- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,285
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Heh, in that post you have just become guilty of what you accused me of doing.
I proved my point that the unborn is a "child" and therefore a mother aborts "her own child", so whatever level of evil I am for not giving a rats azz about a woman stupid enough to take a wire hanger to herself, so much lower is the woman who actually does take a wire hanger to herself.
Oh I don't really care one way or the other...I just pointed out the total hypocrisy of your statement that PC needs technical definitions while one assertion from me brought both of you caterwauling about what the dictionary says. It was quite intentional on my part and you two consistently chomp down the bait. Felicity being absent leaves the rest of you floundering without a chance. It's almost too easy...
Really...what threat are the arms of the beast if the head has been severed? :rofl
Apples and oranges.
There is a difference between PC saying "it's a fetus, not a child", and my saying "no, a fetus is a child", and giving definitions and sources to that end.
The definitions PC uses in their propaganda proves PC in error, yet you would only try to pin labels on me.
I don't try to use technical definitions to dehumanize the unborn like you do, I use technical definitions to keep the truth strate.
The unborn is a child and I have proven my point.
The fact that all you now do is bring up social groups, rather than address the topic of the thread, shows that you can not defend you position.
:yawn: You confuse my boredom with a lack of ability. When one of you makes a challenging assertion that piques my interest, I might not find myself nostalgically talking about the days your side actually put up a decent fight.
Apples and oranges.
There is a difference between PC saying "it's a fetus, not a child", and my saying "no, a fetus is a child", and giving definitions and sources to that end.
The definitions PC uses in their propaganda proves PC in error, yet you would only try to pin labels on me.
I don't try to use technical definitions to dehumanize the unborn like you do, I use technical definitions to keep the truth strate.
The unborn is a child and I have proven my point.
The fact that all you now do is bring up social groups, rather than address the topic of the thread, shows that you can not defend you position.
Yes, I'm right and you are wrong.
Absolutely. One is forcing intellectual honesty by enforcing proper denotation and the other is caterwauling about a technicality that lets you change the imagery in an effort to make your feeble stance more convenient. One relies on truthful of perception of reality while the other instills a false emotional investment.
That's only in your mind, pal.
And you falsely attribute connotations to technical issues so that you can emotionally extort your audience and obfuscate the realities of the debate.
Yes, yes...I know, I know...the unborn is a child when discussing it in terms of vernacular colloquial connotation. However, in the context of fetal development and biological standards, the fetus is a fetus...not a fully gestated juvenile human (aka a child).
I know I know...jerry doesn't have felicity to lend logic to his arguments and braid his hair for him. It must be soooo...hard! :boohoo:
Nothing in that post shows my sources to be in error.
Oh I don't really care one way or the other...I just pointed out the total hypocrisy of your statement that PC needs technical definitions while one assertion from me brought both of you caterwauling about what the dictionary says. It was quite intentional on my part and you two consistently chomp down the bait. Felicity being absent leaves the rest of you floundering without a chance. It's almost too easy...
Really...what threat are the arms of the beast if the head has been severed? :rofl
And by the way Jallman you still have not posted a legit source that calls colon cells organisms!!!!!!
And neither has FI which means they can't be found because I'm certain he gave it his ALL.
:shoot :duel You don't take defeat very well.
Did I say your source (the dictionary) was in error? No, I did not. What I did say is that your context is almost always out of alignment with what is actually being discussed. It's okay though...that's just typical pro-life obfuscation and emotional extortion. You guys have a culture of dishonesty so I find it hard to blame you as individuals.
Heh, it's the dictionary and other sources which say that a fetus is a child, so if they are not in error, neither is my claim.
So what's it like to be that detached from reality?
Okay for the second time...I never said your claim was in error. I said the context was in error. Are we having trouble reading now, too?
I find it very refreshing! :beam:
Felicity being absent leaves the rest of you floundering without a chance. It's almost too easy...
I think you nailed it; it's f'ing boring without Felicity or St. Coffee.
