The truth about abortion: - Page 23

Jefferson · 02-15-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

An embryo is no more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree.

But an unborn baby IS.

Keep spinning though. You've got yourself completely convinced that murder is just peachy-keen fine.

Nice...

KnightOfSappho · 02-15-2007, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Simple. Abortion is murder.

Look at the pictures - if you dare pique your seared conscience.

Any more questions?

Murder is defined as 'killing a person unlawfully.'

The definition does not apply to abortion.

Jefferson · 02-15-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

Murder is defined as 'killing a person unlawfully.'

The definition does not apply to abortion.

Do you actually believe these lies you tell?

Murder is killing an innocent person. Period.

Good lord, you're unbelievable! Really, you are! Do you listen to what you say?

KnightOfSappho · 02-15-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

That is completely idiotic!

By YOUR illogical nonsense, the fingernail I just clipped is a viable life form. That that's STUPID. My fingernail will NEVER, if left alone, become a full-term baby. The unborn baby, if you pro-abortionist murderers keep your hands off it, WILL become a full-term baby.

It is EQUALLY STUPID to claim that abortion is anything LESS then murder.

You're trying to run a fancy little "end around" but it's not working. Don't bother. Look at the pictures and tell me they're not people!

Until you can come up with something better, don't even bother posting the same tripe.

An unborn, if left alone without the benefit of the mother's body will also not survive.

baloney_detector · 02-15-2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Single human cells do NOT grow to be adults, outside of some far-fetched medical manipulation.

Actually, single cells don't "grow" at all...at least not in the context that that term implies.

In short, single, individual cells in a blastocyst divide, divide some more, then divide a few times more...then they differentiate.

But, before any one of those cells differentiates, they can each be relatively isolated from the group, and (in general) they can each divide and develop into separate viable human beings under the right circumstances.

So, to aid you in this discussion, share I suggest to you that you read up on "twinning?"

Because this is exactly what I have just described.

So, given this knowledge, why shouldn't every single cell in a blastocyst each be given the right to be individually gestated inside different women?

After all, every single one of those cells represents the equivalent of a just-fertilized human egg.

KnightOfSappho · 02-15-2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

Many things are living, Sappho. Plants are living. Tumors are not caused by copulation, would you agree? TWO LIVING PEOPLE procreate and it's a embryo/fetus/baby. Not a tumor, not a parasite...a living BABY.

A couple, married for 5 years decide to start a family. They perform the necessary act to bring this to pass. They are successful.

What are they expecting?
1. a fetus?
2. an embryo?
3. a parasite?
4. a baby?

Most people in that category will allow the pregnancy to advance until a baby is born.

This, then, is the difference. This couple recognize completely that they are expecting a baby.

However, those who don't want a baby insist that it isn't a baby. Why is that? Because as long as it isn't a baby (in their mind), they have done nothing wrong if they decide to kill it. This is called "searing the conscience" (telling it to shut up--they don't want to hear the truth, just like you don't want to hear it).

In both instances, the couples perform the act that eventually ends the same way IF the pregnancy is allowed to proceed. A baby is born.

This is why it is a baby in one case and not the other.

What do personal expectations have to do with logic or science?

Jefferson · 02-15-2007, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

An unborn, if left alone without the benefit of the mother's body will also not survive.

Neither will a NEWBORN. Neither will a 1-year old.

Same old tripe. And it's all lies and irrelevant postulating.

NEXT...

KnightOfSappho · 02-15-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Part of the problem is the difference between your two approaches.
You talk about "facts". Approaching the issue with a perspective of logic. Evaluating the situation.

Jefferson approaches the situation from emotion. Notice how he asks about your "conscience". Frequently referring to "baby killer" and "murder".

You're not speaking the same "language"...

A valid point.

Easier to communicate if one of us is speaking Spanish and the other Chinese.

Jefferson · 02-15-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

Actually, single cells don't "grow" at all...at least not in the context that that term implies.

In short, single, individual cells in a blastocyst divide, divide some more, then divide a few times more...then they differentiate.

But, before any one of those cells differentiates, they can each be relatively isolated from the group, and (in general) they can each divide and develop into separate viable human beings under the right circumstances.

So, to aid you in this discussion, share I suggest to you that you read up on "twinning?"

Because this is exactly what I have just described.

So, given this knowledge, why shouldn't every single cell in a blastocyst each be given the right to be individually gestated inside different women?

After all, every single one of those cells represents the equivalent of a just-fertilized human egg.

You need to change your name to BALONEY-SPREADER.

All your irrelevant babbling about cloning has NOTHING whatever to do with the fact that ABORTION IS MURDER.

Leave the unborn baby alone, for crying out loud. Keep your butchering hands off it. Let it live!