I said an abortion would be redundant if the foetus was guaranteed to die. What's your point? How does that relate even remotely to what I said about the viability of the foetus outside of the uterus?
People don't say "Well it was probably going to die any way", they say it is not a viable life form in it's own right, which is a true statement. I can't explain this to you any more than I already have. You're starting to piss me off now, are you deliberately trying to be a troll? Or are you just @#%^ing functionally retarded?
Sorry, I accidentally skipped you.
My point is that the statement "it's not a viable life form in it's own right" is something people say to justify their action of the abortion. The fetus at 24 weeks in 1 day has not changed significantly from a day earlier. Nor did the baby significantly change from 23 weeks and 6 days to 24 weeks. The fact that the probability of living outside of the uterus increases as time progresses doesn't change anything.
If it's only 50% chance of survival, then that's 50%. You're looking at the glass half empty instead of half full. So, why is abortion 100% authorized on something that has a 50% survival rate? I mean, if your argument is being able to live outside the uterus, a full 9 month new born will 100% die outside of the uterus if not taken care of. You have to take care of it, which is why you can get charged if your baby dies due to neglect.
Then your question was redundant. What's your point? Are you trying to play semantics?
My question wasn't redundant.
I stated that I interpreted a fact as objectively true, i.e. not false. Furthermore, I said that although you may add additional information unto a fact to make it more factual, anything contrary to that fact discredits it's validity.
You countered to say that was just an instance that you provided and that new facts can reduce the margin of error from old facts. So, I asked you to provide an example of reducing a fact's error. You stated the fact of gravity exists and how additional facts on gravity gave us a better understanding of how gravity works. I replied that was fine and dandy, but the original fact in question "gravity exists" didn't have an error. It was the supporting facts that had errors and were later adjusted.
So, I ask again, provide me a scenario where you can reduce the margin of error of a fact with contradictory information.
Want to try answering the question now? A fertilized egg will turn into a human being without any help from me or anyone? That leaving it completely alone it will grow all by itself?
I didn't realize that I avoided a question. By fertilized egg, do you mean a zygote? If so, yes a zygote will turn into a human being without help from you or anyone else. We were talking about eggs and sperms. An egg or sperm will never turn into a zygote which will turn into a child without some intervention.
Because I love my parents and I expect love and kindness from them in return. If they had me and kept me and treated me like sh*t, then I wouldn't have a very good life, then, would I?
Oh, I get your "point." It's tenuous at best. You seem to be completely missing mine, however.
I obviously am missing your point. You're making a connection of crappy parents and a crappy life from that one statement. My assumption is that you're making that connection because you have an emotional attachment to that parasite that was once you. Else, you wouldn't care.
No, I understand that. I have heard that expression many, many times. Mostly from guys who are pissed off that a girl they like is not attracted to them and they want to blame her for it.
While that maybe true at times, as I'm reminded of someone who fits that bill, that isn't the scenario that I'm talking about. I'm referring to the scenario of a man and a woman who HAVE some form of a relationship, but it doesn't develop because she is interested in other types of guys. After a few bad relationships, she either goes back to find the nice guy, regrets not staying with the nice guy and or realizes that she should be with someone more like the nice guy.
Although a woman has fault in the scenario, majority of the fault goes to the dirtbag boyfriend for, well, being a douchebag. If he weren't a douchebag, then the two would be a happy couple. Instead, there's a burned angry woman around who don't trust men claiming that "There are no more good guys" . Which at then end, makes it harder for the good guys to prove themselves.