Kamala Trump
Verified User
Nobody else believes damo was asserting that in the first place. That's just your lame wish that he had said your stupid strawman argument.
Family Value Conservatives: Sarah Palin's Daughter Pregnant at 17..and Not married...
- Thread starter CanadianKid
- Start date
Nobody else believes damo was asserting that in the first place. That's just your lame wish that he had said your stupid strawman argument.
I have made it clear that I am talking about what should be the legal definition of life. I don't give a fuck about your biased views on the science. That impacts no one.
C
Cancel3
Guest
RString, if after all thiese pages you still maintain that Palin is trying to force her values on others, you are completely lost.
And THAT was the reason all this started.
A legal definition doesn't change anything.
What else would anyone believe? I have given him a source from his own site that states there is no difference between conception and the beginning of a pregnancy. I don't agree with that, but his own source says he's wrong and the only thing he has to support him is an article discussing the dating of the pregnancy, which does begin at the end of the last menstrual cycle.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
BIASED views on science? ROFLMAO....
How is it biased?????
GENETICS dictates that a unique life is formed when the sperm cell and egg cell combine. Unless you would care to provide some scientific evidence to the contrary.
As for the "legal" definition... if it is anything other than what is scientifically PROVEN, then it is merely an arbitrary definition designed to fit someones political/social beliefs.
C
Cancel3
Guest
And what does ANY of that have to do with my contention that those opposing Roe V Wade are NOT foring their values on others?
I am trying to get back to the original reason all this debate about medical terminology started.
And it is quite arbitrary to define what is a "natural" death as you do when you stated that...
How is it any different to lessen the chance of implantation with a morning after pill or some other device than with breastfeeding, smoking, alcohol consumption or caffeine consumption.
Go back and check, I took issue with life begins at conception, not whether someone is trying to force their views on others.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
but life does begin at conception. That's just science. There's a whole science about life called biology. Look into it.
RS used to be a smart guy.
I think moving to San Fransicko messed with his head.
If you are too frightened to engage in the discussion, then just read along.
And again, in the context of law. You believe whatever you like about the science, I don't care. As long as it does not cross into law it is an imposition on no one.
C
Cancel3
Guest
And you have not proven anything about whether life begins at conception.
You have just talked about all the fertilized eggs that women lose before they even know they are pregnant.
Which has no bearing whatsoever on the argument.
What you take issue with is whether that life is a "person" and with that arbitrary measure you pretend to believe that fertilization doesn't begin a human life. I think you have a philosophical measure you attempt to maintain is somehow "scientific". It is rejecting science like a flat-earther to pretend that a unique human life hasn't begun at fertilization.
That it still has some obstacles to overcome doesn't change that one iota.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Oh, so science proving when life begins shouldn't change the law?
WTF? Thats pure lunacy. If science proves something is fact, and the laws were written based on mistakes, then the laws MUST be changed.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) No, if the egg fails to implant, it will die as it cannot support itself... it will die naturally.
2) That said, yes, there are many things that can prevent the implantation. To deliberately prevent the implantation, you are deliberately ending that life.
Here is what I said...
Now, I did not modify conception with from a legal standpoint in the first sentence. But the second was my context and if you look in the more carefully worded post "If Life Begins at Conception" my point is clearly the legal definition.
What is murder, homicide or natural death are philosophical or legal definitions and they can be quite arbitrary. The same is true of a human life. We don't even pretend that the death of a fertilized egg is anywhere near the same as the death of a human life in simple rituals and it would be absurd to do so. Far more absurd would it be to punish women for attempting to prevent implantation.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Had abortion been legal in 1961, I wonder if Obama's mama would have.
That's an arbitrary definition.
And so you want to outlaw breastfeeding, hysterectomies and the morning after pill? The distinction whether one does it "deliberately" to prevent implantation or knowing that it very likely will prevent implantation is completely arbitrary.