• 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.

Explain Your Reasoning.

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
FutureIncoming said:
Perhaps this may be true on the distant planet on which, apparently, you reside among those alien beings you frequently reference. However, the legislatures of many of these United States see it differently. This is the way a few of them regard the unborn child. This will also give you some understanding of contempt they hold for the Roe v. Wade limitations placed upon them.

Arizona: The "unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development" is fully covered by the state's murder and manslaughter statutes. For purposes of establishing the level of punishment, a victim who is "an unborn child shall be treated like a minor who is under twelve years of age." Senate Bill 1052, signed into law on April 25, 2005, amending the following sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes: 13-604, 13-604.01, 13-703, 13-1102, 13-1103, 13-1104, 13-1105, 13-4062, 31-412, 41-1604.11 and 41-1604.13.

Idaho: Murder is defined as the killing of a "human embryo or fetus" under certain conditions. The law provides that manslaughter includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus without malice. The law provides that a person commits aggravated battery when, in committing battery upon the person of a pregnant female, that person causes great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to an embryo or fetus. Idaho Sess. Law Chap. 330 (SB1344)(2002).

Illinois: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, §§5/9-1.2, 5/9-2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993). Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-3.1. A person commits battery of an unborn child if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an unborn child. Read with Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-4.4.

Kentucky: Since February, 2004, Kentucky law establishes a crime of "fetal homicide" in the first, second, third, and fourth degrees. The law covers an "unborn child," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens in utero from conception onward, without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency."

Louisiana: The killing of an "unborn child" is first degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§14:32.5 - 14.32.8, read with §§14:2(1), (7), (11) (West 1997).

It matters to the legislatures of the states listed above, as well as many others.It is viewed the same as a death after birth. In the first case it is natural; in the second case it is deliberate. That is the difference.Brainpower is not the criteria for the right to live; humanness is.NO!!!

Labor is a commodity used by employers. It varies in quality and quantity. Workers offer their labor for sale. Employers buy labor and pay what it is worth to them. Workers are free to sell their labor at the highest price it will command.

Workers who offer quality labor in sufficient quantities are never concerned with minimum wages because they are always able to earn considerably more than that.

The problem lies not with the employer but with the worker. If a minimum wage worker takes the necessary steps to solve his problem, he will no longer have to be a minimum wage worker.

The employer will get more for his money and the worker will get more money for his labor. Everybody will be happier.

Barring accident or disability, the place in which any individual finds himself is the sum total of all of the decisions he has made to that point in his life.You're welcome.

Two things, I would caution against using human laws as evidence for absolute rulings on morality. Laws which deal with morality are generally the product of the general populous' views on morals, not the other way around.

Laws don't have any bearing on morals, it is morals who have bearing on laws.

So, the use of the product as a defense of the means is generally a bad idea.

The second problem that I have is with your personal views towards the employment question. In your thinking, or at least my interpretation of it, there is no leeway for environmental factors.

Not everyone has the same opportunities given to them that you or I have received. Not everyone is able to choose both schooling and eating, as it can be one-or-the-other for some individuals. Not everyone has a safe place to sleep at night. Not everyone has a perfect schooling environment where each child is supported even when failing instead of held back and forgotten about. Yes, America is supposed to be about equality, and to a good extent it is, but total eqality is an unreachable goal, so you should not judge those who don't have it as good as you.
 

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
Fantasea quoted: "It doesn't matter if humans are alone in the Universe and no such nonhumans exist. What matters is Being Prepared, per the Boy Scout motto, just in case. And "being prepared" ALWAYS involves thinking about possibilities.
So, go ahead. What IS your Universally Applicable Definition that anywhere and everywhere can separate the people from the animals? The definition you have been using up until now, based on human selfishness, human short-sightedness, and human parochial arbitrariness, just isn't going to work."

Fantasea wrote: "The appropriate retort to so ridiculous a premise is found in the words of Lewis Carroll which need no amplification, "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe; all mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe."

You are once again making unproved claims. In what way is the quoted premise ridiculous? In what way is your retort appropriate? In what way are you not grasping at straws, trying to dodge a serious question? Do you know that respectable scientists from around the world, in a number of different professions, have created a document describing proposals for the United Nations to consider, about "what do we do next?" if SETI researchers ("Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence") actually find something? See http://www.naapo.org/SETIprotocol.htm Those scientists are assuming that the ETs will qualify as people. Are YOU going to wave your current definition of "person" in the scientists' and politicians' faces, and insist that they use it??? Or is an improved definition in order, EVEN FOR YOU? Dare you even say WHY you don't want to answer the Question of how to always and anywhere separate people from animals? Of course I am quite willing to speculate that you know that if you did answer it honestly, your oppositon to abortion would then become proveably-senseless drivel. TOUGH! That's what you get for deciding to believe things that aren't true: CORRECTED.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
A "zygotic human", "embryonic human", and "fetal human" are all "Diveloping Humans"; and that is where I place their value.

