Just my OWN observation and feelings on the a couple of subjects:

1) Abortion: I just don't see how killing an unborn baby is in any way justifiable unless the unborn child is of a rape or the child will be born with birth defects or the child's birth will kill the mother.....that is my position and I have thought about it quite a bit but I can not condone women using abortion as a form of birth control...I have known women like this, they could in no way be construed as "good" women.

2) I believe it is cruel for adults, any adults, to use children as PROTECTIVE SHIELDS in any way......a child is not your protection.....you, as an adult/parent, are supposed to protect your children: When migrants approach the U.S. border toting their children, they do so with the full knowledge that this is a dangerous practice that really does endanger the lives of their children.....there is no way that they don't know this.....but they do it any way and they do it because they believe that their children will offer them a free-pass into the U.S....they think that their children will offer them a protective cloak: I believe this is a dastardly, bastardly thing to do....it is certainly cowardly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The baby killed in abortion has no choice. Why do you ignore it's inability to choose? How does a person in slavery exercise less choice than the baby killed in abortion? Why do you not support abortion?

---

I cannot get pregnant nor choose for another human what they're choice is. My friend has 3 kids, loves them dearly, great mom, but her insurance covered her doctor visits to make sure she didn't get pregnant before she was ready for a family. I can respect that and no one ever knew of her personal choice and action. I cannot get pregnant nor make the choice for another, but in my mind those early doctor visits are not abortions, but I just don't support abortions and that's just MY choice. Exceptions possible for rape or incest or health of the mother, as Vac states, and many would agree with that. I honestly don't know how I would feel about it were I a female, but then it would still be MY choice wouldn't it? I don't think a majority of women use it as BC, but I know many use it often.

Quote:

---

2) I believe it is cruel for adults, any adults, to use children as PROTECTIVE SHIELDS in any way......a child is not your protection.....you, as an adult/parent, are supposed to protect your children: When migrants approach the U.S. border toting their children, they do so with the full knowledge that this is a dangerous practice that really does endanger the lives of their children.....there is no way that they don't know this.....but they do it any way and they do it because they believe that their children will offer them a free-pass into the U.S....they think that their children will offer them a protective cloak: I believe this is a dastardly, bastardly thing to do....it is certainly cowardly.

---

Running from certain death with the hope for a better life is an act of love and cowards wouldn't take that chance would they? You don't know without a humane process to find out and act accordingly. This problem ain't going away folks and has been around for 400 years. More in other parts of the world.

I ask you Christians what would Jesus do?

Quote:

---

I ask you Christians what would Jesus do?

---

Now there is the question isn't it? He wouldn't suggest you have health care but would heal the sick free of charge, go you and do likewise. He wouldn't argue with his opponents but convict them of wrongdoing

Quote:

---

I cannot get pregnant nor choose for another human what they're choice is. My friend has 3 kids, loves them dearly, great mom, but her insurance covered her doctor visits to make sure she didn't get pregnant before she was ready for a family. I can respect that and no one ever knew of her personal choice and action. I cannot get pregnant nor make the choice for another, but in my mind those early doctor visits are not abortions, but I just don't support abortions and that's just MY choice. Exceptions possible for rape or incest or health of the mother, as Vac states, and many would agree with that. I honestly don't know how I would feel about it were I a female, but then it would still be MY choice wouldn't it? I don't think a majority of women use it as BC, but I know many use it often.

---

But again, why do you herald choice so much but not choice for the unborn child? Don't you think a human being should have some choice concerning his/her own life? I really don't know what to make of those who will not raise a finger in defense of the lives of the most innocent and defenseless among us.

As to why you don't support abortion, perhaps you should think that through.

BTW, it is an exceedingly small number of abortions that are due to rape or serious birth defects, something on the order of 2 or 3%.

Quote:

---

He wouldn't suggest you have health care but would heal the sick free of charge, go you and do likewise.

---

I can go with that. Doubt doctors would though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

But again, why do you herald choice so much but not choice for the unborn child? Don't you think a human being should have some choice concerning his/her own life? I really don't know what to make of those who will not raise a finger in defense of the lives of the most innocent and defenseless among us.

As to why you don't support abortion, perhaps you should think that through.

