• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Abortion is murder

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,824
Reaction score
17,324
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ngdawg said:
Why do people bring up 100 year old crap and biblical references???

The founder of planned parenthood has only been dead for 40 years.What she did what she said and did 80 years ago has alot to do with the creation of her orginization and her orginization now.
If the Nazis and KKK were giving out free abortions and birth control to minorieties and other people they deemed as not being worther or of their race everyone would be saying "they are only doing this to try to help exterminate and or keep the population of minorieties down",reguardless if they publicly renounced their racist ways or denied having racist views in the first place.

A a racist eugenist makes a group that hands out birth control and performs abortions.She has even been quoted as saying

"Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed,
they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control,
the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.
Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods. …"
—Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment." Birth Control Review,
February 1919, (vol. III, no. 2); p. 11.

Doesn't that sound very odd that Margaret Sanger a eugenist makes a group that provides birth control and abortions?

This might as well be the KKK or Nazis handing out free condoms,free birthcontrol pills, and free aboritons to minorities and anyone else they deemed as unfit in the past.It is that blatently obvious.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
jamesrage said:
Just becasue you beleave that murdering innocent babies is not murder,does not make you right.

No, the law and scientific fact make me right.


Trolling?You mean you do not like I said and so you wanna cu-why to a mod?Did the mean ol'jamesrage say something you did not like?

Bullllshiiit. No one said anythign about getting a mod involved. But for the record, I still dont like hysterical, trolling, vilifying liars.


THe only one I see crying is the person throwing the troll accusations around.

Please dont confuse these tears of laughter with tears of angst. You really are amusing in a sense.


You said you are against abortions,but support the woman's right to choose.That is a this kind of statement.
sitting_on_the_fence_lg_wht.gif

All the cutsie wittle pictures in the world arent going to cover the smell of your bullshit. :cool:
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
jallman said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea

Three easy ones for you.

1. Who is the entity that decided which components are included in the "sum of humanity"?

2. How and by what overarching authority was the awesome power to make this monumental decision conferred upon said entity?

3. Is this entity infallible?

You are tricky, but I am not falling for that.

What's to fall for? You made a declaration; I ask for amplification.

It is not an entity, but rather a body of definition, observation, philosophy, and legal doctrine that elevate human beings to the status of personhood.

So no one gets the credit. Sort of like the old saw, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee."

Science, in turn, teaches us that to have these characteristics, one must have certain neurological structures in place. Prior to this occurrence, there is no possibility of having these characteristics and so, no personhood and in turn, no right to life.

Science does not involve itself in political issues.

The entire question is one of political construction. When one examines the events preceding Roe v. Wade, one finds a group of males who, besieged by the threats and shrill voices of feminist groups clamoring for an alternative to "back alley butchers" that would provide relief for the relatively few rape and incest victims, caved in.

However, the camel who just wants to warm his nose inside the tent soon manages to work his whole body inside.

Pretty soon, relief for relatively few rape and incest victims evolved into abortion on demand up to the time the head was expelled from the womb.

Did anyone imagine, in their wildest dreams, that in only thirty three years, the pile of fetal corpses would stack up nearly fifty million high? I think not.

Infallibility is not an issue because we are discussing humanity...not ethereal spiritual issues.

You leap to an unwarranted and incorrect assumption. Merriam-Websters provides a secular definition with which any aethiest would heartily agree.

Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: (")in-'fa-l&-b&l
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallible
1 : incapable of error : UNERRING <an infallible memory>
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN <an infallible remedy>

Men have proven, time and again, that they are fallible, have they not? Think of the many political solutions, which over time, have proven to be incorrect and were eventually "remedied".

I think sometimes about a parallel to abortion -- the rise and fall of the USSR. I just hope that it won't take as long.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
blastula said:
Does it sounds like a ruling on the status of personhood of the unborn or is it merely his judicial interpretation of the constitution which clearly showed his misinterpretation?
here is what he said:

IX


The District Court held that the appellee failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the Texas statute's infringement upon Roe's rights was necessary to support a compelling state interest, and that, although the appellee presented "several compelling justifications for state presence in the area of abortions," the statutes outstripped these justifications and swept "far beyond any areas of compelling state interest." 314 F. Supp., at 1222-1223. Appellant and appellee both contest that holding. Appellant, as has been indicated, claims an absolute right that bars any state imposition of criminal penalties in the area. Appellee argues that the State's determination to recognize and protect prenatal life from and after conception constitutes a compelling state interest. As noted above, we do not agree fully with either formulation.

