Wow

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i bet you did a little wee in your pants with excitement writing that little nugget of comedy genius.

Wrong, I was able to make it to the toilet in time. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I knew your intentions. However I decided to be nice and just ignore your
facetiousness. I will repeat I am not far right because I believe in a woman's
right to choose as long as she chooses Not to abort her baby or foetus, if you
prefer.

Your definition is obsolete since the so-called fetus has been shown to be able
to experience pain making it a ...[text shortened]... baby. It is just not capable of living
outside the mother's womb without extraordinary care.

A 'choice' where you are required to 'choose' only one option is NOT a choice (by definition,
this is tautologically true)
And a persons stance on abortion is not the only (or a reliable) indicator of political orientation.
You score off the charts right on most 'left/right' issues (based on your posts here, you might
be lying of course but I am assuming that the views you express are the ones you hold)


And a Foetus CANNOT feel pain before 24~26 weeks (and possibly after).
It's not possible because before then either there are no nerves and no brain or the region of
the brain required for the detecting and feeling of pain doesn't exist or hasn't yet connected up
to the central nervous system.

After that point a Foetus MIGHT be able to experience pain however abortions after 24 weeks are
almost exclusively for various medical reasons to do with the health of the mother and/or baby.

The science on this is incontrovertible.

Before the nervous system exists and before the brain has developed the specialised regions used
for creating the sensation of pain and before that region has connected to the central nervous system
it is not POSSIBLE for a Foetus to feel pain.
As most abortions happen at the embryonic stage which is even more primitive than a foetus arguing
against abortions because it 'hurts' the baby (as in causes pain) is just factually wrong.
And idiotically so.

Claiming that a tiny ball of cells can feel pain or suffer is so obviously and demonstrably false that there
is no possible way that the people making these claims can't know that these claims are wrong.

http://atheistelephant.com/2012/03/among-other-things-abby-johnson-didnt-pay-attention-in-biology-part-ii/

Thus they are either totally deluded and cut off from reality or (more likely) they are Lying and Know it.



However even if the embryo or foetus could think and feel pain I still stand by the position that says no
person should ever be legally required to turn their body into a life support machine of another.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hallq/2012/02/23/the-under-rated-famous-violinist-defense-of-abortion/

Originally posted by googlefudge
A 'choice' where you are required to 'choose' only one option is NOT a choice (by definition,
this is tautologically true)
And a persons stance on abortion is not the only (or a reliable) indicator of political orientation.
You score off the charts right on most 'left/right' issues (based on your posts here, you might
be lying of course but I am as ...[text shortened]... ughtblogs.com/hallq/2012/02/23/the-under-rated-famous-violinist-defense-of-abortion/

Abortion is murder.

Originally posted by googlefudge
A 'choice' where you are required to 'choose' only one option is NOT a choice (by definition,
this is tautologically true)
And a persons stance on abortion is not the only (or a reliable) indicator of political orientation.
You score off the charts right on most 'left/right' issues (based on your posts here, you might
be lying of course but I am as ughtblogs.com/hallq/2012/02/23/the-under-rated-famous-violinist-defense-of-abortion/

I agree with Dr. Ron Paul on the abortion matter and he gives the women many
choices that do not include the murder of a baby in the womb. Since, he is
a medical doctor also, I will choose to believe him over someone like you. And
I definitely will not take the word of atheists, because the Holy Bible has already
identified them as fools.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I agree with Dr. Ron Paul on the abortion matter and he gives the women many
choices that do not include the murder of a baby in the womb. Since, he is
a medical doctor also, I will choose to believe him over someone like you. And
I definitely will not take the word of atheists, because the Holy Bible has already
identified them as fools.

do you class the morning after pill as abortion?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was an "A" student in my math classes in college. So you are talking out of
your arse, like Ace Ventura.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DrRE1LDY_U

“...I was an "A" student in my math classes in college. ...”

-if that is true then there is something wrong with the marking system for you repeatedly demonstrated no understand about very basic probability that most children would have by the age of ten.
( P.S. I got a “grade 1” for maths )

Originally posted by josephw
Abortion is murder.

Murder has a specific well defined meaning and having an abortion does not fit that meaning or even come close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

The elements of common law murder are:

Unlawful
killing
of a human
by another human
with malice aforethought


Abortion is not unlawful so fail on point one.
Abortion is not the killing of a human, so fail on point two.
And Abortion is not done with malice aforethought which again has a specific meaning that doesn't apply.

However even if a foetus or embryo WAS a full blown 'person' (which it really really isn't) I still stand by THIS

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hallq/2012/02/23/the-under-rated-famous-violinist-defense-of-abortion/

Argument.

No person can legally demand the use of another persons body for use as a life support machine.
Period.

Originally posted by humy
“...I was an "A" student in my math classes in college. ...”

-if that is true then there is something wrong with the marking system for you repeatedly demonstrated no understand about very basic probability that most children would have by the age of ten.
( P.S. I got a “grade 1” for maths )

The kind of probability problems taugh in school do not start off with the kind of
assumptions that Gallop does. Or perhaps you could refresh my memory, since
it has been nearly 50 years and my jobs never required me to use probability.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I agree with Dr. Ron Paul on the abortion matter and he gives the women many
choices that do not include the murder of a baby in the womb. Since, he is
a medical doctor also, I will choose to believe him over someone like you. And
I definitely will not take the word of atheists, because the Holy Bible has already
identified them as fools.

