RebelKev Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Extremely primitive and incomplete stem.  The spinal column doesn't even reach all the way through the body.. it's still as soft as play-dough.... and there is **no higher brain whatsoever** ... we're talking about the equivalent of a brain stem that doesn't even have lung functionality yet.    Pfffffft.  Get real.

Do you honestly think all nerves come from the spinal cord? Sucks for those Parapalegics. With no heartbeat and all.

For the sake of argument, we'll say by some miracle every fetus has a heartbeat b/c there is apparently a nervous system involving just the heart in place.

That still does not change the fact that there is NO:
- Brain other than rudimentary brain stem
- Developed spinal column or nerves therein
- Blood that said heart is pumping.

YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT for christ's sakes... it's obvious that heart is doing nothing but "twitching" ... it's serving NO purpose yet. You can even see through the friggin' head and see there is NO brain yet.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:For the sake of argument, we'll say by some miracle every fetus has a heartbeat b/c there is apparently a nervous system involving just the heart in place.

That still does not change the fact that there is NO:
- Brain other than rudimentary brain stem
- Developed spinal column or nerves therein
- Blood that said heart is pumping.

YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT for christ's sakes... it's obvious that heart is doing nothing but "twitching" ... it's serving NO purpose yet.  You can even see through the friggin' head and see there is NO brain yet.

You can somewhat see through some shrimp. It doesn't mean the organs don't exist. I'm not saying that the baby has a full brain 2 seconds after conception. I'm saying that the brain is developing from the time the cells start splitting and specializing. Just as the heart. While the heart may, and that is a huge may, start developing before the brain, it doesn't mean it is functioning. For that to happen, there must be something controlling the CNS.

RebelKev Wrote:You can somewhat see through some shrimp. It doesn't mean the organs don't exist. I'm not saying that the baby has a full brain 2 seconds after conception. I'm saying that the brain is developing from the time the cells start splitting and specializing. Just as the heart. While the heart may, and that is a huge may, start developing before the brain, it doesn't mean it is functioning. For that to happen, there must be something controlling the CNS.

Comparing to a shrimp is laughable. What I showed you is HIGHLY translucent... in fact, it is at that point in the pregnancy the fetus is most vulnerable to any chemicals (alchohal, etc)... can you see why? I can. There is *clearly* no blood the heart is pumping and *clearly* no brain.

OK... if I take somebody... completely remove their spinal cord and brain.... then put electrodes on their arm and pump moderate voltage through them... do you think the arms will contract and release?

They will.

Is there a central nervous system in that person?

There isn't.

Electro-signals do not indicate a working CNS... it indicates only a localized set of nerves that respond to firing of chemicals across a synapse. Fact of the matter is... that heart is beating almost certainly due to a rudimentary brain stem and upper spinal column that is forming at the time.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:OK... if I take somebody... completely remove their spinal cord and brain.... then put electrodes on their arm and pump moderate voltage through them... do you think the arms will contract and release?

They will.

Is there a central nervous system in that person?

There isn't.

Electro-signals do not indicate a working CNS... it indicates only a localized set of nerves that respond to firing of chemicals across a synapse. Fact of the matter is... that heart is beating almost certainly due to a rudimentary brain stem and upper spinal column that is forming at the time.

You are proving my point. It takes impulses for muscles to contract. I stated that it takes a CNS. Adding voltage mocks a CNS.

So tell me, if there is no voltage pumping through the fetuses heart, what is making the heart beat?

We aren't talking about a fully-functional human being here. Everything is developing....to INCLUDE the heart.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:[I see.

So since he's pro-death penalty and pro-choice he must be pro-death. I mean, cause you're either for death or against it.

Well I have only heard of one person who defeated death and guess what he was given the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit. Talk about something that makes you go hmmmm......

Quote:FYI, if someone breaks into my house to harm my family, I will kill them.

That is your choice, but killing the person who breaks into your house is not your only option. You could incompacitate(sp) them and wait for the police to come. It would be your choice to murder that person.

Quote:If someone attacks my country then I have no problem with them dying in a war.

Not relevant to our conversation IMO

Quote:Forsaking guilty life for the preservation of innocent is the difference and why your argument is illogical.

The fallacy lies in the fact that the argument you want to make is one of absolution. The pro-life position is not one of no matter what the case life should never be taken. To assert that it is shows a total and complete lack of understanding as to the position.

