The Problem with Legalized Abortion

http://www.amazon.com/...e-Psychology-Offender/dp/0306402688
DeviantCrimes.com is for sale | HugeDomains yo want logic? you want reason? ok

quote:

---

Serial rape is defined in the Crime Classification Manual (1992) as, " . three or more separate events, with an emotional cooling off period [between offenses] . " (p. 12). Rape is often believed to be a purely sexually motivated crime, where the offender's only objective is sexual gratification. However, this does not seem to be the case, as rape is more often motivated by the offender's need to displace anger toward, or exert power over the victim.

---

heres some downloads for you and nator.
DeviantCrimes.com is for sale | HugeDomains
Page Not Found - HolySmoke!about victimology:
HugeDomains.comAll these links are copy and pasted from my source, therefor since I'm showing you my source will you be so kind to show me yours?sincerely yours, Amen.Edited by Amen., : none

I've answered all your questions. You have, twice now, avoided mine.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

No.You said: That is patently untrue.A zygote is the result of SCNT, as well as the result of egg + sperm.Since you seem to equate a genetic blueprint with what is to be considered "human", I suggest you answer my question:Is an egg, which has the entire genetic blueprint via SCNT, a "child"?

quote:

---

I've answered all your questions. You have, (three times) now, avoided mine.

---

All you have to do is answer my questions and we can continue.This wouldn't be the only thread where you avoid large swaths of a post. You can't expect everyone to jump through your hoops while remaining unwilling to jump through anyone else's.I also may not have, to your satisfaction, answered your question, but I have indeed answered your question. You probably just don't like the fact that I'm not so stupid to realize what you are trying to do. You forget that your reductionist argument only works if your a reductionist -- i.e. you.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

I'm sorry, I wasn't following your conversation with Nator. What were you two talking about and what is this rape thing?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

The only question you have asked is, "Are your cells human?"No, my cells are not "human". Unless of course you mean "human" as in "comes from a human". Using that definition, however, many things are "human", not just my cells....You have equated "human" and "child" with "genetic blueprint". And the question remains:Is an SCNT egg a "child"?It has the entire genetic blueprint.
It develops into a zygote.
Given sufficient time, it would develop into a fetus.You just look foolish dodging this question, Juggs.

I think this is the only statement I'd disagree with. I'll bet if this were attempted there would be a pretty big uproar. Especially if the twins were older and both could speak.To be honest, I might not be able to agree a twin in such a position could nix the other one, at least not later in life (which is different shortly post birth). But I'll have to work that out in time.Your analogy to the person who got hooked up to another was easier for me to feel "good" about... even if it was a bad situation. Yeah, I'm empty handed on that one. Can a guy get his battery jumped in a cold parking lot? heheheh.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

No it wasn't. I asked you whether or not you could so vapidly be reduced to a collocation of cells. Is that what makes you, you? If not, then what exactly makes it any different in the zygote? LOL!THIS coming from someone who plays dodgeball everyday, all day???I've noticed something about MB. You don't answer half the questions I ask you. So I have resolved not to respond to you until you can stop being disingenuous.You can pretend like you're turning it around on me, but its all documented MB. Any objective observer can see who is dodging what.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

In the end I think you'll both have to stalemate, but I like that reduction argument you've got... and she is the one that's dodging.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Absolutely. I am the sum of my genetic input and my biochemical pathways.And, were I to allow my genetic material to be injected into an egg, and it was allowed to develop into a zygote, that zygote would not be "human". Nor, were I to allow it to develop into a fully formed human, would it be "me".Ready to answer the SCNT question, Juggs?

i dont know who said this to you taz but you replied with so I decided to show you that I indeed was never showing emotion or being emotional when posting in this OP, nor was did my messages come entirely from religious conviction. sure I might have added a couple sentences at the beginning, but guess what? my posts aren't entirely to explain the religious view, but also what you call "human reason".
My posts indeed have some reasons why I believe and consider that there is a Problem with Legalized Abortion.My argument with nator, which I think he's trying to say that some women that arent victims of rape may have a higher level of Distress ,then that of women who have been raped. I simply suggested in my other posts and answered Ringo's Question: I replied to it: nator replies: nator said: So I replied with my source...
then I see your post replying to someone who says they didn't see your warning on Amen. this is your reply: just like nator I'm getting a strange feeling you both think I have no source and just go on and make blanket assumptions. I replied to you both, with my source and why I am not making blanket assumption or using my messages based entirely on emotion or religious conviction.You think I'm not using logic and human reason? I'm supplying you with my source and if you don't want to look at it, I suggest you to stop making excuses on ignoring my posts, just because you assume I'm doing it entirely out of religious conviction or emotion.Also I suggest nator that if you can't back up your theory on why I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the distress level between that of a rape victim and that of a non rape victim, you should also back off, that is until you finally get something worth backing up that theory of yours.p.s- By the way nator, those links and downloads are just 10% of my source, so if you are not satisfied, just tell me and I'll reply with all the links and downloads that support my position on the case of wither or not a rape victim is more distressed then that of a non rape victim.sincerely yours, Amen.Edited by Amen., : none

---

"He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride."
[JOB 41:34]

Well, be realistic. What are we going to do? Tie him up and tell him he can't have control over his organs? Silent H, as a philosopher, you should know that feeling good or feeling bad about something should not affect your capacity to reason. Personally, I think the whole issue sucks in that I don't feel good about any conclusion I came to using human reason. Perhaps this is why so many people are drawn away from reason and logic and rally to religion.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Amen, to be fair, I think you, Ringo, and Nator are caught in your own web of emotive arguments. But don't mind me, please continue with your conversation.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

No, but we'd likely prevent doctors from helping in the procedure. Frankly if a siamese twin were capable of removing his or her own organs from use by the other all by them self... that'd be one amazing birth defect. Well according to crash I'm not a philosopher, just a logician and ethicist (which does sound classier!)... though your point remains.I agree it sucks, that's why said easier to feel X. You are probably right about religion. I think it is faulty for people to believe they can find moral answers within reason, and its a shame that many atheists have not understood that truth, trying to advance some bizarre notion they can find ethical truths.There is no ethical reality. There is only the identification of one's own ethical principles; what makes one feel good for wholly irrational reasons. And then to be comfortable with those principles or try to change them if they are inconvenient.Again, only religion has worked that angle, and cornered the market.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Don't most of these arguments essentially end in stalemates since either side often won't give up an inch of ground? Nothing will be immediately accomplished. You have to whittle people down, argument, after argument, after argument. Thanks.Well, call me a romantic, but for some strange reason I see humans as being more than clumps of cells. I'm so unorthodox like that. Yeah, but don't tell her that since, unbeknownst to her, she's making making my argument for me.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman