Issues other than abortion

[Vonsalza]

That’s right. That’s why the concept of personhood and when that starts falls flat on its face in this debate.

Now you’re just cutting off your nose to spite your face…

Science has no dominion over metaphysical concepts like good, bad, beauty, law or even fundamental rights.

But hopefully this is your way of admitting that this isn’t a scientific debate. If so, I agree fully.

On the other hand it’s not a philosophical question that human life begins at conception. Every inherent and programmed behavior is there to make it so. It’s a scientific certainty and a fact.

Ummm… what the what???

Listen, this is proof positive that this is a position where you’ve fully committed to your personal conclusion and are willing to grasp at literally anything that might support it.

That’s not how reason works…

No…actually human life does begin at conception. It easily shoots down the “clump of cells” or “tissue” lines that prochoicers love to use.

…ok but this is just “true” because you accept it axiomatically, without any real support.

Again, at the moment of conception, nothing about you exists. That will be the case for the next half-day. Whether you accept that is immaterial, but it lends much gravity to the fact that “personhood” and when, exactly you’re “you” is a substantially murkier concept than you’re willing to admit.

I understand your position. It’s just not demonstrably sound.

I was (rightly) calling out the comparison that common cells like sperm are like human beings…

I’ll let this dodge go with a mere recognition of it.

Your C is actually incorrect and does not follow at all from P1+P2,

…it literally follows the simplest argumentative from of A=B, B=C thus A=C…

The only choice you have is to attack the truth value of the premises. So which one is untrue?
P: women have control over their bodies
P: fetal development requires a woman’s body

Let me know

 

[Vonsalza]

Who is anyone to say what is acceptable damage to another humans body, especially when body that is being used directly for the benefit of another human? So a woman has to give up the right to her life so another has the chance to begin life?

Preach it, Mama!

 

[Vonsalza]

If nothing else, your “arguments” demonstrate the dead end of this thinking. When confronted with science and reason, the appeal is to raw power, because reason has escaped you:

I’ve yet to see a scientific argument that makes being pro-life the only tenable position. Which is common sense because science doesn’t deal in ethics.

Did you think about that?
Every living human being has “an observable chance of death”

I’m glad you see that.

So a woman should be afforded the right to avoid activities that increase her chance of mortality? Right?

Right???

A woman does not control the development of the fetus.

She controls the body the fetus develops in and will certainly damage.

If she doesn’t want such a tenant, she should be free to evict it from her body, Jim.

 

[MamaJewel]

The chance of death is slight, especially compared to leading causes of death like accidents.

Now were onto an issue that doesn’t get the attention it needs. Intimate partner violence aka domestic violence. I personally have not witnessed first-hand support for domestic violence prevention programs by the pro-life movement, even though intimate partner violence is the leading cause of death and injury to the woman during pregnancy.

 

[goout]

Kei:

Do you get consent of the child before you kill it in the womb? Or no?

It’s unable to give consent either way. For example, a 27 year old man in India sued his parents for giving birth to him.

Can a 1 year old infant give consent?
How about a Down’s Syndrome child? Paraplegic?
Your grandma in the nursing home who sleeps all day? My God that’s an expensive ordeal. Very inconvenient.

What’s certain beyond doubt is that neither you nor I get to speak for it.

You could speak for it. People of good will do that for others who are unable.
Of course, with minimalist standards of human decency, anything is permissible beyond…the minimum.

 

[goout]

goout:

If nothing else, your “arguments” demonstrate the dead end of this thinking. When confronted with science and reason, the appeal is to raw power, because reason has escaped you:

I’ve yet to see a scientific argument that makes being pro-life the only tenable position. Which is common sense because science doesn’t deal in ethics.

When science tells you “that is a tree”, you argue with science because your ethics are in a knot?

When science tells you the earth is a “sphere” you respond “not necessarily, that’s just your ethics at work! I think the earth is flat”.

You can do so much better than this.

 

[laylow]

On the final judgment day, whether you believe this or not, it is true: you will be judged. You will either be thrown into the pits of Hell created for the devil and his minions, or you can be in Heaven. All people have a right to life. Denying that right by trying to make some sort of gray area where there is none is familiar of the devil’s work, not Christ’s. You may not believe as Catholics or Christians do, but it doesn’t matter, for it is true regardless. This is not a judgment but a warning. I do not know you, but God does.

This is an argument on religious grounds, which has no barring to United States law.

I do not know how much you associate or interact with people outside of your circle, so you may be surprised that many people do not believe these statements you have made.

The real argument, has been stated numerous times and it is one over who’s agency has preference, the fetus’s or the mother’s. As @Vonsalza has mentioned and provided some perspective, fertilized eggs and fetuses which do not survive are not treated the same by society as babies who die. Many fertilized eggs (by your definition a baby, a human) do not attach to the uterus wall and therefore do not survive. However, funerals are not performed for these eggs. They are not treated the same, it’s just a fact.