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [SIZE=-1][410 U.S. 113, 157] [/SIZE]for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [SIZE=-1][410 U.S. 113, 158] [/SIZE]All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

See the large text? Lots of references.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
pregnancy can be VERY unhealthy, and even in the US 300-500 women die from it
If you think that's bad, consider the million plus aborted children.
 

doughgirl

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
“I specifically said that I support the right of a woman to choose and that means her choice can be abortion or motherhood or adoption or any other choices that fall within the law. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.”

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Jallman Not so fast.


You allow her choice up until YOU TAKE IT AWAY. When was that when you all of a sudden say its murder? Well at one time you said it was what 26 weeks? 28 weeks? Then you went down to 18 weeks? 16 weeks? What is it today? Do tell us what your magical number is now.

Ok tootsie……….You said, “Abortion is not murder. This has been proven here already, Johnny Come Lately. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.”

So you are saying abortion is not murder. READ EVERYONE…..JALLMAN SAYS ABORTION IS NOT MURDER. ABORTION, ABORTION IS NOT NOT MURDER.
Now you said in a prior post that YOU WERE NOT FOR PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION THAT IT WAS WRONG.

Why are you against partial birth abortion JALLMAN if you think its not murder?

Man the “sexopathic left” are confused.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
here is what he said:


See the large text? Lots of references.

These are the words at the heart of the opinion.

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Since Justice Blackmun had made up his mind to throw a bone to the feminists, he needed this "out".

Had he applied a biological resosolution to the "difficult question", all of the citations you noted would have been swept away because no court would uphold the aborting of living humans.

Keep watching as the recently enacted South Dakota ban on abortion wends its way toward the Supreme Court.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
If you think that's bad, consider the million plus aborted children.
There are no aborted children. That's pro-life, deceptive, revisionist linguistic hyperbole.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
These are the words at the heart of the opinion.
No, the heart of what we are talking about was your claim that Blackmum somehow was an activist who denied the unborn personhood on a whim. The references provided, as blackmum also stated in his text, that there were numerous previous findings to that extent. The point here is that you lied.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
doughgirl said:
Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Jallman Not so fast.


You allow her choice up until YOU TAKE IT AWAY. When was that when you all of a sudden say its murder? Well at one time you said it was what 26 weeks? 28 weeks? Then you went down to 18 weeks? 16 weeks? What is it today? Do tell us what your magical number is now.

Ok tootsie……….You said, “Abortion is not murder. This has been proven here already, Johnny Come Lately. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.”

So you are saying abortion is not murder. READ EVERYONE…..JALLMAN SAYS ABORTION IS NOT MURDER. ABORTION, ABORTION IS NOT NOT MURDER.
Now you said in a prior post that YOU WERE NOT FOR PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION THAT IT WAS WRONG.

Why are you against partial birth abortion JALLMAN if you think its not murder?

Man the “sexopathic left” are confused.

No, you're just putting words in Jallman's mouth.

I'm pro-choice. However, I am against second and third trimester abortions except where the mother is at risk or there is serious genetic abnormality. Not because I see it as "murder", but because I believe it's too close to viability to be allowed.

Desist with the stupidity, already.
 

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
SSlightning said:
Well then I guess nothing can be outlawed because someone might say that isn't right to outlaw that, my culture says its ok. Well say I freely choose to shoot someone in the face, it's their problem not mine right, because of free will and all?
Only if you are equally agreeable to allowing others to do similar things to you. The will-power to rein in selfish desires and to choose to compromise is one of those things that distinguishes people from animals. The Golden Rule is a pragmatic thing, and despite it origin in Religion, it itself is entirely independent of Religion. It is possible that with the Golden Rule, and the notion that people can benefit from getting along with each other, a foundation of Ethics can be created, such that conventional "morals" can be laughed at for being the arbitrary things they are. It is "morals", after all, that allows cannibalism in some cultures and forbids it in others. Under Ethics, the fact that meat being cooked might be human is less important than how it got there. Was it a voluntary donation, was it scavenged, or was it the result of murder? You may have heard about a plane crash in the Andes Mountains of South America, some decades ago? While a number of people died in the crash, a number of others survived. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571 There's not much food available on a mountaintop, and it was quite cold, and there were lots of bodies being preserved in that cold. And the paleontological record reveals that about the time that early humans became meat-eaters, at least one species of African hyena went extinct (they could not compete against brainer scavengers who kept getting the best pickings first). I'm sure the survivors agonized over the morals of the situation. But under Ethics, nobody in the world had a better claim on those bodies, due to the desire to survive --and anyone who claims to value human life would logically have agree with that.

