Home - List All Discussions

If a woman has a right to control her body, why doesn't a fetus?

by: laurissamarcotte

Think about it.
An unborn baby is human. It has rights.
So if it doesn't have the right to "invade upon someone ele's body", why does a woman have a right to invade upon someone else's body? This is unfair. Abortion gives the mother more rights than a baby.
If the mother gets more rights then her baby because she is adult, why does the baby get equal rights to its mother when it is born? The only difference is location.
I know, I know. The mother gets more rights "because the baby is using her body." But like I said, abortion gives the mother the right to life (which the baby doesn't have) and the right to invade someone's body (which the baby also doesn't have.)

reply from: Sigma

laurissamarcotte,
Following this line of thinking does allow the woman to protect her rights at another's expense if that other is infringing upon hers. The fetus would not have the right to infringe upon her rights.
concernedparent,
Then stop. Put them up for adoption.

reply from: Alexandra

Oh, shut your pie hole, Sigma. You really don't have the right to tell anyone to put their children up for adoption like that.

reply from: Sigma

Your pardon. It should have read: Then stop, if you wish. You can put them up for adoption.

reply from: Alexandra

I was looking for the excuse to use the term "shut your pie hole" and your posts give me plenty of opportunity for that, Sigma.

reply from: Sigma

I suppose, then, civil discussion is out of the question with you.

reply from: Alexandra

Just feeling silly tonight, Sig.
Now back to our regularly scheduled topic....

reply from: Sigma

Ah It came across a bit harsh, so I am glad you didn't mean it as that.

reply from: Sigma

Since your point appeared to be to draw an equivalence between the fetus in the womb and a born child, and then to say that the born child is dependant yet is not killed therefore neither should the fetus in the womb, my point is relevant. I was pointing out a difference that would disallow one but allow the other.
Learn debating please.

reply from: yoda

The word "invasion" is laughable in this context. It's like we put a person in a jail cell and then accused that person of "invading" the jail cell. And then, just to make the comparison complete, we executed the person for invading that jail cell.

reply from: yoda

No one has the moral right to take the life of another innocent human being.
And human fetuses can't "infringe" on anything merely by existing in the place where they were created by others.
Such language is suitable only to apologist propaganda designed to soothe the consciences of baby killing monsters.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

No, I'm, saying why should a woman have the right to infringe upon another's rights when the baby doesn't?

reply from: Sigma

That is not desired. She has the ability to defend her rights. None have the right to do what the fetus is doing, so she would not be infringing upon the rights of the fetus (of which it currently posesses none) to remove it.

reply from: Sigma

So you are not asserting that they are equivalent?
And the woman has the right to remove it from her body if she no longer wishes it to be there.
How about 3 days after conception? Would you venture to say the only major difference is location then?

reply from: AshMarie88

That is not desired. She has the ability to defend her rights. None have the right to do what the fetus is doing, so she would not be infringing upon the rights of the fetus (of which it currently posesses none) to remove it.
She's losing NO rights by being pregnant. She's not losing the right to vote, she's not losing equality, she's not losing her life... And she's not losing any rights mentioned in the constitution.

reply from: Sigma

Her right to bodily integrity is being impacted, as is her freedom. Disallowing abortion also infringes upon her right to privacy.
Since the fetus does not have the right to live attached to another (none have this right), the fetus loses no rights by being detached.

reply from: AshMarie88

Why does location matter, Sigma? Does it matter where a child is?
If a baby was born but still attached to the cord, and the mom didn't want the cord still attached and the doctors won't cut it, in your view, the mom should have the right to kill that baby, correct?

reply from: Sigma

No, she would be able to cut the connection. Killing wouldn't be necessary, reasonable or inevitable in that situation. During the first trimester the death of the fetus is the only outcome, but the woman continues to be able to remove the attachment.

reply from: AshMarie88

No, she would be able to cut the connection. Killing wouldn't be necessary, reasonable or inevitable in that situation. During the first trimester the death of the fetus is the only outcome, but the woman continues to be able to remove the attachment.
Killing a child in the first trimester isn't necessary either!

reply from: Sigma

It is to remove the connection. The fetus cannot survive without using the woman's body.