 

[goout]

Kei:

On the final judgment day, whether you believe this or not, it is true: you will be judged. You will either be thrown into the pits of Hell created for the devil and his minions, or you can be in Heaven. All people have a right to life. Denying that right by trying to make some sort of gray area where there is none is familiar of the devil’s work, not Christ’s. You may not believe as Catholics or Christians do, but it doesn’t matter, for it is true regardless. This is not a judgment but a warning. I do not know you, but God does.

This is an argument on religious grounds, which has no barring to United States law.

I do not know how much you associate or interact with people outside of your circle, so you may be surprised that many people do not believe these statements you have made.

The real argument, has been stated numerous times and it is one over who’s agency has preference, the fetus’s or the mother’s. As @Vonsalza has mentioned and provided some perspective, fertilized eggs and fetuses which do not survive are not treated the same by society as babies who die. Many fertilized eggs (by your definition a baby, a human) do not attach to the uterus wall and therefore do not survive. However, funerals are not performed for these eggs. They are not treated the same, it’s just a fact.

And so what is your point?
Ok, some don’t attach and become viable. Ok.
?

You are proposing an argument for naked power of one human being over another.

The real argument, has been stated numerous times and it is one over who’s agency has preference, the fetus’s or the mother’s.

Or “I am larger and more powerful than you , and I can do what I will”.
Works very efficiently, if one wants to use others.

 

[laylow]

And so what is your point?
Ok, some don’t attach and become viable. Ok.
?

So it’s OK if they die? We shouldn’t be doing everything we can to save them?

You are proposing an argument for naked power of one human being over another.

As is the pro-life side. Except most pro-choice potential moms choose life.

Or “I am larger and more powerful than you , and I can do what I will”.
Works very efficiently, if one wants to use others.

Straw man

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

goout:

If nothing else, your “arguments” demonstrate the dead end of this thinking. When confronted with science and reason, the appeal is to raw power, because reason has escaped you:

I’ve yet to see a scientific argument that makes being pro-life the only tenable position. Which is common sense because science doesn’t deal in ethics.

When science tells you “that is a tree”, you argue with science because your ethics are in a knot?

Hey @Sbee0 , if you were wondering what a non sequitur looks like…

 

[laylow]

Hey @Sbee0 , if you were wondering what a non sequitur looks like…

School is in session…

 

[Sbee0]

Now you’re just cutting off your nose to spite your face…

I’m afraid wishful thinking doesn’t make it so.

Science has no dominion over metaphysical concepts like good, bad, beauty, law or even fundamental rights.

But hopefully this is your way of admitting that this isn’t a scientific debate. If so, I agree fully.

With respect to the idea of “personhood”? Absolutely. With the idea that life begins at conception? Not with ya on that one I’m afraid. I go with what science says. Science is fun. Science is fascinating. I like science. I like logic too.

P - The unborn child is a unique human life
P - Taking of life is killing
C - Abortion is the killing of human life.

Quite simple. So please prochoicers - don’t bring this trash to these debates that abortion is identical to getting rid of “tissue” or a tumor or clump of cells or whatever else you want to call it. It’s false. That argument has the opposite effect of your goal of making a compelling defense of your position.

Ummm… what the what???
Listen, this is proof positive that this is a position where you’ve fully committed to your personal conclusion and are willing to grasp at literally anything that might support it.

Medice, cura te ipsum.

No…actually human life does begin at conception. It easily shoots down the “clump of cells” or “tissue” lines that prochoicers love to use.

…ok but this is just “true” because you accept it axiomatically, without any real support.

Again, at the moment of conception, nothing about you exists. That will be the case for the next half-day. Whether you accept that is immaterial, but it lends much gravity to the fact that “personhood” and when, exactly you’re “you” is a substantially murkier concept than you’re willing to admit.

I understand your position. It’s just not demonstrably sound.

Science supports my position.

Science also says newborn infants, like unborn babies, have no self awareness. Therefore when you’re a newborn infant I would argue you’re not “you” at all. I’d challenge a prochoicer to prove me wrong but they can’t do it so I’ll save them the typing time.

I was (rightly) calling out the comparison that common cells like sperm are like human beings…

I’ll let this dodge go with a mere recognition of it.

It’s what you said dude. Prochoicers say it all the time and they’re wrong each and every single solitary time they try. Funny how that works!

…it literally follows the simplest argumentative from of A=B, B=C thus A=C…

The only choice you have is to attack the truth value of the premises. So which one is untrue?
P: women have control over their bodies
P: fetal development requires a woman’s body

Let me know

A=C is logically invalid because C is wrong.