I can understand where you're coming from. Your intent for the phrases is perfectly understandable, but that doesn't change the way the current English language is structured. Yes, languages are just tools in which one communicates ideas, but you alone cannot make up words to be socially accepted. It takes someone far greater than you, like Paris Hilton, to do that </sarcasm>.

I stand by my previous assessment and say that those three phrases change the meaning of the term to "a human that possesses the characteristics of a [blank]" instead of "a human [blank]."
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
[Quote = Futureincoming]
Fantasea quoted: "Your indulgence in hypocrisy nets you zero debate points. Debates are not won by employing emotion-charged buzzwords. Why didn't you just say "the killing of unborn humans" and "These unborn are human" and "which gives an unborn human"? --OBVIOUSLY, because you thought the circular logic could be hidden! YOU LOSE!"
<snip>...you are implying logic of the following faulty type:
1. "Humans are important because of significant brainpower." --Let's pretend this is true, just for fun.
2. "Unborn humans have no significant brainpower." --This IS quite true.
3. "Unborn humans are important because they are human." --ILLOGICAL.
I'm sure you will resist believing that, so here is some similar faulty logic of the exact same type:
1. "Males seek sex because of testosterone" -- A true equivalent of 1. above
2. "Fantasea has no testosterone.' --A pretend-true equivalent of 2. above
3. "Fantasea seeks sex because he is male." --ILLOGICAL!
YOU LOSE, AGAIN."

Fantasea wrote: "The apparent need to resort to shouting your denials does nothing to imbue them with the validity they sorely lack."


You are again making an unproved statement. Until you can offer proof of the invalidity of what you quoted, your statement is worthless. For example, in the second numbered grouping statements, the corollary of 1. is that males having no testosterone do not seek sex. And while the statement 3. makes the assumption that Fantasea is male, the illogic of the statement is otherwise quite valid, simply because 1. specifies that testosterone, not maleness, is the reason for seeking sex.

Similar reasoning applies to the first group of numbered statements. The corollary of 1. is that humans without brainpower are unimportant. YOU are on record as having stressed that human brainpower is the reason that humans are more special than mere animals. If the corollary of 1. is not true, then YOU have to produce some OTHER reason why humans are more special than other animals. Without such a reason, the illogic of statement 3. in that group is as perfectly valid as the illogic of statement 3. in the second group.

You are indeed losing the debate, so far. Certainly you quite obviously failed to provide any supporting evidence for the "Fantasea wrote" statement that I quoted above. Why should anyone believe what you say, if you offer no supporting evidence?
All of your fuss and bluster confirms the fact that all you have going for your argument is reliance on semantics because you have no medical or scientific evidence to present which justifies the aborting of nearly fifty million US children in the womb since Roe v. Wade.

You have, simply, the opinion of the Supreme Court which, in Roe, ignores the biological facts of human pregnancy and dwells on the question of personal privacy.

I call your attention to several facts:

1. Subsequent courts have frequently overturned the decisions of earlier courts.

2. The second paragraph of Section IX, b, which refers to “speculation”, contains the seeds of the destruction of Roe v. Wade.

3. The words of Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, who said:

“We are not unaware that we are not final because we are infallible;
we know that we are infallible only because we are final.”​
 

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
Fantasea quoted: "You are on record as placing considerable importance on the fact that a pregnant woman has a living human in her womb. SO, BE CONSISTENT, NOT HYPOCRITICAL!!!!"

Fantasea then wrote a bunch of stuff about what various human legislatures have done.


You perhaps have heard this Charles Dickens quote before?
"The Law is a ass."

That is usually especially true when science-related matters are placed before legislatures. THEY can be excused for using the vernacular "child" with respect to an unborn human, due to plain and simple ignorance of science. YOU cannot be excused in resorting to the vernacular in one way ("child") while deliberately refusing to accept the vernacular in another way ("Being") -- especially since the hypocrisy of it has been carefully pointed out to you.

