What lies? What untruths? And, it's a long thread. I suggest you actually read it to see my argument. It was long before you started participaing here with your presentations of opinions as 'facts'.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Of course it isn't true. Good ole sam couldn't produce a shred of credible science to support his argument. Good ole sam is engaging in the same logical fallacy as you. He is begging the question and simply assuming that certain characteristics are what make a human being a human being with nothing to substantiate his argument at all.

When you or good ole sam can provide some credible science to support your outlandish claims, let me know.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

And you assume having the DNA of a human and having the potential of being a developped human means you are a human. Those two things certainly are essentials in becoming a human being, but what makes a human being? It is fact that the cells in your body both have the potential of becoming a human being and having the DNA of a human. So if not those two things what science says a human embryo is a person? Why should law support a definition that was made to be convenient?

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Actually, the child never attatches any part of itself to the uterine wall. A quick bit of research into parasitology will yield a dozen or so reasons why an unborn is not a parasite and can not be accurately compared with a parasite.

Your comment is only one more example in the seemingly neverending stream of logical fallacy, misinformation, misdirection, misunderstanding, and deliberate dishonesty that comes from the pro choice side of this argument. I understand that you really can't give accurate information because it would wreck your attempted defense of your indefensible position, but don't you at least mind being made to look unintelligent when your misinformation is pointed out?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Then I guess we have a good idea of how much you actually pay attention. Mrs. M is pro-life.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Wrong. You just assume we are being dishonest because you believe the evidence you've provided is so irrefutable any honest person would admit you are right.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Is it so much trouble to do a bit of reasearch. Some actual research rather than the search for tripe that your good ole sam article represents? The law is there, the case histories are there. Women were not charged for a crime in the days before roe. The doctors were charged. The woman was considered to be a victim of a doctor who was willing to violate his oath as a doctor in exchange for money.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

You are a bit vague. What part of our argument do you disagree with? Do you disagree that a cell contains a DNA? Do you disagree that a cell may have the potenial of becoming a human being? Do you disagree that a fetus prior to a certain point lacks characteristics that both you and I share? What?

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

I have read your arguments. Can you direct me to any link that you have provided, or any bibliographical reference you have given to credible material that supports your argument?

Further, can you provide a link to any credible source that suggests that medical school textbooks on the subjects of embryology, fetology, human developmental biology, and OB/Gyn are not credible sources of material when the topic of discussion is revolving around what a woman is aborting?

Can you provide any source other than your own uneducated opinion that suggests that it is "opinion" that is being taught to medical students.

That is a fine example of the inherent dishonesty in your argument. Suggesting that I was presenting "opinion" when I posted material from credible sources.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

It must be irrefutable. For all your talk, you have been completely unable to provide anything that even comes close to refuting it. The one link you provided to a science based site supported my argument as well.

I believe it is irrefutable because no one on the pro choice side, for years and years has been able to provide a single credible source that does refute it. Even the pro choice heavyweights avoid a scientific discussion because they know full well that if they go there, they will lose.

You don't believe it is irrefutable, then provide some credible science that refutes it. It is as easy as that.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Perhaps you have; but there is a difference between reading and comprehension.

Such a strawman.

Another strawman.

Actually, you were presenting opinion. When it was clear you had no ability to see that you were presenting opinion (as opposed to the scinece), I dropped out of the futility of arguing with one who hasn't the abiltity to comprehend the difference between the science of a paper, and the opinion of an author.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I "assume" nothing. My arguments are substantiated by credible materials. You assume a great deal. In fact, your entire argument is one assumption after another because you can provide nothing to substantiate any of them.

If you could take a cell and manipulate it and begin a clone of yourself, that clone, from the time it started development, would be an individual human being and would therefore be entitled to the same basic human rights as any other human being. A manipulated cell that begins to grow as a clone would no longer be the cell it started life as just as, upon the completion of fertilization, and egg and sperm cell are no longer the cells they were.

Good ole sam, when he claims that all of your cells are potential human beings doesn't say that all your cells are human beings. Potential is not what makes one a human being. Egg and sperm represent potential and no one is arguing for their rights. After fertilization, however, their potential has been realized and a new human being exists. Potential doesn't have rights. Actuality has rights.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

See above.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

I don't beleive that you comprehend your own arguments, much less mine as I am going to demonstrate.

Clearly, you don't even know what a strawman is. Is the term strawman something that you just heard somewhere and failed to comprehend what it meant, or more likely, failed to to a bit of research to find what it meant? Your pro choice arguments fit the same pattern. Clearly you haven't researched the issue and instead, simply parrot other arguments that you like the sound of without having first found out if they were made by people who had done their research.

This is what a strawman is. Do feel free to try to intelligently apply it to my statements.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

As you can see, it is you who is erecting the strawman. You make the claim that the material in medical school textbooks is opinion and then attack my argument claiming that I am presenting opinion.

Do feel free to provide some credible evidence that suggests that the material found in medical school textbooks that is being taught to medical students is opinion. I would be very interested in seeing that.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.