well that is a sad fact of nature. To kill it on the basis it is not likely to survive is abhorrent.

This is why talking to people who only know how to deal in absolutes is pointless.

Isn't it true, Heywood, that no matter what anyone else here states, you will steadfastly stick to your guns thus ensuring there is absolutely no point in further discussion?

[Cato]

If it dies, well that is a sad fact of nature. To kill it on the basis it is not likely to survive is abhorrent.

The concept of not viable is really kicking your ass.