Now about shooting someone in the face. Obviously this is not a good way to get along with that person, and as already indicated, doing so is effectively an announcement that it is OK by you, thanks to the Golden Rule, if someone else shoots you in the face. If you disagree, then you should have thought about that first. Now I estimate that as you read this you are thinking about how those indulging in sex should think about the consequences first, but you are neglecting to remember the critical fact that an unborn human is totally unable to make any compromises. This is merely more proof that its life is purely animal, it is purely owned by its mother, and it is as purely disposable as a fly that you might casually swat. The Golden Rule cannot apply in cases where it cannot be understood by all involved entities. We do not ask a rock whether it is OK to hack it out of a mountain, and then carve a statue out of it. We do not ask a tree if it is OK to prune it into looking like a garden ornament. We do not ask a horse if it wants to plow the field today. And we do not ask a chicken what it thinks about making a very personal contribution to dinner. So, what characteristics does an unborn human possess, that means we should always give its existence any more consideration than we do a rock or a tree or a horse or a chicken? You have yet to offer any sort of nonhypocritical or unprejudiced answer to previously-asked equivalent questions.

=============================================
SSlightning said:
I find what you have to say extremely intriguing, yet it as no bearing on this arguement. Whether or not other intelligence exsist has no bearing on abortion,
FALSE. Because, by widening the definition of "person" to include appropriate non-humans, it logically follows that, thanks to the Scientific Fact that no unborn human exhibits any of the characteristics that distinguish people --of any physical type, including metaphysical type-- from animals, no unborn human deserves to be called a "person". Which means killing it cannot possibly be "murder", any more than swatting a fly is murder.
SSlightning said:
and I would never think a machine is as important as a human. Machines are replaceable, humans are not.
Ah, but you are now confusing bodies with minds. An Artificial Intelligence will be a mind, and "turning off" the machine body is identical to killing it. You cannot turn it on again and end up with exactly the same mind as before, thanks to a certain paradox regarding the nature of a person-class mind. Free Will cannot be entirely encoded in either hardware or software; it is a "quantum uncertainty" phenomenon. Only in the randomness of Quantum Mechanics can you find "Causes" that are not themselves "Effects". Use any other phemonenon, and you will end up with pure Cause-and-Effect stuff, the essence of "Determinism", and the absolute opposite of Free Will. Therefore, once an Artificial Intelligence begins to exist, it will persist among the consequences of certain purely random choices, and the way it interacts, its personality, will depend on continuity. That continuity is destroyed if the Artificial Intelligence is turned off, and totally different random things will become associated with a totally new personality, when the machine is turned on again. In an Ethical world, if there is any Free-Willed mind (among other characteristics) that is equivalent to your own mind's characteristics, then that mind has a value equal to your own mind's value. Would you like for your mind to be turned off, never to recover its current personality? (Note that short of significant brain death, your brain always has low-level operations that maintains your personality, even if your are asleep or in a coma. The worst-case scenarios, in which people "died" on the operating table and stayed clinically dead for twenty minutes and then came back to life, all claim that their personalities had become changed (and they also claim various religion-related stuff that we can ignore, because that would associate human mentation with souls instead of brains, and you've indicated that you choose not to consider that route).

Meanwhile, an unborn human has no more mind than that of an ordinary animal, such as a cat. Only after birth can a human grow enough brain to support the kind of capable mind that we normally associate with "persons". And there still is no requirement that this growth occur, that that potential be fulfilled.
SSlightning said:
The task at hand is not to ensure we dont contradict ourselves in the future, but to make sure we are making the right decisions today.
On what grounds can you say that the decisions of the future will be different from the decisions of today, if the data that is used to make decisions in the future is applied today? A definition of "person", univerally workable, will be as applicable today as in the future. Don't let hypocritical or prejudiced bias tell you today what counts as being "right", when you are not including all the data that actually is as relevant today as it will be in the Incoming Future!!!
SSlightning said:
Intelligence is not the only factor involved here, the right to life is.
UTTERLY FALSE. Because there is no such thing in Nature as a Right To Life. Do you think that Nature cares one whit if humans stupidly built their homes in Tornado Alley, or along the San Andreas Fault? Hah! They will be killed exactly as casually by Nature, as you might swat a mosquito. "Right To Life" is a political thing that humans have arbitrarily claimed for themselves, in spite of Natural Fact. And, because it is political and arbitrary, it can be applied and withheld politically and arbitrarily. As indeed it is, since unborn humans are not granted Right To Life, while born humans are granted it. Nor do the unborn need to have it, since they totally lack the brainpower to appreciate it. On what rational, logical, and/or objective grounds can you say otherwise?
 