reply from: Sigma

Then you are drawing an equivalence.
Since the vast majority of abortions are performed during a time that you admit there are major differences other than location, some of those differences may justify abortion.
If it had no brain, yes.
Parents are directed to put oxygen masks on themselves before helping their children And now because you seem to think everything I say is justification for abortion I'll say: no, this is not my justification for abortion.
Clearly established... where?
No, I don't. I argue that this is not always the case.
No no, come on. Try to insult me again. This new concernedparent who is trying to use reason and is attempting to have a civil debate is new and confusing. I don't know if I can cope with the reversal.
What society do you belong to? Our society does not seem to agree with you.
Well! Now if you admit the woman's rights are impacted we might actually be able to debate whether this justifies abortion. Somehow I doubt you'll stick with this though
Obviously there must be a procedure to remove it from her. This process does take time. As long as it is being removed per her desire, the time necessary to do so would be included.
Read what I said again (wow how many times have I said this to you). It is "absolutely essential", in a sense, that the fetus die for her to be disconnected from it during the time frame the vast majority of abortions are performed.

reply from: yoda

There has always been such a procedure, it is called "birth".
No amount of impatience on her part, or on your part, can justify rushing that procedure to the extent that it causes the death of the baby.
Nothing you can say or suggest can justify the slaughter of innocent babies, no matter how many times you repeat them.
And nothing you can say or suggest can excuse your support for that slaughter.

reply from: AshMarie88

There has always been such a procedure, it is called "birth".
Yep!
And I might add, a baby will be born whether the mom wants it or not. The only thing is, does she want her baby dead or alive?

reply from: Sigma

Wow, what an amazing insight! Few dispute that it is human, concernedparent. You're useless to debate. First you aren't drawing an equivalence, then you're acting all indignant that I would question the equivalence. *sigh*
So is the level of physical (only physical, huh?) development a major difference or not?
Physical development in the womb is unique. There would, of course, be few if any other situations that one may compare it to. It does not damage my point in the slightest if there is no precedence, States would continue to have the power to justify abortion. I, however, do not justify abortion in that way.
You just are not on the ball. I did not say abortion was justified for this reason, concernedparent, I said one would be less of a human individual if one does not have a brain. Jeez, I feel like half of my posts are correcting your misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mischaracterizations.
Oh, whether or not it has a brain I feel the connection may be severed.
Kill what? The brain or the body? The brain would be where the individual consciousness resides. The body is meat, it is not an individual in the sense that there is someone "in there". I wouldn't feel that one is murdering a brainless body.
Yes I have, you simply have not accepted it. This is fine, you are not required to.
The rationale is that society cannot function if its citizens are randomly killed. Part of our society's values is the ability to kill those who infringe upon our rights, depending on the exact situation. I'm speaking generally here, not trying to justify abortion directly. While you and I disagree that abortion should be included, nothing about society's values say that no-one may be killed.
And so you claim that with no intent, none can possibly infringe on other's rights?
Amusing.
No, I am implying that you not being childish and insulting would be a big reversal for you.
No adoption, huh? Throw out the safe-haven laws too
I know you said that. So you actually admit that the woman's bodily integrity is being impacted and were abortion not to impact the right of the fetus she should be able to defend that right?
lol, schoolyard taunts for the lose.
What if it is? I don't care if she desires to kill, removing the connection is a process the doctors will complete.
It isn't. Killing is justified if there is no other way to remove the connection. If the connection is currently being removed, then nothing I've said justifies killing.
You truly suck at debating.

reply from: yoda

YOU could've solved YOUR problem in this regard long ago, by simply not filling your posts with arcane, irrelevant comments designed to be argumentative, rather than getting directly to the point of WHY you justify abortion on demand.
We are perfectly justified to conclude that every argumentative thing you say on this forum is another way of supporting abortion on demand.

reply from: yoda

Exactly!
Distraction, diversion, substitution, and smokescreens are his "superior debating skills".

reply from: Sigma

Which is what I originally pointed out You appeared to dispute that you drew an equivalence.
No, you said: First, there are no major "differences" (plural) other than location, adding that physical development was "possibly" a major difference. I wish to clarify whether or not you believe it actually is a major difference.
Wow. Ok, so the only thing unique about the development taking place in the womb is it's location? There is nothing else unique or major taking place in the womb versus development outside the womb?
It does not surprise me that you fail at this. You fail at debating in general as well. I am responding to your points here, I have made my argument elsewhere.
Do you practice being this obtuse? I said nothing of whether it is human, I said: one would be less of a human individual if one does not have a brain.
A body with no brain would still be human, but it would not be an individual in the sense of having "someone in there".
Given the quality of your posts, this is no stretch.
Except for the fact that your body could still be considered your property, no murder of an individual would be taking place if the body literally had no brain. Killing your brain would destroy the individual.
lol. I was replying to one of your points. It is you who wish to separate your brain from your body, yet consider them both individuals. That you cannot effectively argue the point is no fault of mine.
I see. So removing the child from her care may be making a responsible choice?
They were questions to ascertain your beliefs about the subject You mentioned taking responsibility and I was asking if adoption and using safe-havens were taking responsibility.
Learn to debate, please.

