Amusing selective quoting as well. After the bit you quoted:

"Interesting that when you asked me for a non-abortion debate conception of 'human being' and I presented the census you then introduced the methodology of the census before later on claiming that it was me who was 'fascinated by the methodology' - my point always being about what the census is estimating, not how they do it. You also declared it 'obvious' you were speaking scientifically, not politically - and when asked for a counter-example provided a piece of US legislation... "

I came to the actual point:

"Now rather than responding to the argument I came up with (easily) which meets your stipulated requirements you are instead chasing ganstaman to identify what 'medicine' is."

You decide that this means I'm fascinated by the census. In fact, I'm fascinated at your tactic of chasing people down tangential paths of definition so that you can then declare them 'fascinated' by irrelevancies.

Here it is. It certainly isn't an appeal to logic. What would you expect the result of posting pictures of aborted fetuses to be if not an emotional response?

.

We were debating whether a fetus is an individual organism. I was making a claim that it resembles an individual organism rather than a collection of tissue as was suggested by you. Pictures are worth a 1000 words or so they say.

You never did explain why a fetus more resembles an organ or tissue. Are you willing to concede that an aborted fetus more resembles a individual organism rather than some excised tissue?

That is why I posted the picture of the tardigrave, which resembles a bear but isn't even close to one. What does it matter what the fetus looks like? That can be nothing but a distraction from the actual discussion. You expect me to take this as a serious argument?

You are misusing the term "equality".

I think it is OK to intentionally murder enemy combatants in wartime. So do you, I assume. I also reject that I am discriminating against enemy combatants in taking that position, because enemy combatants are not similarly situated to other people, and the differences justify different treatment.

Similarly, fetuses are not similarly situated to born children. They are inside a uterus and harming a woman. They are also less developed and often lack human features, especially early in the term.

On the other hand, the differences between men and women are irrelevant and do not justify traditional conservative Christian misogyny and anti-woman beliefs.

By my logic, legal abortion preserves gender equality and represents part of society's proper repudiation of a sexist religion.

But that said, if you could show that the most effective way to reduce murder would be to do something other than make it illegal, that would be a powerful point.

Abortions resemble medical procedures. Want a pic?

Obstetrics the branch of medical science concerned with childbirth and caring for and treating women in or in connection with childbirth.

OBs preform abortions because many of the same procedures which apply to the care of women in connection with child birth can be used to abort the fetus. However you have to look at the act itself. Abortion isn't care. It isn't the prevention or treatment of a disease. It is as close to medicine as say a circumcision.

If you think it will help make your case that abortion is a medical procedure go ahead and post them. You haven't been able to make much of a case so far. The its a medical procedure because a doctor does it isn't a compelling argument.

Murder is the unlawful killing a human being...since it is generally lawful to kill an enemy combatant it isn't murder. Abortion isn't murder(in this country) either. What is and isn't murder is determined by the whims of the state...it has no bearing on whether or not the act is moral or immoral. Okay I am done nit picking.

On the battle field would you feel you did something immoral by killing an enemy combatant? Would you feel an enemy combatant did anything immoral if he killed you?

Now you don't feel an abortion doctor is doing anything immoral by killing the human being that is the fetus. Suppose the fetus could kill the doctor and did kill the doctor....would you then say the fetus was behaving immorally?

Yeah, it's fine, just ignore the definition I actually provided. And don't bother ever clearly stating if you feel cosmetic medicine is really medicine. Clearly you're just going to respond to the bits and pieces of my posts that you want to respond to. You've been doing it all thread, so I'm not really expecting you to stop now.

This thread is fascinating. I am having trouble deciding if stu honestly believes he is "crushing" anyone here, or if he just feels he's in too deep to back out at this point.