Abortion derail from the Active Shooter thread

[Catholicity]

Translation: I'm unable to refute your arguments using logic and reason so I'm going to use this incident to try and guilt-trip you into silence instead.

I noticed too that he's going to call the videos dishonest. So I'm curious how Tassman would like to explain what planned parenthood says and does on camera and then acknowledges that "oh yeah we harvest organs for research, that was just a rogue person." as dishonest? what part of what was filmed was dishonest? Its someone on video keeping a baby alive which goes against the "born alive act" to the kill and retrieve organs. Hello!!! that's an act of murder!!!!!!!

[Zymologist]

Tassman, when you say that fetuses are obviously not human beings, are you saying that they are not of the species homo sapiens (which is how "human being" seems to be used), or are you using "human being" as synonymous with "person?"

[Jedidiah]

There is a genuine difference that goes beyond muddying the water. From a scientific point of view a human is a human from conception, not from birth. To argue against that is just plain dishonest. That is the position many of us are opposed to.

The muddying of waters is obviously on your side because you do not put nurses and doctors on death row and you do not advocate for that either. Or do you?

Since abortion is not legally murder this is pretty dumb. If abortion were to be legally considered murder, what ever penalties accrue to that offense would be appropriate. Only if that were clear from the get go. Killing abortion doctors under the current status would be and is murder.

I see some folks cry that calling abortion "murdering babies" hurts the movement. I doubt that very much, but I won't pretend that I do not consider abortion as the same thing as a legalized "Murder For Hire."

[firstfloor]

... From a scientific point of view a human is a human from conception, not from birth. ...

That position takes no account of prenatal development from embryogenesis to childbirth. While they are both composed of human tissue, a blastocyst is not a baby.

[Catholicity]

That position takes no account of prenatal development from embryogenesis to childbirth. While they are both composed of human tissue, a blastocyst is not a baby.

nice job lying about that. Just tissue can be viewed and felt kicking right?

[Carrikature]

nice job lying about that. Just tissue can be viewed and felt kicking right?

You can have a heart on its own that pumps, but a blastocyst isn't kicking anything.

[Bill the Cat]

That position takes no account of prenatal development from embryogenesis to childbirth. While they are both composed of human tissue, a blastocyst is not a baby.

Again, please use a more technical term than "baby" which is not a stage of human growth and development.

[Bill the Cat]

You can have a heart on its own that pumps, but a blastocyst isn't kicking anything.

But it will never be anything more than a heart.

[Carrikature]

Again, please use a more technical term than "baby" which is not a stage of human growth and development.

Holy pot calling the kettle black, batman.

[Carrikature]

But it will never be anything more than a heart.

The point stands. Tissues can and do move on their own. Nothing about motion necessarily indicates a living being.

[Bill the Cat]

The point stands. Tissues can and do move on their own. Nothing about motion necessarily indicates a living being.

True.

[Jedidiah]

The point stands. Tissues can and do move on their own. Nothing about motion necessarily indicates a living being.

I have yet to hear anyone before you suggest that an unborn baby is not alive.

[Bill the Cat]

Holy pot calling the kettle black, batman.

[Jedidiah]

That position takes no account of prenatal development from embryogenesis to childbirth. While they are both composed of human tissue, a blastocyst is not a baby.

I said it was human. You can read can you not?

[firstfloor]

I said it was human. You can read can you not?