reply from: Sigma

I sidestepped nothing, I answered the question.
Killing is justified if there is no other way to remove the connection. If the connection is currently being removed, then nothing I've said justifies killing.

reply from: Sigma


I don't think this can be used as evidence since many women do not intend to get pregnant when they have sex.
The effects of pregnancy are assumed. If pregnancy were one day of good health, you would see all the other reasons disappear I daresay. It is because pregnancy is a big deal in her life and impacts her body in many ways that these other issues come up. She cannot financially afford pregnancy (an often cited reason) because pregnancy means she cannot work as much (physical effect).
Except that is not the question. Since you assume here that pregnancy does impact her bodily integrity, it doesn't matter how temporary or small the inconvenience is. It still impacts her rights. The question would be: "Can a human being be allowed to kill another human being simply because that other human being is impacting the bodily integrity of the first?".
The answer would vary from person to person, depending on how vital they view the right being violated.
It really doesn't.

reply from: Sigma

Yes.
What I said is true. It is essential, in the sense of inevitable, that the fetus die for her to be disconnected from it during the time frame the vast majority of abortions are performed.

reply from: Sigma

You don't seem to want to give me a straight answer. You accuse me of prompting you repeat yourself when you don't clarify what you mean.
You say they are both human. Few dispute this. I agree they are both human. You drew an equivalence. I pointed this out.
It seems to me that it is certain that between the time the vast majority of abortions are performed (which is generally the contention) and birth there is a major difference in development, development which is unique. Do you agree?
This does not seem to answer my question; perhaps you can clarify further. The question was: is the only thing unique about the development taking place in the womb is it's location? There is nothing else unique or major taking place in the womb versus development outside the womb?
Why would we? I am answering your points, showing them to be the product of an incompetent mind.
I never said having no brain would make one less human. Whether one is human or not depends on whether one has human DNA. Individuality is tied up with the concept of a unique consciousness.
Your parsing of words is not impressive. As I clarified in a later post: A body with no brain would still be human, but it would not be an individual in the sense of having "someone in there".
Hm. I'll try to simplify the concept so your "meager abilities" can grasp the concept. There is no simple yes or no answer.
"You" is generally thought of as your mind, your consciousness. Killing "you" would be killing your brain in that situation. This is generally unjustified except in certain situations that allow the killing of others.
Your body is not "you" anymore. Killing your body would not be killing "you". Your body can be considered your property, however, so killing it would probably not be justified for that reason. If part of the procedure stipulated that you had no claim on your body, it would likely be no crime to harvest it for parts (essentially killing the body even if the organs would continue to live).
No, I am saying your body would not be an individual in the sense of having "someone in there".
I assumed that. Are you saying that is not the case?

reply from: yoda

It's amazing to me that with such "poor quality of opposition", Sigma can't make a single point against any of them. I know his opposition is of poor quality, because he repeats it constantly!
What does that say about you, that you can't win even against such weak competition, Sigma?

reply from: Sigma

If she does not intend to become pregnant, I don't think you can use the fact that women have sex to make a conclusion about their perception of pregnancy.
Um, no. Her reasons would remain the same however we view the life of the fetus. We may say she cannot have an abortion because of how we view that life, but her reasons for wanting an abortion would not change.
Ah, and I had such hopes that you finally made a good point, but apparently not.
You assumed here that the fetus does impact her rights. The question, therefore, is: "Can a human being be allowed to kill another human being(if we consider the fetus a human being) simply because that other human being is impacting the bodily integrity of the first?".
You say no. You don't believe the violation of her rights is grave enough to warrant killing the fetus. It is defensible to say: violating her rights on the part of the fetus is an inevitable condition (in the sense that it can do no different). Special dispensation should be made for this.
This would give the fetus rights none other has, but that is defensible for this unique situation.
It is also defensible to say: The woman's rights should not be given less priority than the rights of the fetus. This would make women second-class citizens to something that is not as worthy of consideration.
Both are defensible, both are compelling to different people. Your argument is just nonsense.
Not having a right to life does not equal death.
The answer to your question would depend on how one views the world. Viewing it in terms of the "greatest good for the greatest number of people" would likely view violating any right to life the fetus may posess as a lesser harm since there is no individual (in terms of mental existence). Violating the bodily integrity of the woman can be viewed as a greater harm in that context, and violating her privacy and freedom on the part of the gov't would also factor into that.
lol, you should apologize for this sorry excuse for an argument.