Next, another relevant fact about human legislatures is that they consist of humans, complete with human beliefs and prejudices and self-interest. It is as difficult to persuade them to approach a given issue objectively as it is to persuade you to devise an objective definition of "person". Just count the number of "pork barrel" laws for proof of that statement. Have you ever thought about the fact that if a legislature requires births to take place, then more people enter the economy and perhaps more taxes will be generated, to be siphoned off by the members of the legislature? For a more obvious equivalent situation, just think about all those preachers out there saying two things for millenia, like a broken record: "Be fruitful and multiply" and "Tithe 10% to us." Self Interest At Work there, absolutely!!! So, as long a legislature cannot approach the facts about humanity with scientific objectivity, everything it does should be suspected of covering ulterior motives. Probably worthless until proved otherwise, that is.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
[Quote = IValueFreedom][/quote]
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Perhaps this may be true on the distant planet on which, apparently, you reside among those alien beings you frequently reference. However, the legislatures of many of these United States see it differently. This is the way a few of them regard the unborn child. This will also give you some understanding of contempt they hold for the Roe v. Wade limitations placed upon them.

Arizona: The "unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development" is fully covered by the state's murder and manslaughter statutes. For purposes of establishing the level of punishment, a victim who is "an unborn child shall be treated like a minor who is under twelve years of age." Senate Bill 1052, signed into law on April 25, 2005, amending the following sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes: 13-604, 13-604.01, 13-703, 13-1102, 13-1103, 13-1104, 13-1105, 13-4062, 31-412, 41-1604.11 and 41-1604.13.

Idaho: Murder is defined as the killing of a "human embryo or fetus" under certain conditions. The law provides that manslaughter includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus without malice. The law provides that a person commits aggravated battery when, in committing battery upon the person of a pregnant female, that person causes great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to an embryo or fetus. Idaho Sess. Law Chap. 330 (SB1344)(2002).

Illinois: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, §§5/9-1.2, 5/9-2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993). Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-3.1. A person commits battery of an unborn child if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an unborn child. Read with Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-4.4.

Kentucky: Since February, 2004, Kentucky law establishes a crime of "fetal homicide" in the first, second, third, and fourth degrees. The law covers an "unborn child," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens in utero from conception onward, without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency."

Louisiana: The killing of an "unborn child" is first degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§14:32.5 - 14.32.8, read with §§14:2(1), (7), (11) (West 1997).

It matters to the legislatures of the states listed above, as well as many others.It is viewed the same as a death after birth. In the first case it is natural; in the second case it is deliberate. That is the difference.Brainpower is not the criteria for the right to live; humanness is.NO!!!

Labor is a commodity used by employers. It varies in quality and quantity. Workers offer their labor for sale. Employers buy labor and pay what it is worth to them. Workers are free to sell their labor at the highest price it will command.

Workers who offer quality labor in sufficient quantities are never concerned with minimum wages because they are always able to earn considerably more than that.

The problem lies not with the employer but with the worker. If a minimum wage worker takes the necessary steps to solve his problem, he will no longer have to be a minimum wage worker.

The employer will get more for his money and the worker will get more money for his labor. Everybody will be happier.

Barring accident or disability, the place in which any individual finds himself is the sum total of all of the decisions he has made to that point in his life.
Two things, I would caution against using human laws as evidence for absolute rulings on morality. Laws which deal with morality are generally the product of the general populous' views on morals, not the other way around.

Laws don't have any bearing on morals, it is morals who have bearing on laws.
Why do you introduce “morality” into what is intended to be a strictly ‘biological” discussion?

The laws enacted to protect unborn children merely extend to them the legal protections against bodily harm that are available to their older brothers and sisters.
So, the use of the product as a defense of the means is generally a bad idea.
Maybe so. However, that statement is not at all applicable.

The second problem that I have is with your personal views towards the employment question. In your thinking, or at least my interpretation of it, there is no leeway for environmental factors.

Not everyone has the same opportunities given to them that you or I have received. Not everyone is able to choose both schooling and eating, as it can be one-or-the-other for some individuals. Not everyone has a safe place to sleep at night. Not everyone has a perfect schooling environment where each child is supported even when failing instead of held back and forgotten about. Yes, America is supposed to be about equality, and to a good extent it is, but total eqality is an unreachable goal, so you should not judge those who don't have it as good as you.
Forget about the Abraham Lincolns, George Washington Carvers, and the millions who educated themselves in log cabins and one room schools. Forget about the Andrew Carnegies, the John Jacob Astors, and the millions of self made millionaires of yesteryear.

Some GWB presidential cabinet appointees:

Colin Powell, the son of Jamaican immigrants, grew up in arguably the worst ghetto in the country, the South Bronx. He is the product of the defamed New York City Public School system.

