Openminded, looking for intelligent arguments.

[Scrabaholic]

Please... you have no bearing on how many easy women i inseminate eithier

You're right, I don't. Nor do I want to. That is between you and them.

For your sake i hope your right if the law ever chanhes its mind i hope your not stuck dealing with unreasonable people

Very likely will not happen in my lifetime. Liberal governments won't touch it, nor will conservative ones. Most politicians here know it would be political suicide.

Dont have sex

I *will* have sex where, when and with whom I choose. If my contraceptive method fails, I will make the choice *I* feel is right. The only person who's views I will consider is my partner's.

 

[prometeus]

You parsed this out to such a level as it's almost nonsensical.

I parsed out nothing relevant. I showed you that you over reached and assumed wrongly that because one law which specifically notes that it is for a single purpose only, defines a fetus in line with your beliefs. That in no way is universal or some generally applicable fact.

Irrelevant if it's one law or a million laws.

No, it is relevant even if you deny it.

It is still the law.

No, is still in ONE law and not THE law. The law defines what is murder and that IS universal. If THE law was as you misrepresent it, then fetuses could be deducted as dependents for tax purposed, would be counted in the census, could even get a SS number. Go and apply for one and tell them its the law, see how well that works out for you.

I merely stated that they are defined as a human being by law.

Which is still wrong.

 

[Fishking]

I parsed out nothing relevant. I showed you that you over reached and assumed wrongly that because one law which specifically notes that it is for a single purpose only, defines a fetus in line with your beliefs. That in no way is universal or some generally applicable fact.

Obviously that statement went over your head and you're still doing the nonsensical single sentence parsing. That aside, you showed nothing. Every thing I stated is 100% fact.

No, it is relevant even if you deny it.

No, is still in ONE law and not THE law. The law defines what is murder and that IS universal. If THE law was as you misrepresent it, then fetuses could be deducted as dependents for tax purposed, would be counted in the census, could even get a SS number. Go and apply for one and tell them its the law, see how well that works out for you.

Sorry, no. You stating that it is "one law" doesn't matter. One law is still the law. If you violate it you will have broken the law. All factual statements, no matter how bad you try to make it not so. The issue here is that you are unable to hold two congruent points in your head at the same time. I'll spell it out in a simple manner so as to help the pro-choice crowd that has difficulty with the matter due to their position being filled with contradictions, resulting in cognitive dissonance.

Fact 1: There is A law (capitalized just for you) that defines the unborn child, at any stage of development as a human being.

Fact 2: Homicide one human being being the cause of death of another human being.

Fact 3: The law in Fact 1 is applied merely by circumstance (i.e. how the unborn child died).

Conclusion: Our legal system holds a contradictory and illogical position on this subject. A human being is a human being in nature, not by circumstance, feeling, or intentions. You cannot logical both support the position that the fetus isn't a human, with any rights to life, thereby allowing the mother to have it killed and feticide laws that are defined by that very thing. They are mutually exclusive.

Which is still wrong.

False, you even admitted it was so. Now you're contradicting yourself inside your own post. The mental breakdown that is occurring is fascinating to watch.

 

[prometeus]

Obviously that statement went over your head and you're still doing the nonsensical single sentence parsing.

I am parsing nothing. Facts remain facts.

That aside, you showed nothing.

I showed that you dishonestly misrepresented what UVVA is and that your assertion is still invalid.

Every thing I stated is 100% fact.

No, what you said was a misrepresentation of fact.

Sorry, no. You stating that it is "one law" doesn't matter.

To you probably not, because it refutes your misrepresentation.

One law is still the law.

No, one law is one law and it applies to nothing else and it certainly it is not THE law.

The issue here is that you are unable to hold two congruent points in your head at the same time.

As opposed to misrepresenting facts like you did and in your head imagining that you have proven something?

Conclusion: Our legal system holds a contradictory and illogical position on this subject.

Yes to a very limited extent. No one has denied that.

 

[minnie616]

...

Fact 2: Homicide one human being being the cause of death of another human being.

Fact 3: The law in Fact 1 is applied merely by circumstance (i.e. how the unborn child died).

...

Again you are confusing feticide with homicide.

And an unborn ( in utero) with a human being.

The US does not recognize the unborn as a human being.

The unborn is human species yes , but it is not yet a human being/person.

"Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man") is the binomial nomenclature (also known as the scientific name) for the only extant human species. Homo is the human genus, which also includes Neanderthals and many other extinct species of hominid; H. sapiens is the only surviving species of the genus Homo."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

 

[Fishking]

I am parsing nothing.

You are saying words that you obviously do not know what they mean. You're denying overly parsing statements while doing that very thing.

Facts remain facts.

I showed that you dishonestly misrepresented what UVVA is and that your assertion is still invalid.

