Posted on 08/24/2006 6:26:38 AM PDT by Pyro7480
"Not according to latest research."
Utter nonsense.
"And this the part where I DON'T make ridiculous assumptions about your sex life."
I make no assumptions about your sex life; only about your motivation.
My motivation? You have some nerve to make your BS assumptions without knowing me.
Are you a Christian?
"Bush is completely inconsistent with regards to embryonic life. He vetoes federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, yet allows this abortifacient to be approved."
Last I checked, abortions were legal.
So what do you propose gives the President the legal power to stop that which is legal?
"My motivation? You have some nerve to make your BS assumptions without knowing me. "
Get over yourself. It's an online discussion forum.
That said, it's reasonable to assume that people who advocate abortion are motivated by a desire to escape the consequences of illicit sexual activity.
That is a blatant non sequitur. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to be at least vaguely rational. You are an embarrassment to the cause, a poster boy for all the left-wing imbeciles who declare that conservatives are mindless twits.
The internet is serious business, lol.
But it is UNreasonable to assume I advocate abortion when I most assuredly haven't.
I have NEVER advocated abortion. I'm pro-life.
Parallel logic: Many times a person will be involved in a car wreck, and as a result of injuries sustained, die. Many times a person will contract a deadly disease, and as a result, die. Many times a person, while hiking through the woods, will be bitten by a venomous snake, and as a result, die.
If the egg is fertilized, it IS an abortion.I don't think that is technically accurate. I've read that many times an egg is fertilized and it doesn't implant or they implant in a fallopian tube. Neither of those is considered an abortion.
We're probably just talking technicalities.
Therefore, it is not "murder" when someone plants the blade of a pick-axe in another person's skull.
Hint: The outcome -- or even the cause -- are not the determining factors.
It's the intent that matters.
Did "Person A" intend to "terminate" the life of "Person B"?
That's all that matters.
If you want to go "talking technicalities", then it comes down to things like "murder" versus "manslaughter" and such like. But so far as I am aware, the fact that people die in car wrecks has never been used successfully as an affirmative defense to a charge of murder (i.e., "Yes, Your Honor, my client certainly did shoot the victim -- however, in light of the staggering number of automobile fatalities, it's a tragic waste of the court's time to go hounding my client over these 'technicalities.'")
Such rigid thinking is exactly whow the extreme Pro-Lifers attempt to hijack the Plan B debate as another form of abortion.
To say there is "no coherent argument for any other position" demonstrates your lack of intelligence and imagination. There is ALWAYS a coherent argument for a different point of view.
In this particular area of discussion, I'll ask you when does the life of a twin begin? Would you say an undivided zygote has two lives in it? I would say no. What about when a zygote separates and then reforms into one? Is that two lives that then merge into one? Again, I would say no.
The way I see it, which is simply my humble opinion, is that a living human being cannot divide itself in two, therefore a zygote is not a living human being - merely the chemicals needed to develop into one. Once it develops into an organism with human characteristics, then it is a living human being.
However, if it is TRUE that many eggs are fertilized, but simply do not implant based on the location in the body at which they were fertilized, then we cannot say that the body itself has an "abortion" when this fertilized egg passes through the system without becoming a viable human life.
If that information is not TRUE then we have a different set of facts and must adjust accordingly, but at this point that is what the textbooks do say about fertilized eggs.
Therefore, it is improper to say "if the egg is fertilized, then it IS an abortion."
If one aborts a mission, then that mission must already have started. If one "aborts" pregnancy, then that pregnancy must already have happened.
For the record, I totally oppose abortion. In the case of abortion brought about by violent rape, I like your categories, and I would consider it homicide, and it would not be by accident, but by some lower level of self-preservation. I would be careful to categorize it as homicide, but I would not have a penalty attached in that particular case.
Pat in 2000 and Peroutka in 04. If I knew then what I know now, I would have done more.
You wouldn't buy a car without taking it for a test ride, why woudln't you do the same with someone you could possibly marry?
/sarcasm
GOD I hate that arguement. You are so right, if people excercised a little more self control we wouldn't have these problems. Problem is in this day and age, nobody can keep it in their pants and as such defined deviancy down. Now those of us in favor of abstinence are shunned as crazies and those who boink random people like there's no tommorow are normal.
Does Peroutka want to outlaw BC pills?
Not quite sure what you're getting at, but my point is that when a fertilized egg is intentionally "terminated", then a human life has been killed. The state of development of that human life is immaterial to the act of killing it. Human lives are not interchangeable. If Einstein's "fertilized egg" had been "terminated", even if at the precise moment the DNA chains joined and started the process, then that would have been the end of Albert Einstein, and the world would never have had him.
However, if it is TRUE that many eggs are fertilized, but simply do not implant based on the location in the body at which they were fertilized, then we cannot say that the body itself has an "abortion" when this fertilized egg passes through the system without becoming a viable human life.If that information is not TRUE then we have a different set of facts and must adjust accordingly, but at this point that is what the textbooks do say about fertilized eggs.
Maybe his parents would have had another kid they let "go to term". Maybe they'd have named him "Albert" -- but, it wouldn't be the person known to history as "Albert Einstein."
The "bundle of cells" argument is... well, if I were to accurately describe it, some fool would start screeching about Godwin's "law".
Now, as to "fertilized eggs" that do not quite make the cut due to natural events (i.e., tubal pregnancy, miscarriage, etc.), these are the loss of a human life, however, the difference between this "loss of a human life" and the "loss of a human life" due to an intentional abortion, is tantamount to the difference between someone who is killed via a hatchet to the skull, and someone who slips on a patch of ice. In each case, the "cause of death" will be something to the tune of "severe damage to skull", however, the actual difference is plain to see.
Finally, as to what "the textbooks" say, all I'll say on the matter is that "the textbooks" also say that abortion equals "choice", homosexuality equals "diversity", and so forth. Using "the textbooks" as a final authority is not particularly persuasive in this day and age.
"Not quite sure what you're getting at,"
I am responding to the above comment. Technically, it is not an abortion simply because the egg is fertilized. Many sperms and eggs unite and do not get implanted anyplace but simply pass out of the body. I don't consider that a "natural" abortion. I also don't consider it an abortion when there is an implantation in the fallopian tube and that implantation must be removed.
"That is a blatant non sequitur. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to be at least vaguely rational. You are an embarrassment to the cause, a poster boy for all the left-wing imbeciles who declare that conservatives are mindless twits."
You make a reply that consists of nothing but groundless denial and name-calling, then have the gall to assert that others are making you look bad? What a hoot.
"But it is UNreasonable to assume I advocate abortion when I most assuredly haven't."
So, you seriously want to draw a distinction between advocating abortion and advocating the use of a medicine that causes abortions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.