Why Reality Blows Up Anti-Abortion Rhetoric

[Vol8188]

You might want to do some research before saying things like this.

School shootings are at an all time high, and its not close.

Charts & Graphs - K-12 School Shooting Database

Lol what source is that? The center for homeland defense and security? Be honest. You scrolled through the interwebs until you found the one obscure source no one has ever heard of that supports your argument.

NPR has done great reporting on two basic facts.

1. A lot of these “school shootings” left wing trackers count never happened.

2. School shootings are down and are not a growing trend. They peaked in the 90s

 

[PKT_VOL]

Anyone who has had even a middle school science class should know and understand that life does begin at conception.

You can proclaim that life isn’t developed to a level worthy of legal protections. But you can’t argue it’s not life without completely embarrassing yourself

I have a little more than a middle school education in science and I don't understand life beginning at conception.

Regardless, it is the wrong question. Only the question of personhood matters.

 

[PKT_VOL]

That column was trash. If you want to break down the exact issues with it I can.

Science is clear. No legitimate scientist using any valid, accepted standard for what life is, would proclaim an unborn child is anything other than alive. Typically these are the things required for life.

1. Consume energy
2. Respond to stimuli
3. Can grow
4. can reproduce (this is why viruses, sperm, and eggs are not alive)

This is a horrible list. By this logic, an infertile human isn't alive.

 

[Vol8188]

I have a little more than a middle school education in science and I don't understand life beginning at conception.

Regardless, it is the wrong question. Only the question of personhood matters.

Then you don’t understand the biological definition of life. I laid out the criteria in a previous post. Can you explain how it’s not a separate life form at conception? What criteria of life does it not meet?

 

[Vol8188]

This is a horrible list. By this logic, an infertile human isn't alive.

That’s not how this works.

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

Lol what source is that? The center for homeland defense and security? Be honest. You scrolled through the interwebs until you found the one obscure source no one has ever heard of that supports your argument.

NPR has done great reporting on two basic facts.

1. A lot of these “school shootings” left wing trackers count never happened.

2. School shootings are down and are not a growing trend. They peaked in the 90s

I'm honestly not going to argue with you because you are clearly not very intelligent, but you just attacked my source using NPR podcasts from almost 4 years ago. Weak af.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Then you don’t understand the biological definition of life. I laid out the criteria in a previous post. Can you explain how it’s not a separate life form at conception? What criteria of life does it not meet?

Separate life form is a different qualifier than merely life. Regardless, you would be hard pressed to argue that gametes are not separate life forms from their hosts.

 

[PKT_VOL]

That’s not how this works.

It was your list; not mine.

 

[Vol8188]

Separate life form is a different qualifier than merely life. Regardless, you would be hard pressed to argue that gametes are not separate life forms from their hosts.

I’m not claiming gametes are separate life forms. A gamete lacks the ability to reproduce.

 

[Vol8188]

It was your list; not mine.

You’re misunderstanding the list and it’s not mine. It’s a common biological definition of life

 

[Vol8188]

I'm honestly not going to argue with you because you are clearly not very intelligent, but you just attacked my source using NPR podcasts from almost 4 years ago. Weak af.

You’ve literally never even heard of your own source. On top of that I have no doubt many of their listed “shootings” are the ones already debunked by NPR

 

[PKT_VOL]

I’m not claiming gametes are separate life forms. A gamete lacks the ability to reproduce.

In order for that to follow, gametes would have to analogous with their hosts cells (they are not) and gametes would have to not be the building blocks of reproduction.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You’re misunderstanding the list and it’s not mine. It’s a common biological definition of life

You posted the list as a defense of your position.

The philosophy of biology has been very sloppy for a long time.

 

[Vol8188]

In order for that to follow, gametes would have to analogous with their hosts cells (they are not) and gametes would have to not be the building blocks of reproduction.