Last edited:

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
blastula said:
Blackmun misinterpreted and misapplied the Constitution. The intent of the Constitution was not about OBGYN, biology 101, or to address when human life begins. Therefore, it did not include matters pertaining to the unborn. Anything that was not enumerated in the Constitution, should not be taken as non-existing. Beside, the 14th is about defining citizenship, not about right to life issue. Nothing in the Constitution or Roe v Wade specifically or expressively stated that the unborn is not a person.
Nevertheless, the Founders who wrote the Constitution did give us one very clear piece of information, regarding what they meant by the word "person". Here is something I've posted before:
+++
The Roe vs. Wade decision referenced the 14th Amendment as being able to invalidate the decision IF the word "person" was defined to include unborn humans. It is interesting that throughout the Constitution, the word "person" is used often, but the word "human" is not used at all. (No wonder those beings in that TV show, "Alien Nation", found the USA accommodating!)

Anyway, the 14th Amendment, Section 1, gives rights to "all persons born", and says nothing about the unborn. But Section 2 is what I want you to think about here. This Section specifies counting persons, so that the States' Representation in the House can be figured (it modifies earlier wording of the Constitution). You may be aware that the purpose of the once-per-decade Census is to do that counting. Unborn humans have never been counted. If they were considered "persons", then they should have been getting counted since 1790, when the original wording for the Census (replaced by the 14th Amendment) specified the States' "respective Numbers".

Thus the precedent, per actual implementation of the Constitution, as ordered in the era of the writers of the Constitution, long long before Roe vs. Wade, is that the unborn don't count; they have never been considered to be persons worth counting. (A rather high rate of natural miscarriages may be one reason why; it would be like counting chickens before they hatched, a cliche` handed down to us by the generation that wrote the Constitution.)

But that's OK! Per scientific measurements, unborn humans are not mentally more capable than ordinary animals. Even just-born humans are not mentally more capable than an adult cat or small dog. If we want "persons" to be generic enough for "Alien Nation", but restrictive enough to always exclude the demonstrably animal, like cats and dogs, then no way can unborn humans ever qualify as persons.
 
Last edited:

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,824
Reaction score
17,324
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
jallman said:
jamesrage said:
No, the law and scientific fact make me right.


I am sure I can find old laws and science that was racist and I am sure those people back said exactly the same thing reguarding certian racist laws.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
jamesrage said:
jallman said:
I am sure I can find old laws and science that was racist and I am sure those people back said exactly the same thing reguarding certian racist laws.

And I am still sure everyone but you would find that totally irrelevant.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,824
Reaction score
17,324
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
jallman said:
jamesrage said:
And I am still sure everyone but you would find that totally irrelevant.


I wonder if when slavery was first legalized in this country if they thought the same thing you did?
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
jamesrage said:
jallman said:
I wonder if when slavery was first legalized in this country if they thought the same thing you did?


See...we , as a cultural species, go thru this thing called societal evolution. This process allows us to correct (if this is a fitting term) aspects of our collective behaviors that society as a whole deems inappropriate. Science works much the same way, in that through observation and experiment, it corrects flaws in theory in an attempt to redefine what we see in this word.
Thus in both society and science, an exploration of the past serves only to guide future paths, rather than prove injustice, or inaccuracy of current knowledge. When attempting to use historic events to express an argument, it is benefitial to base the debate on some correlation between past and present/future...rather than admitting excessive ignorance by placing your thoughts in text.
 

SSlightning

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
jallman said:
Problem A: He wants the fetus carried to term and she doesnt.
Solution: Compensate the woman for carrying the child and then he makes arrangements to care for the child.

Problem B: She wants the fetus carried to term and he does not.
Solution: She makes proper arrangements to care for the child.

Problem C: They both want the fetus carried to turn.
Solution: They share responsibility for caring for the child or making arrangements to care for the child.