reply from: Sigma

You continually amaze me with your lack of logic.
Waiting ten minutes is part of the process. Nothing I've said justifies killing in this situation.
You seemed to dispute that you drew an equivalence, when I pointed out that you did
I see. It seems to me that it is certain that between the time the vast majority of abortions are performed (which is generally the contention) and birth there is a major difference in development, development which is unique. Do you agree?

reply from: Sigma

So your contention is that the concept of individuality (as it relates to humans) has nothing to do with a unique consciousness?

reply from: Sigma

You made a conclusion about a woman's perception of pregnancy, and claimed that women would not risk sex because of this. Reality would stay the same regardless of her perception, but I don't believe you can make a claim about her perception of pregnancy by citing that she engages in sex without intending to become pregnant.

reply from: Sigma

If she chooses to continue the pregnancy, yes. If she chooses to abort, the entirety of the abortion is a process that takes time to complete as well.
It is just further evidence of your inability to understand
The question is false; since many women do not intend to become pregnant, making a conclusion about pregnancy by citing that women have sex is faulty.

reply from: Sigma

You did not tell me whether you agree that between the time the vast majority of abortions are performed (which is generally the contention) and birth there is a major difference in development, development which is unique.
Your points are laughably easy to defeat. It is too bad you are too simple to see your decline.
No, an unconscious individual, sleeping or in a coma, still possesses the machinery necessary to support consciousness, and family is encouraged to speak to coma patients as it is said they can hear them even in a coma. Even in their states, there is "someone in there" so to speak. In the example we're using where the body has no brain this is not the case. There is no individual consciousness.
That's fine, but answer the question. Is it your contention that the concept of individuality (as it relates to humans) has nothing to do with a unique consciousness?
lol, given what I've seen you would not even understand a "yes" or "no".
I have answered already: Waiting ten minutes is part of the process. Nothing I've said justifies killing in this situation.

reply from: yoda

Siggy is too busy telling you what a terrible debater you are to give you a yes or no answer. He sees it as his duty to constantly remind you of his superior debating skills, so you will become discouraged and go away.
I predict that Siggy will call birth a "process", but not gestation. That's so Siggy can claim that it's okay to kill the baby during gestation but not during birth. Siggy will deliberately tell such a lie with a straight face, and then tell you again that you are a terrible debater.
That's so you will be discouraged and go away. Are you becoming discouraged yet, cp?

reply from: Sigma

Your body is, yes. Your mind, your unique consciousness, would be removed with your brain. Killing your brain would destroy the individual.
lol. Now I throw consciousness into the mix? Is your contention, then, that the concept of individuality (as it relates to humans) has nothing to do with a unique consciousness?
If there is no brain, there is no individual consciousness. There is no individual. An unconscious individual still has a consciouness. A coma patient still has a consciouness. A sleeping person still has a consciousness. People are encouraged to talk to coma patients since the patients can hear them even in that state. There is still "someone in there" with unconscious people.
That wasn't an answer to my question. Do you agree or disagree that between the time the vast majority of abortions are performed (which is generally the contention) and birth there is a major difference in development, development which is unique.
I have, it just hasn't registered with you yet
Nothing I've said justifies killing in this situation.

reply from: yoda

If she chooses to continue the pregnancy, yes. If she chooses to abort, the entirety of the abortion is a process that takes time to complete as well.
And if she chooses to cut the cord immediately instead of waiting 10 minutes, thus killing the baby, that cutting is "the process", eh Siggy?
There you have it folks, Siggy has no opinion, no feeling whatsoever about the KILLING OF BABIES.....it's just a "PROCESS" to Siggy.......
So why wouldn't the killing of a born person be just a "process" to Siggy? I think we all know the answer to that one..... it would be. If you're ever in a bind, and need someone to save your life, count on Siggy to call your death a "process" and make a note of it in his little book.