You lost me. Why do they have to be analogous and idk what you mean by building blocks of replication?

gametes cannot reproduce. Your other cells. Your other cells meet the definition of life. Once fertilization occurs the two cells combine to create a complete set of dna and begin replicating, they now meet that definition too.

 

[Vol8188]

You posted the list as a defense of your position.

The philosophy of biology has been very sloppy for a long time.

Can you provide any scientific reason as to why a child would be considered a separate life form until birth?

 

[PKT_VOL]

You lost me. Why do they have to be analogous /QUOTE]

If one is to argue that gametes are not separate entities, it would stand to reason that is because they are analogous to the cells from which they are not considered separate.

and idk what you mean by building blocks of replication?

They are the building blocks of replication for mammals. We cannot replicate without them.

QUOTE="Vol8188, post: 20615885, member: 41239"]gametes cannot reproduce. Your other cells. Your other cells meet the definition of life. Once fertilization occurs the two cells combine to create a complete set of dna and begin replicating, they now meet that definition too.

So, because they do not replicate via mitosis, like the other cells in your body, we are going to magically declare that cannot reproduce?

 

[Septic]

If you truly believe (I don’t think you do) that a child isn’t alive until they’re born (an odd view that location determines life) then the only way to be consistent with that view is to support unlimited abortion until birth.

Do you believe an abortion at 9 months should be legal?

Lol, have you gotten anyone in here to bite on this?

Good luck.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Can you provide any scientific reason as to why a child would be considered a separate life form until birth?

Nope. It isn't a scientific question.

 

[Vol8188]

So, because they do not replicate via mitosis, like the other cells in your body, we are going to magically declare that cannot reproduce?

Right, the same reason viruses are not considered to be alive. I wouldn’t say I’m magically declaring. I’m basing it off a common biological definition. Do you have a different definition you can provide?

 

[Vol8188]

Nope. It isn't a scientific question.

If something is alive seems like a question of science

 

[Vol8188]

Lol, have you gotten anyone in here to bite on this?

Good luck.

Idk why you guys won’t answer? He claimed an unborn child isn’t alive. If so, he should have no issue with late term abortions for any reason and at any point.

Right?

 

[Septic]

Idk why you guys won’t answer? He claimed an unborn child isn’t alive. If so, he should have no issue with late term abortions for any reason and at any point.

Right?

I already told you once, I don't answer for other people or assume another person's argument. I'm just amazed you're still baiting people with this "abortion up to 9 months" nonsense.

No rational person supports that, using that as a talking point is silly. Abandon this, as I said yesterday - you're tilting at windmills.

 

[Vol8188]

I already told you once, I don't answer for other people. I'm just amazed you're still baiting people with this "abortion up to 9 months" nonsense.

No rational person supports that, using that as a talking point is silly. Abandon this, as I said yesterday - you're tilting at windmills.

How’s that a nonsense question? He stated a child is not alive until it’s born. If he really believe that why would he have an issue with any abortion ever?

If you don’t believe a child is alive, what’s the problem with a late abortion?

 

[Vol8188]

I already told you once, I don't answer for other people or assume another person's argument. I'm just amazed you're still baiting people with this "abortion up to 9 months" nonsense.

No rational person supports that, using that as a talking point is silly. Abandon this, as I said yesterday - you're tilting at windmills.

In your mind I’m presenting some weird strawman. But I’m simply showing the issue in his claim. Anyone who claims a child is not alive or that a child has no rights, should also support abortion until birth.

What other possible arguments would they have against a late abortion?

 

[Septic]

In your mind I’m presenting some weird strawman. But I’m simply showing the issue in his claim. Anyone who claims a child is not alive or that a child has no rights, should also support abortion until birth.

What other possible arguments would they have against a late abortion?

It's not a strawman, you're baiting people with an argument no one is having. I haven't seen anyone here suggest abortion up till 9 months should be legal. Yet you keep strutting around pretending it is and looking to pick a fight over it.

I'm just amused at your ginned up high ground.