BTW, it is an exceedingly small number of abortions that are due to rape or serious birth defects, something on the order of 2 or 3%.

---

An unborn child has no choice. Would you stop a female from seeing her doctor to make sure she does not maintain a possible pregnancy? How about the morning after pill, would you ban those too, and all abortion inducing meds? Maybe you should think through your own means, methods and ideology as well. Neither us is doing very well stopping people from getting an abortion, and I assume neither one of us wants to go back to the days of life threatening back alley abortions either.

Do we?

Quote:

---

An unborn child has no choice.

---

An unborn child has no way to express a choice. That's why those children count on you to protect them.

Quote:

---

Would you stop a female from seeing her doctor to make sure she does not maintain a possible pregnancy?

---

What??

Quote:

---

How about the morning after pill, would you ban those too, and all abortion inducing meds?

---

I just have to ask myself this. Do those meds destroy a human life? If they do, then ban them.

Quote:

---

Neither us is doing very well stopping people from getting an abortion,

---

I'm the only one trying to

I prefer the early education route so better choices can be made. What's you method?

Quote:

---

I prefer the early education route so better choices can be made. What's you method?

---

I think early ed could be useful. It needs to include what happens during an abortion and a strong encouragement to reserve sex for marriage. Better choices? I don't think there are many adult women out there who lack an understanding of what it takes to become pregnant.

Not getting pregnant until one is ready is the goal, but controling human behavior is next to impossible, and stuff does happen, and people make mistakes. The trend is going down, and fact is what of all those unreported abortions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I just have to ask myself this. Do those meds destroy a human life? If they do, then ban them.

---

Is a zygote a human life?

Quote:

---

Is a zygote a human life?

---

That's a good question. I would answer with two questions.

1. Is it human?
2. Is it alive?

You'll have to draw your own conclusions. That was once you. Were you a human life at that time?

If you decide it is not a human life, then at what point does it become one, and what significant event in development makes the difference? That single cell splitting and becoming two cells? The two becoming four? Cellular differentiation? Organ development? A beating heart?

I suppose it just comes down to how you want to view it. The nine months of pregnancy is either one of the absolute marvels and wonders of human existence, or just nothing more than some tissue to flush down the toilet. Your choice, but bear in mind that choices have consequences. We cannot, for instance, tell children that human life is special and sacred unless, of course, you want to kill your unborn baby, and then think they are really going to believe that. If human life is really special and sacred, then abortion is wrong. If abortion is OK, then human life is not really special and sacred. There is no middle ground.

Maybe that's the difference in us, as some see in absolutes, and some see in the full range where there is a middle ground. We have debated when life begins, and some say when the egg is fertilized, some say when it leaves the womb.

I will be honest and abortions after 6 to 8 weeks just creep me out. Cleaning out a zygote not so much. Life can be precious, to some all life is, but of the more than a hundred and 50 million women and a falling KNOWN abortion rate of less than a million a year, that's not a wholesale stampede to kill babies, just the opposite. Instead of perfect behavior, I can take just moving in a good direction and working to improve on the very human flaws we all have.

I don't think we will be perfect in my lifetime, but plenty of room to get better. That's why when I say I prefer the educational approach to this issue it's more than where babies come from and how, but an awareness of HOW to understand and listen to your own female body and know what to do when you have sex, and think you could be pregnant, and as I have said on this site many times, and will say many more ABSTINENCE is the only 100% effective birth control method.

I much prefer the truth of facts while recognizing the intense feelings on this subject by flawed humans. Maybe it seems more people are doing the abortion thing, but I bet it's always been a wider spread practice than has been perceived before, but more is know now, since more has been revealed over time, and more people are expressing their own views on the subject.

The secret is out in the open and I think that's a good thing.

Quote:

---

abortion rate of less than a million a year, that's not a wholesale stampede to kill babies

---

Wow. Merely 900,000 a year? That's more than those killed in auto accidents for the past twenty years combined. It's more than double the number of Americans killed in World War 2. Would you be so casual about it if it was young children being killed at that rate?

