[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.