I have provided ample credible science that states explicitly that unborns at any stage of development are living human beings. You can make your fallacious flat earth argument until the proverbial cows come home but your credibility is lacking. The onus is now upon you to provide some credible science that states explicitly that the offspring of two human beings is at some point, something other than a lving human being. Credible science has been provided and only credible science will serve as a rebuttal.

Do feel free to provide some credible science to support that most childish argument. First you attempt to compare perfectly healthy unborns to those who are so sick or injured that they can't reasonably be expected to recover and now you are attempting to compare a human being to a plant. Your argument has failed mulp. Tuck your tail firmly between your legs and quietly disappear to avoid further embarassment. Your arguments are the same old pro choice logical fallacies that have been losing all along.

Typical flat earther. Being shown credible science that states explicitly that you are wrong isn't enough. Now you want to see a machine. Do you realize how stupid that argument is? I am sure that at some point, we will be able to support an unborn from fertilization to delivery in an artifical environment. But nothing will change. The unborn is what it is. If we can support them in an artificial environment, they will still be the same creature they would be if they were in a woman's body. The only difference would be the environment in which they grew. You don't become a different creature because of your envionment. If you accept that a child who grew in an artifical environment is a human being at every stage but the exact same child who grows in a woman's body is not, then your argument has successfully failed on every level.

__________________
"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

Name one human being born from a petri dish, or some machine.

One the other hand, if it is your position that society has the right to demand that a woman support another human being by forcing her to carry it around agains her will, force her to let that human being suck life from her, force her to risk her health and risk death, then I want society to force you to pay my rent and buy my food for me. After all, I'm a human being and thus I deserve the same right as an embryo to make you and others my slaves serving my needs, even if it is against your will.

And like I said, a billion women and like billions of men, do not see embryos as human beings, and so they, in your view, murder a billion human beings a year, and think nothing of it, something that makes it clear they don't see embryos as human beings.

Describe a difference in the actual individual other than where they gestated. Unless there would be some difference in the individual themselves, some residual evidence that they were gestated artifically rather than naturally, then your argument makes no sense. A human being is a human being no matter where they are gestated. A white child gestated by a chinese woman is still going to be a white child. Where it developed is irrelavent to what it is and any suggestion otherwise fails on logical grounds.

This comes down to competing rights. Both the woman and the child are living human beings. When the rights of two individuals clash, the more fundamental right takes precedence. If the woman's life or long term health is in immenent danger, then she has the right to defend herself just like everyone else. Intent is not necessary on the part of someone who represents an immenent danger to your life in order for you to kill to defend your own right to live. If the woman's life or long term health is not in imment danger, however, the child's right to live trumps her right to not be inconvenienced.

And that moronic argument is a textbook example of a logical fallacy known as an appeal to common practice or an appeal to populatity. If a logical fallacy is the best you can do, why bother?

__________________
"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

Mulp, your comments are the best yet.

Well, we have already established that your arguments are logical fallacies as well so it stands to reason that you would see another logical fallacy as a valid and wonderful argument thus proving that neither one of you has any sort of legitimate defense of your positions.

__________________
"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

Would you care to explain how the 400 million women using birth control pills, an IUD, morning after pills, implants, are not, in your view of the science, murdering human beings?

You say, an embryo is a human being. Those birth control methods all terminate the life of the embryo. At any point in time, 400 million women proactively seek out these birth control methods so that they can terminate the life of the embryo. Therefore, they are all, in your view, premeditated murderers.

What is the error in logic. Please point to the specific logical failure? Are you saying that an egg fertilized in the woman with a sperm is not an embryo? Are you saying that an embryo in a woman is not a human being? Are you saying that a woman acting to terminate the life of an embryo is not killing a human being? Are you saying only a small number of women are using birth control methods like the pill, implant, and IUD?

I get the feeling that you don't like the conclusion drawn from your facts and logics so you claim that there is a flaw in the reasoning, not because there is a logical flaw, but because you don't want to admit that billions of people actively and happily, in your view of the world, murder billions of human beings and see nothing wrong with it.

In fact, I bet you have used birth control pills, or an IUD, something similar, (either you personally or your partners) so you are a murder, but you don't want to condemn yourself as a serial killer.

So, you are saying that a woman doesn't have the right to defend herself from her slave master who is keeping her captive to use her for sex.