In their absence, the lack of intellectual acumen around here literally embarrasses me (and here, of course, I'm referring to the opposition; obviously, my prochoice allies in this debate are plenty bright).
This is like shooting fish in a barrel; it's unfair and unkind, and I'm going to recluse myself from further participation in this forum until someone worth debating either joins or returns.
You lack the cpacity to see that your point is as ridiculous as the exaggeration I made.Wha wha what? Where do you guys come up with this idiotic logic. The fetus is INSIDE the woman, drawing on her resources and living off her immune system, circulatory, and endocrine system. When the fetus can say the same in reverse, this might...just might find itself in line with reality. I won't hold my breath though.
I swear pro lifers lose all capacity for logical thought. Cry "baby" and they become blathering loons.
So? While a parasite always exhibits parasitic behavior, that does not mean that parasitic behavior is restricted to parasites only. And:talloulou said:An embryo or fetus is not a true parasite. It may act in a parasitic manner as you have stated but that doesn't change the fact that it is not a parasite.
I notice that while the Messages have gone past #640, you did not respond to that.FutureIncoming said:Parasitic behavior is unacceptable, in all cultures, worldwide, and typically leads to the killing of the parasitic organisms. And that group can include fully-person-class humans who have broken laws against, say, serial killing. Only in special circumstances do we do otherwise --such as when a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to term.
Again, it is the behavior that is worldwide generally deemed unacceptable -- and the type of life-form that happens to be exhibiting that behavior is irrelevant. I can admit that just because unborn humans are not true/ordinary parasites, they are often excused for their behavior, but I don't see any rationale to require their parasitic behavior to be excused. Indeed, every pro-lifer who would allow abortion when the mother's life is endangered is basically agreeing that in that case the parasitic behavior of the fetus is NOT excusable!talloulou said:And it is not something you "acquire" or something that you "pick up" in third world travels. It is something your body creates which makes it very different from genuine parasites.
NONSENSE. "A rose by any other name", and all that. Parasites as a class are defined by a particular set of behaviors; when an organism only exhibits such behavior, we call it a parasite. And when an organism can exhibit a wider range of behaviors than that, we don't call it a parasite. But that doesn't make parasitic behavior by a non-parasite one iota less parasitic.talloulou said:There is no reason or logic behind comparing a human to malaria or a tapeworm. It's a hysterical analogy.
AGREED. And all of that is simply because of the traditional automatic assignment of personhood to a human at birth.talloulou said:Furthermore yes the law does allow women to give up babies for adoption however it must be done in a manner that is safe for the baby. The mother is not allowed to just "dump" her newbown on a freeway. She is responsible for the safe transfer of her responsibility on to someone else. If a woman gives birth in the middle of the desert and there is only one other person around and that person refuses to accept responsibility for the newborn than the mother is forced to continue her responsibilty to the newborn whether she wants to or not. She can not legally just leave the baby to die or feed it to coyotes because no one else, at the time, was able to take on the responsibility for her. If a woman can not safely transfer the care of her baby from herself to someone else she is forced to wait until such time comes that she safely can or she can legally be held responsible for what happens to the baby in her neglect.
FALSE. The parasitic behavior of an unborn human can be exactly such a reason.talloulou said:There is no reason pregnancy should be viewed differently.
This is only reasonable to the extent that she is willing to excuse the parasitic behavior of the fetus. It has been said that you cannot be robbed if you give your stuff away fast enough; likewise you cannot be parasitized if you are giving away appropriate stuff. However, if she isn't in a charitable mood, and considers the unborn human to be parasitizing her --and certainly you have no rationale to require her to excuse parasitism and to be charitable-- then abortion becomes as logical an act as any other specialized technique for removing a parasitizing organism.talloulou said:There is noone but her during pregnancy that can be responsible for keeping the human in her womb safe so it's not unreasonable to expect her to continue with that responsibility until such time when she can safely transfer it to a willing person.
Your point was that a person has the right to remove another from their body. The baby is a person. Then it has the right to have a murderous mother removed from his body if you follow your logic.
And if I'm that baby's father, who gives this heifer the right to murder my son???