No, what you said was a misrepresentation of fact.

To you probably not, because it refutes your misrepresentation.

Yes, facts are facts. Please point out where I misrepresented anything. A direct quote and how that statement isn't true, or is a misrepresentation. Don't say it, do it.

No, one law is one law and it applies to nothing else and it certainly it is not THE law.

The laws regulating speed limits are still the law, even if people on race tracks don't have to follow them.

As opposed to misrepresenting facts like you did and in your head imagining that you have proven something?

Yes to a very limited extent. No one has denied that.

^----all that whinging, and saying how wrong I am, and misrepresenting the facts, only for you to acknowledge I am right. Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[Fishking]

Again you are confusing feticide with homicide.

And an unborn ( in utero) with a human being.

The US does not recognize the unborn as a human being.

The unborn is human species yes , but it is not yet a human being/person.

"Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man") is the binomial nomenclature (also known as the scientific name) for the only extant human species. Homo is the human genus, which also includes Neanderthals and many other extinct species of hominid; H. sapiens is the only surviving species of the genus Homo."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

Nothing is confused. I'm showing logical incongruities. You are confused because what was presented (all facts) are a contradiction of ideas and concepts. In other words, at some level you are recognizing that these laws are not holding a consistent ideology.

 

[prometeus]

You are saying words that you obviously do not know what they mean.

Because they do not agree with your position?

You're denying overly parsing statements while doing that very thing.

You are the only one denying anything of relevance and that is that the law does not recognize the fetus as a human being.

The laws regulating speed limits are still the law

That is the dumbest thing you could possibly use as an example. Regulating speed limits is not the law. You are clearly clueless about law in general.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Pleas do not delude yourself. I did not agree with you. I acknowledged a simple fact that has nothing to do with your position in general

 

[Fishking]

Because they do not agree with your position?

You are the only one denying anything of relevance and that is that the law does not recognize the fetus as a human being.

No, you just don't understand the words being said and you continue to demonstrate such. You methodology of responding to posts by chopping up every sentence separately is ridiculous. You're literally saying you're not doing something, in the middle of doing it. Again, I understand that people have a really difficult time these days with understanding entire statements vs taking small snippets out for your convenience. It's OK, the media has trained you to do such so I can hardly blame you. It does present a problem to your credibility, though, so you might want to work on it.

That is the dumbest thing you could possibly use as an example. Regulating speed limits is not the law. You are clearly clueless about law in general.

Pleas do not delude yourself. I did not agree with you. I acknowledged a simple fact that has nothing to do with your position in general

If only there was something that said so...oh wait.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/speedlimit_laws.html

That aside, you agreed with me. Thanks again for "acknowledging" that fact. So why are you still here whining?

 

[thinkagain]

.

Sorry, no. You stating that it is "one law" doesn't matter. One law is still the law. If you violate it you will have broken the law. All factual statements, no matter how bad you try to make it not so. The issue here is that you are unable to hold two congruent points in your head at the same time. I'll spell it out in a simple manner so as to help the pro-choice crowd that has difficulty with the matter due to their position being filled with contradictions, resulting in cognitive dissonance.

Fact 1: There is A law (capitalized just for you) that defines the unborn child, at any stage of development as a human being.

Fact 2: Homicide one human being being the cause of death of another human being.

Fact 3: The law in Fact 1 is applied merely by circumstance (i.e. how the unborn child died).

Conclusion: Our legal system holds a contradictory and illogical position on this subject. A human being is a human being in nature, not by circumstance, feeling, or intentions. You cannot logical both support the position that the fetus isn't a human, with any rights to life, thereby allowing the mother to have it killed and feticide laws that are defined by that very thing. They are mutually exclusive..

Your argument is full of fallacy. The First is the well known "Appeal to Authority" ... in this case "The Law".

Just because a few politicians get into power and make a law claiming that a single human cell is a human, does not make that claim true.

Dumb humans made dumb laws ... on a regular basis. Just because some strict sharia extremists claim it is just to stone a woman for adultery does not make that claim true.

Just because Hitler made a law stating that Jews were "Subhuman" did not make that claim true.

If the politicians making a law, does not justify/prove (explain why) the zygote is a human, then it is fallacy to claim that because someone claimed something in a law that this claim is true.

The point of a debate on "Whether or not a zygote is human" is to give rational that proves, or explains why this claim is true.

Saying - This expert or this law says so, without giving any explanation for why this claim is true, does not explain anything. This is the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy by definition.

 

[Fishking]

Your argument is full of fallacy. The First is the well known "Appeal to Authority" ... in this case "The Law".

Just because a few politicians get into power and make a law claiming that a single human cell is a human, does not make that claim true.