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao couldn’t speak a word of English upon her arrival in the US at age 8 when her parents emigrated from Taiwan.

Secretary of Education Roderick R. Paige grew up in rural Mississippi and is the product of the then fully segregated public school system.

Anyone who wishes to succeed has all of the tools and resources available to ensure success. All it requires is effort and dedication. Regardless of one’s age or station in life, opportunities for improvement abound. Those who are willing to work toward a goal can achieve it. Those who are content to wallow in their misery can’t be prevented from doing so.

I don’t subscribe to the politically correct mantra that it’s my fault that someone else, who has no inclination to take advantage of the opportunities necessary to succeed, is failing.

The only guarantee any American gets is the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The first two come without strings. The third requires hard work. That’s why this country is such an attractive magnet for immigrants. They know that their success will be in direct proportion to their effort. They’re willing to leave everything behind for the chance to make it in the US.

Native-borns? That’s another story.
 

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
Fantasea wrote: "Brainpower is not the criteria for the right to live; humanness is."


As before, you continue to be illogical.
1. Humans CLAIM to be special.
2. Humans CLAIM a right to life based on 1.
3. When asked the nature of the specialness claimed in 1., the answer is "brainpower".
The conundrum begins when humans lacking brainpower are considered.
4. The corollary of 3. is that humans lacking brainpower cannot be special.
5. The corollary of 2. is that a right to life cannot be claimed for nonspecial humans.

That is very simple logic, with simple statements and no strange semantics.
YOU are essentially claiming that human specialness exists even when brainpower is lacking, but you have utterly failed to provide any data supporting the claim. You might as well try to "save your cake for later, and eat it at the same time". Logically impossible. Are the courts supposed to be objectively logical? If so, then Roe vs. Wade will continue to stand.



Fantasea quoted: "Finally, I have an extra-simple little hypocrisy test for you. Tell us what you think about "minimum wage" laws. If human life is really important, then shouldn't every job pay at least as much wage as is necessary for the human working that job to be able to survive to continue working that job? Just answer Yes or No, please."

Fantasea wrote: "NO!!!
Labor is a commodity used by employers. It varies in quality and quantity. Workers offer their labor for sale. Employers buy labor and pay what it is worth to them. Workers are free to sell their labor at the highest price it will command."


True, EXCEPT for one little fact that you neglected to mention: The Law of Supply and Demand. Let me present to you a nice simple economic Scenario. In this Scenario, everything is stable. Everybody is employed. Resources are adequate. Production of goods from resources by the employed exactly matches demand. OK? Now let's add a single factor to this Scenario: some extra people. If nothing else changes, then what are the consequences? YES, I know you will insist that other things change, but this is a laboratory Scenario, in which just one factor at a time can be studied, so please bear with me.

Well, obviously an increase in the number of people will increase the competition for the existing fixed number of jobs, and for the existing fixed supply of goods. Therefore, in accordance with the Law of Supply and Demand, wages will drop and prices will rise. THAT of course is the incentive to create more jobs to process more resources to bring the supply once again in alignment with the demand, but that is deliberately being ignored for the moment. I want you to consider the Question, "Does anybody benefit from this Scenario as it is, with the extra people in it?" How about the people who hire laborers and sell goods? DO they ACTUALLY have an incentive to create more jobs (and pay out more money) to increase the supply of goods (to sell at lowered cost)? In the normal world what happens is that at least one of the would-be employees gets disgusted with the wage/price situation to the point where he or she becomes an employer. THAT person then becomes a reason why extra jobs are created and extra goods enter the markets. But that person ALSO becomes a target! The other people who were previously refraining from creating extra jobs have a reason to put this newcomer out of business, to get their cushy extra profits back.

Well, there are Scenarios and then there are Scenarios. Can you agree that any Scenario in which population rises in exact synchronization with production-of-goods is perfectly equivalent to the initially static Scenario above? If so, can you then agree that WHENEVER population happens to rise faster than goods-production (regardless of whether the cause be a spurt in population growth or a breakdown in production), then wages tend to suffer and prices tend to rise? Have you noticed the Historical tendency for businesses to seek to monopolize a market, just so goods-production can be restricted to the highest-profit-margin point? And have you noticed that when one company buys out another, the total number of jobs always goes down?

It can actually be rigorously proved that the CAUSE of the famous cliche` "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is fundamentally the simple result of population increasing faster than goods-production. Historically, for a decent period of years, the Industrial Revolution increased goods-production so much faster than population-growth that the poor actually got rich faster than the rich. That's how the Middle Class came to consist of a lot of people. But unfortunately, that is also History. Today, if you look at global population growth and global goods-production, you will see that production isn't keeping pace. The Middle Class is declining. One person's income used to be enough to support a family, but nowadays the incomes of two people are almost always required.