If one is pro-choice then the must also agree with this statements, because it is totally unfair for a woman to be the sole decision maker in what took two people to create.
 

SSlightning

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
FutureIncoming said:
Only if you are equally agreeable to allowing others to do similar things to you. The will-power to rein in selfish desires and to choose to compromise is one of those things that distinguishes people from animals. The Golden Rule is a pragmatic thing, and despite it origin in Religion, it itself is entirely independent of Religion. It is possible that with the Golden Rule, and the notion that people can benefit from getting along with each other, a foundation of Ethics can be created, such that conventional "morals" can be laughed at for being the arbitrary things they are. It is "morals", after all, that allows cannibalism in some cultures and forbids it in others. Under Ethics, the fact that meat being cooked might be human is less important than how it got there. Was it a voluntary donation, was it scavenged, or was it the result of murder? You may have heard about a plane crash in the Andes Mountains of South America, some decades ago? While a number of people died in the crash, a number of others survived. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571 There's not much food available on a mountaintop, and it was quite cold, and there were lots of bodies being preserved in that cold. And the paleontological record reveals that about the time that early humans became meat-eaters, at least one species of African hyena went extinct (they could not compete against brainer scavengers who kept getting the best pickings first). I'm sure the survivors agonized over the morals of the situation. But under Ethics, nobody in the world had a better claim on those bodies, due to the desire to survive --and anyone who claims to value human life would logically have agree with that.


Now about shooting someone in the face. Obviously this is not a good way to get along with that person, and as already indicated, doing so is effectively an announcement that it is OK by you, thanks to the Golden Rule, if someone else shoots you in the face. If you disagree, then you should have thought about that first. Now I estimate that as you read this you are thinking about how those indulging in sex should think about the consequences first, but you are neglecting to remember the critical fact that an unborn human is totally unable to make any compromises. This is merely more proof that its life is purely animal, it is purely owned by its mother, and it is as purely disposable as a fly that you might casually swat. The Golden Rule cannot apply in cases where it cannot be understood by all involved entities. We do not ask a rock whether it is OK to hack it out of a mountain, and then carve a statue out of it. We do not ask a tree if it is OK to prune it into looking like a garden ornament. We do not ask a horse if it wants to plow the field today. And we do not ask a chicken what it thinks about making a very personal contribution to dinner. So, what characteristics does an unborn human possess, that means we should always give its existence any more consideration than we do a rock or a tree or a horse or a chicken? You have yet to offer any sort of nonhypocritical or unprejudiced answer to previously-asked equivalent questions.


So then, if the golden rule only be applied to those who understand it it is perfectly logical to assume that killing a 2 month old is not murder, since they have no more intelligence then that of an animal.

So your saying it is ok by you that if you were a fetus that you are to be killed for the vanity of the mother?


FALSE. Because, by widening the definition of "person" to include appropriate non-humans, it logically follows that, thanks to the Scientific Fact that no unborn human exhibits any of the characteristics that distinguish people --of any physical type, including metaphysical type-- from animals, no unborn human deserves to be called a "person". Which means killing it cannot possibly be "murder", any more than swatting a fly is murder.

Is a fetus classified as a homo sapien or not? If not then what is it classifed as? Does it somehow evolve from one creature to another? Because if that's true you got me, its not human, thus it's nothing more then an animal.

Ah, but you are now confusing bodies with minds. An Artificial Intelligence will be a mind, and "turning off" the machine body is identical to killing it. You cannot turn it on again and end up with exactly the same mind as before, thanks to a certain paradox regarding the nature of a person-class mind. Free Will cannot be entirely encoded in either hardware or software; it is a "quantum uncertainty" phenomenon. Only in the randomness of Quantum Mechanics can you find "Causes" that are not themselves "Effects". Use any other phemonenon, and you will end up with pure Cause-and-Effect stuff, the essence of "Determinism", and the absolute opposite of Free Will. Therefore, once an Artificial Intelligence begins to exist, it will persist among the consequences of certain purely random choices, and the way it interacts, its personality, will depend on continuity. That continuity is destroyed if the Artificial Intelligence is turned off, and totally different random things will become associated with a totally new personality, when the machine is turned on again. In an Ethical world, if there is any Free-Willed mind (among other characteristics) that is equivalent to your own mind's characteristics, then that mind has a value equal to your own mind's value. Would you like for your mind to be turned off, never to recover its current personality? (Note that short of significant brain death, your brain always has low-level operations that maintains your personality, even if your are asleep or in a coma. The worst-case scenarios, in which people "died" on the operating table and stayed clinically dead for twenty minutes and then came back to life, all claim that their personalities had become changed (and they also claim various religion-related stuff that we can ignore, because that would associate human mentation with souls instead of brains, and you've indicated that you choose not to consider that route).

