Of course it is not after you changed my words.
Is America great?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Of course it is not after you changed my words.
Except perhaps, revisioning it via the same discourtesy.
noguru
Well-known member
Your words were inaccurate as you yourself admitted though not directly, but in agreeing to my more accurate descriptions.
noguru
Well-known member
I will repeat this, since you did agree with my more accurate description, yet you keep avoiding that reality and retreating back to your less accurate description.
A fetus is the start of a human being. It is not a complete human being until death. A human being starts at conception, and is completed at death. A fetus is the start of a human being that is still physically dependent (consider the placenta and all) on its mother, until that child is born. Even then a child is relatively dependent on other humans until it is of legal age. Even then humans are somewhat dependent on other human beings. Even recluses must make social contact at times.
But the important issue here is a mother carrying the child to full term. Or at least to the point where a premature birth can be saved through medical intervention.
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Re: "Unchallenged:" Persuasion. Not force.
Re: Holocaust: False analogy to abortion.
They're is nothing in mans homicide law's that command's anybody to kill anybody else. Please provide any reference's you think do.
Daniel
noguru
Well-known member
Your strategy of avoiding detail when detail does not seem to you to serve your purpose is your own worst enemy.
You have not posted a scientific reference supporting your hypothesis. You just want us to believe you apparently.
noguru
Well-known member
Hypothesis?
Do you know what a formalized hypothesis is?
I posted detail that is accurate and blows your oversimplified claims out of the water. You can wiggle and try to divert attention from reality all you want. But in the end, you failed. And you will continue to fail if you continue with your chosen strategy.
Your use of hypothesis there indicates that you do not even have a good grasp of the philosophy of science in regard to theory, hypothesis, verification and falsification.
Fundamentals on writing a hypothesis.
Let's do this. You put your proposed model into a format that is formalized and can be verified/falsified. I will do the same for my proposed model. Then we can compare them to the evidence and see whose "hypothesis" has been verified/falsified.
Last edited:
Here is a link to Princeton Univ. quotes on when human life begins per science:
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
noguru
Well-known member
We have both agreed that conception is the start of a human organism. That is not the debate.
So your reference is irrelevant to the difference in our proposed models. If you are claiming your model is more accurate, you need to format it into a formalized hypothesis. I claim my model is more accurate because it is more detailed.
In fact your reference supports my model over yours, because it differentiates between embryo and fetus. And also supports my previous claim that a human gestation is a continuum and not a binary on/off switch.
Also your article is a compilation of quotes taken from other articles. It would be very useful to find the original articles and read them in their entirety. Rather than just your selected and abridged quotes that are obviously designed in that way to support your claims. I call attention to the last quote where some detail is obviously excluded, and perhaps that is an attempt by you to deceive us about what the original article says. And even in their design they fail at the purpose you claim for them.
Last edited:
I just got finish reading th opinion from Roe and Wade. Wow, not only did they butcher the history of the Catholic Churches centuries long opposition to abortion at any time they completely ignored other legal precedences in the world such as Nasciritus law and the American Convention of Human Rights, which declared life at conception. Our Supreme Court has been a joke for a long time.
noguru
Well-known member
I see. It could not possibly be that you are a sham and a political tool. It is the supreme court justices who do not agree with you.
I thought you were a citizen of Chile now.
Can man's laws usurp God's laws?
You are right there is no debate. A unique person is created at conception. Per the lexical definition homicide is the taking of the life of another person. Abortion is homicide.
Now, do you want to explain why it is a justifiable homicide?
noguru
Well-known member
Are you sure that is the question you want to ask?
Perhaps you mean:
Has man's law usurped God's law?
or
Should man's law usurp God's law?
I don't think you are accurate enough about things to get God's law right.
noguru
Well-known member
I corrected your inaccuracies again.
Now, do you want to explain why you keep leaving out the detail we have covered in depth many times?
Now that we have our definitions more accurate, would you like to know if I think abortion is wrong?
Would you like to know my reasoning behind that?
Dan Emanuel
Active member
The law recognize's the person as a real legal entity (with right's) at birth and not before.
Daniel
I see, you think this is a high school debate competition. Needless, to say God is not impressed with semantics. As the Bible says when the sins grow so great the land will vomit us out.
The Germans also had laws to kill Jews just like America has a law to kill unborn children. Just like Germany we will be reprimanded.