And isn't it interesting that a lot of people who happen to be in the category of "hiring labor and selling goods" oppose abortion (which increases population, see)? Naturally, they also oppose Minimum Wage Laws, too (which would force them to pay out the extra funds they expect to aquire thanks to that same population increase). They actually care nothing for Human Life, except for the money they expect to extract from the increasingly miserable scrabbling masses, thanks to their manipulations in accordance with the Law of Supply and Demand.

HYPOCRITES is far too kind a description for the actions of those opponents of abortion. "Money-sucking vampires" might barely begin to approach descriptive adequacy. And your statements here imply that you might be one of them.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
FutureIncoming said:
Fantasea quoted: "It doesn't matter if humans are alone in the Universe and no such nonhumans exist. What matters is Being Prepared, per the Boy Scout motto, just in case. And "being prepared" ALWAYS involves thinking about possibilities.
So, go ahead. What IS your Universally Applicable Definition that anywhere and everywhere can separate the people from the animals? The definition you have been using up until now, based on human selfishness, human short-sightedness, and human parochial arbitrariness, just isn't going to work."

Fantasea wrote: "The appropriate retort to so ridiculous a premise is found in the words of Lewis Carroll which need no amplification, "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe; all mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe."

You are once again making unproved claims. In what way is the quoted premise ridiculous? In what way is your retort appropriate? In what way are you not grasping at straws, trying to dodge a serious question? Do you know that respectable scientists from around the world, in a number of different professions, have created a document describing proposals for the United Nations to consider, about "what do we do next?" if SETI researchers ("Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence") actually find something? See http://www.naapo.org/SETIprotocol.htm Those scientists are assuming that the ETs will qualify as people. Are YOU going to wave your current definition of "person" in the scientists' and politicians' faces, and insist that they use it??? Or is an improved definition in order, EVEN FOR YOU? Dare you even say WHY you don't want to answer the Question of how to always and anywhere separate people from animals? Of course I am quite willing to speculate that you know that if you did answer it honestly, your oppositon to abortion would then become proveably-senseless drivel. TOUGH! That's what you get for deciding to believe things that aren't true: CORRECTED.
I understand that astronomers, using the most modern and sophisticated equipment, incessantly search the universe in attempts to find evidence of intelligent life. I understand that vast sums of money are being spent to explore heavenly bodies which can be reached. So far, no luck, no life. But, the search will go on.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that any intelligent life in outer space has discovered us, either.

All of this, however, has no bearing on the fact that every abortion procedure snuffs the life of the occupant of an expectant mother's womb, an unborn human child.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
[Quote = Futureincoming]
Fantasea wrote: "Brainpower is not the criteria for the right to live; humanness is."

As before, you continue to be illogical.
1. Humans CLAIM to be special.
2. Humans CLAIM a right to life based on 1.
3. When asked the nature of the specialness claimed in 1., the answer is "brainpower".
The conundrum begins when humans lacking brainpower are considered.
4. The corollary of 3. is that humans lacking brainpower cannot be special.
5. The corollary of 2. is that a right to life cannot be claimed for nonspecial humans.

That is very simple logic, with simple statements and no strange semantics.
YOU are essentially claiming that human specialness exists even when brainpower is lacking, but you have utterly failed to provide any data supporting the claim. You might as well try to "save your cake for later, and eat it at the same time". Logically impossible.
My sole claim is the biological fact that the product of conception is a living, growing, developing, unborn human child.

You have, thus far, chosen to try to bend, twist, and contort that biological fact into something which it is not. You have been unsuccessful because facts are resilient. They always spring back to their origins.

I have asked you to furnish facts from a medical or scientific source which will support your claim. You have not done so and consistently lean on the Roe v. Wade opinion.
Are the courts supposed to be objectively logical? If so, then Roe vs. Wade will continue to stand.
No. The responsibility of the court is to opine on the merits of a dispute in light of existing legislation.

If you read the second paragraph of Section IX, b of Roe v. Wade, you cannot escape the conclusion that, in light of current knowledge not extant in 1973, its days are numbered.
Fantasea quoted: "Finally, I have an extra-simple little hypocrisy test for you. Tell us what you think about "minimum wage" laws. If human life is really important, then shouldn't every job pay at least as much wage as is necessary for the human working that job to be able to survive to continue working that job? Just answer Yes or No, please."

