Why pro-choice makes more sense

[rivrrat]

Keep honest now...:naughty


A human organism isn't a human "thing" --in the way you're using the word...don't start with the equivocation!

What is it?

 

[Felicity]

It certainly isn't a person or place prior to the connection of the CNS. Being that we both agree it is a noun, that leaves only one more option: a thing.

"person" is irrelevant--you and I are "things" also. See...that's the equivocation--now rivrrat's gonna be all confused--and who know's what OKgrannie will do:rofl

 

[jallman]

Sure that's fair to say. If someone is doing something that may be wrong, horrible, violent, ect....and I am completely unaware of it then I obviously can't have anything to do with it one way or the other.

However if I know something is going on that might be wrong and I know about it and I accept it and make no effort to even speak out against it then I immediately become complicit and my conscious suffers. My concern for the unborn is as much about my empathy for them as it is about my selfish need not to be complicit in something my conscious views as wrong.

I think I might have been unclear...let me try again:

It seems that your discomfort and "feelings" motivate you to consider this dilemma. So now the question begs...do you look at the abortion issue in such a way as to justify your feelings? If so, do you think that hinders your ability to rationalize it properly?

 

[jallman]

"person" is irrelevant--you and I are "things" also. See...that's the equivocation--now rivrrat's gonna be all confused--and who know's what OKgrannie will do:rofl

No, we are people...persons.

 

[Felicity]

No, we are people...persons.

You know you're equivocating--If you're not going to respect intellectual honesty...why bother arguing with you?

 

[talloulou]

It certainly isn't a person or place prior to the connection of the CNS. Being that we both agree it is a noun, that leaves only one more option: a thing.

:damn


A good catchword can obscure analysis for fifty years. ~Wendell L. Willkie

 

[jallman]

Not "moral relativity" though....that's one of your major issues with them, isn't it?

Cultural relativity is one step away from moral relativity. And no, it is not such an issue between me and the Church. My issue is the immense arrogance and stubbornness...

 

[jallman]

You know you're equivocating--If you're not going to respect intellectual honesty...why bother arguing with you?

Whoa now...first I did not consider this an argument. I thought of it as a discussion. However, is it intellectually honest to say "Joey is a thing I talk to on a forum" or "I would like you to meet this great thing I know named Felicity"?

I thought not. And therein lies the difference between something of no moral consequence and someone of social and moral importance.

 

[talloulou]

I think I might have been unclear...let me try again:

It seems that your discomfort and "feelings" motivate you to consider this dilemma. So now the question begs...do you look at the abortion issue in such a way as to justify your feelings? If so, do you think that hinders your ability to rationalize it properly?

Abortion happens. I know about it. I can't feign ignorance. Thus I am left to decide if I feel it is right, wrong, or bengin and neither right or wrong but just inconsequential.

If I can be convinced it doesn't matter then I am free to walk away with no burden on my conscious.

If I'm convinced it is wrong then ignoring it and failing to even speak out against it makes me complicit and my conscious guilty.

If I'm convinced it is right then I can defend the practice.

Never having had an abortion I don't believe I can possibly have personal feelings warped by experience that obscure my ability to look at the question from a rational perspective if that's what you're implying.

I have heard stories though, one of which is ongoing at this moment, but they don't affect me too personally for me to accept that I am too close to the issue to think straight so to speak. Plus I've heard numerous women who neither regret or have any ill effects from their abortion. So I don't think "experience" has overly biased me one way or the other.

 

[talloulou]

Whoa now...first I did not consider this an argument. I thought of it as a discussion. However, is it intellectually honest to say "Joey is a thing I talk to on a forum" or "I would like you to meet this great thing I know named Felicity"?

I thought not. And therein lies the difference between something of no moral consequence and someone of social and moral importance.

Yeah but people don't announce their wife is carrying this "thing" and drs. don't say let's check on your "thing" and wives don't call their husbands and announce I'm having a "thing.":rofl

 

[jallman]

Yeah but people don't announce their wife is carrying this "thing" and drs. don't say let's check on your "thing" and wives don't call their husbands and announce I'm having a "thing.":rofl

But they certainly don't think of it in terms of a person with a character and a sentience. A "baby" is a descriptor of the thing.

And for a woman who is going to have an abortion, the pregnancy is nothing more than a condition and the ZEF is little more than a thing.

 

[talloulou]

But they certainly don't think of it in terms of a person with a character and a sentience. A baby is a thing. Not a person.

And for a woman who is going to have an abortion, the pregnancy is nothing more than a condition and the ZEF is little more than a thing.

And for the slave owner the slave is nothing more than a mule.

We can't allow our worth as humans to be defined by onlookers. We either value all living humans and believe they deserve inalienable rights or we don't. And if we don't then our prejudice is free to run wild in deciding whom we're going to respect and who gets deemed "unworthy."

 

[Jerry]

My my... talk about someone not being "on their game".

I said equal weight. That is it.

Yup, that's all I said too.

A pound of feathers is not equal to a pound of iron.

Yes they do, you just said it yourself, they're both a pound.

A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of iron.

Right, exactly, they're *equal*.

Or, a pound equals a pound.

Right.

Their VALUE is not equal.

They're not the same, that's right. A pound of feathers wouldn't necessarily cost as much as a pound of Iron.