reply from: yoda

I have, it just hasn't registered with you yet
You haven't defeated anyone or any argument on this forum as long as you've been here, Siggy.
But as they say, "If no one else will toot your horn, you must toot it yourself".

reply from: Sigma

Ah, so it is your contention that the concept of individuality (as it relates to humans) has nothing to do with a unique consciousness?
*sigh* Your arguments are tumbling around you like a house of cards, so you change the argument That's fine, it's painfully obvious you cannot argue the point.
No, an unconscious person is not conscious. An unconscious individual still has a consciouness, however. A coma patient still has a consciouness. A sleeping person still has a consciousness. People are encouraged to talk to coma patients since the patients can hear them even in that state. There is still "someone in there" with unconscious people. This is not the case with a body that has no brain.
Yet again your post had little to do with what I said.
lol. Just lol. I am not the fool here, concernedparent.

reply from: yoda

Of course. If giving a baby the benefit of 10 minutes to save his/her life would open the door to an argument against abortion, then Siggy will not allow the 10 minutes.
No baby's life is worth 10 minutes to Siggy, it's that simple.

reply from: yoda

So does an embryo, whether it's brain is developed or not. Embryos also have the ability to walk and talk, did you know that?
Yes, they're called "UNDEVELOPED ABILITIES"....... and they are as real as the sickening smile on your avatar's face.
So while you smile a happy smile at the thought of millions of babies dying every year because of what you support, rest assured that we know who you are and what you are.

reply from: Sigma

con·scious·ness ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs-ns)
n.
A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Psychologically, it is important to distance consciousness from its more colloquial use as meaning simply "awake". Psychologists would assert certainly that while dreaming, for example, we are conscious, even though we are not in a waking state. Conversely, we are unwilling to grant the label of conscious to most animals, even though they are able to regulate between waking and sleeping.
I am using it as it is used in the Locke sense: the basis of personal identity or self.

reply from: Sigma

It depends on the damage. A brain dead patient can be kept alive but would not have this characteristic.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Why can't the mother kill her baby then? You say no one has a right to be attached to someone against their will. The baby is attached to its mother against her will. Why can't she violently rip it into pieces or burn it in saline then?

reply from: AshMarie88

Why can't the mother kill her baby then? You say no one has a right to be attached to someone against their will. The baby is attached to its mother against her will. Why can't she violently rip it into pieces or burn it in saline then?
Yea, I'd also like to hear his response.

reply from: yoda

You'll both have to wait until Siggy gets over the giggles he got from reading about "violently ripping it to pieces or burning it in saline". He'll laugh about that for at least a couple of hours.

reply from: Sigma

Because the woman can remove it without killing it. During the time-frame that the vast majority of abortions are performed, this is impossible.

reply from: Sigma

Not "any brain function" but brain function that is consistent with our knowledge of what machinery is necessary for consciousness to form.

reply from: prochoiceornochoice

Maybe because the unborn baby doesn't know a single thing about life and existance on this earth, while the mother does? Wow, what a difficult concept. *rolls eyes* The mother has thoughts, feelings, goals, and friends, while a fetus has none of those things. It's brain-dead during the first trimester (except for a few highly primitive brain waves), so why should it have the same rights as a person with a working brain?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Why don't you do some reasearch on the actual mental powers of the unborn before you state your incorrect facts http://www.birthpsychology.com/ Besides, you realize abortion is legal all nine months of pregnancy and that mentally, a baby in the final trimester has the same rate of brain development she will sustain her first year out of the womb (there's no diff between a third trimester baby and a year old baby cognitively as far mental growth) source National Geographic.

reply from: yoda

"Brain-dead'? You're claim it's got a brain, but the brain it has is "dead"? Are you sure your brain is alive?
And exactly how much development must a human have before they have the right not to be killed? Why do we need ANY development in order NOT TO BE KILLED??
What is it with your rush to kill babies, anyway?

reply from: bradensmommy

soooo....lemme get this straight. Pro-choicers have this mentality that people who are brain-dead aren't human or living either. Wow...
I hope one day y'all get some facts straight before running off your misinformed mouths.

reply from: Sigma

Because it can survive the severing of the connection, and premature birth would likely be easier upon the woman, with fewer risks, than an abortion at this stage (though I am not a doctor).
No, it does not have the machinery believed necessary for consciousness to be possible.