Fantasea wrote: "NO!!!
Labor is a commodity used by employers. It varies in quality and quantity. Workers offer their labor for sale. Employers buy labor and pay what it is worth to them. Workers are free to sell their labor at the highest price it will command."


True, EXCEPT for one little fact that you neglected to mention: The Law of Supply and Demand. Let me present to you a nice simple economic Scenario. In this Scenario, everything is stable. Everybody is employed. Resources are adequate. Production of goods from resources by the employed exactly matches demand. OK? Now let's add a single factor to this Scenario: some extra people. If nothing else changes, then what are the consequences? YES, I know you will insist that other things change, but this is a laboratory Scenario, in which just one factor at a time can be studied, so please bear with me.

Well, obviously an increase in the number of people will increase the competition for the existing fixed number of jobs, and for the existing fixed supply of goods. Therefore, in accordance with the Law of Supply and Demand, wages will drop and prices will rise. THAT of course is the incentive to create more jobs to process more resources to bring the supply once again in alignment with the demand, but that is deliberately being ignored for the moment. I want you to consider the Question, "Does anybody benefit from this Scenario as it is, with the extra people in it?" How about the people who hire laborers and sell goods? DO they ACTUALLY have an incentive to create more jobs (and pay out more money) to increase the supply of goods (to sell at lowered cost)? In the normal world what happens is that at least one of the would-be employees gets disgusted with the wage/price situation to the point where he or she becomes an employer. THAT person then becomes a reason why extra jobs are created and extra goods enter the markets. But that person ALSO becomes a target! The other people who were previously refraining from creating extra jobs have a reason to put this newcomer out of business, to get their cushy extra profits back.

Well, there are Scenarios and then there are Scenarios. Can you agree that any Scenario in which population rises in exact synchronization with production-of-goods is perfectly equivalent to the initially static Scenario above? If so, can you then agree that WHENEVER population happens to rise faster than goods-production (regardless of whether the cause be a spurt in population growth or a breakdown in production), then wages tend to suffer and prices tend to rise? Have you noticed the Historical tendency for businesses to seek to monopolize a market, just so goods-production can be restricted to the highest-profit-margin point? And have you noticed that when one company buys out another, the total number of jobs always goes down?
Irrespective of all you have written, consider this. The number of jobs in the US continues to increase. The living standard in the US continues to increase. The life expectancy in the US continues to increase.

Individuals fall into several categories.

Regardless of how they define success, there are:

Those who wish to succeed and are willing to do what is necessary.

Those who wish to succeed and are unwilling to do what is necessary.

Those who are content to be remain as they are.

Those who just don’t give a damn.
It can actually be rigorously proved that the CAUSE of the famous cliche` "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is fundamentally the simple result of population increasing faster than goods-production. Historically, for a decent period of years, the Industrial Revolution increased goods-production so much faster than population-growth that the poor actually got rich faster than the rich. That's how the Middle Class came to consist of a lot of people. But unfortunately, that is also History. Today, if you look at global population growth and global goods-production, you will see that production isn't keeping pace. The Middle Class is declining. One person's income used to be enough to support a family, but nowadays the incomes of two people are almost always required.
Two incomes are required to afford two new cars, multiple cell phones, homes, furnishings, clothing, and, in general, a preferred lifestyle far above the basics.

You fail to note that the numbers of the rich are increasing; the numbers of middle class are also increasing, and the numbers in poverty, if the hard-core incorrigibles are subtracted, are shrinking.

Those born into a lower economic class have every resource and opportunity available to them to acquire a first class education which will enable them to climb the economic ladder to whatever level they aspire.

The problem is that many refuse to make the required effort. Whose fault is that?

These days, the most profound indicator of class distinction is education.
And isn't it interesting that a lot of people who happen to be in the category of "hiring labor and selling goods" oppose abortion (which increases population, see)? Naturally, they also oppose Minimum Wage Laws, too (which would force them to pay out the extra funds they expect to aquire thanks to that same population increase). They actually care nothing for Human Life, except for the money they expect to extract from the increasingly miserable scrabbling masses, thanks to their manipulations in accordance with the Law of Supply and Demand.

HYPOCRITES is far too kind a description for the actions of those opponents of abortion. "Money-sucking vampires" might barely begin to approach descriptive adequacy. And your statements here imply that you might be one of them.
You are exceeding even your most ridiculous earlier statements.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
[Quote = Futureincoming]
Fantasea quoted: "You are on record as placing considerable importance on the fact that a pregnant woman has a living human in her womb. SO, BE CONSISTENT, NOT HYPOCRITICAL!!!!"
I don’t recall having said anything else; so where is the inconsistency or hypocracy?