But isn't the argument against me one of absolutions. You want say "You can't kill a person except for when they are really really bad." Who gets to judge what is really really bad? You are allowing people to make their own decisions about whether a human being lives or dies. The same choice a woman makes with an abortion. You can rationalize it with guilt or innocence all you want, both those are YOUR rationalizings(probably not a reall word but well) and do not change the facts.

uhmump95 Wrote:Well I have only heard of one person who defeated death and guess what he was given the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit. Talk about something that makes you go hmmmm......

Quote:That is your choice, but killing the person who breaks into your house is not your only option.  You could incompacitate(sp) them and wait for the police to come.  It would be your choice to murder that person.

Says you. If they're wielding a weapon or make a move to attack me I will take whatever step is necessary to defend myself. If that means killing them then so be it. And doing so is in no way contradictory to a pro-life position on abortion.

Quote:Not relevant to our conversation IMO

Sure it is. You're making the assertion that if a person is pro-life they're pro-life in all situations and in all circumstances. So it's totally relevant.

Quote:But isn't the argument against me one of absolutions. 

No, it isn't. It's exactly the opposite. Just to clarify it is you who are arguing absolution with relation to this issue, not me. If you are going to follow your line of thinking regarding the pro-life position then clearly you are pro-death. You support the death penalty according to Kev, and you're pro-choice, so clearly you are pro-death. You can't have it both ways by arguing absolution for my point of view and then turning around and saying it's not absolute with yours.

Quote:You want say "You can't kill a person except for when they are really really bad." Who gets to judge what is really really bad?

No, I'm really not saying that. There's a common term of crime that has been in every post I've made regarding this. I don't advocate killing if someone who has been "bad". I have no problem with it when it is punishment for that person committing a murder, I have no problem with it if that person dies because they were trying to do harm to another and the other defended themselves, and I have no problem with it in cases of war like WWII.

Quote:You are allowing people to make their own decisions about whether a human being lives or dies.

CRIME!!!! Are you getting any part of that? I'm saying that if someone commits murder that the death penalty is an appropriate PUNISHMENT.

I'm curious what you think you're accomplishing by this? You're pro-death penalty aren't you? Why are you arguing against a position you hold? There's a certain pot, meet kettle aspect to all this.

Quote: The same choice a woman makes with an abortion.

What crime has the baby committed? You can't simply ignore the crime and punishment end of this. I'm not advocating death on a whim, I'm saying that I feel is an appropriate punishment for someone who is a murderer. That wouldn't apply to a fetus.

Quote:You can rationalize it with guilt or innocence all you want, both those are YOUR rationalizings(probably not a reall word but well) and do not change the facts.

It's not a rationalization. The situations are not the same. They are in no way, shape or form the same other than the death part. One is punishment for murder, the other is murder for the sake of convenience.

You're trying to eliminate key factors of the argument because yours can't work without that. If circumstances are allowed into the discussion then your whole arguement goes off a cliff.

Are you comfortable being pro-death? That's what you are if we want to follow your line of thinking.

We don't exist in a vaccume and that's the only place where you arguement could possibly be valid. It's not rationalizing something when you consider the circumstances. You can't possibly make an arguement or come to a decision without that.

Quote:Are you comfortable being pro-death?

If it makes you feel better to put a label on me than "yes". But I have no problems being consistant in beliefs. I see the justification for the death penalty and I also see the problems, but in the end I feel having the death penalty is better than not having it. I see the justifications for abortion and I see the problems, but in the end I feel giving a woman the option to choose is better than inhibiting her options.

uhmump95 Wrote:If it makes you feel better to put a label on me than "yes".  But I have no problems being consistant in beliefs.  I see the justification for the death penalty and I also see the problems, but in the end I feel having the death penalty is better than not having it.  I see the justifications for abortion and I see the problems, but in the end I feel giving a woman the option to choose is better than inhibiting her options.

I'm not labling you as that, you are identifying your self as that by your line of argument.

So you're pro-death in all situations and have no problem with that?

Least you admit it, though it's scary. Personally I think it would be much easier on you just to admit the logical inconsistency in your argument and seek a new line of debate. But to each his own.

Quote:So you're pro-death in all situations and have no problem with that?

So us talking about the death penalty and abortions, make me pro death in all situations. You must be 100 different types of stupid.

Quote: Personally I think it would be much easier on you just to admit the logical inconsistency in your argument and seek a new line of debate. But to each his own

First of all there is no inconsistency in my argument. The inconsistancy is between our opinions on it. If we took the "pro-death" label you want to stick me with and took it to its entirity than I would be for all types of methods for extinguishing life. But I am not. What we are dealing in is shades of gray. It just happens to be that your shade of gray is a little different from my shade.

uhmump95 Wrote:So us talking about the death penalty and abortions, make me pro death in all situations.  You must be 100 different types of stupid.

