Why Save the Fetus? [W:478]

[Logicman]

So, you are of the belief that women are God's baby machine. Thanks for sharing.

BTW: control of another person's womb is not on your turf just because you believe sky daddy put something special there. It's not your womb. You all need to learn to live with that fact.

You people can advance the heinous infanticide of the innocent unborn until the day you face Almighty God at the Judgment. Then you're done - well done.

 

[Lursa]

Carl was a good astronomer and is best when he sticks to it.

He's grossly out of his element, as evidenced by calling a Homo sapiens in the zygote or blastula stages of life an "egg." But then, Carl liked to engage in celebrity science and weigh in on politics - as such, he understood the power of manipulative, misleading language. Sad to see a scientist employ deliberate nonsense.

You calling out Carl Sagan as innaccurate is quite the entertaining gem, since we have you on record as claiming there is no such thing as a 'fertilized human egg.'

Again, you cannot expect to be taken seriously when you dismiss his entire discussion. Well, sure you can....because then it would be logical for us to dismiss your entire discussion on abortion as well, since you didnt recognize the whole 'fertilized egg' thing.

I thought Sagan's discussion was written well the the layperson audience, which is what he was very good at.

 

[Lursa]

You people can advance the heinous infanticide of the innocent unborn until the day you face Almighty God at the Judgment. Then you're done - well done.

See....that kind of judgement and hate...indicates you are no Christian.

And when we arrive in Heaven, we will be judged on the entirety of our lives, not just certain things they do in their lives. A good person is a good person and God is a loving God....I'm talking about the Christian God of course....but from your nasty posts I doubt that's the one you know.

 

[JayDubya]

JD....if you read all that back to yourself, it doesnt look completely ridiculous to you?^^^^

Really? :doh

As I said, you refuse to make a salient response, you refuse to employ logic, in short, you refuse to Debate Politics. You simply are content with your smileys and your LOLs and your condescending "awws" and other nonsense.

One can logically assume that you do so because you have no counterpoint, you're just trying to agitate.


The fact is that a killing of a human is either aggressive or it is not.

It is also fact that it is impossible for the Homo sapiens killed in an abortion to initiate force against anyone. Therefore, of those two possibilities, having ruled out one, this killing must be aggressive.

Q.E.D. once again. Not for your benefit, of course, Lursa, but some people are presumably concerned more with logic and reason and less with frivolity.

 

[Lursa]

Ridiculous. The possibility of a natural death does not mean that an organism is not alive. :roll:

LOLOL Sorry, I was using pro-life terminology and thought you'd recognize it. It has never been my position that the embryo or fetus is not alive.

Pro-life people use 'potential life' for 'fetus.'

The sound reason is that 15-20% of embryos and fetuses are miscarried....so there is no 'emotional cynicism....that potential life may never be 'actual.'

 

[Lursa]

As I said, you refuse to make a salient response, you refuse to employ logic, in short, you refuse to Debate Politics. You simply are content with your smileys and your LOLs and your condescending "awws" and other nonsense.

One can logically assume that you do so because you have no counterpoint, you're just trying to agitate.


The fact is that a killing of a human is either aggressive or it is not.

It is also fact that it is impossible for the Homo sapiens killed in an abortion to initiate force against anyone. Therefore, of those two binary possibilities, this killing must be aggressive.

Q.E.D. once again. Not for your benefit, of course, Lursa, but some people are presumably concerned more with logic and reason and less with frivolity.

Ya cant debate your ill misuse of words. No one can force you to not write them or or use them properly. One can try to redirect your efforts however, lol.

Now....please get back to the topic.

 

[JayDubya]

Now....please get back to the topic.

Excuse you? That IS the topic.

Aggression is wrong. Aggressively killing a human being is wrong - that is why we try to save abortion victims from a violent and untimely end.

That is the answer to the question.

Your derisive nonsense does not provide a counterpoint.

 

[Monserrat]

I did not say that Roe v Wade decided anything based on theological arguments or suggest that religion should decide whether or not a woman has the right to get an abortion. I just noted that the majority opinion in RvW took note of theological/religious as well as philosophical and scientific views of when human life begins.

For people on both sides, abortion involves issues of conscience related to religious beliefs. If religious practice does not involve what is outside one's body, one would expect the right to freedom of religion to apply. The SC noted that not all religions agreed on when human life begins - and it couldn't privilege one - and that not even all scientists agreed. That's why it focused on the law and persons.