Meanwhile, an unborn human has no more mind than that of an ordinary animal, such as a cat. Only after birth can a human grow enough brain to support the kind of capable mind that we normally associate with "persons". And there still is no requirement that this growth occur, that that potential be fulfilled.

My arguement is that the fact that it is homosapien means it has the right to live.

On what grounds can you say that the decisions of the future will be different from the decisions of today, if the data that is used to make decisions in the future is applied today? A definition of "person", univerally workable, will be as applicable today as in the future. Don't let hypocritical or prejudiced bias tell you today what counts as being "right", when you are not including all the data that actually is as relevant today as it will be in the Incoming Future!!!

On what grounds can you say that the decisions of today will be the same as that of the futures? You dont know, I dont know, no one does because it is impossible to see into the future. The fact that a fetus will become human will be just as applicable in the future as it is today.

UTTERLY FALSE. Because there is no such thing in Nature as a Right To Life. Do you think that Nature cares one whit if humans stupidly built their homes in Tornado Alley, or along the San Andreas Fault? Hah! They will be killed exactly as casually by Nature, as you might swat a mosquito. "Right To Life" is a political thing that humans have arbitrarily claimed for themselves, in spite of Natural Fact. And, because it is political and arbitrary, it can be applied and withheld politically and arbitrarily. As indeed it is, since unborn humans are not granted Right To Life, while born humans are granted it. Nor do the unborn need to have it, since they totally lack the brainpower to appreciate it. On what rational, logical, and/or objective grounds can you say otherwise?

In essence your argueing for agreeing with the laws here, not that abortion is a right? based on this statement you would be arguing for life if the law said it was the right thing.

Easy, the fact that the fetus will become homo sapien.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It appears the quoting is borked or something...Jallman and JR got switched and Tecoyah appeared to be quoting Jallman when he was really quoting JR....:doh

Really have nothing to add other than that. Tecoyah said more eloquently what I would have with the same basis.
 