reply from: Sigma

If you read what has been posted, this is not the case. The contention is that those who are brain dead are no longer individuals, in the sense of having "someone in there".

reply from: faithman

If you read what has been posted, this is not the case. The contention is that those who are brain dead are no longer individuals, in the sense of having "someone in there".
Wow bud. You better be careful you don't sign your own death warrent. By your post here, you are obviously brain dead , and there is no humanity in you.

reply from: Sigma

I see. Then come and get me, "bud".

reply from: yoda

No, it does not have the machinery believed necessary for consciousness to be possible.
What a fluent liar you are.
All healthy human babies have all the "machinery" to do all the things that adults can do...... theirs is just somewhat underdeveloped.
But admitting that would make it harder for you to advocate KILLING BABIES, right?

reply from: yoda

You don't even know the definition of "individuals"? There is NO definition of "individual" that refers to "someone in there"..... but you always lie about the meaning of words, so what's new?
Main Entry: individual Function: noun1 a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a teacher who works with individuals> (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=individual&x=0&y=0

reply from: faithman

I see. Then come and get me, "bud".
I don't have to come and get you. There is one who has your heart in His hand. reguardles wheather you believe in Him, your heart does, and it will obey Him when He tells it to stop beating.
you will face the One who's image womb children were created in.
Then all your stupid arguements will do what? The death warrant of adam is already yours. There is no place to hide except in the mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ.

reply from: Sigma

That is between me and God, then, isn't it?

reply from: faithman

That is between me and God, then, isn't it?
My point exactly. You better get that right before He tells your heart to stop.

reply from: Sigma

I'll take my chances, but thank you.
Not quite the all-loving entity He's made out to be, eh?

reply from: faithman

I'll take my chances, but thank you.
Not quite the all-loving entity He's made out to be, eh?
False theology makes Him out to be all loving. He offers His love to all man kind thru the cross of Jesus Christ.
But until one surrenders to the Lordship of Christ, the full wrath of God abides on you.
A wrath that will swallow you in eternal torment if He tells your heart to stop, and you don't have Christ.

reply from: Sigma

Unless, of course, God does not exist. In which case, nothing of the sort will happen.

reply from: faithman

Unless, of course, God does not exist. In which case, nothing of the sort will happen.
You can say the world is flat too, but it doesn't make it any less round.
You can deny His existance if you like, but one day H will deny yours...depart from me you worker of inequity, I never know you.
Now I wonder. Which denile of existance carries more weight?

reply from: Sigma

Actually it isn't quite round, but I get your meaning. I'd peg you as more likely to say the Earth is flat more than anyone.
Unless, of course, He does not exist

reply from: faithman

Actually it isn't quite round, but I get your meaning. I'd peg you as more likely to say the Earth is flat more than anyone.
Unless, of course, He does not exist
Only a fool would dare to say there is no God. The design of the world around us demands it. The laws of thermodynamics demands it. pelodium halos in the earth crust demands it. The God shaped void in humanities heart cries out for Him.

reply from: Sigma

I guess we'll just have to wait. If I fall into a pit of fire then you would be correct
How so?
I assume you're refering to an increase in organization which would seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics and polonium haloes which, if true, would seem to say the Earth is younger than commonly thought.

reply from: yoda

Oh look everybody, Siggy is GETTING WAY OFF THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD!

reply from: bradensmommy

wow, big shock there huh?

reply from: Tam

I see. Then come and get me, "bud".
LOL Of course you misinterpret it as a threat. It was a wry observation--and I found it both humorous and apt!

reply from: yoda

Yes, another way to describe it would be an "undeveloped ability".

reply from: Sigma

*sigh*
Is this seriously the best you can do now? My argument has not changed. The fetus does not have the machinery necessary for consciousness to form.
The potential to develop the machinery does not equal the actuality of the machinery. Your arguments are pathetic.

reply from: yoda

You are a pathetic liar.
The DNA code alone IS "machinery", as you call it. And IF the baby did not have it, it would NEVER be able to develop consciousness at any point in life.

reply from: Sigma

It is generally believed that there is a point that consciousness forms. There is mental machinery believed necessary for this to occur. During the time frame the vast majority of abortions occur, the fetus does not have this machinery.
Sorry. You lose.