I don't give a flying F*** who you agree with. (and RP is an idiot and far right wing nut on this issue)

You don't get to legally impose your (or anyone else's) religious views on anyone else.

If you think abortion is bad and that you shouldn't do it then you are free not to have an
abortion. (and seeing as you are a guy this shouldn't pose any trouble for you.)

However you don't get to impose your will on those who don't think abortion is bad just
because your whacked out religion says so.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't give a flying F*** who you agree with. (and RP is an idiot and far right wing nut on this issue)

You don't get to legally impose your (or anyone else's) religious views on anyone else.

If you think abortion is bad and that you shouldn't do it then you are free not to have an
abortion. (and seeing as you are a guy this shouldn't pose any ...[text shortened]... n those who don't think abortion is bad just
because your whacked out religion says so.

The far right wing consider Dr. Ron Paul too liberal on this subject.
I also believe that we should preserve human life when possible. Abortion is
the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. This human life in the womb
of the mother has done nothing worthy of death. The inconvience the mother
might receive is not enough justification to take a human life and discard it in
the trash, IMO.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The far right wing consider Dr. Ron Paul too liberal on this subject.
I also believe that we should preserve human life when possible. Abortion is
the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. This human life in the womb
of the mother has done nothing worthy of death. The inconvience the mother
might receive is not enough justification to take a human life and discard it in
the trash, IMO.

Like I said, you are free to hold that opinion, but not to impose it on anyone else.

Particularly when your opinion is not backed up by any actual facts.

The rights of the mother outweigh the 'rights' of a ball of cells.

And it is an insult to equate a tiny ball of cells with a living breathing human being.

Abortion is NOT the taking of a human life.

And the mother has every right to decide exactly what here body is or is not used for.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The kind of probability problems taugh in school do not start off with the kind of
assumptions that Gallop does. Or perhaps you could refresh my memory, since
it has been nearly 50 years and my jobs never required me to use probability.

“...The kind of probability problems taugh in school do not start off with the kind of
assumptions that GALLOP does ...”

“that GALLOP”? Nobody 'galloped' here.
Which “assumptions” are you referring to that we made when quoted probability? Explicitly list them please....


“...Or perhaps you could refresh my memory, since
it has been nearly 50 years and my jobs never required me to use probability. ...”

you do not need to go to school and be taught probability to have an extremely basic understanding of probability. This is not even a "skill"!
I am ( and was ) talking here about the kind of very basic understanding that, for example, the greater the size of the non-biased selected sampling of a group, the more likely it is going to approximately represent the whole group ( the understanding you demonstrated you do not have and that shocked me ) . You do not need to be taught anything fancy or clever at school for this, just have basic intelligence.
I did a quick reality test by asking my mother to see if she had this understanding and she did and she had the horrible misfortune of never going to school and had never had any of the educational opportunities most of us had! -and she certainly is no maths genius!

Let me put it this way; I ( and I assume most people ) never learned this basic understanding at school because I ( and I assume most people ) already developed it through a natural increase in general intelligence as one matures as a child even before they mentioned the word “probability” at school in the maths class.

Originally posted by humy
“...The kind of probability problems taugh in school do not start off with the kind of
assumptions that GALLOP does ...”

“that GALLOP”? Nobody 'galloped' here.
Which “assumptions” are you referring to that we made when quoted probability? Explicitly list them please....


“...Or perhaps you could refresh my memory, since
it has been nearly 50 years ...[text shortened]... s as a child even before they mentioned the word “probability” at school in the maths class.

Maybe you should have taken statistics and probability in your math classes.
And some science labs would help you understand the scientific method so you
could understand that Gallop did not use correct scientific methods in their studies.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe you should have taken statistics and probability in your math classes.
And some science labs would help you understand the scientific method so you
could understand that Gallop did not use correct scientific methods in their studies.

“...Gallop did not use correct scientific methods in their studies. ...”

( OH! you mean “Gallup”! NOT “Gallop”! -You through me off with your misspelling in your last post. I wondered what you were talking about. You seemed to be suddenly talking about galloping -horses? )

how would you know this? -you cannot know that.
Plus you have repeatedly demonstrated your complete ignorance of probability AND scientific method. I know infinitely more of both than you do and I am not even a particularly good expert -just moderately good.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Murder has a specific well defined meaning and having an abortion does not fit that meaning or even come close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

The elements of common law murder are:

Unlawful
killing
of a human
by another human
with malice aforethought


Abortion is not unlawful so fail on point one.
Abortion is n ...[text shortened]... n legally demand the use of another persons body for use as a life support machine.
Period.

Right. Look at it as swating a pesky fly with your shoe. No malice and no human hurt, just a pesky parasitical entity that has come to live off us is terminated.

An added bonus is no law suit and not a peep of protest......aside from those wingnut Christians. 😛