Openminded, looking for intelligent arguments.

[Fishking]

Don't forget the functional IQ of 170. A "biologist" told me that. I'mma take his word for it and won't even bother to use the scientific method to see if he actually telling the truth or not.

Well, we all know that below 170 IQ you're basically sub-human so yeah, off to the glue factory.

 

[thinkagain]

Nothing you have said refutes the scientific fact that humans begins to exist after fertilization.

Right ... that is why you deleted my entire post leaving only my name (because you have no valid refutation of what I presented) Funny stuff.

The "Science" I presented refutes you nonsensical claim that the science is settled.

I see from your link that the only consistent view is the genetic view as it embraces the medical science while the other views are people trying to deny the obvious.

I give you a link to an excerpt from a developmental biology textbook which explains that there are 5 different scientific perspectives on when human life begins. (Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological)

One of those 5 perspectives agrees with you. The other 4 do not. On this basis you decide that the science is settled (Even though if the textbook states that the genetic perspective has fallen out of favor among scientists and gives the reasons why)

The only one denying the obvious is you

 

[thinkagain]

The "create the human" part is already done when human egg and human sperm combined. .

Dude ... what part of the "assuming the premise" fallacy do you not understand? You assuming that a human exists at conception does not make it true... nor does repeating this claim ad nauseam.

Fact: The zygote is a single human cell.
Fact: Being a single human cell does not make that cell a human. (heart cells, brain cells, bone cells) are not humans

How then is the single cell at conception different than these other cells that we should classify it as a human.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

How then is the single cell at conception different than these other cells that we should classify it as a human.

You already kinda ****ing explained how so not so long ago with your wonky carefully worded vocabulary to avoid admitting the zygote is a human just like a infant is a human.

I'm not going to engage your sophistry head on like you want me to to waste time.

 

[Fishking]

Thank you ... The other poster knows this as well but is far to disingenuous to say it because he knows it is a lost argument.

DNA defines that something has come from a Homo sapiens. Having complete DNA however does not necessarily make that entity a "Homo sapiens"

Almost every human cell has the same DNA as the zygote. A heart cell for example has the same DNA but, a human heart cell is not a human heart and certainly is not a human.

The only significant difference between the zygote cell and the heart cell is that the program codes for "create a human" in the zygote DNA are turned on.

The heart cell has this same instruction set but, these codes are just not turned on. We may be able to do this one day.

Does this difference make the zygote a "Homo sapiens" .... ? because DNA alone does not.

You're making a false comparison. You're comparing part of a whole to a whole. The zygote is the full human, barring mutations, in the beginning of it's life-cycle and is operating as intended.

 

[trouble13]

I would rather they not violate the Rule of law and the principles of freedom and liberty on which this nation was founded but, if that is what it takes .... so be it.

I will tell you one thing. Put things as I have and as you suggest - do the same to women what the are going to men and force them to be responsible for the decision of others .. and women will change their tune in a big hurry.

I offend them on a tegular basis by suggesting men stop taking on traditonaly male jobs. Women dont want to appriciate men and walk around with a big ole chip on their shoulder let them put their money where their mouths are.

I advocate for men to stop pursueing careers in the military, construction, police, and fireman. Have at it girls, you handle that stuff and us men will stay home and take care of the household and bitch at you that we need more attention when you get home from a long stressful day.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Thank you ... The other poster knows this as well but is far to disingenuous to say it because he knows it is a lost argument.

DNA defines that something has come from a Homo sapiens. Having complete DNA however does not necessarily make that entity a "Homo sapiens"

Almost every human cell has the same DNA as the zygote. A heart cell for example has the same DNA but, a human heart cell is not a human heart and certainly is not a human.

The only significant difference between the zygote cell and the heart cell is that the program codes for "create a human" in the zygote DNA are turned on.

The heart cell has this same instruction set but, these codes are just not turned on. We may be able to do this one day.

Does this difference make the zygote a "Homo sapiens" .... ? because DNA alone does not.

Hmm to be honest i gotta mentaly chew on this a bit. Your an interesting guy and your arguments are perplexing. Im not conceeding any ground to you but i am taking a timeout lol

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[RamFel]

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.

Good luck getting real and honest answers from the well-entrenched "usual supects" here at DP.

 

[minnie616]

Where is the outcry over the extreme public health crisis that we are facing where 700K unborn babies a year are either extremely deformed or the pregnancy is high risk! There should be programs and resources allocated to this matter!...
.

Where is the outcry that two - thirds of all fertilized human eggs ( zygotes ) either pass right through the woman's body or self abort within the first week of inplantion?

Where is the outcry that 15 to 20 percent of all known pregnancies ( where the woman is aware she is pregnant ) end in spontaneous abortion ( miscarriage ) ?

 

[year2late]

I offend them on a tegular basis by suggesting men stop taking on traditonaly male jobs. Women dont want to appriciate men and walk around with a big ole chip on their shoulder let them put their money where their mouths are.

I advocate for men to stop pursueing careers in the military, construction, police, and fireman. Have at it girls, you handle that stuff and us men will stay home and take care of the household and bitch at you that we need more attention when you get home from a long stressful day.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Do you realize how you sound?

Working mothers are out there. Hell, even some men do not even realize their wives work.I know a man that says his wife never worked they don't then all of a sudden acknowledged she was a school nurse.

I do not know what the stats are, but the numbers of working mothers is substantial. I am disgusted you do not seem to have respect for that.

And the ludicrous part of what you said is that women fought hard to get into careers in the military, police, and firefighting. You make light of their struggle to be accepted in those positions .

Luckily we are not 50 years ago, when my mother had to ask my father permission to work outside the home. She had to promise the clothes would still be clean, the kids ready for school, and dinner would be on the table before the evening news. And that is exactly what happened. And my mother was not alone.

But go ahead and make like your situation is the norm for most families.

I am not offended by your comments. I am disgusted that you think that your situation is the norm.

 

[trouble13]

Do you realize how you sound?

Working mothers are out there. Hell, even some men do not even realize their wives work.I know a man that says his wife never worked they don't then all of a sudden acknowledged she was a school nurse.

I do not know what the stats are, but the numbers of working mothers is substantial. I am disgusted you do not seem to have respect for that.

And the ludicrous part of what you said is that women fought hard to get into careers in the military, police, and firefighting. You make light of their struggle to be accepted in those positions .

Luckily we are not 50 years ago, when my mother had to ask my father permission to work outside the home. She had to promise the clothes would still be clean, the kids ready for school, and dinner would be on the table before the evening news. And that is exactly what happened. And my mother was not alone.

But go ahead and make like your situation is the norm for most families.

I am not offended by your comments. I am disgusted that you think that your situation is the norm.

Be disgusted all you want but pull your weight while your doing it because men arnt on this planet to do it for you.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

Be disgusted all you want but pull your weight while your doing it because men arnt on this planet to do it for you.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Donald.......is that you.....

 

[thinkagain]

You already kinda ****ing explained how so not so long ago with your wonky carefully worded vocabulary to avoid admitting the zygote is a human just like a infant is a human.

I'm not going to engage your sophistry head on like you want me to to waste time.

It is always interesting to see how far into mind bending denial and disingenuous ignorance a person will go in an attempt to avoid being wrong.

This is not a "good" trait by the way .... just sayin.

I realized that I have explained the significant difference between a zygote and a human cell. That was not sophistry but science.

Clearly you agree with my explanation of the difference - it is scientific fact after all. What I did not explain is how this difference makes the zygote a human.

So the difference is that the DNA of the zygote has the specific program codes for the creation of a human turned on.

How does this difference make the zygote a human and other human cells not. ?

 

[thinkagain]

You're making a false comparison. You're comparing part of a whole to a whole. The zygote is the full human, barring mutations, in the beginning of it's life-cycle and is operating as intended.

I am not making a false comparison. You are committing a logical fallacy (assuming the premise). The whole point of this discussion is to prove the zygote is a human.

Starting out the argument by claiming "its a human" is not an argument. Repeating your premise is not proof of anything.

We already know your claim (zygote is a human). The question here is "why" do you think the zygote is a full human. What proof do you have that your claim is true and can you refute positions to the contrary.

Every other human cell is not a human. What is the significant difference between this cell, and every other human cell, that we should classify one a human and the other not?

 

[thinkagain]

The "create the human" part is already done when human egg and human sperm combined. The human now continues to develop and develop while the heart cell, human egg and human sperm do not until it implants in the women's womb or dies trying. You seem to think that a human magically comes from the "zygote, "embryo," or "fetus," when you damn know that's not case.
.

The point of this discussion is for you to explain "why" the zygote is a human - for you to back up your claim (zygote is a human).

Repeating your claim over and over is not an argument for much - in fact it is not an argument at all. This is logical fallacy 101 (assuming the premise).

It is kind of magic the way the zygote creates a human although - it is not really magic because we understand how the zygote does this. We know for example that the blueprint for a human is in the zygote DNA. We know that the zygote will create the human pictured in that blueprint. We also know that the structure in the blueprint (the human) is made of cells.

Finally, we know that not one cell in the structure of the human in that blueprint exists at the zygote stage. If not one cell in the human body exists - how then can that human be said to exist ?

( and yes at some point during the creation of the human the totipotent cells in the blastocyst will create a few heart cells and these cells will develop into a human heart)

A human heart cell is neither a human heart nor a human.

 

[thinkagain]

I offend them on a tegular basis by suggesting men stop taking on traditonaly male jobs. Women dont want to appriciate men and walk around with a big ole chip on their shoulder let them put their money where their mouths are.

I advocate for men to stop pursueing careers in the military, construction, police, and fireman. Have at it girls, you handle that stuff and us men will stay home and take care of the household and bitch at you that we need more attention when you get home from a long stressful day.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I heard this on the radio. Have you ever heard the song lyrics " If a tree falls in the forest... does anybody hear". It is also a saying.


OK ... after pondering the first question, ponder this.

If a man is walking through the forest talking to himself, is he still wrong ?

 

[thinkagain]

Hmm to be honest i gotta mentaly chew on this a bit. Your an interesting guy and your arguments are perplexing. Im not conceeding any ground to you but i am taking a timeout lol

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I have been at this debate for 30 years. I actually took a class in philosophy where 1/3 of the class was devoted to the Abortion debate. Was very interesting - hard core feminists on one side - devout religious right on the other, and a bunch in the middle.

The prof (Jewish and Oxford Ph.D = smart x 2) was editor of the text (contemporary moral issues). All he did was moderate. At the beginning of class he would discuss some of the arguments in the readings and then the class would go at it. We never knew (despite trying numerous times) what his position was.

Anyways, by the end of the class both extremes had moved closer to the middle. The reason for this is some of the really dumb arguments just could not be maintained.

Assuming the premise for example ( Its a human because its a human ) is not an argument. An argument consists of 1) premise or claim and 2) rational why that claim is true.

For example saying - " the zygote is a human because at conception the human exists as a single cell" ... is one way this fallacy is presented.

There are man different variations of this fallacy that posters will come up with:

You're making a false comparison. You're comparing part of a whole to a whole. The zygote is the full human, barring mutations, in the beginning of it's life-cycle and is operating as intended.

It is a human because its a full human and as such the life cycle of the human has started. It a human because its a human because its a human.

The "create the human" part is already done when human egg and human sperm combined. The human now continues to develop and develop

A human exists because a human has been created when egg and sperm combine. Its a human because its a human.

Note that these posters have not given (2), the second part of what constitutes a valid argument, "the why". There is no explanation for their position and nor can they refute any positions that contradict their position. There is no proof that the claim is true - repeating the premise is not proof of claim.

One poster citing "Dianne Irvine" who committed this same fallacy. This was double fallacy .. the citation from the Author contained a fallacy (assuming the premise) and the poster committed a fallacy (appeal to authority).... because some authority said so their claim must be true.... even though that supposed "authority" did not give the "why" either.

 

[trouble13]

I heard this on the radio. Have you ever heard the song lyrics " If a tree falls in the forest... does anybody hear". It is also a saying.


OK ... after pondering the first question, ponder this.

If a man is walking through the forest talking to himself, is he still wrong ?

The thing is though, there are plenty people hearing the sound of our collective silence. There is a growing trend at an alarming pace of men opting out of joining the workforce. Men understand they are being taken advantage of and the courts refuse to dispense equal justice. Its a bad deal and men are walking away from it. Why get up and go to work when the fruits of your labor are being stolen from you. Why persue starting a family when it offers you more risk than benefit.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[jaeger19]

Where is the outcry over the extreme public health crisis that we are facing where 700K unborn babies a year are either extremely deformed or the pregnancy is high risk! There should be programs and resources allocated to this matter!
.

\
Well.. we currently have abortion available. We also have genetic counseling to catch these issues earlier.. and techniques to do amniocentesis earlier so that these pregnancies can be terminated earlier.

Currently.. there is research funding to try and discover the genetic issues and how to change the genetic codes. Of course this is hampered by restrictions on genetic research in very promising research using fetal tissue.

Even if these cases were what we were talking about, which it's not, I'm still going with killing being more damaging to health.

Of course its what we were talking about. You just choose to ignore reality. But that's your choice. that's the beauty of a free country.. you can believe what you want as long as you don't force me to adhere to your beliefs.

It's not complicated. It's always meant to seem simply too complicated to do anything about so we may as well just throw our hands up in the air and kill unborn children.

Please. We can all see that you failed to even answer the simple questions on how the regulations would actually work. The fact is.. its only "not complicated" to you.. because you don't give a crap about the lives of woman or their children. You have an ideological position.. that's not based on the very real and very complicated reality.

 

[Removable Mind]

The thing is though, there are plenty people hearing the sound of our collective silence. There is a growing trend at an alarming pace of men opting out of joining the workforce. Men understand they are being taken advantage of and the courts refuse to dispense equal justice. Its a bad deal and men are walking away from it. Why get up and go to work when the fruits of your labor are being stolen from you. Why pursue starting a family when it offers you more risk than benefit.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

It's obvious that men are at a disadvantage with regards to reproduction issues and that "equality" for men is just another word for "unattainable".

Knowing this, isn't it time that men, in particular, seek a different approach, or approaches, to remedy the problems at hand?

If, after 40 plus years of trying to use the judicial/legislative systems in the same old ways to remedy the problems, maybe it's time to recognize the futility and take different directions.

Now I see you've expressed that men are simply giving up and walking away. But you know yourself that that approach is just another self-destructive method. We see that men's organizations, while making strides, they've been modest at best. So this hasn't been a significantly productive way to achieving any real reproductive equality.

As they saying goes, doing the same thing over and over expecting different results equals "insanity".

In your mind, are there any possible work-arounds that the conventional methods/common approaches are obviously ineffective? Or do you see these inequalities as hopeless? That men, in general, are doomed before they ever entertain having a relationship that includes sex?

 

[trouble13]

I have been at this debate for 30 years. I actually took a class in philosophy where 1/3 of the class was devoted to the Abortion debate. Was very interesting - hard core feminists on one side - devout religious right on the other, and a bunch in the middle.

The prof (Jewish and Oxford Ph.D = smart x 2) was editor of the text (contemporary moral issues). All he did was moderate. At the beginning of class he would discuss some of the arguments in the readings and then the class would go at it. We never knew (despite trying numerous times) what his position was.

Anyways, by the end of the class both extremes had moved closer to the middle. The reason for this is some of the really dumb arguments just could not be maintained.

Assuming the premise for example ( Its a human because its a human ) is not an argument. An argument consists of 1) premise or claim and 2) rational why that claim is true.

For example saying - " the zygote is a human because at conception the human exists as a single cell" ... is one way this fallacy is presented.

There are man different variations of this fallacy that posters will come up with:



It is a human because its a full human and as such the life cycle of the human has started. It a human because its a human because its a human.



A human exists because a human has been created when egg and sperm combine. Its a human because its a human.

Note that these posters have not given (2), the second part of what constitutes a valid argument, "the why". There is no explanation for their position and nor can they refute any positions that contradict their position. There is no proof that the claim is true - repeating the premise is not proof of claim.

One poster citing "Dianne Irvine" who committed this same fallacy. This was double fallacy .. the citation from the Author contained a fallacy (assuming the premise) and the poster committed a fallacy (appeal to authority).... because some authority said so their claim must be true.... even though that supposed "authority" did not give the "why" either.

To be honest i find the argument that the zygote is a human to be a valid one. What makes it uniquely human is its DNA. Its the very first stage of being a person is how i view it. I really dont see how it can argued otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

It's obvious that men are at a disadvantage with regards to reproduction issues and that "equality" for men is just another word for "unattainable".

Knowing this, isn't it time that men, in particular, seek a different approach, or approaches, to remedy the problems at hand?

If, after 40 plus years of trying to use the judicial/legislative systems in the same old ways to remedy the problems, maybe it's time to recognize the futility and take different directions.

Now I see you've expressed that men are simply giving up and walking away. But you know yourself that that approach is just another self-destructive method. We see that men's organizations, while making strides, they've been modest at best. So this hasn't been a significantly productive way to achieving any real reproductive equality.

As they saying goes, doing the same thing over and over expecting different results equals "insanity".

In your mind, are there any possible work-arounds that the conventional methods/common approaches are obviously ineffective? Or do you see these inequalities as hopeless? That men, in general, are doomed before they ever entertain having a relationship that includes sex?

There is compromised positions thatvare feasable but they are unobtainable because the feminist side refuses to negotiate. We can not even get women to agree to notify the father that she is pregnant. That one simple gesture they claim is too intrusive on their privacy for them to concede. Women are taking advantage of men who partcipate in relationships with them so men are protecting thenselves by not partcipating.

This isnt something im making up. This is whats happening. When women want to do something about it they will have to figure out how to make themselves attractive again.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Removable Mind]

There is compromised positions thatvare feasable but they are unobtainable because the feminist side refuses to negotiate. We can not even get women to agree to notify the father that she is pregnant. That one simple gesture they claim is too intrusive on their privacy for them to concede. Women are taking advantage of men who partcipate in relationships with them so men are protecting thenselves by not partcipating.

This isnt something im making up. This is whats happening. When women want to do something about it they will have to figure out how to make themselves attractive again.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

We all get that you're damaged goods. And obviously that you can't step out of the problem mode into a genuine solution mode. You avoided the premise of my post.

Consequently I see this was a mistake asking you a reasonable question. You immediate resort to the same old stuff that you just can't get past and that's the blame game. Evidently there's no possibility of having a reasonable exchange with you on this matter.

Carry on...with your usual lamenting...which gets us no further along because basically you claim that this topic is too futile to even have a conversation about.

Have a good day, if that's possible for you.

 

[Henrin]

It's obvious that men are at a disadvantage with regards to reproduction issues and that "equality" for men is just another word for "unattainable".

Knowing this, isn't it time that men, in particular, seek a different approach, or approaches, to remedy the problems at hand?

If, after 40 plus years of trying to use the judicial/legislative systems in the same old ways to remedy the problems, maybe it's time to recognize the futility and take different directions.

Now I see you've expressed that men are simply giving up and walking away. But you know yourself that that approach is just another self-destructive method. We see that men's organizations, while making strides, they've been modest at best. So this hasn't been a significantly productive way to achieving any real reproductive equality.

As they saying goes, doing the same thing over and over expecting different results equals "insanity".

In your mind, are there any possible work-arounds that the conventional methods/common approaches are obviously ineffective? Or do you see these inequalities as hopeless? That men, in general, are doomed before they ever entertain having a relationship that includes sex?

I don't imagine it is very self destructive actually. In fact, many of those men seem quite happy with their decision.

 

[calamity]

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.

It's not my fetus, and I'm not the one who has to carry it in my body for 9 months and take on all the risk associated with that experience. So, for me, the choice is easy. It's not for me to tell someone else what to do. Her choice; not mine.

I know some people feel it is their god given duty to save all the little fetuses on the planet. I call BS on that. But, I'll wait for one of them to pipe up before I get into that fight.