The meaning of an utterance lies in its use, and language isn't math. "A human being" is not the sum of its parts, but a new whole with connotations. If your approach were right, "a canine being" could not be a suspect expression for native speaker intuition. Note that the following dictionary definitions include items not necessary if you are right.

Human being | Define Human being at Dictionary.com
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

Definition 1 uses "individual" and "member" of a species, and it is NOT universally accepted that a human embryo fits that usage. Definition 2 uses "person," which connotes subjective consciousness. See: 1 U.S. Code § 8 - for U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8, where such expressions as "individual," "human being," and "person" apply to born-alive infants in US law.

human being: definition of human being in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)
A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Human being - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
definition for English learners: a person
definition for kids: an individual of the species of primate mammal that walks on two feet, is related to the great apes, and is distinguished by a greatly developed brain with capacity for speech and abstract reasoning

Why do these definitions bother to use "person" or say anything beyond "the species Homo sapiens" or "the species of primate mammal that walks on two feet"? Why note "superior mental development" and "a greatly developed brain with capacity for speech and abstract reasoning" ? The definitions are trying to get in the connotations carried by "a human being."

Your argument, which treats words like numbers added in math, doesn't persuade me at all.



You are the one exhibiting appeal to authority and lack of an ability to think on your own. You google one definition in one dictionary and say, "See? X+Y=X+Y," as if language were basic math. I noted a usage limitation other posters have also noted (e.g., BattleRifle) and explored it from a native-speaker intuitional view with several uses of the expression. Here, I explore several dictionary definitions and relate them to that usage limitation. I explain my own reasoning, treat no single source as an "authority," and analyze in terms of my own thinking.

An education means years in disciplined intellectual exploration of something; a credential requiring that just proves one did it. Anyone might have spent as many years as I did in as disciplined exploration of the same things. If they had, they, too, would pay really close careful attention to the use of English expressions as regards humans, human beings, and members of the species Homo s sapiens.

My point in mentioning my study of anthro and teaching of English just summarizes the fact that I read/heard lots of anthropologists use terms related to humans and thus I know their usages (which do tend to distinguish "a human" and "a human being"). Second language English students present tons of questions about usage because dictionary definitions are insufficient. That explains why I used the linguistic approach of consulting native speaker intuition here.

Show me where your post "applied any real measure of common sense or an ability to think on your own in doing so." You blatantly substitute the authority of one popular dictionary definition for exploration of word usage, careful analysis of language, or anything else that might represent thinking on your own.

Referencing a dictionary is not an appeal to authority it's to show you how a word is used, in another post I talked about the use of the word person in the dictionary definition, if you ever decide to read any of my threads before responding to me please go back and reference it because most of what you addressed here I already discussed I already gave an explanation of why including personhood in the description of human being does not work and why a dictionary would include that definition it's because the dictionary gives you all uses and especially the common usage but because it may be used by some as common usage does not make it the most accurate. We have other words like personhood to add on more to the simple state of "being" and what a being is which is why the definition of human being could include person but that's just expanding on what it actually is and means.

Continually boasting about your own education level and using it as a basis for the validity of your argument is an appeal to your own authority. If you cannot discuss a topic without continually bolstering your own opinions through an appeal to your own person as an authority then it's clear that you lost the argument because you are back peddling and throwing out any thing you have that might provide an ounce of validation to what you are saying, it's wrong, it's a fallacy and it's just poor form and I'm pretty sure other posters have already commented on this to you.

Your next mistake is in relying yet again on your anecdotal arguments (also a fallacy and maybe the more accurate one here since the authority you are appealing to is your own), you think anthropologists would agree with you, thats using your personal experience to again bolster what you are saying instead of relying on actual compelling evidence. Anthropology is one group of study, a large group that splits into relatively different sub-groups and I'm guessing you are solely referring to cultural anthropology. So we've narrowed it down to a smaller group that you are talking about, my issues with your anecdotal argument is that one, it's your personal experiences and therefor does not stand as solid evidence and two if it were true it's the way one group looks at and examines a particular phrase, and three to tie it all together there is different verbiage used among different fields of study, for example anthropologist for a time completely disregarded the existence and total concept of race, biology actually completely contradicts that notion as they have found a biological basis for the existence of race. My point with that example is even if you are correct and many anthropologist use a word in one way it does not mean that that is the correct usage of that word.

 

[Lursa]

If it changed they'd be upset. They'd decry the Supreme Court for overturning Roe - despite it being nonsense on stilts, devoid of logic and reason - and begin agitating for and hoping that the effects of Roe would be reinstated and they'd begin the long lumbering wait for it to come up again.