Quote:

---

I much prefer the truth of facts

---

Is this an example of your use of "facts"? "I will be honest and abortions after 6 to 8 weeks just creep me out. Cleaning out a zygote not so much." The truth is, the only data you mentioned above was in your seemingly happy acceptance of abortion numbers now being merely "less than a million".

Middle ground? Where is the middle ground between regarding human life as wondrous and sacred versus treating the unborn as so much meat fit for the garbage pile?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Wow. Merely 900,000 a year? That's more than those killed in auto accidents for the past twenty years combined. It's more than double the number of Americans killed in World War 2. Would you be so casual about it if it was young children being killed at that rate?

---

It is what it is, and despite all our combined caring on various levels neither of us has moved the needle very much, have we?

Instead of perfect behavior, I can take just moving in a good direction and working to improve on the very human flaws we all have. You simply cannot control others and your efforts may effect some, but that's not enough. Fact is young children are not killed at that rate are they so don't get hyped on hypotheticals. I noticed you like to add descriptive words to mine like the use of MERELY 900,000 to my post and you need to stop that.

Quote:

---

Is this an example of your use of "facts"? "I will be honest and abortions after 6 to 8 weeks just creep me out. Cleaning out a zygote not so much." The truth is, the only data you mentioned above was in your seemingly happy acceptance of abortion numbers now being merely "less than a million".

---

You do it again, add your words to my post. I just state the facts and not casually as you say so half the problem is you not accurately representing my words. STOP IT! It is NOT a happy acceptance at all so STOP that crap!

Quote:

---

Middle ground? Where is the middle ground between regarding human life as wondrous and sacred versus treating the unborn as so much meat fit for the garbage pile?

---

Can you not communicate without adding your words to my posts? Maybe you need perspective as the million unborn are a small number compared to the 73 million children in America in 2016. I get its an intensely emotional subject for you, but I'm not as emotionally expressive or dismissive as you and I don't twist YOUR words to exaggerate your point, so stop twisting my words through your emotions.

I ain't mad at ya because I feel your pain, but do not share it as intensely. I tend to stay focused on the little I can do to get better outcomes which I admit is inadequate given the size and scope of the problem. Hope you understand.

The fact that we have been part and parcel in the killing of unborn children is disgusting, especially when it is often government sponsored: I really don't know of any other nation, First Word through Third World, who kills as many babies as does the United States....just cannot see where this is a record that we can be proud of.....and it amazes me that those who are ANTI-CAPITAL PUNISHMENT are, normally and simultaneously, PRO-ABRORTION: How do they reconcile this argument: You want to tell me that it is fine to kill a baby but it is a sin to kill a POS who needs to die?

I don't want the government involved with this kind of thing: MURDER INCORPORATED: And, it is incorporated: Planned Parenthood is Government funded in large portion. Why do those that are against abortion have to also pay for it is beyond me: I guess you could call it a "TAX" like they did with the Affordable Care Act.....EVERYTHING IS O.K. as long as its a TAX, right?

Not an entirely accurate post Vac, since the law prohits using any federal money for abortions and PP must use private donations for such activity, producing documents to that effect to get that funding. Actually abortions are but a small part of PP services that million avail themselves of.

Quote:

---

It is what it is,

---

What an incredible conclusion to arrive at. 900,000 dead a year but, hey, it is what it is.

Quote:

---

Instead of perfect behavior, I can take just moving in a good direction and working to improve on the very human flaws we all have. You simply cannot control others and your efforts may effect some, but that's not enough. Fact is young children are not killed at that rate are they so don't get hyped on hypotheticals. I noticed you like to add descriptive words to mine like the use of MERELY 900,000 to my post and you need to stop that.

---

Quote:

---

You do it again, add your words to my post. I just state the facts and not casually as you say so half the problem is you not accurately representing my words. STOP IT! It is NOT a happy acceptance at all so STOP that crap!

---

For a guy that claims to love facts, you sure are fast and loose with the truth. I added nothing to your post. The words you object were my characterization of your post which, though you might object to it, is my prerogative. You do it all the time.

Quote:

---

Actually abortions are but a small part of PP services that million avail themselves of.

