Why I Am Pro-Life

[Creed of Heresy]

What sources? What science? I still haven't seen any, and you've failed to address the many people who have asked you, so here I am again: What sources? What science?

You needs to read the thread Rex

(I'm on my mobile so forgive me for not wiping your bum for you)

I've read this thread from front to back TWICE now, Frodo, you haven't provided a single fucking source!

Ok so Frodo is just sidestepping my questions. I take that to meaning he's an intellectual coward who is refusing to let his points actually be challenged. I've asked him to clarify his stance, requested these so-called "scientific sources" THREE TIMES without any kind of answer whatsoever. NOTHING.

This thread is a fuckfest. People keep saying they want only facts and not personal conjecture, forgetting very clearly that there is a philosophical element to the entire discussion which is that of personhood.

I'm going to lay this out as clearly and simply as I possibly can. I'm at my wit's end trying to get any kind of point across to people who keep clamping their hands over their ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, BABY MURDERER, LALALA!" I am NOT a person given to stubbornly clinging to my points if I am shown to be in error. I've shown that on this forum four separate times, and I do so because I DO follow the evidence.

Thus, we have the claim being parroted by a select few: "Human life begins at conception, and personhood is not a part of this discussion, and I am not interested in personal conjecture, only facts, therefore I am siding with science which states that human life starts at conception!"

Fuck EVERYONE claiming this shit. According to WHOM is this a solid, indisputable fact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_personhood

The beginning of human personhood is the period in an individual's life when he or she is recognized, or begins to be recognized, as a person. The precise timing and nature of this occurrence is not universally agreed upon, and has been a subject of discussion and debate in science, religion and philosophy. The question of when and how personhood begins is often the nexus of controversy on issues such as abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.

This article on wikipedia goes into GREAT detail describing the many viewpoints that conflict in regards to this. Personhood is NOT something so casually discarded except by those with a mind too narrow to look ahead and see the actual complexity of the argument. There are clearly quite a few in this thread who do understand it, and then there's a few who are sticking their heads up their own asses and calling their way the "scientifically-sound" way.

Get your heads out of your butt-puckers. Science does not agree with you any more than it agrees with itself on the matter. It's not so simply black-and-white as you make it out to be and every time I read a post by someone claiming exactly that I want to slap them with the business end of a salmon.

Until certain individuals educate themselves on this point (the linked article is a GREAT starting point) and realize just how far the argument actually reaches there's no point debating anything with them. I am saying this as a general catch-all because there's no one person in particular displaying cognitive dissonance in this thread; if you think you might be applicable to what I am saying, then you probably are and you should get your learn on.

I'm not continuing any further discussions with people who insist on being stubborn jackholes who want to define the argument in the narrowest context possible until they get over themselves. If it doesn't happen, then don't expect to see me in this thread anymore. I'm not arguing with people who draw on absolutes for the basis of their arguments on something that is by its complexity INCAPABLE of being defined by absolutes.

---

For all intents and purposes, one could consider euthanasia as a form of murder. Absolutely. What is human is an easy question to answer. A human is a member of the species homo sapiens. A 'living-dead' body such as that of a brain dead victim, is still a human, despite whatever function their brain is capable of performing.

You mean for your own intents and purposes. Because for OTHER intents and purposes, one could consider it as a form of just letting something that is going to die without outside assistance finally be given peace. Seriously, why do you think they have all those machines hooked up to those who are brain-dead? Because those machines are the only things keeping those organs functioning. Narrow-minded claims. "It's still a human" ignores the moral, ethical, and philosophical concerns as well as the scientific point that a human being without a brain will not last on its own. A human being is more than just the parts that make it up, we are not just bags of flesh; we are beings capable of independent thought and action and self-sustenance, and if you remove that key element, you are no longer fully human.