THEY are not equal.

Yes they are, there's a pound of each, but they're different.

The only thing "equal" is the weight. So, pound = pound. Not "feathers = iron".

Not in price, no, but in weight.

Look up the definition of equal and you will see the word "same" in there as well. You will also see something about "value". There are a number of specific definitions, but what it boils down to is that we are not equal on many, many levels. We persons have equal rights, as we should. That's it. Equal RIGHTS.

Right, we're not the same, which is why men don't have any right to abortion...'cuz we don't get pregnant...but if we did, then per equality we would have that right.

Dogs don't have the right to 'bodily sovereignty' because they are not equal or same to humans. This is clearly another branch of the abortion continuum which exceeds the abilities of English.

 

[Jerry]

That's right. Persons. Not all humans are persons. And not all persons have to be human.

By the very legal definition I gave you from Law.com, yes, "Persons" MUST be human. Animals are not "people".

Categorically, all humans must be persons, otherwise the list of exceptions lays open for anyone's arbitration.

 

[Jerry]

I think this pretty much summs it up right here:

An amutee might not be a complete human any more, but they are a complete person.

A ZEF might not be a complete human, but they are a complete person.

It's that simple.

 

[WI Crippler]

I almost really regret coming into the abortion forray.

It'd be one thing if people were in here debating scientific opinions, and making determinations by that. Even though I would disagree with someone who is PC, I could respect their train of thought.

But when people just start making up words, playing semantics, and somehow want to say that anything can be a "person", even a dog or a dolphin, I just have to stop, and try to figure out just what the hell people are smoking.

 

[Jerry]

How about this? "When the thalamus of a creature connects to its CNS, it is entitled to the same rights as its mother."

Creation happens before that anatomical landmark, which means that the rights are endowed before that landmark as well.

 

[Jerry]

Actually, sir, I have suffered no consequence from your little trolling and baiting exercise. However, rest assured that I am in the process of seeing to it that you know the penalty for what you have done. You may call it whining; it is actually gloating.

I don't expect you to actually behave rationally right now. You have proven that you are intent on throwing little tantrums, denying facts, and dishonestly attributing arguments to others in an effort to help whatever "cause" you have taken up. I may as well be posting to doughgirl for all the hysterical and deceptive tripe I have tolerated from you recently. I don't like liars and I especially don't like whiny little rats who use the "report a post" button as a weapon to make up for their inferior skills.

You've crossed a line and there isn't going to be any coming back from it, sport.

Okay there Basement Team member, you go right ahead and do that.

 

[Jerry]

No, we have been over this. There isn't even a possibility of consciousness and self awareness until the CNS completes its connection.

Consciousness is not an established requirement for "personhood". That is Atheist/Humanist reasoning, not secular legal reasoning, therefore per the Separation of Church and State it can not stand on its own. Having been created and currently living are established requirements, as is the law having already acknowledged the unborn as a "person", and the unborn meets those requirements.

 

[Felicity]

I almost really regret coming into the abortion forray.

It'd be one thing if people were in here debating scientific opinions, and making determinations by that. Even though I would disagree with someone who is PC, I could respect their train of thought.

But when people just start making up words, playing semantics, and somehow want to say that anything can be a "person", even a dog or a dolphin, I just have to stop, and try to figure out just what the hell people are smoking.

Science doesn't back their position. Science is Pro-life.

 

[rivrrat]

By the very legal definition I gave you from Law.com, yes, "Persons" MUST be human. Animals are not "people".

Categorically, all humans must be persons, otherwise the list of exceptions lays open for anyone's arbitration.

And the very definition that comes from Dictionary.com says "a rational or self-aware being".

Sorry, I don't think that my personhood is reliant on a specific double helix. I guess it's okay if you want to sum up your person in that manner, but I think people are much more than their DNA.

 

[Jerry]

And the very definition that comes from Dictionary.com says "a rational or self-aware being".

Sorry, I don't think that my personhood is reliant on a specific double helix. I guess it's okay if you want to sum up your person in that manner, but I think people are much more than their DNA.

You know full well that I have never argued that what makes a person a person is simply their dna. The dna is a prerequisite, not the entirety.

 

[talloulou]

And the very definition that comes from Dictionary.com says "a rational or self-aware being".

Sorry, I don't think that my personhood is reliant on a specific double helix. I guess it's okay if you want to sum up your person in that manner, but I think people are much more than their DNA.

Dictionary.com also refers to the unborn as child which you don't accept.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

I think this pretty much summs it up right here:


A ZEF might not be a complete human, but they are a complete person.

It's that simple.

An amputee can still function outside the womb. An amputee is missing a limb. A zef is missing a brain. I'd say you are comparing apples and oranges, but that wouldn't quite describe how silly you are being.

Using a random word generator, you are comparing cruises and ghosts.

You know full well that I have never argued that what makes a person a person is simply their dna. The dna is a prerequisite, not the entirety.

So what makes a person a person? Is it just growing little arms and legs in the womb so when it is destroyed pro-choicers can hold up anatomically correct signs in front of Planned Parenthood?

You seem to be arguing for conception in that case- so what happens at conception? An entity is created, but not a self-aware entity, and not a person.

 

[talloulou]

So what makes a person a person?

The stroke of a pen, nothing more.