No need to get personal just cause I highlighted the corner you painted yourself in to. Allow me to explain it to you.

You said:

Quote:If you believe in the sanctity of life, which is what the pro-lifers claim is their main reason against abortion, than that means that you are against all activities that take a human life.

From this line of thinking you tried to argue that someone who is pro-life couldn't be for the death penalty or any other activity, ie war, self defense, that take human life.

So the logical extension of your argument, since we are on opposite sides of this, is if you are for the death penalty and have no problem with abortion then you, by your own line of argument, must be pro-death in all situations, just like a person who is pro-life must be in all situations. That is where your argument leads.

I was illustrating the absurdity of the extreme you were carrying the pro-life position to.

Quote:First of all there is no inconsistency in my argument.

Yeah, there really was. If you still don't believe it then may I suggest Deductive Logic 101. I'm sure UH offers it.

Quote:The inconsistancy is between our opinions on it.  If we took the "pro-death" label you want to stick me with and took it to its entirity than I would be for all types of methods for extinguishing life.

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner. Charlie tell him what he's won. :rolleyes:

It's assinine to carry the argument to that point. THAT'S what I was pointing out to you. You carried the pro-life position to that extreme and by your own line of argument your position would have to be carried to the pro-death extreme.

Quote: What we are dealing in is shades of gray.  It just happens to be that your shade of gray is a little different from my shade.

Ah, this must be how Anne Sullivan felt after hearing Helen Keller say water.

Congrats. In the future argue that point, don't try and argue extremes. That's what you were doing and that's why your argument was logically inconsistent.

Oh so now I get it. You were arguing extremes while I was arguing shades of gray. I wasn't attempting to nor would ever argue a total pro-death argument you took one statement and made it the basis of your attack.

Oh well we are never going to change each other's mind anyway.

uhmump95 Wrote:Oh so now I get it.  You were arguing extremes while I was arguing shades of gray.  I wasn't attempting to nor would ever argue a total pro-death argument you took one statement and made it the basis of your attack.

:bang: :bang: :bang:

Let me clue you into something.

Quote:If you believe in the sanctity of life, which is what the pro-lifers claim is their main reason against abortion, than that means that you are against all activities that take a human life.

Statements like you made above are not arguing shades of gray. That is an extreme. It was argued by you. I simply highlighted your illogical stance by taking your line of argument the other way to illustrate the lunacy of it.

I've made this as simple for you as I can and it's still flying over your head. Guess we're back to spelling water in sign language. :rolleyes:

I am typing this slow for you so that you will understand. I made that statement when comparisons between the death penalty and abortion was first made. That was it. It was a statement. I never ever attempted to argue that point.

The rest of my posts were saying that abortion and the death penalty are on a basic level the same thing "One living being judging another living being not to be worthy of living and taking that life away". Then you went on the "pro death" kick and that is when the wheels fell off the wagon or maybe you had fell off the wagon and starting hitting the sauce.

If there was victory for you to take from this, take it and go.

This can all be summed up like this:

Abortion kills a life, kills a child, stops a beating human heart, and all of this happens without the child having a choice.

2917 more children were killed today.

The Knight Time Wrote:This can all be summed up like this:

Abortion kills a life, kills a child, stops a beating human heart, and all of this happens without the child having a choice.

2917 more children were killed today.

Not the child's choice to be made. Next!!!

Quote:I am typing this slow for you so that you will understand.

How does typing slow benefit anyone but you? It's all going to appear at once when you hit "Add Reply" anyway. Geez you can't even be condescending in a logical way. And that's saying something.

As for the rest of your tripe clearly you lack the basic reasoning skills to grasp the point that was being made, so I'll just let it be.

Quote:If there was victory for you to take from this, take it and go.

Taking a victory from any discussion with you would be like Texas getting giddy over handing UH it's a$$ on the football field. Some things are just a given.

niner,

you cannot knock out the sta-puft marshmallow man by punching him. you just get sticky hands.

and you can't appeal to his higher brain functions 'cuz he doesn't have a brain.

you have to get in close and use your lighter.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:I am typing this slow for you so that you will understand.

How does typing slow benefit anyone but you? It's all going to appear at once when you hit "Add Reply" anyway. Geez you can't even be condescending in a logical way. And that's saying something.

That was your cue to read slower. That helps people such as yourself who have a problem with reading comprehension. Obviously you missed it.