---

That's not true. Abortions are a major part of what PP does. As to public funding, it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Don't kid yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

it amazes me that those who are ANTI-CAPITAL PUNISHMENT are, normally and simultaneously, PRO-ABRORTION: How do they reconcile this argument

---

it amazes me that those who are ANTI-ABORTION are, normally and simultaneously, PRO-CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: How do they reconcile this argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What an incredible conclusion to arrive at. 900,000 dead a year but, hey, it is what it is.

---

Unfortunately yes, that is the way it is and if you have a better idea than just talking then express yourself.

Quote:

---

For a guy that claims to love facts, you sure are fast and loose with the truth. I added nothing to your post. The words you object were my characterization of your post which, though you might object to it, is my prerogative. You do it all the time.

---

I'll go with that rather than argue the point, but when I quote someone or copy and paste I don't add or subtract and I will let you know specifically when I characterize what you post.

Quote:

---

That's not true. Abortions are a major part of what PP does. As to public funding, it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Don't kid yourself.

---

You are free to post your links or sources to back up what you say just as I do. 3% according to my link.

Quote:

---

it amazes me that those who are ANTI-ABORTION are, normally and simultaneously, PRO-CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: How do they reconcile this argument?

---

One group is guilty of heinous crimes, generally first degree murder. The other group is the very definition of innocence. Your comment is about as silly as trying to equate opposing abortion with being in favor of self-defense. It's just a ridiculous comparison.

But if a person opposes capital punishment and yet favors abortion, they are then in the position of defending the those guilty of terrible crimes but participating in the killing of the innocent unborn by approving of it. What do you think of that comparison? Can you defend it?

Quote:

---

Unfortunately yes, that is the way it is and if you have a better idea than just talking then express yourself.

---

Stop voting for people who support abortion. Take a principled stand and insist that your candidates support life. But I must warn you that, as a liberal democrat, you will be distinctly in the minority.

Quote:

---

I'll go with that rather than argue the point, but when I quote someone or copy and paste I don't add or subtract and I will let you know specifically when I characterize what you post.

---

When I quote you I do not add or subtract. If you can find where I have added to a QUOTE, then post it here. Otherwise, move on to something else.

Quote:

---

You are free to post your links or sources to back up what you say just as I do. 3% according to my link.

---

And not even the Washington Post agrees with that number. They gave PP three pinochios for that wild tale.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...th-misleading/

They perform more than a third of the abortions done in the U.S. They perform only slightly fewer abortions than pap smears, and 2/3 as many abortions as breast exams. Stop drinking the kool aid!!!

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...ercent-figure/

But, as you love to say, "It is what it is." And no, I did not add to your quote from Post 94. It is bad enough on its own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That's a good question. I would answer with two questions.

1. Is it human?
2. Is it alive?

---

Two questions are not an answer.

Quote:

---

Two questions are not an answer.

---

It's an answer if you're prepared to think a little bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It's an answer if you're prepared to think a little bit.

---

I suggest you do your own thinking and try to come up with an ANSWER.

I did. It's your turn to think, but since you seem unable, I'll do your thinking for you. The answer for the two questions would certainly seem to be "yes". Is it human? Well, if not human, then what? It has to be yes. Plainly it's alive, so that is yes. So if it is human with all the information needed to become fully developed and the complete capacity to do so, and if it is alive, it must be a human life.

All heath care facilities and doctors offices bill the same way, but why argue with you. The numbers are the numbers. 1/3 of abortions nationwide okay. Who does the rest?

As we see 2/3 of abortions are done by clinics other than PP, and doctors offices, and by women themselves using available self abortion methods but the bottom line is the decline of abortions which may not be fast enough for some but obviously females are taking advantage of improved contraception and methods.

Are you shutting down those other clinics doctors and methods too? Maybe in your state for poor women, but obviously there are other means being used besides PP, and abortion clinics.

Whatever your drinking ain't working so stick to Kool Aid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I did. It's your turn to think, but since you seem unable, I'll do your thinking for you. The answer for the two questions would certainly seem to be "yes". Is it human? Well, if not human, then what? It has to be yes. Plainly it's alive, so that is yes. So if it is human with all the information needed to become fully developed and the complete capacity to do so, and if it is alive, it must be a human life.

---

It's NOT your human and since you had nothing to do with the creation, you have nothing to do with the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I did. It's your turn to think, but since you seem unable, I'll do your thinking for you.