If a woman has indicated that she wishes to murder her child before it exits her womb, then why can't she be aborted and the baby be saved. Certainly modern technology has made it possible.
\ I'm not saying that mothers who abort their children should be killed preemptively...
I'm just saying that it's at LEAST as moral to do so as it is for her to murder the innocent child in her womb.
Don't let the door hit you in the a$$.....:sword: :moon: :rwbelepha :neener
You lack the cpacity to see that your point is as ridiculous as the exaggeration I made.
Your point was that a person has the right to remove another from their body. The baby is a person. Then it has the right to have a murderous mother removed from his body if you follow your logic.
And if I'm that baby's father, who gives this heifer the right to murder my son???
If a woman has indicated that she wishes to murder her child before it exits her womb, then why can't she be aborted and the baby be saved. Certainly modern technology has made it possible.
I would almost be for abortion in that sense- almost... It's something like a police officer shooting a man who is about to shoot another. I'm not saying that mothers who abort their children should be killed preemptively... I'm just saying that it's at LEAST as moral to do so as it is for her to murder the innocent child in her womb.
It's pretty strange....we show some simple piece of logic (like the definition of "child" or "organism", for example) which derails their hype, and they start whining about how the debate is no fun.
Oh well.
talloulou said:I can only tell you that we have a variety of methods of "birth control" but abortion isn't one of them.
FutureIncoming said:it can indeed control the number of births that occur!
I agree that the phrase "birth control" is often interpreted to mean "pregnancy prevention" or some equivalent thereof, and of course abortion cannot qualify for that role, but if the phrase "birth control" is interpreted literally, then abortion does qualify for that role. Anyway, please remember that I have never opposed the use of other forms of birth control. I even encourage them because the are often so much simpler and less messy and less expensive than abortion. But much of my pro-choice stand on abortion is due to the simple fact that those other methods are imperfectly reliable, while abortion is very nearly perfectly reliable. Therefore abortion needs to be allowed, as a backup plan for when those other methods fail. I'm aware that it's availability then becomes abuse-able by those too lazy (or have some other fault) to use other birth-control methods, but this also means: (A) they stimulate the economy by paying the higher price for abortion, and (B) they are helping to prevent their (specify fault here) genes from being spread into the gene pool. Fine by me!talloulou said:Touche! Point won on a semantics level. In any event you know what I mean. There are ways "to keep from getting pregnant" giving women a great deal of control over "getting pregnant" abortion is not one of them. It merely terminates a pregnancy that is already in place which is quite different from preventing pregnancy from occuring in the first place.
Then you have been ignoring the very valid reason of parasitic behavior, which only ends at birth (if miscarriage or abortion doesn't happen first).talloulou said:As previously said there is no reason to expect that the potential of a human who is 2 days old need be fulfilled while the unborn's is not.
Silly, I don't believe for a moment you would accept the idea of an abortion clinic for humans, run by immigrant extraterrestrial nonhumans. Indeed, I'd expect even some pro-choicers to be outraged by this implication that aliens might want to control human numbers....talloulou said:I feel both should have the opportunity to live their lives without being killed by a fellow human.
Yet semantically, that assumption is totally false, about all humans being equal. Less literally, of course, I do know what you are talking about, but the notion still has a subtle flaw. WHO SAYS THAT ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL? Humans, of course! And humans can be mistaken.... HOW CAN SUCH A CLAIM BE MADE? That's a technical, not a rhetoric, question. The answer involves sufficient brainpower to understand and manipulate abstractions, at least. HOW CAN THOSE WITH THE BRAINPOWER BE EQUAL TO THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE IT? We certainly use exactly such a non-equality to claim superiority over mere/ordinary animals! And that's how we can recognize the essence of the previously-hinted mistake. Why should we mentally-highly-capable humans claim superiority over mentally-incapable animals, and prepare ourselves to accept equality with mentally equal aliens -- yet also claim equality with measurably-mentally-incapable humans? I think the aliens would think we are nuts, inconsistent and irrational, to make such a claim, and therefore they'd also think they are superior to us, heh, heh.talloulou said:My reasoning is that I believe all humans were created equally and should be treated as such regardless of age or geographic location.