I'm pretty sure you are writing this from direct, current experience :lamo

 

[Lursa]

Excuse you? That IS the topic.

Aggression is wrong. Aggressively killing a human being is wrong - that is why we try to save abortion victims from a violent and untimely end.

That is the answer to the question.

Your derisive nonsense does not provide a counterpoint.

The nonsense continues to be that abortion is not violence, not aggression, not murder and harms **no one** unless the mother is harmed during the procedure which unfortunately can happen. Care to tapdance with joy over that?

 

[Monserrat]

But you did mean that the single cell is a human being after all you did say from the "beginning" so in order to make all of this clear why don;t you elaborate and make a more complete statement?

For the record, I am not misreading anything. I asked where in the dictionary does the definition refer to a single cell, because that is the beginning that you already advocated.

And I replied by saying I wasn't talking about a single cell since I was discussing a human fetus, you are trying to divert the discussion by changing the subject matter.

 

[Lursa]

I have not given any sanction for the vigilante slaying of serial killing abortionists - they are scum and they belong in prison where they cannot hurt anyone else.

It is the duty of law enforcement to put them there.

It's legally (unfortunately) killing multiple human beings professionally, for money, by way of a "medical procedure."

So, exactly like I said. It's contract killing and it's serial killing, by definition.


The fact that it's legal is precisely what we're debating about, and it's not a status quo that you or your peers have offered any rational defense for.

It's this kind of stuff that just makes the pro-choice position stronger....because anyone writing that ^^^ cannot be taken seriously. I literally laugh out loud when I read your posts.

It's not that abortion isnt a serious subject....it certainly is. However you manage to turn it into a comical caricature instead (and disrespect both woman and the unborn doing so IMO)

 

[Lursa]

Blah blah blah.

You challenged something that was fact, you came up short, it's time to be gracious in defeat and stand corrected.

Though if history is any indication, you'll probably just repeat yourself, get more indignant, and slap down more smilies and LOLs.

So you have absolutely NO PROOF that women who have abortions are dangerous and predisposed to commit violent crimes...which you claimed.

Lying? To try and make a point? Tsk tsk tsk.

So try to avoid using that one again, heh? Maybe we can knock these out one at a time.....

"Women who have abortions are not violent, cold-blooded murderers who are dangerous and pre-disposed to commit other violence." Agreed?

 

[JayDubya]

Lursa, in case you were unaware, simple and mindless contradiction is not a counterpoint. It's simply being contrary. In this case, you are simply being contrary with the dictionary and you are claiming I have said things I have not.


For a point by point breakdown.

abortion is not violence

False. Abortion is the infliction of physical force. Whether that be through the pharmacological action of an abortifacient or the mechanical forces used by the abortionist, force is employed to break the bond between parent and offspring, killing the offspring. Violence. Lethal violence.

not aggression

False. That force is initiated against the abortion victim. The abortion victim is incapable of initiating force.

not murder

Technicality, but it is a technicality I have already addressed ad nauseum in this very thread and I do not call abortion "murder" as you are implying, as already mentioned in this very thread.

and harms **no one**

Ridiculously false. Inflicting a violent death upon an organism harms it. You think the organism in question is less than human and has no value, but I do not share that belief.

 

[Lursa]

Lursa, in case you were unaware, simple and mindless contradiction is not a counterpoint. It's simply being contrary.

False. Abortion is the infliction of physical force. Whether that be through the pharmacological action of an abortifacient or the mechanical forces used by the abortionist, force is employed to break the bond between parent and offspring.

False. That force is initiated against the abortion victim. Aggression is the initiation of force. The abortion victim is incapable of initiating force.



Technicality, but it is a technicality I have already addressed ad nauseum and I do not call abortion "murder" as you are implying.


Ridiculously false. Inflicting a violent death upon an organism harms it.

Me? Simple and mindless? How rude of you to make that claim.

Nope, I am just calling out your ill misuse of words to falsely further your agenda to turn back the clock and turn women back into 2nd class citizens.

Typing them improperly in sentences does not make them 'true' and does indeed display a TON of hate and anger. That is not healthy.

 

[JayDubya]

Me? Simple and mindless? How rude of you to make that claim.

First of all, you are obviously quite fond of employing rudeness, as evidenced by every post you have made in this thread quoting me. You have little room to talk, as it were.