Women do not have control over the development of her fetus, nor is her unborn child part of her body. Always happy to point out how wrong prochoicers are when they bring this up. I’ll do it again if you’d like!

Denial like a river somewhere, or something.

 

[goout]

goout:

And so what is your point?
Ok, some don’t attach and become viable. Ok.
?

So it’s OK if they die? We shouldn’t be doing everything we can to save them?

What the hell are you talking about? You have no idea when this happens at this stage.
Now at 3 months yes we know a child is there. 6 months yes, we have amazing science that keeps alive preemies.

You are proposing an argument for naked power of one human being over another.

As is the pro-life side. Except most pro-choice potential moms choose life.

Or “I am larger and more powerful than you , and I can do what I will”.
Works very efficiently, if one wants to use others.

Straw man

No, that’s exactly the argument you are proposing.
“I am bigger than you are, more powerful, and I will do what I want, your life be damned.”

So, why can’t you own your own words? I think that says something.

 

[Sbee0]

goout:

Vonsalza:

goout:

If nothing else, your “arguments” demonstrate the dead end of this thinking. When confronted with science and reason, the appeal is to raw power, because reason has escaped you:

I’ve yet to see a scientific argument that makes being pro-life the only tenable position. Which is common sense because science doesn’t deal in ethics.

When science tells you “that is a tree”, you argue with science because your ethics are in a knot?

Hey @Sbee0 , if you were wondering what a non sequitur looks like…

Nah, your post above was apt enough demonstration.

 

[JimG]

The argument is about who has the right to kill whom. The answer seems to be, a mother can kill a child at any time before birth. But that’s an arbitrary answer. If a child can be killed 5 minutes before birth, why not 5 minutes after? Or one year after? Or if I’m in a nursing home and an inconvenience to someone, maybe 70 or 80 years after?

 

[laylow]

What the hell are you talking about? You have no idea when this happens at this stage.
Now at 3 months yes we know a child is there. 6 months yes, we have amazing science that keeps alive preemies.

So it’s OK to abort before 3 months?

No, that’s exactly the argument you are proposing.
“I am bigger than you are, more powerful, and I will do what I want, your life be damned.”

So, why can’t you own your own words? I think that says something.

I do own my own words, except I did not say those words. But you continue to allow emotion to cloud your judgement and statements, so you put words in other’s mouths.

 

[Sbee0]

The argument is about who has the right to kill whom. The answer seems to be, a mother can kill a child at any time before birth. But that’s an arbitrary answer. If a child can be killed 5 minutes before birth, why not 5 minutes after? Or one year after? Or if I’m in a nursing home and an inconvenience to someone, maybe 70 or 80 years after?

A compelling argument for why the “personhood” justification of abortion falls right down in this debate and can’t get up.

It’s very easy to argue that certain born people are not persons either. It’s not an argument that their right to life should be violated or treated as less worthy than others.

 

[goout]

What the hell are you talking about? You have no idea when this happens at this stage.
Now at 3 months yes we know a child is there. 6 months yes, we have amazing science that keeps alive preemies.

So it’s OK to abort before 3 months?

No, try and follow the discussion.

No, that’s exactly the argument you are proposing.
“I am bigger than you are, more powerful, and I will do what I want, your life be damned.”

So, why can’t you own your own words? I think that says something.

I do own my own words, except I did not say those words. But you continue to allow emotion to cloud your judgement and statements, so you put words in other’s mouths.

Wait, you weren’t the one who said one human being’s agency has preference over another’s life?
should we go back and look, or would that be a waste of time? (It would be a waste of time)

Oh, wait, because you used a word like “agency” you are not really making an appeal to barbaric power. Because, like, agency is, agency, and like, that word has a special meaning.
You don’t own your own words. You make an appeal to barbaric power, but don’t want it to be too offensive.

 

[Sbee0]

goout:

What the hell are you talking about? You have no idea when this happens at this stage.
Now at 3 months yes we know a child is there. 6 months yes, we have amazing science that keeps alive preemies.

So it’s OK to abort before 3 months?

No, that’s exactly the argument you are proposing.
“I am bigger than you are, more powerful, and I will do what I want, your life be damned.”

So, why can’t you own your own words? I think that says something.

I do own my own words, except I did not say those words. But you continue to allow emotion to cloud your judgement and statements, so you put words in other’s mouths.

Abortion is an emotional issue. On both sides. But you knew that already.

 

[laylow]

It’s not an argument that their right to life should be violated or treated as less worthy than others.

This happens every day. Child die all over the world from lack of food, clean water, medical care, etc. Convicted criminals (ones possibly innocent) are put to death. Kids are taken from their families and die due to lack of care. Yet, are the OP stated, only abortion is talked about.