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
SSlightning said:
So then, if the golden rule only be applied to those who understand it it is perfectly logical to assume that killing a 2 month old is not murder, since they have no more intelligence then that of an animal.
Well, not quite. A normally developing two-year-old human is in a "gray area" regarding "where do you draw the line" between humans and animals. It does have significant (more than animal-level) Free Will and advanced empathy; it does not yet have much in the way of symbol-abstraction ability. Also you are ignoring the tradition that as long as young humans are unable to be even minimally self-reliant, they are not granted much in the way of rights, and are often treated legally like property. So, whose 2-year-old do you think you can kill? Your own? Certainly not someone else's; there are laws against wanton destruction of other people's property! (You are not allowed to shoot your neighbor's dog.) Note that I personally would raise only a minor objection to your killing your own 2-year-old. I would object based on the above facts about "gray area", but not-object because you are thereby deleting worthless genes from the gene pool, with you declaring your own genes worthless, by halting their propagation to future generations! Obviously if this sort of worthlessness weeds itself out of the gene pool, then the rest of the human race benefits thereby (everyone else won't be killing their own 2-year-olds).
SSlightning said:
So your saying it is ok by you that if you were a fetus that you are to be killed for the vanity of the mother?
Of course it is OK. I exist in spite of all abortions ever done; if I didn't exist I wouldn't be able to answer that question either way, right? You are failing to understand that there is no way to tell in advance what political leanings a given fetus will acquire if it is allowed to be born and grow up. I suppose that if there was such a way, humanity would be doomed to an everlasting dictatorship, by the simple expedient of aborting all possible political opponents in the womb. But since there isn't any such way, your question is moot. It is like saying that abortion kills potential Einstiens without acknowledging the equal possibility that it also kills potential Hitlers. It balances out.
SSlightning said:
Is a fetus classified as a homo sapien or not? If not then what is it classifed as? Does it somehow evolve from one creature to another? Because if that's true you got me, its not human, thus it's nothing more then an animal.
"Homo sapiens" is a name for the human species, and all modern humans are members of that species, from the zygote stage onward. That fact does not make the human zygote, or blastocyst, or embryo, or fetus, anything other than a purely animal organism. It has none of the mental traits that distinguish the generic individual person from the generic individual animal. Look at the logic regarding "person", when non-humans are allowed to be persons, in more detail:
+++
1. The English language allows for both specific and generic designations.
2. Any language tends to evolve, depending mostly on what percentage of its speaking population embraces a particular linguistic change.
3. The word "person" in English has traditionally been synonymous with the word "human", such that even dictionaries note it.
4. Recent widespread linguistic usage of "person" (in decades of science fiction) has carried the word to a widely accepted and more generic level, such that it can also be applied as a designator of non-human organisms which are equivalent in certain respects to humans.
5. The word "person" has NEVER acquired any meaning which allows it to be applied as a designator of ordinary animals.
6. Logically, we now need to know exactly how the word "person" can designate humans and human-equivalent non-human organisms, but never animals.
7. Once #6 has been accomplished, to specify a dividing line between persons and animals, and recognizing the biological fact that the human body is 100% an animal body, logic inexoribly concludes that the normal and complete process of human biological growth starts out on the pure-animal side of the dividing line, and ends up on the person-qualifying side of the dividing line.
8. In other words, #7 is saying that there will be no way humans below a certain developmental stage, depending on #6, can continue to be assigned the traditional designation of "person".
9. Therefore no one, in this era of the English language, can aribitrarily confer "personhood" upon all humans.
+++
More on this below.
SSlightning said:
My arguement is that the fact that it is homosapien means it has the right to live.
But that statement is not a fact, as explained in text that you quoted in Msg #968, shortly after you wrote the above sentence. Your mere claim that your statement is factual does not make it factual. Let's see the supporting evidence for your claim!
SSlightning said:
On what grounds can you say that the decisions of today will be the same as that of the futures? You dont know, I dont know, no one does because it is impossible to see into the future. The fact that a fetus will become human will be just as applicable in the future as it is today.
I did not say the precise thing that you are talking about. I specifically indicated that if the "background data", behind a decision, was the same in the future as today, then the same decision should result. As an example, suppose a geology scan shows that there is no sign of an oil deposit beneath a certain piece of landscape. On the basis of that data the oil company might decide not to drill for oil, right? And if in the future another geology scan is made, and the same result comes back, do you think that the decision about drilling would be the same or different? SO: with respect to the thing that I was actually talking about, that thing was the definition of "person". If the definition of "person" today is limited to humans, as you have been prejudicially promoting, then of course unborn humans would qualify as persons under that definition. But in the long-long-term Incoming Future, when potential interactions with non-human intelligences of one sort or another cannot be denied, that definition of "person" will need to be modified to avoid conflicts. Well, if we can modify "person" in the future to accommodate non-human intelligences, then we can do it now, right? Which means that this piece of background information becomes the same now as it would be in the future --and also means that the enumerated logic earlier in this message applies now, just as much as it would apply in the future.
FutureIncoming said:
"Right To Life" is a political thing that humans have arbitrarily claimed for themselves, in spite of Natural Fact. And, because it is political and arbitrary, it can be applied and withheld politically and arbitrarily. As indeed it is, since unborn humans are not granted Right To Life, while born humans are granted it. Nor do the unborn need to have it, since they totally lack the brainpower to appreciate it. On what rational, logical, and/or objective grounds can you say otherwise?
SSlightning said:
In essence your argueing for agreeing with the laws here, not that abortion is a right?
WRONG. I am saying that the laws are correct in granting abortion as a right, because that agrees with the Natural Fact that that there is no such thing as a "Right to Life".
SSlightning said:
based on this statement you would be arguing for life if the law said it was the right thing.
FALSE. I would be arguing that a law prohibiting abortion is a stupid one that does not agree with Natural Fact. Just like a law (actually attempted!) that tried to set the mathematical constant "pi" equal to exactly 3 was a stupid proposal that did not agree with Natural Fact. The political "right to life" was created solely for the purpose of encouraging people to get along with each other. Thus the stuff I wrote earlier about Ethics applies, including the fact that unborn humans are strictly and only and totally uncompromisingly selfish in their purely-animal-level parasitic activities. Into the category of "generic non-persons" they fit, perfectly.
SSlightning said:
Easy, the fact that the fetus will become homo sapien.
A fetus can be a member of the species homo sapiens already, but that fact means nothing. Consider a proven-to-be-brain-dead human on life-support. Fully "homo sapiens" is the species of that totally animal living body. It measurably has no chance of recovering its "person"ality. Your criteria for "right to life" would forbid "pulling the plug", in spite of the fact that nobody would benefit from keeping that mindless body on life-support (except the doctors, of course, but their self-interest/conflict-of-interest spoils any "keep the plug in" statements they might make).
 
