Abortionists killing babes after birth? Infanticide okay?

Like Reagan said..."I notice all the abortion fans, have already been born".

 

Right, keep carrying on with your whole grammar piece... thats a nice touch. You are a real beauty, you know that?

You think it's okay to kill unborn children? Do you honestly think I'm going to take you seriously with an attitude like that? Everything you say pre packaged liberal nonsense.

 

That is not what my argument amounts to at all. My argument is simply that an acorn is an oak tree - and a zygote is not a living human.

Therefor - the claim "unborn child" as applied to all stages of pregnancy - is logical fallacy on steroids.

If you want to believe in the Catholic concept of ensoulment - you are welcome to your belief. The problem is that if we are talking Law - you need to prove your claim for that law to be legitimate.

Why are you repeating what I stated to you in a previous post. I clearly pointed out that in order for a human to exist - all previous stages need to happen - of which the zygote is one.

This is called the metabolic perspective if you want to talk Science - There are 5 different scientific perspectives on when human life begins - Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Ecological, Neurological.

Human life is a continuum. Animate does not come from inanimate. It is not like human life exists - and then at some point does not exist - and then reappears at conception.

The zygote is an important stage - no doubt about it. It is the stage where a complete human DNA has been created - but - this does not mean a living human exist. A human heart cell has the same DNA - yet this is not a human.

What is then the significant difference between a human heart cell and the zygote (a single human cell) - that makes one a human while the other is not?

Hint: The only significant difference is that the DNA in the zygote has the program codes "create a human" activated.

You may now explain how the zygote is a human on account of this significant difference?

 

One of literally thousands of paradoxes the liberal left find themselves in. I was born but future generations should not have that right they should be killed, brilliant, absolutely brilliant logic right there.

To be honest, I've had liberals tell me they would be better off dead and they should have been aborted. At that point you just have to step back and realize you are not dealing with a person who deals in logic. You are dealing with a person who deals in deception where truth becomes secondary. The ends justify the means, and this is how democrats operate.

 

Who knows - perhaps life was better in the place where I was prior to coming to earth

What a silly question- which in no way addresses the issue at hand - which is your inability to form a coherent argument that shows a zygote is a living human.

 

One has a soul and the other does not.

 

A zygote has a soul. Happy now, Professor Calculus?

 

1) you have never addressed any of my arguments. What is unbelievably ridiculous is you claiming that my arguments are flawed - but not saying how.

It is clear that you do not know what an argument is. Let me assist you.

An argument consists of 2 things 1) statement of premise or claim 2) rational that shows this claim is true.

Continuously repeating a premise is not an argument - you are very good at making naked claims - not so good at backing those claims up.

Second - if you are going to claim the founders were against abortion - from a legal perspective - show proof of claim.

 

You may now explain how terminating a zygote does not terminate a human life.

 

This is too much for me, I need my reefer, nightcap...aghhh...that's better!

 

It is not my fault that you do not know the difference between a noun and a descriptive adjective - and mistake one for the other.

Newsflash - "Human Feces" is not a living human.

It is also not my fault that you can't form a coherent argument that supports your claim that a single human cell is a child.

Given your complete inability to support your claim with anything other than repetition of premise - usually followed by name calling because you have no ability to respond to information that conflicts with your claim - why should anyone take you seriously ?

 

LOL - is that the best you can manage ? Does the sperm not have a soul ? You don't know the answer to that question - any more than you know if the zygote has a soul.

Did God sit down with you for tea the other day and say "Iron Merc - I tell you true - the zygote has a soul"

Even if one believes this - it is not legitimate justification for making law.

There is a difference between 1) having a religious belief and 2) forcing that religious belief on others through physical violence (Law).

The founders were very clear on this -which is one of the reasons we have separation of Church and State - thank God.

 

1) a zygote is not a fetus
2) Posting a pic of some woman who lived in the 1800's - is supposed to convince me of what ? - and why would it matter that this woman was a presidential candidate other than an monstrous appeal to authority fallacy.
3) You have yet to support your claim that a zygote is a living human.

 

The founding fathers were Christian. They had a vastly different world view that you have. They actually protected life because they understand the value of life and the sanctity of life. Concepts that seem to fly straight over your head.

 

Terminating a zygote does terminate human life. The life of the zygote.

Asking someone to prove a negative is fallacious gibberish in any case. Just because you can't prove the moon around pluto is not made of green cheese - does not mean it is.

Your claim - is that the zygote is a living human. It is not up to me to disprove your claim - it is up to you to prove your claim.

Why did you avoid the question in my post ? How does the significant difference between a zygote and a human heart cell - "DNA codes for create a human activated" make one a human while the other is not.

 

This is where, i noticed a glaring contradiction from your earlier, contention. ^

 

The founders had a very similar world view to me. You on the other hand don't know squat about the world view of the founders.

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88 ) , from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

 

Nobody cares.

In any event, there is something called a moral compass. You clearly do not have one. This is fine - most liberals dont. So you get to be subjective when it comes to morality and it feels good, doesnt it? Being able to do exactly what you want when you want to? What gives you the right to deny that childs future? What gives you the right to play God?

Lets just put this into perspective, shall we?



By the way, I am still waiting for you to explain why unborn children are NOT covered by the right to life as stated in our DoI?

 

And dont forget George Washington!

 

What contradiction ? If you are going to claim that this statement " Killing the zygote terminates human life" contradicts on of my other statements .. then give what the other statement is.

Don't confuse your lack of understanding the difference between a noun and a descriptive adjective -as contradiction on my part.

 

If you look at an acorn as just something to be trodden, underfoot...or blown off the driveway...you will never see a great, live oak. or the scars

 

You know you should take a road trip through new England one of these days. Maybe check out the churches...there is usually at least one in every town or village -- and they are typically right in the center of town. Shows you were are society was at before we started butchering babies.

 

Running around crying "liberal liberal" which I am not BTW - but even if I was - this is not an argument for anything. Do you still not understand what an argument is ?

You are the one that lacks a moral compass - just like the radical Islamists - you want to force your religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law).

What gives you the right to play God?? Says the fellow who runs around "speaking for God" PRICELESS - with a capital P

You never explain any of your claims - or respond to information that conflicts with your claims. I on the other hand provide evidence that supports my claims .. and while I have already explained to you before why the unborn are not covered .. I shall do so again.

The DOI - "life liberty, happiness" only applied to "Humans" unless they happened to be black humans - at the time the definition of human was not as it is today- and many folks looked at blacks as sub human.

 

I LOLed IMHO...post deserves, nothing more....

You claimed a zygote is not human. It's obviously not an empty, pop can.

 

Dude - It is not my fault that you can't figure out the difference between "Human life" and "A human"

A human cell is human life - but it is not a human. Simple