Nurse Maria Issues Advisory on Medical Manslaughter Law
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Shimei said:
Remember, your appeal to the Bible means nothing to me (and it speaks vaguely enough, befitting the medical knowledge of the time, to be completely ambiguous). Science doesn't "prove" a thing on this issue (not sure what you're even referring to).
Don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. So don't. Okey-dokey?
Granite said:
Life begins at conception. Why can't you acknowledge this?
http://www.prolife.com/FETALDEV.html
As I have said before, repeatedly: I would quantify the beginning of "humanhood" or "personhood" or however you want to put it as when brain waves and heart activity can be detected. That said, I don't support or endorse abortion at any stage or for any reason with the exceedingly rare reason to save a mother's life when all else fails.
Shimei said:
What part of this statement is so hard for you to understand? Read it carefully. (Or just read it, period.)
That said, I don't support or endorse abortion at any stage or for any reason with the exceedingly rare reason to save a mother's life when all else fails.
Get your mind around that, if you would.
Granite said:
Granite said:
Shimei said:
Just say "no".
Also, to save the life of the mother. Why would it EVER be necessary to intentionally kill the baby? The baby may die, but when would you have to intentionally kill it?
http://www.prolifepac.com/html/art4lifemom.htm
Shimei said:
Shimei, you're being deliberately obtuse at this point. You know full well there are very rare circumstances where the child endangers the life of the mother. At that point an exceedingly difficult decision must be made; I, for one, would not choose to let both child and mother die if I could save one of them. Quit trying to get me to say something that I won't. I oppose abortion, believe it's murder, and am disgusted by the cheapening of life. What the hell else do you want me to say?
The problem with the pro life movement is legal positivism. Don't change the subject.
Why would you say that you don't think that the baby is human until there is heart activity and then when I ask if it is wrong to kill the baby once it is conceived, all you can say is “Never said it wasn't”?
Is it wrong to kill the baby the day after it is conceived? Yes or no.
If you can’t answer directly then I will assume you really don’t have a problem with killing a day old conceived baby and I will drop the subject.
Why would you say that you don't think that the baby is human until there is heart activity and then when I ask if it is wrong to kill the baby once it is conceived, all you can say is “Never said it wasn't”?
Is it wrong to kill the baby the day after it is conceived? Yes or no.
If you can’t answer directly then I will assume you really don’t have a problem with killing a day old conceived baby and I will drop the subject.
Granite says a human "blastocyst" has "nothing recognizably human."
Granite says a human "blastocyst" has "nothing recognizably human."
Turbo and Granite, I'm reposting my comment inserting blastocyst for embryo:
Granite says that a human blastocyst:
Turbo, I imagine Granite is unaware of genetics, and the blastocyst DNA's four billion base pairs, which not only "resemble" something human, but are exactly and identically human in every "way, shape [and] form."
But then, that's just genetics, and you can't expect Granite to see much significance in something so tiny.
Then Granite thought he was describing a blastocyst when he wrote:
But Granite's claim--that a human blastocyst is not sentient--is false. And since he is unqualified to find "[any]thing recognizably human" in a blastocyst, I don't think he's intellectually honest enough to process the argument for the tiny one's sentience.
-Bob Enyart
p.s. While I haven't read this entire thread, I get the feeling that Granite is trying to distract from our challenge by splitting hair DNA over terminology:
(Google Web Definitions #1 for: define blastocyst) "The preimplantation embryo of mammals..."
(Google 2 of 163k for: define blastocyst) "the ball of stem cells that develop after a fertilized embryo divides"
(Google 3 of 163k) "cleavage stage mammalian embryo..."
(G4 of 163k) "in mammalian development, cleavage produces a thin walled hollow sphere, whose wall is the trophoblast, with the embryo proper being represented by a mass of cells at one side."
Granite says a human "blastocyst" has "nothing recognizably human."
Turbo and Granite, I'm reposting my comment inserting blastocyst for embryo:
Granite says that a human blastocyst:
Granite said:
Turbo, I imagine Granite is unaware of genetics, and the blastocyst DNA's four billion base pairs, which not only "resemble" something human, but are exactly and identically human in every "way, shape [and] form."
But then, that's just genetics, and you can't expect Granite to see much significance in something so tiny.
Then Granite thought he was describing a blastocyst when he wrote:
Granite said:
But Granite's claim--that a human blastocyst is not sentient--is false. And since he is unqualified to find "[any]thing recognizably human" in a blastocyst, I don't think he's intellectually honest enough to process the argument for the tiny one's sentience.
-Bob Enyart
p.s. While I haven't read this entire thread, I get the feeling that Granite is trying to distract from our challenge by splitting hair DNA over terminology:
(Google Web Definitions #1 for: define blastocyst) "The preimplantation embryo of mammals..."
(Google 2 of 163k for: define blastocyst) "the ball of stem cells that develop after a fertilized embryo divides"
(Google 3 of 163k) "cleavage stage mammalian embryo..."
(G4 of 163k) "in mammalian development, cleavage produces a thin walled hollow sphere, whose wall is the trophoblast, with the embryo proper being represented by a mass of cells at one side."
- Status