Last edited:

SSlightning

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
FutureIncoming said:
But that statement is not a fact, as explained in text that you quoted in Msg #968, shortly after you wrote the above sentence. Your mere claim that your statement is factual does not make it factual. Let's see the supporting evidence for your claim!

Just because I dont supply you with evidence that my statement is true doesn't make it false.

Prove to me, that a fetus within a woman's body will not grow up to be a human, or a homo sapien a majority of the time.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
doughgirl said:
Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Jallman Not so fast.


You allow her choice up until YOU TAKE IT AWAY. When was that when you all of a sudden say its murder? Well at one time you said it was what 26 weeks? 28 weeks? Then you went down to 18 weeks? 16 weeks? What is it today? Do tell us what your magical number is now.

You utter the most insane bullshit consistently. Do go back and read the previous posts...I never said 26 weeks. I never said 28 weeks and I never said 16 weeks. You are a hysterical liar with no way to argue your points except to vilify and lie. I take nothing away. Just like you have a choice to file for an early tax return, that choice runs out when the deadline is met. Restrictions on a choice are not removal of a choice. God are you so friggin dense that you cant comprehend reality? Is it neccessary for you to enter every conversation with all the stupidity of a vacant-eyed moonbat. You seriously have to be the one most disreputable person currently on this forum.

Ok tootsie……….

My name is not tootsie, freak.

You said, “Abortion is not murder. This has been proven here already, Johnny Come Lately. Get your emotions under control and stop lying/vilifying.”

So you are saying abortion is not murder. READ EVERYONE…..JALLMAN SAYS ABORTION IS NOT MURDER. ABORTION, ABORTION IS NOT NOT MURDER.
Now you said in a prior post that YOU WERE NOT FOR PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION THAT IT WAS WRONG.

You sure are grasping really hard to win back some ground. Give up and stay down already. READ EVERYONE I DOUGHGIRL AM A HYSTERICAL LIAR WHO MUST MISREPRESENT EVERYTHING SAID BY JALLMAN BECAUSE I CAN DO NOTHING BUT LIE

I have consistently said that abortion is not murder until personhood is a possibility in the fetus. At one time, long ago, I believed that time, based on scientific data available to me, to be 24 weeks. Based on other scientific data available to me, I moved that back to 18 weeks. If your concern was for the babies as you claim, you would be happy about my change. Instead, you prove your emotional disturbance by ridiculing me for offering compassion at an earlier age. READ EVERYONE I DOUGHGIRL AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT INDULGING MY CRUDE MISREPRESENTATIONS THAN I AM ABOUT SAVING THE "UNBORN"

Why are you against partial birth abortion JALLMAN if you think its not murder?

Whats so hard about it? Oh, right, look who I am responding to...madame psychosis herself. whatever doughgirl, you just keep doing whatever it is that keeps the voices talking just to you.

Man the “sexopathic left” are confused.

READ EVERYONE I DOUGHGIRL AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING PARTISAN JABS THAN I AM ABOUT SAVING THE UNBORN

you are the most unhumorous joke I have ever encountered
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
jallman said:
I have consistently said that abortion is not murder until personhood is a possibility in the fetus.

It seems to me that personhood is a legal term. So a fetus will NEVER be granted personhood till the law grants it.

At one time, long ago, I believed that time, based on scientific data available to me, to be 24 weeks. Based on other scientific data available to me, I moved that back to 18 weeks.
I always wonder what will happen when they get a workable artificial womb. If scientists are oneday able to grow babies how old should we allow them to get and for how long can they be considered property of the scientists monkeying with them? Granted, hopefully, we are a long way from having to deal with those questions. At least I hope we are:roll:
 

SSlightning

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
stop giving jallman a hard time about abortion being murder it is NOT because the definition of murder is an illegal act of killing. Abortion is killing an unborn child, not murdering it.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
SSlightning said:
stop giving jallman a hard time about abortion being murder it is NOT because the definition of murder is an illegal act of killing. Abortion is killing an unborn child, not murdering it.

Thank you SSlightning...I do believe there may now be two pro-lifers in this forum that I respect.
 
Top Bottom