---

Aren't you the one who is so quick to point out the insults others make? And yet, you are the biggest offender here.

Quote:

---

The answer for the two questions would certainly seem to be "yes". Is it human? Well, if not human, then what? It has to be yes.

---

Logic is not your strong point. A zygote, you say, has to be human. Why? Because a zygote is human, what else could it be? Amazingly, you have managed to give us three logical fallacies in one example - circular reasoning, tautology and a non-sequitur. Congratulations.

Quote:

---

Plainly it's alive, so that is yes. So if it is human with all the information needed to become fully developed and the complete capacity to do so, and if it is alive, it must be a human life.

---

Faulty reasoning. The zygote contains POTENTIAL human life. POTENTIAL is not the same as ACTUAL.

Quote:

---

It's NOT your human and since you had nothing to do with the creation, you have nothing to do with the outcome.

---

If that is true, then why are you so concerned with the children at the southern border? After all, they are NOT your human since you had nothing to do with their creation, and therefore have nothing to do with the outcome. Is that your approach? I'm just amazed that you would suggest that we should only care for the humans that are OUR children, but have no concern for others. I don't believe you have thought this through adequately.

Quote:

---

Aren't you the one who is so quick to point out the insults others make? And yet, you are the biggest offender here.

---

That is a valid point. I stepped over the line. My apologies. Of course when you refer to my supposed lack of logic below, then aren't you doing what you are criticizing me for doing?

Quote:

---

Logic is not your strong point. A zygote, you say, has to be human. Why? Because a zygote is human, what else could it be? Amazingly, you have managed to give us three logical fallacies in one example - circular reasoning, tautology and a non-sequitur. Congratulations.

---

But aren't you doing the same thing when you refer to it as as containing "potential human life"? My point, which is valid, is that if you don't want to refer to it as human, then what would you call it? If not human, then what? As to it being merely "potential" life, then when does it actually become human life? Perhaps you could tell us what standard you use to determine that point?

BTW, a tautology is not a logical fallacy. It is a logical assertion, but not a fallacy. They are generally considered to be undesirable rather than fallacious. My statement is also not circular reasoning. My statement would be equivalent to saying, "Out of a range of four possible answers (a,b,c,or d) if the answer is not a,b, or c, then it must be d. It is only a non-sequitar if my conclusion does not logically follow from my previous statement. I think it does.

Athos: The reconciliation of the argument is very simple: Babies are innocent as they are ever going to be from that point forward......Those who are subject to Capital Punishment are truly fetid, festering pieces of sh&$ that need to be flushed with lightening speed. I have this same argument with my wife who thinks its not for us to take those decisions belonging to God, that we aren't in a position to make that decision about who lives or dies.....and I always pose the question that if Hitler was standing before her and she had a gun, would she not end his life? The answer is obvious: Sometimes logic drives the answer.

Athos: The reconciliation of the argument is very simple: Babies are innocent as they are ever going to be from that point forward......Those who are subject to Capital Punishment are truly fetid, festering pieces of sh&$ that need to be flushed with lightening speed. I have this same argument with my wife who thinks its not for us to take those decisions belonging to God, that we aren't in a position to make that decision about who lives or dies.....and I always pose the question that if Hitler was standing before her and she had a gun, would she not end his life? The answer is obvious: Sometimes logic drives the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

I always pose the question that if Hitler was standing before her and she had a gun, would she not end his life? The answer is obvious: Sometimes logic drives the answer.

---

So you advocate killing mentally ill people? Hitler most likely suffered from borderline personality disorder.

It's NOT your human and since you had nothing to do with the creation, you have nothing to do with the outcome./T

Quote:

---

If that is true, then why are you so concerned with the children at the southern border? After all, they are NOT your human since you had nothing to do with their creation, and therefore have nothing to do with the outcome. Is that your approach? I'm just amazed that you would suggest that we should only care for the humans that are OUR children, but have no concern for others. I don't believe you have thought this through adequately. /JL

---

I may not have anything to do with the outcome of their creation, but after birth all humans are equal and should be treated as such, especially the least of us. If you cannot see the nuance of that perception, then you are missing something pretty basic, and maybe give it some thought. For sure guy, your positions are not mine, and while I understand your intensity, I do not accept or understand your premise, that you can control the choices others make. Maybe I cannot control what others do, but I can control what I do. I suspect you are also bound by that same limitation, though I doubt it stops you from trying and that's okay with me. The good news though is states can make laws and policies that comport with the laws and policies of the country and simple fact is the majority rules that determination.

