(06-26-2022 04:10 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 03:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 02:59 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 02:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Stolen from Twitter - you can also freeze an embryo and not kill it. A newborn baby? Not so much.

I find it frustrating that there are clearly, to everyone, multiple developmental stages between fertilization and birth, but there is given near zero respect here to those who happen to believe that life, as we see it, starts somewhere in between those two points.

I don’t care if people agree with the perspective, but that absolute lack of respect from Tanq and OO is galling.

Lad, you can believe in things that aren't scientifically true if you wish. No one is stopping you from doing that. Pushing back, sometimes strongly, yes. But go ahead and believe whatever you wish to your heart's content. Insisting on others accepting them as somehow equally scientifically factual seems more like demanding everyone believe in Unicorns because you like them and want them to be real so you can play with them. That's where you cross the line.

My perspective has always been when in doubt, give the benefit of the doubt. It is arguable whether life beginning at conception was in doubt in the late 60s/early 70s. It has been advanced far enough scientifically beyond a reasonable doubt, if not fully proven to someone with your perspectives' viewpoint.

What has happened between the 70's and today that "proved" that life began at conception?

Didn't say what you said I said. Others have pointed repeatedly to you having a severe problem doing that. Please read the bolded again. I know you can if you try.

See bolded. You seemed to differentiate between our knowledge in the 60s/70s and the knowledge available today. What has changed during the interim that helps guide us in this discussion? Which specific breakthroughs?

Quote:

Quote:It is far beyond a preponderance of the evidence these days and that presumption should go to the child, who we have to assume would want the chance to live. The Mother and Father already made their choice when sex was initiated. I return to an oft-repeated Casino analogy. No one is saying you must gamble. Yes, gambling can be fun, even thrilling. But when you place your bet, that is where and the exact moment your decision is and forever has been made. Don't blame the baby for its existence, because if not for your decision it would not have been able to be so.

In rape, incest same thing. It is certainly tragic, but still not the child's fault he/she was created in such a way. There are many adult children of rape who know how they were conceived (you can search then interwebs for multiple videos of them speaking) and not one that I've seen wishes they had been murdered in the womb instead of being born, despite the difficult scenarios they were conceived from. In life of Mother, you do the best you can, but you TRY medically as much as humanly possible to save both if you can. The INTENT is the ruling doctrine here- you try to do no harm, but medicine is not a guarantee--unless you INTEND to murder the child from the start. That goes against the Oath, and you know it.

(06-26-2022 03:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  So you are clearly in favor of demanding that victims of rape carry that child to term. At least that seems consistent as you feel that abortion is murder.

Yup. Rape is horrible, terrible. Murdering an innocent child on top of it is a double crime. Stop at the one crime without adding two. Better for both souls. Those who have do not regret it in the long term (again, many videos to that effect online.)

Have you read any articles about the young teens that were forced to deliver their rapists'/uncles' babies? Watched any of those videos?

Quote:

Quote:These questions are the more rare exceptions, but how about spending MORE energy on promoting a rape-free culture (and all that would entail) and less on giving it tacit acceptance (seemingly) so you can have another "support" for your argument to murder babies when you wish to.

(06-26-2022 03:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Exactly how do you propose spending money in order to decrease the frequency of rapes? I'm all ears for this one...

Then you'll be waiting for eternity. Everyone notice how the Left focuses on "Spending Money" even when that is specifically not suggested by someone? Very telling. But not surprising. It doesn't cost a thing is the truth. But you knew that already. Just can't get out of your own way again.

OK... exactly how are you going to expend energy to develop a rape-free culture. Plus apparently your plan is free. Again... all ears.

Quote:

Quote:A little earlier in the thread, someone said a cell that just divides is not the same as a human being alive because it cannot reproduce a new life. I would submit, that logic seems to preclude men from being "alive" (of course the left has been working on "male pregnancy' for a year or so, but you get what I mean.

(06-26-2022 03:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It would also preclude women from being alive. I think the understanding is that they are able to participate in reproduction in order to create a new organism. Not that they could do it all by themselves. Again... these definitions of life are tricky.

No, these definitions of life are very simple and elementary...it is the Left who has sought to make them "tricky" and that is exactly what they've been doing to people: tricking them. The Dobbs decision exposes that nicely, yet even today folks are screaming in the streets, burning down and destroying things because an alleged "right" was "taken away" when it was never a right enumnerated in the Constitution to begin with. Again, reading and comprehension problems. Homey don't play dat.

It's funny to hear "reading comprehension" ad homs from you given your expansive Quad history of drawing conclusions from medical abstracts and posting them as facts. It's literally 5th grade level stuff but I guess that's neither here nor there.

Quote:

Quote:What the Left is most in anguish about is actually NOT abortion, which was NEVER a Constitutional 'right" as the opinion correctly states. The left are in anguish by and large when directly confronted with Objective Truth as they have disorderedly lived their lives and created a False Culture denying any such thing exists, when it does whether they believe in it or not. Go ahead and have your Unicorns if you wish...but Universal Truth knows better whether you or any Leftist agrees or not. If every human in existence denied it, it would still exist. Sorry that reality hurts so bad, but the world, and our lives, function a whole lot better when we recognize and work with Universal Objective Truth (from which was created and flows the rules of Science that human beings merely discover, not invent). It is all this radical and nonsensical "inventing" of things that just don't really exist that is the real problem for the Left, not Roe v Wade being wrong.

(06-26-2022 03:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I have no idea what you are saying in this paragraph. The bolded is particularly gobbledygookish.

Exactly. Thank you for proving my point so much better by your willful ignorance. You are certainly something. Bless your heart.

I mean... you can say "homey don't play dat" and "bless your heart" all you want but that doesn't mean that you are making a salient point.