After all, her life isn't being threatened, so how can you justify her killing her slave master just because she doesn't like the inconvenience of being a sex slave. How can it be moral for her to take a human life when her life isn't at risk?

You are at least as stupid as lexi aren't you? When did I ever say that the women using birth control pills with abortifacient qualities, morning after pills, and IUD's are not either committing murder or manslaugher? Please bring forward a statement from me where I am denying it. In my view, they are either guilty of murder or manslaugher depending upon whether they knew about the abortifacient qualities of their particular means of birth control.


Either premeditated murder if they were aware of the abortifacient qualities of their birth control method or guilty of manslaugher if they weren't. Do you need for me to draw you a picture?

What in the hell are you talking about? The error in your logic is that you are suggesting that it is OK to kill unborns just because so many women do it. You keep repeating 400 million as if the number somehow changes them from living human beings into something that it is OK to kill.

Even your feelings are flawed. I have no problem with the conclusions that I have reached.

You lose your bet. What was it and where do I collect. My wife and I had our children then I had a vasectomy and she had her tubes tied because neither of us wanted more children, even if we ever separated.

__________________
"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

She has every right to kill a rapist if that is what you mean. If she is one of the 1 in 1000 that actually gets pregnant from a rape, however, the child's right to live outweighs any right that she may wish to invoke other than a right to self defense if the pregnancy represents an imminent threat to her life.

Isn't that what I just said? By the way, learn what constitutes slavery and being a slave. Pregnancy doesn't fit the definition so using words like slave when it doesn't apply is just another logical fallacy on your part. It is an appeal to emotion. You are one of the most logically challenged folks here. Are you proud?

__________________
"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

So, if a woman doesn't want to spend eight months serving the needs of what you consider an "unborn child" and that she considers an unwanted pregnancy, you won't seek to force her by making the law force her?

I don't see abortion as the killing of a human being, and neither does most of the world.

Individuals may have different moral positions on many topics, but societies can't force the moral views of a few on the many. I don't think war is moral under any circumstance and I would never kill a human being for any reason.

I suspect that you don't agree and you will argue, based on your prior statement that a woman can kill her rapist, that it is a duty to go to war and kill human beings to defend whatever the government says needs to be defended. That will mean one "innocent human being" killing another "innocent human being." I don't condemn soldiers killing others in war because they are "just doing their duty." And no one can deny that war means killing lots of civilians, women and children, men and boys, and the definition of civilian and soldier are merely legal attempts to paper over the intrinsic immorality of war.

But I see war as merely the symptom of a greater problem. Probably poverty, or a view that "they" are immoral and thus need to be killed or subjugated and the made moral by force.

The reasons for medical science developing ways of preventing pregnancy, terminating pregnancies, preventing the birth of babies who have no chance of living a full and independent life, are to deal with a lot of the same problems that people go to war for.

One thing that underlies war and family planning is a shortage of resources, either locally or increasingly globally.

A woman lacks the resources to be pregnant so she uses all the family planning techniques medical science can offer her to deal with her lack of resources.

A nation lacks resources its leaders believe it needs "to preserve the American way of life" so it goes to war in an attempt to get the resources.

Entire nations have too few resources to support all its people, but instead of going to war, it aggressively promotes family planning to limit population growth.

The question is what are the alternatives? Many people think the US has too many people for the resources. China has far fewer resources and four times the number of people. And China's projected growth would have made things far worse. I am overjoyed that family planning make it possible for the US and China to limit their population and thus reduce the pressure for war to get resources to "protect a way of life" by killing innocent human beings.

It isn't a perfect world. Nature does its thing leading to the deaths of millions. War happens. Children starve. Children die horrible slow deaths with their families watching and waiting for weeks as they slowly die. Children are forced into slavery because their families are poor and starving. Children are forced to become soldiers, forced to kill their parents, brothers, sisters, as part of wars fought over the control of resources which US corporations are all too happy to buy, ignoring the wars and slavery that brought the resources to them.

I suppose everyone has their particular windmill to tilt at, but yours puzzles me more than most. I wonder why you don't focus on getting the US to consume far fewer resources of all sorts, and instead spend the savings fighting the causes of deaths of the walking human beings that are suffering and dying. I don't think the world is going to face a crisis where there are too few people suffering and dying for lack of resources.