I have no doubt you will just keep trying to change the law that limits what you can do. Or change it back to what you have done before. Stop abortions. Seems to work in your state and a few others but in some, they just feel different about it.

W.G.: No, I do not advocate killing mentally ill people.....I do not advocate euthanasia, either. However, Hitler was the embodiment of EVIL, way beyond mentally ill.....I mean, if Hitler was mentally ill, was not Stalin, was not Mao, was not the Khans, or all of the other murdering "leaders" of all time. I do think Hitler was a mad, rabid dog...and the only medicine that can cure rabies is a bullet.

Quote:

---

but after birth all humans are equal and should be treated as such, especially the least of us. If you cannot see the nuance of that perception, then you are missing something pretty basic, and maybe give it some thought.

---

I think you take that position, not because it makes any real sense, but simply because it makes your support of abortion seem reasonable. But by that thinking, we can have an unborn baby, perhaps a day or two from delivery and well into the ninth month. That baby can be killed in the womb and then the corpse removed and disposed of. You have no problem with that. Well, I can't change your mind for you, but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe. Trying to hide behind "the nuance of that perception" might make you feel a little better, but it's such a hideous idea that I can't imagine how you can be comfortable with it. It is well known that most babies in the third trimester are able to survive and grow normally outside the womb, but in your zeal to support the liberal democrat party candidates, it seems you have to grasp at straws to abide with their whole-hearted endorsement of abortion. Taking the purely arbitrary position that birth somehow changes a person's status has no support in science or even in common sense. Dear God what a horrible position that is. I'm glad it's not mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That is a valid point. I stepped over the line. My apologies. Of course when you refer to my supposed lack of logic below, then aren't you doing what you are criticizing me for doing?

---

Apology accepted. Yes, I'm doing what I crticized you for. The difference is, you are the one whining about insults. I am only reacting to you.

Quote:

---

But aren't you doing the same thing when you refer to it as as containing "potential human life"? My point, which is valid, is that if you don't want to refer to it as human, then what would you call it?

---

I would call it what it is - a zygote. Your "point" is just a word game.

Quote:

---

being merely "potential" life, then when does it actually become human life?

---

I don't know. Viability has been suggested. That seems reasonable to me.

Quote:

---

Perhaps you could tell us what standard you use to determine that point?

---

Viability? Aristotle, two thousand years of Catholic Church teaching, many various modern voices - all denying abortion is murder. The RC reversed its position around 1900. But their motives are complex - too much so to get into here.

Quote:

---

BTW, a tautology is not a logical fallacy. It is a logical assertion, but not a fallacy.

---

Wrong. See below.

Quote:

---

My statement is also not circular reasoning.

---

Wrong. See below.

Quote:

---

It is only a non-sequitar if my conclusion does not logically follow from my previous statement.

---

It doesn't. See below.

Tautology and circular reasoning are so similar that only a teacher of philosophy would differentiate. So I will give you a technical correct. A non-sequitur, however, is arguably a part of every logical fallacy - the conclusion not being supported by the premises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

W.G.: No, I do not advocate killing mentally ill people.....I do not advocate euthanasia, either. However, Hitler was the embodiment of EVIL, way beyond mentally ill.....I mean, if Hitler was mentally ill, was not Stalin, was not Mao, was not the Khans, or all of the other murdering "leaders" of all time. I do think Hitler was a mad, rabid dog...and the only medicine that can cure rabies is a bullet.

---

So let's kill him/them.

Quote:

---

Tautology and circular reasoning are so similar that only a teacher of philosophy would differentiate. So I will give you a technical correct. A non-sequitur, however, is arguably a part of every logical fallacy - the conclusion not being supported by the premises.

