Yup, you lost. Sorry.
liberty student != Max. I have a blog. He has a forum.
Until you give up.
How do you know? When does life start?
Where did I say anyone had a right to life? That’s a strawman (your specialty, it’s why you have lost), and if you can’t prove I said that, you have lost this argument again (for what now, the 5th time?)!
I feel bad for beating you so many times in one day. Maybe that is why you are the knight of baawaaaaaahaaaa boooooo hooooo sniffle
How is it plainly invalid? Seriously, I’m all ears. I can’t discuss with the Knight of BooHoo anymore, he’s been roundly defeated over and over.
In order for it not to be alive, you would have to know when it is alive, or a life.
In order for it not to be invited into the body, we would have to prove that the woman did not allow sperm and ovum to mix. If she did, she has invited the opportuniity for pregnancy.
Jon, I really respect your knowledge. I’m curious. Is a baby property?
liberty student clearly has no grasp of English, since I asked if you, like Max, were doing those things. I did not say “are you Max”. Perhaps you should start reading every single letter in every single word.
Not going to happen.
So before the egg and sperm meet, there’s a person? Srsly? What sort of idiotic quasi-Hegelian garbage is that? Did you mean to demonstrate your abject idiocy?
Your argument hinges upon it, and it is the question you beg.
Now get to it. And get over your butthurt.
It’s been explained to you, little one. It’s been demolished over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Here’s something for you to demonstrate: before the egg and sperm meet, the fetus exists. That is what you’re claiming with your idiotic “invited” analogy. Yeah, you are. Don’t care if you think you’re not, you are.
So show that before the egg and sperm meet, the fetus exists. Show it. Go on. Fly in the face of biology! DO IT!
Or go slink back to your cave, because you’ve been seriously pwnt.
M a y b e y o u s h o u l d w r i t e e v e r y p o s t l i k e t h i s .
Not smart enough to quit, eh?
We’re back to the creation of a person. Yes, I mean to demonstrate my abject idiocy by providing a reflection of your posts.
I wouldn’t say beg. I stopped taking you seriously 3 posts ago.
I had a feeling your obsession with me bordered on anal fixation. In fact, since I damaged your argument so badly, I was going to offer you some midol, in rectal suppository form. [:)]
You keep on bringing up consent, contracts &c. as if any of it matters. It is irrelevant. The question is whether the mother can be forced into bringing the foetus to birth. But there was no person to speak of with which to make the agreement. And slavery contracts are invalid. So all we are speaking of here is the eviction of a trespasser, one that was not even invited (unless, it’s possible to invite a non-person.) It might be the case that if the trespasser could be evicted without harming it, that that option could be pursued. But if it can’t, abortion is perfectly fine. Whether the thing has rights of its own or not is utterly besides the point. Why the status of a lump of cells in a woman’s womb matters to some so much is beyond me.
-Jon
How can you call it a trespasser, when it did not willfully enter her body? I’m not trying to be obtuse, please humour me so I can leave this thread enlightened, forever.
Trespass is the entry to someone else’s property without their permission. If the woman knowingly engages in behavior that can and does create pregnancy, this was not without permission. She may not like it, but she certainly provided permission for it. It reminds me of some cases where two people have sex, and the next day one claims rape, without cause, even though the sex was consensual. Surely we wouldn’t stand for this being a genuine case of rape, and I don’t see how anyone can make a case for trespass. Even less so since the fetus doesn’t pick the mother.
If anything, the fetus is a squatter, not a trespasser. In fact, if the woman carries it into the 3rd trimester, it surely has not trespassed, or remained in her, without permission.
See, that’s another breakdown in the position you stated. She can carry the fetus until she changes her mind, then she can expel it on a whim. Which I could get my head around, if we can be sure it is not a living being. But the libertarian view on abortion says that a woman can abort 1 minute before birth, but not 1 minute after birth, and I struggle to understand what the difference is 1 minute before birth, when she has allowed the fetus to develop and grow for over 250 days.
As to the status of a lump of cells, I used to see it like that. I’m not so sure now. If only someone could tell me when life begins…
What’s the matter, tough guy? Don’t like it when someone stands up to you?
Then show that prior to sperm and egg meeting, there is a “person”. Go on. That’s what you’re claiming.
I would, because I know the fallacy name and what it means. And you haven’t stopped taking me seriously at all. In fact: you want my validation of yourself. That’s why you can’t stop responding.
Now then, little boy: grow up.
How can you call it invited when it didn’t exist as a person!
lol
lol. I’m not responding to you. I beat your arguments almost 2 dozen times in this thread already!
Good luck on the next discussion!
Well, if you think that women should be able to buy the morning after pill over the counter, then for all practical purposes, you seem to be admitting that at least this type of abortion can’t be outlawed.
And yet you are. Quite schizoid.
Don’t worry, little one: you’re not the first to get all butthurt from tangling with me, and you won’t be the last.
Ok, I spoke to my wife about it, and it seems to be that the morning after pill does not abort an embryo or fetus. It just stops conception from taking place. But I will have to check into it further. If this is the case, than it would not be considered an abortion, but birth control instead. As such, my case would still stand, that conception is the beginning of life, and as such, abortion should still be illegal.
Well, the baby was neither invited nor trespassing. The baby simply grew there. And given that the baby is the one using the uteris, it can be argued that the baby is actually a co-owner of the uteris.
try google and you’ll get a different opinion…for instance :
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9463
"CNA STAFF, May 25, 2007 / 11:33 am (CNA).- The most recent scientific study on Levonorgestrel, the essential component of the “morning-after pill” or “emergency contraceptive,” confirms that the drug does indeed have a third effect on users, which consists in preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the womb of the mother. "
At conception, once the fertilized egg has attached itself to the uteris.
And I would say this is not ending life, but keeping it from starting, which is what birth control is supposed to do.
plan B is two pills which you take together. If taken within 72 hours, it prevents pregnancy by doing one of three things:
Temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary
Prevents fertilization
Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus
You would say that and you’d be totally wrong. Conception means fertilization. To prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg is ‘technically’ an abortion.