Dumb humans made dumb laws ... on a regular basis. Just because some strict sharia extremists claim it is just to stone a woman for adultery does not make that claim true.

Just because Hitler made a law stating that Jews were "Subhuman" did not make that claim true.

If the politicians making a law, does not justify/prove (explain why) the zygote is a human, then it is fallacy to claim that because someone claimed something in a law that this claim is true.

The point of a debate on "Whether or not a zygote is human" is to give rational that proves, or explains why this claim is true.

Saying - This expert or this law says so, without giving any explanation for why this claim is true, does not explain anything. This is the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy by definition.

Looks like my point went entirely over your head as I was being critical of using the law for any premise regarding morality. Thanks for your support.

 

[thinkagain]

Looks like my point went entirely over your head as I was being critical of using the law for any premise regarding morality. Thanks for your support.

Clearly ... and NP

 

[Fishking]

Clearly ... and NP

I was showing how the law was contradictory within itself. Earlier (long thread and all that so easily missed) I had made a point about many laws in the past that were obviously not a valid premise to build on and specifically asked people if they thought blacks were actually 3/5ths of a person because the law said so.

On this subject, I run into people, time and again, who rely on the law as their fallback and so I use that very premise against them. Again, probably way too much thread to go through to see all of that.

 

[thinkagain]

I was showing how the law was contradictory within itself. Earlier (long thread and all that so easily missed) I had made a point about many laws in the past that were obviously not a valid premise to build on and specifically asked people if they thought blacks were actually 3/5ths of a person because the law said so.

On this subject, I run into people, time and again, who rely on the law as their fallback and so I use that very premise against them. Again, probably way too much thread to go through to see all of that.

I have run in to the "its the law" fallacy as well. The anti-abort position has no real support in science or philosophic reason so they rely mostly on fallacy, disingenuous arguments - falsehoods, an a whole lot of semantic nonsense and incorrect language usage.

 

[Fishking]

I have run in to the "its the law" fallacy as well. The anti-abort position has no real support in science or philosophic reason so they rely mostly on fallacy, disingenuous arguments - falsehoods, an a whole lot of semantic nonsense and incorrect language usage.

Ah...so we can have a straight philosophical and scientific discussion, just between us, on the subject?

 

[Lord of Planar]

For the fourth time in my life I feel compelled to investigate and reconsider my stance on abortion.

A little background. For the last 6 or so years I've settled the argument in my head this way. After seeing the difficulty associated with trying to figure out when "personhood" starts, I managed to justify that even if abortion is wrong in every circumstance, a proper respect for the right to human autonomy, especially over body, which should be one of the most essential and inalienable rights, requires that even if we grant personhood to a fetus we could not tell a woman she could not evict, in the same way that if homeless man came to your house and needed food and shelter for the next 9 months to survive you would not be required to do so and could evict him even if it meant he would die. This meant I wasn't okay with abortions after viability. Anyhow, this has been helpful for me over the last 6 years. As a libertarian it played to my strong sense of personal rights. As a medical professional (OB/Gyn) who has personally seen many miscarriages, it allowed me to recognize the moral and ethical significance of that loss as well.

Unfortunately for me, a thought entered my brain. Essentially that thought is this. My analogy I had used assumed a stranger. Obviously, a mother's obligation to her child is much different than a stranger's obligation to another stranger.

It has caused me to doubt my previous moral construct for answering the questions.

If you guys could answer, do you think I should throw out this construct? If so, I'd love to her the arguments you make to yourself to answer the two salient questions. 1) Is abortion wrong? 2) Should abortion be illegal? These are truly two separate questions.

Look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your help.

What about the moral obligation for some one to own up to their mistakes?

Maybe a person should not engage in an activity that can lead to death...

 

[Lord of Planar]

1) Is abortion wrong? 2) Should abortion be illegal? These are truly two separate questions.

Look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your help.

1) abortion is absolutely morally wrong... to snuff out innocent life.

2) It shouldn't be illegal, but highly restricted.

 

[thinkagain]

Ah...so we can have a straight philosophical and scientific discussion, just between us, on the subject?

Of course !

After some steer wrestling I can often get a rational lifer to agree that "experts disagree" on the status of the zygote. Given there are 5 main scientific perspectives on the question of "when human life begins" - metabolic, genetic , neurological, embryological, ecological - and only one puts conception as the beginning of "human life". It then becomes somewhat impossible to maintain the "Science is Settled" line that lifers will try to get away with.

Some will still try of course but, then end up looking really silly.

I will stop here for now but, once you can establish "experts disagree" the legal question pretty much settles itself.

 

[thinkagain]

1) abortion is absolutely morally wrong... to snuff out innocent life.

2) It shouldn't be illegal, but highly restricted.

