I don't mean to question your knowledge Danny, but I'm still not convinced. If you can provide a link or two that uses "stillbirth" in the context you describe, I'll change my views.

still·birth
n.1.The birth of a dead child or fetus.
2.A child or fetus dead at birth.

mis·car·riage
n.1.The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus. Also called spontaneous abortion.

a·bor·tion
n.1.a.Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
b.Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
2.The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
3.Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
4.An aborted organism.
5.Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

Does this help? It's from dictionary.com

Simple. Yes, I'd agree with that. Let's extend your logic slightly, shall we?

Statikk's argument: "Abortion prevents a person from being born. Therefore Abortion is bad."

Agree here? I think that is more or less your argument, but if your argument is different, then please feel free to correct me. Anyway...

A Logical Extension of Statikk's Argument: "Contraception prevents a person from being born. Therefore Contraception is bad."

Now, for all I know, you might object to Contraception as well, so I'd better give an even more ludicrous proposition, so that you can see how feeble that particular line of reasoning is.

A Further Logical Extension of Statikk's Argument: "Not having a child at every possible opportunity prevents a person from being born. Therefore Not having a child at every possible opportunity is bad."

what do different reilogeoins think about this? whats their view?:fuzconf:

All I know is that Catholosism thinks it is wrong but Catholosism also thinks contraception is wrong. Not that I'm trying to imply the stupidity of Catholocism or anything. They do that well enough without my assistance.

I'll ask again, since nobody noticed last time: Why is this topic entitled "cherry apple babies"? I can't see that it has anything to do with cherries or apples, and has very little to do with babies, really...

Cherry apple babies is slang for an aborted person who had their skin burnt raw or off by a saline injection abortion. that is what I meant this topic to be about, not all abortion, just saline injection abortions and if they were ethical. really. I don't plan on using contraceptives, now or ever. I can't get dates and even if I did It wouldn't that pretty. think mick foley with a straighter stance and a little less beard and you have what I look like. Not having a child at every opportunity. clarify please, Dan, i'm not getting with it. So say perchance that the universe switched polarity and the impossible started happening frequently. the Vikings win the Superbowl, O. J. really didn't do it and roseanne barr suddenly becomes a svelte siren. and in this odd freaktastic universe, a once ugly but know drop dead gorgeous vixen says "I lust for you Statikk! I want to have your baby!!!! Oh, give it to me!" And I said no(hey,this is a parrelel universe you know) I am sinning. but the difference between using a jimmy cap and aborting an embryo is big. Even though i don't like contraceptives and yeah, maybe the sperm would make a baby. I always wanted to be a dad, i think it would be so fun, so sacred, ad nauseam. I know of a family who not ounce used contraceptives and they have 6 precious children. So is it a sin to use contraceptives? Yeah, cause all you use 'em for is to have a one night stand or avoid the terrible inconveineience(did I just spell it like that! Holy mother of god I need spellcheck) of having a baby.

I have another point: with all this "embryo or baby" discussion, ask yourself this: "When are we talking about a human? At it's birth? At a number of months old? After the conception, when it's still one cell? From that moment, I see it as human life, which may not be destroyed if not really necesary (but what is that - really necesarry?).

H
 

When it is one cell.

It's always a human.

When it's a gamete, it's a human gamete. When it's an embryo, it's a human embryo. When it's a foetus, it's a human foetus. When it's an infant, it's a human infant. When it's an adult, it's a human adult.

Thank you. Does anyone else find it a little odd that there are slang words for such specific things? I wonder if there is a slang word for "plums that fall from the west side of a tree due to the wind"...

I'll choose to ignore the self-deprecating stuff, since basically what you are saying is that have no reasonable argument to counter mine, right?

Sinning? In what way?

I agree, but your main reason for calling Abortion bad is that it stops a person from being born. I was simply pointing out that so do Contraceptives and Choosing Not To Have A Child...

That last section killed my brain somehow... Could you reiterate it in a way that is easier to read, please? (I'm tired, and I've been hyper all day, so my brain isn't functioning properly...)

I would be happy to oblige. Your "argument" seems to be a straw man falacy intwined with a hasty generalization and more than just a skoash of subject changing. Your straw man is setting me up as a man in favor of banning abortion yet supportive of contraceptives. You have succeedded in befuddling me. Congrats. Anyway, what I would like you to do is point out where I am in favor of contraceptives. I am adamantly opposed to their use, so posing me as a liar just won't work. Secondly, you are using the hasty generalization that all pro life people are wafflers who are so freaking confused on the peripherary issues as to be dundering fools with the peanut sized brains. If but one person can be found to be opposed to not only abortion but contraceptives and not have the i.q. of a kuamkwat, your argument is obliterated. People cannot bve easily pidgeonholed. Thirdly, instead of talking about saline abortions you have convieniently diverted attention from the issue of gory, toxic abortions to the contraceptives, an interesting but otterly out of topic sidelight. So, for or against the poisoning of second term babies. I'm waiting

1. Yes. Dan also said that you should, logically, be opposed to not having sex.

2. So? Plenty of topics end up on a completelt different subject. Like when we talk about evolution, we end up on the Big Bang.

3. I don't mind.

The parts of your post that weren't blatant lies were totally irrelevant. I'll break it down for you...

I never said you were in support of Contraceptives. I assumed that you were, because any reasonable person would be, but I also added the "not having sex" part just in case you weren't. It turned out that you weren't, but you still chose to ignore that part of my argument. Most likely because you had no decent response...

Where? This is the "blatant lie" part of your post...

No it wouldn't, because my argument is based upon Facts and Morals, rather than on Deception and Generalisation.

You are the one trying to use one little-used method of abortion to justify a blanket ban on it.

No I didn't. I compared Abortion to Contraceptives (which was prompted by your argument, before you start on at me for changing the subject), and it was you who chose to ignore the connections between the two and pretend that I'd just changed the subject totally.

I am against all Abortions conducted at such a late stage of development. This has been my stance all along, and I don't know why this seems to have escaped you so far. Moreover, Abortions this late are already Illegal, so you can hardly use them as justification to ban all Abortions...