The only valid purpose for laws in a secular society is to maintain order, prevent chaos, in society. Obviously, murder, robbery, arson, assault, theft, speeding, and jaywalking create disorder in society. How does abortion create disorder? How do anti-abortion laws maintain order in society?


You are not honestly using science to prove your position. You are using linguistics. And you are using linguistics dishonestly.

What Is "A Human Being"

The phrase "A human being" may mean a being that is human - by species or the phrase may refer to the sociological/legal concept of what we define as 'a human being' - which means 'a being born, alive, and human'.
To interchange these two meanings, .., is not only to commit a logical fallacy of equivocation, it is also, since it is done knowingly and with malice for misleading reasons, lying....
The difficult issue of whether a foetus is a legal person cannot be settled by a purely linguistic argument that the plain meaning of the term "human being" includes foetuses. Like a purely scientific argument, a purely linguistic argument attempts to settle a legal debate by non-legal means. What is required are substantive legal reasons which support a conclusion that the term "human being" has a particular meaning.

Right. You got uncomfortable and called it boring. But hey, blow whatever sunshine up whatever orifice you need to make it through your day.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

We have laws against one individual being able to simply kill another human being not because it is wrong, but because that other human being has the right to live and you do not have the right to deny him or her that right. Laws are about protecting your rights and the rights of others.

Of course I am as evidenced by the fact that you are absolutely unable to provide any science that says what you are claiming that it says. If the science said that we were not living human beings from the time we are concieved, then the science wouldn't say that we were and you would be slamming me with credible evidence from all manner of sources rather than quoting Aristotle. The science books, and journals would say that we are something other than living human beings. Your word games mean nothing unless you can provide some credible science to back them up.

By the way, your source builds their argument on a logical fallacy. They assume a "universally accepted definition" which does not exist. If the definition were indeed universally accepted, then the argument would not exist. Since there exists no universally accepted definiton, the logical fallacy of equivocation applies to the one writing the article.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Didn't I tell you to take two laxatives and call me in the morning?

You do seem to twist things. I did not ask YOU to exit the conversation...those are your words.

What is it with you? Are you a failed medical student? Try pharmacy. Are you female...a nurse? Try a pharmacist.

You are ridiculous in your fanatical anti-abortionst stand. You see only your own side in the matter without any consideration of the problems of carrying to term.

1. There are dangers in giving birth.
2. There can be stigmatism attached, if not married, or other complications.
3. Your quality of family life is lowered form the ongoing expense...never
stiops.
4. The burden of rearing is left to the mother, mostly of necessity.
5. The judgement of having an abortion is a womans privilege.
6 It is a free country and you have no right to impose your thoughts and
restrictions upon anyone else.

To have things your way would be to risk the lives of women and the
unborn, to lower their standard of living, and to dictate to them in a
free country. In essence, you want to deprive them of free choice to
satisfy your principals.
Further, that's just what the world needs...more babies. Brilliant.

Maybe, but since I am not obligated to take your advise...

Biochemist. Quite successful.

I see both sides but there is only one truth. The bulk of my argument doesn't stem from people wanting abortion. The bulk of my argument comes from people who are unable to face the truth of their position and create all maner of fantasy rather than state their position honestly.

A death rate of 1 in 12,000. Go to your nearest bad neighborhood and kill someone at random. Tell the judge that he represented a 1 in 12,000 risk to your life and let me know how that works out for you. If a panel of doctors states that a woman should abort because there is a genuine risk to her life or long term health, then she has a valid reason to terminate. That accounts for about 2% of all abortions.

These are things people know before engaging in sex. Being stigmatized is not a valid reason to kill another human being.

Again, not a valid reason to kill another human being.

Again, not a valid reason to kill another human being.

At least you recognize it as a privlege and not a right, but the right to live trumps all other explict, or implied rights.

Since there are roughly 5 million laws on our books and every single one of them imposes someone elses thoughts and restrictions upon you, that line of logic fails on its face.

To have things your way would be to risk the lives of women and the unborn, to lower their standard of living, and to dictate to them in a free country. In essence, you want to deprive them of free choice to satisfy your principals.[/quote]

Well, we are already losing the lives of the unborn, so that bit of logic is specious at best. People who break the law are always risking their lives so pardon me if I don't spend an excessive amount of time worrying about the safety of people who are deliberately breaking the law.

As to principles? This nation was founded on the idea that we come into being with certain inalienable rights. The right to live is among them. It is government's primary function and responsibility to protect those rights. Abortion destroys that principle.

Get yourself some real arguments. These have long since been torn to shreds.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

[quote=PaleRider;330022]Maybe, but since I am not obligated to take your advise...


Well then we'll just make it a law that you are obligated to take two laxatives every morning, how does that sound to you?

[quote=Lexi;330166]I am as regular as an atomic alarm clock. One more example of you apparently just talking to hear yourself talk.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

[quote=PaleRider;330181]Doesn't matter, we're still going to make it a law that all pro lifers MUST take two laxatives every morning whether you need them or not. How's that for equality????

[quote=Lexi;330188] I say we just give Pale a bullet in the head and eliminate the annoyance

__________________
You can never dent spiderwebs

*******************************
Thomas Aquinas agrees with you Wolf; at least on the "starting to be when you started thinking" part, I don't remember him mentioning any specific time after conception, but you may have a better long-term memory then did Thomas. ....pjwky