Fantasea then wrote a bunch of stuff about what various human legislatures have done.
I wrote nothing. I quoted legislative fact.
You perhaps have heard this Charles Dickens quote before?

"The Law is a ass."
Yes, I have. And I note his use of improper grammar. I also note that Mr. Dickens made his mark in the field of fiction. I further note that he and his wife, Catherine, produced ten children, several of whom lived well into the twentieth century.

Somehow, I would venture that Mr. and Mrs. Dickens, if they were alive today, would be firmly against the pro-death abortion advocates. Don’t you agree?
That is usually especially true when science-related matters are placed before legislatures. THEY can be excused for using the vernacular "child" with respect to an unborn human, due to plain and simple ignorance of science. YOU cannot be excused in resorting to the vernacular in one way ("child") while deliberately refusing to accept the vernacular in another way ("Being") -- especially since the hypocrisy of it has been carefully pointed out to you.

Next, another relevant fact about human legislatures is that they consist of humans, complete with human beliefs and prejudices and self-interest. It is as difficult to persuade them to approach a given issue objectively as it is to persuade you to devise an objective definition of "person". Just count the number of "pork barrel" laws for proof of that statement. Have you ever thought about the fact that if a legislature requires births to take place, then more people enter the economy and perhaps more taxes will be generated, to be siphoned off by the members of the legislature? For a more obvious equivalent situation, just think about all those preachers out there saying two things for millenia, like a broken record: "Be fruitful and multiply" and "Tithe 10% to us." Self Interest At Work there, absolutely!!! So, as long a legislature cannot approach the facts about humanity with scientific objectivity, everything it does should be suspected of covering ulterior motives. Probably worthless until proved otherwise, that is.
I won’t even dignify this nonsense with a response.
 

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:
steen said:
A quote from your source:

Often, doctors can diagnose a hydatidiform mole shortly after conception. No fetal movement and no fetal heartbeat are detected. As parts of the mole decay, small amounts of tissue that resemble a bunch of grapes may pass through the vagina.

As I wrote, these moles cannot produce a child. Don't you agree?
Never claimed that they could. But they are human sperm and human egg merging into a human zygbote with human DNA all the same. Per YOUR definition, that makes them human beings.

It seems you have a bit of trouble admitting to that FACT. Why is that? Are you to cowardly to admit when you messed up? Or are you just straightforward dishonest?
 

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:
It is not the degree of mental development which gives an unborn child the right to be born, it is absolute degree of humanness it possesses from conception.
Ah, and therefore the hydatidiform mole is also having the right to be born. After all, you can't tell the difference at conception.
 

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:
My concern is not hypotheticals. It is with actuals. During an actual pregnancy there is an actual unborn child which, if actually aborted will actually die.
And your claim is actually not true.
No human has the absolute right to cause the death of another human, regardless of the fact that a misguided Supreme Court has opined otherwise.
And that also is actually downright false.
 

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:
The appropriate retort to so ridiculous a premise is found ....
Your cowardly attempt at deflecting away from challenges to your lies is duly noted. It is sad that you first lie and then are to much of a coward to deal with the challenges to your lies. Sure doesn't hold much for debate.
 

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:
Brainpower is not the criteria for the right to live; humanness is.
And as your criteria has shown, the hydatidiform mole then has the right to live. Any other stupud argument-corners you would like to back yourself into?
 

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:
[Quote = Futureincoming]There are two separate considerations. The one is the actual; the here and now, real life. The other is the contemplative, the speculative, the future. Each warrants individual attention. Attempting to co-mingle them as you do simply causes confusion
So when prolifers makes claims about what they WANT to be and present it as facts, they are outright deceptive. I am glad that you thus speak out against the prolife 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:
Why do you introduce “morality” into what is intended to be a strictly ‘biological” discussion?
But you are not discussing "strictly biological" either, so you are now showing the utmost in hypocricy, the projection. Your claims ignore biological facts all the time. So now you are BACK to your downright lying.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
FutureIncoming said:
That is very simple logic, with simple statements and no strange semantics.
YOU are essentially claiming that human specialness exists even when brainpower is lacking, but you have utterly failed to provide any data supporting the claim. You might as well try to "save your cake for later, and eat it at the same time". Logically impossible.
This is one of my major complaints about prolifers, that they often present their "because I say so" wishful thinking as if they were facts. They are VERY dishonest in that way.
 