reply from: yoda

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. NO ONE knows what is necessary for "consciousness", since it cannot be detected by laboratory experiments.
IN ADDITION TO WHICH, "undeveloped machinery" is STILL MACHINERY..... to most people, at least to those not obsessed with the idea of KILLING BABIES.

reply from: AshMarie88

I think Sigma needs to go read a book! It's a wonderful book, full of information and facts. As well as pictures, instruction graphs, etc.
This book I'm speaking of is called Biology, and it's great for educating the ignorant and broadening(sp?) their horizons!

reply from: yoda

Sigma hates books, especially those that don't support his BABY-KILLING agenda.
That includes biology books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc., etc. He hates them all, almost as much as he hates babies.

reply from: Sigma

Thank you, but I have read many books on biology. 'Twas my major, after all.

reply from: yoda

Too bad they didn't have a course on honesty.

reply from: AshMarie88

Thank you, but I have read many books on biology. 'Twas my major, after all.
Were those biology books written by Michael Moore?

reply from: yoda

ROTFLMAO!!!
GOOD ONE!

reply from: AshMarie88

ROTFLMAO!!!
GOOD ONE!
Thank you thank you!

reply from: Sigma

Perhaps you should go to college before you criticize them.

reply from: Sigma

It doesn't form unless that machinery exists.
All raw material required for the gestational growth is obtained from the woman, concernedparent. The necessary machinery is encoded for, but the potential for that machinery to develop does not equal the actuality of that machinery.

reply from: yoda

Perhaps you should get a brain?
Try the Wizard of Oz.

reply from: Sigma

lol. That is one of the dumbest things you've posted. The fetus can develop the mental machinery. Once this happens, the fetus will have the machinery believed necessary for consciousness to form. It did not have it before this point, it had the potential to develop such.
No, the issue has not changed. You mentioned: Surely a biology major is aware that only oxygen and nutrients are obtained from the mother after conception!
I was clarifying that.
*sigh*
You have not defeated any of my points. All you have done is try to turn this into a semantics argument. You have hardly addressed what I have said. It was truly a pathetic display on your part.

reply from: Sigma

Unless you wish to, no. You mentioned what the fetus obtains from the woman, I was clarifying what you said.

reply from: yoda

The only pathetic display I've seen on the forum today is yours and nsanford's attempts at debate.
You are all too predictable, Siggy. We know in advance that everything you say will be designed to accomplish the death of a baby.
And that is truly pathetic.

reply from: Sigma

Feel free not to. I have cited research to you before, so I have satisfied the requirment to provide sources. Learn something about the subject, concernedparent.

reply from: yoda

Learn something about truth and compassion, Siggy.
The world doesn't need any more babykillers like you.

reply from: Tam

The only pathetic display I've seen on the forum today is yours and nsanford's attempts at debate.
You are all too predictable, Siggy. We know in advance that everything you say will be designed to accomplish the death of a baby.
And that is truly pathetic.
Yoda, yoda, yoda....you and I both know that what Sigma is doing is not an attempt at debate, but an attempt at manipulation. I do agree with you that he underestimates that intelligence of those who read his arguments.

reply from: yoda

Well you've got me there. Siggy and ns know that debate will only show them up for what they are, so they try to manipulate the forum into confusion and frustration.
Where are all the "good" probabykilling debaters? Have we run them all away?

reply from: Tam

Uh.... who were they, again?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Yeah, I was going to say....is there such a thing...?

reply from: yoda

Hmmm......... well, I was speaking hypothetically, you understand?

reply from: Sigma

You may if you wish, but I know you have no leg to stand on so you're reaching for whatever you can Consciousness is associated with certain structures that the fetus does not have early in the pregnancy.
The research I provided represents the general consensus about consciousness. If you have any concerns regarding the reliability of my sources you may voice them.

reply from: Sigma

And yet, I foresaw your inability to debate the point much earlier in the thread

reply from: Sigma

I already provided it to you. I have satisfied that requirement
If you wish to dispute the point, go for it.

reply from: Sigma

Then so be it If your content with your defeated points more power to you.
Oh, that's your dispute? Whether it is generally believed? lol, give me a break. At least raise an issue that has any relevance.
Others on this board, surely. You I do not.

reply from: yoda

Others on this board, surely. You I do not.
The feeling is totally mutual, Siggy. Were it not for your bloodthirsty proclamations about killing babies, you'd hardly be word responding to.
Tell us again now, you do approve of KILLING BABIES when they are attached to an unwilling mother, right?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics