Pro-Lifers and Genocide

[PolySciGuy]

And an alternate main point is that you need to be certain that your assumptions are valid, before you use them to reach conclusions. For example:

You are assuming that what you write, with respect to some other person posting messages here, applies equally to unborn humans. But since when does an unborn human claim that it wants to live? Biologically, it is a purely animal organism, a stimulus/response bio-robot that acts only in accordance with its genetic programming. It does not have either free will or ability to decide anything. Consider that when you swat a mosquito, do you worry about whether or not it wants to live? Well then, why is the unborn human bio-robot more special or more deserving of extra consideration than the mosquito bio-robot? Please ensure that there is no trace of worthless prejudice in your answer!

Getting back to what you wrote in #26, you exhibit such prejudice by referring to an unborn human as a "human child" when normally an unborn human is called a "fetus" (which, heh, is Latin for "child" --but which word also applies to an unborn dog or an unborn pig or an unborn rat...why is the unborn human more special than those others?).

The answer to your question in #26 comes from first realizing that an unborn human is only an animal, and is nothing more than purely an animal. We who have free will and power over animals have claimed for millenia to have rights to use that power, to decide which animals should live and which should die, from breeding sheep to stepping on cockroaches. Meanwhile, we have also fought wars for millenia, trying to ensure that human persons are granted respect and reasonable equality. That's why the average person doesn't have any life-or-death rights over some other average person. Nevertheless, why should we treat humans that-are-measurably/provably-pure-animals any differently than actual ordinary animals? Prejudice? Think again!

There is no objective proof that proves either of our points (none that comes to mind). Subjectively, you think that human fetuses have no free will. Subjectively, I assert that they do.

Objectively, you have agreed that human fetuses are alive. You also claim that their life is of a lower, simply instinctual quality.

There are certain people who are simply "Bio-Robots", they have no goals, they only live for the now, we call these people severely mentally handicapped. There are also people who exhibit less signs of life than fetuses, they are in a condition known as a coma.

By your logic, it seems that we can kill the severely mentally handicapped, and those in a comas, without legal penalties.

 

[dottedmint]

I'm waiting for a pro-lifer to succeed at this challenge:
Define "person" to be Universally accurate, regardless of physical nature, to distinguish people from mere animals, anywhere.
Example: if God exists, is non-biological, and is a person, then God is a person because {-definitive criteria here-}.
After that, explain how unborn humans are so different from mere animals that they qualify as persons.

OR:
What provable Objective Truth makes prohibition of abortion logical?

1. Technically we are animals. "Person" defines an animal that is Homo sapein.

That is almost like saying define "tree" as being different from mere plants.

A "tree" is technically a plant but it is different from other plants.

If we ever get to a point where we have "visitors" from some other planet then we would need to figure out how to define/refer to them but I would think "person" would still refer to Homo sapien.

I do not think God can be "non-biological" and a "person" because in order to be a "person" (Homo sapien) he would need to be "biological".

Finally, an "unborn human" is genetically different from that of say an "unborn cat".

An "unborn human" is genetically human or a "person" (Homo sapien) and is a life form or in other words a living being.

As soon as the egg is fertilized it has all of the characteristics of a living thing and since it is genetically human, "person" or (Homo sapien) that makes that fertilized egg a LIVING HUMAN, "PERSON" OR (HOMO SAPIEN).

OH...

For the record...

One example of genocide would be the killing of any "unborn human" that MIGHT have Down Syndrome or some other handicap.

This is what many on the left push.

If that baby isn't "perfect" ..... just kill it.

 

[1069]

You don't realize who you are empowering.

Oh, I beg to differ; I'm fairly sure she does.

 

[Jerry]

OH...

For the record...

One example of genocide would be the killing of any "unborn human" that MIGHT have Down Syndrome or some other handicap.

This is what many on the left push.

If that baby isn't "perfect" ..... just kill it.

:alert

Genocide:

‬The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial,political, ‬or ethnic group.

‬The unwanted unborn are included as an ethnic group since an ethnic group is a group of people who identify with one another, ‬or are so identified by others, on the basis of a boundary that distinguishes them from other groups.

...not making a case here, you just raised a red flag is all....carry on.

 

[Jerry]

Oh, I beg to differ; I'm fairly sure she does.

Then she's not Pro-Choice.

 

[Felicity]

:alert



...not making a case here, you just raised a red flag is all....carry on.

[speaking in code] Let's give minty a chance...we could just be a tad paranoid...and even if...why not let a person try:shrug: ... [/speaking in code]

 

[1069]

Then she's not Pro-Choice.

Because she supports women's right to reproductive choice, she's not prochoice.
Elementary, my dear Watson. Brilliant deduction, there.
This kind of thinking really illustrates why the "prolife" movement has gotten sooooo much accomplished in the years since Roe.
It's because those in policy-making positions can't take them seriously.
Never will be able to take them seriously.

 

[Roberdorus]

Because she supports women's right to reproductive choice, she's not prochoice.
Elementary, my dear Watson. Brilliant deduction, there.
This kind of thinking really illustrates why the "prolife" movement has gotten sooooo much accomplished in the years since Roe.
It's because those in policy-making positions can't take them seriously.
Never will be able to take them seriously.

Why is it that you never hear people who advocate a man's "choice" to rape a woman being called "pro-choice"? Why are those people called "insane" instead?

 

[Jerry]

[speaking in code] Let's give minty a chance...we could just be a tad paranoid...and even if...why not let a person try:shrug: ... [/speaking in code]

......just being peranoid.....:2wave:

 

[Jerry]

Because she supports women's right to reproductive choice, she's not prochoice.
Elementary, my dear Watson. Brilliant deduction, there.
This kind of thinking really illustrates why the "prolife" movement has gotten sooooo much accomplished in the years since Roe.
It's because those in policy-making positions can't take them seriously.
Never will be able to take them seriously.

You don't know who her arguments are empowering either.

 

[1069]

You don't know who her arguments are empowering either.

Let me guess: he's red and scaly with a bifurcated tail, and he carries a hayfork, right?

:roll:

 

[Jerry]

Let me guess: he's red and scaly with a bifurcated tail, and he carries a hayfork, right?

:roll:

....erm, no.

 

[Chanda]

You don't know who her arguments are empowering either.

I'll bite. Who is she empowering?

 

[Jerry]

I'll bite. Who is she empowering?

Pro-Abortionists like FutureIncoming who seek to establish China like regulation so as to....how does he put it...."prevent a Malthusian Catastrophe".

RvW section 11, 1, established the state’s right to "proscribe" (= force) an abortion in the state's interests in the woman's health. Making the case that early abortion is 10X safer than a pregnancy only helps further establish the "compelling state interest" to force abortion as our population grows.

 

[Jerry]

Is there such a thing as "accidental genocide"?

The pro-lifers want all pregnancies to be carried to term, and are actively working to achieve that goal. This will increase the birth rate among humans worldwide by about 50%. This will also lead to faster depletion-of-resources, and increase the probability of a Malthusian Castrophe happening.

Typically, a Malthusian Catastrophe means that about 99% of a population will die. If this happens to the human species, then it logically figures that 99% of every single ethnic group will die.

Should somebody "actively work" toward achieving the goal of killing 99% of just one ethnic group, that person is, according to the dictionary, working toward committing "genocide". What do you call it when that person is actively working toward genocide of all known ethnic groups?

The only problem here is that the pro-lifers don't seem to understand the Law of Cause and Effect, or even the Law of Unintended Consequences. Somehow they think that the Earth's measurably finite biosphere can endlessly accommodate an ever-increasing number of humans. Yet there are no facts to support such a conclusion. Will some pro-lifer here please explain?

Meanwhile, if any pro-lifers decide to "wise up", and recognize that the long-term consequences of their actions don't support their goal of keeping many humans alive, and perhaps they should stop trying to ban abortion, I'd like to hear about that, too.

Finally, if we know that pro-lifers are actively working to commit overpopulation, and if we know that overpopulation leads to a Malthusian Catastrophe, and if we know that a Malthusian Catastrophe is so deadly that the word "genocide" applies to those who caused it, then shouldn't we start rounding up pro-lifers, and charging them with attempted genocide??? And, since this is the normal punishment for attempted genocide, shouldn't they be executed if they are found guilty?

Abortion has been totaly legal for34 years and we just crossed the 6 Bill. mark.

Your on the edge already, how much bigger will the population need to get inorder to push you over?

 

[1069]

RvW section 11, 1, established the state’s right to "proscribe" (= force) an abortion in the state's interests in the woman's health.

Ermm, Jer... good news; you're mistaken.
You've mixed up "proscribe" with "prescribe".
The two terms are approximate (although not perfect) opposites.
To "proscribe" something means, roughly, to ban, outlaw, or forbid it.

pro·scribe /proʊˈskraɪb/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proh-skrahyb] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -scribed, -scrib·ing.
1. to denounce or condemn (a thing) as dangerous or harmful; prohibit.
2. to put outside the protection of the law; outlaw.
3. to banish or exile.
4. to announce the name of (a person) as condemned to death and subject to confiscation of property.

Basically, your statement that "RvW section 11, 1, established the state’s right to "proscribe" an abortion in the state's interests in the woman's health", if true, means the state reserves the right to forbid a woman an abortion, if it would endanger her health.

Now, if the word was "prescribe", then it would mean the opposite. It might ultimately mean, as you said, that the state could force an abortion.

 

[Jerry]

Ermm, Jer... good news; you're mistaken.
You've mixed up "proscribe" with "prescribe".
The two terms are approximate (although not perfect) opposites.
To "proscribe" something means, roughly, to ban, outlaw, or forbid it.

pro·scribe /proʊˈskraɪb/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proh-skrahyb] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -scribed, -scrib·ing.
1. to denounce or condemn (a thing) as dangerous or harmful; prohibit.
2. to put outside the protection of the law; outlaw.
3. to banish or exile.
4. to announce the name of (a person) as condemned to death and subject to confiscation of property.

Basically, your statement that "RvW section 11, 1, established the state’s right to "proscribe" an abortion in the state's interests in the woman's health", if true, means the state reserves the right to forbid a woman an abortion, if it would endanger her health.

Now, if the word was "prescribe", then it would mean the opposite. It would mean, as you said, that the state could force an abortion.

I'll grant you that, but there are other arguments.

There's a reason why I elected not to take the Pro-Abortion position in our Reverse Debate.

 

[1069]

I'll grant you that, but there are other arguments.

Then I take it you retract your claim that OKGranny "doesn't know who/what she's empowering" and "is not prochoice"?

If not, please provide evidence to back up this claim, since the evidence you erroneously based it on has been discredited/ proven invalid.

 

[FutureIncoming]

There is no objective proof that proves either of our points (none that comes to mind). Subjectively, you think that human fetuses have no free will. Subjectively, I assert that they do.

And in a Debate, you are required to provide evidence supporting your positive claim. Furthermore, it is the lack of such positive evidence that allows my claim to stand as fact, until proven otherwise. Good luck!

Objectively, you have agreed that human fetuses are alive. You also claim that their life is of a lower, simply instinctual quality.

Both those statements are measurably true. When was the last time you saw any newborn babies exhibit free will? All they do is eat, sleep, and excrete. And grow more brainpower, until it becomes possible for them to exhibit free will. And that's the simplest reason why unborn humans don't have it.

There are certain people who are simply "Bio-Robots", they have no goals, they only live for the now, we call these people severely mentally handicapped. There are also people who exhibit less signs of life than fetuses, they are in a condition known as a coma.

This is true, but it has nothing to do with prohibiting abortion.

By your logic, it seems that we can kill the severely mentally handicapped, and those in a comas, without legal penalties.

FALSE, two different ways. First, the law as currently exists grants person status to those born humans, regardless of the degree to which this violates Scientific Fact. What anti-abortionists propose is to extend the law and create an even greater violation of Scientific Fact. I submit that writing laws that pay no attention to fact is inherently erroneous.
Second, people in comas have not lost person status; they are simply suffering from a lack of function, to express it. The severely mentally retarded, however, simply don't have the ability in the first place; their brains never grew it. Meanwhile, the actually-brain-dead on life-support have truly lost the ability; their bodies may be alive, but the actual persons are dead already. For more info on the differences between function and ability, see this message.

 

[FutureIncoming]

1. Technically we are animals.

That is our "base" condition, but most of us occasionally or even frequently overrule that nature, because we can. That's why we consider ourselves superior to ordinary animals, forever limited as they are to exhibiting only their baseness.

"Person" defines an animal that is Homo sapein.

That depends on who you ask. The phrase "little people" has a long history of referring to persons that are not at all human. This is Precedent, a thing that Laws revere highly.

That is almost like saying define "tree" as being different from mere plants.

The difference between being controlled by base instincts, and controlling base instincts, is considerable. Trees are nothing more than ordinary plants, by comparison.

A "tree" is technically a plant but it is different from other plants.

And a zebra is an animal that is different from other animals. Whoop-te-do. A zebra is also just like all other ordinary animals, by being controlled by its base instincts.

If we ever get to a point where we have "visitors" from some other planet then we would need to figure out how to define/refer to them but I would think "person" would still refer to Homo sapien.

FALSE, because of the historical precedent we already have, regarding little persons. "Person" is indeed a quite adequate way to generically acknowledge those that possess powers of mind over body.

I do not think God can be "non-biological" and a "person" because in order to be a "person" (Homo sapien) he would need to be "biological".

G.I.G.O. Faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions. Since "person" is already independent of "human", there is no reason to assume that it is limited to biology. Indeed, we have Precedent again, because many of the the characteristics traditionally attributed to God allows personhood to be included (a Google search for the phrase "God's person" gives 15,000 matches). Also, we have reason to think that Artificial Intelligences could one day qualify as persons, too. There is no physical aspect of the brain's functionality, neither hardware nor software, that cannot be copied from the biological to the electronic. Physical things are always copy-able, no exceptions (Life is all about physical things making copies of themselves). And so in fiction we have Precedent, too, since 1920, for artificial organisms exerting control over their programming, and thereby qualifying for person status just as much as we claim that status for ourselves.

Finally, an "unborn human" is genetically different from that of say an "unborn cat".

This is true, but the unborn human also is entirely controlled by its base instincts, just like a cat or any other ordinary animal.

An "unborn human" is genetically human or a "person" (Homo sapien) and is a life form or in other words a living being.

CAUTION! The word "being" is not an excuse to equivocate, to pretend that an organism automatically equals a person. A bacterium is a living organism/being also, remember.

As soon as the egg is fertilized it has all of the characteristics of a living thing and since it is genetically human, "person" or (Homo sapien) that makes that fertilized egg a LIVING HUMAN, "PERSON" OR (HOMO SAPIEN).

G.I.G.O., again. Because "person" is not, after all, automatically a human.

OH... For the record... One example of genocide would be the killing of any "unborn human" that MIGHT have Down Syndrome or some other handicap.

FALSE. Your definition of "genocide" is as inadequate as your definition of "person". Read the tail-end of this message for more information.

This is what many on the left push. If that baby isn't "perfect" ..... just kill it.

This was actually practiced by the ancient Romans. We don't really need to exactly duplicate their policy, since we can detect most defects before birth occurs, and abortion is legal. Furthermore, you are ignoring another aspect of the let-the-defective-live scenario. You are saying that they deserve to suffer for life the handicaps that they are born with. How can you square that with typical pro-life claims that unborn humans are "innocent"??? Meanwhile, aborting them means they never acquire the brainpower to understand anything about their defectiveness. That is identical to the kindness we exhibit when we shoot a horse that has a broken leg. Needless suffering is prevented.

 

[PolySciGuy]

And in a Debate, you are required to provide evidence supporting your positive claim. Furthermore, it is the lack of such positive evidence that allows my claim to stand as fact, until proven otherwise. Good luck!

Both those statements are measurably true. When was the last time you saw any newborn babies exhibit free will? All they do is eat, sleep, and excrete. And grow more brainpower, until it becomes possible for them to exhibit free will. And that's the simplest reason why unborn humans don't have it.

This is true, but it has nothing to do with prohibiting abortion.

FALSE, two different ways. First, the law as currently exists grants person status to those born humans, regardless of the degree to which this violates Scientific Fact. What anti-abortionists propose is to extend the law and create an even greater violation of Scientific Fact. I submit that writing laws that pay no attention to fact is inherently erroneous.
Second, people in comas have not lost person status; they are simply suffering from a lack of function, to express it. The severely mentally retarded, however, simply don't have the ability in the first place; their brains never grew it. Meanwhile, the actually-brain-dead on life-support have truly lost the ability; their bodies may be alive, but the actual persons are dead already. For more info on the differences between function and ability, see this message.

once again, by your definition of potential/capacity, the severely handicapped exhibit the same measure of capacity as a fetus, do you propose we kill them as soon as we don't want them around?

The same is true with the very old. They exhibit no sign of capacity, and in fact have even less potential (all by your definition) should we kill them off as well when they inconvenience us?

Hmmm....... Killing off people because they serve no use, especially the old and mentally handicapped. Remind you of anyone?

 

[PolySciGuy]

I'm just curious what you are referring to when you say that "little people" doesn't refer to humans? What species is it referring to? Because if that species is extinct then for all intents and purposes, wouldn't person refer to a homo sapien?

 

[FutureIncoming]

To PolySciGuy: Your ignoring of the data as presented does not make it invalid, nor does it disappear. I most certainly did not write anything about removing person status from anyone who already has it, or killing anyone who currently has legal right-to-life. Furthermore, just where did you get the idea that the lack of a legal right-to-life is automatically the same thing as a death penalty? Pets don't have legal right-to-life, but are they always killed arbitrarily? I recommend you be very careful about how you pull meaning from what others say.

I therefore await something better from you, in the way of a response to Msg #69.

Regarding "little people", keep in mind that humans have had superstitious beliefs for just as long as they have had religious beliefs; some would consider both sets of beliefs to be equivalent. (Heh! "I have religion; you have mere superstition!" --we can imagine someone from any group, such as the Aztecs, saying that to any differing group, such as the Spanish.) So, while we live in a culture descended from those who believed angels walked among men (see the first part of the story of Sodom and Lot in the Bible), that same culture is partly descended from those who believed there really were such beings as elves, fairies, brownies, leprechauns, and other "little people", none of which were human. Oh, and angels are nonhuman persons too, right?

 

[OKgrannie]

1. Technically we are animals. "Person" defines an animal that is Homo sapein.
An "unborn human" is genetically human or a "person" (Homo sapien) and is a life form or in other words a living being.
As soon as the egg is fertilized it has all of the characteristics of a living thing and since it is genetically human, "person" or (Homo sapien) that makes that fertilized egg a LIVING HUMAN, "PERSON" OR (HOMO SAPIEN).

BEFORE the egg is fertilized it has all the characteristics of a living thing (since it IS a living thing), and since it IS genetically human or Homo sapien (what else could it be, dog or cat?), that makes that unfertilized egg a LIVING HUMAN, "PERSON"???????

 

[dottedmint]

BEFORE the egg is fertilized it has all the characteristics of a living thing (since it IS a living thing), and since it IS genetically human or Homo sapien (what else could it be, dog or cat?), that makes that unfertilized egg a LIVING HUMAN, "PERSON"???????

No.

An unfertilized egg does NOT have the characteristics of LIFE.

An unfertilized egg cannot grow and change.

An unfertilized egg cannot reproduce.

And an unfertilized egg only has HALF of the genetic makeup of a human. It gets the other HALF from the sperm.

A normal cell has 46 chromosomes. A sperm and egg each have ONLY 23 chromosomes.

An unfertilized egg CAN NEVER become a human (this means that it is NOT a human) unless you ADD something to it. (the sperm)

Once the egg is fertilized with the sperm it has the COMPLETE DNA with 46 chromosomes and takes on ALL of the characteristics of a LIVING THING.

BTW.... When I say "living thing" I am talking about a living organism..... a living being.....

Not just a cell or even a group of cells.

My skin cell is living but it is not a "living thing". It is not an organism.

If my hand got cut off it would be living (at least for some time) but it would not be a "living thing".

A sperm and unfertilized egg are both living but they are not "living things".

Once it is fertilized it becomes a "living thing" or a living organism.