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:
All of this, however, has no bearing on the fact that every abortion procedure snuffs the life of the occupant of an expectant mother's womb, an unborn human child.
:spin:

But then, your revisionist linguistic hyprebole, deceptions and outright lies don't really encourage any actual debate as you would merely just lie again.

So no, we are not discussing abortions, we are discussing your specific, false claims.
 

thapcballa

New member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Location
Port Clinon, Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Steen i have a question, why is baby in your opinion considered nonhuman until the second it comes out. Why isn't the baby considered human while inside the mother. Also explain why when someone kills a pregnant mother, its double homicide. Homicide is killing a human.
 

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:
[Quote = Futureincoming] My sole claim is the biological fact that the product of conception is a living, growing, developing, unborn human child.
As that is not a "biological fact" per your deceptive rethorics, and as you have several times been shown the invalid use of your revisionist linguistic hyperbole, it is now evident AGAIN:

YOU ARE LYING.

[/quote]You have, thus far, chosen to try to bend, twist, and contort that biological fact into something which it is not.[/quote]You have not yet provided a biological fact.
You continue to lie.

If you read the second paragraph of Section IX, b of Roe v. Wade, you cannot escape the conclusion that, in light of current knowledge not extant in 1973, its days are numbered.
Your claim that the conclusion is unescapable, well that one is false, as we have come to expect from somebody with your degree of deceptiveness in your posts.
Individuals fall into several categories.
Regardless of how they define success, there are:
Those who wish to succeed and are willing to do what is necessary.
Those who wish to succeed and are unwilling to do what is necessary.
Those who are content to be remain as they are.
Those who just don’t give a damn.Two incomes are required to afford two new cars, multiple cell phones, homes, furnishings, clothing, and, in general, a preferred lifestyle far above the basics.
It is duly noted that you, a prolifer has provided a definition for what constitutes an individual. Yet NONE of them are at all applicable to the embryo, fetus or even the zygote. Hence, you have just admitted that everytime you try to present the products of conception as an individual, you were outright lying.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
prolife false claims

Fantasea said:
Somehow, I would venture that Mr. and Mrs. Dickens, if they were alive today, would be firmly against the pro-death abortion advocates. Don’t you agree?
Nope. Dickens detested the poverty and endless masses of orphans, disposable kids and whatnot. Read his books and you will see.
I won’t even dignify this nonsense with a response.
Yeah, the usual Fantasea-has-no-answer-so-goes-for-the-non-answer-ridicule. Just more of your now very evidence cowardice.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
thapcballa said:
Steen i have a question, why is baby in your opinion considered nonhuman until the second it comes out.
As that is not my opinion, I am not sure what you mean with the question. Could you please resatte your question with accurate and specific terminologyu, and perhaps without actually trying to ahead of time assigning me a position that I do not hold?
Why isn't the baby considered human while inside the mother.
And the same with this question.

Let me help you. For one, there is no "baby" until birth, so even in that simple point, your question doesn't make sense. Secondly, I don't recall there having been any doubt as to the species concept here.

But please try to restate your questions in a meaningful form, so I can actually answer

Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Also explain why when someone kills a pregnant mother, its double homicide. Homicide is killing a human.
Again, the species designation of the product of conception has never been in doubt, so your question/comment still doesn't make sense.

Could you please clarify? Did you perhaps mean "person" instead of "human"? Or was it something else?

And likewise, I am not sure your attempt at defining "homicide" is correct either, so that alone will mess up your point to where it might not be answerable.

Please rephrase your question so it makes sense according to proper, specific and accurate terminology so I know what you are talking about, thanks.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
A quote from your source:

Often, doctors can diagnose a hydatidiform mole shortly after conception. No fetal movement and no fetal heartbeat are detected. As parts of the mole decay, small amounts of tissue that resemble a bunch of grapes may pass through the vagina.

As I wrote, these moles cannot produce a child. Don't you agree?

Never claimed that they could. But they are human sperm and human egg merging into a human zygbote with human DNA all the same. Per YOUR definition, that makes them human beings.
Here you go again, trying to twist, bend, and torture my words into a contortion which they are not. Once more, you have failed.
It seems you have a bit of trouble admitting to that FACT. Why is that? Are you to cowardly to admit when you messed up? Or are you just straightforward dishonest?
The only thing I am is wise to you and your antics.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
Ah, and therefore the hydatidiform mole is also having the right to be born. After all, you can't tell the difference at conception.
In another post you wrote agreed that your mole could never produce a child. I think you must be in need of a break, or something.
 
Top Bottom