TRUE. But if we were only animals, then we would have to declare all other animals equal to us. Since we make no such declaration, and in fact declare superiority over other animals, then obviously we are employing some excuse to make that declaration. What is the excuse? I can prove to you that it is NOT this: "Humans are superior to other animals just because they are humans." --because we could, with equally valid logic say this: "Zebras are superior to other animals just because they are zebras." Well, we don't say such a thing, because we are indeed using a different basis than "just because" for the claim of superiority. Q.E.D.talloulou said:Again we {{humans}} are all animals.
I do not disagree with the possibility, although recent data is beginning to suggest otherwise. Yes, I know that that link is about dolphins, but whales are close relatives and seldom exhibit more-complex behavior than dolphins. To be determined! Meanwhile, if they are smarter than us, why is it so difficult for us to make that determination? Would such a failing on our part cause us to be undeserving of the claims we make for ourselves? In which case any human becomes as killable as any other animal!talloulou said:Humans possibly the smartest {{on Earth}} though there is more than one biologists who argue we have good reason to believe whales are smarter.
Nor does their being homosapiens change the fact that they are not mentally equal to the vast majority of homosapiens; they are only mentally equal to ordinary animals.talloulou said:I know that you will undoubtedly compare the unborn to a fly or some such insect but that doesn't change the fact that they are not bugs they are homosapiens like you or I and ...
INACCURATE. "Will" implies certainty --and they could die of disease first. Therefore you are still trying to say that certain potentials must prejudicially be fulfilled, without yet explaining why.talloulou said:... as with any human child we can expect that they will grow into their intellectual capabilities.
OBVIOUSLY, LAUGHABLY, FALSE. Else no abortions would ever have been sought throughout History. You can be very certain that reasons for abortion do indeed exist. Perhaps you meant "objective reason" instead of "subjective reason"? But then you have to throw your own subjective prejudice out the window, don't you?talloulou said:There is no reason to expect a mother to treat her developing child in the same manner she would treat flys on her garbage.
RIDICULOUS. BAD LOGIC. "Accountability" always involves associating reasons with actions. The culture then judges whether the reasons are adequate. Abortions are not done for no reason, and since they are legal, the current cultural assumption is that those reasons are adequate.talloulou said:If we can not hold mothers accountable for the well being of their offspring then we simply can't hold anyone accountable or responsible for anything really.
MORE BAD LOGIC. Most women who have abortions also eventually-have or have-had pregnancies carried to term, thereby fulfilling their caring nature. And while kangaroos routinely care for their offspring, too, they also routinely, when conditions warrant, do "fetal resorption". Where did you get the idea that every single offspring MUST be cared for?talloulou said:Caring for ones young is what seperates us from insects that lay eggs or any other animal that leaves its young to fend for themselves. By nature we are created to care and nurture our young. To deny that responsibility is to deny our very nature.
Your efforts to paint me as a sexist are dually noted. I am not. You know that I wasn't referring to women in general but rather to women who would murder their own children. You knew that when you posted of course but decided that villianizing me might give you some leverage in debate.A fetus is not a person before it has a brain. Personhood requires a brain and ...PERSONALITY. If a fetus doesn't like its surroundings, it can exit anytime, or it could if it had a brain with which to make choices.
It really steams you that she doesn't have to ask YOUR permission, doesn't it? BTW, comparing a woman to a "heifer" indicates that you see women as "cattle", whose primary purpose in life is to reproduce.
Been reading some science fiction? The "baby" can't be saved before 22 weeks, and even then it's likely to have massive problems, and massive medical bills. There is really nothing to take the place of the feminine womb, but wouldn't it be wonderful if there were a man-made womb that could be implanted in anti-choice men so that they could actually do what they are demanding that others do?
...Yeah, you are.
Morality is a matter for individual decision, not legislation. "Murder the innocent child in her womb":doh ...could that be an "appeal to emotion"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?