It is impossible for humans to survive without snuffing out innocent life. That we have to kill life in order to survive is just the nature of our existence.

I think you need a better argument.

 

[Fishking]

Of course !

After some steer wrestling I can often get a rational lifer to agree that "experts disagree" on the status of the zygote. Given there are 5 main scientific perspectives on the question of "when human life begins" - metabolic, genetic , neurological, embryological, ecological - and only one puts conception as the beginning of "human life". It then becomes somewhat impossible to maintain the "Science is Settled" line that lifers will try to get away with.

Some will still try of course but, then end up looking really silly.

I will stop here for now but, once you can establish "experts disagree" the legal question pretty much settles itself.

Cool...it's getting late and so I'm going to sign off for now, but I look forward to exchanging ideas bred out of our own rational on the subject. For me, my experience has been it always comes down to a philosophical position as science can be broken down to a point where it doesn't really speak to it one way or the other. Because, when it really comes down to it, science can only speak to the life-cycle of a human. What this subject comes down to (again, my experience) is personhood status and when we grant them rights. That's not science, that's philosophy.

 

[joG]

Of course !

After some steer wrestling I can often get a rational lifer to agree that "experts disagree" on the status of the zygote. Given there are 5 main scientific perspectives on the question of "when human life begins" - metabolic, genetic , neurological, embryological, ecological - and only one puts conception as the beginning of "human life". It then becomes somewhat impossible to maintain the "Science is Settled" line that lifers will try to get away with.

Some will still try of course but, then end up looking really silly.

I will stop here for now but, once you can establish "experts disagree" the legal question pretty much settles itself.

Actually, I don't think there is really any question of when "human life" begins. Life is a continuum. It is also quite clear, when individual human organisms differentiate. The question you seem to mean is not scientific it is legal. It is about which rights humans are granted when.

 

[Scrabaholic]

1) abortion is absolutely morally wrong... to snuff out innocent life.

Opinion, not fact. "Innocent life" is an appeal to emotion - the zef is not capable of innocence or guilt.

2) It shouldn't be illegal, but highly restricted.

I disagree. It's not for the govt to practice medicine.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Actually, I don't think there is really any question of when "human life" begins. Life is a continuum. It is also quite clear, when individual human organisms differentiate. The question you seem to mean is not scientific it is legal. It is about which rights humans are granted when.

When it comes to identifying what something is, someone is going to be wrong. We know through biogenesis founded in biology that members of a species only produce members of there own species. The term zygote is merely a name we give to entities in a particular state of development like the words "infant" "teenager" are and we don't deny they're humans.

If we don't know what the unborn are because some scientists wants to say "the unborn are not humans until they have some certain arbitrary brain development" it's best to hold off the killing until we know what they are. In reality, the science has already been settled. Some scientists though that just so happen to be very extremely pro choice, will engage in pseudo science and say the unborn are not humans because they happen to not be big enough, developed enough, in the right location or whatever arbitrary characteristic they want to use.

Me and my dad go hunting on a regular basis and we don't shoot at **** when there happens to be some movement in the grass. We wait until we identify what it is and then we decide if we should shoot or not.

You're right though. A main part of this debate is to decide if unborn humans should be persons or not.

 

[minnie616]

Cool...it's getting late and so I'm going to sign off for now, but I look forward to exchanging ideas bred out of our own rational on the subject. For me, my experience has been it always comes down to a philosophical position as science can be broken down to a point where it doesn't really speak to it one way or the other. Because, when it really comes down to it, science can only speak to the life-cycle of a human. What this subject comes down to (again, my experience) is personhood status and when we grant them rights. That's not science, that's philosophy.

I agree that personhood begins with birth.

Most laws are made to punish those who break the laws.

Since most pro life people in the US agree ( at least most pro life politions do... as was made clear when Trump stated[ if it's against the law than the woman should be punished ]) that the woman who chooses an abortion should not be punished... than the US should not ban abortions before viability.

The US instead should be working to help reduce the numbers of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and to help turn any unwanted pregnancy into a wanted one.

 

[thinkagain]

Actually, I don't think there is really any question of when "human life" begins. Life is a continuum. It is also quite clear, when individual human organisms differentiate. The question you seem to mean is not scientific it is legal. It is about which rights humans are granted when.

When "human life" begins come down to how one defines "Human life" and whether one is using the noun or the descriptive adjective form of the word "human".

Obviously anything that can be described as coming from a human "human sperm, human egg" and is alive is Human life. Further, animate does not come from inanimate. (metabolic)

Others would say that something is not human until having a complete human DNA. Some would argue that something is not "a human" (noun) until significant brain function exists.

The 5 different scientific perspectives I mentioned are described here.
http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

What I am trying to establish is that "Experts Disagree". Once I establish this my claim is that the legal argument becomes easy.