---

I didn't disagree with you referring to a non-sequitur being a logical fallacy. I said I was not guilty of it. As to tautologies and circular reasoning, the first is simply a logical assertion. Tautologies, by definition, are always true. They are frequently rather simplistic, obvious statements that, while being true, add very little meaning. They can be viewed as the opposite of a contradiction. Circular reasoning, however, is a wide spread logical fallacy. I think that much of advertising is based on circular reasoning. You see it all the time.

Quote:

---

being merely "potential" life, then when does it actually become human life?
I don't know. Viability has been suggested. That seems reasonable to me.

---

If you don't know, then how would you know that a zygote is not an actual human life? In other words, it is quite possible that you could be wrong since, after all, you don't know.

As to viability, if medicine is some day able to take a zygote and have it develop to maturity outside the womb, then would that make the zygote a human life since it would then meet the definition of viability? That's a legitimate question since medical science is continually pushing the age of viability further and further back. It seems strange to me to attach the value of human life to the abilities of medical science. You will always have a moving target.

Quote:

---

So let's kill him/them.

---

Why would we not believe that your assessment of Hitler's mental illness is pure speculation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If you don't know, then how would you know that a zygote is not an actual human life? In other words, it is quite possible that you could be wrong since, after all, you don't know.

---

Here ya go, Biology 101:
https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-scie...vs-emrbyo.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Why would we not believe that your assessment of Hitler's mental illness is pure speculation?

---

It isn't. Google that. As a well-trained and experienced psychotherapist, I agree with that diagnosis.

Quote:

---

Here ya go, Biology 101:
https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-scie...vs-emrbyo.html

---

You do realize that your link added nothing to our conversation about what constitutes human life? It was simply a basic discussion of the development of the zygote, none of which was in debate here, and it added nothing to the statement of Athos that he did not know when human life began, so I'm not sure of what your purpose was.

As to Hitler's supposed mental illness, I long for the day on this site when people will learn to defend their assertions with something other than the ubiquitous (on this site) plea to "google it". If you have some information, then present it. Otherwise, I still see your diagnosis as pure speculation.

Speculation? Or is this lying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I think you take that position, not because it makes any real sense, but simply because it makes your support of abortion seem reasonable. But by that thinking, we can have an unborn baby, perhaps a day or two from delivery and well into the ninth month. That baby can be killed in the womb and then the corpse removed and disposed of. You have no problem with that. Well, I can't change your mind for you, but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe. Trying to hide behind "the nuance of that perception" might make you feel a little better, but it's such a hideous idea that I can't imagine how you can be comfortable with it. It is well known that most babies in the third trimester are able to survive and grow normally outside the womb, but in your zeal to support the liberal democrat party candidates, it seems you have to grasp at straws to abide with their whole-hearted endorsement of abortion. Taking the purely arbitrary position that birth somehow changes a person's status has no support in science or even in common sense. Dear God what a horrible position that is. I'm glad it's not mine.

---

Actually this is what I wrote about my position.

'Maybe that's the difference in us, as some see in absolutes, and some see in the full range where there is a middle ground. We have debated when life begins, and some say when the egg is fertilized, some say when it leaves the womb.

I will be honest and abortions after 6 to 8 weeks just creep me out. Cleaning out a zygote not so much. Life can be precious, to some all life is, but of the more than a hundred and 50 million women and a falling KNOWN abortion rate of less than a million a year, that's not a wholesale stampede to kill babies, just the opposite. Instead of perfect behavior, I can take just moving in a good direction and working to improve on the very human flaws we all have.

I don't think we will be perfect in my lifetime, but plenty of room to get better. That's why when I say I prefer the educational approach to this issue it's more than where babies come from and how, but an awareness of HOW to understand and listen to your own female body and know what to do when you have sex, and think you could be pregnant, and as I have said on this site many times, and will say many more ABSTINENCE is the only 100% effective birth control method.

I much prefer the truth of facts while recognizing the intense feelings on this subject by flawed humans. Maybe it seems more people are doing the abortion thing, but I bet it's always been a wider spread practice than has been perceived before, but more is know now, since more has been revealed over time, and more people are expressing their own views on the subject.

The secret is out in the open and I think that's a good thing.'

I'll be nice for now and just put your posting down as the rantings of a flawed human with reading and perception problems. Hope you get better soon.