Second of all, no, as noted in the post you quoted, your contradictions were simple and mindless and baseless. I have of course been entreating you to, you know, debate, since that is ostensibly the purpose of this website.

turn women back into 2nd class citizens.

This is another falsehood.

I am a citizen, and I am not allowed to kill another human being in aggression. Prohibiting pregnant mothers from doing so does not make them "second class citizens." Why should anyone be allowed to do this? No one should, of course, as aggression is wrong.

You want yourself and those who share your gender to have a special exemption to commit aggressive violence - that is not equality. Not having this bizarre privilege actually would equalize things.

 

[prometeus]

And I replied by saying I wasn't talking about a single cell since I was discussing a human fetus, you are trying to divert the discussion by changing the subject matter.

I am not diverting anything, but you certainly are evading.
At how many cells do you consider it to be a human being and why?

 

[prometeus]

You people can advance the heinous infanticide of the innocent unborn until the day you face Almighty God at the Judgment. Then you're done - well done.

Spare us the moronic drivel and while at it learn what infanticide means.

 

[prometeus]

Referencing a dictionary is not an appeal to authority it's to show you how a word is used

Yet when called on it you evade.

 

[Monserrat]

I am not diverting anything, but you certainly are evading.
At how many cells do you consider it to be a human being and why?

Yes you are by changing the topic of discussion, if you want to talk about that start a new discussion. That's a different topic then what was being discussed although I already gave you my answer when it's a living being (its own being) that is biologically distinct from both the mother and the father. That's why I said you misread my posts. Now it's your turn to answer, where's the contradiction?

 

[RamFel]

Rather than go into the whole pointless "Personhood/Human Being/ Brain" Thingy.....I will simply point out that the entire argument you make is based on personal opinion, and that by believing YOUR opinion should dictate the lives of everyone else you are indeed thinking very highly of yourself and dismissing the opinions of others based on emotional thought as the science is very clearly against you.

You're right. It would be pointless to go into the whole arguments again. But when you accuse us of believing that our opinion should dictate the lives of everybody, you forget that you are going down that road as well. And the science may be accurate, and the facts may be clear, it's clear in my mind that it's not perfect because life still begins at conception, and since God said thou shall not kill, then you are very clearly in the wrong.

And we should always do what's right.

 

[Removable Mind]

It's this kind of stuff that just makes the pro-choice position stronger....because anyone writing that ^^^ cannot be taken seriously. I literally laugh out loud when I read your posts.

It's not that abortion isnt a serious subject....it certainly is. However you manage to turn it into a comical caricature instead (and disrespect both woman and the unborn doing so IMO)

Lursa, lord knows how many times your points have been posted in responses to many, many of Jay's post containing rather provocative ways of describing all persons who are pro-choice, but more in particular women who are pro-choice.

From the words stated in one of the famous Elizabeth Barrett Browning sonnets, "......Let me count the ways", might be equally applicable when attempting to calculate the number of sayings or descriptions that Jay has used while employing more derogatory words, terms, or phrases aimed at pro-choice advocates than anybody I've seen thus far in DP...with the exception of Ontologuy (or spelled something close to that).

 

[RamFel]

Incorrect. Abortion is legal and has been upheld as a woman's right by the SC in both your country and mine.

My friend..Since when does the law of man supersede God's law?

Abortion may be legal, while you're down here on earth, but remember, the Kingdom of God is forever.

And we have a very short time here...how much longer are you here for?

You are wrong.

 

[prometeus]

Yes you are by changing the topic of discussion, if you want to talk about that start a new discussion. That's a different topic then what was being discussed although I already gave you my answer when it's a living being (its own being) that is biologically distinct from both the mother and the father. That's why I said you misread my posts. Now it's your turn to answer, where's the contradiction?

I did not misread your post at all. You referenced a definition and was called on it, after which you started the dance. Enjoy...

 

[JayDubya]

Lursa, lord knows how many times your points have been posted in responses to many, many of Jay's post containing rather provocative ways of describing all persons who are pro-choice, but more in particular women who are pro-choice.

Oh really??? You're ostensibly a man, given you have gone on your profile to give yourself that little blue symbol below your name.

Do you really think I've gone easier on the things you've said than any of your peers?

If anything, you seem to put forth one of the highest volumes of statements and arguments you won't back up, so I find I end up arguing with you more often than most others.

I don't care what your gender is; if you're advancing the cause of aggressive violence, we have quarrel. If you're actively committing aggressive violence, you need to be locked up.